Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:31 pm

After thinking about the discussion on what NSA could be and WN's selection of the MAX7 to replace it's 737-700's and what comes after MAX7 for WN it really made me think about how aviation will change between now and 2040/2050 as the World looks to decarbonize. It is not a long time.

If Boeing does launch NMA/NSA will they be the last big Kerosene powered clean sheet program? Given the realities of LH2 storage, unless an airframe is specifically designed for that - will it be possible to adapt to LH2/Turbine tech at some future date without a total redo on the frame?

While the Zero Carbon goal seems kind of pie in the sky right now for aviation - is it really? Batteries and I would assume fuel cells are having a ton of research effort put into them right now and almost seem to be following Moore's Law in terms of price/performance.

Will things like structural batteries which might not be ready for anything like a 5,000 NM anytime soon be maybe viable for things like an 100 Seat 1,000NM Single Pilot Commuter aircraft by 2040? Will the advent of aircraft like this further fragment the market and return the market to more of a hub and spoke model? Would someone like WN end up replacing 500 MAX7 with 1,500 100 Seat Electric aircraft with 1 pilot?

https://scitechdaily.com/big-breakthrou ... -versions/

Reading through the various articles Airbus has posted on its site it sounds like Fuel Cell/electric motor propulsion may not be the way to go for some time for larger aircraft. That is where LH2 tanks and Turbines come in. Are they more efficient or is it function of electric motors(operated by fuel cells) not having enough performance/are too heavy to operate at Jet speeds/range?

Theoretically could Airbus produce an LH2/Turbine powered aircraft as an A320 replacement by 2035 to at least supplement the A320? There does not seem to be any large insurmountable technical hurdles.

Their idea of converting Airports to LH2 fuel for ground vehicles to get airports ready for LH2 and reduce carbon emissions sounds like a good idea.

How far can pure electric/ battery powered aircraft progress by 2040?

Please try and keep this a discussion one on what is possible and not what is impossible. Zero Carbon aviation is possible it's just a question of what technology when.

Good link to what Airbus is up to - it sounds like an impressive and exciting effort. Make sure to scroll down and read all the news stories.

https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero- ... zeroe.html
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1425
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:50 pm

morrisond wrote:
If Boeing does launch NMA/NSA will they be the last big Kerosene powered clean sheet program? Given the realities of LH2 storage, unless an airframe is specifically designed for that - will it be possible to adapt to LH2/Turbine tech at some future date without a total redo on the frame?


The engine is a modular enough system that I don't see it as a major challenge for adaptability. You can hang a new engine on an airframe reasonably enough, and replace the systems that deliver fuel to the engine.

The fuel storage is not modular, though. It is integrated into the structure of the airplane at a foundational level. Also, kerosene has minimal volatility and can be allowed to assume the temperature of the surrounding environment, which means temperatures the other systems are already designed to operate at.

Liquid hydrogen wants to evaporate. The more surface area you give it, the more heat it absorbs, the more fuel you lose to boiloff, and the more critical it is to ensure that fuel is exhausted safely. You can't let it be at ambient temperature, as even when the temperature is over 60 Celsius below freezing, it is far too hot. Yet not all of your structures and systems might be ok being another 200 Celsius colder than they were originally designed for. The simplest way to store hydrogen on an aircraft is probably going to be large cylindrical tanks.

It's great from a lift standpoint that liquid hydrogen has 3 times the energy per kilogram as kerosene, but it is terrible from a wing or fuselage geometry standpoint that it has 1/10th the mass density, so you end up needing over 3 times as much volume of fuel to achieve the same range.

As I see it, an airframe designed for kerosene fuel will have to make large compromises when adapted to hydrogen. An airframe designed for hydrogen fuel will make large compromises if initially operated with kerosene engines.

Notice, for example, that Airbus's hydrogen-powered concepts have a large fuel tank in the aft of the fuselage. This addresses the volume and surface area issues, and lets the wing be optimized more for aerodynamic and structural considerations, without also factoring in fuel storage. The fuel weight is no longer distributed in the same pattern as the lift forces, but the lower weight mitigates the issues that presents. However, if you tried to use kerosene in an airframe like this while waiting for hydrogen infrastructure and economics to catch up, then the wing structure now has to support a much heavier fuselage, and the balance of the aircraft is significantly changed.

Therefore, I expect any hydrogen-powered aircraft will be a dedicated clean sheet.

I haven't started to give much thought to certification issues that may be present. If the motivation to develop hydrogen aircraft is high enough, I'm sure they can be worked through, but they may represent significant R&D cost that governments might considering funding if they want to kick start the effort.

morrisond wrote:
Batteries and I would assume fuel cells are having a ton of research effort put into them right now and almost seem to be following Moore's Law in terms of price/performance.


Battery costs are not really the issue for aviation use of battery-electric propulsion. Energy density is. Energy density is not following Moore's law, and due to fundamental differences between the work of scaling transistors and the work of tweaking chemical reactions to improve energy density without compromising safety, it should not be expected to follow Moore's law.

The development of lithium ion batteries presented a phase of initially rapid increase in capabilities, which then matured into more normal gradual improvement. In 2009, Panasonic announced they would soon be releasing an 18650-sized cell with a capacity of 3400mAh, which set a new record (and was used in the first generation of Tesla's). In 2021, the current leading 18650-sized cells have a capacity of 3600mAh. That's 6% improvement over more than a decade. At that pace, we are going to be waiting a long time to achieve the 2500% effective growth desired in practical energy density (kerosene has ~50x the energy, but is consumed at around half the efficiency).

Hence why Pratt & Whitney has in the past been completely dismissive of electric airliners, Airbus backed away from some initial discussion of electric or hybrid aircraft, and why the current efforts are not coming from the major manufacturers and are focused on small, short range aircraft. With shorter range goals, more specialized niches can be viable.

morrisond wrote:
https://scitechdaily.com/big-breakthrough-for-massless-energy-storage-structural-battery-that-performs-10x-better-than-all-previous-versions/


There are a lot of interesting leads being pursued in battery R&D, and there have been for decades. Not many of them come anywhere close to the initial hype, as they often either turn out to be uneconomical, or else in real world applications only result in small over improvements.

This is one I find particularly interesting, perhaps in part simply because it is conceptually straightforward. However, I can think of numerous challenges to utilizing this technology in aerospace. Energy density is again one of the main ones. The 787 is reported to be about 50% composite, for example, which means about 60,000 kg of it. If those researchers accomplish their goal of tripling their currently very low energy density to 75 Wh/kg, then a 787 fuselage could hypothetically store about 4500 kWh of electrical energy in it's structure.

That's equivalent to 375 kg of jet fuel, or about 750 kg after adjusting for efficiency. A 787 won't go very far on 750 kg worth of fuel.
 
IADFCO
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:09 pm

Future hydrogen-fueled airliners may end up looking like Dreamlifters or Belugas. This is not meant to be a sarcastic or negative comment, quite the contrary, it's meant to point out that airplanes of those proportions already exist and fly regularly. We'll just have to get used to their look.
 
2175301
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:44 pm

I'll believe in commercial hydrogen powered aircraft when I start to see the construction of massive amounts of 1000MW + nuclear power plants with matching hydrolysis plants reasonably close to the airports. I believe that Europe will need about 100 such plants, the USA about 200, and likely the rest of the world another 400 to convert to hydrogen powered aircraft.

There is no surplus of hydrogen out there. It has to be made. Currently about 98% of all hydrogen is from cracking natural gas or other carbon based products, which is not very green at all.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
Boeing757100
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed May 06, 2020 10:09 pm

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:01 pm

Won't there be some problems with logistics? Most of the zeroEs have only a 2000nm range, and its not like all of them are coming to service. I think the turboprop will be chosen because the turbofan will cannibalize the A220/A320. And this plane seats roughly 100 pax at most. So, it is reasonable to assume that it'd operate out of smaller airports. However, I have heard that new fuel pumps would be needed, power plants to be built near the airport, etc. Would a small airport have the budget for this?
Going to ATL airport in 2019 is like being in 2013
Going to ATL airport in 2010 is like being in 2000
Going to ATL airport in 1998 is like being in 1988
Going to ATL airport in 2035 is like watching paint dry
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7408
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:01 pm

"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
djpearman
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:02 pm

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:10 pm

My question for hydrogen as a or the future fuel is how it is going to help us in dealing with global warming. CO2 is greenhouse gas number two. H2O is greenhouse gas number one. 60% of the greenhouse effect is due to H2O in the atmosphere (from what I've read). So, how is replacing CO2 from burning fossil fuels with H2O from burning hydrogen going to reduce global warming?

From my (admittedly limited) knowledge on the subject, this seems to driving out Beelzebub with the Devil himself.
 
tomcat
Posts: 755
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:32 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
The simplest way to store hydrogen on an aircraft is probably going to be large cylindrical tanks.

It's great from a lift standpoint that liquid hydrogen has 3 times the energy per kilogram as kerosene, but it is terrible from a wing or fuselage geometry standpoint that it has 1/10th the mass density, so you end up needing over 3 times as much volume of fuel to achieve the same range.

As I see it, an airframe designed for kerosene fuel will have to make large compromises when adapted to hydrogen. An airframe designed for hydrogen fuel will make large compromises if initially operated with kerosene engines.

Notice, for example, that Airbus's hydrogen-powered concepts have a large fuel tank in the aft of the fuselage. This addresses the volume and surface area issues, and lets the wing be optimized more for aerodynamic and structural considerations, without also factoring in fuel storage. The fuel weight is no longer distributed in the same pattern as the lift forces, but the lower weight mitigates the issues that presents.


I'd like to go a bit more into the details of this configuration with a cylindrical LH2 tank located in the aft fuselage.

With the current aircraft, for a given pax load, the fuselage has a given length and a given weight. The fuselage weight combined with the payload will in turn size the wing root joint through which the lift is transferred from the wing. I'd like to evaluate the impact of this LH2 configuration on the wing root sizing.

Let's consider a new aircraft that would be designed to take the same payload as the A320 and let's consider that you would want to give it an LH2 tank of 72m³ (thus the equivalent of about 24m³ of kerosene). Assuming that the LH2 tank would be 3m in diameter, it would need to be 10.2m long. I think that this piece of fuselage alone would be much lighter than the same length of the regular A320 fuselage for the following reasons:
- it wouldn't be pressurized, so it could be made lighter because it wouldn't be subject to the pressurization cycles
- there wouldn't be any cabin floor and cabin equipment, neither any cargo bay be equipment.
- being not pressurized, there wouldn't be any cabin systems like the air condition system.
- there wouldn't be any windows or any weight penalty associated with opening in a pressurized structure.
For what it's worth, an aluminum tube 10m long and 3.8 in diameter made of a sheet 1.6mm thick would weigh about 550 kg. Add the frames and the stringers, you'd probably get at 1t (metric tonne), give or take whatever you like. But that's just the fuselage structure.
Then there is the LH2 tank, including its insulation and its support structure, for which I'm less comfortable to make a weight estimate. Bjorn on Leehamnews (1) suggests that an LH2 tank typically weighs two to three times the LH2 weight. So, for 72m³ of LH2, we'd have about 5t of LH2 and a tank of at least 10t according to Bjorn. This looks heavy to me, but I don't have any better estimate available.

With the above, we can now compare the difference in weight hung between the wings of an A320 and between the wings of its LH2 equivalent when both are loaded with the same payload:
- There is 1t for the extra fuselage length and 10t for the LH2 tank, so 11t in total.
- I consider that the 5t of LH2 are equivalent to the weight of kerosene that can be stored in the center wing box of the A320.
All in all, the total weight hung between the wings of the LH2 aircraft is about 11t greater than for the A320, that is about 20% greater (assuming that the LH2 aircraft has its engines hung under the wings). It is manageable but it's not ideal in terms of structural optimization of the wing.

Final note about the weight: the LH2 design requires about 11t of extra structural weight to store 5t of LH2 compared to the A320 capable of taking 19t of fuel. So even accounting for the reinforcement of the wing root, the LH2 aircraft would have a similar MTOW than the A320 while carrying the same payload. But the LH2 design having an empty weight 11t higher than the A320, it would also need to be designed for a MLW 11t greater. Again, this is adding a small structural weight penalty.

Finally, there are the impacts of a fuselage 10m longer than the A320 fuselage:
- First there is the impact on the AoA that can be achieved during take-off and landing. With wing mounted engines, this would lead to a taller landing gear than for the A320, adding one more penalty to the LH2 design. If such an LH2 aircraft would ever be designed, one can expect some optimization work around the fuselage diameter in order to minimize the extra length required to fit the LH2 tank at the expense of a drag penalty that a greater fuselage diameter would induce.
- On the other hand, the longer fuselage combined with an equivalent MTOW than the A320 would allow to reduce the HTP and VTP areas and hence their weight (and drag). This would be beneficial for the LH2 design.

(1) https://leehamnews.com/2020/08/28/bjorns-corner-the-challenges-of-hydrogen-part-6-tank-placement/
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1425
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:37 pm

djpearman wrote:
My question for hydrogen as a or the future fuel is how it is going to help us in dealing with global warming. CO2 is greenhouse gas number two. H2O is greenhouse gas number one. 60% of the greenhouse effect is due to H2O in the atmosphere (from what I've read). So, how is replacing CO2 from burning fossil fuels with H2O from burning hydrogen going to reduce global warming?

From my (admittedly limited) knowledge on the subject, this seems to driving out Beelzebub with the Devil himself.


The carbon cycle is a slow process, as it depends on biological and geological processes to remove CO2 in excess of equilibrium from the atmosphere. The resulting atmospheric half life of CO2 is decades.

The water cycle is a very fast process, dependent on the thermodynamics that drive evaporation and condensation. The resulting atmospheric half life of excess water vapor in the atmosphere is hours.

As a result, when climate researchers study the effect of water vapor on climate, the main affect they see is the feedback cycle of how increased CO2 increases the temperature, allowing the equilibrium concentration of water vapor to increase and cause a further increase in temperature. Human activities that produce water vapor don't of themselves increase the equilibrium concentration of water vapor, so absent another effect to keep the emitted water vapor in the atmosphere, that particular greenhouse gas literally just falls out of the sky.

More on this topic:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2008 ... eedback-2/
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:16 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
If Boeing does launch NMA/NSA will they be the last big Kerosene powered clean sheet program? Given the realities of LH2 storage, unless an airframe is specifically designed for that - will it be possible to adapt to LH2/Turbine tech at some future date without a total redo on the frame?


The engine is a modular enough system that I don't see it as a major challenge for adaptability. You can hang a new engine on an airframe reasonably enough, and replace the systems that deliver fuel to the engine.

The fuel storage is not modular, though. It is integrated into the structure of the airplane at a foundational level. Also, kerosene has minimal volatility and can be allowed to assume the temperature of the surrounding environment, which means temperatures the other systems are already designed to operate at.

Liquid hydrogen wants to evaporate. The more surface area you give it, the more heat it absorbs, the more fuel you lose to boiloff, and the more critical it is to ensure that fuel is exhausted safely. You can't let it be at ambient temperature, as even when the temperature is over 60 Celsius below freezing, it is far too hot. Yet not all of your structures and systems might be ok being another 200 Celsius colder than they were originally designed for. The simplest way to store hydrogen on an aircraft is probably going to be large cylindrical tanks.

It's great from a lift standpoint that liquid hydrogen has 3 times the energy per kilogram as kerosene, but it is terrible from a wing or fuselage geometry standpoint that it has 1/10th the mass density, so you end up needing over 3 times as much volume of fuel to achieve the same range.

As I see it, an airframe designed for kerosene fuel will have to make large compromises when adapted to hydrogen. An airframe designed for hydrogen fuel will make large compromises if initially operated with kerosene engines.

Notice, for example, that Airbus's hydrogen-powered concepts have a large fuel tank in the aft of the fuselage. This addresses the volume and surface area issues, and lets the wing be optimized more for aerodynamic and structural considerations, without also factoring in fuel storage. The fuel weight is no longer distributed in the same pattern as the lift forces, but the lower weight mitigates the issues that presents. However, if you tried to use kerosene in an airframe like this while waiting for hydrogen infrastructure and economics to catch up, then the wing structure now has to support a much heavier fuselage, and the balance of the aircraft is significantly changed.

Therefore, I expect any hydrogen-powered aircraft will be a dedicated clean sheet.

I haven't started to give much thought to certification issues that may be present. If the motivation to develop hydrogen aircraft is high enough, I'm sure they can be worked through, but they may represent significant R&D cost that governments might considering funding if they want to kick start the effort.

morrisond wrote:
Batteries and I would assume fuel cells are having a ton of research effort put into them right now and almost seem to be following Moore's Law in terms of price/performance.


Battery costs are not really the issue for aviation use of battery-electric propulsion. Energy density is. Energy density is not following Moore's law, and due to fundamental differences between the work of scaling transistors and the work of tweaking chemical reactions to improve energy density without compromising safety, it should not be expected to follow Moore's law.

The development of lithium ion batteries presented a phase of initially rapid increase in capabilities, which then matured into more normal gradual improvement. In 2009, Panasonic announced they would soon be releasing an 18650-sized cell with a capacity of 3400mAh, which set a new record (and was used in the first generation of Tesla's). In 2021, the current leading 18650-sized cells have a capacity of 3600mAh. That's 6% improvement over more than a decade. At that pace, we are going to be waiting a long time to achieve the 2500% effective growth desired in practical energy density (kerosene has ~50x the energy, but is consumed at around half the efficiency).

Hence why Pratt & Whitney has in the past been completely dismissive of electric airliners, Airbus backed away from some initial discussion of electric or hybrid aircraft, and why the current efforts are not coming from the major manufacturers and are focused on small, short range aircraft. With shorter range goals, more specialized niches can be viable.

morrisond wrote:
https://scitechdaily.com/big-breakthrough-for-massless-energy-storage-structural-battery-that-performs-10x-better-than-all-previous-versions/


There are a lot of interesting leads being pursued in battery R&D, and there have been for decades. Not many of them come anywhere close to the initial hype, as they often either turn out to be uneconomical, or else in real world applications only result in small over improvements.

This is one I find particularly interesting, perhaps in part simply because it is conceptually straightforward. However, I can think of numerous challenges to utilizing this technology in aerospace. Energy density is again one of the main ones. The 787 is reported to be about 50% composite, for example, which means about 60,000 kg of it. If those researchers accomplish their goal of tripling their currently very low energy density to 75 Wh/kg, then a 787 fuselage could hypothetically store about 4500 kWh of electrical energy in it's structure.

That's equivalent to 375 kg of jet fuel, or about 750 kg after adjusting for efficiency. A 787 won't go very far on 750 kg worth of fuel.


Great information. Thank you.

What are the issues with Fuel cells and Electric Motors? How do they stack up in terms weight/preformance?

It seems like Airbus has them on the more advanced blended wing design.
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:21 pm

2175301 wrote:
I'll believe in commercial hydrogen powered aircraft when I start to see the construction of massive amounts of 1000MW + nuclear power plants with matching hydrolysis plants reasonably close to the airports. I believe that Europe will need about 100 such plants, the USA about 200, and likely the rest of the world another 400 to convert to hydrogen powered aircraft.

There is no surplus of hydrogen out there. It has to be made. Currently about 98% of all hydrogen is from cracking natural gas or other carbon based products, which is not very green at all.

Have a great day,


Airbus mentions using Electrolysis and renewables to generate the Hydrogen. Let me guess - Solar plants the size of a small country to generate enough power to do it?

On the good side there is a ton of research being done on small scale nuclear plants that could be situated right at airports that could solve the hydrogen issue if the will is there.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1425
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Thu Apr 01, 2021 12:22 am

morrisond wrote:
Great information. Thank you.

What are the issues with Fuel cells and Electric Motors? How do they stack up in terms weight/preformance?

It seems like Airbus has them on the more advanced blended wing design.


I have not studied fuel cells as much in order to be able to offer a quantitative comparison. I did have some exposure to them for use in industrial vehicles in situations where emissions were a concern, for the sake of having longer runtime than batteries provided. Their main limitation aside from the cost and complexity of having hydrogen delivered at the time was low power density - they could store the fuel for long range, but not provide the power to maximize productivity.

The Toyota Mirai addressed that concern by coupling the fuel cell with a moderately sized battery. It can not sustain high power outputs for long periods of time, but by using the fuel cells to charge the batteries when demand is low, they can provide high outputs for limited durations to ensure good acceleration and ability to maintain speed on steep hills.

This might be an option with aircraft as well - use batteries to complement the fuel cells for takeoff and climb, but the fuel cells only for cruise. Compared to a hydrogen-fueled turbine engine aircraft, the higher efficiency of fuel cells reduces the required fuel volume, but the fuel cells and batteries may increase the weight and cost.

Alternatively, hydrogen-fueled turbines could be used to supplement the fuel cells for takeoff and climb.
 
2175301
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:18 am

morrisond wrote:
2175301 wrote:
I'll believe in commercial hydrogen powered aircraft when I start to see the construction of massive amounts of 1000MW + nuclear power plants with matching hydrolysis plants reasonably close to the airports. I believe that Europe will need about 100 such plants, the USA about 200, and likely the rest of the world another 400 to convert to hydrogen powered aircraft.

There is no surplus of hydrogen out there. It has to be made. Currently about 98% of all hydrogen is from cracking natural gas or other carbon based products, which is not very green at all.

Have a great day,


Airbus mentions using Electrolysis and renewables to generate the Hydrogen. Let me guess - Solar plants the size of a small country to generate enough power to do it?

On the good side there is a ton of research being done on small scale nuclear plants that could be situated right at airports that could solve the hydrogen issue if the will is there.


Solar cells to cover virtually all of habitual land might do. Of course, no one would allow them to be built.

Sorry, Small Modular Reactors (SMR's) won't do it. They are for areas that don't need a large nuclear plant. Many areas only need a few hundred - 600 MW plants, and remote areas/islands need 30 - 100 Mw plants. SMR's are perfect for that.

The numbers have been run on how much hydrogen a day the airports and airlines would need to replace hydrocarbon fuels, along with how big the electrolysis plants would need to be, and then the nuclear power plant. My memory from the paper I read I think last summer is that the major airports (Heathrow, Charled De Gual, Chicago, LA, etc.) would need on the order of 10-20 1000MW+ nuclear power plants each. There are no advantages to building SMRs for that level of needed generation. That would take up too much land area and require too much staff (SMR's are staffing extensive on a Staff/MW basis).

Of course, proof of concept and research aircraft can be built - which will almost certainly run on Hydrogen produced from Natural gas.

But, noting is going to happen without a commitment to build large scale nuclear power plants at least 10 years prior to when it is expected that the hydrogen will likely be needed. Also the potential sites for these plants need to be chosen at least 5 years prior to deciding to build a Nuclear Plant there in order to ensure the proper studies are done and its suitable for use - and at what level of earthquake and other environmental protections; unless its a previously researched site for nuclear plant operations.

Have a great day,
 
Nashville
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:18 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:43 am

Doesn’t it take more energy to produce hydrogen than the created hydrogen produces?
‘Green Energy’ aka wind and solar don’t produce enough energy in their lifetime to offset the energy that was used to produce them.
The battery energy breakthrough is 10 years away, just like Fusion has been for 40 years....
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1425
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Thu Apr 01, 2021 2:20 am

2175301 wrote:
Solar cells to cover virtually all of habitual land might do. Of course, no one would allow them to be built.

Sorry, Small Modular Reactors (SMR's) won't do it. They are for areas that don't need a large nuclear plant. Many areas only need a few hundred - 600 MW plants, and remote areas/islands need 30 - 100 Mw plants. SMR's are perfect for that.

The numbers have been run on how much hydrogen a day the airports and airlines would need to replace hydrocarbon fuels, along with how big the electrolysis plants would need to be, and then the nuclear power plant. My memory from the paper I read I think last summer is that the major airports (Heathrow, Charled De Gual, Chicago, LA, etc.) would need on the order of 10-20 1000MW+ nuclear power plants each.


I'm far from convinced hydrogen is a good way to reduce the net CO2 emissions of the aviation sector, but I can say that's an exaggeration.

The US used about 55 million gallons of jet fuel per day before the pandemic:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44996

At 35 MJ/L energy density, that's an average demand of about 85 GW heating value, with no adjustments for efficiency, which would be around 100 large nuclear power plants for the US, considering capacity factor.

At a horizontal insolation of 4 kWh/m^2 per day, and 15% efficiency, that would require about 3500 square kilometers (1300 square miles) worth of solar panels. That is quite a bit of total land area, but not even remotely close to all habitable land. It's an area about 1/3 the size of Los Angeles County, or 0.03% of the US.

I'm only addressing the energy supply here. I don't have any expertise in large scale hydrolysis plants.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Thu Apr 01, 2021 2:28 am

2175301 wrote:
I'll believe in commercial hydrogen powered aircraft when I start to see the construction of massive amounts of 1000MW + nuclear power plants with matching hydrolysis plants reasonably close to the airports. I believe that Europe will need about 100 such plants, the USA about 200, and likely the rest of the world another 400 to convert to hydrogen powered aircraft.

There is no surplus of hydrogen out there. It has to be made. Currently about 98% of all hydrogen is from cracking natural gas or other carbon based products, which is not very green at all.

Have a great day,


All those power plants will cost a lot of green $. Yes nuclear is about the only way to get this amount of power available

Electric vehicles are cool and they will steadily become something like 30% of the fleet within a couple of decades. The logistics of getting our electrical grid capacity up. Per the EIA 28% of the US energy use is for transportation. Transportation is using 28.2 quads and electricity is 37.1 quads. If we convert 30% of our vehicles to electric, that adds 8.46 quads to the grid, a 23% increase in the load on the grid. It would be very difficult to increase the grid by even 10% per decade, in particular with the closure of a lot of the remaining coal plants. About the only way to get there is Nuclear Power, NuScale Power has a great design for modular nuclear plants which look excellent.

Getting rail and vehicles onto electric batteries or hydrogen fuel cells is a far easier nut to crack than that getting airplanes there. It's going to be difficult to get batteries or hydrogen stored in an airplane. Tons of issues to sort out safety wise, I personally feel that a synthetic fuel that somehow gets 20% more power density would be good, but even with current jet fuel aviation makes the most sense to stay the way it is.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1425
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:03 am

Nashville wrote:
Doesn’t it take more energy to produce hydrogen than the created hydrogen produces?


Yes. It also takes more energy to charge a battery than the battery can deliver. These technologies require some other original source of energy.

Nashville wrote:
‘Green Energy’ aka wind and solar don’t produce enough energy in their lifetime to offset the energy that was used to produce them.


This is false and has been debunked countless times. For example:
https://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/up ... YNGEI1.pdf

Some, but not all biofuels have poor Energy return on Energy Invested (EROEI). For solar and wind, depending on which we're talking about, where it is installed, and even when it is installed (as the manufacturing has gotten more efficient over time), they return in the range of 5 to 20 times as much energy over their lifetimes as it took to produce them.

Nashville wrote:
The battery energy breakthrough is 10 years away, just like Fusion has been for 40 years....


There is no pending battery breakthrough that we can rely on to enable electric airliners. The battery breakthrough to enable electric cars took place over 20 years ago, although it took that long for the technology to mature and costs to approach parity.

Fusion power has never credibly been claimed to be 10 years away. The closest credible claim came from a 1970's US study of progress on fusion research that looked at what the known remaining challenges were to developing viable fusion power plants.

This study evaluated five hypothetical funding levels for addressing those challenges. If no additional technical challenges were identified in the interim, which has not quite turned out to be the case, they estimated the highest level of funding studied could demonstrate a functional fusion power plant in about 20 years. The lowest level of funding they studied was believed to be insufficient to sustain the collective knowledge of the whole effort across multiple generations of researchers, so they labeled that the "Fusion Never" plan.

Congress declined to fund any of the viable plans, and therefore effectively adopted the Fusion Never plan. For a few years, US fusion research spending slightly exceeded the Fusion Never level, but from the mid-80's onward, it was nowhere close until the international ITER collaboration began. Unfortunately, ITER is a political project as much as a research project, run by bureaucrats, which has badly inflated the costs and delayed the work.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14395
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Thu Apr 01, 2021 8:39 am

There is no need to put power plants near airports. If it's possible why not but it's not needed, hydrogen can be transported by pipeline. You need a compression/liquefaction plant, however. For hydrolysis you need water, so if your airport doesn't have lots of water nearby, it wouldn't make sense to try to make the hydrogen there. Nuclear plants also need water, but I doubt using nuclear is the goal, at least not directly. Renewables would make the bulk of the electricity, and nuclear is nice to have for when renewables don't work (no wind, no sun, not enough hydro...). It could be a "side use" of the nuke plants when they're not needed, since slowing them or shutting them down isn't great. Also the vapor they make can be used in the production of hydrogen, on top of the electricity.

edit : actually if talking about nuclear plants you'd rather not put them near airports, for obvious reasons (too tempting for terrorists)
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:28 am

iamlucky13 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Great information. Thank you.

What are the issues with Fuel cells and Electric Motors? How do they stack up in terms weight/preformance?

It seems like Airbus has them on the more advanced blended wing design.


I have not studied fuel cells as much in order to be able to offer a quantitative comparison. I did have some exposure to them for use in industrial vehicles in situations where emissions were a concern, for the sake of having longer runtime than batteries provided. Their main limitation aside from the cost and complexity of having hydrogen delivered at the time was low power density - they could store the fuel for long range, but not provide the power to maximize productivity.

The Toyota Mirai addressed that concern by coupling the fuel cell with a moderately sized battery. It can not sustain high power outputs for long periods of time, but by using the fuel cells to charge the batteries when demand is low, they can provide high outputs for limited durations to ensure good acceleration and ability to maintain speed on steep hills.

This might be an option with aircraft as well - use batteries to complement the fuel cells for takeoff and climb, but the fuel cells only for cruise. Compared to a hydrogen-fueled turbine engine aircraft, the higher efficiency of fuel cells reduces the required fuel volume, but the fuel cells and batteries may increase the weight and cost.

Alternatively, hydrogen-fueled turbines could be used to supplement the fuel cells for takeoff and climb.


That makes sense. Although turbines are being run at a high percentage of available power at altitude - it's because the air is so thin - which I assume isn't an issue with electric/fuel cells. Looking at various sources cruise thrust seems to be about 25-30% of Max Sea Level take off thrust.

Are fuel cells expensive? One of the big advantages I see in electrics is that the cost of the motors should be a fraction of the cost of a modern very complex turbine.

Why are most Fuel cell/ Electric concepts usually showing multiple propulsors as well? Upwards of 6-8. Is that more efficient from a weight/thrust standpoint vs one large electric motor and prop or ducted fan? On the other hand it should reduce the amount of total thrust you need available for takeoff as the failure of one wouldn't have as big an impact. High altitude Airport operations should be less of a problem either as your propulsion system won't loose performance on takeoff.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4881
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Thu Apr 01, 2021 12:55 pm

As green electrification continues for buildings, cars, trucks, industrial processes and even hybrid planes for shorter distances, longer distance flights could continue with moderately greener aviation fuels. The faster we do that electrification the more slack there is for those long distance flights. What are the possibilities to pack more hydrogen into kerosene types of liquids? As that electrification continues it is simply a matter of arithmetic that aviation will contribute a greater percent of CO2 going into the atmosphere. But as the amount of CO2 goes down sharply that smaller total amount of aviation CO2 could be off set in a variety of ways. I am expecting most flights under 500 miles to be largely electrified.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:07 pm

Good article from the BBC on what NuScale is doing with SMR's - pro's and cons. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2020 ... -efficient

One of the interesting points is that Renewables now seem to be at less than 2C per KWH - including a battery storage system - which would not be needed if you were using the power to make Hydrogen as Hydrogen would be your storage system.

I know it's not as simple as I'm about to show - please correct this with the right math - but this link from Canada National Research pegs 1l of Gasoline at the energy equivalent of 8.9KWH. Gasoline is close to Kerosene in energy density. One US gallon would be 3.8x that or 33.82 KW/H - so current electricity from Renewables is equivalent to about $.65 a Gallon. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy-efficien ... bles/21383

The question becomes how much Electricity does it take to make LH2. This 2012 Paper on using Wind to make LH2 seems to suggest about 61KWH to make 1KG of LH2 - or about $1.20 using 2020 Technology at 2C per KWH From the paper 1KG of LH2 is about equivalent to 2 gallons of Gasoline. Or only $.60.

The cost in this 2012 study is equivalent to about $6 gallon with 25% of the cost transportation (which you wouldn't have if the plant was at the airport) and it assumes an energy cost of 4.7C KW/h. Drop that to 2C KW/H and no transport costs and that drops to about $2 Gallon. That doesn't seem too bad with 2020 Solar Cells.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files ... ay2012.pdf

I know there may be some major error's above - please correct if necessary. But it seems like somewhere between $.60 and $2.00 per gallon equivalent of Gasoline/kerosene currently.

However we would not be talking about 2020 Solar Cells to power the LH2 Plant on site at the airport. BTW - Airports have a ton of room to put panels - on tops of Buildings, between runways - etc...tons of empty land doing nothing.

While batteries may not be following Moore's law they seem to following Swanson's law and the cost seems to be dropping by about 50% per decade which could take solar down to .005 per KWH by 2040 when Hydrogen may be entering the fleet in scale. That could take the cost to equivalent of $.15-.50 gallon of kerosene equivalent.

As above - please correct with more accurate numbers if I'm totally off. If that is right though Hydrogen produced by Renewables could be cheaper now - and by 2040 definitely so.
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:28 pm

Forecast supporting the .005 KM/H by 2040 https://rameznaam.com/2020/05/14/solars ... heap-2020/

In terms of how much land area you need - how much space will a 2040 panel need vs a 2020 panel? A 2010 Panel seemed to produce about 200W and 2020 panels of equivalent size are at about 360W - so 2030 call it 500W and 750W for 2040?

Therefore a 2040 Solar farm would take about 50% of the space of a 2020 farm and 25% the space of a 2010 farm?

Where would we be by say 2060 if we go wholesale down this route in terms of price and area required? It seems inevitable.
 
2175301
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Thu Apr 01, 2021 3:55 pm

[quote="morrisond"][/quote]

morrisond: I don't have the time. Please check on what the 24 hour average production of solar panels are in the USA (including cloud cover and stormy days). Now there are areas that do better and areas that do worse. But, I believe that 24 hour average number is out there. That is the number to be using.

Next; no power plant runs 24/7/365. Not even solar cells. At a minimum their power converters and controls need maintenance and upgrading. A modern nuclear power plant runs at full power 24/7/300 days a year, and at 50% power 30 days a year, and is offline for maintenance and refueling 34 days a year, or better (those are long term 10 year + averages across many plants).

The information I have seen is that solar cells are offline on average about 10 days a year.

Finally and something most people really forget about: Available land use: Land has people, houses, businesses, parks, roads, farm fields for grain and agriculture products, etc along with native agitation which is required to . It is likely that the available land area to mount solar cells is at best 10% of the land area in the world.

Also, rooftop solar cells tend to have an expensive problem: Roof leaks. These often do not show up until 5-10 years later. But they are expensive to fix and may cause much more expensive structural or internal damage (and I know of several cases where the damage from the roof leak totally obliterated the installation cost and electrical generation value of the solar cells). Only a simpleton thinks that its no great issue to put holes in a roof to mount anything. Of course there are ways to build structures that will have minimal possible roof leaks... that's expensive up front as well.

Long term reliable - without inflated installation cost and expensive cost later... really requires land mount solar cells.

Also look up the AP1000 for a modern large nuclear power plant. 4 are in operation, and 2 more should be within the next few years.

Have fun looking this up....

Have a great day,
 
djpearman
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:02 pm

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:42 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
djpearman wrote:
My question for hydrogen as a or the future fuel is how it is going to help us in dealing with global warming. CO2 is greenhouse gas number two. H2O is greenhouse gas number one. 60% of the greenhouse effect is due to H2O in the atmosphere (from what I've read). So, how is replacing CO2 from burning fossil fuels with H2O from burning hydrogen going to reduce global warming?

From my (admittedly limited) knowledge on the subject, this seems to driving out Beelzebub with the Devil himself.


The carbon cycle is a slow process, as it depends on biological and geological processes to remove CO2 in excess of equilibrium from the atmosphere. The resulting atmospheric half life of CO2 is decades.

The water cycle is a very fast process, dependent on the thermodynamics that drive evaporation and condensation. The resulting atmospheric half life of excess water vapor in the atmosphere is hours.

As a result, when climate researchers study the effect of water vapor on climate, the main affect they see is the feedback cycle of how increased CO2 increases the temperature, allowing the equilibrium concentration of water vapor to increase and cause a further increase in temperature. Human activities that produce water vapor don't of themselves increase the equilibrium concentration of water vapor, so absent another effect to keep the emitted water vapor in the atmosphere, that particular greenhouse gas literally just falls out of the sky.

More on this topic:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2008 ... eedback-2/


Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, the article you link has not clarified the subject, but rather raised more questions than answers. To me, it has no clear or consistent message and makes several self-contradicting statements, claiming in quick succession that water vapour is a contributor to but not a cause of climate change. Either it contributes to Earth's warming and is thus a cause (out of several) to climate change or it doesn't and isn't. Moreover, its large number of unsubstantiated claims and the misuse of terms (what are "forcings"? and what does "feedback" actually refer to here? why not just use "cause" and "effect", if that is what is meant?) don't help either.

The explanations on water vapour paint a very nebulous, unclear picture of its impact on the greenhouse effect, indicating that we do not fully understand its effect. The causal chain given in the articl and that I've heard and seen elsewhere, too, is that CO2 and other greenhouse gases (does that include water vapour then?) raise Earth's temperature, which in turn increases atmospheric water vapour, which in turn contributes to further warming. As such, as the article states, "water vapour is indeed responsible for a major portion of Earth's warming over the past century". It is both an effect and a cause of global warming at the same time, as outlined in the article (with my interpretation of the author's terms). So, to push technology that contributes directly to atmospheric water vapour without having fully understood its effect appears very reckless to me.

Sure, the water cycle is a lot faster than the CO2 process, but its vastly more complex, too. A strong dependence on temperature and thus regions of the world (tropical, desert, moderate and arctic climates, etc) and seasons as well as the role of clouds make it far less straightforward to understand and model accurately. Especially the latter, as the article states "there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of cloud feedbacks, though many researchers believe that the net radiative forcing is either neutral or slightly positive", implies quite strongly that we should devote more time to understanding the water cycle fully before beginning large scale emissions of water vapour.

Nuclear power was once considered to be the cleanest form of energy around and in many aspects it is. However, it has burdened us and the generations after us for thousands of years with nuclear waste. But it's not possible to revert decisions made in the past. Similarly, if we pour massive amounts of resources into hydrogen technology today, just to find out in future that the lasting impact isn't what we hoped for, then it will also be too late to go back on that decision. That is my motivation for questioning current trends and being a sceptical voice. I will very happily be convinced, but I like to try to understand the reasons and details. So, again, thanks for the time and effort put into replies!
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1425
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:17 pm

djpearman wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
djpearman wrote:
My question for hydrogen as a or the future fuel is how it is going to help us in dealing with global warming. CO2 is greenhouse gas number two. H2O is greenhouse gas number one. 60% of the greenhouse effect is due to H2O in the atmosphere (from what I've read). So, how is replacing CO2 from burning fossil fuels with H2O from burning hydrogen going to reduce global warming?

From my (admittedly limited) knowledge on the subject, this seems to driving out Beelzebub with the Devil himself.


The carbon cycle is a slow process, as it depends on biological and geological processes to remove CO2 in excess of equilibrium from the atmosphere. The resulting atmospheric half life of CO2 is decades.

The water cycle is a very fast process, dependent on the thermodynamics that drive evaporation and condensation. The resulting atmospheric half life of excess water vapor in the atmosphere is hours.

As a result, when climate researchers study the effect of water vapor on climate, the main affect they see is the feedback cycle of how increased CO2 increases the temperature, allowing the equilibrium concentration of water vapor to increase and cause a further increase in temperature. Human activities that produce water vapor don't of themselves increase the equilibrium concentration of water vapor, so absent another effect to keep the emitted water vapor in the atmosphere, that particular greenhouse gas literally just falls out of the sky.

More on this topic:
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2008 ... eedback-2/


Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, the article you link has not clarified the subject, but rather raised more questions than answers. To me, it has no clear or consistent message and makes several self-contradicting statements, claiming in quick succession that water vapour is a contributor to but not a cause of climate change. Either it contributes to Earth's warming and is thus a cause (out of several) to climate change or it doesn't and isn't.


That water vapor is a contributor to climate change, but not a cause it not contradictory as it may seem. They're talking about root cause versus contributing factors, similar to how aircraft accident investigators often do (eg - a root cause of a controls malfunction, with a contributing factor of insufficient pilot training leading to the wrong response). The warming caused by the emission of other gasses, particularly CO2, results in an increase of water vapor that results in additional warming. And to jump ahead to a likely question: the warming caused by water vapor results in a further incremental increase in water vapor and more warming - this is a convergent response, not a runaway one. The estimates provided in that article would be the sum of the converged response.

djpearman wrote:
Moreover, its large number of unsubstantiated claims and the misuse of terms (what are "forcings"? and what does "feedback" actually refer to here? why not just use "cause" and "effect", if that is what is meant?) don't help either.


When climate researchers talk about forcing factors, they're not talking simply about a cause, but the quantified effect of that cause on the radiative heat balance of the earth. Furthermore, a feedback is not merely an effect because it also contributes to the effect, even though not as a root cause. There is some cursory discussion here:
https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/

If you really want to get in depth with this, the IPCC reports from the Physical Science Basis Working Group is one of the most comprehensive discussions of the topic. They don't define forcing or feedback, although seeing the terms used in context of a more technical discussion may help better understand why they use those terms. The report is huge, so you probably want to start with the Summary for Policy Makers, or maybe the Technical Summary.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

djpearman wrote:
The explanations on water vapour paint a very nebulous, unclear picture of its impact on the greenhouse effect, indicating that we do not fully understand its effect.


Those who do the modelling often have difficulty explaining things in layman's terms, but that does not mean the effect is not well understood. In fact, this relates closely to the topic of psychrometrics, which is an extremely well understood part of thermodynamics. Increasing temperature increases water vapor content, which causes a further increase in temperature (although in a convergent manner, not a runaway cycle).

djpearman wrote:
So, to push technology that contributes directly to atmospheric water vapour without having fully understood its effect appears very reckless to me.


No, because as I would like to convey as the key point, water vapor added through processes that don't change the saturation vapor pressure does not lead to a persistent change. I'll caveat that by saying it holds to a first or maybe second order approximation. There should be a small effect, but I have three further relevant points to make:

1) That effect is already present, just not to quite the same degree. Jet fuel combustion results in roughly equal parts (molar basis, not mass basis) of carbon dioxide and water vapor.

2) The significance of water vapor in determining the heat balance of the earth comes in part from the fact that there is 10 times as much of it in the atmosphere on average as there is CO2. Closely related to that, note that CO2 concentrations have increased about 25% over the last 4 decades, while water vapor concentrations have increased 3.5%.

3) Trading roughly equal parts of increased water vapor emissions for reduced CO2 is a significant net improvement, because again, the overwhelming majority of that added water vapor does not persist like the CO2 does.

djpearman wrote:
Sure, the water cycle is a lot faster than the CO2 process, but its vastly more complex, too. A strong dependence on temperature and thus regions of the world (tropical, desert, moderate and arctic climates, etc) and seasons as well as the role of clouds make it far less straightforward to understand and model accurately. Especially the latter, as the article states "there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of cloud feedbacks, though many researchers believe that the net radiative forcing is either neutral or slightly positive", implies quite strongly that we should devote more time to understanding the water cycle fully before beginning large scale emissions of water vapour.


Clouds are suspended liquid water droplets, not water vapor. Unlike water vapor, they are not transparent to visible light, which complicates the determination of how they affect the radiative heat balance. The mean estimate is very close to zero effect, so even a small amount of uncertainty makes it unclear whether the net effect is positive or negative, where as the mean estimate of the effect of water vapor is large, and the range of uncertainty only indicates a positive net effect on the heat balance. So changes in average water vapor content are a bigger concern, but again, processes that emit water vapor without changing the saturation vapor pressure do not result in a sustained increase in atmospheric water vapor.

Also, I'd add that I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of the carbon cycle.

djpearman wrote:
Nuclear power was once considered to be the cleanest form of energy around and in many aspects it is. However, it has burdened us and the generations after us for thousands of years with nuclear waste.


Nuclear waste was a known significant issue from the start. The long term effects were generally understood, although not held proportionately to as high of a degree of concern as they are today. This was in part because there were bigger problems at the time (in particular how dirty the coal plants of the 50's and 60's were and the limited practicality of other options that have since been developed into viable large scale sources like natural gas, solar, and wind), and in part due to politics that have since exaggerated the concerns and unnecessarily complicated the mitigation. I would say in a few specific instances, the political complications are of a criminally reckless degree; Yucca Mountain was hardly a perfect mitigation, but the chosen alternative is radically and inexcusably worse.

Non-persistent water vapor emission is a known minimally significant issue.

And I'll wrap this all up by noting that I'm skeptical this tangential discussion is of long term significance, since I rather expect biomass derived liquid fuels to remain a more cost effective way to reduce the net climate change impact of air travel compared to hydrogen fuel.
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Fri Apr 02, 2021 12:25 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
And I'll wrap this all up by noting that I'm skeptical this tangential discussion is of long term significance, since I rather expect biomass derived liquid fuels to remain a more cost effective way to reduce the net climate change impact of air travel compared to hydrogen fuel.


If I am close to anywhere right though on where Solar costs are going - getting LH2 to $.50 or less less per gallon for LH2 how can Biomass compete with that. If that number is right that is less than the cost of Kerosene and is there enough Biomass available to eventually replace all Kerosene?

This study seems to suggest large scale biomass at about 10x the cost. https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/192 ... 016-17.pdf

"The lowest mean MSP was that of HEFA yellow grease with a value of $0.91/liter (95% range of $0.66/liter-$1.24/liter), followed by HEFA tallow with a mean MSP value of $1.06/liter ($0.79/liter-$1.42/liter), FT with $1.15/liter ($0.95/liter-$1.39/liter), HEFA soybean oil with $1.19/liter ($0.87/liter-$1.60/liter), AF sugarcane at $1.47/liter ($1.10/liter-$1.96/liter), FPH with $1.52/liter ($1.02/liter-$2.10/liter), AF corn grain with $1.66/liter ($1.30/liter-$2.10/liter), APP with $2.07/liter ($1.73/liter- $2.48/liter), AF herbaceous biomass with $2.51/liter ($2.16/liter-$2.92/liter), and HTL with $2.78/liter ($2.09/liter- $3.58/liter). None of the MSP results approached the 5-year average conventional jet fuel price of $0.64/L, even at the lower-bound values (EIA, 2016d)."

Not trying to be argumentative - just trying to understand. Do you have any other data that suggests that Biomass Fuels have a lower cost future - or is something in the total carbon cycle?

Thanks
 
WIederling
Posts: 10043
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:25 pm

morrisond wrote:

If I am close to anywhere right though on where Solar costs are going - getting LH2 to $.50 or less less per gallon for LH2 how can Biomass compete with that. If that number is right that is less than the cost of Kerosene and is there enough Biomass available to eventually replace all Kerosene?


aren't you mixing up energy storage method and energy harvesting methods here?

LH2 is a storage method.

biomass is a harvesting solution. photovoltaics are more efficient than biomass per acre of consumed land.
Murphy is an optimist
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:06 pm

WIederling wrote:
morrisond wrote:

If I am close to anywhere right though on where Solar costs are going - getting LH2 to $.50 or less less per gallon for LH2 how can Biomass compete with that. If that number is right that is less than the cost of Kerosene and is there enough Biomass available to eventually replace all Kerosene?


aren't you mixing up energy storage method and energy harvesting methods here?

LH2 is a storage method.

biomass is a harvesting solution. photovoltaics are more efficient than biomass per acre of consumed land.


Using Solar and Electrolysis to make LH2.
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:23 pm

So is anyone gong to refute my data that using Solar it seems like LH2 could be under the cost of Kerosene at less than $.50 per gallon by 2040? About the time when LH2 Airliners will be available?

If this is true Airbus may be making a brilliant move by focusing on LH2 powered aircraft for what appears to be the A320 replacement.

Boeing could be painting themselves in the corner with a Combined NMA/NSA program if they don't allow for LH2 in the design.

Maybe NSA is the truss braced concept powered by LH2 and comes 2035-2040 with a completely different fuselage. Although the work they will have done on NMA Cockpit and NMA production tech will help a lot.

From what research I have done (albeit limited) - LH2 does have the potential to change the Aviation landscape a lot sooner than people are expecting.

Who would have thought in 2015 that most of the worlds Car manufacturers would be making the investments they are now in Electric Vehicles. I suspect by 2030 most new cars will be electric powered.

Technology is funny like that and tends to be parabolic in terms of adoption. The cries for Carbon neutral transportation will only grow going forward. The states are about to fund a lot of research (Hundred's on Billions) on future tech with the new Infrastructure bill.
 
2175301
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:28 pm

morrisond wrote:
So is anyone gong to refute my data that using Solar it seems like LH2 could be under the cost of Kerosene at less than $.50 per gallon by 2040? About the time when LH2 Airliners will be available?

If this is true Airbus may be making a brilliant move by focusing on LH2 powered aircraft for what appears to be the A320 replacement.

Boeing could be painting themselves in the corner with a Combined NMA/NSA program if they don't allow for LH2 in the design.

Maybe NSA is the truss braced concept powered by LH2 and comes 2035-2040 with a completely different fuselage. Although the work they will have done on NMA Cockpit and NMA production tech will help a lot.

From what research I have done (albeit limited) - LH2 does have the potential to change the Aviation landscape a lot sooner than people are expecting.

Who would have thought in 2015 that most of the worlds Car manufacturers would be making the investments they are now in Electric Vehicles. I suspect by 2030 most new cars will be electric powered.

Technology is funny like that and tends to be parabolic in terms of adoption. The cries for Carbon neutral transportation will only grow going forward. The states are about to fund a lot of research (Hundred's on Billions) on future tech with the new Infrastructure bill.


I have not had the time to do the research to find the articles... but, yes. You are talking about a totally false theory about the use of solar for H2 production and the cost.

There are a variety of factors other than the actual cost of solar electricity that make the idea economically silly.

For example Solar energy is not a constant production process. There is none at night, then it start to build during the day - reaches a peak - and then falls off.

H2 production plants are not cheap and need constant energy to operate 24/7 to keep maintenance and overhead cost down. Look up the term Capacity Factor as it relates to electrical generation. The best solar locations in the southern and desert US States have capacity factors of about 35%. Going north to the Canadian border and I believe that drops to 10%.

So even if solar was constant generation round the clock - you would need to build 3 - 9 times the number of H2 production plants to produce the hydrogen that a nuclear power plant of the same installed generation could produce.

But it not constant production. it peaks. So are you building 3-27 times the number of H2 plants - or perhaps 15-45 times more so you can produce H2 during say 8 hours a day.

Add up the cost of building all of those extra H2 plants and operating them in cycling mode which actually requires more staff/H2 produced and a lot more maintenance. Not to mention loss of efficiency due to daily start up and shut down. Its an economic disaster (and very poor use of land area) just to build H2 plants that rely on solar electric.

The next major issue is real world efficiencies. No process is 100% efficient, liquefying hydrogen - and keeping it liquid is very energy intensive. Also that historically the best way to keep cryogenic liquids cool is to bleed some off and allow to evaporate (evaporative cooling requires no other expensive to installed and opererate equipment past the liquidification plant).

Someone above did a calculation that showed that the aviation fuel use in the USA would only require 100 nuclear 1000MW nuclear power plants to produce the same energy containing Hydrogen (if I recall correctly). Actually, its likely at least twice that due to the efficiency losses, cost of liquidification, and wasted product due to evaporative cooling bleadoof to keep it liquid (and installing and running refrideration equipment down the pipelines and for the storage tanks will be more expensive and affect efficiency worst than using evaporative cooling).

Those are basic facts regarding the fundamental mismatch of solar to H2 production and real world efficiencies of electric generation output to final energy delivered into an aircraft of liquid hydrogen. I note that if people were to look at the efficiencies of crude oil at a wellhead to final gallon of delivered fuel into the fuel tank of a vehicle or aircraft that they will see a similar massive "loss" of product due to real world efficiencies and cost of production and delivery.

Now what have not yet looked at is what are the actual real world cost of producing solar electricity. I have seen some data that suggest to me the the installed capacity for solar is perhaps in the range of $0.02 per "installed" kwh. If that is true... then that is where capacity factor comes into play. At best in the best locations you only get about 35% of the capacity from those solar cells. That would about triple the cost of "delivered" kwh, and for Wisconsin here that is about 9 times the cost due to both our northern location and 1/3 typical could cover. I may be wrong here and I need some real time to research that what the installation and operating cost of solar electric are (if not mounted on a roof. My roofer brother also mentioned to me that it doubles to triples the cost of a roofing job if they have to remove and reinstall roof mounted solar when the roof need to be redone: most modern roofs need redoing every 15-20 years; so add that to roof mounted solar cost - even if there are not additional roof leaks and internal damage - which are all to common).

Solar H2 sounds really good.... But when you consider the massive overbuilding of H2 production plants that requires to be able to use only solar to meet H2 demand it quickly dies on that concept alone. Both Solar and Wind have low capacity factors when considering reliable and steady power production. Conversion to a H2 economy is going to require reliable and steady power supplies.

Have a great day,
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:54 pm

2175301 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
So is anyone gong to refute my data that using Solar it seems like LH2 could be under the cost of Kerosene at less than $.50 per gallon by 2040? About the time when LH2 Airliners will be available?

If this is true Airbus may be making a brilliant move by focusing on LH2 powered aircraft for what appears to be the A320 replacement.

Boeing could be painting themselves in the corner with a Combined NMA/NSA program if they don't allow for LH2 in the design.

Maybe NSA is the truss braced concept powered by LH2 and comes 2035-2040 with a completely different fuselage. Although the work they will have done on NMA Cockpit and NMA production tech will help a lot.

From what research I have done (albeit limited) - LH2 does have the potential to change the Aviation landscape a lot sooner than people are expecting.

Who would have thought in 2015 that most of the worlds Car manufacturers would be making the investments they are now in Electric Vehicles. I suspect by 2030 most new cars will be electric powered.

Technology is funny like that and tends to be parabolic in terms of adoption. The cries for Carbon neutral transportation will only grow going forward. The states are about to fund a lot of research (Hundred's on Billions) on future tech with the new Infrastructure bill.


I have not had the time to do the research to find the articles... but, yes. You are talking about a totally false theory about the use of solar for H2 production and the cost.

There are a variety of factors other than the actual cost of solar electricity that make the idea economically silly.

For example Solar energy is not a constant production process. There is none at night, then it start to build during the day - reaches a peak - and then falls off.

H2 production plants are not cheap and need constant energy to operate 24/7 to keep maintenance and overhead cost down. Look up the term Capacity Factor as it relates to electrical generation. The best solar locations in the southern and desert US States have capacity factors of about 35%. Going north to the Canadian border and I believe that drops to 10%.

So even if solar was constant generation round the clock - you would need to build 3 - 9 times the number of H2 production plants to produce the hydrogen that a nuclear power plant of the same installed generation could produce.

But it not constant production. it peaks. So are you building 3-27 times the number of H2 plants - or perhaps 15-45 times more so you can produce H2 during say 8 hours a day.

Add up the cost of building all of those extra H2 plants and operating them in cycling mode which actually requires more staff/H2 produced and a lot more maintenance. Not to mention loss of efficiency due to daily start up and shut down. Its an economic disaster (and very poor use of land area) just to build H2 plants that rely on solar electric.

The next major issue is real world efficiencies. No process is 100% efficient, liquefying hydrogen - and keeping it liquid is very energy intensive. Also that historically the best way to keep cryogenic liquids cool is to bleed some off and allow to evaporate (evaporative cooling requires no other expensive to installed and opererate equipment past the liquidification plant).

Someone above did a calculation that showed that the aviation fuel use in the USA would only require 100 nuclear 1000MW nuclear power plants to produce the same energy containing Hydrogen (if I recall correctly). Actually, its likely at least twice that due to the efficiency losses, cost of liquidification, and wasted product due to evaporative cooling bleadoof to keep it liquid (and installing and running refrideration equipment down the pipelines and for the storage tanks will be more expensive and affect efficiency worst than using evaporative cooling).

Those are basic facts regarding the fundamental mismatch of solar to H2 production and real world efficiencies of electric generation output to final energy delivered into an aircraft of liquid hydrogen. I note that if people were to look at the efficiencies of crude oil at a wellhead to final gallon of delivered fuel into the fuel tank of a vehicle or aircraft that they will see a similar massive "loss" of product due to real world efficiencies and cost of production and delivery.

Now what have not yet looked at is what are the actual real world cost of producing solar electricity. I have seen some data that suggest to me the the installed capacity for solar is perhaps in the range of $0.02 per "installed" kwh. If that is true... then that is where capacity factor comes into play. At best in the best locations you only get about 35% of the capacity from those solar cells. That would about triple the cost of "delivered" kwh, and for Wisconsin here that is about 9 times the cost due to both our northern location and 1/3 typical could cover. I may be wrong here and I need some real time to research that what the installation and operating cost of solar electric are (if not mounted on a roof. My roofer brother also mentioned to me that it doubles to triples the cost of a roofing job if they have to remove and reinstall roof mounted solar when the roof need to be redone: most modern roofs need redoing every 15-20 years; so add that to roof mounted solar cost - even if there are not additional roof leaks and internal damage - which are all to common).

Solar H2 sounds really good.... But when you consider the massive overbuilding of H2 production plants that requires to be able to use only solar to meet H2 demand it quickly dies on that concept alone. Both Solar and Wind have low capacity factors when considering reliable and steady power production. Conversion to a H2 economy is going to require reliable and steady power supplies.

Have a great day,


I get it - but that is where tech is today - where is it by 2035?

THe .02KWH is what the Utilities are paying those solar installations in Southern California. I'm assuming that takes into the capacity of the cells.

The funny thing is that I did a bunch of research on Solar as I almost bought a large installation for our farm. I live in Ontario, Canada.

The efficiency of cells up here was not that bad and they actually worked better when it was cold out as long as the sun was shining. We get quite a bit of sun up here in the winter North of the Great Lakes - which is what it makes it so cold as no clouds to keep the warmth in.

In any case - yes Nuclear may be the way to do it. However Airbus must have done a bunch of research on the issue of LH2 supply to move forward with the ZeroE initiative.
 
2175301
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Sun Apr 04, 2021 4:54 pm

morrisond wrote:
I get it - but that is where tech is today - where is it by 2035?

THe .02KWH is what the Utilities are paying those solar installations in Southern California. I'm assuming that takes into the capacity of the cells.


Changes in the technology of solar cells and conversion circuits are not going to change when the sun rises and sets, the weather, and the inherent capacity factor limitation of both solar and wind.

As to your 2nd point. To the best of my knowledge All State Utility Commissions require the Utility Companies to pay for solar and wind power at rates that have nothing to do with their cost of production. Often it is artificially high compared to he actual value (When this all started Wisconsin was requiring Utilities to pay about $0.08 kwh for wind and solar - when the coal, gas, and nuclear plants were producing it in the $0.015 - $0.03 range (i.e the Utility Customers were subsidizing the people who installed wind and solar that fed the grid); and the wind people were complaining that the about $0.08 was not near enough to cover their cost).. In the case of California it may just represent the cost of generated power delivered from their cheaper sources in the grid (large power plants - actually that's about right for the existing large coal and nuclear plants in the western USA).

Thus, I would not put any trust in what solar generation cost based on what Utility Commissions direct the Utilities to pay for it, as it has nothing to do with actual cost of wind or solar generation.

Again the real issue is not installed cost (which represents 100% capacity factor). But realistic capacity factors and time of day generation curves vs baseline - and how many extra solar plant and H2 plants would have to be built to support that vs a base-loaded 90%+ capacity factor nuclear power plant.

Have a great day,
 
2175301
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Sun Apr 04, 2021 10:42 pm

morrisond, and anyone else interested I believe I can answer your questions about the current real world cost of solar electric power; and all the factors that actually go into it.

The problem is that far to often individual companies or studies only tell part of the cost, and misrepresent the cost of competing alternatives. I'll try to provide a clear demonstration of that, and provide real world estimates that combine all the pieces.

Note that none of this cost data deals with the capacity factor and time of day limitations of solar for what should be a base-load function of manufacturing H2 by electrohydrolysis, and there are no cheap storage methods.

While the cost of generation is an important factor, so to also is the cost to transmit and deliver the electricity to the customers.

Per a Forbes 2020 article, the 2020 cost of new utility size construction solar PV electric generation was in the $32-$42/MWh ($0.032 - $0.042/kwh). That's in the range of 1/4 - 1/2 the cost reported in a 2015 IEA study (results can be found in a 2018 study I will list later).

For simplification: lets just call it $0.037/kwh (the average price reported in the Forbes article).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinno ... 301fd22c84

Note that I really disagree with the cited cost of nuclear in that article - as I know where those $118-$192/MWh numbers comes from and its the 1st of its kind reactors that Europe has been trying to build that are way way way overdue and have many technical issues (it looks like the Europeans forgot how to build nuclear components and systems). The Cost overruns have been massive. I will present other data that shows nuclear at much lower cost and note that 4 modern AP1000 reactors have been build and are on line, 2 more are almost complete here in the USA and should be online within about 2 years. We know how much they cost.

Other articles state that there are people who believe that this can be cut in half in another 15 years. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. I can see a potential reduction of 1/3. Not sure about 1/2.

However, that's missing a big part of the real cost of solar power. Transmission and distribution.

For this I will start with the Wiki Article (and I don't know how to get the picture to display). However look for the "Global Studies" charts on cost of "Global levelized cost of generation (US$ per MWh)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_e ... _by_source

Notice that the NEA and IPCC peg the cost of Solar in the range of twice (or more) than other studies report.

The reason is that those two studies include 1st the cost of transmission and distribution to the client (delievered cost, not generation cost) and also consider "External or social costs outside the electricity system."

Now you may be saying that this is just the NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency). Its not. Its jointly issued by "OECD" who's member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission takes part in the work of the OECD.

Thus much of the world has input into the determination of costs and external or social cost of various power generation technologies.

Also, normally this is a 5 year report also issued jointly with the IEA (international Energy Agency). However, NEA and OECD determined by 2018 that enough things had changed that they needed a current update even though the IEA data used was from 2015 (next IEA report was to be issued in 2020 - I have not looked for it). You can find the 2015 IEA report of the cost of installed solar PV in this report.

Here is a link for you to download the pdf of the 2018 NEA/OECD report. I highly recommend you read it and study all the factors that go into the cost of electricity by generation source:

https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2018/ ... 018-es.pdf

Solar PV is lots of small plants spaced at wide distances. Base-loaded power plants are large plants at 1 site. The 2018 NEA/OECD report suggest that the transmission and distribution cost for PV solar is about $0.035 kwh (ave of $27 & $43 MWk) and about $0.002 for a large nuclear power plant (I doubt those low number hold up for the SMR's, which would likely be 2-3 times that).

The 2018 NEA/OECD report pegged a new construction large nuclear power plant at $55/MWh ($0.055kwh). My understanding of the 4 Chinese AP 1000's and the 2 US ones being finished puts that a bit low. More likely in the $60-$65/MWh range (including transmission distribution and external society cost).

Transmission and distribution and external society cost don't change much. Lowering the cost of building a solar PV plant is not going to change that part of the overall cost to the end customer.

Anyway; so while it looks like $0.037kwh (+/-) is the construction cost of Solar PV it goes up to a range of $0.072 (+/-) when you add the expensive transmission and distribution system, and without adding the other external and society cost.

As I stated at the start. This does not address the daily cycle of solar PV power availability, and its mismatch to a steady production of H2 from electrohydrolysis, and the required massive overbuilding and staffing of H2 plants due to the low capacity factor (10-35%) of solar vs a 90%+ capacity factor nuclear power plant.

Add the overall efficiency and product losses as well (you need about twice the electricity for every gallon of LH2 put in the fuel tank).

Anyway: Liquid H2 for Aircraft propulsion is not going to be nearly as cheap as a lot of people are touting...

Have a great day,
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:19 pm

Yes - I just did the calculations a few ways and it seems like we would need about 1,000 1,000MW power plants to convert all the LH2 needed to replace all Kerosene.

Which is about the entire installed Generating Capacity of the United States at the end of 2020 and somewhere around 16-17% of all power generated Worldwide. So a big number but not insurmountable.

We really have to get cracking on a safe viable fusion solution. Time for a Manhattan Project V2 - this time for a green power source.

They should put funding into the new infrastructure bill to get that done by 2040 at the latest. $50B a year for 10 years should do it to finally come up with a practical solution.

The Manhattan project cost about $23B in Today's dollars.

However leave the bureaucrats out - where is an equivalent to General Groves when we need one?

A good article on the current state of Fusion research. https://www.powermag.com/fusion-energy- ... you-think/
 
2175301
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Mon Apr 05, 2021 10:03 pm

morrisond wrote:
Yes - I just did the calculations a few ways and it seems like we would need about 1,000 1,000MW power plants to convert all the LH2 needed to replace all Kerosene.

Which is about the entire installed Generating Capacity of the United States at the end of 2020 and somewhere around 16-17% of all power generated Worldwide. So a big number but not insurmountable.

We really have to get cracking on a safe viable fusion solution. Time for a Manhattan Project V2 - this time for a green power source.

They should put funding into the new infrastructure bill to get that done by 2040 at the latest. $50B a year for 10 years should do it to finally come up with a practical solution.

The Manhattan project cost about $23B in Today's dollars.

However leave the bureaucrats out - where is an equivalent to General Groves when we need one?

A good article on the current state of Fusion research. https://www.powermag.com/fusion-energy- ... you-think/


The article left out a couple significant things. While scientist are working with Tokamaks as the best "older" technology to attain fusion and learn about it... Toamaks cannot be used for power generation or any long term operation study because they physically cannot be cooled fast enough to remove the heat from a constant fusion reaction inside them. They can run for short periods of time until they warm up to a certain point.

I actually helped build a potential future fusion reactor design that could be cooled and used for a power plant: The UW Madison HSX device. https://hsx.wisc.edu/

At this point this design shape is only being used for high energy research (short of fusion) as this was the 1st test device to use this shape; but, this twisty curvy design could potentially be used as a power plant because we can extract heat from it faster than what is produced inside it if it was submerged in liquid sodium or several other fluids and you could build magnetic containment fields on the same levels as the Tokomaks.

My part in the construction was the explosive forming of the plate segments against very expensive machined steel die blocks.

I was also part of the design and construction of a spherical research chamber to study the pumping flow dynamics of fluids in a sphere for the high energy physics department of UW Madison.

The article also leaves out that in Asia (I don't recall the country) some physicist is working on a completely different approach to fusion that sounds very promising - and is at the stage of results of the Tokomaks of a decade ago - and their design would also be cool-able.

However, whatever design finally gets to even a briefly sustained fusion reaction... It will likely be at least another 20 years to build small development power plant, and 20 years after that before reliable utility scale power plants are available to be build with normal utility money.

Have a great day,
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:55 am

2175301 wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Yes - I just did the calculations a few ways and it seems like we would need about 1,000 1,000MW power plants to convert all the LH2 needed to replace all Kerosene.

Which is about the entire installed Generating Capacity of the United States at the end of 2020 and somewhere around 16-17% of all power generated Worldwide. So a big number but not insurmountable.

We really have to get cracking on a safe viable fusion solution. Time for a Manhattan Project V2 - this time for a green power source.

They should put funding into the new infrastructure bill to get that done by 2040 at the latest. $50B a year for 10 years should do it to finally come up with a practical solution.

The Manhattan project cost about $23B in Today's dollars.

However leave the bureaucrats out - where is an equivalent to General Groves when we need one?

A good article on the current state of Fusion research. https://www.powermag.com/fusion-energy- ... you-think/


The article left out a couple significant things. While scientist are working with Tokamaks as the best "older" technology to attain fusion and learn about it... Toamaks cannot be used for power generation or any long term operation study because they physically cannot be cooled fast enough to remove the heat from a constant fusion reaction inside them. They can run for short periods of time until they warm up to a certain point.

I actually helped build a potential future fusion reactor design that could be cooled and used for a power plant: The UW Madison HSX device. https://hsx.wisc.edu/

At this point this design shape is only being used for high energy research (short of fusion) as this was the 1st test device to use this shape; but, this twisty curvy design could potentially be used as a power plant because we can extract heat from it faster than what is produced inside it if it was submerged in liquid sodium or several other fluids and you could build magnetic containment fields on the same levels as the Tokomaks.

My part in the construction was the explosive forming of the plate segments against very expensive machined steel die blocks.

I was also part of the design and construction of a spherical research chamber to study the pumping flow dynamics of fluids in a sphere for the high energy physics department of UW Madison.

The article also leaves out that in Asia (I don't recall the country) some physicist is working on a completely different approach to fusion that sounds very promising - and is at the stage of results of the Tokomaks of a decade ago - and their design would also be cool-able.

However, whatever design finally gets to even a briefly sustained fusion reaction... It will likely be at least another 20 years to build small development power plant, and 20 years after that before reliable utility scale power plants are available to be build with normal utility money.

Have a great day,


I was reading about Alternative shapes as I understand Tokamak's can't be used to generate power.

That is really neat that you have been involved in some of the more advanced fusion concepts. I would guess that as Computers get better/faster it will be easier to model some of the more complex shapes/magnetic fields that will be necessary.

Although the current rate of progress is relatively slow - could that be sped up significantly with basically unlimited funding and a national will?

It seems like Lockheed is making progress on there designs. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... ful-design
 
2175301
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Tue Apr 06, 2021 4:20 am

morrisond wrote:
2175301 wrote:
I actually helped build a potential future fusion reactor design that could be cooled and used for a power plant: The UW Madison HSX device. https://hsx.wisc.edu/

At this point this design shape is only being used for high energy research (short of fusion) as this was the 1st test device to use this shape; but, this twisty curvy design could potentially be used as a power plant because we can extract heat from it faster than what is produced inside it if it was submerged in liquid sodium or several other fluids and you could build magnetic containment fields on the same levels as the Tokomaks.

My part in the construction was the explosive forming of the plate segments against very expensive machined steel die blocks.

I was also part of the design and construction of a spherical research chamber to study the pumping flow dynamics of fluids in a sphere for the high energy physics department of UW Madison.

The article also leaves out that in Asia (I don't recall the country) some physicist is working on a completely different approach to fusion that sounds very promising - and is at the stage of results of the Tokomaks of a decade ago - and their design would also be cool-able.

However, whatever design finally gets to even a briefly sustained fusion reaction... It will likely be at least another 20 years to build small development power plant, and 20 years after that before reliable utility scale power plants are available to be build with normal utility money.

Have a great day,


I was reading about Alternative shapes as I understand Tokamak's can't be used to generate power.

That is really neat that you have been involved in some of the more advanced fusion concepts. I would guess that as Computers get better/faster it will be easier to model some of the more complex shapes/magnetic fields that will be necessary.

Although the current rate of progress is relatively slow - could that be sped up significantly with basically unlimited funding and a national will?

It seems like Lockheed is making progress on there designs. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... ful-design


Yes and no. What a "Manhattan" stye project could do is to totally fund a variety of different designs to be built at essentially the same time - and then see if one of them works (or nearly works).

However, in my opinion we are a long way yet from knowing what will work - and none of the current theoretical designs may work. Every year they make progress on the theories and how to improve various designs.

I don't have time today to look up the new concept in Asia that I think has real promise; and it's been a couple years since I last talked to my contacts at the UW Madison about where things sit in the fusion research industry (my contact goes to all the conferences).

The HXS device didn't do as well in some areas as they had hopped, and did better in other areas that they did not expect. I do know that they felt that they can build a better bigger one (which actually was tried only they decided to cast the twisty curvy shape instead of explosive forming of rolled plate - and the casting was too porous: I did suggest that they need to use high vacuum casting for the next attempt - or go back to explosive forming - and I still have my blasters license).

Of course, fusion reactors would produce a lot less nuclear waste to make H2 for aircraft - or even large scale battery charging. Note: Fusion reactors do produce radiation, and do create radioactive waste - just not from the fuel itself.

Have a great day,
 
Sokes
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:57 am

Beside short distance hops I exclude battery.

Since hydrogen tanks are heavy the tank should be a sphere, probably above/ around the wingbox. If the hydrogen is stored in liquid form one can burn off whatever steams off. For liquid hydrogen the tank shape is less important. The temperature may not be suitable for storage in wing or other complicated shapes. I believe long range planes with only around 10% fuel remaining on landing are good for liquid hydrogen application.

With biofuels only sugarcane is feasible. Everything else has too much input energy. I believe in future the CO2 from bagasse burning will be used to make biofuels with the help of solar electricity produced hydrogen. But then the chemical industry may need it.

I believe the hydrogen economy should start with luxury cars. One justification for inequality in society is that rich people finance the learning curve, be it Teslas, mobiles or laptops. A rich early adopter driving a hydrogen car is a social worker. (My car was below 5000 $ new, I'm not speaking of myself.)
Next (and much less sexy) should be solar produced hydrogen for fertilizer and steel production. After that hydrogen should be used for Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs). After that ships and maybe trucks should switch to hydrogen. Planes I would rather place at the end.

But then consumers may be more concerned about CO2 from planes than with the CO2 from steel reinforcement in their house. It doesn't matter which industry starts using hydrogen first, as long as somebody starts.

Only 12% of primary energy use is from renewable sources. Most of it is firewood/ agraic waste used by the poor of the world. Wind and solar is maybe 3 or 4% of worldwide primary energy use. Interesting chart:
https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables- ... n-overview

Whatever renewables we add at the moment matters more in terms of progress on the learning curve than in actual energy transition.
But hey, where were we 10 years back?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_journey ... ingle_step
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Tue Apr 06, 2021 4:40 pm

Great article on current state of Electric Aircraft - they are aiming for 2026 less than 19 people and 400km range.

https://aviationweek.com/special-topics ... five-years

Another one on Fuel Cells - but I can't get access. https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/airc ... l-aviation

Another article on Zero Avia - 100 seats by 2030 which seems a little fast.https://www.flyingmag.com/story/aircraf ... t-funding/
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Tue Apr 06, 2021 4:55 pm

The lightweight composite tanks to be used on Project Fresson LH2/Electric - converting Islander Aircraft to LH2 seem to have made a breakthrough in terms of being able to store 1KG of LH2 for every 10KG of Fuel Cell weight.

See the comments at the bottom of this article https://www.theengineer.co.uk/caes-proj ... hnologies/

The latest Fuel cell in the new Toyota Mirai seems to be about 40:1 in terms of weight to LH2 carried (5.6KG LH2 to 250KG Fuel Cell stack) for comparison purposes.
 
2175301
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:34 pm

Sokes wrote:
I believe the hydrogen economy should start with luxury cars. One justification for inequality in society is that rich people finance the learning curve, be it Teslas, mobiles or laptops. A rich early adopter driving a hydrogen car is a social worker. (My car was below 5000 $ new, I'm not speaking of myself.)
Next (and much less sexy) should be solar produced hydrogen for fertilizer and steel production. After that hydrogen should be used for Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs). After that ships and maybe trucks should switch to hydrogen. Planes I would rather place at the end.


IF it ever occurs: Hydrogen fueled vehicles will start with small intercity fleets where they have easy and routine access to refueling and repair stations. That's how LP started, its how modern electric started, etc.

When the bugs are worked out it then extends to large intercity fleets, and they start running routes outside of the city - with refueling still occurring at the base stations.

Next step is to install refueling and possible repair stations in a city or point in the range of 100+ miles away. That allows delivery routes to snake though all kinds of smaller cities, towns,and rural areas to end at the refuel point (which can easily be 300-400 miles) - and return back to the base city for the next days run (or potentially overnight at the other city and do a similar return run the next day with shipments from that area on the way to the base city).

That's how it will start - if H2 becomes a viable vehicle fuel.

Have a great day,
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:57 pm

2175301 wrote:
Sokes wrote:
I believe the hydrogen economy should start with luxury cars. One justification for inequality in society is that rich people finance the learning curve, be it Teslas, mobiles or laptops. A rich early adopter driving a hydrogen car is a social worker. (My car was below 5000 $ new, I'm not speaking of myself.)
Next (and much less sexy) should be solar produced hydrogen for fertilizer and steel production. After that hydrogen should be used for Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs). After that ships and maybe trucks should switch to hydrogen. Planes I would rather place at the end.


IF it ever occurs: Hydrogen fueled vehicles will start with small intercity fleets where they have easy and routine access to refueling and repair stations. That's how LP started, its how modern electric started, etc.

When the bugs are worked out it then extends to large intercity fleets, and they start running routes outside of the city - with refueling still occurring at the base stations.

Next step is to install refueling and possible repair stations in a city or point in the range of 100+ miles away. That allows delivery routes to snake though all kinds of smaller cities, towns,and rural areas to end at the refuel point (which can easily be 300-400 miles) - and return back to the base city for the next days run (or potentially overnight at the other city and do a similar return run the next day with shipments from that area on the way to the base city).

That's how it will start - if H2 becomes a viable vehicle fuel.

Have a great day,


Airbus is talking about making all the ground infrastructure at Airports run on LH2 as a way to get it started there.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22205
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:21 pm

2175301 wrote:
I'll believe in commercial hydrogen powered aircraft when I start to see the construction of massive amounts of 1000MW + nuclear power plants with matching hydrolysis plants reasonably close to the airports. I believe that Europe will need about 100 such plants, the USA about 200, and likely the rest of the world another 400 to convert to hydrogen powered aircraft.

There is no surplus of hydrogen out there. It has to be made. Currently about 98% of all hydrogen is from cracking natural gas or other carbon based products, which is not very green at all.

Have a great day,


Frankly, at that point, its much more straightforward to use clean energy to capture CO2 from the air and use it to make jet fuel or use those hydrocarbons as fuel for fuel cells.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Tue Apr 06, 2021 9:21 pm

DocLightning wrote:
2175301 wrote:
I'll believe in commercial hydrogen powered aircraft when I start to see the construction of massive amounts of 1000MW + nuclear power plants with matching hydrolysis plants reasonably close to the airports. I believe that Europe will need about 100 such plants, the USA about 200, and likely the rest of the world another 400 to convert to hydrogen powered aircraft.

There is no surplus of hydrogen out there. It has to be made. Currently about 98% of all hydrogen is from cracking natural gas or other carbon based products, which is not very green at all.

Have a great day,


Frankly, at that point, its much more straightforward to use clean energy to capture CO2 from the air and use it to make jet fuel or use those hydrocarbons as fuel for fuel cells.


It sounds like that would require a whole bunch of energy as well - half of all Energy from all sources consumed today - that is just to capture it and bury with no conversion to usable fuel for other sources.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/direct-co2- ... gy-in-2100

Almost anyway you look at it - we need a lot more clean electric power to do whatever we are going to do as we go from Hydrocarbon based to Carbon-Free.

One thing for sure - we will need a lot more Copper!
 
djpearman
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:02 pm

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Wed Apr 07, 2021 1:07 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:
...

That water vapor is a contributor to climate change, but not a cause it not contradictory as it may seem. They're talking about root cause versus contributing factors, similar to how aircraft accident investigators often do (eg - a root cause of a controls malfunction, with a contributing factor of insufficient pilot training leading to the wrong response). The warming caused by the emission of other gasses, particularly CO2, results in an increase of water vapor that results in additional warming. And to jump ahead to a likely question: the warming caused by water vapor results in a further incremental increase in water vapor and more warming - this is a convergent response, not a runaway one. The estimates provided in that article would be the sum of the converged response.

djpearman wrote:
Moreover, its large number of unsubstantiated claims and the misuse of terms (what are "forcings"? and what does "feedback" actually refer to here? why not just use "cause" and "effect", if that is what is meant?) don't help either.


When climate researchers talk about forcing factors, they're not talking simply about a cause, but the quantified effect of that cause on the radiative heat balance of the earth. Furthermore, a feedback is not merely an effect because it also contributes to the effect, even though not as a root cause. There is some cursory discussion here:
https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/

If you really want to get in depth with this, the IPCC reports from the Physical Science Basis Working Group is one of the most comprehensive discussions of the topic. They don't define forcing or feedback, although seeing the terms used in context of a more technical discussion may help better understand why they use those terms. The report is huge, so you probably want to start with the Summary for Policy Makers, or maybe the Technical Summary.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/


Thanks for the explanations and links. I still find the use of "forcings" and "feedback", as in the NASA article, unclear. Root cause, cause and effect are concepts I find far easier to use - especially when working with systems containing feedback, as seems to be applicable to the greenhouse effect. Most complex systems tend to be a chain of many causes and effects and often in a non-linear fashion. Furthermore, I find it interesting that the NASA article doesn't mention water vapour at all.

I'll have to read the IPCC report when I find some time - it seems quite hefty.

iamlucky13 wrote:
...

No, because as I would like to convey as the key point, water vapor added through processes that don't change the saturation vapor pressure does not lead to a persistent change. I'll caveat that by saying it holds to a first or maybe second order approximation. There should be a small effect, but I have three further relevant points to make:

1) That effect is already present, just not to quite the same degree. Jet fuel combustion results in roughly equal parts (molar basis, not mass basis) of carbon dioxide and water vapor.

2) The significance of water vapor in determining the heat balance of the earth comes in part from the fact that there is 10 times as much of it in the atmosphere on average as there is CO2. Closely related to that, note that CO2 concentrations have increased about 25% over the last 4 decades, while water vapor concentrations have increased 3.5%.

3) Trading roughly equal parts of increased water vapor emissions for reduced CO2 is a significant net improvement, because again, the overwhelming majority of that added water vapor does not persist like the CO2 does.


Do you have any literature that describes point 3 in greater detail? According to point 2, water vapour is increasing by a larger absolute amount compared to CO2.

iamlucky13 wrote:
...

Also, I'd add that I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of the carbon cycle.


Most likely very true :) It's not my field of expertise.

iamlucky13 wrote:
Non-persistent water vapor emission is a known minimally significant issue.


So, what are the distinguishing factors between persistent and non-persistent water vapour emissions? From your explanations so far, I would assume that one is a corresponding persistent temperature increase. Are there others?

iamlucky13 wrote:
And I'll wrap this all up by noting that I'm skeptical this tangential discussion is of long term significance, since I rather expect biomass derived liquid fuels to remain a more cost effective way to reduce the net climate change impact of air travel compared to hydrogen fuel.


And I'll wrap up my side by summarising that my real concern in this tangential discussion is not so much hydrogen as a fuel, but rather unsustainably excessive irrigation in agriculture, such as in the region around the Aral Sea. But that is an entirely different discussion and not one suited to this thread or forum. I do very much agree with you on your point on alternative liquid fuels.

Once again, thanks for your time and effort in answering - very much appreciated. Trying to figure out such complicated topics without a proper discussion is quite difficult.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1425
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:41 pm

djpearman wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
3) Trading roughly equal parts of increased water vapor emissions for reduced CO2 is a significant net improvement, because again, the overwhelming majority of that added water vapor does not persist like the CO2 does.


Do you have any literature that describes point 3 in greater detail? According to point 2, water vapour is increasing by a larger absolute amount compared to CO2.


Sorry, I do not. That is my own synthesis based on the other points.

djpearman wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
Non-persistent water vapor emission is a known minimally significant issue.


So, what are the distinguishing factors between persistent and non-persistent water vapour emissions? From your explanations so far, I would assume that one is a corresponding persistent temperature increase. Are there others?


To clarify, I wasn't discriminating between persistent and non-persistent water vapor emissions in that sentence. I was emphasizing the point that anthropogenic water vapor emissions are minimally significant because they are effectively not persistent. As we have been discussing, persistent atmospheric water vapor exists at average levels related primarily temperature.

djpearman wrote:
Once again, thanks for your time and effort in answering - very much appreciated. Trying to figure out such complicated topics without a proper discussion is quite difficult.


The same thanks to you, as well.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:32 pm

morrisond wrote:
2175301 wrote:
I'll believe in commercial hydrogen powered aircraft when I start to see the construction of massive amounts of 1000MW + nuclear power plants with matching hydrolysis plants reasonably close to the airports. I believe that Europe will need about 100 such plants, the USA about 200, and likely the rest of the world another 400 to convert to hydrogen powered aircraft.

There is no surplus of hydrogen out there. It has to be made. Currently about 98% of all hydrogen is from cracking natural gas or other carbon based products, which is not very green at all.

Have a great day,


Airbus mentions using Electrolysis and renewables to generate the Hydrogen. Let me guess - Solar plants the size of a small country to generate enough power to do it?

On the good side there is a ton of research being done on small scale nuclear plants that could be situated right at airports that could solve the hydrogen issue if the will is there.


A Stanford study showed that all electrical power used in the USA could be produced by geothermal energy alone. The capacity of possible renewables is vastly underrated. Renewables are also far less expensive than nuclear and intermittent is no problem for hydrogen production for example..
Hydrogen does not have to be stored as H2. Ammoniak is one possibility.

Perhaps my ideas are shaped by living in a country were about 70 to 75% of all energy use is satisfied by renewables and that does not include any solar nor wind. The 25 to 30% of manly oil use is not a matter of energy production, but that technologies for transport are today based on oil.
We see the first ships using liquid gas instead of oil, with similar problems to storing H2.

I have the feeling that the technologies we will rely on in 30 years are neither invented yet, nor thought about now.
 
2175301
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:00 am

mjoelnir wrote:
A Stanford study showed that all electrical power used in the USA could be produced by geothermal energy alone. The capacity of possible renewables is vastly underrated. Renewables are also far less expensive than nuclear and intermittent is no problem for hydrogen production for example..
Hydrogen does not have to be stored as H2. Ammoniak is one possibility.

Perhaps my ideas are shaped by living in a country were about 70 to 75% of all energy use is satisfied by renewables and that does not include any solar nor wind. The 25 to 30% of manly oil use is not a matter of energy production, but that technologies for transport are today based on oil.
We see the first ships using liquid gas instead of oil, with similar problems to storing H2.

I have the feeling that the technologies we will rely on in 30 years are neither invented yet, nor thought about now.


There is nothing new about the idea of geothermal energy. Do you wonder why it has never been developed much? The USA has built at least 3 plants on the small utility scale... and I don't think anyone is talking about building more.

The very real problem is that when you inject water down below and extract the heated water that it becomes a very nasty chemical mix that takes exotic metals to process and requires plant operators and maintenance people to wear very heavy full protective chemical clothing. I'm told that it's as bad as the very worst chemicals in chemical or ore processing plants, and even most exoctic metal alloys don't do well at the elevated temperatures with the chemical mix coming out of the ground.

When I worked in a heat exchanger shop (prior to moving to nuclear power plants - primarily as the heat exchanger engineer) our company got a contract to so some repair work at the largest of the geothermal plants in California. The Chemical Training and safety procedures that those people went through was rather extreme compared to several chemical plants the company had worked in. There are often pools of water on the ground. Don't even think of stepping in them or walking through them without chemical over-boots on.

Then there is the problem of treating and neutralizing any waste water that cannot be re-injected back into the deep well... That's rather costly on a scale of things. Fracking waste is cheap in comparison to process.

So, yes, in theory geothermal is possible. No one has yet found a practical way to do it - and attempts have been made. I'm not even aware of anyone trying to develop more geothermal except low temperature from near surface Laval flows and pockets (Iceland is an example).

Your claim on renewables being cheaper also does not stand up as most of the data published excludes the very costly electrical transmission to the grid connections (cost to deliver the power). It's very costly to collect power from small distributed generation and get it to the main transmission grid. That's a very real cost of renewables as well. It's very cheap on a $/MWh basis to build transmission lines from large central power stations.

When those are considered Nuclear still comes out at equal or better than renewables. I believe that I referenced at least one of the reports that you can download above on my long answer as to the real cost of solar PV power, and I cite recent cost estimates as well.

Have a great day,
 
2175301
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Thu Apr 08, 2021 12:53 am

Folks: I really am for reducing carbon emissions and green power. I've been for that since the 1970's and was heavily involved in solar heating, solar hot water, wind, earth sheltered homes, passive solar, etc. all along.

The problem is that the vast majority of those ideas initial attempts died due to a misunderstanding of what it took to build reliable cost effective equipment, and issues caused by mounting things on house roofs (you create future leak paths which will likely cause internal damage and the equipment must be removed and reinstalled for normal reroofing every 15 years (+/-).

I've watched the failures of the 1st 4 generation of windmills for generating electricity. I view that we are now on the 5th generation - and they now believe that they are designing wind power turbines that will be reliable for 20 years before they wear out (assuming normal maintenance and replacing of windmill blades every 5-10 years). Note that base-load power plants last 60 years reliably, with capacity factors of 90% or better if it is chosen to run them at full power all the time.

I doubt that there is a technology that was looking at or discussed in the 1970's- 2000's that I have not really looked at and dug into. I used to be a frequent visitor to the annual state alternate energy conference and demonstration site. I've toured the NASA and other government demonstration projects (and left with stacks of documents - and even computer programs).

For a career I ended up working in first fossil power plants (coal, gas, oil, - including combustion turbine plants). Then I did a stint working for a heat exchanger service company that also did explosive welding and metal forming - and ended up with the contract to build parts for the High Energy Physics "near fusion" HXS device at UW Madison which is a shape that could be used for a practical fusion reactor, and another vessel to research the pumping dynamics of liquids needed to cool fusion reactors. I was one of the key contacts with the UW Madison High Energy Physics department (I'm a UW Madison Graduate - and already had high level contacts in the Astronomy and Engineering departments).

After that ended I finished my engineering career working in nuclear power plants and doing consulting mainly for the nuclear industry (usually related to heat exchanges or testing of them). I still do some of this.

I've got some real concepts of what it takes to build and operate long term reliable and relatively efficient power generation equipment, and a lot of things that did not and do not work.

The problem we face right now is that to make a significant positive dent in our environment in the next 20 years we need to start building a lot of electrical generation both to allow electrification of transportation and generation of Liquid H2 as a possible fuel.

We cannot wait for technologies that might be developed and proven in another 20 - 50 years. We need what we can do right now.

Right now we can build some solar PV and some wind. But, the real cost of these are still high. Land area use for solar is an issue. It is unlikely that we can practically use more than 5% of the land area because it is being used for other things (including parks and nature preserves). Another major concern is that I understand that solar PV cells have limited lives (their output degrades with time), and likely need to be replace in 20-30 years. That will create a huge disposal issue which is rarely factored into the cost.

We can also build large central station nuclear power plants. The world has 50+ years experience on how to operate them and the latest designs are far better than the older ones. We know how to timely and relatively cost effectively build the AP1000's (although there were some costly lessons learned on the initial 8 plants started: 4 currently online and 2 coming online in the next few years, 2 were canceled due to mismanagement), and cost will go down with more experience. Europe is still struggling to build their 1st EPR (going on 16 years now and not finished yet - they have 2 under construction), although the Chinese built 2 of them in 9 years.

We need a lot of new electrical generation to really make a positive impact on the environment. The only real option we have right now involves a lot of new nuclear power plants. That will quickly dwarf solar and wind generation, and will really be needed if we are going to change to a hydrogen fueled engines or fuel cells.

Now perhaps in another 15-20 years the SMRs will be proven and we can start to deploy those. It will be at least a decade from now before we have a clue if they are even working as envisioned - and decades more to verify that they are lasting like the designers think - note the steam generators are a unique new design that has never seen actual long term service: A big unknown).

I appreciate all the focus on what can we do. Just understand that I've got decades into looking into these issues - including the practicality of building and operating them.

Have a great day,
 
morrisond
Topic Author
Posts: 3418
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Discussion on Airbus ZeroE Initiative/Carbon-Free Propulsion

Thu Apr 08, 2021 1:30 am

So if AP1000 production was scaled up where can the cost get too?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos