Skip to comments.Hydrogen should take priority over biofuel in aviation
Posted on 12/01/2010 9:47:10 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
The aviation industry should focus research and development programmes on liquid hydrogen rather than third-generation biofuels in the quest to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, according to World Wildlife Fund director for global energy policy Stephan Singer.
Speaking at a roundtable on environmental issues at the European Parliament in Brussels today - part of the Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe's (ASD) Aeroweek conference - Singer said liquid hydrogen and algae-derived biofuels should be the focus of investment over other alternative fuels because they are less likely to interfere with land used for food producti
(Excerpt) Read more at flightglobal.com ...
The aviation industry should concentrate on abundance, efficiency and progress, and forget the quest to reduce carbon dioxide. Lunacy is never a good plan for the future.
I agree.But its not the aviation industry that is pursuing it. Both the USAF and USN is looking into this.
At Edwards AFB they are testing planes with 50/50 blends.
First law of cryogenics: Hydrogen leaks.
Second law of cryogenics: Helium leaks worse than Hydrogen.
Personally I’d prefer to fly on something fueled by a propellant at or near room temperature.
What a bunch of crap... H2 is at best an energy storage system, and a poor one at that.
Hydrogen takes more energy to extract from natural sources than bio fuels. I would concentrate on finding an efficient way to extract bio diesel from algae.
Hydrogen is a powerful, but extremely inefficient fuel. Not only does it have to be cooled to _very_ low temperatures (colder than oxygen) to become a liquid, but its low molecular density requires large storage tanks.
As an example of the technical difficulties involved, the American space program was using LH-fueled rockets in the ‘60s, but the less advanced Soviet program didn’t attempt it until the ‘80s.
One would think too that the extreme flammability of hydrogen would make it a tad dangerous for use outside of rockets. Hindenburg disaster, anyone?
I cannot believe this is a serious proposal. Hydrogen storage would be far to heavy to be practical on an aircraft. Onboard hydrogen generation from hydrocarbons would also be heavy, and it would be difficult for it to achieve the reliability required for air transportation.
The storage problem for hydrogen is a big deal. High pressure and leaks are a problem that has yet to be solved in a satisfactory fashion.
Hydrogen simply does not have the energy density to act a fuel for air breathing engine powered airplane
I’d feel safe on an airplane powered with helium.
“Hydrogen ordinarily burns with a colorless or pale blue flame.”
As anyone can see by looking at pictures or video of a space shuttle launch.
Aside from the Hindenburg disaster, another example of hydrogen’s explosive properties was the 1965 Atlas-Centaur launch that fell back onto the pad, producing a quite huge mushroom cloud that put the launch facility out of commission for months. This was the biggest pad explosion to ever happen at Cape Canaveral.
The Challenger disaster of course also involved liquid hydrogen. Most of the explosion there was really a huge cloud of water vapor caused by the LH and liquid oxygen mixing after the external fuel tank broke up.
It takes very high pressure to ignite a LH-LO mixture. If the pressure is too low, you just get water vapor and no combustion. The shuttle main engines posed a serious development challenge since they were designed to be reusable, unlike the earlier Saturn and Centaur engines.
Those are so safe they don’t even need wings.
A-MEN! to that.
CO2 in current atmospheric concentrations is a plant growth stimulant, not a pollutant. The “reducing pollution” argument we get from the AGW Greenies is just absurd.
It worked so well for the Hindenburg...
LOL Like minds...
“Hydrogen should take priority over biofuel in aviation”
Cars, to. The fuel cell is the engine of the future, not a Rube Goldberg contraption burning corn and making sparks.
Week before last I visited a company that is experimenting with hydrogen powered fork lifts.
The electric lift trucks work well but experience downtime and battery maintenance costs.
They make their own hydrogen on site and would need to do little to make enough more to run their forklift fleet
That would be nice except that it takes 35 kWh of electricity ($3.50) to generate a kg of hydrogen. Or you can use NG and get the hydrogen for about a buck / kg. But then you would ask yourself why not just burn the NG in an engine and eliminate the conversion losses? Carrying around natural gas gives you 25 MJ / liter but hydrogen is only 10 MJ / liter. Gasoline is 35 MJ / liter.
Conceivably we could use nukes to generate the electricity for hydrolysis, and the Obama admin is dedicated to building more nukes. Whoops, never mind, that dedication only lasted while ratification of the latest global warming treaty was on the table - LOL.
Besides water vapor, the product of combustion, overwhelms carbon dioxide as a purported greenhouse gas.
Questions? What does cryogenics have to do with hydrogen leaks? Doesn't hydrogen leak faster than helium? I thought that hydrogen fuel cells were gas, not liquid? Doesn't 'propellant' more properly refer to rocket fuels?
But the natural water cycle overwhelms man-made water vapor from irrigation which overwhelms man-made water vapor from combustion.
The same is true with carbon dioxide. Besides organic materials decaying and carbon dioxide being expelled from the largest source of carbon dioxide the oceans.
“All their talk about nuclear is too cheap to meter (e.g. Sec. Chu)”
Of course hydrogen is the answer but it won’t happen until they come up with a scam to figure out how to tax ALL of it.
There’s no doubt that dihydrogen monoxide is a greenhouse gas as well CO2. Greenhouse gas emissions are purported to be the cause of over 800 sorts of devastation of the planet.
See http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm for an amusing and complete list of things caused by GHG.
Food for thought
Hydrogen is simply another ecoscam:
Currently the dominant technology for direct production of hydrogen is steam reforming from hydrocarbons. Thus the fossil fuel energy inputs to make hydrogen, store it, distribute it, load it, and burn it far outweigh simply burning the original natural gas to begin with. Not to mention the exorbitantly expensive infrastructure to do all of the above.
However, Obama bailed on hydrogen not because it’s any better or any worse than any of the other eco-energy scams, but because hydrogen is obtained from natural gas, yet another evil product of evil fossil fuels in an industry that requires no Federal subsidies to exist, and therefore is a political force that opposes a larger Federal government and the Marxist Rat politicians that strive otherwise.
Obama wants to destroy fossil fuel interests and their political power, which he is naturally antithetical to anyway, and build a new political base of special interests by lavishing massive federal taxpayer-funded give-aways on any and all crack-brained schemes as long as they are not nuclear or fossil fuel based. His plan is to develop large numbers of industries like corn-based ethanol that are unable to exist without permanent and continuous taxpayer handouts, and which therefore become yet another potent entitlement group that must support Rat politicians for their continued survival.