10 ms·

Hydrogen makes sense for long haul, ships, trucks and possibly airlines. Ideally we just bring back hydrogen airships. Hindenburg was primarily caused by flamma

Hydrogen makes sense for long haul, ships, trucks and possibly airlines. Ideally we just bring back hydrogen airships. Hindenburg was primarily caused by flammable paint, not hydrogen.

quijoteuniv 4y ago
Airships!
seqastian 4y ago
moving hydrogen is so hilariously in efficient though. It would have to be produced right where you fill the tank of those ships, trucks and planes.
- BlackSwanManZ 4y ago
  Have you never heard of pipelines?
- nojito 4y ago
  >moving hydrogen is so hilariously in efficient though This hasn't been true for years. Not sure where you're getting your information from.
- adrianN 4y ago
  A megawatt electrolyser fits in a cargo container, so that's not as impractical as it sounds. But personally I think at least for ships ammonia is the nicer fuel.
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    Ammonia is so much more practical than elemental hydrogen that a hydrogen-based project inherently has the appearance of a toy. This is especially true in agricultural areas where existing infrastructure already produces and distributes ammonia in massive quantity for use as fertilizer.
- b112 4y ago
  moving hydrogen is so hilariously in efficient though. No, no it isn't inefficient.
  - CodeSgt 4y ago
    I mean, I think we know what they meant. Let's not be pedantic when the meaning of their comment is clear.
    - b112 4y ago
      If you see my other comments, I am not making fun of a space.
      - CodeSgt 4y ago
        Ah, my mistake then.
  - JonChesterfield 4y ago
    What do you propose storing it in? It leaks through most materials and makes steels unusably brittle while doing so.
    - oconnore 4y ago
      The new tanks are fiber wrapped composite, not steel.
      - b112 4y ago
        But ignoring this, allows the anti-h2 crowd to continue to deride h2 tech. The heart of this often claims that h2 is polluting, based upon the fact that currently, we source a lot of h2 from Ng. Of course this disregards that electricity is often derived from dirty sources too, meaning, all the same arguments should be levied against battery based power sources too. What we need, is to get non polluting engine/point of use tech out there, asap! And h2 is the only tech which provides the range, due to refueling speed, to replace many applications. Without end of use clean tech, we have zero hope. Any environmentalist should be happy, joyful, exuberant with h2. Sadly, endless division exists.
- luplex 4y ago
  It is inefficient to produce and store, but do we have a more efficient alternative that can be rolled out at global scale? Batteries are more efficient at storing energy, but I'm not convinced we can build enough of them as quickly as we need to.
  - Zigurd 4y ago
    Re "do we have a more efficient alternative that can be rolled out at global scale?" Possibly ammonia.
  - parkingrift 4y ago
    Batteries aren’t an answer for anything but cars. Honestly even for cars they still aren’t a great answer. They are way too heavy and take up too much space. There are all sorts of problems to solve with hydrogen, but I think we’re closer to solving those problems than we are to increasing battery density by an order of magnitude.
    - empyrrhicist 4y ago
      > They are way too heavy and take up too much space. Can you clarify? Currently have a Chevy Bolt and it is great...
      - parkingrift 4y ago
        Sure. Electric vehicles have enormous batteries which weigh thousands of pounds and take up a substantial portion of interior volume. We’re at the bleeding edge of battery tech and the best we’re able to achieve is 300ish miles of range. We can’t realistically expand this to 500 to 1,500 miles anytime in the next decade or so. As example compare the Model 3 and a CRV. This is an absurd example because the CRV is an SUV, but the comparison is telling given the weight differences. The Model 3 weighs 4,200 pounds with 97 cubic feet of interior passenger space. A Honda CRV weighs 3,500 pounds and 103 cubic feet of interior passenger space. So we have a smaller car that is quite a bit heavier and it’s almost exclusively due to the battery. Tesla can’t cram more battery into that car so the only option is to dramatically increase energy density. There is nothing in the horizon except incremental improvements.
- closedloop129 4y ago
  If you transport it with airships, is transport still inefficient?
- danans 4y ago
  > moving hydrogen is so hilariously in efficient though. It would have to be produced right where you fill the tank of those ships, trucks and planes. Exactly! I see hundreds of H2 generation facilities adjacent to trucking routes near the massive wind resources of the US great plains. Each would have a fuel stop with high efficiency H2 electrolyzers and tanks that buffer H2 using wind piwer when it's available, so intermittency won't matter, since stationary hydrogen storage is a solved problem. Hydrolysis is also a solved problem, and getting more efficient constantly (currently up to 70%). Oh, and the facility's only exhaust is oxygen. Substitute wind with the locally abundant source of renewable energy, and presto, no shipping of hydrogen needed.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents The popular narrative that airships were ended by the Hindenburg disaster is a misleading oversimplification; the truth is the Hindenburg was only the final straw and helium airships had already proven themselves to be very dangerous as well. They were marginally safer, but not substantially so. Even when they didn't burn, airships were prone to being destroyed by a stiff breeze. The deadliest airship disaster of them all was a helium airship broken up by the wind, the USS Akron: 73 dead, 3 survivors. Compared to the Hindenburg's 36 dead, 62 survivors. This said, in some of those accidents the hydrogen's flammability played a larger role in the fatalities. When R101 crashed, a lot of people survived the crash to the ground but subsequently perished in the hydrogen fire. Contrast that with the USS Shenandoah, which broke up midair in the wind. 14 men were killed but 29 survived by riding pieces fragments of the destroyed airship down to the ground.

Hydrogen makes sense for long haul, ships, trucks and possibly airlines. Ideally we just bring back hydrogen airships. Hindenburg was primarily caused by flammable paint, not hydrogen.

quijoteuniv 4y ago

Airships!

seqastian 4y ago

moving hydrogen is so hilariously in efficient though. It would have to be produced right where you fill the tank of those ships, trucks and planes.

BlackSwanManZ 4y ago
Have you never heard of pipelines?
nojito 4y ago
>moving hydrogen is so hilariously in efficient though This hasn't been true for years. Not sure where you're getting your information from.
adrianN 4y ago
A megawatt electrolyser fits in a cargo container, so that's not as impractical as it sounds. But personally I think at least for ships ammonia is the nicer fuel.
- jessaustin 4y ago
  Ammonia is so much more practical than elemental hydrogen that a hydrogen-based project inherently has the appearance of a toy. This is especially true in agricultural areas where existing infrastructure already produces and distributes ammonia in massive quantity for use as fertilizer.
b112 4y ago
moving hydrogen is so hilariously in efficient though. No, no it isn't inefficient.
- CodeSgt 4y ago
  I mean, I think we know what they meant. Let's not be pedantic when the meaning of their comment is clear.
  - b112 4y ago
    If you see my other comments, I am not making fun of a space.
    - CodeSgt 4y ago
      Ah, my mistake then.
- JonChesterfield 4y ago
  What do you propose storing it in? It leaks through most materials and makes steels unusably brittle while doing so.
  - oconnore 4y ago
    The new tanks are fiber wrapped composite, not steel.
    - b112 4y ago
      But ignoring this, allows the anti-h2 crowd to continue to deride h2 tech. The heart of this often claims that h2 is polluting, based upon the fact that currently, we source a lot of h2 from Ng. Of course this disregards that electricity is often derived from dirty sources too, meaning, all the same arguments should be levied against battery based power sources too. What we need, is to get non polluting engine/point of use tech out there, asap! And h2 is the only tech which provides the range, due to refueling speed, to replace many applications. Without end of use clean tech, we have zero hope. Any environmentalist should be happy, joyful, exuberant with h2. Sadly, endless division exists.
luplex 4y ago
It is inefficient to produce and store, but do we have a more efficient alternative that can be rolled out at global scale? Batteries are more efficient at storing energy, but I'm not convinced we can build enough of them as quickly as we need to.
- Zigurd 4y ago
  Re "do we have a more efficient alternative that can be rolled out at global scale?" Possibly ammonia.
- parkingrift 4y ago
  Batteries aren’t an answer for anything but cars. Honestly even for cars they still aren’t a great answer. They are way too heavy and take up too much space. There are all sorts of problems to solve with hydrogen, but I think we’re closer to solving those problems than we are to increasing battery density by an order of magnitude.
  - empyrrhicist 4y ago
    > They are way too heavy and take up too much space. Can you clarify? Currently have a Chevy Bolt and it is great...
    - parkingrift 4y ago
      Sure. Electric vehicles have enormous batteries which weigh thousands of pounds and take up a substantial portion of interior volume. We’re at the bleeding edge of battery tech and the best we’re able to achieve is 300ish miles of range. We can’t realistically expand this to 500 to 1,500 miles anytime in the next decade or so. As example compare the Model 3 and a CRV. This is an absurd example because the CRV is an SUV, but the comparison is telling given the weight differences. The Model 3 weighs 4,200 pounds with 97 cubic feet of interior passenger space. A Honda CRV weighs 3,500 pounds and 103 cubic feet of interior passenger space. So we have a smaller car that is quite a bit heavier and it’s almost exclusively due to the battery. Tesla can’t cram more battery into that car so the only option is to dramatically increase energy density. There is nothing in the horizon except incremental improvements.
closedloop129 4y ago
If you transport it with airships, is transport still inefficient?
danans 4y ago
> moving hydrogen is so hilariously in efficient though. It would have to be produced right where you fill the tank of those ships, trucks and planes. Exactly! I see hundreds of H2 generation facilities adjacent to trucking routes near the massive wind resources of the US great plains. Each would have a fuel stop with high efficiency H2 electrolyzers and tanks that buffer H2 using wind piwer when it's available, so intermittency won't matter, since stationary hydrogen storage is a solved problem. Hydrolysis is also a solved problem, and getting more efficient constantly (currently up to 70%). Oh, and the facility's only exhaust is oxygen. Substitute wind with the locally abundant source of renewable energy, and presto, no shipping of hydrogen needed.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents The popular narrative that airships were ended by the Hindenburg disaster is a misleading oversimplification; the truth is the Hindenburg was only the final straw and helium airships had already proven themselves to be very dangerous as well. They were marginally safer, but not substantially so. Even when they didn't burn, airships were prone to being destroyed by a stiff breeze. The deadliest airship disaster of them all was a helium airship broken up by the wind, the USS Akron: 73 dead, 3 survivors. Compared to the Hindenburg's 36 dead, 62 survivors. This said, in some of those accidents the hydrogen's flammability played a larger role in the fatalities. When R101 crashed, a lot of people survived the crash to the ground but subsequently perished in the hydrogen fire. Contrast that with the USS Shenandoah, which broke up midair in the wind. 14 men were killed but 29 survived by riding pieces fragments of the destroyed airship down to the ground.