I think this is awesome. Tell me why fuel cells aren’t the answer for the dwindling carbon-based energy supplies.
Boeing announced [yesterday] that it has, for the first time in aviation history, flown a manned airplane powered by hydrogen fuel cells.
The recent milestone is the work of an engineering team at Boeing Research & Technology Europe (BR&TE) in Madrid, with assistance from industry partners in Austria, France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.
A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that converts hydrogen directly into electricity and heat with none of the products of combustion such as carbon dioxide. Other than heat, water is its only exhaust.
A two-seat Dimona motor-glider with a 16.3 meter (53.5 foot) wingspan was used as the airframe. Built by Diamond Aircraft Industries of Austria, it was modified by BR&TE to include a Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cell/lithium-ion battery hybrid system to power an electric motor coupled to a conventional propeller.
Three test flights took place in February and March at the airfield in Ocana, south of Madrid, operated by the Spanish company SENASA.
During the flights, the pilot of the experimental airplane climbed to an altitude of 1,000 meters (3,300 feet) above sea level using a combination of battery power and power generated by hydrogen fuel cells. Then, after reaching the cruise altitude and disconnecting the batteries, the pilot flew straight and level at a cruising speed of 100 kilometers per hour (62 miles per hour) for approximately 20 minutes on power solely generated by the fuel cells.
According to Boeing researchers, PEM fuel cell technology potentially could power small manned and unmanned air vehicles. Over the longer term, solid oxide fuel cells could be applied to secondary power-generating systems, such as auxiliary power units for large commercial airplanes. Boeing does not envision that fuel cells will ever provide primary power for large passenger airplanes, but the company will continue to investigate their potential, as well as other sustainable alternative fuel and energy sources that improve environmental performance.
(Gouge: ED)
– Christian
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
First!
“Tell me why fuel cells aren’t the answer for the dwindling carbon-based energy supplies.”
Um, because we aren’t running out of carbon-based energy sources?
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news12.17d.html
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html
Among lots more…
Still, its a cool breakthrough.
“Tell me why fuel cells aren’t the answer for the dwindling carbon-based energy supplies”
Two reasons: Because we don’t have a good way of making Hydrogen… and because storing and transporting it isn’t nearly as easy as oil.
And to answer the second poster… no, we aren’t running out, we will never run out. But that doesn’t mean we won’t come to a point (very soon) where daily production rates will go into permanent decline and the economies that depend on ever increasing supply will suffer through massive price increases.
(what we’re seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg)
oh ya, and then there’s climate change…
The US Military is the 2nd largest consumer of oil in the world.. it has a serious interest in finding and using alternatives ASAP.
Ah, yes, global warming…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
“This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.”
I’ll be in my parka, revving my SUV.
Heh, still, I’ll push the crazy train to West Hysteria so long as we get new nukes and 100 mpg space cars, and weaken the Russian-Arab-Chavez axis of petrocrats. Stop Global Warming now!
Can anyone explain to me where the hydrogen to power the fuel cell comes from?
It’s currently generated mostly via steam reforming of natural gas or coal gasification. (http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/fuels/hydrogen/currenttechnology.html) You may notice that both of these require … fossil fuels.
You could also crack hydrogen out of water via electrolysis, i.e., running electrical current through an electrolyte-water solution. The electricity we could use to do this today is mostly (70%) generated by burning … fossil fuels.
I don’t know about you, but I am starting to see a pattern.
im sick of hearing about how enviomentaly freidnly fuel cells or electric cars are there not because the power comes from a bloodly great big power station running on coal only when we have hidrogen Fusion power will it be worth using electric cars and the like
and from a purly military practical perspective desil fuel cells are far more convent and far less explosive
Thanks guys…gotta run to my “remedial thermodynamics class”…;-)
(it really was an honest question…)
At the end of the day, the important thing to remember is that hydrogen is not a fuel, but rather an energy storage device. It is, essentially, a battery. You put energy into the process of making it, and you get some (hopefully most) of that energy back out when you use it up (either by burning in a rocket engine or catalyzing it in a fuel cell).
How you make that hydrogen; now therein lies the problem. Renewables might be useful for this, nuclear is a more likely option.
As an aside regarding Vercigetorix’s links:
The Sugar Loaf field “may be up to 40 billion” barrels. At current US consumption rates (7.55 billion barrels a year), that would last 5 years.
Current optimistic estimates are looking at 100 billion barrels of recoverable oil from Bakken. That is about 13 years worth at current US consumption rates.
Both require high technology and a large energy investment to exploit, much larger than the old “gushers” of the past. True, we will never run out of oil or other fossil fuels. But the costs of extraction, and thus the cost of those fuels, is heading in one direction only, and this has all kinds of economic implications.
Until the magical fusion fairy comes and saves us all, that is.
since it seems that I am the only person on Earth who is focused on creating an air transport system that relies upon SOLAR POWER, I’m going to chip in….
Running an AIRPLANE on electrical power, whether generated via fuel cells, internal combustion engines married to generators, or even solar cells…..is novel, cute, and virtually worthless in practical terms, at least at present.
what is practical is this: running an AIRSHIP on solar power, or fuel cells, or biodiesel jets. Primarily because the airship does not need to generate the amount of thrust needed to fly as does an airplane. There are other considerations as well.
properly designed and constructed airships can revolutionize aviation. Speeds can be reached to 300mph.
Airships have military applications in transport, OFFENSIVE roles, and numerous other roles such as surveillance, marine interdiction, anti mine/submarine platform, communications, et. al.
(Note: NOT BLIMPS!, nor zeppelins, nor any other glorified balloon)
Airships are great, but for that, you have to write your Senator. And there are a limited number of missions for airships that cannot be covered by rail, truck or even ship more efficiently.
For military purposes, Darpa’s Walrus (dead or Zombie by now) catches my pantaloons on fire. That is an innovative solution to our problems. BUT! We already field a Maritime Positioning System with vessels in the general area of conflict zones full of heavy gear for our troops. So in a first hours of war scenario, we have a decent way to land troops en masse and hold the line. The efficiencies and speed of airships will not necessarily provide a boon to that system.
Blacksmith’s cost per kW numbers are way off for PEM fuel cells (1-2 orders of magnitude too high, actually), but he’s generally correct that fuel cells aren’t ready for aviation use. Current fuel cell technology can’t match the power:weight ratio of gas turbines, and weight is everything in an aircraft. Hydrogen storage is also problematic because the storage media available today can’t match hydrocarbons for energy density. I can see some pretty cool niche applications for a PEM fuel cell, though: next to no heat signature, very quiet, and extremely low emissions. Could be useful for some military applications…
Boeing should be congratulated for spending money on some very forward-looking research. Fuel cells may not be competitive today, but that may change in the future.
Boeing is flying on fumes? Well, you didn’t hear it from me first..
Well, being out-maneuvered for the previous contract must have really hit them in the head hard…so much to get some good press going. PR at its finest…
Props to josephdietrich for pointing out something which is so often conveniently overlooked, namely, that the energy still has to come from somewhere. As the post points out, this technology is most useful for small (tactical) UAVs.
The Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) team led by aerospace engineering professor Kwon Se-jin said the 2.5 kilogram unit stayed airborne on 500 grams of fuel for over 10 hours, giving the unit 10 times the endurance of conventional battery-powered UAVs.
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news10.11b.html
Well, glad to see at least a few commentors set Christian straight. On this planet at least, hydrogen is not an energy source. Once heard a prof describe it this way…
“Worst. Battery. Ever.”
Before we can utilize hydrogen as an energy source (other than hypothetical fusion reactors), Congress will have to repeal the laws of thermodynamics.
And it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if they gave it a go. When you read stuff like this, remember that simple phrase – “TANSTAAFL.”
The only way we are going to be able to rely on hydrogen as a fuel is:
#1. Successful hot fusion reactors: Electrolysis. You can make hydrogen with a fusion reactor, but not oil/gas.
#2. A breakthrough in technology for safety/transport of all this hydrogen, so that cars and fuel trucks arent mobile bombs.
Sure, if we get those 2 tech breakthroughs, then our energy needs will no longer be an issue. Hot fusion is the only possible limitless energy source that we might see in our lifetimes. Even then, it is not likely to be a reality any time soon.
“repeal the first law of thermodynamics …” who the hell are you? The hydrogen in a modenrn fuel cell comes from simple, easily, and safely transportable compounds like methane (CH4) – passed through a platinum catalyst. Pinnheads
this has no relation to this story sorry but it think its post worthy aybe yall could follow up on it…..
also defensetech needs an open thread spot for posting mis. things….
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Defense_Focus_Carrier_strategy_Part_5_999.html
so read it and WTF…..
“The hydrogen in a modenrn fuel cell comes from simple, easily, and safely transportable compounds like methane (CH4) – passed through a platinum catalyst.”
The two major suppliers of platinum are South Africa and Russia, respectively. ( Which are both also the major suppliers of palladium, the major alternative to platinum for fuel cells. )
If you want to follow platinum and palladium developments, a good source is Kitco.com http://www.kitco.com/ . See also Platinum Today
http://www.platinum.matthey.com/index.html
Having Russia as a supplier poses obvious geopolitical issues. South Africa also is interesting, because it recently has been experiencing power system disruptions which has, among other things, impaired its platinum output.
@Vercingetorix
About the BBC article on global temperatures… Did you read the article or just the headline? Because it pretty much refutes your point.
I can’t find the “quote” you posted anywhere in the article. Quoting a paraphrase it a bit disingenuous.
Doo, BBC changed the article.
http://instapundit.com/archives2/017467.php
Down the memory hole, Orwell would be proud. One hell of a side you have, chief!
I agree, that’s pretty underhanded on their part. I stand corrected about you being disingenuous. They should have clearly indicated the change.
Still, the overall conclusion of the article seems to be that a short-term lowering of temperatures doesn’t mean they won’t increase in the long term (quoting from the original, I think):
“But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend – and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.”
The picking of sides is juvenile. Why can’t we just discuss facts?
Ah, might have taken the ‘disingenious’ dig a bit more serious than I should have; which is why I was a bit snippy. Still though, a five year warming trend when global temperatures haven’t risen in a decade doesn’t make a crisis, and we’ve had warmer decades than today around in the earlier part of the century. “Climate change,” ie the weather, is an overhyped social movement that is long on hysteria, and short on reason.
Forgive me if I bow out on a long in-depth discussion on the millenial belief that if we do not repent, civilization will end.
“Tell me why fuel cells aren’t the answer for the dwindling carbon-based energy supplies.”
Because carying around a tank of explosive gas in your car or plane might not be as fun as it sounds. And yes, gasoline is explosive, but gasoline doesn’t constantly leak. Ever have a helium balloon that didn’t go limp?
Hydrogen is not an energy source, it has to be created. Creating hydrogen is done using fosil fuels.
Jomama
I’m me. And methane is a better energy source than hydrogen. More BTUs per SCF. Look it up. So by turning it into hydrogen, you are losing energy. And, in case you didn’t know, methane doesn’t exactly grow on trees on this planet. Most of what we can use is a component of natural gas. That will probably remain the case until we can figure out a way to tent swamps and collect cow farts.
BTW, 35 years in the energy business here. And you ?
Why use hydrogen cells, which still rely on fosil fuels to be created when you can use water. water powered cars produce no emissions and use no fosil fuels. google it and see for yourself.
I don’t know about the merits of a hydrogen powered car, but there are alternatives to using fossil fuel to generate Hydrogen. A key technology is Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). OTEC can generate electricity by using the temperature differences that exists in ocean waters to run a heat engine. Hydrogen can be produced via electrolysis using electricity generated by OTEC. The OTEC technology has been demonstrated in the past. Key issue is when will it be commercially viable.
I get the impression that until a good storage technique is developed using hydrogen is pretty pointless.
http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Hydrogen_Storage_In_Nanoparticles_Works_999.html
It has great efficiency but only practical way of storing and transporting it I know of is as ammonia. (I recall there is a project around America somewhere with a prototype fuel cell train that runs of H2 stored that way) Stored air is a great intermediary system with many uses and while much much less efficient than batteries or fuel cells it does tend to be cheaper and last a lot longer. I am all in favour of not replacing giant lead acid arrays every decade and wouldn’t mind a pressure vessel like the space shuttle uses for nitrogen but if that were practical nasa wouldn’t be still using the same ones they hoped to replace twenty years ago.
The pressure tanks proposed by the aircar person earlier are pretty nifty and seem safe but if they could hold those tiny H2 thingies we would all be alot happier. Imagine a H2 combustion engine that purified city air as a byproduct! If the ecofreaks weren’t so invested in hybrid biofuel cludges there wouldn’t be such opposition to it.
Btw. I also approve of airships like the other guy and as I said on Christians earlier post :
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004001.html
Here’s my two cents worth along with my credentials; I operated an electrolytic O2 generator manufactered by Treadwell corporation aboard a nuclear powered submarine. It was about the size of a large file cabinet or about six feet high by five long and two feet thick. It produced 120 cubic feet of oxygen per hour, and about 240 cubic feet of hydrogen per hour at 3000psig. Not having any need for the hydrogen, we discharged it overboard. It took 1050 amps DC at 2.5 volts to do this and that is where the problems come from. We had a nuclear reactor so power was not a problem but for mass production another matter. That and the storage. Hydrogen works best in a cryogenic liquid state but we don’t have materials with the right insulation values to keep H2 liquid for long. So for the time being, we have to use a gas system, with it’s weight and space negatives.That can be overcome by higher pressures.
I think we can set up an Hydrogen infrastructure in a decade by setting up Hydrogen refueling stations using electrolysis powered by solar and wind generators. Six generators could be set up in the space of an average gas station’s building. You don’t need a transport system for hydrogen; just water and the Romans did that thousands of years ago.That’s the good news. Remember, we don’t have to set an infrastrucure overnight. I would love to set a station out here in California for those 600 cars Honda is going to test. Also, hydrogen can be used in regular cars with the right alterations. All it takes is money; If I had the money some of those Hollywood enviromentalists have I would be on my way to trying start this Hydrogen business. It may not be profitable at first, but I believe it could be as big as oil has become.
Here’s how it breaks down….
1) Hydrocarbons are abundant but limited.
2) We are worried about Carbon gasses.
3) Hydrogen has less BTUs to it than a Hydrocarbon
4) Fuel Cells are far for efficient than combustion engines. (~40% vs. ~22%)
So as the cost and worry about hydrocarbons go up, the use of hydrocarbons to make electricity or hydrogen will go down. The use of Hydrogen will then go up for current uses of hydrocarbons (cars, trains, boats, lawn mowers, etc, etc) being quite, carbon neutral, a cheaper than the hydrocarbons.
So you guys can talk about who has more experience with all this or that, or understands the technology better. But any good economist will tell you that we will have a hydrogen market, it will be big, we will use it everywhere, oh and Hydrocarbons are not going away anytime soon.