Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
PT6A
Topic Author
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:06 am

Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Wed Aug 30, 2006 12:58 am

Haven't seen this discussed here yet. Very interesting, and as a Diamond pilot, love that they're using a Dimona.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2330386,00.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/boeings_zeroemi.php#perma



"Boeing plans to launch a hydrogen fuel cell-powered light-aircraft prototype within a year, the Sunday Times reports. The only emissions from such a plane would be water vapor. The plane will be a small craft, and might have a top speed of only 70 miles per hour..."

[Edited 2006-08-29 18:00:48]
 
dogfighter2111
Posts: 1867
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:02 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:33 am

Here is a Boeing article:

http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2003/august/i_atw.html

Also I must say even though it is just a small GA at the moment, I beleive Boeing can perhaps develop this into a 10-20 seater then onto the larger scale ~ 100-150 seater.

Thanks
Mike
 
kaddyuk
Posts: 3697
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:04 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:04 am

Impossible...

Where do you think they get the Hydrogen from?
Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:20 am

Yay!

Water vapor is the #1 gas responsible for global heat retention. Let's add more to the atmosphere!

Boeing, giving global warming a helping hand.  raincloud 
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
azza40
Posts: 1032
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:18 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:39 am

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 2):
Where do you think they get the Hydrogen from?

Thats the question that came to my mind!

Aaron  swirl 
Not been on here for a good 2/3 years!
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Wed Aug 30, 2006 4:03 am

Sort of like San Francisco's "emission free" streetcars. Sure enough -no emissions anywhere near San Fran. They are powered by dammed rivers in the Sierra and coal-burning plants in Nevada that belong to California utility companies. They used to be powered by nuclear until they shut down the Rancho Seco plant. "Rancho Seco" is apparently Spanish for "Chernobyl" which seems to mean "Three Mile Island."
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:20 am

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 2):
Impossible...

Where do you think they get the Hydrogen from?

Whilst I understand what you're saying, the technology exists, it's easy and it's thermodynamically efficient to electrolyse water, generating the electricity through nuclear, solar or wind.

Consider a hygrogen supergrid, where hydrogen and electricity are generated (with almost equal thermodynamic efficiency) by nuclear power plants. They can be transported around the country using a grid, with electrical cables sheathing the hydrogen tubing. A great benefit is that the cold hydrogen allows the wires to superconduct, reducing significantly losses (10% of all electricity generated is lost before it gets to its intended appliance).

Combine that with PEM fuel cells, and you have yourselves a hydrogen economy. The technology already exists to do all this.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
DH106
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 5:32 pm

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:56 am

Nice theory, but I'm a cynic.
Petroleum politics - it'll never happen. Too many vested interests high up.
...I watched c-beams glitter in the dark by the Tanhauser Gate....
 
bri2k1
Posts: 952
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:13 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:40 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 3):

Water vapor is the #1 gas responsible for global heat retention.

Every gram of water that is vaporized has consumed 4.18J of energy. That could absorb a significant amount of heat coming from somewhere else. You must work for an oil company.
Position and hold
 
Bobster2
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:04 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:16 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 6):
cold hydrogen allows the wires to superconduct

Don't believe everything you read in Scientific American.  Smile

There's no way to ensure that the liquid hydrogen won't turn into a gas. The gas pressure alone would make the sealed system explode, to say nothing of the explosive nature of hydrogen. Sooner or later, there will be an accident, either the refrigeration system will fail, or the superconducting wires will stop superconducting and generate massive heat that will explode the hyrdrogen.

When helium is used to cool superconducting magnets there is always a danger of quench that boils the helium. But this is not a safety issue because helium can be vented to the atmosphere. But hydrogen can''t be vented. There is zero tolerance for accidents. You woud need a massive containment structure. Containment structures protect the environment, but the grid itself would be ruined, just like the Three Mile Island reactor was ruined.
"I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn." Jim Morrison
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:36 am

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 10):

Don't believe everything you read in Scientific American.

I don't read Scientific American!

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 10):
There's no way to ensure that the liquid hydrogen won't turn into a gas. The gas pressure alone would make the sealed system explode, to say nothing of the explosive nature of hydrogen. Sooner or later, there will be an accident, either the refrigeration system will fail, or the superconducting wires will stop superconducting and generate massive heat that will explode the hyrdrogen.

I don't understand why the challenges can't be overcome. The pressurised liquid hydrogen is easily within today's boundaries of regularly produced vessels and containers; the pressures are much less than for gaseous hydrogen storage. Hydrogen has a lower energy density per unit volume than gasoline as well as a lower explosion energy, resulting in less theoretical damage caused by a hydrogen explosion of a given volume compared with a gasoline explosion of a given volume. Hydrogen doesn't pool and it dissipates quickly, unlike gasoline.

The big problem with liquid hydrogen transport is the liquifaction process. If I remember my 3rd year thermodynamics, I think it's the Joule-Thompson cycle. You loose about 30% of the energy in the hydrogen when you liquify it, reducing the overall efficiency of the system.

All that being said, mankind exists perfectly well storing and transporting gasoline, using methods that have hardly changed in 50 years. Of course accidents will happen, as accidents in the oil industry happen, but they don't necessarily have to be catastrophic.

Sorting out PEMFCs - and so sorting out hydrogen use as a fuel at point of use - fits one piece of the jigsaw in place. It then allows the industry (and helps to force the industry) to develop better large-scale hydrogen production and transport.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
Bobster2
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:04 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:01 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 11):
I don't read Scientific American!

When I googled "hydrogen supergrid" the SciAm article was #2, and it contains a sentence virtually identical to one of the sentences in your post. So I tried to connect the dots ...  Smile

The SciAm article says that the supergrid would have to be built in deep underground tunnels, a massively expensive and difficult project. It bothers me that they neglect to mention earthquakes. You can't have a grid covering an entire continent without having an earthquake somewhere.
"I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn." Jim Morrison
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:25 am

The supergrid idea has been mooted in a few journals. Burying the cables solves quite a few problems. It reduces exposure to the elements, it helps to contain leaks and its less visually obtrusive.

The costs obviously increase and it's not really suitable for long-distance transport, though your point about earthquakes seems moot considering underground gas and oil lines exist in earthquake zones now.

It's a solution to the problem. Another, less technically challenging solution, is just to transport the hydrogen around by road or rail, as oil products are transported now.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
bri2k1
Posts: 952
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 4:13 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:41 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 9):

Have you ever gotten a sunburn on a cloudy day? Figure out how that happens and get back to us.

Thanks to the same UV rays, I can see past my own ignorance.
Position and hold
 
newagebird
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:44 am

What about cryoplane?? Airbus' answer to this latest beoing aircraft. I know EADS has been developing it for the past 5 years.
Big version: Width: 250 Height: 176 File size: 45kb
cryoplane!


Looks like the futures coming sooner than we expected.

rgds newagebird
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:49 am

Quoting Bri2k1 (Reply 14):
Thanks to the same UV rays, I can see past my own ignorance.

Now why don't you tell us about the refactory proporties of water vapor and why sometimes those UV rays go through it and sometimes don't?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:58 am

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 16):
refactory proporties

?
Your bone's got a little machine
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:04 am

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 17):
?

Never try to think of the word "refractive" while playing online games. It only leads to horrible things.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Wed Aug 30, 2006 12:18 pm

To me a zero emission airplane would have to be electric or be a glider, but then im associating unwanted by-products with emissions, for whatever reason.

I think the point for a supposed 'zero-emission' producing airplane has nothing with alternative fuel source, despite runing on hydrogen. IMO, this research project has more to do with being global warming happy than the price of oil. Consider it an intermediate step. If the end result senario is a shift in fuel source, there must be a working infrastructure, maybe this type of plane could create one by emphasizing the pollution issue first.

Quoting Kaddyuk (Reply 2):
Impossible...

Where do you think they get the Hydrogen from?

Nice to see you are thinking somewhat, but...

Quoting Azza40 (Reply 4):
Thats the question that came to my mind!

...make up your minds! Do we want to stay away from oil or not pollute the skys?! I'm tired of this, what are we doing this for? While I do see we could hit two birds with one stone on this, is that practical with current technology? Can we do it in steps? Are you just being cynical?
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7043
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Fri Sep 01, 2006 4:58 am

To call that a "zero emission plane" is highly questionable.

Unfortunately hydrogen does not grow on trees.

Hydrogen combines with atmospheric oxygen in a fuel cell and delivers electric power. But how do we get hydrogen? By spending even more electric power on splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen. And how do we get that power? Mostly from coal burning electric power plants.

Hydrogen is not an energy source like coal, oil, natural gas, uran, collected rain water. It is a way to store energy which was produced by spending an energy source. It is like a rechargeable battery. No more, no less.

Low emission levels can only be reached by using cleaner energy sources. Not by using clean energy conversion. At best it can move the emissions to another geographical position.

Moving the emission from an urban street car to a 300 feet high power-plant chimney can make good sense. But moving it from a plane flying at 2-3,000 feet to a 300 feet chimney seems rather pointless.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:09 am

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 18):
To me a zero emission airplane would have to be electric or be a glider

You have apparently fallen for the Green-for-profit ploy.

NOTHING, not one damn thing in the whole wide world is actually POWERED by electricity.

California's vaunted "green" electric cars come in three varieties: River-damming cars, nuclear cars, or coal-burning cars. Not one of those actual sources is the least bit green. Where gas-burning cars spill gasoline at crash sites, electric cars spill sulphuric acid and lead.

Electricity is a means of conveying power. It is not a power source itself.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:07 am

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 20):
California's vaunted "green" electric cars come in three varieties: River-damming cars, nuclear cars, or coal-burning cars. Not one of those actual sources is the least bit green. Where gas-burning cars spill gasoline at crash sites, electric cars spill sulphuric acid and lead.

Electricity is a means of conveying power. It is not a power source itself.

1) I am not in support of or a fan of any particular group/label/stereotype. 2)Make up your mind, are we addressing the fuel sources issue or the emission issue in this thread?

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
:

Quote:
Main Entry: emis·sion
Pronunciation: E-'mi-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : an act or instance of emitting : EMANATION b archaic : PUBLICATION c : a putting into circulation
2 a : something sent forth by emitting: as (1) : electromagnetic radiation from an antenna or a celestial body (2) usually plural : substances discharged into the air (as by a smokestack or an automobile engine) b : EFFLUVIUM
- emis·sive /-'mi-siv/ adjective

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to me a zero emission engine should not be emitting anything. Technically yes, everything emitts something, but pop culture hears emission and fixated on pollution and since they are th emarket, that is where the focus is for future products. The issue for pollution looks at harmful emissions, specifically things that can be harmful that are EMITTED.

Might I ask what does an energy source have to do with what emissions we find harmful? We have been burning oil for over 150 years, last I checked, we have been geting better at burning it, to the point where we are getting back more energy from the chemical conversion process from what was wasted, i.e. less and less harmful emissions are escaping. If you want to focus on the big picture or longterm of 'source of energry', that is fine. But the issue of emission to pop culture = pollution. Hence: the electric motor hybrid concepts, hydrogen gas burners, etc. Where that energy source comes from only matters if we don't use it properly, I say we should concentrate on how it is used as it is easier and cheaper, changing the fuel or method of use to mass usage is a big jump!
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:22 am

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 21):

Riddle me this: What good does it do planet Earth if San Francisco's buses are technically emission free - that is, each one has an electric motor - when all of them are driven by burning coal in another state or even in Mexico where there are NO emission standards to worry about so long as you have the "mordida' filter in place. (You pay your bribes)

Moving the emissions to another location does not meet my test for emission free - the topic we were discussing.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:34 am

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 22):
Moving the emissions to another location does not meet my test for emission free - the topic we were discussing.

So this is about what you think zero-emissions mean, as opposed to what Boeing may thnk, or any other organization that claims they got a zero-emission product?

Personally, I don't care if the emissions are moved away from general population centers to the middle of nowhere. Say the concentration does change with moving from millions to one with the same concentration, then your argument is valid; but technology changes my friend... Wink
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:35 am

Quoting Lehpron (Reply 23):
So this is about what you think zero-emissions mean, as opposed to what Boeing may thnk,

I have no quarrel with anyone if they call it "stealthy emissions" or "displaced emissions" or "hidden emissions" but I'll still call it fraud if there are emissions anywhere in the earth's atmosphere if what they are selling is ZERO emissions.


Quoting Lehpron (Reply 23):
Personally, I don't care if the emissions are moved away from general population centers to the middle of nowhere.

Do you have any idea how offensive "the middle of nowhere" is to people who choose not to live in Detroit or Newark? If any place I've ever seen on this planet deserves to be called "nowhere" it is a cesspool city and not a good, clean desert, prairie, or jungle. And anyone the least bit knowledgeable about environmental issues can tell you that the latter are vastly more important to the us than the former.

What is the point, technologically or environmentally in HIDING the poisons you pump into the air? Where is the merit, the virtue in that?

[Edited 2006-09-01 23:37:27]
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
Bobster2
Posts: 1523
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:04 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:27 am

It's possible to generate electricity and hydrogen from coal with zero carbon emissions. What's stopping us? Money. New coal plants are being built with old technology because it would cost more money to build them with new technology.

In other the words, the emissions are not inevitable, it's our choice.
"I tell you this, no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn." Jim Morrison
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:22 pm

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 6):
Whilst I understand what you're saying, the technology exists, it's easy and it's thermodynamically efficient to electrolyse water, generating the electricity through nuclear, solar or wind.

it's not efficient. The only thing that makes it economical (NOT themodynamically efficient) is the fact that those energy sources don't cost much once running to keep running.
But the process is highly inefficient, requiring energy input far higher than you ever get out reacting that hydrogen.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 3):
Water vapor is the #1 gas responsible for global heat retention. Let's add more to the atmosphere!

well said. And something the "environmentalist" lobby deliberately suppresses.

Quoting Bri2k1 (Reply 8):
You must work for an oil company.

Not everyone who's not a religious treehugger works for an oil company. I know the truth because I studied physics and worked in an energy research group for a while (government operated).

Quoting Newagebird (Reply 14):
What about cryoplane?? Airbus' answer to this latest beoing aircraft. I know EADS has been developing it for the past 5 years.

And it's not going anywhere. The latest proposal I've seen has twice the volume of an A300 but no commercial space (so no space for cargo or passengers) and a very short range.
A commercial version would have the size of the A380 with the capacity of an A318 or less and the range of a Cessna 172.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 20):
California's vaunted "green" electric cars come in three varieties: River-damming cars, nuclear cars, or coal-burning cars. Not one of those actual sources is the least bit green.

Nuclear is... Zero emissions (at least as the environmentalists count emissions...).

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 20):
Electricity is a means of conveying power. It is not a power source itself.

Nothing is, if you think of it. Coal just stores energy that was transmitted to the planet from the sun for example.
So do waves.
Water entering a hydro dam just stores potential energy imparted on it when it evaporated by mostly solar power and rose into the clouds as water vapor only to loose part of that energy to fall on a mountaintop.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 22):
Riddle me this: What good does it do planet Earth if San Francisco's buses are technically emission free - that is, each one has an electric motor - when all of them are driven by burning coal in another state or even in Mexico where

None. In fact it's counterproductive. The line losses caused by transporting that electricity mean that each bus uses several times more coal or oil than had it burned that fuel directly.
That's only partly offset by large generators in power stations being more efficient than vehicle engines and the lack of a network to distribute the fuel to the city.

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 25):
It's possible to generate electricity and hydrogen from coal with zero carbon emissions.

no it's not. You'd have to find a way (and implement it) to store the carbon that was emitted, which just means you're creating a problem for the future.
I wish I were flying
 
SlamClick
Posts: 9576
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:09 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:51 pm

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 26):
(at least as the environmentalists count emissions...).

I know the Rancho Seco nuke plant was closed as dangerous (and the management given multimillion dollar performance bonuses) I don't think there are any operating nuke plants in California anymore and the chances of building one there are just about nil, politically. Odd, since the people of California lead the world in gas-guzzling cars and paving farmland for single-story buildings.

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 26):
Nothing is, if you think of it. Coal just stores energy that was transmitted to the planet from the sun for example.
So do waves.

You are right, of course. Coal and oil we are recovering solar energy from so long ago that we think of it as having been there forever. Tidal energy fascinates me. I've sat and watched the little embayments along the Bay of Fundy fill and empty during those massive tides and you can almost feel the earth shake from the energy. In San Francisco Bay you can watch two hundred thousand ton ships swing around on their anchors to the pull of the incoming and outgoing tide. There has to be a way to harness that! And the scale of it is immense, it is hard to imaging our having any damping effect on the tides.

Geothermal is destined to disappoint, IMO, California had "The Geysers" plant near Cloverdale, a prototype. In less than forty years they have dropped the temperature of the water to the point where it must be closed.

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 26):
None. In fact it's counterproductive. The line losses caused by transporting that electricity mean that each bus uses several times more coal or oil than had it burned that fuel directly.

That is my point, which in my bluntness I usually forget to make: We do no service to this effort by lying about any facet of it. I am very critical of the current generation of electric cars and quite contemptuous of the claims made for them because they are mostly crap. But they do represent important advances that MUST be made. As bad as the present technologies (four days to drive electric round trip between Reno to San Francisco allowing for charging) these are steps that must be taken.

I think the airplane is an interesting testbed because it is a BS-free zone. They technology must be lightweight, it must produce reliable power and it must be cost-effective.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
 
FlyboySMF2GFK
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:13 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:38 am

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 27):
I know the Rancho Seco nuke plant was closed as dangerous (and the management given multimillion dollar performance bonuses) I don't think there are any operating nuke plants in California anymore and the chances of building one there are just about nil, politically. Odd, since the people of California lead the world in gas-guzzling cars and paving farmland for single-story buildings.

There are at least two: Diablo Canyon outside of San Luis Obispo, and San Onofre, the anatomically suggestive plant north of Camp Pendleton on the 5.

Vallecitos and Seco were shut down, Humboldt Bay and Santa Susana were dismantled.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: Boeing's Zero-emission Plane

Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:54 pm

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 26):

it's not efficient. The only thing that makes it economical (NOT themodynamically efficient) is the fact that those energy sources don't cost much once running to keep running.
But the process is highly inefficient, requiring energy input far higher than you ever get out reacting that hydrogen

Sorry, exactly what are you basing that on? Of course you put more nett useful energy in that you get out (1st law), it's the same in every thermodynamic system. What I'm saying is that hydrogen generation is about as thermodynamically efficient as electricity generation.
Your bone's got a little machine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: downforsam, Woodreau and 39 guests

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