Last edited:
Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engines
- Thread starter Mako
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Northern Spy
Guru
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,092
- Location
- Canada
- Vessel Name
- Northern Spy
- Vessel Make
- Nordic Tug 26
Hydrogen production from water is the green dream, hence the covalent bonds quip.
Not how hydrogen is produced currently, which is essentially a derivative of hydrocarbons.
B&W is flogging a process called Brightloop that uses petcoke as a feedstock for hydrogen production instead of natural gas as a feedstock.
But since it is not zero carbon it will be ignored politically, as is coal gasification.
At least petcoke is a waste product that is readily available.
Also the metallurgy, fabrication, and maintenance costs may be ultimately prohibitive with lots of downtime. Think steam reformers and packed bed reactors maintenance currently. Yikes!
Not how hydrogen is produced currently, which is essentially a derivative of hydrocarbons.
B&W is flogging a process called Brightloop that uses petcoke as a feedstock for hydrogen production instead of natural gas as a feedstock.
But since it is not zero carbon it will be ignored politically, as is coal gasification.
At least petcoke is a waste product that is readily available.
Also the metallurgy, fabrication, and maintenance costs may be ultimately prohibitive with lots of downtime. Think steam reformers and packed bed reactors maintenance currently. Yikes!
Fletcher500
Guru
Some of the major oil companies are making gains extracting H2 from Methane (Nat GaS). But the traditional method is not viable due to the amount of C02 per H2 harvested. They are currently working on better methods for this, including the use of the excess C for oil recovery, capture, etc. No magic bullets yet, more work to be done. Diagram below.
My daughter works at a start up in SF involved in C02 electrocatalysis. Staffed by PHD/MS in engineering and the sciences. I am very proud of what they are doing. They have been making very good progress and have received backing from Google and some other deep pocket companies in the Bay Area who have an interest in this technology.
I realize many people on this site don't think much of this stuff ("solutions in search of a problem that does not exist" was one quote I recall from someone), so I usually stay away from these conversations. This is my last post on the subject. As in Politics these days, we are in our own corners and no ones mind is going to be changed on a forum, Tik Tok, or some nut bag who barely graduated high school and now has a Blog on all of the “bad science” out there.
My daughter works at a start up in SF involved in C02 electrocatalysis. Staffed by PHD/MS in engineering and the sciences. I am very proud of what they are doing. They have been making very good progress and have received backing from Google and some other deep pocket companies in the Bay Area who have an interest in this technology.
I realize many people on this site don't think much of this stuff ("solutions in search of a problem that does not exist" was one quote I recall from someone), so I usually stay away from these conversations. This is my last post on the subject. As in Politics these days, we are in our own corners and no ones mind is going to be changed on a forum, Tik Tok, or some nut bag who barely graduated high school and now has a Blog on all of the “bad science” out there.
Attachments
It should be pointed out that while the rare and extremely costly 'fuel' for these
reactors is quite 'long lasting', the expense of building and maintaining the
hazardous waste sites that they often become will be borne by the taxpayers for
many generations to come.
Fusion energy production, assuming it becomes practical, is many years away.
U235 is one of the rarer isotopes in the universe and consumes vast amounts
of energy to separate from its parent compounds.
In 2021, 50% of the Uranium used in the U.S. came from Russia and Kazakhstan.
Last edited:
MYTraveler
Guru
Fuel cells are expected to be much more efficient than cumbustion engines. For starters, much less wasted heat. I bought Cummins stock just because of their fuel cell R&D expenditures.
MYTraveler
Guru
The drop off is because of the H2 molecules that are not captured/"burned", which is why designs commonly involve multiple passes. The technology of capturing those is rapidly improving.
The bigger challenge seems to be safely storing the hydrogen, but there is a really good technology for that now, too (it doesn't involve high pressures).
Hippocampus
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2020
- Messages
- 4,182
- Location
- Plymouth
- Vessel Name
- Hippocampus
- Vessel Make
- Nordic Tug 42
“The bigger challenge seems to be safely storing the hydrogen, but there is a really good technology for that now, too (it doesn't involve high pressures).”
Can you teach us about this?
Can you teach us about this?
RT Firefly
Enigma
Greetings,
I worked, a bit, on hydrogen storage almost 50 years ago. One technology at the time was metal hydrides. Slow absorption and slow release. Not suitable at THAT time for rapid access such as required for vehicle use. Also recall Geoff Ballard in the very early stages of his fuel cell development. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballard_Power_Systems
High pressures or cryogenics are also not the best ideas for vehicle either IMO.
I worked, a bit, on hydrogen storage almost 50 years ago. One technology at the time was metal hydrides. Slow absorption and slow release. Not suitable at THAT time for rapid access such as required for vehicle use. Also recall Geoff Ballard in the very early stages of his fuel cell development. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballard_Power_Systems
High pressures or cryogenics are also not the best ideas for vehicle either IMO.
sunchaser
Guru
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2008
- Messages
- 10,298
- Location
- usa
- Vessel Name
- sunchaser V
- Vessel Make
- DeFever 48 (sold)
Uranium ores are not rare nor are they in short supply. Given the many decades of low U3O8 prices the offshore producers and Canada have been major US suppliers.
France has been successfully in the nuclear cycle game for 70 years with about 75% of in country electricity coming from nukes. They have many decades of experience in dealing with nuclear waste whether by re-processing, vitrification and short term storage to let the hot stuff cool down prior to re-processing.
The French public education programs start in grade school to allow citizens to slowly learn about nuclear power. Taiwan and China have similar programs and education systems to explain nuclear technology to their citizens.
MYTraveler
Guru
I believe it is called metal hydride storage. At a molecular level, the hydrogen molecues fit inside a latice structure that doesn't require high pressure to keep them there and doesn't result in any capacity loss as compared to liquid/presurized storage. The issue has been release, but there are several promising approaches.
Uranium ranks 49th in abundance in Earth's crust, less than many of the 'rare
earth' elements. Due to the military uses of U, governments worldwide have
dug many mines to extract the ore resulting in numerous areas of toxic tailings.
In this country much of this mining has been on Native reservations in the west.
While it is possible to build and operate reactors safely, it has thus far not been
possible to do so without government deep pockets to cover the inevitable cost
overruns and the still to be determined long term waste disposal expense.
If the U.S. does adopt a French-style energy policy, let's hope we also adopt their
health care and humanitarian policies as well. That would be progress.
Last edited:
GoneFarrell
Guru
H2 wells is interesting. If it were me, I'd collect it from wellheads across the field at moderate pressure to a central location, burn it in gas turbines and export it as electricity. Maybe half to a third of capacity for peak loads.
I think it would prove least cost way to distribute the net energy. Piping/storing/compressing H2 gets expensive, is all new infrastructure.
Expanding existing electrical infrastructure will cost less, but not getting any easier to do.
I think it would prove least cost way to distribute the net energy. Piping/storing/compressing H2 gets expensive, is all new infrastructure.
Expanding existing electrical infrastructure will cost less, but not getting any easier to do.
darkside
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2016
- Messages
- 412
- Location
- New Zealand
- Vessel Name
- Ahi
- Vessel Make
- Roger Hill Powercat
France were also not above state sponsored terrorism to stop protestors against their nuclear testing in our back yard.
We were circumnavigating when they admitted they were responsible for sinking the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland. One French yacht crew made a point of apologizing to us, they couldn't believe their government would do that.
But back to Hydrogen. It has to be green hydrogen (from renewables) or there is no point. Blue hydrogen (mostly from LNG) is pointless. You may as well just burn the LNG in your truck or boat and be done with it.
Nick14
Guru
That's a key point in any discussion of energy. There are always significant losses when converting energy from one form (hydrogen or a fossil fuel) to another (electricity). You can't take x amount of energy in a fossil fuel or hydrogen, convert it to electricity, and somehow magically expect to get more than x energy to result. Many discussions of 'electric' power ignore this immutable law of physics.
Stumbled on this interesting idea for a hydrogen fueled engine -
Aquarius Engines
rslifkin
Guru
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2019
- Messages
- 8,014
- Location
- Rochester, NY
- Vessel Name
- Hour Glass
- Vessel Make
- Chris Craft 381 Catalina
There are losses there, but they have to be weighed against the efficiency of transporting fuel to the point of use.
Nick14
Guru
You're right, there are losses in transporting any form of energy. Electric power transmission losses are generally around 8%-15% (such as the unavoidable resistance in transmission lines, unless you're using superconductive wires which don't exist yet outside of laboratories).
Bottom line, every form of energy has pros and cons, upsides and downsides. There's no free lunch with anything.
rslifkin
Guru
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2019
- Messages
- 8,014
- Location
- Rochester, NY
- Vessel Name
- Hour Glass
- Vessel Make
- Chris Craft 381 Catalina
Exactly, every form of energy is going to have some inefficiency. In the end, it's all a question of what strikes the best compromise of efficiency and logistical problems.
Nick14
Guru
Now if only we could figure out perpetual motion, or those dilithium crystals that seemed to work so well in Star Trek...
Northern Spy
Guru
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,092
- Location
- Canada
- Vessel Name
- Northern Spy
- Vessel Make
- Nordic Tug 26
And that's why sweeping generalizations (made by politicians and NGOs) about energy production, transmission, and consumption are useless. One size does not fit all.
There are so many variables. Solar, nuclear, hydropower, biomass and hydrocarbons all have their place and merit. Demonizing one over the other is either activism, or ignorance.
The International Energy Agency (www.iea.org) is a great reference for data, current issues, and burgeoning tech. But like any organization, read their predictions with skepticism.
If we could accurately predict complex issues, we wouldn't have complex issues to deal with...
An article in the NYT yesterday about the difficulties in grid tying wind and solar farms. A lot of the proposed installs are delayed or cancelled because the local grid is inadequate to handle the additional load. Apparently 8100 projects currently waiting to get interconnection approval with some authorities freezing new applications for 5 years until they can work through the backlog.
I remember the 'free-piston' engine from Popular Mechanics in the 1960's.
They made one - very simple to machine - and strapped it to a go-cart that
got to 100 mph on thrust alone! There is literally nothing new in the design.
This application would work with nearly any fuel so not Hydrogen specific.
As with any internal combustion device, NOx will be produced so must be dealt
with in post treatment. It's not clear how they generate electricity from it either.
Last edited:
Nick14
Guru
I couldn't agree more. One size will not fit all. As much as human beings crave simple, one-button solutions, I don't think that will happen with energy. There are too many variables and local specifics that will likely make different solutions more viable for particular areas.
Nor do I think it would be wise to put all our eggs in one basket. Even if one magical 'answer' was found, what would happen if there was a problem with it?
The same applies to the current craze over 'electric cars.' Mandating the sale of only EVs is not the 'answer.' It's one piece of a complex puzzle, with many upstream and downstream impacts and considerations. How is the electric power generated? What is the actual energy source, not just form of transmission?Even if you somehow forced everyone to buy an EV, can you even transmit all that extra power (to which the sobering answer is, not without significant expense to upgrade an antiquated transmission system) -
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/23/...type=Homepage§ion=Climate and Environment
https://www.forbes.com/sites/prakas...tchover-to-electric-vehicles/?sh=1bc86ed15671
https://www.newsnationnow.com/on-ba...ornia-asks-ev-owners-to-cut-back-on-charging/
The many complex issues of generating and transmitting power are why it might sometimes make sense to convert one form of energy to another (despite the unavoidable and inherent losses in doing so).
While converting electricity to other forms of energy results in losses, there are inherent limits to the density of how much electricity can be stored in batteries. It's also an inherent human failing to write thorny problems off as 'they'll figure it out.' But those pesky laws of physics are very strict.
Lithium batteries (not even considering the environmental costs of mining lithium) store about 0.5 megajoules per kg - about 1% the energy density of hydrocarbon fuels. Even with continued development and counting on achieving perfect engineering, the theoretical maximum energy density of lithium batteries is only about 2 megajoules per kg - about 5% that of hydrocarbon fuels.
https://thebulletin.org/2009/01/the-limits-of-energy-storage-technology/
Even if the electricity was generated by pure solar or 'fusion' (which isn't feasible yet), there is still the problem of storage for mobility. Battery storage will always have inherent limits on range (as well as charge time) for airplanes and smaller pleasure boats. The laws of physics limit how much energy can be crammed into a battery in a given space and weight.
This is why it might make sense to use green electricity from solar, wind, tidal, etc. to make 'e-fuels,' synthetic methane, diesel, etc. that have 20x+ the energy density achievable with batteries.
https://www.engie.com/en/news/e-fuels-what-are-they
A synthetic e-fuel would emit carbon when burned, but it would be carbon-neutral because it's creation involved bonding of existing CO2. They also have the additional advantages of the same energy density as current fossil fuels and thus usable for and provide the same range in aircraft, boats, and other transportation applications, could be used in existing engines, and could be transported in existing pipelines and other infrastructure.
While not perfect, nothing is. I personally would be thrilled with a future using electricity for stationary applications (homes, industry) and where power lines can be used such as rail, and carbon-neutral synthetic fuels for mobility. It would certainly be a major improvement over the current situation of sucking things out of the ground and burning them, and adding to atmospheric CO2.
To expand on my earlier comments:
Lest anyone be tempted by the hype of the earlier link, this so-called new engine
is, in effect, a 2-stroke diesel which only needs its spark plug ignition for starting.
It has some of the inherent problems of 2-strokes and adds one or two new ones.
Using Hydrogen as a fuel reduces hydrocarbon emissions, of course, but the odd-
shaped combustion chamber and leaky cylinder sealing results in poor efficiency.
The piston/rod exposed to exhaust on both sides but no cooling may be an issue.
Unless the reciprocation is harnessed to generate electricity, an aircraft style APU
would appear to offer the same results with much more mainstream technology.
The slick quality of the promotional videos leads me to believe that Aquarius is
hoping nobody looks too closely under the hood.
Made the statement a bit more accurate.
As you point out in a later post, not only is power generation and storage a problem, so is the transportation. Nobody talks about this stuff. They just assume there will be power out the outlet.
From a Wall Street Journal report from Feb 18, 2022,
I figured if we had electric cars, our power usages would at least double, if not triple. There is lack of generation capacity now, which did not exist in the past, but if more transportation is based on electrical power, we will have more power shortages. We almost had rolling black outs this winter during a cold spell. This was decent cold spell, but we have had more cold weather, that lasted much longer, and having power was not an issue. Now a days, having sufficient power to keep people from freezing, is a problem.
Even if the power appears out of thin air, which apparently many believe will happen, the distribution of that power is problem. I don't think the power grid in our neighborhood could handle the loads if many of the house holds had electric cars to fill each day/night. I don't think the grid servicing our neighborhood could handle the load to just our area, much less the area it feeds.
Europe and at least California are going to ban ICE cars from being sold in a decade or so, it will be interesting if that really happens or if the ban date gets moved out.
Later,
Dan
fletch
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2015
- Messages
- 112
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Nickel Plate
- Vessel Make
- Jeanneau Velasco 43
Cummins and H2
Cummins is looking ahead, much like Airbus, Boeing, Delta Airlines etc. The idea is to use a combination of renewables (solar, wind, etc) in conjunction with nuclear (whichever type) for H2 production. When renewables are at a peak (i.e. sun shining) you would use surplus nuclear capacity to produce hydrogen, therefore you still get a high plant utilization rate on the large capital investment. Trucking and airlines are attractive because you have, by comparison, limited locations requiring the complex investment in storage and delivery. No serious folks would expect H2 infrastructure at the local 7-11 or mom and pop marina.
Cummins is looking ahead, much like Airbus, Boeing, Delta Airlines etc. The idea is to use a combination of renewables (solar, wind, etc) in conjunction with nuclear (whichever type) for H2 production. When renewables are at a peak (i.e. sun shining) you would use surplus nuclear capacity to produce hydrogen, therefore you still get a high plant utilization rate on the large capital investment. Trucking and airlines are attractive because you have, by comparison, limited locations requiring the complex investment in storage and delivery. No serious folks would expect H2 infrastructure at the local 7-11 or mom and pop marina.
Northern Spy
Guru
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,092
- Location
- Canada
- Vessel Name
- Northern Spy
- Vessel Make
- Nordic Tug 26
"The Grid: The Fraying Wires Between Americans and Our Energy Future" by Gretchen Bakke is a good read that discusses the condition and vulnerabilities of our electrical grid that most people don't think of when they envision an electric powered future.
Hopefully, before then, some form of leadership will return to realpolitik and make decisions outside of ideology.
Hippocampus
Guru
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2020
- Messages
- 4,182
- Location
- Plymouth
- Vessel Name
- Hippocampus
- Vessel Make
- Nordic Tug 42
There’s an elephant in the room that proponents of any form of combustion engine (except H+ as long as its production is zero footprint).
As the ICCC reports document we are destroying our world with greenhouse gas emissions. We are currently seeing yearly and occasionally monthly 100 year events. Our seasons are shifting. At present logistics and means of production make H unlikely to meet our needs for the foreseeable future. Maybe applicable in very limited settings but likely of marginal impact.
Good science is predictive. But all science can only generate probabilities. Viewed in the context of other scientific fields the climatologists have done a remarkably good job with a nascent science. Those here who are fiddling as Rome burns are dooming their offspring. Yes I own and operate a diesel burning car and boat. I’m gradually changing my ways as money and time allows. If you aren’t part of solution you are part of the problem. I’m part of the problem so trying to correct my behavior. My next land vehicle will be an EV powered by my solar panels. Don’t let the excellent be the enemy of the good.
Any other fuel you burn releases undesirable products. Best you can do with biodiesel, gasoline from algae or anything else in this line of thinking is net zero as regards the problem. Perhaps you won’t make things worse but neither will you make for less greenhouse gases than currently exist. So the only place for this technology is where other solutions aren’t feasible.
There’s a long latency between lowering greenhouse gases and climate improvement. Models regardless of origin are consistent on this point. Hence thought, dollars and dedication to generate infrastructure that effectively mitigates the further climate change we can expect needs to occur now. Just like the absence of an adequate road system at the event of the automobile we now have an inadequate power grid. So we see debacles like Texas after the hurricane and repetitive brownouts or blackouts elsewhere in our country. I’m not a big Biden fan but at least he didn’t play politics with this and has moved to address this deficiency. Pricing, transmission, coordination of various producers and transmission services aren’t integrated. Perhaps due to history but also avarice. Think it’s like Pogo said. We are our worse enemy.
Agree best outcome is a mosaic. Sequestration, measures to decrease release, techniques allowing needs met without any releases, measures like green spaces and roofs or reflective surfaces or changes in building codes. But probably all of the above.
Greatly appreciate this thread. It got me reading and exploring issues mentioned and technologies I didn’t fully understand but would suggest all of us accept each thing discussed here is only a possible piece of the puzzle.
As the ICCC reports document we are destroying our world with greenhouse gas emissions. We are currently seeing yearly and occasionally monthly 100 year events. Our seasons are shifting. At present logistics and means of production make H unlikely to meet our needs for the foreseeable future. Maybe applicable in very limited settings but likely of marginal impact.
Good science is predictive. But all science can only generate probabilities. Viewed in the context of other scientific fields the climatologists have done a remarkably good job with a nascent science. Those here who are fiddling as Rome burns are dooming their offspring. Yes I own and operate a diesel burning car and boat. I’m gradually changing my ways as money and time allows. If you aren’t part of solution you are part of the problem. I’m part of the problem so trying to correct my behavior. My next land vehicle will be an EV powered by my solar panels. Don’t let the excellent be the enemy of the good.
Any other fuel you burn releases undesirable products. Best you can do with biodiesel, gasoline from algae or anything else in this line of thinking is net zero as regards the problem. Perhaps you won’t make things worse but neither will you make for less greenhouse gases than currently exist. So the only place for this technology is where other solutions aren’t feasible.
There’s a long latency between lowering greenhouse gases and climate improvement. Models regardless of origin are consistent on this point. Hence thought, dollars and dedication to generate infrastructure that effectively mitigates the further climate change we can expect needs to occur now. Just like the absence of an adequate road system at the event of the automobile we now have an inadequate power grid. So we see debacles like Texas after the hurricane and repetitive brownouts or blackouts elsewhere in our country. I’m not a big Biden fan but at least he didn’t play politics with this and has moved to address this deficiency. Pricing, transmission, coordination of various producers and transmission services aren’t integrated. Perhaps due to history but also avarice. Think it’s like Pogo said. We are our worse enemy.
Agree best outcome is a mosaic. Sequestration, measures to decrease release, techniques allowing needs met without any releases, measures like green spaces and roofs or reflective surfaces or changes in building codes. But probably all of the above.
Greatly appreciate this thread. It got me reading and exploring issues mentioned and technologies I didn’t fully understand but would suggest all of us accept each thing discussed here is only a possible piece of the puzzle.
Last edited:
