Wuhan Plasma Jets

[Bombastinator]

Just now, bcredeur97 said:

it needs to be MORE efficient than a jet engine for us to make a plane with batteries that is still light enough to fly.

A lot more efficient. Unless battery tech can save us. Battery energy density right now sucks

True.  The solution I’ve seen for aircraft recently is biofuel

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

True.  The solution I’ve seen for aircraft recently is biofuel

Which while it may not run out, comes with its own set of problems. The amount of land and water it requires to create is unsustainable as population grows, unless of course we all stop eating meat. Then we have the fact it is still being burnt, so creates various emissions that are not conducive to a healthy planet.

 

We are in a big transition period at the moment, at the very beginning of it. We are moving into an era where we have to stop burning stuff. I bet in 15 years time anyone under 25 will have no idea what a clutch is in a car, and they will also look at suck, squeeze, bang, blow as a quaint old technology from a mad era much in the same way we see underground steam trains now.

[CarlBar]

5 hours ago, Phill104 said:

I have read the research, and I am not suggesting it is right for aircraft. It is right for other uses as many have shown. We have yet to have a hydrogen car, bus, lorry or ship

explode due to hydrogen but that is partly due to their limited numbers. 
 

People seem to be looking at all the negatives here. This is just one technology that is in its infancy (the propulsion method) and something we have to investigate. We smile cannot keep burning fossil fuels forever as they are a finite resource. While there are other fuels we can burn, that will also cause huge damage to the environment. Fortunately people are willing to think outside the box and research new ideas. We cannot just sit back and rely on what we are currently doing.

 

As for air travel, I think that will change massively in the short term at least. Delta have just begun scrapping their whole 777 fleet for instance, just months after refurbishing them at huge cost. It seems they only see a future for short haul for quite some time. I would bet we will not be seeing huge planes full of people for a long time. 
 

 

 

Bear in mind there no natural, (on earth anyway), source of hydrogen so no matter what we still need to generate electricity to create it.

 

Your not wrong on the low number of hydrogen vehicles having a severe effect on us not seeing big booms. But another factor is that just as with a fire from a ruptured petrol tank scenario you generally need a pretty severe accident to rupture the fuel tank sufficiently for it to become an issue. Once it does however it makes pretty much any other fuel look positively benign, (unless you get into really exotic chemicals that would never even be considered for car use due to toxic combustion products).

 

As an aside burning mass quantities of Hydrogen in our cars isn't even that environmentally friendly. The output of that is steam and aerosolized water vapor, (which is what steam ultimately is), is actually a worse greenhouse gas than CO2. I suspect the results wold still work out better than with petrol, but it's not a problem free solution on it's own.

 

Lastly no one's trying to say, (here at least), that nothing needs to be done or we should not be trying to do things. but rather that it's important we get a solution that is both workable and is safe.

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

Bear in mind there no natural, (on earth anyway), source of hydrogen so no matter what we still need to generate electricity to create it.

 

Your not wrong on the low number of hydrogen vehicles having a severe effect on us not seeing big booms. But another factor is that just as with a fire from a ruptured petrol tank scenario you generally need a pretty severe accident to rupture the fuel tank sufficiently for it to become an issue. Once it does however it makes pretty much any other fuel look positively benign, (unless you get into really exotic chemicals that would never even be considered for car use due to toxic combustion products).

 

As an aside burning mass quantities of Hydrogen in our cars isn't even that environmentally friendly. The output of that is steam and aerosolized water vapor, (which is what steam ultimately is), is actually a worse greenhouse gas than CO2. I suspect the results wold still work out better than with petrol, but it's not a problem free solution on it's own.

 

Lastly no one's trying to say, (here at least), that nothing needs to be done or we should not be trying to do things. but rather that it's important we get a solution that is both workable and is safe.

I agree fully, and never state it was the answer. 
 

on the subject of ruptured hydrogen tanks, I have watched a number of videos from a couple of sources on the subject and read quite a few papers. Much of the time, the extreme pressure differential means that any rupture causes the hydrogen to dissipate very quickly resulting in little or no problem in the local area.

 

Some links - https://hydrogen.wsu.edu/2017/03/17/so-just-how-dangerous-is-hydrogen-fuel/

https://h2tools.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/Risk Assessment of Hydrogen Explosion for Private Car with Hydrogen-Driven Engine.pdf

 

There is currently a big research project going on at Ulster University on the subject and how to mitigate risk. I think the results of that could be interesting.

 

on one of the Scottish Islands, they are running a green living project. Part of this involves wind and solar electricity generation. They have at many times too much capacity, so the excess is used to create hydrogen. In times of glut that hydrogen is used to generate electricity and to also power the ferry to the island. A very interesting project, at least to me.

 

I totally agree though, it is not the panacea, we need to attack this from many directions. Hopefully I will live long enough to see it.

 

[derr12]

On 5/16/2020 at 9:56 AM, Phill104 said:

Which while it may not run out, comes with its own set of problems. The amount of land and water it requires to create is unsustainable as population grows, unless of course we all stop eating meat. Then we have the fact it is still being burnt, so creates various emissions that are not conducive to a healthy planet.

 

We are in a big transition period at the moment, at the very beginning of it. We are moving into an era where we have to stop burning stuff. I bet in 15 years time anyone under 25 will have no idea what a clutch is in a car, and they will also look at suck, squeeze, bang, blow as a quaint old technology from a mad era much in the same way we see underground steam trains now.

we likely make enough bio waste from regular industry to have a small supply of biofuel.  I think people are already putting it to good use tho.  likely be competing for waste from other users.