5 ms·

H2 fuel is absolutely practical and we're integrating it into designs as we speak. However, we are using Cryogenic Liquid H2 (conforming to IMO IGC(1)) which ms

H2 fuel is absolutely practical and we're integrating it into designs as we speak. However, we are using Cryogenic Liquid H2 (conforming to IMO IGC(1)) which msy be stored at atmospheric pressure, not compressed gas, although additional regulations for shipboard H2 storage are emerging as the popularity grows(2). It's not dissimilar from carrying LNG. Biofuels still release GHG's (2), not just carbon), and it's arguable how much is recovered. The Nitrogen released still contribute to acid rain. Why go through this messy hassle and guessing game when we already have a perfectly environmentally clean cycle of breaking down H20 into H and O2 via renewables, then recombining the H with free O2 in fuel cells to produce e- and exhaust only water? 1. International Code for Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases (http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/ChemicalPollution/Pages/IGCCode.aspx http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPreventio...) 2. http://gcaptain.com/classnk-releases-guidelines-liquefied-hydrogen-carriers/ http://gcaptain.com/classnk-releases-guidelines-liquefied-hy... 3. http://biofuel.org.uk/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html http://biofuel.org.uk/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

nradov 8y ago
Breaking down water into hydrogen and then processing it through a fuel cell is very energy inefficient. Unless we have some breakthrough efficiency improvements, hydrogen fuel will probably never be economically viable on a large scale.
- mojomark 8y ago
  I hear this argument all the time, and asside from being unfounded, it makes absolutely no sense. Even in it's infancy, H2 cost is just a little higher than gasoline at the pump (1). From someone who works in the sector on a daily basis, H2 production from offshore wind powered electrolosis is (and will continue to be) growing to meet increasing demand. The energy to perform electrolosys comes from renewables like wind and solar, the efficiency of which (primarilly concerning the fully burdoned CAPEX/OPEX of renewable power plant to shipboard fuel cost - i.e. tnhe "cost at the pump") is certainly competitive with diesel fuel prices when you factor in efficiency gains of fuel cells over diesel engines over the full range of power loading. Not too mention the indirect envoronmental gains cost avoidance engine integrators realize by not having to buy additional pollution abatement systems (e.g. EGRs, Scrubbers, SCRs, etc). It's really a no brainer. 1. https://cafcp.org/content/cost-refill https://cafcp.org/content/cost-refill

nradov 8y ago

Breaking down water into hydrogen and then processing it through a fuel cell is very energy inefficient. Unless we have some breakthrough efficiency improvements, hydrogen fuel will probably never be economically viable on a large scale.

mojomark 8y ago
I hear this argument all the time, and asside from being unfounded, it makes absolutely no sense. Even in it's infancy, H2 cost is just a little higher than gasoline at the pump (1). From someone who works in the sector on a daily basis, H2 production from offshore wind powered electrolosis is (and will continue to be) growing to meet increasing demand. The energy to perform electrolosys comes from renewables like wind and solar, the efficiency of which (primarilly concerning the fully burdoned CAPEX/OPEX of renewable power plant to shipboard fuel cost - i.e. tnhe "cost at the pump") is certainly competitive with diesel fuel prices when you factor in efficiency gains of fuel cells over diesel engines over the full range of power loading. Not too mention the indirect envoronmental gains cost avoidance engine integrators realize by not having to buy additional pollution abatement systems (e.g. EGRs, Scrubbers, SCRs, etc). It's really a no brainer. 1. https://cafcp.org/content/cost-refill https://cafcp.org/content/cost-refill