Boeing Fuel Cell Plane Flies At Last!

[sisu1a]

Here is a link to an article about the first manned fuel cell flight.
It has been in the works for some time, and wonderful to see it coming
to fruition: http://www.gizmag.com/first-manned-fuel-cell-plane-flight/9117/
For those who don't know, Boeing converted a Dimona motorglider to
have an electric motor, and on board proton exchange membrane (PEM)
hydrogen fuel cells (integrated with L-ions) that generate enough
juice to power the aircraft during powered level flight. Neat stuff!

Paul

[noel.wade]

While I congratulate that team on a fine engineering accomplishment, I
really have to question the whole Fuel-Cell thing.

The problem is Hydrogen. It is abundant in nature, but it *loves* to
bond to everything. So you have to reclaim it from other things and
separate it out. That takes time and energy to do.

In fact, it can take a *lot* of energy to break the chemical bonds
that hydrogren has with many things. And what about the environmental
aspects of removing Hydrogen from the ecosystem?

I made a post about this awhile back on RAS (regarding tow-planes) -
but really the only cost-effective solution with today's technology is
to use Nuclear power to generate really cheap electricity, and then
use electrolysis to separate Hydrogen from Oxygen in water (like the
ocean or a large fresh-water sea).

How many Nuclear plants will the public allow to be built? My dad has
worked as an engineer at a Nuclear power plant for 25+ years so I am
totally comfortable with the system... But the American Public, at
least, has been motivated by fear and ignorance on this topic for
decades.

Even if you get Nuc plants built for the electricity and the
electrolysis, you still have only solved the production side of the
equation. What about storage and shipping and distribution? Gasses
are inherently less dense than a solid or a liquid, so you either have
to expend energy to cool and condense the gas; OR you have to
transport it inefficiently in a gaseous state. And the material and
systems to keep an explosive gas safe during transport add a lot of
weight and complexity to the situation.

As you can see, every single step along the production & distrubution
line "costs" you energy and materials. Sure you have a non-polluting
system at the very end of the chain - but how inefficient is the
system in total?

You are *already* generating a lot of electricity at the very early
stages of the sequence I described above. Why not use efficient
electrical distribution networks (which we already have), and
efficient electric motors (which we already have), and run things that
way?

The weak link is the battery technology - but that is seeing steady
improvement, and there have been some genuine breakthroughs lately.
Lots of hype, too - but a few things have been truly world-changing
recently... For example, how about this new twist on Lithium-Ion/
Lithium-Polymer batteries:

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html

They think they are only 2 - 3 years from mass production, and even if
the batteries are only half as effective as the prototypes, that would
still increase capacity by 5 times the current levels. Wow! To put
that in perspective: An Apis-E (electric-launch Apis 15m glider)
battery pack would go from weighing over 100 lbs to weighing maybe 20
lbs, yet could still provide enough power for a couple of 3000'
launches. OR, the Tesla Roadster ( www.teslamotors.com ) could go
1000 miles per charge, instead of 200. ...And remember, I'm quoting
conservative numbers based on 50% effectiveness of mass-production
models.

I'm not saying that electric power is here _now_ or that its the
ultimate solution for the world; but for many applications it is just
as close (if not a whole lot closer) to being a suitable large-scale
solution than fuel cells are!

Take care,

--Noel

[[email protected]]

On Apr 9, 5:25*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> While I congratulate that team on a fine engineering accomplishment, I
> really have to question the whole Fuel-Cell thing.
>
> The problem is Hydrogen. *It is abundant in nature, but it *loves* to
> bond to everything. *So you have to reclaim it from other things and
> separate it out. *That takes time and energy to do.
>
> In fact, it can take a *lot* of energy to break the chemical bonds
> that hydrogren has with many things. *And what about the environmental
> aspects of removing Hydrogen from the ecosystem?
>
> I made a post about this awhile back on RAS (regarding tow-planes) -
> but really the only cost-effective solution with today's technology is
> to use Nuclear power to generate really cheap electricity, and then
> use electrolysis to separate Hydrogen from Oxygen in water (like the
> ocean or a large fresh-water sea).
>
> How many Nuclear plants will the public allow to be built? *My dad has
> worked as an engineer at a Nuclear power plant for 25+ years so I am
> totally comfortable with the system... *But the American Public, at
> least, has been motivated by fear and ignorance on this topic for
> decades.
>
> Even if you get Nuc plants built for the electricity and the
> electrolysis, you still have only solved the production side of the
> equation. *What about storage and shipping and distribution? *Gasses
> are inherently less dense than a solid or a liquid, so you either have
> to expend energy to cool and condense the gas; OR you have to
> transport it inefficiently in a gaseous state. *And the material and
> systems to keep an explosive gas safe during transport add a lot of
> weight and complexity to the situation.
>
> As you can see, every single step along the production & distrubution
> line "costs" you energy and materials. *Sure you have a non-polluting
> system at the very end of the chain - but how inefficient is the
> system in total?
>
> You are *already* generating a lot of electricity at the very early
> stages of the sequence I described above. *Why not use efficient
> electrical distribution networks (which we already have), and
> efficient electric motors (which we already have), and run things that
> way?
>
> The weak link is the battery technology - but that is seeing steady
> improvement, and there have been some genuine breakthroughs lately.
> Lots of hype, too - but a few things have been truly world-changing
> recently... *For example, how about this new twist on Lithium-Ion/
> Lithium-Polymer batteries:
>
> http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html
>
> They think they are only 2 - 3 years from mass production, and even if
> the batteries are only half as effective as the prototypes, that would
> still increase capacity by 5 times the current levels. *Wow! *To put
> that in perspective: *An Apis-E (electric-launch Apis 15m glider)
> battery pack would go from weighing over 100 lbs to weighing maybe 20
> lbs, yet could still provide enough power for a couple of 3000'
> launches. *OR, the Tesla Roadster (www.teslamotors.com) could go
> 1000 miles per charge, instead of 200. *...And remember, I'm quoting
> conservative numbers based on 50% effectiveness of mass-production
> models.
>
> I'm not saying that electric power is here _now_ or that its the
> ultimate solution for the world; but for many applications it is just
> as close (if not a whole lot closer) to being a suitable large-scale
> solution than fuel cells are!
>
> Take care,
>
> --Noel

EXCELLENT reply Noel.

Tell me, where can I get in touch with Mr. Cui .... I want to but
stock in his new company.

Mike J.

[sisu1a]

On Apr 9, 4:25 pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> While I congratulate that team on a fine engineering accomplishment, I
> really have to question the whole Fuel-Cell thing.
>
> The problem is Hydrogen. It is abundant in nature, but it *loves* to
> bond to everything. So you have to reclaim it from other things and
> separate it out. That takes time and energy to do.
>
> In fact, it can take a *lot* of energy to break the chemical bonds
> that hydrogren has with many things. And what about the environmental
> aspects of removing Hydrogen from the ecosystem?
>
> I made a post about this awhile back on RAS (regarding tow-planes) -
> but really the only cost-effective solution with today's technology is
> to use Nuclear power to generate really cheap electricity, and then
> use electrolysis to separate Hydrogen from Oxygen in water (like the
> ocean or a large fresh-water sea).
>
> How many Nuclear plants will the public allow to be built? My dad has
> worked as an engineer at a Nuclear power plant for 25+ years so I am
> totally comfortable with the system... But the American Public, at
> least, has been motivated by fear and ignorance on this topic for
> decades.
>
> Even if you get Nuc plants built for the electricity and the
> electrolysis, you still have only solved the production side of the
> equation. What about storage and shipping and distribution? Gasses
> are inherently less dense than a solid or a liquid, so you either have
> to expend energy to cool and condense the gas; OR you have to
> transport it inefficiently in a gaseous state. And the material and
> systems to keep an explosive gas safe during transport add a lot of
> weight and complexity to the situation.
>
> As you can see, every single step along the production & distrubution
> line "costs" you energy and materials. Sure you have a non-polluting
> system at the very end of the chain - but how inefficient is the
> system in total?
>
> You are *already* generating a lot of electricity at the very early
> stages of the sequence I described above. Why not use efficient
> electrical distribution networks (which we already have), and
> efficient electric motors (which we already have), and run things that
> way?
>
> The weak link is the battery technology - but that is seeing steady
> improvement, and there have been some genuine breakthroughs lately.
> Lots of hype, too - but a few things have been truly world-changing
> recently... For example, how about this new twist on Lithium-Ion/
> Lithium-Polymer batteries:
>
> http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html
>
> They think they are only 2 - 3 years from mass production, and even if
> the batteries are only half as effective as the prototypes, that would
> still increase capacity by 5 times the current levels. Wow! To put
> that in perspective: An Apis-E (electric-launch Apis 15m glider)
> battery pack would go from weighing over 100 lbs to weighing maybe 20
> lbs, yet could still provide enough power for a couple of 3000'
> launches. OR, the Tesla Roadster (www.teslamotors.com) could go
> 1000 miles per charge, instead of 200. ...And remember, I'm quoting
> conservative numbers based on 50% effectiveness of mass-production
> models.
>
> I'm not saying that electric power is here _now_ or that its the
> ultimate solution for the world; but for many applications it is just
> as close (if not a whole lot closer) to being a suitable large-scale
> solution than fuel cells are!
>
> Take care,

> Noel


With my post, I was not promoting hydrogen as a magic bullet for the
world's energy needs as you seemed to have reacted to it as. I really
do think it is a good thing that alternative methods are being
developed in the arena of aviation. Even if Boeing never gets it past
this phase, it sets a tone that other manufacturers/independent
inventors can follow; the doors are opening. It's one thing when
relatively unknown companies (Aerovironment, Lange, Apis, Sonex, etc)
dabble in electrics, but when a big name like Boeing gets in on it it
reduces the risk of such ventures for other designers to follow suit.
An electric motor in a motorglider is not cool enough because it also
has some obsolete technology? I'm sure glad the Wright brothers
continued with their experiments with inefficient, crude, unrefined
etc flying contraptions, paving the way for proper aircraft. Walk
before you run right? Boeing's fuel cell demonstrator provides another
platform for knowledge on electric aircraft to be amassed. Do you not
see that as a byproduct, bugs are being worked out of electric flight?
The electric power source on that plane can be changed to whatever the
energy of the month is, and it would probably still have the same
motor/prop/wiring/etc, which in this process also becomes more
refined. Yes, of course getting the silicon nonowire batteries on the
market will be a revolution, so much so that the powers that be
probably will not allow us to have such technology, since it's
revolutionary enough to actually threaten the power structure of the
world's energy monopolies whom seem to have an awful lot of say in our
lives, but that's another story...Anyone/group spending money that
could be spent on other things to try to find a sustainable future for
aviation has MY respect at least.

Paul Hanson

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Apr 9, 4:25 pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> ...The problem is Hydrogen...

Absolutely! Didn't we have this conversation at that restaurant in
ABQ?

Anyhow, my favorite treatise/screed/rant on this topic is that of Don
Lancaster of www.tinaja.com fame (.pdf format):

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf

My favorite quote:

> Electrolysis for bulk hydrogen energy is pretty
> much the same as 1:1 converting US dollars into
> Mexican Pesos.

Don's somewhat peculiar definition of what constitutes a "fuel" that
excludes hydrogen seems to rankle some folks, but his nomenclature
seems to hold at least internal consistency. I think it's worth a
look.

In other odd news, somebody on another forum was telling me about an
interesting research program to use algae to liberate electrons,
basically a biofuel cell:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_fuel_cell

Thanks, Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Vaughn Simon]

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
...
> Don's somewhat peculiar definition of what constitutes a "fuel" that
> excludes hydrogen seems to rankle some folks, but his nomenclature
> seems to hold at least internal consistency. I think it's worth a
> look.


On this (and other things) Don is exactly right. Looking at the big picture,
hydrogen is not a fuel. It is best to think of hydrogen as just a way of
packaging and transporting energy...a damn inefficient way of packaging and
transporting energy.

Vaughn

[Bill Daniels]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Don's somewhat peculiar definition of what constitutes a "fuel" that
>> excludes hydrogen seems to rankle some folks, but his nomenclature
>> seems to hold at least internal consistency. I think it's worth a
>> look.
>
>
> On this (and other things) Don is exactly right. Looking at the big
> picture, hydrogen is not a fuel. It is best to think of hydrogen as just
> a way of packaging and transporting energy...a damn inefficient way of
> packaging and transporting energy.
>
> Vaughn
>
Hydrogen is to big oil what nuclear fusion is to the coal industry. The
advantage to these industries is that the technology doesn't work - at least
right now.

Big coal will tell you that the future of electric power generation is
fusion reactors which, while true, is at least 50 years in the future which
means that we continue burning coal in electric plants and they keep making
profits.

The "hydrogen economy" is two things. First, it's a stalking horse for the
nuclear industry which will be needed to produce the vast quantity of
hydrogen needed to fuel an entire economy. (Nukes are VERY efficient at
making H2 since ionizing radiation splits water as does the electricity they
produce.) Second, it's a politically attractive solution that is far enough
in the future that we continue burning oil - and big oil keeps making
enormous profits.

Dr. Yi Chi's carbon nanowire breakthrough in lithium battery anodes is, if
it works out, a classic "disruptive technology". It means that plug-in
electric vehicles will have a range of many hundreds of miles and recharge
in minutes. The surprise is that he just got 10 million dollars to
commercialize his invention from....wait for it....a Saudi university.
See: http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/april2/cui-040208.html

Another potential disruptive technology converts simple radioactive decay
directly into electricity. These devices are generally considered as safe
as the smoke detectors you have at home. Add them to Dr. Yi's nanowire
lithiums and they will slowly charge themselves - for 20 years or so. Just
put your electric glider in its trailer and next weekend, it's charged up
ready to go.

Bill D

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

> The problem is Hydrogen. It is abundant in nature, but it *loves* to
> bond to everything. So you have to reclaim it from other things and
> separate it out. That takes time and energy to do.
>
Indeed. A professional aerodynamicist friend tells me that the best
efficiency you can achieve from a solar charged "eternal plane" depends a
lot on the storage system. FYI the "eternal plane" is solar powered.
During the day it flys on solar power while storing energy to keep it
flying overnight.

If you use a fuel cell, splitting water during the day, storing the
hydrogen and dumping the oxygen and then using the fuel cell for night
power while collecting the water from it to recycle the next day, your
best energy storage efficiency is about 66%.

If you just charge a Li-poly battery the storage efficiency is around 85%.

Bottom line: you'll need a lot fewer nukes if you use them to charge
batteries than if you make hydrogen. Thats without considering the
cost of transmitting the electricity to chargers versus the cost of
carting hydrogen to the gas station.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. |
org | Zappa fan & glider pilot

[Vaughn Simon]

"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
. ..
>
> Another potential disruptive technology converts simple radioactive decay
> directly into electricity. These devices are generally considered as safe as
> the smoke detectors you have at home. Add them to Dr. Yi's nanowire lithiums
> and they will slowly charge themselves - for 20 years or so. Just put your
> electric glider in its trailer and next weekend, it's charged up ready to go.

Actually, electrical generators powered by radioactive decay have been around
for at least 50 years. That said, the chemical reaction you suggest might
represent an improvement on the concept. Of course, any chance the common man
ever had to possess and use radioactive materials to generate power (slim to
none at best) totally disappeared on 9/1/01, so this is unlikely to ever be a
deal changer.

Vaughn

[Bill Daniels]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Another potential disruptive technology converts simple radioactive decay
>> directly into electricity. These devices are generally considered as
>> safe as the smoke detectors you have at home. Add them to Dr. Yi's
>> nanowire lithiums and they will slowly charge themselves - for 20 years
>> or so. Just put your electric glider in its trailer and next weekend,
>> it's charged up ready to go.
>
> Actually, electrical generators powered by radioactive decay have been
> around for at least 50 years. That said, the chemical reaction you suggest
> might represent an improvement on the concept. Of course, any chance the
> common man ever had to possess and use radioactive materials to generate
> power (slim to none at best) totally disappeared on 9/1/01, so this is
> unlikely to ever be a deal changer.
>
> Vaughn
>
I wasn't writing about a chemical reaction or a thermionic generator - try
betavoltaics. You already have this much radioactivity in your smoke
detectors. Actually, a terrorist could deliver more radioactivity by
throwing bananas at us.

Bill D

[noel.wade]

....And now for a slight thread-hijack:

OK, so no one here is arguing against the end-product: An
electrically-powered propeller or ducted fan.

Can I stop for a minute and say "WTF?" to the recent article about
how jet engines are the future of self-launch?
(I think this was in SOARING magazine, IIRC)

Jets are wonderful devices for specific missions (especially sustained
thrust at higher speeds, where props become less efficient). But in a
glider, at low speed and for short periods of time?

The article talks about how the jets are improving and becoming more
and more suited to use in a sailplane... But:
1) You still have to carry a dangerous, liquid, flammable fuel. Oh,
and that fuel can turn to vapor that might incapacitate the pilot if
breathed, and the fuel can EAT your aircraft's core materials in some
cases, if it seeps into the structure - yipes!

2) Despite being reliable and simple compared to an internal-
combustion engine, jet engines still have as much or more complexity
than a simple electric motor. The heat and stress on bearings and
other parts has got to be higher than an electric motor, right?

3) Jets put out a LOT more HEAT than an electric motor. Can anyone
tell me how resins that cure at ambient-temperature levels are
supposed to hold up well when a jet engine retracts inside the
fuselage while its still hot? I've heard that they can cool down
efficiently in as little as 30 - 45 seconds; but what about operator
error? What about the distance / altitude lost during that wait
period? I know the drag of a turbine is less than a big ol' prop; but
still...

4) With a jet, you already need electrical equipment, for the starters
and igniters and such. Why add a whole second fuel/energy-delivery
system (i.e. Jet-A) when you can stick with a single source and a
single output?

OK, OK, I'll quit ranting... :-P

--Noel

[Bruce]

Weight and size. (you did ask)

noel.wade wrote:
> ...And now for a slight thread-hijack:
>
> OK, so no one here is arguing against the end-product: An
> electrically-powered propeller or ducted fan.
>
> Can I stop for a minute and say "WTF?" to the recent article about
> how jet engines are the future of self-launch?
> (I think this was in SOARING magazine, IIRC)
>
> Jets are wonderful devices for specific missions (especially sustained
> thrust at higher speeds, where props become less efficient). But in a
> glider, at low speed and for short periods of time?
>
> The article talks about how the jets are improving and becoming more
> and more suited to use in a sailplane... But:
> 1) You still have to carry a dangerous, liquid, flammable fuel. Oh,
> and that fuel can turn to vapor that might incapacitate the pilot if
> breathed, and the fuel can EAT your aircraft's core materials in some
> cases, if it seeps into the structure - yipes!
>
> 2) Despite being reliable and simple compared to an internal-
> combustion engine, jet engines still have as much or more complexity
> than a simple electric motor. The heat and stress on bearings and
> other parts has got to be higher than an electric motor, right?
>
> 3) Jets put out a LOT more HEAT than an electric motor. Can anyone
> tell me how resins that cure at ambient-temperature levels are
> supposed to hold up well when a jet engine retracts inside the
> fuselage while its still hot? I've heard that they can cool down
> efficiently in as little as 30 - 45 seconds; but what about operator
> error? What about the distance / altitude lost during that wait
> period? I know the drag of a turbine is less than a big ol' prop; but
> still...
>
> 4) With a jet, you already need electrical equipment, for the starters
> and igniters and such. Why add a whole second fuel/energy-delivery
> system (i.e. Jet-A) when you can stick with a single source and a
> single output?
>
> OK, OK, I'll quit ranting... :-P
>
> --Noel
>

[noel.wade]

On Apr 10, 10:52 pm, Bruce > wrote:
> Weight and size. (you did ask)

I did. :-)

Weight: Hopefully Cui's battery improvements (or some similar change)
will alleviate the need to carry many pounds of batteries.

Size: Have you seen how small a powerful brushless electric motor is
these days? The prop has a large dimension in one direction; but at
least it can lie parallel to the mast and not take up much total
volume. I'm surprised there hasn't been more work on a ducted fan
solution - maybe the blades would just have to be too short to be
efficient, and still fit inside the aft fuselage... *shrug*

Take care,

--Noel

[Bruce]

Hi Noel

This has exercised my little brain for some time.
The brushless DC motor is a perfect motive unit. Small, relatively light, simple
and reliable, and its performance is perfect for the job. It produces almost
flat torque, and will swing an efficient propeller with the same torque at the
high density altitudes I fly at.
The batteries are getting smaal enough that it could be done - Existing
improvements like the A123 Lithium batteries are not only safe but have much
better energy densities.
However - the batteries size comes with shape constraints as well, whereas you
can put that smelly dino stuff into just about any shape you want.
And the other part is also a problem, the propeller demands a large hole in the
structural strength determining skin of the boom. So you need to add lots of
heavy strengthening as well as doors etc.

If I ever work out how to do it and stay under the "non-lifting" limits my Std
Cirrus will be an experimental self launcher...

Bruce

noel.wade wrote:
> On Apr 10, 10:52 pm, Bruce > wrote:
>> Weight and size. (you did ask)
>
> I did. :-)
>
> Weight: Hopefully Cui's battery improvements (or some similar change)
> will alleviate the need to carry many pounds of batteries.
>
> Size: Have you seen how small a powerful brushless electric motor is
> these days? The prop has a large dimension in one direction; but at
> least it can lie parallel to the mast and not take up much total
> volume. I'm surprised there hasn't been more work on a ducted fan
> solution - maybe the blades would just have to be too short to be
> efficient, and still fit inside the aft fuselage... *shrug*
>
> Take care,
>
> --Noel

[Frank Whiteley]

On Apr 8, 10:01 pm, sisu1a > wrote:
> Here is a link to an article about the first manned fuel cell flight.
> It has been in the works for some time, and wonderful to see it coming
> to fruition:http://www.gizmag.com/first-manned-fuel-cell-plane-flight/9117/
> For those who don't know, Boeing converted a Dimona motorglider to
> have an electric motor, and on board proton exchange membrane (PEM)
> hydrogen fuel cells (integrated with L-ions) that generate enough
> juice to power the aircraft during powered level flight. Neat stuff!
>
> Paul

Now if they could only get the 787 into the air.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=787&btnG=Search+News