Jump to content

Game-changer for clean hydrogen production:


beecee
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://phys.org/news/2021-09-game-changer-hydrogen-production.html

Game-changer for clean hydrogen production

Graphical abstract. Credit: DOI: 10.1016/j.nanoen.2021.106463:

Curtin University research has identified a new, cheaper and more efficient electrocatalyst to make green hydrogen from water that could one day open new avenues for large-scale clean energy production.

 

Typically, scientists have been using precious metal catalysts, such as platinum, to accelerate the reaction to break water into hydrogen and oxygen. Now Curtin research has found that adding nickel and cobalt to cheaper, previously ineffective catalysts enhances their performance, which lowers the energy required to split the water and increases the yield of hydrogen.

Lead researcher Dr. Guohua Jia, from Curtin's School of Molecular and Life Sciences, said this discovery could have far-reaching implications for sustainable green fuel generation in the future.

"Our research essentially saw us take two-dimensional iron-sulfur nanocrystals, which don't usually work as catalysts for the electricity-driven reaction that gets hydrogen from water, and add small amounts of nickel and cobalt ions. When we did this it completely transformed the poor-performing iron-sulfur into a viable and efficient catalyst," Dr. Jia said.

more at link...................................

the paper:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211285521007187?via%3Dihub

Ni2+/Co2+ doped Au-Fe7S8 nanoplatelets with exceptionally high oxygen evolution reaction activity:

 

Abstract:

To overcome the limited potency of energy devices such as alkaline water electrolyzers, the construction of active materials with dramatically enhanced oxygen evolution reaction (OER) performance is of great importance. Herein we developed an ion diffusion-induced doping strategy that is capable of producing Ni2+/Co2+ doped two-dimensional (2D) Au-Fe7S8 nanoplatelets (NPLs) with exceptionally high OER activity outperforming the benchmark RuO2 catalyst. The co-existence of Co and Ni in Au-Fe7S8 NPLs led to the lowest OER overpotential of 243 mV at 10 mA cm-2 and fast kinetics with a Tafel slope of 43 mV dec-1. Density functional theory (DFT) calculations demonstrated that Ni2+/Co2+ doping improves the binding of OOH species on the {001} surfaces of Au-Fe7S8 NPLs and lowers the Gibbs free energy of the OER process, which are beneficial to outstanding OER activity of the nanoplatelets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just asking. Isn't Au (gold) a precious metal?

It is good to see progress on better electrolyzers and I hope it flows through to renewable Hydrogen production. It won't become widely used without better electrolyzers.

I see iron smelting and chemical feedstocks as the uses of most significance. I am less optimistic for H2 as transport fuel and as transportable fuel; iron production and chemical feedstocks can operate with on-site production and storage at low(er) pressure and therefore cheaper than bringing it from somewhere else.

Battery electric looks better for vehicles - overall much higher energy efficiencies and piggy backs onto existing energy distribution networks. Hydrogen as transport fuel needs economy wide infrastructure built from zero.  One more halving of battery costs will make existing type EV's unstoppable. One more doubling of energy density will make EV's unstoppable - and open up aviation to battery electric. Achieve both and it is game over for fossil fuels. Hydrogen won't be in that game.

I'm cynical and think that, important as clean iron smelting and fertiliser production is too much is being made of Hydrogen - and the reason it has such widespread political support is that it can't do much any time soon. Those looking for empty gestures to follow up their empty gestures on zero emission targets like renewable Hydrogen sometime in the future, but so does the fossil fuel industry, that currently make most Hydrogen like it; it uses empty gestures on Carbon Capture and Storage to justify competing (with aid of subsidies from sympathetic politicians) against emerging clean Hydrogen and other clean energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supplementary article.....

https://phys.org/news/2021-09-ingredient-cheaper-hydrogen-fuel-production.html

SEPTEMBER 8, 2021

Mining waste could be used as an ingredient for cheaper hydrogen fuel production:

Researchers have discovered a way to use mining waste as part of a potential cheaper catalyst for hydrogen fuel production.

 

Water splitting reactions that produce hydrogen are triggered using rare platinum ($1450/ounce), iridium ($1370/ounce) and ruthenium ($367/ounce), or cheaper but less active metals—cobalt ($70,000/ton), nickel ($26,000/ton) and iron ($641/ton).

Professor Ziqi Sun from the QUT School of Chemistry and Physics and QUT Centre for Materials Science and Dr. Hong Peng from the School of Chemical Engineering at the University of Queensland led research to create a new catalyst using only a small amount of these reactive metals.

They combined them with feldspars, aluminosilicate rock minerals found in mining waste that Professor Sun said some companies pay about $30/ton to dispose of.

In the experiment, featured on the August cover of Advanced Energy & Sustainability Research, the researchers triggered a water splitting reaction using heated-activated feldspars nanocoated with only 1–2 percent of the cheaper reactive metals.

"Water splitting involves two chemical reactions—one with the hydrogen atom and one with the oxygen atom—to cause them to separate," Professor Sun said.

"This new nanocoated material triggered the oxygen evolution reaction, which controls the overall efficiency of the whole water splitting process," he said.

more at link.................

 

the paper:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aesr.202170018

In Situ Growth of Transition Metal Nanoparticles on Aluminosilicate Minerals for Oxygen Evolution:

Abstract:

Oxygen Evolution Reaction:

Earth-abundant and environmentally friendly aluminosilicate minerals are considered promising alternatives to develop cost-effective energy conversion and storage devices. In article number 2100057, Hong Peng, Ziqi Sun, and co-workers, propose an in-situ growth of transition metal nanoparticles on commonly available feldspar minerals that can be used for promoting electrocatalytic oxygen evolution reaction activity.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

article extract:

"Australia's abundance of aluminosilicate and the simplicity of this modification process should make industrial scale production of this new catalyst easy to achieve," Professor Sun said.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

That could indeed be a game changer, and one that could throw ScoMo in at least  in some sort of reasonable light.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Just asking. Isn't Au (gold) a precious metal?

It is good to see progress on better electrolyzers and I hope it flows through to renewable Hydrogen production. It won't become widely used without better electrolyzers.

I see iron smelting and chemical feedstocks as the uses of most significance. I am less optimistic for H2 as transport fuel and as transportable fuel; iron production and chemical feedstocks can operate with on-site production and storage at low(er) pressure and therefore cheaper than bringing it from somewhere else.

Battery electric looks better for vehicles - overall much higher energy efficiencies and piggy backs onto existing energy distribution networks. Hydrogen as transport fuel needs economy wide infrastructure built from zero.  One more halving of battery costs will make existing type EV's unstoppable. One more doubling of energy density will make EV's unstoppable - and open up aviation to battery electric. Achieve both and it is game over for fossil fuels. Hydrogen won't be in that game.

I'm cynical and think that, important as clean iron smelting and fertiliser production is too much is being made of Hydrogen - and the reason it has such widespread political support is that it can't do much any time soon. Those looking for empty gestures to follow up their empty gestures on zero emission targets like renewable Hydrogen sometime in the future, but so does the fossil fuel industry, that currently make most Hydrogen like it; it uses empty gestures on Carbon Capture and Storage to justify competing (with aid of subsidies from sympathetic politicians) against emerging clean Hydrogen and other clean energy.

Yes gold is a precious metal but so is platinum, which is widely used as a catalyst in industrial processes. 

You may well be right about hydrogen as transport fuel for cars, though it may be a good option for heavy goods vehicles, for which the size and weight of batteries is apparently a real problem.

Also, one critical area of carbon emission you do not address is domestic heating, which is by natural gas in many parts of the world. Keele University has been trialling the use of hydrogen to augment methane in domestic gas supplies. Apparently you can mix 20% into the gas without any need for changing burners: https://www.keele.ac.uk/discover/news/2020/january/hydeploy-goes-live/at-keele-university.php.

While this is obviously far from a full solution, we cannot afford to wait for perfect solutions to be developed. The use of hydrogen can make a real dent in CO2 emissions, even as a partial replacement for natural gas. Every little helps get a country towards its CO2 milestones. The beauty of it is that it can use existing infrastructure. By contrast, wholesale conversion to electric heat pumps will necessitate massive expenditure by the householder. Pumps are expensive AND you have to change all the radiators for underfloor heating, to get enough heat out of the low temperature (~50C max) heat that a heat pump produces. Eventually this will involve recabling all the streets to deal with the extra electricity demand (probably also necessary because of charging of electric cars of course). None of that is going to happen in a hurry.  

I think we need to be looking at a pathway to lower emissions that involves a series of partial, temporary and quick measures, as well as the longer-term full solutions that will be slower to implement. It seems to me that hydrogen may have a useful part to play in that. Once hydrogen is in production for adding to gas supplies, it will be an easier step to set up a hydrogen refuelling network for HGVs. In any commercial operation someone has to move first and then other applications will become viable and will follow.

The world will benefit from a VHS/Betamax type commercial contest between hydrogen and electricity, in my opinion. We cannot foresee all the economics, the scope for optimisation or the knock-on effects (cobalt and rare earth mining may come to bite us in the arse in a number of ways, for example). So I think governments should encourage several approaches in parallel, rather than attempting to pick winners, and thereby harness the power and ingenuity of commercial competition.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The use of hydrogen as an energy source is as old as the hills.

The use of hydrogen as an energy source commenced in 1792 when William Murdoch lit his house and office in Redruth, Cornwall from town gas, which is a mixture of hydrogen carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.

Since that time the have been sundry vaiations on that formula with 'water gas',  'producer gas' and other combustible formulations.

History has also taught us of the dangers of these mixtures, both from poisoning and explosion.

A different compound, hydrazine is also available and only marginally less dangerous.

 

In case it is proposed that such materials be confined to industry, there have been many unintentional disasters in industry - industrial scale disasters, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

The use of hydrogen as an energy source is as old as the hills.

The use of hydrogen as an energy source commenced in 1792 when William Murdoch lit his house and office in Redruth, Cornwall from town gas, which is a mixture of hydrogen carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.

Since that time the have been sundry vaiations on that formula with 'water gas',  'producer gas' and other combustible formulations.

History has also taught us of the dangers of these mixtures, both from poisoning and explosion.

A different compound, hydrazine is also available and only marginally less dangerous.

 

In case it is proposed that such materials be confined to industry, there have been many unintentional disasters in industry - industrial scale disasters, of course.

I must admit I don't see the relevance of this. So far as I can see there is nothing about hydrogen that makes it uniquely dangerous, compared to other combustible gases. At least, I am not aware of a track record of industrial disasters involving hydrogen that would suggest it is particularly risky. What do you have in mind?

And the poisoning you refer to was carbon monoxide poisoning, due to the use of synthesis gas (CO+H2) for domestic purposes.  But nobody is suggesting the use of synthesis gas as a fuel.

(Though production of syngas from steam reforming of methane, followed by the shift reaction to convert the CO (+H2O) to CO2 plus more hydrogen, is one way to make the hydrogen, the problem of course being what to do with the CO2. Pyrolysis of methane should in principle be better, as the byproduct is elemental carbon). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, exchemist said:

At least, I am not aware of a track record of industrial disasters involving hydrogen that would suggest it is particularly risky. What do you have in mind?

Perhaps you have a short memory.

Here are a couple quickly found

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_gasometer_explosion

https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/short-reads/article/3008553/sudden-and-terrifying-explosion-claimed-40

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Unlike you, perhaps, I was not alive in 1927 or 1934, so, er, no, I don't remember these two events. If you have to rake through the history of the early c.20th to find examples - at least one of which was apparently due to criminally negligent safety procedures -  I think you make my point for me. Since that time, by the way, there have been great numbers of refinery and fuel storage explosions involving liquid hydrocarbon fuels, in spite of the vast improvements in safety that have been made in the 80+ years since these incidents. But for the application I was discussing, we are talking of hydrogen being blended into methane for heating. I can see no reason to think this would pose a greater risk than methane itself. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Since that time, by the way, there have been great numbers of refinery and fuel storage explosions involving liquid hydrocarbon fuels, in spite of the vast improvements in safety that have been made in the 80+ years since these incidents.

Yes, indeed there have: one of my more distant relatives was the fire officier in charge of dealing with the Buntsfield disaster.

However I looked back to a time when gas that came through the pipe to consumers contained hydrogen gas because:-

The changeover to pure hydrocarbon mixtures (mostly methane) started in 1960.

And there have been significant disasters with this updated gas as well, for instance Ronan Point . I worked (a very little bit) on the aftermath at what was then called the Building Research Station.

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, studiot said:

And there have been significant disasters with this updated gas as well, for instance Ronan Point . I worked (a very little bit) on the aftermath at what was then called the Building Research Station.

The overall point from where I am sitting, is that as many alternative sources of clean power needs to be researched. As research continues and methodologies are refined, they will become safer. On face value I would have thought that the biggest disadvantage of hydrogen power was in the storage capabilities. But even that can be reduced... https://www.whichcar.com.au/news/australian-breakthrough-brings-hydrogen-vehicles-closer

extract: 

"Liquid hydrogen must be contained at incredibly high pressure or maintained at very low temperatures by complex cryogenic systems. But the CSIRO has developed a process that allows the gas to be converted into more stable liquid ammonia for transportation and then reconverted back to hydrogen once it has reached its destination or point of use.

The CSIRO is keeping exact details of the membrane process a closely guarded secret, but says it is simple enough to complete using a modular unit that could travel with the liquid ammonia, or by equipment built into refuelling stations".

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The crux of the matter is that our government, all governments should be backing continued research into green hydrogen power, along with solar and wind where possible.

I don't believe we have a choice.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

The overall point from where I am sitting, is that as many alternative sources of clean power needs to be researched. As research continues and methodologies are refined, they will become safer. On face value I would have thought that the biggest disadvantage of hydrogen power was in the storage capabilities. But even that can be reduced... https://www.whichcar.com.au/news/australian-breakthrough-brings-hydrogen-vehicles-closer

Hydrogen is not a power source. It’s a storage medium. Hydrogen technology is akin to battery technology.

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

The crux of the matter is that our government, all governments should be backing continued research into green hydrogen power, along with solar and wind where possible.

Hydrogen can only be as green as the power that creates it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

Hydrogen can only be as green as the power that creates it.

No argument with that but Hydrogen does support efforts to limit global warming. Hence the need for governemnt backing in research into green Hydrogen, among the other aspects of clean power.

Obviously producing Hydrogen via electrolysis is as "green" as we can get, and in conjunction with electricity from wind or solar, but to arrive at that target, further research and infrastructure  is needed into industry size electrolysis mechanisms

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, swansont said:

Hydrogen is not a power source. It’s a storage medium. Hydrogen technology is akin to battery technology.

+1

But more than that, it is a dangerous storage medium compared to some others.

However perhaps fuel cells are a way forward. (one day).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, studiot said:

Yes, indeed there have: one of my more distant relatives was the fire officier in charge of dealing with the Buntsfield disaster.

However I looked back to a time when gas that came through the pipe to consumers contained hydrogen gas because:-

The changeover to pure hydrocarbon mixtures (mostly methane) started in 1960.

And there have been significant disasters with this updated gas as well, for instance Ronan Point . I worked (a very little bit) on the aftermath at what was then called the Building Research Station.

Buncefield.

Ronan Point was first and foremost a building standards disaster, rather than a gas disaster: a properly built block would never have collapsed due to a domestic gas explosion.

But yes, any inflammable fuel presents a hazard and there will be accidents, though we get better every year at preventing them. What I'm saying is I see no reason to think hydrogen will be fundamentally worse in that respect than the other liquid and gaseous fuels that we currently use. 

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

But yes, any inflammable fuel presents a hazard and there will be accidents, though we get better every year at preventing them. What I'm saying is I see no reason to think hydrogen will be fundamentally worse in that respect than the other liquid and gaseous fuels that we currently use. 

I was taught that (conventional chemical wisdom is ) that hydrogen is particularly dangerous because.

1) It is a very small molecule and therefore difficult to contain, most especially in old perhaps poorly maintained equipment. Leaks are more likely than with say propane.

2) If there is a leak, which there is when you change a propane bottle and can often be smelled around caravans, hydrogen is more dangerous because of its more explosive nature. What might happen if you changed over a hydrogen bottle in the same way ?

 

What about the energy released is it not also greater with hydrogen ?

Hydrogen releases 142 MJ /kg compared with your other fuels, gasoline, natural gas, methane etc are all in the 40 - 55 range so hydrogen is nearly 3 times as energetic.
Solid fuels come in even lower with wood at 15 -20, coal at 20 -30. Alcohols are also in the 20 -30 range.

 

All I am saying is that the use of hydrogen presents greater dangers than ordinary people are used to with the fuels, containment vessels and technology they already have.

Perhaps fuel cells, being liquid/ionic phase will be safer but there is still the issue af a tank of a substance that is very dangerous if it gets out.

 

I am not saying we should not avail ourselves of the technology, just that people cut corners (nuclear technology history confirms this as did London's largest ever explosion which was in a TNT factory).
We should always take and enforce extra care with extra dangerous technology.

explosion1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, studiot said:

Those were not incidents involving hydrogen.

Hydrogen has one property which makes it rather more hazardous than natural gas- it has a very low ignition energy.
On the other hand, the low molecular mass and comparatively low energy density (a litre of hydrogen carries less energy than a litre of methane) tend to reduce the risk. to exactly the same extent that it will leak through a badly made connection, it will also leak out of the area it is released into.

There's a story of a demo where they emptied a tanker truck of liquid hydrogen onto the surface of a lake, waited 5 minutes and struck a match.

They then invited anyone to do the same with petrol/ gasoline.

Any fuel is, ipso facto, potentially dangerous.
The way round that it to not let it escape.

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

It is a very small molecule and therefore difficult to contain, most especially in old perhaps poorly maintained equipment. Leaks are more likely than with say propane.

Not really.

Once you tighten up the fittings so that the metal meets the metal, there's no hole.

Practically speaking, Hydrogen won't diffuse through a mild steel pipe any more than propane will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, studiot said:

I was taught that (conventional chemical wisdom is ) that hydrogen is particularly dangerous because.

1) It is a very small molecule and therefore difficult to contain, most especially in old perhaps poorly maintained equipment. Leaks are more likely than with say propane.

2) If there is a leak, which there is when you change a propane bottle and can often be smelled around caravans, hydrogen is more dangerous because of its more explosive nature. What might happen if you changed over a hydrogen bottle in the same way ?

 

What about the energy released is it not also greater with hydrogen ?

Hydrogen releases 142 MJ /kg compared with your other fuels, gasoline, natural gas, methane etc are all in the 40 - 55 range so hydrogen is nearly 3 times as energetic.
Solid fuels come in even lower with wood at 15 -20, coal at 20 -30. Alcohols are also in the 20 -30 range.

 

All I am saying is that the use of hydrogen presents greater dangers than ordinary people are used to with the fuels, containment vessels and technology they already have.

Perhaps fuel cells, being liquid/ionic phase will be safer but there is still the issue af a tank of a substance that is very dangerous if it gets out.

 

I am not saying we should not avail ourselves of the technology, just that people cut corners (nuclear technology history confirms this as did London's largest ever explosion which was in a TNT factory).
We should always take and enforce extra care with extra dangerous technology.

explosion1.jpg

I find this unconvincing. Sure the risks are somewhat different with hydrogen but I don't see that they are qualitatively greater. Hydrogen may diffuse through a leak a bit faster than larger molecules but then it dissipates more rapidly too. Energy release per unit mass is not the relevant yardstick. Volume is more relevant in practice.

There is a piece on the risks of hydrogen here, from a researcher at Washington State University: https://hydrogen.wsu.edu/2017/03/17/so-just-how-dangerous-is-hydrogen-fuel/

The conclusion seems to be the quote from an experienced hydrogen expert: “Hydrogen is no better, nor worse, than any other fuel. You just have to know the rules for working with hydrogen.”  

 

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

The way round that it to not let it escape.

 

Indeed so but you have not addressed my basic point that people are people and do not act in a technologically optimum way.

30 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Not really.

Once you tighten up the fittings so that the metal meets the metal, there's no hole.

Practically speaking, Hydrogen won't diffuse through a mild steel pipe any more than propane will

As a matter of interest why do you think they stopped using steel and iron pipes for low pressure work in the gas and water industries, and are even replacing them in high pressure work these days ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remain somewhat skeptical of the hype and cynically think that choosing H2 on the big things like transport is most popular within industries that do those things because it means Delay.

There are good reasons to pursue renewable Hydrogen for some critical applications but too many other applications aren't going to work until and unless a low cost supply chain is established - that not yet being an inevitability and for which there are other, more immediately available options. Building the abundance of clean energy needs to be the priority; it doesn't depend on H2 but H2 depends on it.

Heat pumps using clean electricity look much better for building heating in most locations - with energy efficiencies above unity that no alternatives can match; in most climates that can be air source aka reverse cycle A/C that can be retrofitted. Ground source heat pumps are easier with new construction - as is district heating and energy efficient building design - but worth doing even as retrofits. Heat pumps offer a superior and potentially total heating solution whereas adding H2 to gas and convert later to 100% H2 option kicks the emissions can down the road. Not necessarily a wasted effort to add H2 to existing gas where efforts continue to replace it but it isn't a solution.

Lots of steel processing can already use electric arc furnaces and other electricity based processes. The smelting part is still crucial but is not the largest part of steel making; the total demand for Hydrogen for that is significant but not likely to be enormous.

The long range trucking, shipping and air travel applications sound good but I'm not convinced the substance is there; the industries like it in direct proportion to how long it is likely to take. Trucks and shipping can do battery electric for short/medium range right now. I'd like to see more done with swappable batteries for trucks - and there are serious attempts to try that.

Rail, including for freight, maybe even especially for freight, seems well placed to use a combination of direct electric and battery electric - battery electric rail isn't even a new thing, just previously a niche thing. Freight trains often make a lot of stops or spend a lot of time in sidings, where batteries can be recharged - or dedicated battery wagons could be shunted in and out, or stretches of electrified track can allow recharging without stopping and steep ascents/descents can be electrified.

Transportable H2 might benefit from conversion to ammonia and back again but Hydrogen already has serious energy efficiency problems - losses at the electrolyser, losses when burned for heat (then heat to electricity) or losses when used with fuel cells. Converting to ammonia and back again will add more losses into that chain.

I had thought gas power plants that can convert to H2 might be feasible with on-site electrolysers and low pressure storage - but being able to run the electrolysers intermittently is currently not cost effective, even with very low (otherwise surplus) electricity.

The kinds of applied science that can develop better electrolysers can also develop better batteries (and supercapacitors); battery storage isn't a stationary target and still has room for significant improvements.

Around here we are getting large scale batteries as much because system planners are kicking decarbonisation down the road as because of deep planning - smallish amounts can smooth the RE output and respond rapidly to sudden system needs and put back the need for bigger and more enduring investments that are likely to face rising emissions reductions requirements. Predictions of less than a decade ago for a few MWh of grid connected batteries by now are being exceeded by around 20x.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Rust.

(Among other things, obviously)

Exactly.

So what state might I expect a hydrogen tank and connection pipework to be in after 25 years bouncing about in a vehicle ?

And whilst we are discussing it, hydrogen boils at -253oC whilst LPG boils at -42oC   A world of difference in technological terms.

But I'm sure you know all this as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, studiot said:

o what state might I expect a hydrogen tank and connection pipework to be in after 25 years bouncing about in a vehicle ?

Well... pretty much the same as a petrol tank.
And there are plenty of 25 year old petrol fuelled vehicles on the road. They aren't all suddenly exploding, are they?

At most, you need to add another line to the MOT test "leak test the tank".


 

 

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

And whilst we are discussing it, hydrogen boils at -253oC whilst LPG boils at -42oC   A world of difference in technological terms.

And LNG boils at about -162, and nobody is considering it as a transport fuel either.
Why did you raise the issue?

On 9/21/2021 at 11:46 AM, studiot said:

Indeed so but you have not addressed my basic point that people are people and do not act in a technologically optimum way.

They never did.

That's why we have regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Nobody said you did.
But you did raise the equally irrelevant liquid hydrogen.

How on earth can any mention of hydrogen be irrelevant in a thread all about hydrogen ?

 

Your post that I replied to certainly gave (me) the impression that you were offering facetious replies

5 hours ago, John Cuthber said:
5 hours ago, studiot said:

And whilst we are discussing it, hydrogen boils at -253oC whilst LPG boils at -42oC   A world of difference in technological terms.

And LNG boils at about -162, and nobody is considering it as a transport fuel either.
Why did you raise the issue?

 

For your information I have already referred to the use of hydrogen for heavy vehicles, via fuel cell technology.

You should be proud of your countrymen's achievements.

https://www.jcb.com/en-gb/news/2020/07/jcb-leads-the-way-with-first-hydrogen-fuelled-excavator

You can also read a calorific value of fuels table and see why hydrogen would be better than most other fuels, if we can make it work.

So there is no call to be sarcastic about the matter.

 

Finally in the link I gave in the post you apparently object so strongly to, they explain why it isnecessary to compress fuel gasses to liquid form for storage.

A fact of life I though you already knew.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.