Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hydrogen should take priority over biofuel in aviation
Flight Global ^ | 11/30/2010 | Kerry Reals

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 ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aerospace; aviation; aviationfuel; fuel; hydrogen

1 posted on 12/01/2010 9:47:13 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 1COUNTER-MORTER-68; Mr. Mojo; James C. Bennett; mowowie; Captain Beyond; darkwing104; JRios1968; ...

Ping


2 posted on 12/01/2010 9:53:18 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

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.


3 posted on 12/01/2010 9:56:46 PM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pallis

I agree.But its not the aviation industry that is pursuing it. Both the USAF and USN is looking into this.


4 posted on 12/01/2010 9:58:13 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pallis

At Edwards AFB they are testing planes with 50/50 blends.


5 posted on 12/01/2010 9:59:37 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

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.


6 posted on 12/01/2010 10:16:49 PM PST by InABunkerUnderSF (Anyone who has read Roman history knows a barbarian invasion when they see one in progress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

What a bunch of crap... H2 is at best an energy storage system, and a poor one at that.


7 posted on 12/01/2010 10:31:45 PM PST by babygene (Figures don't lie, but liars can figure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

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.


8 posted on 12/01/2010 10:43:00 PM PST by jonrick46 (We're being water boarded with the sewage of Fabian Socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld
Hydrogen is a STORE of energy. It must be generated from a SOURCE of energy. Typically electrolysis of water or scavenged from natural gas. It is inefficient to produce and transport. The only reason to bother with hydrogen is where the combustion products should not be toxic e.g. in a space craft. It makes no sense for a car or airplane.
9 posted on 12/01/2010 10:53:34 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld
Why not - it worked out so well for the Hindenburg.
10 posted on 12/01/2010 11:01:07 PM PST by Slings and Arrows (You can't have IngSoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

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?


11 posted on 12/01/2010 11:09:53 PM PST by Strk321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

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.


12 posted on 12/01/2010 11:32:26 PM PST by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strk321
I think the Hindenburg disaster was as much about the paint on the skin as the use of hydrogen. Hydrogen certainly contributed to the problem. Helium would have been safer. Mythbusters did a nice show on the issue of the paint with finely divided metal particles contributing to the big, flashy flare up. Hydrogen ordinarily burns with a colorless or pale blue flame. Finely divided iron, aluminum or magnesium burns very hot.

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.

13 posted on 12/01/2010 11:44:07 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Skepolitic

Hydrogen simply does not have the energy density to act a fuel for air breathing engine powered airplane


14 posted on 12/01/2010 11:59:34 PM PST by rdcbn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: InABunkerUnderSF

I’d feel safe on an airplane powered with helium.


15 posted on 12/02/2010 12:12:37 AM PST by Arthur McGowan (In Edward Kennedy's America, federal funding of brothels is a right, not a privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

“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.


16 posted on 12/02/2010 1:04:48 AM PST by Strk321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

Those are so safe they don’t even need wings.


17 posted on 12/02/2010 1:45:31 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TenthAmendmentChampion; Clive; scripter; Darnright; WL-law; bamahead; carolinablonde; ...
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

18 posted on 12/02/2010 3:21:26 AM PST by steelyourfaith (ObamaCare Death Panels: a Final Solution to the looming Social Security crisis ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: pallis

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.


19 posted on 12/02/2010 3:52:07 AM PST by FreedomPoster (No Representation without Taxation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: babygene

It worked so well for the Hindenburg...


20 posted on 12/02/2010 3:58:07 AM PST by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Slings and Arrows

LOL Like minds...


21 posted on 12/02/2010 3:58:41 AM PST by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

“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.


22 posted on 12/02/2010 4:20:09 AM PST by RoadTest (Religion is a substitute for the relationship God wants with you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

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


23 posted on 12/02/2010 4:32:55 AM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. D.E. +12 .....( History is a process, not an event ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest
The fuel cell is the engine of the future

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.

24 posted on 12/02/2010 5:01:04 AM PST by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: palmer

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.


25 posted on 12/02/2010 5:29:40 AM PST by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BobL
All their talk about nuclear is too cheap to meter (e.g. Sec. Chu)
26 posted on 12/02/2010 5:33:10 AM PST by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: babygene

Besides water vapor, the product of combustion, overwhelms carbon dioxide as a purported greenhouse gas.


27 posted on 12/02/2010 5:39:57 AM PST by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: InABunkerUnderSF
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.

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?

28 posted on 12/02/2010 5:52:56 AM PST by SeeSac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wastoute

*chuckle*


29 posted on 12/02/2010 6:11:44 AM PST by Slings and Arrows (You can't have IngSoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: monocle

But the natural water cycle overwhelms man-made water vapor from irrigation which overwhelms man-made water vapor from combustion.


30 posted on 12/02/2010 6:58:15 AM PST by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: palmer

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.


31 posted on 12/02/2010 7:26:01 AM PST by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: palmer

“All their talk about nuclear is too cheap to meter (e.g. Sec. Chu)”

Very good!


32 posted on 12/02/2010 7:55:55 AM PST by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

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.


33 posted on 12/02/2010 7:59:02 AM PST by surfer (To err is human, to really foul things up takes a Democrat, don't expect the GOP to have the answer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monocle

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.


34 posted on 12/02/2010 8:01:45 AM PST by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: palmer

Food for thought


35 posted on 12/02/2010 2:43:08 PM PST by RoadTest (Religion is a substitute for the relationship God wants with you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

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.


36 posted on 12/02/2010 4:04:51 PM PST by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Made from The Right Stuff!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson