LH2 can work well for commercial shipping. Use at pace of boil off. Ammonia toxicity is a bit overblown. The tiniest leak will smell strongly, and it leaks as a gas. The smell threshold is far below toxicity level. Go outside is a natural solution.
Ammonia and LH2 have tradeoffs. Compressed H2 in “trimaran pontoons” is an excellent solution that would permit sail assist as well. Nuclear is too expensive.
Nuclear energy is only advocated by fossil fuel shills. It is perfect non-competitive solution to drill baby drill, because status quo for 15 years of development, followed by overpriced competition to fossil fuels after commissioning.
Nuclear powered ships cost an astronomical amount of money. At least $4B more than a diesel version. If you need to stay at sea for 6 months in strategic position, there is no other solution. But that is only purpose to spend that much.
Civilian control means nuclear proliferation/black market risks.
The GHG “problem” of H2 is that it competes with methane for breakdown of methane in atmosphere. If we use/leak less methane, then problem solved.
instead of pouring it into your beer mug (or natural gas container) hoping it stays contained, you design a container that won’t leak.
Ammonia has higher energy content than LH2. Easier storage, and easier boil off management/concerns.
Ammonia is toxic, explosive, and corrosive
Ammonia is not explosive. Pressure equivalent to propane, but not prone to ignition.
But because logistics for the production of solid oxide fuel cells for this application did not mature as quickly as anticipated, the EU organizers put “a temporary pause” on the retrofit. The 2024 deadline was no longer feasible, but the partnership restarted the project with a specially made gas turbine designed to run on ammonia.
A gas turbine is a bad choice as high NOX emissions will result. A diesel conversion can produce very little NOX. Waiting for the fuel cell solution is the right path, as it will have double the efficiency.
Using an H2 fuel cell, instead of SOFC, or many in paralel from car/truck manufacturers is the right path. As decomposing NH3 to H2 is an easy low energy process.
This is setting up for failure to be too quick and abandon questionable technology choice for terrible choices.
Something that happens with self driving cars is that you can live in your car without having to park it anywhere. Airships hovering is a similar “freedom”.
SK plane crash had all deaths from fire, not impact.
Very comprehensive video.
H2 is by far the best gas choice, and part of H2 economy.
airships are also a great vehicle to transport H2 as needed without pipeline permitting. Providing green energy resilience to anywhere. They are faster than trucks for distance cargo.
Designs that include wing based lift are a winner. Aircraft attitude can be changed by compressing to/from back/front of airship, and management of cargo/ballast/pull force on ropes is made easier.
They mentioned using compressors for ballast. Having center rigid sections able to hold H2 or air or vacuum can be used to move H2 out of the center before landing, and then replace cargo with air for ground/rope attachment stability.
Another airship application is replacement of yachts. There is very little weight variation from residents and “groceries” being inside vs out. There is massive solar production capable surface that can generate H2 fuel for power, and then get water back from consuming the fuel in fuel cells. 20ft fiberglass trailers weight 1mt. 900 m^3 of H2. 1500 m^3 for people + baggage. 2500 m^3 for solar + fuel cells + electrolyzers + prop engines. 25m long airship with 1m extra length for each extra ft of “furnished cabin+luggage space”.
Thank you. Makes sense that more plankton can grow (capture CO2 as well) if more of the ocean is cool enough. Headline implies worse than lower plankton population.
Model based, but hard to understand why:
Why can’t plankton move to cooler waters?
Storage does have 2 relevant metrics. how fast it can charge/discharge in GW, and the amount of energy available in gwh. Batteries typically have both these amounts equal. While other storage technologies usually can discharge a large amount of gwh at a slow rate. The discharge rate is often limited to the line capacity available as well.
Absurdly low given 2023 had 1.15tw capacity.
The report forecasts that global demand for solar modules will grow from 460 GW in 2023 to 674 GW in 2035
Even more absurdly low. Likely to hit over 600gw this year.
IEA has a history of projecting 3% growth per year every year even as we do 30+% growth.
For Africa’s quiet solar boom to meet its full potential, governments will need to regulate and subsidize the technology
This was a weird point. US solar is very expensive because utility permission and regulation drawn up by utilities makes it so. tax credit subsidies don’t help much. Success in Africa and Pakistan is mostly based on no one is there to stop people.
about 42 panels per hour. If that includes wiring somehow, that is faster than other solar. Maybe their daily productivity estimate includes scooting out of the way of other trains and less than 24 hours operation.
I don’t know about the practicality of rails as conductor, but it wouldn’t have to be high voltage.
About the train “deploying tons a day”, where did you get that from?
article said special train could deploy 1000 panels per day.
solar canopys are actually quite expensive. Needs a very sturdy structure to hold panels high up and deal with wind loads. Solar panels are getting so cheap, that it becomes very reasonable to lay them on the ground instead of optimal angles, higher up.
I like the idea. Free land use. I wonder if the rails can be used as electric conductors. A special train can deploy tons per day, and could clean them regularly in a highly automated way.
Unlike roadways, they don’t carry any load.
So much room on roof for (solar) activities.