From the CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS and the “those who don’t pay attention to history are condemned to repeat it” department. See the money quote about kerosene below, bold mine.
Liquid hydrogen may be way forward for sustainable air travel
Professor Hermans from Leiden University’s famous Huygen’s Laboratory acknowledges that oil-based liquid fuels such as gasoline, diesel and kerosene will be hard to beat when it comes to how much energy they pack in relation to their volume and weight–not to mention the sheer convenience of using them to get from A to B.
The author of popular books such as Physics is Fun (2012) and Energy Survival Guide (2011) acknowledges that achieving sustainable transport in the post-fossil fuel era will be a huge challenge–but finds that liquid hydrogen could offer a potential solution for future air travel.
“Given the severe weight limitations for fuel in aircraft, liquid hydrogen may be a viable alternative in the long run,” he argues:
- First, handling of liquid hydrogen would be carried out by professionals, which reduces the safety issues involved with liquid hydrogen to the same level of risk involved in handling kerosene.
- Second, liquid hydrogen itself is very light (in fact, it is in a gaseous state at ordinary temperatures), which is an important advantage for air travel.
- Third, the disadvantages of “boil off” (created by the low boiling point of liquid hydrogen) would be reduced in air travel because of the low outside temperature at cruising altitudes.
Hermans discounts the use of solar power for air travel without revolutionary changes in the airplane concept, but concludes that it seems wise to extend the availability of oil products as long as possible. However, he argues that the low cost of kerosene is a huge disincentive in this respect:
“It is a defect that kerosene is so irrationally cheap, which triggers much unnecessary air travel,” he writes. “A worldwide tax on kerosene–if at all politically possible–should be something to pursue.”
For road transport, Hermans argues that liquid hydrogen is not a viable option due to safety issues around handling it. He finds that electric vehicles offer the most promising solution. However, the challenge is to improve the performance of batteries to prolong the driving time for electric cars, as well as improving the performance of supercapacitors for more rapid charging of the batteries, he argues.
Direct driving using solar power is difficult, Hermans finds, even under a clear sky. However, students from Eindhoven University of Technology are among those that have taken up the challenge; they built a four-seater solar-powered family car that can be driven indefinitely under clear skies at a speed of about 43km/h. The only drawback is that the car is just over 1m tall and is not very comfortable. Hermans concludes that solar family cars will be feasible in future if consumers are willing to sacrifice on comfort.
Alternatively, Hermans writes, the most efficient way for us to reduce energy use in future is to reduce our mobility, for example, by having shorter distances between the workplace and home. “In other words, urban planning provides an important key,” he concludes.
###
MRS E&S, a journal of the Materials Research Society and Cambridge University Press, encourages contributions that provide viewpoints and perspectives on the all-important issue of how humankind can work towards, and build, a sustainable future.
The contents of this press release refer to the following article which is freely available
The challenge of energy-efficient transportation, by Professor Jo Hermans
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
These are topics I have spent considerable time and energy working with. Liquid hydrogen requires a lot of additional kinetic energy to be imparted to make it liquid and that energy has to be made from other fuels. Any liquid fuel that instantly vaporizes at ambient temperatures is far more dangerous than those that remain liquid. Diesel fuel does not release vapor below 40 deg C making it extremely safe relative to all other liquid fuels yet retains tremendous energy density.
Hydrogen powered aircraft cannot use jet turbines but must instead use a hydrogen fuel cell, i.e., battery to drive an electric prop motor. Therefore the altitude and speed are severely limited.
Finally it is well know that Great Britain and it’s educational institutions are more inclined towards the arts and law and weak in the sciences. Re: Leiden University’s famous Huygen’s Laboratory may have been “famous” once upon a time because of some great scientists…… but where are they today? Not in GB. If you want solid scientific advancement with respect to alternative energy solutions for travel etc. don’t look to GB…
The best work in applied science these days is happening in Russia followed by Germany and China….
Check out the book entitled “Power Hungry” by Robert Bryce……. https://www.amazon.ca/Power-Hungry-Myths-Energy-Future/dp/1586489534
Source on air-breathing turbines cannot use hydrogen? Some of the prototypes in what became the SR-71 program used hydrogen, but could not get useful range, so i wonder what your source is.
Tom – Scramjet engines use hydrogen as fuel and burn it using air drawn from the atmosphere, but they do not have compressors or turbines like a conventional jet engine. They are also different than a rocket, which carries both liquid fuel and oxidizer in tanks.
More here…
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0170.shtml
That’ll go over like a metallic hydrogen balloon.
This Hermans guy is obviously just dazed and confused.
The professor’s bio:
L.J.F. (Jo) Hermans
Jo Hermans is professor of physics emeritus at Leiden University.
He was also part-time professor at Eindhoven University of Technology, and visiting professor at Princeton University, Kyoto University and Universtite de Paris.
His research focused on the role of internal degrees of freedom on collision processes in polyatomic gases, on molecule-surface interactions, on light-induced kinetic phenomena and on nuclear spin conversion in polyatomic molecules.
His teaching activities included freshmen and graduate courses on general physics for medical students, on kinetic theory and transport processes, on optics and on molecule-surface interactions.
In addition to his scientific career he served on a number of Committees and Boards, and was vice-Dean of the Science Faculty at Leiden University. He was also actively involved in various outreach activities.
These include popular scientific talks on national radio broadcast, numerous lectures for schools and the general public, and three books (in Dutch) aimed at the general public:
– ENERGIE, een blik in de toekomst (met A.J. Hoff, Het Spectrum, 1982);
– HOOR JE BETER IN HET DONKER? Antwoord op alledaagse vragen (Betatext, 2006; four editions, 17 000 copies);
– Energie survival gids (Betatext, november 2008).
He is Science Editor of Europhysics News (the magazine of the European physics community and the membership journal of the European Physical Society) and columnist of “Het Financieele Dagblad”.
Sadly, it all seems to boil down to: “He used to be able to think.”
I think he is just being used, now. That is too bad (not sarcastic).
The climate fanatics are really transparent and unpleasant when they show their true faces.
I have this nice idea to store the hydrogen by attaching it to little nano sized carbon chains. Fuel will be liquid at room temperature and have high energy density. 🙂
As for ammonia as a fuel I read something about the use of ammonia during the X-15 rocket plane program. Author said it convinced all the rocket engineers NEVER to use ammonia again. I’m hard pressed to think of another rocket that used it.
“I have this nice idea to store the hydrogen by attaching it to little nano sized carbon chains. Fuel will be liquid at room temperature and have high energy density. :-)”
Let’s hope some of the students raise their hands and say that! 😀
As an aircraft fuel hydrogen may have some advantages. Back in the mid 1950s Lockheed skunk works did a lot of work on liquid hydrogen for the supersonic successor to the U-2. This work was valuable for Apollo but the successor to the U-2 was the SR-71 which used hydrocarbon fuel as the LH2 powered aircraft couldn’t do the mission demanded.
I support decreased regulation on nuclear. duh.
I see no cause for alarm WRT climate change. either fake alarm from skeptics WRT carbon taxes or fake alarm about warming
Forest,
What would be the point of Me pointing out what is Obvious?
I did more than my fair share of calling out Jones, and Mann, Wadhams, and Lewandosky, not to mention
catching Glieck
The MINUTE any skeptic comes as close to my record in criticizing one’s own team, you let me know.
the Minute any skeptic turns another skeptic in for forging documents you let me know
So ya the idea in the post is nuts,
Wow, extremely uncomfortable driving at a whopping 43km/hour! Where do I sign up!?
The dangers of hydrogen for lift in airships is overstated- Hindenburg’s loss was most likely due to imperfect design, possibly static buildup between H2 bladders. As a fuel for anything, hydrogen has many limitations, not the least of which is the amount of energy needed to produce it for the energy return. Hydrogen is a viable alternative for lighter-than-air flight given technological advances.
Mike T, you will need to provide something more than just your “Mike T saith” to qualify yourself as an expert witness. Either that, or provide some good cites to evidence for your claims. Otherwise, your comment will just float off like a dandelion seed in the wind.
Did you not notice all the STRONG refutation of your comment in the thread above your comment?
You have a pretty strong burden of production and proof to meet, Mr. T.!
“Hindenburg’s loss was most likely due to imperfect design, possibly static buildup between H2 bladders.”
Or Not!
You could say that the embargo on Germany with regards to helium forced them to use hydrogen was the root cause of the disaster. Either way, we will never know for sure, only speculate.
Global production of hydrogen has been fairly consistent for the last five years peaking at 14,391.1 million standard cubic feet per day in 2015. The United States produced 30% of that total.
http://hydrogen.pnl.gov/hydrogen-data/refinery-hydrogen-production-capacities-country
$1.7 trillion dollars put into into infrastructure could make hydrogen fuel available for a fraction of the surface vehicles on the planet by 2050 if costs and technical challenges are overcome. Current hydrogen production is consumed in chemical and refinery industries.
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/essentials5.pdf
Hydrogen fuel is expensive. A 2016 Edmunds long-term road test compares fuel costs of the hydrogen powered Toyota Mirai to a conventional gasoline powered Prius. The hydrogen powered Mirai averages 19.2 to 24.8 cents per mile compared to 4.1 cents per mile for the Prius just for fuel comparison. The overall operating costs per mile are unknown.
https://www.edmunds.com/toyota/mirai/2016/long-term-road-test/2016-toyota-mirai-hydrogen-is-ridiculously-expensive-or-free.html
Your implication that the use of hydrogen for propulsion of heavier-than-air aircraft is comparable and has the same or worse dangers as use of hydrogen for lift in lighter-than-air aircraft is truly asinine. Truly.
DHR: Your comment is, as written, nonsense. Parsing and annotating it for clarity:
1) Anthony correctly implied that the hydrogen proposal of Herman the Zealot is comparable to using hydrogen in other applications.
2) You put words into Anthony’s mouth by writing “and has the same…,” implying asininely that Anthony could not assert comparability unless he also, necessarily, asserted equality (“same”) or aggravation (“worse.”)
No WONDER you do not reveal your identity.
DHR: Have you ever worked with Hydrogen? Have you ever worked with Kerosene or Diesel fuel?
Cause you sure don’t seem to have a grasp of significant difference between two.
Yes, for about 30 years. We successfully use compressed natural gas and liquified propane contained in durable tanks as fuels for vehicles and other devices. But from my experience, I do not recommend toying with balloons filled with either of those gases or with hydrogen.
Except that Anthony was spot on: hydrogen is a dangerous fuel. Highly corrosive, difficult to handle, low energy density, requires more energy to produce than it creates, and burning it creates huge amounts water vapor. The burning zepplin is a great icon for a stupid doomed idea.
Hydrogen is commercially produced my subjecting natural gas to super heated steam. In the past it was made with coal and steam and frequent explosions. However it is made the cost of the hydrogen is a lot more expensive than natural gas or coal. It would be much easier to simply burn natural gas in the aircraft or autos. The net CO2 production would be about the same.
Producing hydrogen by electrolysis of water is terribly inefficient. First electricity has to be produced with about half of the potential energy lost in that process. We don’t have freely available hydrogen on our planet. I understand it can be found in abundance on Jupiter.
“First, handling of liquid hydrogen would be carried out by professionals, which reduces the safety issues involved with liquid hydrogen to the same level of risk involved in handling kerosene.”
Seriously??? Has this guy ever flown? Has this guy missed all Airport fiascos?
Baggage handlers – spilling bags from carts, throwing bags to ground
Airport Traffic controllers – a sleep or stoned on job
Check In attendants – booking luggage elsewhere
Mechanics – plane access panels left un-latched
Deicing of planes – that didn’t
Airplane pilots – drunk on job, take off / landing wrong runways or taxiways
TSA – need say nothing more
Dems B.
You are on the ball. Imagine how little explosive it would take to bring down an aircraft loaded with H? Kerosene is so safe that on smooth surfaces it can be used to put out fires.
As a person who designs combustors there is nothing I want to work on less than a hydrogen burning device. I was assured by Garth Foxcroft, who did, that is was a extremely difficult fuel to work with because of the extremely high flame speed – basically it blows the head off everything.
Janice Moore invokes the 97%
>> Did you not notice all the STRONG refutation of your comment in the thread above your comment? <<
SF:
I never invoked “the 97%”, moreover, I have several times on WUWT provided evidence/cites which prove it a bogus, deceptive, statistic.
Your comment is grossly in error (or a boldfaced lie).
The 97% is a lie. The claim that 97% of scientists believe such and such is an appeal to authority.
Janice on the other hand directed the reader to actual arguments that refute the point made.
Huge difference. You owe Janice an apology.
Actually, liquid hydrogen would be superior to kerosene in terms of safety under most conditions, especially in a crash situation. Though ignition would be assured in such a case, hydrogen and hydrogen flames disperse very quickly. Jet-A just hangs around and burns, and burns, and burns.
The only adverse safety impact would be following in-flight damage to the aircraft (as in an uncontained engine failure) where fuel tanks were penetrated. If the leaking fuel were to ignite, it would be a bad day. Unlike kerosene, hydrogen’s flame speed is high enough to sustain attached flames under all airspeed conditions (and a huge range of air/fuel ratios). It would not necessarily be a fatal day, however, if the ullage in the fuel tanks were always inert.
(this is a real question)
Isn’t, however, kerosene much less highly flammable than hydrogen (thus, less likely fire at all)?
Yes, and that makes the fueling operation more hazardous – especially since a hydrogen flame is invisible. (Back in the early Apollo program days, technicians working around LOX/hydrogen rocket test stands would walk with a broom held out in front of them. It was the only way, at the time, to avoid walking into a hydrogen fire). But we’ve been working with liquid hydrogen for 65 years, now, and there have been no accidents. I think it could be mastered.
“First, handling of liquid hydrogen would be carried out by professionals, which reduces the safety issues involved with liquid hydrogen to the same level of risk involved in handling kerosene.” Utter nonsense based on abysmal ignorance. I’ve worked around liquid hydrogen. Liquid hydrogen is nothing like kerosene. The explosive concentration limits of hydrogen range from 4 to 75%. For kerosene, the range is 0.7 to 5%.
“Second, liquid hydrogen itself is very light (in fact, it is in a gaseous state at ordinary temperatures), which is an important advantage for air travel.”
As others have noted, above, the low density of liquid hydrogen is an important disadvantage for air travel.
“Third, the disadvantages of “boil off” (created by the low boiling point of liquid hydrogen) would be reduced in air travel because of the low outside temperature at cruising altitudes.”
Boil off is proportional to the differential temperature (ΔT) between the liquid hydrogen, minus 423°F, and ambient T. Assuming ground T of 60F and cruising T of -40F, the ΔT at cruising altitude will be 383F. At ground, the ΔT is 483F. Yes, boil-off is reduced, but only by 20%! Insignificant.
There is a difference between fighting a fire and a detonation. Hydrogen has an explosive range and a detonation range.
I used to work in a chemical plant that made hydrogen as a by product from the electrolysis process for Caustic soda and Chlorine from salt and water. We would gather the hydrogen in a large header and compress it to feed another burner system to make Hydrochloric acid. Hydrogen is such a small molecule it is almost impossible to seal it in any closed system. All of the flanges, pipe joints, valves and connections leaked regardless of what we tried to seal them with. After the skin of the compressor building was blown off of the support structure three times we gave up and left the compressors “outside” in the cold winter. The solution was to insulate all of the piping more as a result but there were no more explosions from the trapped gas. The original buildings were ventilated to code but the explosions still happened. Another strange thing with hydrogen that people tend to ignore is it is very easy to get it to com-bust. We had a number of occasions where the exhaust stacks on the process would ignite from the static caused by a heavy wet snow striking the stack during a snow storm. Using hydrogen as a transport fuel on an airplane is going to reduce air travel by the fact that the safety of air travel is going to nonexistent.
Ending freedom of travel is apparently important to the author of this anti-scientific article.
“First, handling of liquid hydrogen would be carried out by professionals, which reduces the safety issues involved with liquid hydrogen to the same level of risk involved in handling kerosene.”
That makes me nervous. The word professional only means that somebody makes money doing a thing. It does not necessarily mean that someone is good at doing that thing.
Human beings are notoriously bad at repetitive jobs. Those ‘professionals’ would make me nervous too.
One future method of producing hydrogen in the future is using high temperature gas cooled reactors. This is is produce hydrogen more efficiently.
he says ” which triggers much unnecessary air travel,”
I wonder how many climate conferences he has been to. ?
“achieving sustainable transport in the post-fossil fuel era will be a huge challenge”
Seriously, am I the only one who wishes people would think about what they mean by “sustainable?”
Unless we repeal the laws of entropy, that word should be thrown in the trash bin where it belongs.
“…am I the only one who wishes people would think about what they mean by “sustainable?”
Unless we repeal the laws of entropy, that word should be thrown in the trash bin where it belongs.”
+1 It’s a virtue signaling buzz word. The second it’s used the BS meter pegs.
OT but using the same theme is this gem from Australiastan , a university has found oz is ok to go 100% renewables and do it cheaper than coal or gas .
We can’t build water storage dams for drought mitigation in our land of droughts and flooding rains but now we can for seawater pumped hydro setups .
Wonder if the guy advocating hydrogen studied in oz ?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-27/100-per-cent-renewable-network-possible/8306482
The hydrogen fuel tanks ruptured in the Challenger Disaster.
Not that this was the cause, but it certainly finished things off.
Even professionals make mistakes.
These rocket fuels are too dangerous to have widespread application on Airports or over cities.
“Third, the disadvantages of “boil off” (created by the low boiling point of liquid hydrogen) would be reduced in air travel because of the low outside temperature at cruising altitudes.”
Whilst that is true, the friction on the skin of the plane can make it quite hot and that would have to insulated against.