Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-13-2022, 11:27 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
City: Oak Harbor, WA, USA
Vessel Name: GOML
Vessel Model: 1978 Fiberform Bermuda 2400
Join Date: Apr 2020
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidM View Post
Compressed hydrogen will see very little use because it is expensive and requires high pressure tanks to store which are bulky. I don't think you will ever see it in cars or boats.
Both Toyota and Honda make fuel-cell-powered vehicles (FCVs). The Toyota Mirai (https://www.toyota.com/mirai/) is one example. Advancements in battery density and the overall lack of convenient hydrogen refueling stations have made the cars impractical, but there's a good argument for a fuel cell system in marine applications, since there's more space for tankage (long skinny tanks in the little-used bilge areas, for instance). There's a serious advantage in weight reduction, and a relatively small solar-powered hydrogen generator can produce hydrogen from sea water to refresh the system (albeit slowly, and not as efficiently as solar-to-battery).
JD Ray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2022, 11:45 AM   #22
Guru
 
twistedtree's Avatar
 
City: Walkabout Creek
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 8,631
I think when pontiffs talk recently about hydrogen as a fuel, they are referring to recent developments to create a controlled fusion reaction, aka the the same principle as a hydrogen bomb. Solving the problem of controlled fusion would solve a lot of problems.
__________________
MVTanglewood.com
twistedtree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2022, 11:48 AM   #23
Guru
 
backinblue's Avatar
 
City: Stratford, CT
Vessel Name: Blue Moon
Vessel Model: Mainship Pilot 355
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 3,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by twistedtree View Post
I think when pontiffs talk recently about hydrogen as a fuel, they are referring to recent developments to create a controlled fusion reaction, aka the the same principle as a hydrogen bomb. Solving the problem of controlled fusion would solve a lot of problems.
It worked for the Back to the Future DeLorean! Remember Mr. Fusion?

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/emb...nding=1&start=
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson
backinblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2022, 12:02 PM   #24
Veteran Member
 
City: Beaufort, NC
Vessel Name: Oriente
Vessel Model: Sabre 34 Flybridge
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 72
I agree the 100 nm at 8-9 would work. Makes you wonder if that is going to be more achievable with modern sailboats first.
boating rich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2022, 12:14 PM   #25
Guru
 
Nick14's Avatar
 
City: New England
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidM View Post
"but at least it (hydrogen) is the most abundant element"

So hydrogen is not a source of energy, it is a way to store energy.

David
Exactly. The same can be said about 'electricity.' Electricity is also not a source of energy, but a way to store energy that must be generated by something else. Many fans of battery-electric cars overlook that important detail.

The fact that hydrogen is the most common element in the universe is irrelevant. What matters as far as it being a potential source of energy is availability. How is it produced? As others have pointed out, there is virtually no free hydrogen to be found on Earth because it is so highly chemically reactive. It must be produced, meaning, energy has to be put into a process to separate hydrogen that is chemically bound to something else (such as in water, or oil).

That is one of the problems. The laws of conservation of energy state that a system always has the same amount of energy, unless it's added from the outside. Likewise, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. In any conversion process there are inefficiencies (usually energy lost as waste heat). Any energy put into a process to produce hydrogen is going to use more energy than will come out from the resulting hydrogen.

Many fans of electric vehicles also blithely make the throw-away comment "as long as it's generated by green sources." Electricity itself, or hydrogen (or perhaps other storage mechanisms) can all be green if the energy itself was generated by a renewable source (solar, wind, tidal, etc.). But there's the rub, and a non-trivial one. Transitioning the country, and world, to a renewable electric power grid is the crucial first step. But it won't be cheap, or easy.

The fundamental problem is that right now, fossil fuels still provide about 63% of the electricity generated in the U.S., with nuclear an additional 19%. There are significant regional differences, but overall only about 11% of U.S. electric power is generated from renewable sources:

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

The fundamental need is to change the U.S., and world, electric generating grid to renewable sources. That will take a lot of money. Just for the U.S. it would cost over $5 trillion (let’s assume a nice even $10 trillion with the inefficiencies, corruption, bureaucracy, inflation (that was a 5 year old estimate), inevitable cost overruns, and pork in our system):

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com...e-spending-go/

Especially in the new coronavirus reality, with the world likely heading into several years of economic difficulties, and the U.S. having to deal with trillions of dollars already spent on ‘economic recovery’, it’s hard to see where and when the money could come from to convert to renewable sources.

The scientific data on climate change are overwhelming. We need to save our planet and do whatever we can to combat climate change. After all, this is the only planet we have, so not killing it - and ourselves in the process - seems like a really good idea. The horrific forest fires on the west coast of the past few years are yet another example of what we will have more of in the future if we don’t do something. Even the lobsters are leaving New England and moving north to Canada to escape rising ocean water temperatures. But going 'electric' alone does not solve anything as long as the primary energy source used to generate that electricity wasn't renewable.
__________________
Nick
Nick14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2022, 12:17 PM   #26
Guru
 
City: Rochester, NY
Vessel Name: Hour Glass
Vessel Model: Chris Craft 381 Catalina
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 6,144
Electric still holds some advantages even with fossil fuel sourced electricity. Large scale generation is typically more efficient than small scale. And you can seamlessly swap out the generation source without impacting the end user equipment (which allows for continuous improvement).
rslifkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2022, 12:27 PM   #27
Guru
 
backinblue's Avatar
 
City: Stratford, CT
Vessel Name: Blue Moon
Vessel Model: Mainship Pilot 355
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 3,627
Thanks for informative post Nick and I agree with most of what you say. Some would argue that forest fires are not the result of climate change. That aside, the problem I have is that in the US, we angst over this issue a lot, but don't acknowledge it's a global problem. The US is very clean in producing fuel and electricity, but much of the world is not. Furthermore, our attack on fossil fuels does not take a global view. For instance, rather than producing fuel in a clean manner in the US, we'd prefer to buy from other coutries that are not nearly as clean. Rather than move oil through a pipeline very cleanly and efficiently, we'd rather move it by boat, truck, or rail. Much of the fuel produced in the world, is spent by transporting that fuel. I'm not arguing against addressing climate change, I just wish we could do it in a non-political and global manner.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson
backinblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2022, 12:52 PM   #28
Guru
 
Nick14's Avatar
 
City: New England
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by backinblue View Post
Thanks for informative post Nick and I agree with most of what you say. Some would argue that forest fires are not the result of climate change. That aside, the problem I have is that in the US, we angst over this issue a lot, but don't acknowledge it's a global problem. The US is very clean in producing fuel and electricity, but much of the world is not. Furthermore, our attack on fossil fuels does not take a global view. For instance, rather than producing fuel in a clean manner in the US, we'd prefer to buy from other coutries that are not nearly as clean. Rather than move oil through a pipeline very cleanly and efficiently, we'd rather move it by boat, truck, or rail. Much of the fuel produced in the world, is spent by transporting that fuel. I'm not arguing against addressing climate change, I just wish we could do it in a non-political and global manner.
Thank you. You make a very important point: it's a global problem that needs a global solution. We can wring our hands and be sanctimonious here in the U.S., but even if we somehow snapped our fingers and came up with $10 trillion and converted our electric grid to green renewables, while it would help, it would definitely not solve the global problem.

China currently gets 60% of its electricity from fossil fuel, mostly coal. Japan is building 22 new coal powered electric generating plants, which together will release about as much CO2 as all the cars sold in the U.S.:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/03/c...fukushima.html

The war in Ukraine is making things even more difficult, as countries bring coal plants back on line in response to embargoes and cut-offs of oil and gas from Russia.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/21/ukra...-supplies.html

There's also the still unsolved problem of storing the electricity made from renewable sources. Solar is (of course) only generated when the sun is shining. At night, or under cloudy conditions, not so much. Wind can blow at any time - and can stop at any time. There is not yet an effective means of storing large amounts of electricity produced by a renewable source, so that it could be released at night or when the wind isn't blowing.

'Batteries' are not the answer. Lithium is too expensive, and there isn't enough supply to go around and make enough batteries to store and supply electricity on a national (or global) level (even if one ignores that much of it comes from child slave labor in despotic countries).

https://www.power-eng.com/energy-sto...ransformation/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18402-y

https://www.technologyreview.com/201...n-up-the-grid/

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...greener-future

You're absolutely right that we need an integrated, global solution. But we can't even unify this country. With the war in Ukraine now one more thing driving wedges between countries and further polarizing us, it's hard to see how a global response will happen anytime in the foreseeable future.
__________________
Nick
Nick14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2022, 01:07 PM   #29
Guru
 
KnotYet's Avatar
 
City: Los Angeles
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 1,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by twistedtree View Post
I think when pontiffs talk recently about hydrogen as a fuel, they are referring to recent developments to create a controlled fusion reaction, aka the the same principle as a hydrogen bomb. Solving the problem of controlled fusion would solve a lot of problems.
IMO, the Pope should stay in his own lane!
__________________
Science doesn't care what you believe. -Neil deGrasse Tyson
KnotYet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2022, 01:08 PM   #30
Guru
 
backinblue's Avatar
 
City: Stratford, CT
Vessel Name: Blue Moon
Vessel Model: Mainship Pilot 355
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 3,627
Just curious Nick, and you probably know more than me, but why are we not embracing more nuclear power? Obviously there is the waste disposal issue, but are there other reasons? Seems like a clean solution to me.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson
backinblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2022, 01:14 PM   #31
Guru
 
KnotYet's Avatar
 
City: Los Angeles
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 1,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by backinblue View Post
Just curious Nick, and you probably know more than me, but why are we not embracing more nuclear power? Obviously there is the waste disposal issue, but are there other reasons? Seems like a clean solution to me.
Nuclear energy is about an order of magnitude more expensive than, for
example, solar or wind energy production and has the longest lead time by
far, usually measured in decades.
As you note, there is still no solution for safely storing the waste products,
some of which will remain deadly for millennia.

The nuclear power industry is highly government subsidized, as well.
__________________
Science doesn't care what you believe. -Neil deGrasse Tyson
KnotYet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2022, 01:15 PM   #32
Guru
 
backinblue's Avatar
 
City: Stratford, CT
Vessel Name: Blue Moon
Vessel Model: Mainship Pilot 355
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 3,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnotYet View Post
Nuclear energy is about an order of magnitude more expensive than, for
example, solar or wind energy production and has the longest lead time by far.
But far more reliable and consistent. I was more thinking of nuclear replacing fossil fuels, not renewables.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson
backinblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2022, 01:33 PM   #33
Guru
 
KnotYet's Avatar
 
City: Los Angeles
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 1,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by backinblue View Post
But far more reliable and consistent. I was more thinking of nuclear replacing fossil fuels, not renewables.
Not really.
Here in SoCal a major nuclear plant, San Onofre, was retired decades
before its expected lifespan due to a maintenance item design failure.
These plants are often built in pairs so that shutdowns don't interrupt all of
the output.
__________________
Science doesn't care what you believe. -Neil deGrasse Tyson
KnotYet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2022, 01:35 PM   #34
Guru
 
backinblue's Avatar
 
City: Stratford, CT
Vessel Name: Blue Moon
Vessel Model: Mainship Pilot 355
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 3,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnotYet View Post
Not really, here in SoCal a major nuclear plant, San Onofre, was retired
decades before its expected lifespan due to a maintenance item design failure.
These plants are often built in pairs so that shutdowns don't interrupt all of
the output.
So not more reliable than wind and solar?
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson
backinblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2022, 01:37 PM   #35
Guru
 
KnotYet's Avatar
 
City: Los Angeles
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 1,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by backinblue View Post
So not more reliable than wind and solar?
Compared to a total loss of 100% for 25 years?

Really though, the point is moot. There are only 2 nukes under
construction in the US right now and they are, predictably, billions
of dollars over budget and years behind schedule.

There is government money being spent on newer technologies in
the field so if we live long enough we may see new plants built.

This is where I point out that the fastest growing segment of
electrical power production is renewables and will likely remain so.
__________________
Science doesn't care what you believe. -Neil deGrasse Tyson
KnotYet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2022, 01:40 PM   #36
Guru
 
GoneFarrell's Avatar
 
City: Columbia City, OR & Mulege, BCS
Vessel Name: Imagine
Vessel Model: Farrell 34
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 768
Energyvault is building gravity weight storage systems. They can be built pretty much anywhere, like close to solar or wind farms, and no water (or lithium) required.
GoneFarrell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2022, 03:08 PM   #37
Guru
 
Nick14's Avatar
 
City: New England
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by backinblue View Post
Just curious Nick, and you probably know more than me, but why are we not embracing more nuclear power? Obviously there is the waste disposal issue, but are there other reasons? Seems like a clean solution to me.
I'm far from an expert, but I see several problems with nuclear fission that to me make it unattractive.

1) Waste. The problems, costs, and risks of having to process and store nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years are clear.

2) Time and cost. It takes a long time and costs a lot of money to build a nuclear power plant. It can cost around $25 billion to build a nuclear power plant with roughly 1,000 MW generating capacity - astronomically high compared with the alternatives -

https://constructionphysics.substack...r-construction

and take an average of 7 years to do it -

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...rs-since-1981/

and usually run into cost overruns and time delays -

https://energy.mit.edu/news/building...-power-plants/

3) Poor net energy yield. When you fully consider all of the time, cost, and energy expenditures needed to build and run a nuclear power plant - mining, processing, and enriching the uranium, running the plant, processing and storing the waste - the net energy yield is minimal to negative.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60544288900801

If you have to put in X amount of energy to get out a net of 0.9X, you can't make that up in volume.

4) Risk of accidents. While accidents can happen with any kind of power generation, the examples of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima have shown very dramatically the potential consequences when something goes wrong with nuclear power.

The consistency of power output might be more stable with nuclear power compared with solar or wind. But there are other, more important issues. The above problems outweigh that advantage in my mind.

Nuclear fusion is a completely different animal. There has been some encouraging progress lately. But, at almost any time over the past 40 years, nuclear fusion has been '10 years away', which it still is. It's always been '10 years away.' It's important to continue the work, but it's still in the research stage, not yet development, so unwise to count on it until it demonstrates scalable and economic feasibility.
__________________
Nick
Nick14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2022, 03:15 PM   #38
Guru
 
Nick14's Avatar
 
City: New England
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoneFarrell View Post
Energyvault is building gravity weight storage systems. They can be built pretty much anywhere, like close to solar or wind farms, and no water (or lithium) required.
EnergyVault is a clever, 'low tech' approach to energy storage. Literally, lift a heavy object by using energy, then capture energy when you let it fall. It's similar to the pumped hydro storage systems in use for years that pump water to a higher retention pool (pond/lake), then generate electricity as the water rushes back through turbines.

I think it would be important to do efficiency and net energy yield analyses of the EnergyVault system. Unlike pumped water storage, EnergyVault builds their buildings and equipment from scratch. One needs to consider how much total energy (and materials and total cost) is required to built a facility, the energy and costs of operation, and the overall operating efficiency - how much electricity do you get out relative to how much goes in?

It's an interesting approach that should be further explored, but it's very early days and much is still unknown.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...8245101000234#!

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...orage_A_review
__________________
Nick
Nick14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2022, 04:58 PM   #39
Guru
 
Simi 60's Avatar
 
City: Queensland
Vessel Model: Milkraft 60 converted timber prawn trawler
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 4,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD Ray View Post
. So two Tesla Model 3 battery packs (salvage) at 80 kWh of usable power would get you sixteen hours of 5 kt cruising (80 nm). This, of course, doesn't account for house power or solar inputs.

.
Except that's not really an option
Not with their current chemistry
If they go lifepo4 then yes.
__________________
Everything on a boat is broken, you just don't know it yet
Full time cruising is repairing boats in exotic locations
Simi 60 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2022, 05:30 PM   #40
Guru
 
twistedtree's Avatar
 
City: Walkabout Creek
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 8,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnotYet View Post
IMO, the Pope should stay in his own lane!


Sorry, I meant it as one who pontificates. Maybe that’s a pontificator?
__________________
MVTanglewood.com
twistedtree is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


» Trawler Port Captains
Port Captains are TF volunteers who can serve as local guides or assist with local arrangements and information. Search below to locate Port Captains near your destination. To learn more about this program read here: TF Port Captain Program





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012