Posted on 03/04/2023 7:28:39 AM PST by volunbeer
MOSES LAKE, Wash. — The first flight of a hydrogen-powered airplane was a success this week, showing zero-emissions air travel could be on the horizon.
The 40-passenger regional airliner using hydrogen fuel cell propulsion took off at 8:41 a.m. Thursday from Grant County International Airport and flew 15 minutes, reaching an altitude of 3,500 MLS. The aircraft, nicknamed Lightning McClean, was developed by California-based company Universal Hydrogen.
This process still requires the input of substantial amounts of energy.
The process also produces large amounts of CO2 so how is this a solution to the so called problem?
Ecological impact
The SMR plant produces lot of greenhouse gases emissions. Beyond the power generation needed to heat the industrial reactor, the reaction itself produced emissions. Let us recall the initial reactions (CH4+H2O = CO+3H2), then the catalytic conversion (CO+H2O = CO2+H2). So, in total, we have CH4+2H2O= CO2+4H2.
Assuming that there are only these reactions and that they are complete, 4 molecules of H2 are created at the same time as 1 of CO2. The latter has a molar mass of 44g, 2g for dihydrogen. Producing 8g of hydrogen therefore automatically releases 44g of CO2, 1kg of H2 therefore releases 5.5kg of CO2. Estimates are generally that, in total, producing 1kg of H2 by steam methane reforming releases 8-10kg of CO2.
One of the idea to make natural gas reforming “low emissions”, is to capture the carbon from the PSA tail gas (ex: Reddy & Vyas 2009) and other flue gas emitted by the reformer (= carbon capture and stockage). Even if it is often presented as a mature solution, the process still seems experimental.
From
https://www.hydrogene.discoverthegreentech.com/en/production/steam-methane-reforming/
There is nothing “green” about “green energy” as we currently practice it other than hydropower.
The “ESG” score (their term - not mine) is horrible for solar, wind, and especially for batteries. We are doing massive devastation with mining and the end products are highly toxic and do not last long enough to pay for themselves.
The only thing that is “green” is the money that politicians and special interests are making from these technologies that cannot survive on their own economics.
Simple.
We mine it from the surface of the Sun.
Wrong.
Most hydrogen for commercial use comes from methane, natural gas or other hydrocarbon sources.
There are many types of hydrogen based on the source material, but not much comes from water.
Mean Sea Level. Relates to altitude.
And how much will a plane ticket cost?
Good point about water vapor, but you are thinking rationally.
The “green energy” movement is not really about science - it is about money and control. They rely on useful idiots like those who somehow believe that a “battery” produces electricity with no thought to what it took to make the battery, what it will take to dispose of the battery, and where the “electricity” actually originates.
Unicorns and rainbows.........
I recently spoke with a young lady who was telling her friend that wind energy used no oil. I politely pointed out to her that:
- the production and installation of the wind turbine used a significant amount of oil
- that each wind turbine required 12,000 gallons of crude oil per year (or twice a year) to make the 80g of synthetic lubricant
- that the turbines had a negative impact on the environment (birds, bats, bees)
- that the blades and motors do not last long enough to pay for themselves
- the composition of the blades and motors require large amounts of mining and chemicals
- they have and are causing wildfires in the Western US and Australia
- there was no way to “recycle” them
- they are not a reliable source of constant energy without using toxic batteries that are an environmental nightmare
It was an interesting discussion and we were both polite. I directed her to do her own research and decide for herself. It is disheartening to hear/see the results of the brainwashing these kids receive via education and media. She was quite shocked that each turbine motor used so much oil..... they don’t have a clue.
FWIW - one electrical engineer I spoke with said that some of the wind turbines that run at high speed or are older may need “oil changes” four times a year if they begin to run hot as they wear down with age. That would be 48,000 gallons of crude oil a year needed for the 240 gallons of synthetic lubricant Depending on the type of crude oil it can actually be 110 gallons of crude or more to produce a single gallon of synthetic lubricant.
When you study the economics of it, wind is a very poor choice of green energy but these kids believe differently.
Another downside of wind is that it causes a lot of stress to other energy production like hydropower because they are constantly having to tweak the turbines in response to wind generation so it more quickly wears out the more reliable sources that are designed to run at a constant speed (like a jet engine).
Disadvantages of hydrogen energy
Hydrogen is volatile
Because of its high energy content, hydrogen gas is a highly flammable and volatile substance which makes it a risky fuel to work with.
Hydrogen energy is expensive to produce
Both steam-methane reforming and electrolysis are expensive processes which prevents a lot of countries from committing to mass production. Research and trials are in process to try and discover a cheap and sustainable way to produce enough hydrogen without contributing more carbon into the atmosphere.
Hydrogen energy is difficult to store
Hydrogen is a much lighter gas than gasoline which makes it difficult to store and transport. To be able to store it we need to compress it into a liquid and store it at a low temperature. The high amounts of pressure needed to store hydrogen makes it a difficult fuel to transport in large quantities.
Hydrogen can be dangerous
Hydrogen is incredibly flammable which makes it a dangerous fuel if not handled correctly. There is also no smell to hydrogen so sensors are required to detect leaks.
Making hydrogen can produce carbon
There are many ways of making hydrogen. And some of the produce carbon.
I have no idea, but given the economics of the airline industry I would expect that the tickets would need to be comparable in cost to others. It is a pretty competitive market and I imagine they will primarily be found on short routes much as the propeller planes currently occupy.
I don’t think the weight/energy density scales for longer routes for jets.
The Toyota car that I posted the link for above has better range than a Tesla FWIW, but they typically overestimate the range for all the alternative fuel vehicles (60mph on flat surface with no wind - no heat - no AC).
Good list. I listen to a lot of nerd stuff online and I do recall one engineer who said nuclear power availability + natural gas production (fracking fields) would be quite competitive with “oil” for hydrogen but outside of that the economics would probably not work using current technology.
I think Japan is probably more committed to hydrogen than anyone else so it will be interesting to see how it works there.
I am open to any new tech that can stand on its own two feet as a competitive option. We are not there yet and some of the current preferred ideas are actually a net negative for the environment in my estimation.
Didn’t have hydrogen fuel cells back then.
**********
Good deal but I would nix the name of it Lightning McClean
*********
I don’t claim to know much of anything, but you are definitely on to something. Environmentally friendly nuclear power SHOULD be the wave of the future.
The water vapor exhaust from planes would mostly collect in the stratosphere.
I wrote a separate post about the VERY significant difference between water vapor in the troposphere and water vapor in the stratosphere.
DuckDuckGo says it means Major League Soccer.
“but it produces water vapor which “causes global warming””
Which is the most potent greenhouse gas.
Just under the record set by the Wright Brothers.
High altitude water vapor is deadly. It works like tiny magnifying glasses and increases the heat of the planet.
High altitude water vapor is deadly. It works like tiny magnifying glasses and increases the heat of the planet.
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.