Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engines

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Northern Spy said:
Hopefully, before then, some form of leadership will return to realpolitik and make decisions outside of ideology.
Click to expand...

Hopefully sooner rather than later.

Those of us experienced in working in and around power generation and transmission thought that lights going out and KW rationing would wake up the politicos in charge. Not necessarily so in fact it has emboldened some state and federal government bureaucrats to test the brown out edges.
 
DDW said:
The only thing standing in the way is the second law of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...
Actually no. I think you presume that the hydrogen proponents are suggesting thar energy required to separate H2 from water can be less than the energy gained from recombining H2 and O2 for water. They aren't.
For whatever reason spliting H2 off water currently takes way more energy than that gained by the recombination. Thus the inefficiency.
The suggestion is that the gap can decrease with the appropriate catalysts. If it does hydrogen from hydrolysis could become a viable energy storage, and thus propulsion solution.
At present it isn't.
 
Hydrogen will be produced by small scale local electrolysis machines with off peak nuclear power. This it will be like charging a battery but more practical than batteries for many transport uses like large boats
 
Not discussed is hydrogeneration. Environmental impacts can be mitigated and no issues with emissions nor radioactives being stored or transported. Our local reactor was shutdown several years ago. Difficulties moving the depleted fuel rods and finding storage has aborted completely closing the facility and repurposing it.Over a mile of shore line remains inaccessible. Unfortunate as there was great striper fishing in that spot.

Coastally the tides could serve as power avoiding damns and allowing shorter transmission distances as most populations are near the coast.
 
Hippocampus said:
Not discussed is hydrogeneration. Environmental impacts can be mitigated and no issues with emissions nor radioactives being stored or transported. Our local reactor was shutdown several years ago. Difficulties moving the depleted fuel rods and finding storage has aborted completely closing the facility and repurposing it.Over a mile of shore line remains inaccessible. Unfortunate as there was great striper fishing in that spot.

Coastally the tides could serve as power avoiding damns and allowing shorter transmission distances as most populations are near the coast.
Click to expand...

Plethora of clean power-generation "natural-sequence" alternatives exist; compared to fossil fuels and nuclear fission [which have powered the world for decades]. Unfortunately, many of the "naturals" are economically dealing with [i.e., combating - profit wise] returns on time, capital and human-efforts expended. And, many of the "naturals" experience daily or even hourly time out periods of no-energy created. Therefore... it seems... seeing as the "natural" types of ways to create energy are hampered by "time-outs"; yet can surely generate enough electricity to power civilization - Power Storage is the key! In other words - Big Bad Batteries!!

That said - Civilization is in a multi-sided "pickle"!

1. Too many humans born
2. Much manufactured energy needed, and, need is constantly increasing
3. Fossil fuels work well to manufacture energy... however pollute too much
4. Nuclear fission electricity ok, except waste or reactor breakdown/melt
5. Nuclear fusion - sounds great! But - seems way off before commercialized

Humanity needs: BIG BAD BATTERIES! :dance: :thumb:
 
Hippocampus said:
Coastally the tides could serve as power avoiding damns and allowing shorter transmission distances as most populations are near the coast.
Click to expand...

The problem with harnessing tides is it will slow down the rotation of the earth. They we will have real environmental problems. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
 
Greetings,
Mr. A. "Big Bad Batteries!!"? Not exactly. One needs alternate methods of storage, NOT necessarily batteries. Present day technologies have a few restrictions.



Some hydro power generating stations in Canada use generated power to pump "used" water back up to the reservoirs during off peak times.


I also vaguely recall some sort of heat sink that cools buildings during summer and stores that removed heat in underground rock? piles. In winter, that heat is drawn upon to heat the buildings and cool the rock? piles. I think there's a heat pump somewhere in the mix.


Also keep in mind that geothermal heat is not utilized that much in NA.


Just some idle thoughts.
 
RT Firefly said:
Greetings,
Mr. A. "Big Bad Batteries!!"? Not exactly. One needs alternate methods of storage, NOT necessarily batteries. Present day technologies have a few restrictions.



Some hydro power generating stations in Canada use generated power to pump "used" water back up to the reservoirs during off peak times.


I also vaguely recall some sort of heat sink that cools buildings during summer and stores that removed heat in underground rock? piles. In winter, that heat is drawn upon to heat the buildings and cool the rock? piles. I think there's a heat pump somewhere in the mix.


Also keep in mind that geothermal heat is not utilized that much in NA.


Just some idle thoughts.
Click to expand...

All true!! Each with snags... unfortunately. Then again, existence is one big snag after another. That's why they developed hurdles for runners to jump over! :lol:
 
JRO said:
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.
Click to expand...

DDW said:
The only thing standing in the way is the second law of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...

darkside said:
Actually no. I think you presume that the hydrogen proponents are suggesting thar energy required to separate H2 from water can be less than the energy gained from recombining H2 and O2 for water. They aren't.
Click to expand...

That was the post I was responding to. I did not presume, just took him at his word. Perhaps I should have said the only thing besides scientific ingenuity and funding standing in the way is the Second Law.

Separating the H from the O in water is never going to cost less in energy than you get out of recombining it later. So like batteries, a lossy way to store or transport energy. With a lot more unsolved problems.
 
DDW said:
Separating the H from the O in water is never going to cost less in energy than you get out of recombining it later. So like batteries, a lossy way to store or transport energy. With a lot more unsolved problems.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It’s those pesky laws of physics again (chemistry in this case). Forming or breaking chemical bonds requires energy. It will always take more energy to break the H2-O bond than can be gained from burning the H (and thus recombining it with O).

Periodically you see scam devices that claim to use the ‘extra’ energy from a car battery to electrolyze water into H and O, and then ‘get’ power by putting the H into the engine. It’s a losing proposition.
 
MYTraveler said:
The problem with harnessing tides is it will slow down the rotation of the earth. They we will have real environmental problems. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Click to expand...

True but friction of the water flow produced by the tides is also slowing the earth’s rotation. Even large wind farms slow the earth’s rotation. However the effect of turbines driven by the tides and wind farms is minuscule in comparison it’s naturally occurring slowing by orders of magnitude. The effect might be cumulative but hopefully we will have moved on to alternatives such as fusion and other sources before significant effects are seen. Both also have deleterious environmental effects but again orders of magnitude less than fossil fuels.

Of interest as a side effect of solar fields the local biology is changed as well. There’s a whole new ecosystem developed under the panels. The reflectivity and heating of panels is different than what was there before . Perhaps a non issue in arid places but not so where they exist instead of bushes and grasslands.

I wasn’t thinking of massive engineering projects like damning a fjord but rather turbines placed at depth in bays or rivers. Furthermore don’t envision hydroelectric as the sole or even the major producer. Also don’t think river flow hydro is as deleterious. As said above it will take multiple modalities to disengage from fossil fuels. Advantage of tides is production not dependent upon sunlight nor the fickleness of wind. Same with river flow.
 
Last edited:
MYTraveler said:
The problem with harnessing tides is it will slow down the rotation of the earth. They we will have real environmental problems. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Click to expand...
Advantage: longer daylight for solar generation!

What?
 
DDW said:
Separating the H from the O in water is never going to cost less in energy than you get out of recombining it later.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. Read it again. I said the hydrogen proponents were planning on narrowing the energy gap. Narrowing the gap is absolutely achievable. It doesn't produce more energy than what was used for the break.
No laws broken. You can rest easy.
 
MYTraveler said:
The problem with harnessing tides is it will slow down the rotation of the earth. They we will have real environmental problems. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Click to expand...

Assuming for a moment that this is a credible concern, the tide reversal which would occur nearly 4 times per day would negate any change in rotational inertia if submerged generation were in place. Given the 1000s of directional options for harnessing tidal flows would further cancel out any fantasy related worries.

For the US becoming more isolationist, severely limiting in-migration and cutting way back on imports would limit increased power needs. But what fun is had when living within the countrie's needs for resources?
 
A Gold Mine of Clean Energy May Be Hiding Under Our Feet

Article in today’s NYT. Basically says manufactured H is $5/kg but ample H naturally available at $1/kg. This makes H driven electricity commercially cost effective. There’s a link in the article which is also worth reading..

Don’t know if H is a reasonable energy source in mobile applications (cars, trucks, rail, ships, boats) but do see a very strong argument for H in stationary electricity generation.
 
MYTraveler said:
The problem with harnessing tides is it will slow down the rotation of the earth. They we will have real environmental problems. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we should only harness the tides that flow north-south - or would that change the tilt of the earth ? !!
 
Hippocampus said:
A Gold Mine of Clean Energy May Be Hiding Under Our Feet

Article in today’s NYT. Basically says manufactured H is $5/kg but ample H naturally available at $1/kg. This makes H driven electricity commercially cost effective. There’s a link in the article which is also worth reading..

Don’t know if H is a reasonable energy source in mobile applications (cars, trucks, rail, ships, boats) but do see a very strong argument for H in stationary electricity generation.
Click to expand...

Interesting article !
 
Ted said:
Sorry, do not follow you, unless you think the night will not be affected
as well

Ted
Click to expand...
Advantage: More sleep!

Seriously, the inertia of Earth's rotation is many orders of magnitude greater than
the amount of energy likely to be harvested from any tidal power generation.

Apologies to anyone hoping to sleep in any time soon. ;)
 
I'm no expert on all the forces at paly for earth's rotation on axis.

However, as I recall... gravity of the moon is by far the largest [if not the only] contributor to tide directions. Therefore, if tidal change [particularly their current's' speeds and elevation changes] were somewhat altered [by drawing energy off the currents - which would make the tidal high and low levels a bit less dramatic] the moon's gravitational "directional-pull" on Earth would remain exactly the same; as its ongoing positioning would not alter one bit. Therefore... is it possible that tides'/currents' high and low positions simply have a back and forth no-additional Earth-spin "energy" condition [i.e. a self negating, equalizing effect] regarding Earth's spin on axis... no matter their speeds or levels of alterations; as long as they keep up their equal parts movement per what ever may be the ongoing "equidistant" levels per each moon gravity-affected tide change?

The item that may need to become slightly altered would simply be the need to adjust tide books? Tidal time slots and their durations would remain the same, high and low levels would slightly be less dramatic in comparison.

In other words - if there was no ocean water, all Earth's surface was comprised of land only, wouldn't The moon's gravitational effect on this planetary mass of material create the same affect on axis-spin as it does with the oceans' "self negating", "self equalizing" tidal action conditions? :ermm:
 
Last edited:
If earth’s rotation slows moon’s rotation slows as well. If moon’s rotation and earths rotation slow sufficiently moon will escape its orbit.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/503471/is-the-moons-rotation-affected-by-earths

The moon slows the earth.


Extending this link the earth is an iron core with a thin layer on top so generates a magnetic field. That field reverses periodically BTW. At present the moon slows the earth’s rotation and to remain locked its orbit becomes larger. By the inverse square law eventually it will escape as the forces aren’t sufficient as the distance increases to hold it in place.

The issue is moot as the the sun will probably end its life before that occurs. You and your descendants will probably be worm excrement well before that so don’t worry be happy.
 
Last edited:
Hippocampus said:
If earth’s rotation slows moon’s rotation slows as well. If moon’s rotation and earths rotation slow sufficiently moon will escape its orbit.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/503471/is-the-moons-rotation-affected-by-earths


Extending this link the earth is an iron core with a thin layer on top so generates a magnetic field. That field reverses periodically BTW. At present the moon slows the earth’s rotation and to remain locked its orbit becomes larger. By the inverse square law eventually it will escape as the forces aren’t sufficient as the distance increases to hold it in place.

The issue is moot as the the sun will probably end its life before that occurs. You and your descendants will probably be worm excrement well before that so don’t worry be happy.
Click to expand...

1972 - Pink Floyd - Dark Side Of the Moon ... Album ... Speak to Me / Breath

https://www.google.com/search?sa=X&...#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:6153eff6,vid:qkEn2Puh5xg
 
Back to using H to power boats. :D

We are looking at a boat that has at least 5KW of solar panels. Unless we stayed at higher latitudes in the winter, we would have a surplus of power generation. This is really a sea change, pun intended, because with that much surplus power, and the ability to store and use it efficiently with LiFePO batteries, power would not really be a concern.

So what to do with that excess power generation?

Going hybrid makes quite a bit of sense based on where and how we would use the boat. We could very likely move the boat and use little to no diesel for many, many trips. It looks like it makes money sense, but until we sign a contract, that is a variable.

The other option I have looked into in regards of the surplus power, is H generation. Diesel engine OEMs are looking to, and have, converted their engines to use H. Electric power simply cannot supply the energy needed in some equipment for the time equipment needs to run to do the work but H powered engines would meet the job requirements and emission regulations. For example, an excavator, bulldozer, backhoe needs to work 8-12 hours a day on jobs and batteries just can't supply that much power for that amount of time. Then there are tractors and combines, that at harvest time, can run most of 24 hours. Batteries ain't getting it done.

The questions I have regarding H and boats:

  1. Can we convert a diesel engine to run H?
  2. Can we generate H with PV power on the boat?
  3. Can H be stored on the boats?
  4. How much range would one have with H stored on the boat?
  5. Does this make money sense?
The only real answer I have found was for 1. Diesel engines can be made to run on H. I think we can produce H on a boat but it was not clear to me if the equipment could fit on the boat and produce the required amount of H that would be needed. Storing H in an amount for large range seems problematic as well. Certainly, at this point, even if 2, 3, and 4 were possible, I don't think it makes any money sense.

Flip side, think about the possibilities. Short of long passages, most of our "trips" would be a 4-8 hours, with some getting up to 12-24 hours, or 30-60 NM to maybe 200NM from time to time

With that use case, when one is sitting in one place and has surplus power, after filling up the batteries, one could make H to fuel the next trip. If the range was long enough, and H generation fast enough, one would be very independent....

But we don't seem to be there yet, and maybe never will be, but it is possible. :D

Later,
Dan
 
RT Firefly said:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/mot...d=hpmsn&cvid=f149cc52565249d9931b45868097a709
Click to expand...

Any research into this field is good, and there are many steps and issues in need of solutions. However, to be clear, while a very interesting and useful piece to the puzzle, this Australian team hasn't 'cracked' the fundamental issue that you still need an input of energy to electrochemcially break water into its component hydrogen and oxygen.

They may have a solution for the chlorine that is produced as a by-product of electrolysis of seawater. But you still need an input of electricity. That's the rub. For this to be a 'green' process the source of electricity must be renewable (solar, wind, tidal, etc.). Otherwise it's no different than plugging into the wall socket for the source of power.

I just briefly glanced at the paper, but it seems steps in the use of their catalyst also require temperatures to be 200C and 400C, which requires additional energy input into the process.

It takes 286 kJ of energy (including thermal to overcome entropy) per mole to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water (assuming zero resistance from wires and other components in the system, which is impossible, plus consideration of the source of energy for the electricity used in the process, so the real-world energy used will be more). You cannot get more than 286 kJ out by burning the hydrogen produced (the Gibbs free energy maximum output of a fuel cell is 237 kJ).

Pesky physics.
 
Last edited:
I would imagine an insurer would want specifics before writing a policy on a hydrogen powered boat as it is cutting edge Any existing code might not be boat friendly. But someone has to go first.

At least you don't have to worry about hydrogen collecting in the bilge...
 
dannc said:
Back to using H to power boats. :D

We are looking at a boat that has at least 5KW of solar panels. Unless we stayed at higher latitudes in the winter, we would have a surplus of power generation. This is really a sea change, pun intended, because with that much surplus power, and the ability to store and use it efficiently with LiFePO batteries, power would not really be a concern.

So what to do with that excess power generation?

Going hybrid makes quite a bit of sense based on where and how we would use the boat. We could very likely move the boat and use little to no diesel for many, many trips. It looks like it makes money sense, but until we sign a contract, that is a variable.

The other option I have looked into in regards of the surplus power, is H generation. Diesel engine OEMs are looking to, and have, converted their engines to use H. Electric power simply cannot supply the energy needed in some equipment for the time equipment needs to run to do the work but H powered engines would meet the job requirements and emission regulations. For example, an excavator, bulldozer, backhoe needs to work 8-12 hours a day on jobs and batteries just can't supply that much power for that amount of time. Then there are tractors and combines, that at harvest time, can run most of 24 hours. Batteries ain't getting it done.

The questions I have regarding H and boats:

  1. Can we convert a diesel engine to run H?
  2. Can we generate H with PV power on the boat?
  3. Can H be stored on the boats?
  4. How much range would one have with H stored on the boat?
  5. Does this make money sense?
The only real answer I have found was for 1. Diesel engines can be made to run on H. I think we can produce H on a boat but it was not clear to me if the equipment could fit on the boat and produce the required amount of H that would be needed. Storing H in an amount for large range seems problematic as well. Certainly, at this point, even if 2, 3, and 4 were possible, I don't think it makes any money sense.

Flip side, think about the possibilities. Short of long passages, most of our "trips" would be a 4-8 hours, with some getting up to 12-24 hours, or 30-60 NM to maybe 200NM from time to time

With that use case, when one is sitting in one place and has surplus power, after filling up the batteries, one could make H to fuel the next trip. If the range was long enough, and H generation fast enough, one would be very independent....

But we don't seem to be there yet, and maybe never will be, but it is possible. :D

Later,
Dan
Click to expand...
While it"s fun to imagine the possibilities, a pretty big boat would be needed to
make it practical. Making and storing a meaningful amount of H would take lots
of energy, equipment and tankage. Maybe a 100 footer could host enough solar
cells and engineering spaces as long as it was designed from the keel up to do so.
 
Last edited:
Greetings,
Mr. N. I didn't go to the paper. I just posted the "news" report because I saw it posted on another site. I worked in science for 35+ years and I'm very aware that what works "on the bench" can be a far cry from being practical. Some promising discoveries can't be scaled up to the point where they're viable commercial products but it IS a step.
 
Well I’m beyond late on this discussion and did try to a cross section of the 14004 so responses but anyway let me add MAN has already developed and is building commercial V-12 dual fuel engines for Danish wind companies. They run on diesel and hydrogen where a hydrogen injection system supplies about 80% hydrogen into the charge aor and 20% diesel. The diesel is used to ignite the Hydrogen. The so called sweet spot on fuel consumption for these V12’s is 1700-1900 rpm. If the hydrogen tank runs out the engine continues to run on diesel but activates a “ selective catalytic reduction “ system to clean the exhaust.

One of the big problem with using hydrogen is that it must be cooled to liquid in order to achieve proper density. Liquid hydrogen tanks must maintain — 250° C or —418° F which is something I can hardly fathom on anything but large commercial craft with some subsidies. At present the MAN Dual Fuel D2862 LE428 engine are not certified for use in the U.S.

Information gathered from Work Boat magazine March 23 issue

Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom