This is sd's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following sd's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering, entreprenuer
Interests: diesel and gasoline engines, cars, aircraft, railroads, electric drives
Recent Activity
If this works as stated and is scalable and cost effective, it is a good thing as 95% efficiency is considerably better than 75% and there is clearly a need for clean hydrogen. My own recommendation for hydrogen production would be the high temperature Sulfur Iodine reaction using a high temperature nuclear reactor ( ) but this requires a temperature in excess of 850 deg C will not be commercially available any time soon. It has a thermal efficiency of about 50% but does not require any electricity and all of the reagents are completely recycled so the only output is H2 and O2.
This seems to be a winning idea. The school buses have a fixed route, have all night to recharge and are usually idle for a good part of the day. The converted buses will have much less maintenance, lower fuel costs and be cleaner and easier to drive.
Davemart, I have to say that I know more about fixed wing aircraft. There have been a number of attempts to build a faster helicopter while keeping the ability to hover. One problem with going faster with a helicopter is that as you go faster, you develop more lift with the upwind blade and less with the downwind blade. One way around this is to use counter rotating blades. See Another way is use short wings that develop more lift as you go faster which is what Piasecki is doing. Personally, I think that the tilt rotor system that Bell/Boeing uses for the V-22 Osprey is a better design, Bell also has a a newer version the V-280 Valor. See The V-22 had a lot of initial developmental problems but it seems to working OK now. The Joby design uses 6 tilt rotors while other designs us a number of other design use a large number of vertical only rotors and separate forward light propellers. I suspect that one of the reasons for Joby's using 6 rotors is for redundancy so it will keep flying if one motor fails. The V-22 Osprey uses a complex shaft system between the 2 rotors so it will run on one engine. I do not know if it is possible to do an emergency auto rotate landing without power. I could have asked last week as they had an Osprey at the Oshkosh airshow. Maybe next time.
Davemart: Siemens may be researching LOHC and may have developed hydrogen fuel cell railcars but they have already sold more than 60 of the battery electric version of the Miero railcar.
If you are going to make hydrogen from natural gas, pyrolysis is probably the best technique as solid carbon is easier to sequester than CO2 and some can be use for existing purposes such as black paint pigment, tires, electrodes, etc. Unfortunately someone will probably decide that it is cleaner to burn than coal and it will end up becoming CO2. Davemart, The best way to transport power is not to transport it very far at all but to generate it close to where is needs to be used. Hopefully, we will get smarter about building small modular nuclear plants. If I had a sufficiently large backyard, they could build one in my backyard.
@Davemart: I am not against hydrogen. We need clean hydrogen for a whole number of things. What I am against is wasting energy when there are more efficient ways to do things especially if they also costs less. A few comments about myself. I have a undergraduate in physics and 3 graduate degrees in mechanical engineering including a doctorate all from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. My first electric car project was in 1967. I had not worked in the auto industry directly but have had job offers from both GM and Ford and have consulted for both. I am mostly retired but still advise students working on FormulaSAE Electric where the students design, build and compete with an electric race car. I have also been involved in the startup of 3 companies. I know something about engineering and consulted 2 years ago on the design of axial flux motors that were probably intended for electric drones. The project was sponsored by NASA and DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Project Agency).
@Davemart: I am relatively sure that in the US, it is considerably cheaper to make hydrogen using steam reformation than using electrolysis. But even if it is close to parity in Europe, it is still more expensive in both cost and energy use to use hydrogen as opposed to battery electric. The main problem with hydrogen using hydrolysis and fuel cells is that you are probably going to get back some where around 35 to 40 % of the power and you still have the same electric drive efficiency that a battery electric vehicle has. I could not find any specs for the power required but I would guess that it around 250 to 300 kW for each car. The older Budd Rail Diesel Cars in the US had 410 kW but there were much heavier and had a top speed of 85 mph (137 kph). The average power is probably less than 150 kW so a 300 kWhr battery which is only the equivalent of 3 Tesla cars would give you 2 hours of operation. Also some of the operation is probably either starts or ends under catenary which can be used to charge the batteries. For most cases, you do not need the expense or added complexity of fuel cells and hydrogen. Use the green hydrogen for something useful such as making ammonia for fertilizer. No one has an excess of green electric power to waste where it is not needed especially in Europe at the moment.
Gryf: Thanks for the link to Alia. What really sticks out is: "Beta reported its cost for an electric recharge was $19 for a 160 nm leg of the voyage. Compare that with the mission’s Cessna Caravan chase airplane, which required $800 in fuel for the same leg. The Alia is designed to fully recharge in less than an hour." This is exactly why Battery Electric flight is going to happen.
Lad: Lyten ( ) is supposed to have a pilot line producing LiS batteries this fall. They are promising ~900 Whr/kg which should be enough to build short haul and regional aircraft. Even if they can double this (theoretical power density is ~2500 Whr/kg). it is unlikely to be enough for transcontinental flight. However, I think that hydrogen flight is still unlikely as sustainable aircraft fuel (SAF) will be more likely and maybe ammonia which would produce only N2 and H2O.
I do not understand the enthusiasm for using hydrogen for this application except that it allows big oil to keep selling natural gas. However, there is going to be a shortage of natural gas in Europe this winter anyway. Most the local rail cars could be a combination of catenary and battery which would be more energy efficient and have an overall lower operating cost. "The two car “Hybari" train costs about $35 million ( 4 billion yen) and can travel up to 140 kilometers (87 miles) at a top speed of 100 km/h on a single filling of hydrogen." $35 million for140 kilometers at a top speed of 100 km/hr and they need hydrogen fuel cells to accomplish this? This is a joke or either it is another of Toyota's WTF projects.
I just got home from visiting EAA's (Experimental Aircraft Association) airshow in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. The only demo of a eVTOL was by the Opener Blackfly. See: This is more of a personal toy. Joby was there but did not have an operating aircraft. I think that Joby's design is better than the Archer as it does not carry any extra motors or propellers. It is also further along in development. See: One thing is sure and that is that there will be a big shake out in this market as there is far too much hype, too much money and too many players.
Finally, a reasonable use for green hydrogen. All kidding aside, I really hopes this works but even with their timeline it will be until the mid 2030s before they could have a prototype capable of producing power for the grid. Meanwhile, we need to start building Gen 4 fission power plants. There are 2 different systems that are supposed to be built within a few hundred miles of where I live (SLC, UT), a 12 unit NuScale modular light water reactor system near Idaho Falls, Idaho and a Sodium fast reactor (Natrium) in Kremmerer, Wyoming. The Natrium system is particularly interesting as it has stored high temperature salt section to provide the ability to load follow.
Davemart, In a recent thread, you argued that my suggestion that Toyota should be able to build a reasonable BEV for ~$25K (base price for a 2023 Chevy Bolt is $25,600K) was flawed as $25K was much too high a price for a lower income countries even my suggestion for for a US spec vehicle built in North America.. Now you are arguing that we should use hydrogen fuel cell vehicles which is a much more expensive solution than battery electric in terms of initial cost, energy and energy cost. I did a little more research on the companies involved, Hino is a Toyota subsidy, Toyota s minority owner of Izuzu and CJPT is a Japanese infrastructure company. This is looking more like one of Toyota's WTF hydrogen projects. Anyway, they will not find a market for this idiocy in North America. A few months ago, there was a Engineering With Rosie YouTube video titled "How Can We Decarbonise Trucking?" Her guest seemed to think that hydrogen was very unlikely even for heavy haul long distance trucking because of the high cost of hydrogen. He strongly favored BEV for local delivery and seem to think that catenary with batteries was a better solution for long distance. I am not sure about catenary as there is a relative high cost for the infrastructure but it would certainly be the most energy efficient and lowest operational cost.
I do not understand the enthusiasm for using hydrogen fuel cells for light duty local delivery. Urban delivery, even where I live in Utah, rarely requires more than 100 miles of daily range. I asked a number of different delivery drivers how far they drove in a day. It did not matter if was UPS, FedEx, local freight, steel delivery, industrial gas, etc., they never drove more than about 120 miles in a day and some only drove about 70 miles. This is easily in the range of battery electric so why waste energy and money on a more expensive option. Davemart, I do not know much about Toyota, Hino, or Hyundai other than Hino is a Toyota group company but Damiler (Frightliner in NA), Volvo, Kenworth, and Cummins all are currently selling battery electric heavy and medium duty trucks in the North American market for urban delivery. You left out Nikola, They are still planning on bring out a fuel cell truck but meanwhile they are selling a BE truck. Also GM started a new division, BrightDrop, to manufacture and sell local deliver vehicles that have a range of 250 miles. See
Davemart, First, GM builds the Bolt in the US with US labor and US safety standards for the US market. This car has a EPA range of 260 miles or over 400 km Second, the comment that Toyota should be able to build a car for $25K was for a Camery sized car with US safety standards for the US market. Third, the average price for a new car in the US market is about $38K. Fourth, In the coming decades, the cost of a BEV will be less than a comparable IC engined car and, even more important, the total cost of ownership including maintenance and energy . Actually, it is close or already there now. Fifth, it would cost far less to build a vehicle for the third world using third world labor if it did have all of the amenities that the US market demands and US safety standards, etc. Toyota screwed up and now has to play catch up or shrink. I do not understand why you defend the indefensible.
Probably, you do not want to try to out run the Blazer EV Police Pursuit Vehicle.
Sorry Gorr, Cheap Hydrogen is an oxymoron.
Davemart, In my opinion, you are defending the indefensible. In the United States, the buyers of GM cars have not been getting any tax breaks since 2019. The base price of a 2023 Chevy Bolt EV is $25,600 without any tax breaks or subsidies. Also the cost of a Ford F-150 BEV pickup is almost the same price as F-150 with an IC engine. I am not a big fan of Elon Musk but I will give him credit for building reasonable electric cars and helping to kick start the BEV market. They are still the largest builder of BEVs but I doubt that this will last as GM and Ford among others start to mas produce BEVs. Chevy has 3 new BEVs coming out next year including 2 SUVs (one with a base price around $30K) and a full size pickup and Cadillac will have a relatively reasonably priced luxury SUV next year. Toyota should be able to build a base BEV with a reasonable range (~250 km?) using lithium iron phosphate batteries for less than $25K. These are simpler cars to built as there is no IC engine and a very simple gear train. The lithium iron phosphate batteries are safe batteries and do not contain cobalt, nickel or manganese. Toyota screwed up and made a bad bet on hydrogen when almost everyone else went BEV. At this point, I would have little faith in their engineering and a whole lot less faith in their management.
A turbine engine is an internal combustion engine just not a piston IC engine. Yes the article was very light on technical details. I would guess that they are using a somewhat smaller turbine engine and running at a higher power rating during cruise and using an electric assist for takeoff and climb out. Larger turbine engines are more efficient but turbine engine efficiency is strongly dependent on power setting. They are very inefficient at low power settings.
I do not understand why anyone wishes to promote Toyota. Maybe in the late 1990s when they came out with the hybrid. But the day of the hybrid with an IC engine has come and gone. Also, Toyota was the number one contributor to the Representatives and Senators in the American Congress that refused to certify President Biden's win. They have change their tune but not until a number of their customers stated that they would never again buy a Toyota. And then they tried to lobby the American Congress so that California and about 10 other states would not be able to ban light duty IC-engined vehicles in 2035. Many major manufacturers including GM and Ford have committed to ending the production of IC engines by or before 2035. The first thing that Toyota needs to develop is a reasonable set of corporate ethics. Then they should try to build so reasonably priced BEVs. Their first attempt which was a good 6 or 7 years late has worse specs in terms of performance and range than a Chevy Bolt and costs about $10K more. Then they had to recall all of them because the wheels fell off??? Give me a break. If they can not keep up with technology, maybe they need to go out of business. This happens all the time.
Hopefully, they are really looking for metal nodules and not Russian submarines. If you do know what this is about, look up Glomar Challenger. The Russians lost a nuclear sub and did not know where it sank but the US Navy knew where it was. So the CIA hired Hughes Aerospace to build a large catamaran with robot gripper designed to pick up the sub. They were looking to recover missiles and code books but unfortunately the sub broke up before they were able to completely recover it and all they got part of the front. I had a good friend, also a MIT PhD, who said this made no sense as in the late 70s the metal was not worth the cost of the energy to bring it up.
I agree that we need to decarbonize production of steel and using "green" hydrogen is a proven technique for reducing these greenhouse gases. Of course, they are working with BP and are not starting with "green" hydrogen but with "blue" hydrogen which may tend more towards the color of gray rather than blue. I would question where even the natural gas is even coming from especially if Russia cuts off the gas or even cuts back the gas that they have been supplying to Germany. I also wonder what the energy balance and CO2 balance looks like if they just use the natural for the iron reduction instead of using steam reformation to make hydrogen and then use the hydrogen for the iron reduction. I would expect that it take less energy to just use the natural gas for the iron reduction, if you even had the natural gas to start with. Currently, Germany, which had been using Russian natural gas for a considerable amount of their electric power is now short of electric power and are looking at restarting some coal fired power plants. Again, They could do something smart and restart some of their nuclear power plants and use both the heat and electricity for more efficiency high temperature electrolysis but for some reason, the politics seem to prevent this. Anyway, until they really have enough "green" electric power so that they do not need to burn coal or peat or imported wood pellets, it would seem to be more efficient to just continue to use coke for making iron. Using wind or solar power or even natural gas for the production of hydrogen when there is not enough clean electric power to start with seems to be an inefficient waste.
See what you can find once you start looking and something has a greater value. Maybe we will not be so dependent on China after all.
Currently, the process of making steel using coke is a large contributor to greenhouse gases and direct reduction using "green" hydrogen is a proven technique for reducing these greenhouse gases. However, the question is where is the electric power coming from? Before someone states that they are going to use renewable power, I would point out that Germany, which had been using Russian natural gas for a considerable amount of their electric power is now short of electric power and are looking at restarting some coal fired power plants. They could do something smart and restart some of their nuclear power plants and use both the heat and electricity for more efficiency high temperature electrolysis but for some reason, the politics seem to prevent this. Anyway, until they really have enough "green" electric power so that they do not need to burn coal or peat or imported wood pellets, it would seem to be more efficient to just continue to use coke for making iron or use natural gas instead of hydrogen for direct reduction if they can find enough natural gas. Using wind or solar power for the production of hydrogen when there is not enough clean electric power to start with see ms to be an inefficient waste.
My first thought was what is the difference between graphene oxide and carbon dioxide but apparently, graphene oxide is much more complicated and contains more than carbon and oxygen including hydrogen.