ZeroAvia's Val Miftakhov makes a compelling case for hydrogen aviation

Larry Dighera writes:

https://newatlas.com/aircraft/interv...rogen-aviation

ZeroAvia's Val Miftakhov makes a compelling case for hydrogen
aviation
By Loz Blain
June 15, 2020

One of the two ZeroAvia prototype six-seater Piper Malibu airplanes
ZeroAvia
https://newatlas.com/aircraft/interv...tion#gallery:1
View 2 Images

Everybody but the oil companies wants electric aviation to take off as
quickly as possible, if you'll pardon the pun. The aviation industry
is a huge polluter, and electric aircraft will not only be cleaner,
but significantly cheaper in terms of energy and maintenance. The
problem is batteries, whose terrible energy density is simply not up
to any practical aeronautical purpose at this stage, and there's no
guarantee that the vast amounts of research going on in the battery
sector will change that any time soon.

If:

1. They create a hydrogen infrastructure that exists across the US at
most GA airports
2. They create high performance 300+ HP engines running on Hydrogen
3. 1 for 1 replacement of fuel tanks to IMPROVE the plane's performance
4. Conduct this upgrade at a cost similar to a replacement engine

Sign me up. At this point, hydrogen fuel cells in cars have failed
hard.

Meanwhile, electric powerplants on planes are in the infancy. My
bellanca super viking can take me comfortably 1000nm on full tanks.

--
Daniel

Visit me at: gopher://gcpp.world

On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 12:56:07 -0700, Daniel wrote:

Larry Dighera writes:

https://newatlas.com/aircraft/interv...rogen-aviation

ZeroAvia's Val Miftakhov makes a compelling case for hydrogen
aviation
By Loz Blain
June 15, 2020

One of the two ZeroAvia prototype six-seater Piper Malibu airplanes
ZeroAvia
https://newatlas.com/aircraft/interv...tion#gallery:1
View 2 Images

Everybody but the oil companies wants electric aviation to take off as
quickly as possible, if you'll pardon the pun. The aviation industry
is a huge polluter, and electric aircraft will not only be cleaner,
but significantly cheaper in terms of energy and maintenance. The
problem is batteries, whose terrible energy density is simply not up
to any practical aeronautical purpose at this stage, and there's no
guarantee that the vast amounts of research going on in the battery
sector will change that any time soon.

If:

1. They create a hydrogen infrastructure that exists across the US at
most GA airports
2. They create high performance 300+ HP engines running on Hydrogen
3. 1 for 1 replacement of fuel tanks to IMPROVE the plane's performance
4. Conduct this upgrade at a cost similar to a replacement engine

Sign me up. At this point, hydrogen fuel cells in cars have failed
hard.


That's because current fuel-cell automobiles use dirty gaseous H2 fuel
derived from petroleum. Liquid H2 liberated from water by hydrolysis
has the potential to power aircraft efficiently and cleanly either
burned in your (300-hp) Continental IO-520-K or (300-hp) Lycoming
IO-540-K1E5.

But there are is new fuel-cell technology on the horizon:
https://hypoint.us/


Meanwhile, electric powerplants on planes are in the infancy. My
bellanca super viking can take me comfortably 1000nm on full tanks.

Daniel,


Thank you for your comment. But, it would appear that you are doing
the equivalent of comparing a ability of a newborn baby to that of a
full grown adult. Consider this:

"Your analysis fails to consider liquid H2's ~3X better energy
density compared to gasoline. Further, cryo-coolers are able to
condense liquid H2 at atmospheric pressure with very modest power
requirements (~100W). Liquid H2 overcomes the high-pressure
storage requirement for H2 gas. So, a membrane hydrolyzer powered
from a photo-voltaic array employing a cryo-cooler
https://trc.nist.gov/cryogenics/cryocoolers.html could produce
"green" liquid H2 fuel for fuel-cell use rather inexpensively. To
wit, the US Navy flew a liquid H2 powered aircraft for three days:

https://www.nrl.navy.mil/lasr/sites/...31-4608%5D.pdf
And then there is this possible option at improving hydrolysis
efficiency:
http://rexresearch.com/microwavehydr...ehydrogen.html

If you object to liquid H2 storage, here's a novel technology:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytg23mDd1a4
Former Area 51 employee Bob Lazar is interviewed by Visual Effects
Supervisor Jon Farhat. In this video, they discuss what H1
(hydrogen) is, how it is created and it’s potential in the
automotive sector. In addition, Bob show us he has his own
particle accelerator which he uses to create 6Li (lithium-6) H
(hydride) for H1 storage.

6Li is used to store hydrogen safely and efficiently. It is also
one of the key components in making a thermal-nuclear weapon, but
by itself is not dangerous. Because of crony capitalism and
ignorant politicians, the US government has banned 6Li and the
buying and selling of it. However, the making of 6Li H yourself
with your own particle accelerator IS NOT!

Bob uses solar panels to power an H1 generator which produces H1
from H2O (water). For the safe and efficient storage of the
dangerous H1, 6Li H must be created with a particle accelerator
and used for H1 storage in high compression tanks. With the H1
generator, H1 is forced into the 6Li H tanks through the syringe
compression process. FYI, „hydrogen vehicles” are also known as
„fuel cell” vehicles.

Bob is the owner of United Nuclear Scientific and
Switch2Hydrogen. Jon is the owner of ODEMAX and director of this
video."

All that said, I envy you buzzing around in your luxuriant Viking even
if it is made of wood. Have fun, and inspect for dry-rot. :-)

Best regards,
Larry Dighera

Larry Dighera wrote:

snip

That's because current fuel-cell automobiles use dirty gaseous H2 fuel
derived from petroleum. Liquid H2 liberated from water by hydrolysis
has the potential to power aircraft efficiently and cleanly either
burned in your (300-hp) Continental IO-520-K or (300-hp) Lycoming
IO-540-K1E5.

Hydrogen is hydrogen.

About 90% of hydrogen production comes from steam reforming of natural gas,
which involves the removal of hydrogen from hydrocarbons at very high
temperatures.

Burning hydrogen in an internal combustion engine produces huge
amounts of oxides of nitrogen, i.e. smog, far in execess of
anybodys pollution laws, assuming the engine can withstand
the much higher flame temperature of hydrogen.

snip

"Your analysis fails to consider liquid H2's ~3X better energy
density compared to gasoline. Further, cryo-coolers are able to
condense liquid H2 at atmospheric pressure with very modest power
requirements (~100W). Liquid H2 overcomes the high-pressure
storage requirement for H2 gas.

Most airports don't even offer MOGAS and you think they are going
to install huge solar arrays and cryo-coolers to produce liquid
hydrogen?


snip

6Li is used to store hydrogen safely and efficiently. It is also
one of the key components in making a thermal-nuclear weapon, but
by itself is not dangerous. Because of crony capitalism and
ignorant politicians, the US government has banned 6Li and the
buying and selling of it. However, the making of 6Li H yourself
with your own particle accelerator IS NOT!

Right, airports that won't sell MOGAS are going to install particle
accelerators to produce a key component for nuclear weapons?

Utter fantasy.

snip remaining

--
Jim Pennino

Dear Jim,

I was hoping you might have some input on this.

My comments in-line below:


On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 17:37:38 -0000, wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:

snip

That's because current fuel-cell automobiles use dirty gaseous H2 fuel
derived from petroleum. Liquid H2 liberated from water by hydrolysis
has the potential to power aircraft efficiently and cleanly either
burned in your (300-hp) Continental IO-520-K or (300-hp) Lycoming
IO-540-K1E5.

Hydrogen is hydrogen.


It's difficult to argue with that sagacious logic. However,
electrolysis produces hydrogen from water without producing CO2 or
other pollutants.


About 90% of hydrogen production comes from steam reforming of natural gas,
which involves the removal of hydrogen from hydrocarbons at very high
temperatures.


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.8b06197
"Conventional hydrogen production via steam methane reforming (SMR) is
energy intensive, coproduces carbon dioxide, and emits air
pollutants."

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcell...-gas-reforming
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcell...ologies-office
"Hydrogen can be produced using a number of different processes.
Thermochemical processes use heat and chemical reactions to release
hydrogen from organic materials such as fossil fuels and biomass.
Water (H2O) can be split into hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2) using
electrolysis or solar energy. Microorganisms such as bacteria and
algae can produce hydrogen through biological processes."

https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcell...-gas-reforming
"Today, 95% of the hydrogen produced in the United States is made by
natural gas reforming in large central plants."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming
"Steam methane reforming is a method for producing syngas (hydrogen
and carbon monoxide) by reaction of hydrocarbons with water. Commonly
natural gas is the feedstock.

For every tonne of hydrogen produced this way, 9 tonnes of CO2 are
also produced." [Source:
https://ing.dk/artikel/vinder-videns...gifraas-230864
https://translate.google.com/transla...gifraas-230864
] (Since Trump's attack on the EPA has removed publicly available
pollution data, it was necessary to seek pollution information from a
foreign source.)

So loosely speaking, the steam methane reforming process produces
"dirty" H2 that pollutes our environment. Of course it's the process
that's dirty, not the H2. (Actually, the H2 from electrolysis is
about as chemically pure as it is possible to produce) I apologize
for my less than accurate statement, but the damage to the environment
caused by reforming is still the same.


Burning hydrogen in an internal combustion engine produces huge
amounts of oxides of nitrogen, i.e. smog, far in execess of
anybodys pollution laws, assuming the engine can withstand
the much higher flame temperature of hydrogen.


Yeah, I wasn't really serious about burning H2 in IC engines. I put a
:-) in my statement, but apparently it was lost during editing.


snip

"Your analysis fails to consider liquid H2's ~3X better energy
density compared to gasoline. Further, cryo-coolers are able to
condense liquid H2 at atmospheric pressure with very modest power
requirements (~100W). Liquid H2 overcomes the high-pressure
storage requirement for H2 gas.

Most airports don't even offer MOGAS and you think they are going
to install huge solar arrays and cryo-coolers to produce liquid
hydrogen?


Perhaps.

To be totally candid, I envision photo-voltaic powered liquid H2
production through electrolysis employing cryo-cooling technology for
use in fuel-cell electric generation to power electric motors, be they
attached to wheels on the road, or propellers in the air. I'm
certainly no engineer, but the limited research I've done appears to
support this being feasible, with the possibility of 6Li use for
longer term H2 storage.


snip

6Li is used to store hydrogen safely and efficiently. It is also
one of the key components in making a thermal-nuclear weapon, but
by itself is not dangerous. Because of crony capitalism and
ignorant politicians, the US government has banned 6Li and the
buying and selling of it. However, the making of 6Li H yourself
with your own particle accelerator IS NOT!

Right, airports that won't sell MOGAS are going to install particle
accelerators to produce a key component for nuclear weapons?


If you had watched the video, you'd be aware that it is the legal
system that necessitates the use of a particle accelerator to produce
6Li, as its sale is currently prohibited because it can be a
constituent of fission technology. If that law were to be rescinded,
an on-site accelerator wouldn't be necessary to create 6Li.


Utter fantasy.


Agreed, it's a fantastic idea. I would have said the same of Musk's
chances of success at making electric automobiles wildly popular
worldwide, or his putting men in space at a cost far below the
historical price, or the chances of millions of people throughout the
world simultaneously protesting against police killing, instead of
protecting, the citizens they have sworn to protect and serve.

So, I'm firmly on the side of the dreamers to lead us into the future.

I would dearly love to see your engineering analysis of the vision I
candidly provided above, with references to the sources of your
supporting data and the underling mathematics. I realize this would
be a lot of pro-bono labor, but you appear to poses the requisite
interest. (And you're of the same nationality of Galileo who once
nearly lost his life during the inquisition for publicly espousing the
truths he had discovered.)


snip remaining

Larry Dighera wrote:

Dear Jim,

I was hoping you might have some input on this.

My comments in-line below:


On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 17:37:38 -0000, wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:

snip

That's because current fuel-cell automobiles use dirty gaseous H2 fuel
derived from petroleum. Liquid H2 liberated from water by hydrolysis
has the potential to power aircraft efficiently and cleanly either
burned in your (300-hp) Continental IO-520-K or (300-hp) Lycoming
IO-540-K1E5.

Hydrogen is hydrogen.


It's difficult to argue with that sagacious logic. However,
electrolysis produces hydrogen from water without producing CO2 or
other pollutants.

By saying "dirty gaseous H2" you were trying to say H2 produced
without other emissions or byproducts.

Why didn't you just say that instead of the silly "dirty gaseous H2"?

snip long ass quote

Burning hydrogen in an internal combustion engine produces huge
amounts of oxides of nitrogen, i.e. smog, far in execess of
anybodys pollution laws, assuming the engine can withstand
the much higher flame temperature of hydrogen.


Yeah, I wasn't really serious about burning H2 in IC engines. I put a
:-) in my statement, but apparently it was lost during editing.

Yeah, sure.


snip

"Your analysis fails to consider liquid H2's ~3X better energy
density compared to gasoline. Further, cryo-coolers are able to
condense liquid H2 at atmospheric pressure with very modest power
requirements (~100W). Liquid H2 overcomes the high-pressure
storage requirement for H2 gas.

Most airports don't even offer MOGAS and you think they are going
to install huge solar arrays and cryo-coolers to produce liquid
hydrogen?


Perhaps.

Yeah, sure, when hell freezes over and hippopotamus fly.

To be totally candid, I envision photo-voltaic powered liquid H2
production through electrolysis employing cryo-cooling technology for
use in fuel-cell electric generation to power electric motors, be they
attached to wheels on the road, or propellers in the air. I'm
certainly no engineer, but the limited research I've done appears to
support this being feasible, with the possibility of 6Li use for
longer term H2 storage.

As a real engineer, I call this an utter pipe dream.

Lots of things are "feasible", but that does not mean they are
economic, practical or even legal.

It is feasible to make a motor from a birthday candle, a permanet
magnet, and a Zippo lighter flint, but you will not find such
motors powering anything other than a physics class demonstration.


snip

6Li is used to store hydrogen safely and efficiently. It is also
one of the key components in making a thermal-nuclear weapon, but
by itself is not dangerous. Because of crony capitalism and
ignorant politicians, the US government has banned 6Li and the
buying and selling of it. However, the making of 6Li H yourself
with your own particle accelerator IS NOT!

Right, airports that won't sell MOGAS are going to install particle
accelerators to produce a key component for nuclear weapons?


If you had watched the video, you'd be aware that it is the legal
system that necessitates the use of a particle accelerator to produce
6Li, as its sale is currently prohibited because it can be a
constituent of fission technology. If that law were to be rescinded,
an on-site accelerator wouldn't be necessary to create 6Li.

You are mixing apples and oranges.

ALL the methods of producing 6Li are complex and expensive but
the main point is that 6Li is a key compenent to make nuclear
weapons and all the major powers are opposed to it's production.

Utter fantasy.


Agreed, it's a fantastic idea.

Fantastic as in pixie dust, flying bull frogs, unicorns,
and pots of gold at the end of rainbows.

snip

So, I'm firmly on the side of the dreamers to lead us into the future.

I'm sure that is going to happen, all while riding unicorns.

I would dearly love to see your engineering analysis

My detailed engineering analysis can be had for $150/hr.

My back of the envelope analysis is that there are far too many
engineering, safety, economic, and international political issues
over making thermonuclear bomb components for this to EVER happen.

--
Jim Pennino

On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 23:36:54 -0000, wrote:



By saying "dirty gaseous H2" you were trying to say H2 produced
without other emissions or byproducts.

Why didn't you just say that instead of the silly "dirty gaseous H2"?


I guess senescence has impacted my ability to accurately express my
thoughts.

Or, perhaps I was expecting the less pedantic to get the idea. :-)

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 23:36:54 -0000, wrote:



By saying "dirty gaseous H2" you were trying to say H2 produced
without other emissions or byproducts.

Why didn't you just say that instead of the silly "dirty gaseous H2"?


I guess senescence has impacted my ability to accurately express my
thoughts.

Or, perhaps I was expecting the less pedantic to get the idea. :-)

Or perhaps it was just sloppy writting.

--
Jim Pennino

On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 23:36:54 -0000, wrote:


Yeah, I wasn't really serious about burning H2 in IC engines. I put a
:-) in my statement, but apparently it was lost during editing.

Yeah, sure.


From that statement, am I to infer that you believe I would stoop to
mendacity for such a trivial matter? If so, I am deeply offended.

Or is it just your apparent habitual skepticism rearing its
irrepressible head? :-)

On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 23:36:54 -0000, wrote:


Most airports don't even offer MOGAS and you think they are going
to install huge solar arrays and cryo-coolers to produce liquid
hydrogen?


Perhaps.

Yeah, sure, when hell freezes over and hippopotamus fly.


If my preliminary calculations are near correct, I would expect LH2
generating facilities to reside on-premises to avoid the loss of
efficiency in transporting it for delivery.

Your conclusion that 'huge solar arrays' would be necessary may be
incorrect. Have a look here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PWESWqhD8s to get an idea of what may
be involved in generating LH2, but assume pure H2 generated by
electrolysis. Calculate the approximate power required per liter of
LH2 produced, if it is similar to LN2 produced in the video.

Given the ~3X energy density of LH2 compared to JetA, and the ~90%
efficiency of electric motors, compared to ~20-30% efficiency of IC
engines, I would expect significantly less fuel to be required to
achieve today's performance and range.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 23:36:54 -0000, wrote:


Most airports don't even offer MOGAS and you think they are going
to install huge solar arrays and cryo-coolers to produce liquid
hydrogen?


Perhaps.

Yeah, sure, when hell freezes over and hippopotamus fly.


If my preliminary calculations are near correct, I would expect LH2
generating facilities to reside on-premises to avoid the loss of
efficiency in transporting it for delivery.

Your conclusion that 'huge solar arrays' would be necessary may be
incorrect. Have a look here

Don't forget the energy required to do something with the
hydrogen to make it usefull, such as compression.

And again, if airports won't offer MOGAS, what in the world makes
you think there is any motivation to install a hydrogen production
facility?


--
Jim Pennino