jcb produce hydrogen engine

[peanuts]

interesting news of a hydrogen powered engine for heavy use as an alternative to hydrogen fuel cells could this be an alternative to electric and diesel in the rail industry ?

 

https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-engines-jcb/8556469/

[jjb1970]

2 hours ago, peanuts said:

interesting news of a hydrogen powered engine for heavy use as an alternative to hydrogen fuel cells could this be an alternative to electric and diesel in the rail industry ?

 

https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-engines-jcb/8556469/

 

The big engine designers like MAN, Wartsila and Rolls Royce are developing engines to run on all sorts of alternative low emission fuels, such as hydrogen, methanol and ammonia. The issue is not so much the engines but economics, safe handling of fuel and the fact that to be truly low emission needs a big increase in the supply of green varieties of these alternatives.

[J. S. Bach]

Remember the Hindenburg!

[fulton]

22 minutes ago, J. S. Bach said:

Remember the Hindenburg!

A report I seen said the ignition was an electro static discharge to the ground but it was the, highly flamable, aluminium oxide coated fabric skin that you see burning in the films that caused the disaster. The low pressure hydrogen gas burnt realively harmlessly upwards.

[APOLLO]

9 hours ago, peanuts said:

interesting news of a hydrogen powered engine for heavy use as an alternative to hydrogen fuel cells could this be an alternative to electric and diesel in the rail industry ?

 

https://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/hydrogen-engines-jcb/8556469/

 

Good - all we need now is a source of cheap (affordable) Hydrogen in large quantities.

 

Brit15

[fodenway]

8 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

Good - all we need now is a source of cheap (affordable) Hydrogen in large quantities.

 

Brit15

And therein lies the problem - apparently, at present the cost and amount of the electrical energy required to produce the hydrogen far exceeds the value of the end product. Until an economical (and safe) means of producing large volumes of the stuff is developed, it's a bit like filing the corners off 50 pence coins to make them work in 10p slot machines.

[APOLLO]

I read somewhere that Hydrogen is defined as a store / carrier of energy rather than an energy source.

 

 

Brit15

 

[62613]

5 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

I read somewhere that Hydrogen is defined as a store / carrier of energy rather than an energy source.

 

 

Brit15

 

Bit like steam, then!

 

[Mike Buckner]

27 minutes ago, fodenway said:

And therein lies the problem - apparently, at present the cost and amount of the electrical energy required to produce the hydrogen far exceeds the value of the end product. Until an economical (and safe) means of producing large volumes of the stuff is developed, it's a bit like filing the corners off 50 pence coins to make them work in 10p slot machines.

 

Countries with more than abundant hydroelectric resources will benefit. The water provides both the energy and the raw material for producing hydrogen.

 

And, with modern, safe, airship designs, it's cheap to transport to the point of need.

 

 

[Mike Buckner]

 

If you fill up a hydrogen-powered car, does it get lighter?

 

 

[APOLLO]

24 minutes ago, Mike Buckner said:

 

If you fill up a hydrogen-powered car, does it get lighter?

 

 

 

No, it gets darker !!

 

Brit15

[Ron Ron Ron]

The JCB story is fairly old news and was discussed in the “Electric, Hybrid and Alternative fuelled vehicles - News and Discussion” section of the Wheeltappers, either last year, or earlier this year.

 

 

.

[black and decker boy]

Still the issue that currently hydrogen isn’t low carbon and is most often a higher carbon product than fossil fuel

 

it may prove to be the future but squadron use on U.K. construction sites is several years away, at best.

[jjb1970]

12 hours ago, fodenway said:

And therein lies the problem - apparently, at present the cost and amount of the electrical energy required to produce the hydrogen far exceeds the value of the end product. Until an economical (and safe) means of producing large volumes of the stuff is developed, it's a bit like filing the corners off 50 pence coins to make them work in 10p slot machines.

 

Yes and know. The problem is it is a 'chicken and egg' conundrum. Alternative fuelled vehicles need adequate supplies of fuel to be viable, fuel suppliers need a market to invest in producing fuels. Initially it is highly likely that alternative fuels will increase GHG emissions as commercially available varieties are produced using fossil fuel feed stocks and energy produced using fossil generation, and transition over to cleaner varieties on a pathway to truly green fuels. That isn't ideal but it's difficult to see a realistic alternative. Regulatory regimes are aware of the problem and are using lifecycle analysis and developing tools such as fuel standards and financial measures to push the transition.

[Reorte]

On 22/12/2022 at 19:34, black and decker boy said:

Still the issue that currently hydrogen isn’t low carbon and is most often a higher carbon product than fossil fuel

 

it may prove to be the future but squadron use on U.K. construction sites is several years away, at best.

At present (because most hydrogen used now comes from methane). It seems a bit odd that that's the choice, because (at least as far as a quick Google tells me) electrolysis isn't less efficient, they're both around the same mark of efficiency. I guess the natural gas route uses some of the methane for the necessary heat, which is cheaper, but not more efficient, than using electricity for electrolysis.

[APOLLO]

As a gas engineer of 40 years I begin to question the green agenda (Question - NOT disbelieve), the economics of hydrogen (made from methane with Carbon / CO2 as a by product), etc, etc, indeed I have many, many questions re the current world energy malarkey.

 

There are no easy answers, there are no cheap and abundant "green" alternatives. Wind / Solar help but do not replace gas / coal.

 

Oil and gas are starting to get scarce / depleted in politically stable countries (North Sea for instance).

 

Clean burn coal should be looked at and developed further by Europe & UK / USA / Australia.

 

Let no one kid you with science or promises, we are all in for a hell of a ride going forward.

 

Brit15

[Reorte]

3 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

As a gas engineer of 40 years I begin to question the green agenda (Question - NOT disbelieve), the economics of hydrogen (made from methane with Carbon / CO2 as a by product), etc, etc, indeed I have many, many questions re the current world energy malarkey.

 

There are no easy answers, there are no cheap and abundant "green" alternatives. Wind / Solar help but do not replace gas / coal.

 

Oil and gas are starting to get scarce / depleted in politically stable countries (North Sea for instance).

 

Clean burn coal should be looked at and developed further by Europe & UK / USA / Australia.

 

Let no one kid you with science or promises, we are all in for a hell of a ride going forward.

Clean burn coal definitely feels like something that was chucked too quickly and early.

 

Medium term I'm strongly of the opinion that nuclear is the only practical way forward, and that wind and solar are really a dead end, other perhaps for some small scale localised installations. And we should be contributing a lot more towards fusion research, which after decades not getting anywhere much has shown quite a few encouraging signs of real progress over the last few years, although it's still definitely not at the point where we can plan on it being available at a certain time.

[APOLLO]

7 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Clean burn coal definitely feels like something that was chucked too quickly and early.

 

Medium term I'm strongly of the opinion that nuclear is the only practical way forward, and that wind and solar are really a dead end, other perhaps for some small scale localised installations. And we should be contributing a lot more towards fusion research, which after decades not getting anywhere much has shown quite a few encouraging signs of real progress over the last few years, although it's still definitely not at the point where we can plan on it being available at a certain time.

 

100% Agree.

 

Brit15

[fodenway]

It amazes me that wind and solar electricity generation were promoted as marvellous ideas, so why hasn't it been made mandatory for every new-build to have at least one of them built-in as a source of energy, to reduce the dependence on the National Grid if not to provide the entire power needed for the building for some of the time? Given that the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow, why hasn't more use been made of our rivers? Could they not be harnessed to drive lots of smaller generating plants? After all, the rivers provide a constant flow of free, reusable  'fuel' to drive waterwheels geared to turbines.

[tomparryharry]

On 22/12/2022 at 15:23, fodenway said:

, it's a bit like filing the corners off 50 pence coins to make them work in 10p slot machines.

 

..... Puts down file.... " OH No!!

"Mildred!"

[Ron Ron Ron]

On 24/12/2022 at 12:17, Reorte said:

......Medium term I'm strongly of the opinion that nuclear is the only practical way forward, and that wind and solar are really a dead end, other perhaps for some small scale localised installations. .......

 

The failure to adequately plan for the replacement of Britain's first generation Magnox reactors, with later, modern nuclear replacements, back in the 1980's and 90's, on the back of what was the availability of large resources of "cheap" North Sea gas, was a catastrophic strategic mistake that the UK is now paying dearly for.

The short sightedness of the senior civil servants, the treasury and the politicians of the time, has left us in a difficult place, only a few decades on....and we will pay a high price for the catching up that needs to be done.

 

However, wind and solar are not a "dead end", as if they were to have no useful role to play in future energy production.

Despite the obvious limitations, they both have important parts to play, as part of a raft of solutions to satisfy our energy needs and shouldn't simply be discarded as having no value.

Quite the reverse, they have great value, but within a wider energy portfolio.

 

 

On 24/12/2022 at 13:06, fodenway said:

It amazes me that wind and solar electricity generation were promoted as marvellous ideas, so why hasn't it been made mandatory for every new-build to have at least one of them built-in as a source of energy, to reduce the dependence on the National Grid if not to provide the entire power needed for the building for some of the time? ........

 

It's scandalous that despite the early wave of "mass take-up" of domestic solar, about 10 years ago, that the requirements for new builds have not been radically changed, in short order.

It's particularly pathetic, to see some new builds being provided with a token of 2 or 4 solar PV panels (which are probably older, cheap, low output types anyway), which will provide very little benefit at all.

 

Similarly with ground source heat pumps.

There has been a continuous boom in new house building over the last 6 years, down here near the south coast, in Hampshire.

Only a few minutes from here, there's a huge area that has been under development over the last couple of years, where they are building hundreds, if not thousands of of new homes, yet despite this being the best opportunity they'll ever have to put in the necessary underground piping,  not one of the new housing estates, has been fitted out with ground source heating provision .....and underfloor heating of any description, is totally absent from these new homes..

 

 

 

On 24/12/2022 at 13:06, fodenway said:

...........Given that the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow, why hasn't more use been made of our rivers? Could they not be harnessed to drive lots of smaller generating plants? After all, the rivers provide a constant flow of free, reusable  'fuel' to drive waterwheels geared to turbines.

 

The wind might not always blow, but the sun shines on the earth, 24 / 7 / 365 and is 100% reliable....just not in any one particular place on the planet, at all times.

 

Government (as in the system of government and the establishment) and the electricity generating industry, only seem to view power generation through the myopic prism of huge, centralised generating capacity.

Small scale electricity generation and micro-generation doesn't figure at all in their world view, yet the UK alone, has masses of potential generating capacity in our rivers and even from small streams.

You don't need massive hydro-electric schemes to produce worthwhile amounts of electricity, that can be used locally, or used to charge energy storage banks.

There's a lot of potential being wasted by dismissing the value of lower scale and micro-generation.

 

 

 

. 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Ron Ron Ron

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

You don't need massive hydro-electric schemes to produce worthwhile amounts of electricity, that can be used locally, or used to charge energy storage banks.

 

A thing I saw today was a solar farm floating on a lake. Considering that in many parts of the world reservoirs are covered three-deep in floating plastic balls to reduce evaporation it makes sense to cover them with solar panels instead.

[62613]

8 hours ago, 30801 said:

 

A thing I saw today was a solar farm floating on a lake. Considering that in many parts of the world reservoirs are covered three-deep in floating plastic balls to reduce evaporation it makes sense to cover them with solar panels instead.

A reservoir near to where I live has had floating solar panels for quite a few years now. On the water turbine generators in rivers and streams, a local impounding res. has had a turbine fitted for a while, as has a tiny stream. These things are beginning to happen.

 

[black and decker boy]

On 24/12/2022 at 13:06, fodenway said:

It amazes me that wind and solar electricity generation were promoted as marvellous ideas, so why hasn't it been made mandatory for every new-build to have at least one of them built-in as a source of energy, to reduce the dependence on the National Grid if not to provide the entire power needed for the building for some of the time? Given that the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow, why hasn't more use been made of our rivers? Could they not be harnessed to drive lots of smaller generating plants? After all, the rivers provide a constant flow of free, reusable  'fuel' to drive waterwheels geared to turbines.

They have: it now is.

 

part L of building regs has changed to deliver significant co2 savings to new builds.
 

So new build houses from mid 2023 should feature solar, EV chargers and air source heat pumps as standard. No one is expecting domestic wind turbines (people complain about neighbours dogs so swish-swish-swish 24/7 could see all out war in the suburbs)

 

commercial buildings see similar changes though in practice, many new builds already feature Solar and avoid gas.

 

 

in terms of small scale hydro, there are quite a few (I was loosely involved in a couple on the Trent in the early 2000s) but cost vs income is a perennial issue plus needing to create the head drop - the EA don’t like weirs as it stops fish swimming upstream and don’t like people digging & building turbines next to their existing weirs. This adds time & cost to overcome. Quite a few private estates have hydro to power themselves. 

Edited December 26, 2022 by black and decker boy
Typo

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

No one is expecting domestic wind turbines (people complain about neighbours dogs so swish-swish-swish 24/7 could see all out war in the suburbs)

 

If you had swish-swish-swish 24/7 it would be grand. There's rarely enough clear wind over your house to make domestic turbines worthwhile.