3 ms·
Hmm... I don't think that takes into account the weight of the tankage. 700 bar tanks aren't light, especially not ones that can resist hydrogen embrittlement.
by Turing_Machine 5y ago
Hmm... I don't think that takes into account the weight of the tankage.
700 bar tanks aren't light, especially not ones that can resist hydrogen embrittlement.
- coderenegade 5y agoThe best metric is %-wt of hydrogen. Compressed hydrogen tanks go from 4.5-7% hydrogen by weight. I've read state-of-the-art vessels can get as high as 10%. Liquid ammonia is 17% hydrogen by weight, so as long as the tanks don't erode this too much, you're still doing better than compressed H2.
- ncmncm 5y agoLH2 tanks may be very lightweight. Given good insulation, that is much preferred, particularly for aviation.
- lambdatronics 5y agoRight, for large aircraft LH2 might be the way to go. General aviation is more likely to be looking at pressurized H2 due to boil-off.
- ncmncm 5y agoLH2 will not be practical for most small aircraft, although "business jets" will probably take it up. Most of the rest will continue to rely on gasoline or propane. Eventually it will be cheaper to synthesize this from atmospheric CO2 than to mine it.
- lambdatronics 5y agoRight, boil-off is a problem for general aviation, so compressed H2 is the hydrogen option there, which is less attractive. Although, Universal Hydrogen[0] has a wild idea: "... the development of a state-of-the-art uncooled liquid hydrogen storage system that will be able to store liquid hydrogen without venting for over two days. This storage life will be achieved through the use of a specially insulated dual- walled aluminium capsule that allows the pressure inside to build up without exhausting the boil-off." Yikes. [0] https://hydrogen.aero/career-list/?gh_jid=4150445004 https://hydrogen.aero/career-list/?gh_jid=4150445004