Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engines

RT Firefly said:

Greetings,
Mr. GF. Your post #50: "All known gallium, refined or in the ground, would fit in a small room." Better check your #'s.

Click to expand...

https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2022/mcs2022-gallium.pdf

It's not 'common' but it's not exceedingly rare either. There are, as always, many factors involved on just how cost-effectively it can be recovered.

Gallium occurs in very small concentrations in ores of other metals. Most gallium is produced as a byproduct of processing bauxite, and the remainder is produced from zinc-processing residues. The average gallium content of bauxite is 50 parts per million. U.S. bauxite deposits consist mainly of subeconomic resources that are not generally suitable for alumina production owing to their high silica content. Some domestic zinc ores contain up to 50 parts per million gallium and could be a significant resource, although no gallium is currently recovered from domestic ores. Gallium contained in world resources of bauxite is estimated to exceed 1 million tons, and a considerable quantity could be contained in world zinc resources. However, less than 10% of the gallium in bauxite
and zinc resources is potentially recoverable.

Click to expand...

rslifkin said:

At that point, the big question comes down to this: what's the better long term way to store power? Hydrogen or batteries? I don't have an answer to that, but it would need to factor in production and disposal impacts for everything required for both scenarios as well as input/output efficiency.

Click to expand...

This wanders down the rabbit holes where naysayers love to find out of context ways to try and dismiss/destroy the discussion. Everything has impact, some impact is considerably 'less worse' than others. The status quo of impacts now has been clearly unsustainable for more than a while. Let's not disregard alternatives as solutions just to perpetuate the bad habits we have now.

wkearney99 said:

This wanders down the rabbit holes where naysayers love to find out of context ways to try and dismiss/destroy the discussion. Everything has impact, some impact is considerably 'less worse' than others. The status quo of impacts now has been clearly unsustainable for more than a while. Let's not disregard alternatives as solutions just to perpetuate the bad habits we have now.

Click to expand...

I agree, a solution not being perfect isn't a reason to ignore it. Realistically, all available options should be at least examined, if not tried. Then it can be determined what would be most viable in the long term.

Greetings,
Mr. K. I never liked physics.

Conversation should pay attention to market forces and governmental support however. Think some posts do not reflect that reality. With the advant of EV for personal use public acceptance is evolving. There has been a change in gestalt. Limiting issues include geopolitical realities as well. When talking about rare earths and metals there’s a increasing movement to limit dependency upon some sources such as China, Russia, Central Asia and even parts of South America.
To date this conversation has focused on western manufacturers and engineering firms. However even Apple has felt the consequences of dependency upon China. Initially they were assembliers. Now 25% of engineering and white collar inside the corporation is mainland Chinese. Our engineering colleges have done the initial education. Even when I went to Columbia U school of engineering it wasn’t uncommon to have mainland Chinese at the next desk or chair. They not us are the major supplier of technology to Africa and even the Caribbean. If they go H not E or hybrid that would create a major driver of that tech world wide. Similarly we are no longer the major ship builder. Some would say due to labor costs, soft costs and laws. However, that’s a reality from what I understand. Being so makes it more streamlined if the engineering, tech development and construction are done inside a nexus of countries with a low risk environment or entirely domestically. Believe when discussing this subject it’s important to pay attention to what the Chinese are doing.

"Good to hear someone else has their eyes on the future. Older folks have difficulty accepting there are scientific advancements happening all the time on everything."

As an 80 year old "older folk", I would suggest that any hesitation is a result of a lifetime of listening to great ideas and solutions that don't pan out. My first memory of the great hydrogen search is from 40 years ago when some grifters were able to entice folks to invest in a newly discovered naturally occurring hydrogen pocket located near Great Bend, KS. Sometimes great scientific breakthroughs are not repeatable, be interesting if today's story on Korean nuclear fusion breakthrough will be repeatable.

https://simpleflying.com/alaska-air... not require special storage, unlike hydrogen.

https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2021-36-0034/

The energy density of a gallon of diesel is amazing when compared to hydrogen or battery-based solutions. Without it, air travel and many of our boating dreams I think will be over, or we at least would have to switch to sailboats.

If we could only produce power cheap enough, it is possible to make synthetic diesel / jet fuel from CO2 from the atmosphere or oceans with electricity. I had read an interesting article several years ago about the navy funding research in this field to enable production of jet fuel on the aircraft carriers with power from the on-board reactors. The technology appears to be getting better, but we still need the cheap power. At the moment, in my opinion the most promising solution is modern nuclear (addresses CO2 emissions for those concerned) if we can somehow decrease the cost to build the plants. There are many different nuclear power plant designs that are being developed that are inherently safer than the current reactors running in the US today. Things like thorium as fuel vs uranium, molten salt as a cooling medium. I believe bill gates is funding a start up nuclear company - all very interesting and much quicker to achieve than fusion power that always seems 50 years away

This approach would be an easier transition. With the focus of the change being on generating the cheap power. The pipelines, engines, distribution systems and fuel stations are basically already there. Short range commuter cars - EV’s make sense if the grid is strong enough to support. But I’m currently in California where they’ve asked us to not plug in our cars due to grid overload - the same week they have banned the sale of new gasoline powered cars after 2035.

Skag said:

https://simpleflying.com/alaska-air... not require special storage, unlike hydrogen.

https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2021-36-0034/

The energy density of gallon of diesel is amazing when compared to hydrogen or battery-based solutions. Without it, air travel and many of our boating dreams I think will be over, or we at least would have to switch to sailboats.

If we could only produce power cheap enough, it is possible to make synthetic diesel / jet fuel from CO2 from the atmosphere or oceans with electricity. I had read an interesting article several years ago about the navy funding research in this field to enable production of jet fuel on the aircraft carriers with power from the on-board reactors. The technology appears to be getting better, but we still need the cheap power. At the moment, in my opinion the most promising solution is modern nuclear (addresses CO2 emissions for those concerned) if we can somehow decrease the cost to build the plants. There are many different nuclear power plant designs that are being developed that are inherently safer than the current reactors running in the US today. Things like thorium as fuel vs uranium, molten salt as a cooling medium. I believe bill gates is funding a start up nuclear company - all very interesting and much quicker to achieve than fusion power that always seems 50 years away

This approach would be an easier transition. With the focus of the change being on generating the cheap power. The pipelines, engines, distribution systems and fuel stations are basically already there. Short range commuter cars - EV’s make sense if the grid is strong enough to support. But I’m currently in California where they’ve asked us to not plug in our cars due to grid overload - the same week they have banned the sale of new gasoline powered cars after 2035.

Click to expand...

The unintended irony of your last statement is quite obvious if you think about it.

While I'm not in the hydrogen-is-the-solution camp, I will point out that H2
has 3X the energy density of petro fuel by weight. Where it fails, of course,
is energy density by volume. Depending on how it's stored, it loses by about 4X.

Thorium reactors would not eliminate uranium and plutonium usage.
They rely on a similar reaction and still produce significant waste.
Nuclear fission will never be cost effective enough to justify the risk.
Today's stunningly high prices will continue to rise for future users.
Wind + solar + battery or other storage will conversely get cheaper.

Greetings,

RT Firefly said:

Greetings,

Click to expand...

And they can power their home during the rolling brownouts!

KnotYet - Thanks for the reply. The irony was intended and sad for those of us in CA. I was definitely referring to volume, but good point about weight - I had no idea. If only there was an economical way to liquify a gas that boils at -421F. Explains why they compress it to 10,000psi and give up typically (unless you are NASA).

I do respectively disagree that the cost of fission will never justify the risk. Per KWH produced, it is one of the safest ways to produce power historically. That factors in injuries, fatalities, illness from air pollution etc… even with the Fukushima, Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island incidents in the mix. The important thing that nuclear also brings is stable and massive amounts of power around the clock despite weather conditions which is what is needed for a stable grid. Wind and solar without large scale energy storage will leave me stranded in CA with an EV and no way to charge it to leave.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/amp/

EDIT - LOL I love your picture of the ‘extended range’ Tesla. Perfect response.

Quote
While I'm not in the hydrogen-is-the-solution camp, I will point out that H2
has 3X the energy density of petro fuel by weight. Where it fails, of course,
is energy density by volume. Depending on how it's stored, it loses by about 4X.
Unquote

An extra detail that must be considered: Although H2 is very light, its container is not. To give a rough example, you can get 1 lb of H2 into a common "T" cylinder, weighing about 100lb. There are slightly more efficient containers, but not by the orders of magnitude required.

I had a helluva time keeping H2 in a small stainless steel vessel with elastomeric seals at 1200 psi. 10k psi, no thanks.

Oh, and how long/how many cycles will those tanks be certified for?

Skag said:

KnotYet - Thanks for the reply. The irony was intended and sad for those of us in CA. I was definitely referring to volume, but good point about weight - I had no idea. If only there was an economical way to liquify a gas that boils at -421F. Explains why they compress it to 10,000psi and give up typically (unless you are NASA).

I do respectively disagree that the cost of fission will never justify the risk. Per KWH produced, it is one of the safest ways to produce power historically. That factors in injuries, fatalities, illness from air pollution etc… even with the Fukushima, Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island incidents in the mix. The important thing that nuclear also brings is stable and massive amounts of power around the clock despite weather conditions which is what is needed for a stable grid. Wind and solar without large scale energy storage will leave me stranded in CA with an EV and no way to charge it to leave.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/amp/

EDIT - LOL I love your picture of the ‘extended range’ Tesla. Perfect response.

Click to expand...

Yes, RTF wins the internet as always!

The irony I was thinking of was the suspected cause of the unprecedented heat.

I respect your respectful disagreement. It is possible to build them safe, not cheap.
These new design reactors along with the current SOTA designs will very likely
never be built in meaningful numbers in the US for mostly economic reasons,
so we probably won't have to solve the nagging waste disposal problems anyway.

Greetings,
Mr. KY. Thanks but I must decline that honour. Call me cynical but IMO touting "solutions" to greenhouse gas production in order to "save" the planet is misdirected at best. There is money to be made in researching, manufacturing and selling "solutions". NO money to be made in, what I feel, is the REAL issue.


I've mentioned this way too many times but the pollution (plastics) and subsequent killing of the oceans (the largest natural carbon sink for greenhouse gases) will be the death of the planet in spite of any electric car, truck, boat or plane however powered.


Rant over.

CO2 separated out of atmosphere will be used as base product for full-cycle, carbon neutral gasoline, diesel and jet fuels.

These new source fuels will be drop-in fungible with refined carbon positive fossil fuels. Their production [from A to Z] can be [and mostly will be] accomplished by solar-heat power only... therefore, next to no new pollutants crated/released into atmosphere.

Via revolutionary full-cycle process of atmospheric CO2, these carbon neutral liquid hydrocarbon fuels' base product will make the massive overage of carbon in Earth's atmosphere the largest "virtual oil well" ever discovered. Extremely importantly, the CO2 separation plan from atmosphere will play a main role in helping to stop climate warming; while also assisting in saving many of our oceans' life forms from their surely, currently oncoming acidic deaths - that are due to the atmospheric CO2 filtering into oceans, increasing their improper pH balance.

My associates and I have over 25 years development in back of us. What I mention is small portion of what is soon [during next few years] coming to many global locations.

Cheers!

Note: The ocean's average pH is now around 8.1 , which is basic (or alkaline), but as the ocean continues to absorb more CO2, the pH decreases and the ocean becomes more acidic.

My current dirt dwelling is ~2m from a nuclear power plant. My prior house was ~7m downwind from it. This power plant was the major employer and taxpayer of my current home town. However after recurring difficulties which raised public safety concerns in spite of the employment and tax benefits the residents of the town held a negative opinion of it. It is now in the extremely long process but shutting down. The persistent concern is the storage of the fuel rods. No executable way to transport them has been developed afte years and years of trying. Like many nuclear plants it sits on the coastline in order to have unlimited access to cooling water. Given its age concern remains one good hurricane and we’re in trouble. We are not France and I think nowhere in the US are local residents comfortable having a nuclear power plant next door. You may argue that the history supports another more benign view. I agree but people are often ruled by emotion not logic. Don’t see nuclear being accepted by the US public.
If you take CO2 out of the atmosphere convert it to moderate to long chain hydrocarbons then return to the atmosphere you are playing a zero sum game. Yes you haven’t made things worst but neither have you made things better. This program still requires decreasing energy use and sequestration if hydrocarbon remains the major source of usable energy. Had a conversation with a friend while we were planning our current zero footprint house. He also was building a house. He was patting himself on the back as he was planning to use wood for heat garnered off his land thinking this was “green”. Of course it isn’t. He went with heat pumps and one glass fronted wood stove for ambience.

Greetings,
Mr. A. Thanks. My point exactly!



"It is therefore not possible to control climate change by carbon mitigation, this is not going to work." https://www.goesfoundation.com/news/posts/2022/august/report-on-micro-plastic-and-phytoplankton/


"This result demonstrates that a physical effect of plastic pollution might presently have a disruptive influence on global ocean oxygenation equivalent of up to half that of climate warming, and it suggests a missing mechanism in Earth system models, which typically underestimate 21st century ocean deoxygenation2.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22554-w (bolding is mine).


There are a great many sources I could cite but you get the idea...

RT Firefly said:

Greetings,
Mr. A. Thanks. My point exactly!



"It is therefore not possible to control climate change by carbon mitigation, this is not going to work." https://www.goesfoundation.com/news/posts/2022/august/report-on-micro-plastic-and-phytoplankton/


"This result demonstrates that a physical effect of plastic pollution might presently have a disruptive influence on global ocean oxygenation equivalent of up to half that of climate warming, and it suggests a missing mechanism in Earth system models, which typically underestimate 21st century ocean deoxygenation2.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22554-w (bolding is mine).


There are a great many sources I could cite but you get the idea...

Click to expand...

RT - I Thank You!

World population should keep its Eyes Wide Open.

Everyone needs to be readily prepared to happily assist ecosphere restructuring and environmental restorations... by purchasing oncoming new sources of long-life CO2 sequestration building materials, full-cycle/carbon-neutral fuels, elevated CO2 expeditious growth vegetables and numerous other "CO2 Controlling" green-products. Within the next ten [10] to fifteen [15] years atmospheric CO2 PPM overload abatement will be successful in stopping global warming; it simply must be - Duh, LOL!

Thereafter, during the remainder of 21st Century, civilization's atmospheric and oceanic technicians will learn how to control Earth's annual temperature ranges. Humanity's future looks bright... we just need to [and, we will!] get over this enormous global climate-temperature hurdle.

Took a Century + for humans [for the most part unknowingly] to screw up the stability of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Within remainder of this Century humanity can and will repair and restore Earth's Ecosphere back to its generally normal conditions of yesteryear [i.e. the previous several millennium]

World population should keep its Eyes Wide Open. Mark my words...

Cheers!

Art

Interesting to see other big players jumping in. None of these engines are really applicable to us recreational boaters, but I would doubt that thar weekend warriors are the big polluters of course.

https://trends.nauticexpo.com/mtu/p...3&utm_content=title&utm_term=TRENDS_highlight

Mako said:

Interesting to see other big players jumping in. None of these engines are really applicable to us recreational boaters, but I would doubt that thar weekend warriors are the big polluters of course.

Click to expand...

My little boat has two diesels pushing it through the water… The hydrogen buses running around my city only have 1 diesel designed motor converted to be powered by hydrogen. All we are waiting for is technology to advance. Separating the O from the H2O cheaply is right around the corner. Not long ago the thought of cell phones was an absurdity to the simple-minded. We might live long enough to witness the greatest world transformation. The future looks good if science is not hindered by evil agendas.
AND combustion engines will be toast too. Hydrogen can create electricity without a spinning combustion engine. We are already doing all this… Just not cheaply YET.

Art have wondered about your posts. Perhaps I misunderstand. Are you saying
Sequestered CO2 is broken down and then reconstituted as hydrocarbons suitable to use to drive engines? If so it does not lower greenhouse gas from the current baseline. Rather would just keep it at its current unacceptable level.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to keep the CO2 sequestered and use a non hydrocarbon source for productive energy. That would lower greenhouse gases. Here fusion as a source for electricity would be a breakthrough. I understand the engineering to get energy positive fusion recently occurred. A major accomplishment. But probably decades to scale up to commercial production.

Hippocampus said:

Art have wondered about your posts. Perhaps I misunderstand. Are you saying
Sequestered CO2 is broken down and then reconstituted as hydrocarbons suitable to use to drive engines? If so it does not lower greenhouse gas from the current baseline. Rather would just keep it at its current unacceptable level.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to keep the CO2 sequestered and use a non hydrocarbon source for productive energy. That would lower greenhouse gases. Here fusion as a source for electricity would be a breakthrough. I understand the engineering to get energy positive fusion recently occurred. A major accomplishment. But probably decades to scale up to commercial production.

Click to expand...

I’m can’t following your thought process. CO2 is not something I mentioned and I don’t know why you bring it up. I’m talking about H2O.., Water. There is no carbon in H2O. Hydrocarbon is a totally different molecule made up of carbon and hydrogen… Organic.
Hydrogen, H2 is the most abundant smallest and lightest element in the universe… And it begs to explode. Think the SUN and all stars. The hydrogen, H2, we cheaply desperately need is a result of separating the O away from the H2 of water, H2O. H2 is normally in a gas state. NO CARBON. Burning carbon is what got us into this global death spiral to begin with.
There is nothing but scientific ingenuity and funding in the way of creating methods to cheaply separate the O from H2O. We’re are on the cusp of changing the WORLD. Unfortunately decades is an ugly measure of our final days but in the long game it’s just a blip of time.

The only thing standing in the way is the second law of thermodynamics.

DDW said:

The only thing standing in the way is the second law of thermodynamics.

Click to expand...

Which fact is not known or understood by 99.9999% of the world's population.

As experienced by many, especially Navy vets, long lasting energy sources have existed in the form of nuclear power for nearly 3/4s of a century. In this case the Second Law is well understood and is the ultimate backstop for fission and fusion related energy.

Hydrogen production is energy intensive thus a natural for utilization of nearly inexhaustible nuclear power. H makes sense for vehicular use in the eyes of many in comparison to large, heavy and range limited batteries. The politics of energy seem the proverbial chain around the neck of motive power. Not to mention the money involved in the energy chase.

I think a lot of us could use a refresher on covalent bonds too.

This is a very interesting recent report on hydrogen. It seems there might be vast stores of underground hydrogen available to be tapped - a carbon-free fuel. Apparently no one thought to look for it before, but it seems to be there - and it may actually be self-renewing from chemical reactions in the crust:

https://www.science.org/content/art...il&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-6da05f8a9e-46859250&

If this pans out and it’s possible to drill and get hydrogen cheaply, it could fundamentally change many things.

As others have mentioned, there are still issues with using hydrogen as a fuel - namely, storage (compress or liquify) and transport (current natural gas pipelines can't be used). Those seem like they could, to some extent, be addressed with engineering refinement and development.

If you want to know more about cutting edge energy efforts: Visit LightWorks, ASU https://sustainability-innovation.asu.edu/lightworks/

Leaders therein and I have been closely associated for two decades... even well before LightWorks began. And no, my roll has nothing to do with hydrogen.

PM me your email address if you want to learn more from/about me.

Nick14 said:

This is a very interesting recent report on hydrogen. It seems there might be vast stores of underground hydrogen available to be tapped - a carbon-free fuel. Apparently no one thought to look for it before, but it seems to be there - and it may actually be self-renewing from chemical reactions in the crust:

https://www.science.org/content/art...il&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-6da05f8a9e-46859250&

If this pans out and it’s possible to drill and get hydrogen cheaply, it could fundamentally change many things.

As others have mentioned, there are still issues with using hydrogen as a fuel - namely, storage (compress or liquify) and transport (current natural gas pipelines can't be used). Those seem like they could, to some extent, be addressed with engineering refinement and development.

Click to expand...

Those last bits are the big question. We know we can make use of hydrogen, but there's still the question of what is the most practical way to use it? Do we use it for a combustion engine or fuel cell? And do we do that locally at the consumer device, or is it more practical to use the hydrogen to generate electricity in a more centralized fashion and power electric consumer devices?

rslifkin said:

Do we use it for a combustion engine or fuel cell? And do we do that locally at the consumer device, or is it more practical to use the hydrogen to generate electricity in a more centralized fashion and power electric consumer devices?

Click to expand...

Those are indeed the most important questions (which I'm nowhere near qualified to answer, and you know the old saying about opinions).

If, and it's still an if, the recent report on vast underground stores of hydrogen proves to be widely true, and if it's possible to extract it cost-effectively (seems likely; drill a hole and a lighter-than-air gas will shoot out), it would seem to make it possible to have electric generating plants on site, thus obviating the question of transport (since hydrogen molecules are so small they'll leak through existing natural gas pipelines). If a site has hydrogen underground and it's possible to place a generating station nearby, it would seem to be a source of inexpensive, carbon-free electricity.

Use of hydrogen for transportation is a more complicated question. I don't know the possible advantages of using it in fuel cells vs. combustion for transport, since the fundamental issue is the same: how to locally store hydrogen. Compressing it requires heavy tanks and limited capacity to date, and liquifying it (like rocket fuel) dramatically increases energy density (rockets work very well, and they need the ultimate power-to-weight ratio), but brings its own challenges (it won't keep for long at -423 deg F).

On the other hand, if the engineering challenges of transport and local storage can be adequately resolved, using hydrogen for transportation could have some significant advantages, such as being readily adaptable to existing infrastructure and vehicles (cars, trucks, boats).

Smarter (and younger) brains than mine will need to figure these things out and how to benefit from them.