Posted on 04/21/2022 2:39:28 PM PDT by Jonty30
A revolutionary cryogenic tank design promises to radically boost the range of hydrogen-powered aircraft – to the point where clean, fuel-cell airliners could fly up to four times farther than comparable planes running on today's dirty jet fuel.
Weight is the enemy of all things aerospace – indeed, hydrogen's superior energy storage per weight is what makes it such an attractive alternative to lithium batteries in the aviation world. We've written before about HyPoint's turbo air-cooled fuel cell technology, but its key differentiator in the aviation market is its enormous power density compared with traditional fuel cells. For its high power output, it's extremely lightweight.
(Excerpt) Read more at newatlas.com ...
How many new nuclear reactors should we build to create this super clean fuel?
Finally - a future technology worth investing in 🤪
Hydrogen is not well suited to being in a tank. Petroleum engineers deal with this in their distillation plant designs.
They should use helium instead of hydrogen to reduce the risk of fire.
Nope. This new energy kills off the three-toed endangered cardinal. That’ll be the pretext of why it can’t be used. Technology that helps all of mankind will never be developed, because the elites want us begging them for scraps of food and permission to travel.
Before we all get too worked up, let's pause a moment in remembrance of the Hindenburg. Remember, a tank of hydrogen can also be described as a potential bomb.
If they a leak a bunch into the body and wings they could have a jet powered dirigible. :)
It will still be hard to keep the tiny molecule from leaking out at the fitting in the fuel system. And you’ve still got to make the stuff, there aren’t any hydrogen wells. I haven’t seen anyone ramping up nuclear plant construction.
Liquid hydrogen has a higher energy density than jet fuel by weight, but lower by volume.
Last I checked, hydrogen has 3 times the energy content of gasoline.
As I recall it tends to migrate right through the tank
material. Maybe they have something new to build them
out of.
My understanding is that hydrogen does not just come out of a well like natural gas. Its must be converted from hydro carbons. So depending on the conversion costs and pollution out put it may not make much difference.
However my understanding of such things is limited.
and where will all of that hydrogen come from? and what are the net energy losses from producing it, compressing it to liquefy it, and then transporting liquid hydrogen?
Hydrogen is not a fuel. Hydrogen is an energy storage medium.
Hydrogen is a good way to store energy from intermittent electric sources like windmills and solar panels.
Helium is inert and wouldn’t work.
Hydrogen is dangerously flammable and helium replaced it for lighter-than-air aircraft for that reason.
Right now the vast majority of liquid hydrogen comes from Natural Gas.
Hydrogen has a lot of potential as fuel (pun intended). The problem is transporting hydrogen to where it’s needed. Because the molecule is so much smaller leakage is a problem and there’s also hydrogen embrittlement to contend with.
Storage in metal hydrides is one soluton, but for aircraft that always return to specific locations, on-site hydrogen plants could generate the fuel on-site, as needed. That would eliminate transport concerns and once production was scaled to match consumption, minimal storage would be needed which minimizes boomablility.
The issue for passenger cars is more complex but truck fleets such as FedEx or WalMart trucks that operate out of a specific hub location would be feasible for on-site hydrogen production. All it takes is natural gas and we have lots of that and it can safely be transported.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.