Fascinating. Possibilities for a new type tow car maybe?
https://www.quora.com/Could-a-moder...&share=53a829b7&srid=CNBAm&target_type=answer
https://www.quora.com/Could-a-moder...&share=53a829b7&srid=CNBAm&target_type=answer
Steam generated , electric traction tow car, the future?
- Thread starter Dustydog
- Start date
Wow - is someone really doing this? It seems astonishing to me that anyone would look at hydrogen for combustion, and steam generation in particular as any kind of efficient solution.
Just like it is astonishing that anyone would look at battery powered vehicles? Technology is moving at a rapid pace. Hydrogen in the future may use a lot less fossil fuel than is currently being used to power units.
Based on todays technology, the most scalable production technique for producing Hydrogen is by Steam Methane Reforming (SMR) At best it is 65 to 70% efficient. Traditional reciprocating large steam engines might achieve 25% efficiency, but steam turbines typically reach 40% but in special circumstances might achieve up to 50%.
The proposal is for the final drive to be electric, which means we also need to consider electric generator and motor efficiencies, which would be broadly in line the the original Diesel Electric conversion which is in the order of 90%
Based on those facts, and assuming there is no as yet undefined new technology, the proposed engine would have an overall efficiency 75% x 50% x 90% = about 33.5% That is broadly in line with the originals Diesel electric engine efficiency. However you would also need to account for the storage of enough Hydrogen which with present technology might require the volume of a typical passenger carriage to contain the necessary high pressure tanks and supply control equipment.
They would have better fuel efficiency if the looked at Fuel Cell technology to convert the hydrogen which can achieve 40 to 60% conversion efficiencies allowing for the same 90% motor efficiencies that could see an engine efficiency in the order of 54%.
What we don't know is if there are any new technologies that will make a step change in efficiency of hydrogen production or the reverse power conversion.
The proposal is for the final drive to be electric, which means we also need to consider electric generator and motor efficiencies, which would be broadly in line the the original Diesel Electric conversion which is in the order of 90%
Based on those facts, and assuming there is no as yet undefined new technology, the proposed engine would have an overall efficiency 75% x 50% x 90% = about 33.5% That is broadly in line with the originals Diesel electric engine efficiency. However you would also need to account for the storage of enough Hydrogen which with present technology might require the volume of a typical passenger carriage to contain the necessary high pressure tanks and supply control equipment.
They would have better fuel efficiency if the looked at Fuel Cell technology to convert the hydrogen which can achieve 40 to 60% conversion efficiencies allowing for the same 90% motor efficiencies that could see an engine efficiency in the order of 54%.
What we don't know is if there are any new technologies that will make a step change in efficiency of hydrogen production or the reverse power conversion.
Last edited:
Does the 50% efficiency of the turbine include losses in burning the hydrogen to generate steam? I.e. is it the efficiency of the fuel to electricity, or dry steam to electricity? I have no idea 🤷♂️
Folks.....
Debates often require expressing the pros and cons of the subject in question. This is as it should be but please don't descend into ridiculing the other sides point of view
Debates often require expressing the pros and cons of the subject in question. This is as it should be but please don't descend into ridiculing the other sides point of view
I do believe Hydrogen in decades to come will be a successful clean fuel.
Making it at the moment seems to involve processes and materials that involve fossil fuels.
Prof’s SMR , from what I read needs Methane, obtained from natural gas??
This paper from Hyundai takes us in a different direction and may solve the plastic waste disposal issues . Worth a read and worthy of comment from the more technically aware on here. I can see the attraction on cost, clean “green”. I wonder?
www.hyundai.com
Making it at the moment seems to involve processes and materials that involve fossil fuels.
Prof’s SMR , from what I read needs Methane, obtained from natural gas??
This paper from Hyundai takes us in a different direction and may solve the plastic waste disposal issues . Worth a read and worthy of comment from the more technically aware on here. I can see the attraction on cost, clean “green”. I wonder?
HTWO Grid Solution | Innovation - Hyundai Worldwide
Hyundai Motor Group is committed to accelerating the transition to a hydrogen-powered society, find out how we're making this a reality, here.
I don't know the answer for certain, but becasue it was related to the use of turbine, my assumption is mechanical energy output compared to energy consumed to run the turbine.
That makes sense. The part I am incredulous about is once you have hydrogen as an energy store, the idea of leveraging a thermal engine of any form (turbine, reciprocating steam or ICE) to produce electricity seems such a waste. As you point out, the relative efficiency of thermal vs fuel cell is enormous. I can only imagine that the scale of generation needed to run a train (perhaps as much as a megawatt or more) would be out of the range of a fuel cell? But given space is not really an issue here - several cells with a battery buffer would seem totally sensible.
I think the use of EV's or diesel/ petrol / hydrogen, engines will totally depend on the infrastructure to be able to get the power source to the vehicle.
I haven't read much about solar powered vehicles, in places where the sunshine is abundant.
I haven't read much about solar powered vehicles, in places where the sunshine is abundant.
Absolutely,
EV's are not the answer for every situation, I think its highly likely there will always be some situations where fossil fuels or possibly hydrogen or synth fuels will be the only viable solution, but in the UK and many other countries EV's are a very practical solution for private transport, provided the infrastructure is put in place.
It was the same when the ICE began to take hold. it need the correct infrastructure before uptake could occur.
Norway is a shining example. It is expected that 100% of all new car sales will be E's next year! If they can manage with their months of subzero temperatures, and reduced temperature battery range, what should we be able to do in the milder UK?
JCB have been working to develop their machinery to operate on hydrogen and synth fuels. Not necessarily together but in recognition that there are roles that are required to be fulfilled that may not be suited to battery electric.
Norway is a shining example. It is expected that 100% of all new car sales will be E's next year! If they can manage with their months of subzero temperatures, and reduced temperature battery range, what should we be able to do in the milder UK?
Norway is a shining example but not without a tarnish depending where you sit.🙀
They are aiming to become the First Nation to end the sale of new ICE cars by 2025. Sales of electric vehicles (EVs) have been boosted by tax breaks and other incentives, funded in large part from the money Norway makes out of oil and gas.
A slight conundrum or twist in the tail. Basically shovel their pollution elsewhere and make money from it .
In 2023 the U.K. imported 288 Terrawatt hours of gas from Norway. This is 58%of our total gas import. Plus Norway has been our primary gas supplier for 23 of the last 24 years.
In 2021 Norway was UK’s main supplier of crude oils. Roughly 11.7 million metric tons of crude oil enter the U.K. from them each year.
What an irony. If the U.K. had been smarter we could have developed our own oil and gas fields , sold to Norway and then scrapped ICE sales next year. Now it seems Norway have added to our own pollution at the expense of them going green😎.
You must have a chuckle🤪
Norway is a shining example but not without a tarnish depending where you sit.🙀
They are aiming to become the First Nation to end the sale of new ICE cars by 2025. Sales of electric vehicles (EVs) have been boosted by tax breaks and other incentives, funded in large part from the money Norway makes out of oil and gas.
A slight conundrum or twist in the tail. Basically shovel their pollution elsewhere and make money from it .
In 2023 the U.K. imported 288 Terrawatt hours of gas from Norway. This is 58%of our total gas import. Plus Norway has been our primary gas supplier for 23 of the last 24 years.
In 2021 Norway was UK’s main supplier of crude oils. Roughly 11.7 million metric tons of crude oil enter the U.K. from them each year.
What an irony. If the U.K. had been smarter we could have developed our own oil and gas fields , sold to Norway and then scrapped ICE sales next year. Now it seems Norway have added to our own pollution at the expense of them going green😎.
You must have a chuckle🤪
It is a strange dichotomy. But I suppose the answer is to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels for transport and heating from wherever.
The real irony Dusty is that the UK _did_ develop our oil and gas infrastructure just as Norway did, but with one difference. Norway did it as a state, sending the profits to the pubic purse. The UK did it with private industry by selling licenses to exploit the resources. It turns out the value of the product far out weighed the value of the licenses, and many of the private companies were foreign and pulled their profit to other countries.
I love a pod cast to make sense of these complex topics, there is a good one here. The whole series is 4 episodes, but this is the link to the one titled "Who owns oil" and focuses on North Sea extraction.
I do find the sentence above very strange.
In no way does Norway shovel its pollution anywhere else, They avoid producing pollution by domestically producing over 89% of their electrical generation from hydropower, and approx 10% from wind. Their domestic energy production is very clean.
They sell us fossil fuels to help their own green objectives. TIC moving their pollution to others
That presupposes that if they didn't sell the fuel, they would burn it themselves. and the fact is they don't need it for their domestic market. Its a nice little earner, but they are not the ones creating the pollution, its the countries (like the UK) who use the fuel that create the pollution.
They have successfully decaronised their national power systems, we haven't but we are heading towards it. celebrate it rather than demonise it.
You have missed the point. Norway themselves wrote their own history .
Sales of electric vehicles (EVs) have been boosted by tax breaks and other incentives, funded in large part from the money Norway makes out of oil and gas.
There is no reason why the UK could not have done similar.
Sales of electric vehicles (EVs) have been boosted by tax breaks and other incentives, funded in large part from the money Norway makes out of oil and gas.
There is no reason why the UK could not have done similar.
#16 addresses that point and highlights how the U.K. took a more free enterprise approach that saw the real profits go elsewhere. That’s why when there are calls for us to use more of our own gas and oil resources they are not feasible as our products are sold on the world market. We would effectively have to nationalise the sector. Increasing our taxes on producers leads to reduced investment and/or job losses. as was illustrated when a recent windfall tax was applied.
I think we are where we are and moving to divorce ourselves further from fossil fuels is the way forwards.
I think we are where we are and moving to divorce ourselves further from fossil fuels is the way forwards.
I didn't see that point in your post, but it doesnt change the fact that Norway by whatever means has managed to move to EV's, in a place which would have most thought it would be impractical. They have proved concerns about cold climates are not as bad as have been made out.
Maybe they have a better infrastructure for the charging of EVs than what the UK has? Remember they have a total population of just over 5 million with plenty of land available whereas the UK has over 65 million living on a tiny island where charging at home is very limited.
EVs in Norway will have to cope with the "Dipped headlight at all times whilst driving law" which is common in many countries in that part of the world.
That's not exactly a big ask though is it? its just "making cars for the Scandinavian market" All the EVs in my family have automatic headlights with the option of DLR.
Facebook
Twitter