Unleaded 100 octane AvGas update

[davidm767]

It's not the agenda that's phoney, it's how it's being handled that's phoney. We could be the worlds leading exporter of fuel and water produced completely cleanly, but it would require investment in infrastructure that private industry refuses to make. They will wait for an emergency where the public tax payer will fund the construction of the new infrastructure. Same story, different day. Most all of our current energy infrastructure was developed and paid for by public funds, ie, tax dollars through military appropriations. Our pipelines keep blowing up because they date back to WWII.

Very True...Not too long ago, the military was a prime funder for green (aka. non crude developed) JP8... surmising that since congress subsidizes farmers for the ethanol (from corn) the JP8 from corn and switchgrass would be cheaper. Interesting enough, they ran suitability testing with ALL of their aircraft with great results (I was at the Test Wing when that happened). Problem? Well the same people who like farm subsidies (Rep) cut the funding because it was hurting the oil subsidies....Go figure. (and yes I'm a conservative too).

As far as this whole ERAU thing... ERAU is just like ANY OTHER college, it funds its PhD's primarily through government and private industry grants. Its rare to see an undergrad work on these projects, rather they tend to be post graduate Engineers that work on these (just like everyone else)...the whole green thinking crud is total PR BS...A Engineer or Scientist couldn't give a rat's pahtoot if its green or not as long as there is grant money funding it. A majority of the ERAU students are conservatives anyway and don't believe in Global warming or arent actively screaming about polar bears (like their ivey league peers).

And as far as economies of scale...make one gas (or multiple types of backwards compatible gas...so to run in the same tank) charge the vendors less per volume...and consumers will still end up paying an extra $1.00/gal to pay for the distribution regardless. There is no real solution to affordability except to make a gas that is easy and cheap to refine at our dinosaur refineries (pun intended but not implied).

 

[Henning]

Very True...Not too long ago, the military was a prime funder for green (aka. non crude developed) JP8... surmising that since congress subsidizes farmers for the ethanol (from corn) the JP8 from corn and switchgrass would be cheaper. Interesting enough, they ran suitability testing with ALL of their aircraft with great results (I was at the Test Wing when that happened). Problem? Well the same people who like farm subsidies (Rep) cut the funding because it was hurting the oil subsidies....Go figure. (and yes I'm a conservative too).

As far as this whole ERAU thing... ERAU is just like ANY OTHER college, it funds its PhD's primarily through government and private industry grants. Its rare to see an undergrad work on these projects, rather they tend to be post graduate Engineers that work on these (just like everyone else)...the whole green thinking crud is total PR BS...A Engineer or Scientist couldn't give a rat's pahtoot if its green or not as long as there is grant money funding it. A majority of the ERAU students are conservatives anyway and don't believe in Global warming or arent actively screaming about polar bears (like their ivey league peers).

And as far as economies of scale...make one gas (or multiple types of backwards compatible gas...so to run in the same tank) charge the vendors less per volume...and consumers will still end up paying an extra $1.00/gal to pay for the distribution regardless. There is no real solution to affordability except to make a gas that is easy and cheap to refine at our dinosaur refineries (pun intended but not implied).

Actually the problem is that the real solution would make energy too cheap, the profits would plummet. The thing that is being overlooked is that they would be made up on the water that would be transported with it, and water is the next critical commodity, much more important than the fuel aspect.

 

[SCCutler]

G100UL isn't going to be cheap, and it certainly isn't going to be less than 100LL for a long time. If G100UL is the only alternative, and other fuels aren't approved, the price will skyrocket once it start shipping.

Not necessarily.

One of the principal issues with leaded gas is that the infrastructure for its transport is constantly contracting; producers and transporters of distillates do not want the expense and disruption that accompanies introduction of lead-containing streams into their infrastructure. G100LL can be manufactured from common feedstocks and additives and (of course) no lead.

Also, GAMI will not be manufacturing it, so they will not be a "chokepoint" in supply; rather, they will be licensing its production to refiners; we might even see some modest competition for the business.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Ford and GM are chomping at the bits to sell you H2 fuel cell cars, so is every other major car manufacturer in the world, they all have them rolling, you even get to keep your SUV, they are just waiting for an energy company to produce the fuel.

Sure they are. Until they get the storage issue worked out, fuel cells are going to need something like methanol to hold the hydrogen, or one will drive an SUV size vehicle just for the fuel tank if one wants a vehicle to drive outside of town. What's the energy density of even liquid hydrogen again?

 

[docmirror]

Not necessarily.

One of the principal issues with leaded gas is that the infrastructure for its transport is constantly contracting; producers and transporters of distillates do not want the expense and disruption that accompanies introduction of lead-containing streams into their infrastructure. G100LL can be manufactured from common feedstocks and additives and (of course) no lead.

Also, GAMI will not be manufacturing it, so they will not be a "chokepoint" in supply; rather, they will be licensing its production to refiners; we might even see some modest competition for the business.

I hope you're right. It's not what GAMI is saying about pricing. They are targeting 'within 10% of the 100LL or possibly as much as a dollar higher in some cases'. If current 100LL is running $5/gal, then G100UL could be anywhere from $5.50-6/gallon and be within the target by GAMI.

I can envision a scenario where EPA outlaws all leaded fuels. GAMI becomes the sole supplier of fuel to the non-mogas aircraft contingent. No competition except mogas, and plenty of big, thirsty piston planes need G100LL for daily use. The price could reach $10/gallon easily with no competition and high demand. Economics driven by govt fiat.

 

[JHW]

Not necessarily.

One of the principal issues with leaded gas is that the infrastructure for its transport is constantly contracting; producers and transporters of distillates do not want the expense and disruption that accompanies introduction of lead-containing streams into their infrastructure. G100LL can be manufactured from common feedstocks and additives and (of course) no lead.

Also, GAMI will not be manufacturing it, so they will not be a "chokepoint" in supply; rather, they will be licensing its production to refiners; we might even see some modest competition for the business.

not really. avgas will always be moved through dedicated distribution channels. even some premium grades of auto fuel do not make it into the pipeline

 

[Ted]

I hope you're right. It's not what GAMI is saying about pricing. They are targeting 'within 10% of the 100LL or possibly as much as a dollar higher in some cases'. If current 100LL is running $5/gal, then G100UL could be anywhere from $5.50-6/gallon and be within the target by GAMI.

I can envision a scenario where EPA outlaws all leaded fuels. GAMI becomes the sole supplier of fuel to the non-mogas aircraft contingent. No competition except mogas, and plenty of big, thirsty piston planes need G100LL for daily use. The price could reach $10/gallon easily with no competition and high demand. Economics driven by govt fiat.

I don't see that scenario happening. The FAA is working the fuels program as well and wants to make sure that any fuel chosen works and that there is still some level of competition. When I last heard, one of the big political hurdles was that GAMI has developed this fuel and wants sole rights to it, which the FAA aren't ok with. On the other hand, what I also heard was they didn't want to produce it, they just wanted to license it for some pathetically small amount of money that would still upgrade their Bonanza to a King Air.

But if you really want to make sure you're safe, fly a MoGas-ready plane or a diesel.

 

[docmirror]

Many of us come here to learn, but for whatever reason you (and several other regular posters) just can't bring yourself to share your vast knowledge without resorting to this sort of condescending hyperbole.

I can't tell you how many pilots I meet at the hotel who are lurkers here, rather than active posters, because of the way you guys respond to simple questions. Lose the "you're an idiot for not knowing that" attitude, and we would see vastly more pilot participation in POA.

But to your point, obviously further research is needed before I can start running mogas in the -8.

I can't teach you fluid thermodynamics on a website. I'm also trying(and failing) to be moderately sensitive to your competing desires to save money, go fast, and be indifferent to safety. I don't like the "" quoting me saying something I didn't say. It's immature, and you and I are going to have a problem with that. If I had wanted to say you are an idiot, I would have just done that, but I didn't nor did I imply it. What I did imply is that you don't have remotely enough good intel to start a test flight, or do any modifications to your plane vis-a-vis mogas use.

Your plane, and your engine have all the aspects of the Piper system that Petersen requires significant and costly mods to use mogas. Here is a small abstract of the costs for a Piper low wing STC from Petersen:
PA-28-160, -161, -180, -181 12 Volt - $2,975

PA-28-160, -161, -180, -181 24 Volt - $4,675
My engine features an electric primer.

PA-28-160, -161, -180, -181 24 Volt - $4,675
My engine features a manual primer.

He went the extra mile for the Piper low wing because there are so many out there in the fleet. It requires piping changes, a pump and some other bits that I'm not familiar with but you can see that at $4675 the mods are rather extensive.

I opened the discussion on this subject with you by asking a few pertinent questions. You kinda blew me off and made some snarky comment about how you saved billions by using mogas, and I should do the same. So, how about we start off again without the BS.

I advise you(I'm just an EE, but I did take and pass fluid thermo, and state properties, and inorganic chem) to again talk with a mech or aero engineer before doing anything about mogas or modifying your plane. It's remarkably similar to the Piper system I guess, and not suitable for driving around on a 100F day in S TX expecting 100% power.

Fuel vaporization is real, and it has killed people. It's also insidious in that you don't know when it's going to strike, but when it happens, you will not be in a position to do a darn thing about it. Usually on take off, right about rotation while you are ready for your zoom/Vx/Vy the engine will sputter and die. If you catch it in time and reduce power and fuel demand, it may come back to life for a few seconds, just enough to get you past the safe return point and into an attitude where you are thinking about the impossible turn.

I hope this is a bit more helpful, and I hope you don't hold a grudge.

 

[docmirror]

I don't see that scenario happening. The FAA is working the fuels program as well and wants to make sure that any fuel chosen works and that there is still some level of competition. When I last heard, one of the big political hurdles was that GAMI has developed this fuel and wants sole rights to it, which the FAA aren't ok with. On the other hand, what I also heard was they didn't want to produce it, they just wanted to license it for some pathetically small amount of money that would still upgrade their Bonanza to a King Air.

But if you really want to make sure you're safe, fly a MoGas-ready plane or a diesel.

Like I said, I hope you're right. If you think the EPA and the FAA ever talk together, I've got a nice bridge for sale in Brooklyn. I think GAMI should have sole rights to it, they developed it. If the FAA is standing in the way of that, all it will take is the right amount of grease in the right HR palms and that should all go away. Maybe George is expecting the fedguv to do the right thing and approve his fuel as drop-in repl. He's not going that way though, he's going the STC route for a massive number of airframes and engines ala Petersen.

Distribution is going to be interesting. I'm betting his recipe will be added at the dist point just like the lead is now. The base stock is mogas just like all other bases and once he adds his brew to it, then it gets sent to the FBO. That's gonna require separate facilities from the truck to the tank, and we'll see how many dist and FBOs want to pony up.

 

[denverpilot]

So Ford and GM sell gas guzzlers out of the goodness of their hearts and sell hybirds to line their pockets?

They are required to maintain an ever lower MPG average across their fleets by government.

They'd have left the hybrids to someone else to build and just bought the company (see pharma thread) when one hit it out of the park, if it weren't for two things: that above mentioned government mandate, and Toyota beating them to it.

 

[Dav8or]

Magic stuff. Angel pee. Who cares? It works.

How do you know it works? Because GAMI says so? To my knowledge, it hasn't been tested anywhere by anybody, except GAMI themselves and I'm not aware that they even published anything technical with findings. AFAIK, they just say they have a fuel that works and it's all the government's fault that we can't have it.

Have they released any real data? Has anyone other than GAMI tested it?

[edit]

I do see now that ERAU is flying a Skyhawk with it now. I guess that is one level of testing, however what I meant above was of the laboratory type testing.

 

[PilotAlan]

That's gonna require separate facilities from the truck to the tank, and we'll see how many dist and FBOs want to pony up.

Don't assume that. AvGas required it because of the LEAD, there is almost no allowable quantity of lead contamination on mogas. But G100UL will not have lead, it with other pixie dust (ethanes and methyls of some kind), and those are not subject to the same controls and restrictions as lead.
It is entirely probable that there will be no requirement for segregated transport and storage.

 

[docmirror]

Don't assume that. AvGas required it because of the LEAD, there is almost no allowable quantity of lead contamination on mogas. But G100UL will not have lead, it with other pixie dust (ethanes and methyls of some kind), and those are not subject to the same controls and restrictions as lead.
It is entirely probable that there will be no requirement for segregated transport and storage.

I know the lead is the turd in the punchbowl, but if we're relying on the feds to label it as a 1203 flammable, which means it could go on the same trucks and tanks as avgas, I think we have about the same chance they won't label it that way. I take a pessimist view of it, but maybe if they get it certified as a drop-in replacement, it may not require separate handling. So far, GAMI is not seeking drop-in replacement, they are going the STC route, and then like everyone else says it can be some magic undisclosed potion and there is NO WAY it would go in my truck or tank and be at an airport without knowing for sure.

The trailer tank fleet that serve airports with 100LL are now quarantined from carrying mogas/Ethanol. Who knows if the rules will apply to G100UL, but for a different reason than lead? Do you know for sure? Are you assuming truckers and FBOs will take it without a certification from the FAA/EPA?

 

[N801BH]

..... So far, GAMI is not seeking drop-in replacement, they are going the STC route, and then like everyone else says it can be some magic undisclosed potion and there is NO WAY it would go in my truck or tank and be at an airport without knowing for sure. .

Which leads to the next interesting thought.................

Homebuilders craft their planes using fuel system components they see able to carry fuel safely.... Now GAMI gets the exclusive rights to furnish a 100LL replacement and it turns out the ingredients in there "magic cocktail" might harm the fuel system in a experimental.........

Where does someone go to get an STC for an experimental??

 

[docmirror]

Where does someone go to get an STC for an experimental??

Are you old enough to remember the "Shell answer man!"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4flX6xaH46M

I keel myself sometimes...

 

[PilotAlan]

So far, GAMI is not seeking drop-in replacement, they are going the STC route, and then like everyone else says it can be some magic undisclosed potion and there is NO WAY it would go in my truck or tank and be at an airport without knowing for sure.

The trailer tank fleet that serve airports with 100LL are now quarantined from carrying mogas/Ethanol. Who knows if the rules will apply to G100UL, but for a different reason than lead? Do you know for sure? Are you assuming truckers and FBOs will take it without a certification from the FAA/EPA?

The challenge with the STC route is how do you employ it? Every aircraft owner has to get an STC from GAMI, that's problematic. Then everyone's A&P fills out a 337 and sends it in.
That would bury the FAA. And they know it. Which means the FAA will resist approving an AML STC including pretty much the whole fleet.

Ironically, the problem with putting G100UL into the truck and tanks used for 100LL is that the G100UL will get contaminated with lead, and violate EPA regs.
It will have to be sufficiently available for refiners/distributors/airports to change over all at once.

Help me out here, my understanding is that is GAMI can demonstrate the G100UL meets the ASTM performance requirements for 100LL, then it's considered the same thing as 100LL (similar to when they reduced the amount of lead in 100LL, but it still met the performance requirements).

 

[docmirror]

The challenge with the STC route is how do you employ it? Every aircraft owner has to get an STC from GAMI, that's problematic. Then everyone's A&P fills out a 337 and sends it in.
That would bury the FAA. And they know it. Which means the FAA will resist approving an AML STC including pretty much the whole fleet.

Ironically, the problem with putting G100UL into the truck and tanks used for 100LL is that the G100UL will get contaminated with lead, and violate EPA regs.
It will have to be sufficiently available for refiners/distributors/airports to change over all at once.

Help me out here, my understanding is that is GAMI can demonstrate the G100UL meets the ASTM performance requirements for 100LL, then it's considered the same thing as 100LL (similar to when they reduced the amount of lead in 100LL, but it still met the performance requirements).

my post above was my response to everyone picking on my input here. I don't have all the answers. I do have a lot of questions. Notice in the post you quoted me on that I said the trucks and tanks with 100LL were now quarantined from carrying mogas/Ethanol, so not sure why you are telling me about fuel being contaminated by carrying G100UL in a trailer or tank that is quarantined already.

Petersen doles out the STC for anyone who applies and is accepted. The FAA will resist anything anyone does, so maybe that's also putting back pressure on GAMI because the FAA doesn't want to do the work. I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me given my low opinion of the fedguv.

Does G100UL meet all the req of D-910? I don't know, so I can't help you. Apparently the FAA doesn't agree or they would have certified it as drop in replacement. Obviously it doesn't meet the subs of D3341 or D5059 because there is NO TEL in G100UL, so therefore it doesn't meet the full standards for D-910, therefore it is not a drop in replacement, therefore it cannot be certified along side 100LL.

This is about all I have. If you guys want to keep arguing with me, that's fine, I"m a big boy, but you may go through life with a little disappointment.

 

[Ted]

Which leads to the next interesting thought.................

Homebuilders craft their planes using fuel system components they see able to carry fuel safely.... Now GAMI gets the exclusive rights to furnish a 100LL replacement and it turns out the ingredients in there "magic cocktail" might harm the fuel system in a experimental.........

Where does someone go to get an STC for an experimental??

I'd agree that's a concern. That said, when I was down there a few years ago and flew their SR22T that they were testing G100UL in (and flew it with 100LL and G100UL back to back), one of the things they pointed out was that they were testing it with a bunch of different materials to confirm no problems, understanding the wide variety of materials that may exist.

Witnessing a detonation test with it on a TSIO-520-N and flying it, I was satisfied enough with what I saw.

 

[PilotAlan]

This is about all I have. If you guys want to keep arguing with me, that's fine, I"m a big boy, but you may go through life with a little disappointment.

Dude, I wasn't busting your chops. It was general questions, not necessarily to you, and amplifying on the comments you made.
There's a lot to this that people don't get (not implying that includes you).

 

[docmirror]

Dude, I wasn't busting your chops. It was general questions, not necessarily to you, and amplifying on the comments you made.
There's a lot to this that people don't get (not implying that includes you).

No prob, but you did quote me.

My take on the GAMI juice is that the FAA won't play ball and George won't grease the right palm(s). He's going his own way with STC approval because it doesn't rely on ASTM, or FAA record, or anything else and he's got case history from Petersen and EAA, two pretty good sources. If the FAA denies his STC for some BS reason(seems it would have to be a BS reason) then he's got some horsepower to argue prior restraint, and undue interference. Maybe he can get the EPA on his side and ask some troubling questions of the DOT above the FAA.

Of course, it's all speculation but how is the FAA gonna deny an STC for G100UL, when they have mogas approved for many planes now, and G100UL is even better? I think the FAA is being obstreperous and disingenuous with GAMI, which is a shame, cause they've done wonders to improve safety, and reduce emissions from aircraft.

 

[PilotAlan]

He's going his own way with STC approval because it doesn't rely on ASTM, or FAA record, or anything else and he's got case history from Petersen and EAA, two pretty good sources.
...
Of course, it's all speculation but how is the FAA gonna deny an STC for G100UL, when they have mogas approved for many planes now, and G100UL is even better?

A lightbulb just went on. He gets an STC. Everyone doesn't need it, because the fuel isn't available. He gets ERAU and maybe a couple other flight departments (places with their own fuel tanks and such) in places where he has production agreements set up with local refineries.

Then he gets a track record, which he can use to get the fuel certified.

 

[SCCutler]

I can envision a scenario where EPA outlaws all leaded fuels. GAMI becomes the sole supplier of fuel to the non-mogas aircraft contingent. No competition except mogas, and plenty of big, thirsty piston planes need G100LL for daily use. The price could reach $10/gallon easily with no competition and high demand. Economics driven by govt fiat.

Again, GAMI is not going to be a sole-source manufacturer; they'll license the formula to multiple refiners.

not really. avgas will always be moved through dedicated distribution channels. even some premium grades of auto fuel do not make it into the pipeline

But, no lead containment and contamination issues.

 

[Dav8or]

I think the FAA is being obstreperous and disingenuous with GAMI, which is a shame, cause they've done wonders to improve safety, and reduce emissions from aircraft.

Oh come on. Lets not get melodramatic here. What, now they're a cross between Ralph Nader and Al Gore? Might as well throw in Mother Teresa too. GAMI makes fuel injectors and turbo systems, that's about it.

 

[Ted]

My take on the GAMI juice is that the FAA won't play ball and George won't grease the right palm(s). He's going his own way with STC approval because it doesn't rely on ASTM, or FAA record, or anything else and he's got case history from Petersen and EAA, two pretty good sources. If the FAA denies his STC for some BS reason(seems it would have to be a BS reason) then he's got some horsepower to argue prior restraint, and undue interference. Maybe he can get the EPA on his side and ask some troubling questions of the DOT above the FAA.

Of course, it's all speculation but how is the FAA gonna deny an STC for G100UL, when they have mogas approved for many planes now, and G100UL is even better? I think the FAA is being obstreperous and disingenuous with GAMI, which is a shame, cause they've done wonders to improve safety, and reduce emissions from aircraft.

Actually, it's more that the FAA hasn't approved a fuel in this manner before. They approve ASTM spec fuels. GAMI won't do it because then other refineries can make the fuel without paying GAMI. On the other hand, having GAMI as a gatekeeper has other concerns as well.

The whole political battle is annoying. I do think it's a good replacement option, but both sides need to figure things out. I see both sides having their share of wrongs in this.

 

[Henning]

Sure they are. Until they get the storage issue worked out, fuel cells are going to need something like methanol to hold the hydrogen, or one will drive an SUV size vehicle just for the fuel tank if one wants a vehicle to drive outside of town. What's the energy density of even liquid hydrogen again?

Dude, what part of people are driving hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Norway, Iceland, and Los Angeles are you missing? Small SUVs which is what people in the US want anyway are driving 350miles on a fill. Jay Leno and a score or so of others are driving around SoCal on H2. How would you like to plug your car into your house to be able to power it? How would you like to get home from work and shower with the hot water that is the exhaust from your drive home? How would you like to tap pure water from your dashboard rather than stopping and paying $1.29? The ONLY reason we are not on hydrogen now or for the last decade is because we couldn't use the H2 split of natural gas due to CO contamination.

 

[Dav8or]

Dude, what part of people are driving hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Norway, Iceland, and Los Angeles are you missing? Small SUVs which is what people in the US want anyway are driving 350miles on a fill. Jay Leno and a score or so of others are driving around SoCal on H2. How would you like to plug your car into your house to be able to power it? How would you like to get home from work and shower with the hot water that is the exhaust from your drive home? How would you like to tap pure water from your dashboard rather than stopping and paying $1.29? The ONLY reason we are not on hydrogen now or for the last decade is because we couldn't use the H2 split of natural gas due to CO contamination.

That's what I've read numerous places. People say that life with the those Chevy Equinoxes that were part of a test fleet was no different and actually better than with the gas equivalent. The only problem being, there is only one fuel station you can go to. No loss of power, no loss of range, faster recharge time than gasoline and no reduction in car capacity. Smooth, quiet power with just water pouring out the tail pipe.

Big, big, big downsides are, no H2 production and distribution infrastructure, or network, and the fuel cells and H2 storage tanks are still very expensive to produce.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Dude, what part of people are driving hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Norway, Iceland, and Los Angeles are you missing? Small SUVs which is what people in the US want anyway are driving 350miles on a fill. Jay Leno and a score or so of others are driving around SoCal on H2. How would you like to plug your car into your house to be able to power it? How would you like to get home from work and shower with the hot water that is the exhaust from your drive home? How would you like to tap pure water from your dashboard rather than stopping and paying $1.29? The ONLY reason we are not on hydrogen now or for the last decade is because we couldn't use the H2 split of natural gas due to CO contamination.

Let's see...
In Norway Statoil closed their Stavanger, Porsgrunn, Drammen, and Oslo filling stations.

In California, the California Energy Commission revoked $27 mil in grants. The number of filling stations has declined to 23, and only 8 of those are public ally accessible.

Iceland reduced the number of cars running on hydrogen, and moved their plan to convert to hydrogen fueled vehicles out at least 10 years, maybe longer.

I have plenty of water, thanks. Even in a dry year, the aquifers here are still good.

People want small SUVs to carry something besides fuel.

Here's some numbers for you...you ran some of them already, but you didn't run the last set.
A kilogram of gasoline gives 47 MJ energy
A kilogram of hydrogen gives 130 MJ / Kg, this is liquid hydrogen, but we'll assume gaseous hydrogen has the same energy (it has less, because it is less dense)

Sounds great so far, sounds like a win for hydrogen, doesn't it?

Take the next step.
Assume gasoline is 0.71 kilograms/ liter ( this is the light end of the range)
Liquid hydrogen is 70.99 grams per liter (0.07099 kg/ liter)

Now...do the calculation- how many liters of hydrogen is required to give the same energy as a liter of gasoline?

This is the best possible case, with current storage technology, right now. It is really a lot worse. For the time being, other technologies do a lot better. If they solve the fuel storage issue, I'll be with you cheering hydrogen on.

Please let me know what numbers you come up with. How many liters of liquid hydrogen are needed to replace a liter of gasoline?

 

[Cap'n Jack]

That's what I've read numerous places. People say that life with the those Chevy Equinoxes that were part of a test fleet was no different and actually better than with the gas equivalent. The only problem being, there is only one fuel station you can go to. No loss of power, no loss of range, faster recharge time than gasoline and no reduction in car capacity. Smooth, quiet power with just water pouring out the tail pipe.

Big, big, big downsides are, no H2 production and distribution infrastructure, or network, and the fuel cells and H2 storage tanks are still very expensive to produce.

The infrastructure can be worked out. One way is to start replacing natural gas with hydrogen and use the existing infrastructure, assuming the lines go from production to where they are needed, or just pipe the water around and produce the hydrogen locally. It doesn't even need to be pure water. They working on the fuel cells, using cheaper materials to bring the cost down, using metals other than Pt and Pd. the fuel cells still need to take temperature extremes and the vibration they'll get on the road, but a cheap fuel cell isn't there yet. The storage is the big problem. As you noted, you need a big tank under high pressure to get the range to drive out of town, and that's my beef with hydrogen. I'm assuming clean production of hydrogen, using wind, solar, and such.

 

[Dav8or]

A kilogram of gasoline gives 47 MJ energy
A kilogram of hydrogen gives 130 MJ / Kg, this is liquid hydrogen, but we'll assume gaseous hydrogen has the same energy (it has less, because it is less dense)

Here is part of the equation you left out. The way we convert gasoline to motive power is much less than 30% efficient. That means over 70% of all the wonderful power that gasoline possess, is ****ed out of every crack in the automobile. A total waste.

With the fuel cell and electric motor, the conversion of H2 to motive power is much more efficient. Less waste, so lower power content can still do the job.

This is the trunk area of the Chevy Equinox Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicle.

Not a huge loss of cargo area. This vehicle drives as any other and still goes in excess of 300 miles per charge.

 

[docmirror]

Again, GAMI is not going to be a sole-source manufacturer; they'll license the formula to multiple refiners.

For free?

If I were Braly, I'm thinking 'license fee' for each gallon sold, and viola! there's the 10% price bump or as much as $1/gallon. No one expects or expected Braly to go into the refining business.

 

[PilotAlan]

just pipe the water around and produce the hydrogen locally. ... I'm assuming clean production of hydrogen, using wind, solar, and such.

And that's a flawed assumption.
I have driven CNG vehicles, which from the driving and fueling process is very similar to H2. No issues there.

The problem is, the process of creating H2 requires FAR more energy than you get. Now you can use solar or wind or somesuch, but energy is fungible.
The solar that you are using at the local fill station to create H2 would otherwise be offsetting the gas station's electricity use. Same with wind.

If you're producing power, you can use it to remove demand from the traditional electrical grid (generated by dirty fuel sources), or you can use it to create a fraction of its value in H2.
It's like the electric car thing (it's a coal powered car) except you're getting even less with the electricity losses converted to H2, then the H2 conversion to electricity. You have two power conversion losses, vs one for electric vehicles, and one for gasoline.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Here is part of the equation you left out. The way we convert gasoline to motive power is much less than 30% efficient. That means over 70% of all the wonderful power that gasoline possess, is ****ed out of every crack in the automobile. A total waste.

With the fuel cell and electric motor, the conversion of H2 to motive power is much more efficient. Less waste, so lower power content can still do the job.

This is the trunk area of the Chevy Equinox Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicle.



Not a huge loss of cargo area. This vehicle drives as any other and still goes in excess of 300 miles per charge.

Still lost some cargo area though. Whare's the spare tire kept? What does that vehicle cost?

Please note I'm assuming 100% efficiency in the numbers I gave; one can make fuel cells using hydrocarbons and get similar efficiencies as hydrogen so one can either reduce the hydrocarbon fuel tank further, or make a vehicle that get refueled once a month. Also, 10,000 PSI is a long way from liquid hydrogen. At 10,000 PSI, you get about 1.6 MJ/liter for hydrogen.

The information I have gives that vehicle a range of only 160 miles (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/112_0812_2008_chevrolet_equinox_fcv_first_test/viewall.html), on about 9 pounds of hydrogen at 10,000 PSI, and the fuel cell is only good for 50,000 miles or so. I'd expect the fuel cell life to improve as the technology develops.

A Tesla can do better, but I'd need to leave the car charging overnight, although I could do that at home. If they can get the hydride technology working, thay can achieve useful energy density. OTOH, they may come up with batteries with higher capacity and faster charging by then too (I'm not holding my breath on that one either).

 

[Ted]

For free?

If I were Braly, I'm thinking 'license fee' for each gallon sold, and viola! there's the 10% price bump or as much as $1/gallon. No one expects or expected Braly to go into the refining business.

The numbers I heard were more like $0.01/gallon. They'd still be able to afford that King Air.

 

[docmirror]

Actually, it's more that the FAA hasn't approved a fuel in this manner before. They approve ASTM spec fuels. GAMI won't do it because then other refineries can make the fuel without paying GAMI. On the other hand, having GAMI as a gatekeeper has other concerns as well.

The whole political battle is annoying. I do think it's a good replacement option, but both sides need to figure things out. I see both sides having their share of wrongs in this.

That's kinda what I said in #97. The FAA defers to ASTM under D-910 for something called "aviation fuel" and it's the spec that the FAA refers to when fuel is mentioned. Maybe they didn't write it, but they make regs that say an aircraft must use the fuel that ASTM specs(D-910). Thus, since part of D-910 specifies a sub-category of lead AKI, and G100UL can't meet the sub, it can't meet D-910.

I don't know who's getting paid but it makes sense that GAMI should get paid for their formula.

The problem still goes back to certification. If they can't meet an ASTM spec for "Aviation fuel", then it can't be put in a plane(legally) and flown around. Either a new spec has to be written for "aviation fuel" without the lead component or the FAA has to carve out new territory, or they go the STC route like Petersen(path of least resistance?).

 

[bburnett]

Paraphrasing something posted by George Braly on the CPA forum:

The aviation fuel specification was written after the development of the fuel. In other words the spec was written for an existing fuel, the fuel wasn't developed to meet the spec.

This is one of the big issues with the FAA.

 

[Henning]

The infrastructure can be worked out. One way is to start replacing natural gas with hydrogen and use the existing infrastructure, assuming the lines go from production to where they are needed, or just pipe the water around and produce the hydrogen locally. It doesn't even need to be pure water. They working on the fuel cells, using cheaper materials to bring the cost down, using metals other than Pt and Pd. the fuel cells still need to take temperature extremes and the vibration they'll get on the road, but a cheap fuel cell isn't there yet. The storage is the big problem. As you noted, you need a big tank under high pressure to get the range to drive out of town, and that's my beef with hydrogen. I'm assuming clean production of hydrogen, using wind, solar, and such.

Actually, the carbon nanotube storage structure shows promise, and if they can figure out how to form it directly off methane, then you can use natural gas with solid carbon nanotube blocks left over.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Actually, the carbon nanotube storage structure shows promise, and if they can figure out how to form it directly off methane, then you can use natural gas with solid carbon nanotube blocks left over.

They have very low capacity compared to the various boron compounds and those aren't quite there yet either. A lot of those SWNT studies are simply calculations indicating it _should_ hold 6% hydrogen by weight, but either no one made the stuff and tested it, or it didn't pan out. Negative results are rarely published.

Carbon nanotubes aren't really "blocks" to my chemist mind, but whatever.

As hydrogen is just a storage step from other energy sources, as someone else reminded us in this or another thread, there's several technologies that act the same way and we'll eventually choose one or more of them. You'll note I never ruled out hydrogen for fixed or local applications.

"Storage" technologies include electrical (batteries), biofuels (bio-diesel, and conversion into other existing petrochemicals), and hydrogen. I group them as "storage" since the energy comes in one form (solar, wind, tidal, or whatever) and converted into a form we can use later.

I read earlier this week that someone was able to create an artifical hydrogenase that certain bacteria use to create hydrogen (http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i34/Building-Better-Hydrogenases.html ) opening the possibility of splitting water with microorganisms, although others are trying to do the same thing with various catalysts and light.

 

[Henning]

The reason hydrogen works best is that the exhaust product is marketable. Bottled water sells for more than gasoline. It's the kind of 'value added' that the world really needs.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

The reason hydrogen works best is that the exhaust product is marketable. Bottled water sells for more than gasoline. It's the kind of 'value added' that the world really needs.

Not when the fuel cell currently costs what they do now and one needs to make the fuel from water to begin with. Curaçao gets all it's water from reverse osmosis right now from the ocean. I even have a small RO system in my house to soften the hard water we have here. You should be familiar with them. Maybe hydrogen has a future later; it's in about the same state as other storage fuels, although electric cars are available now for actual purchase.

 

[Henning]

Not when the fuel cell currently costs what they do now and one needs to make the fuel from water to begin with. Curaçao gets all it's water from reverse osmosis right now from the ocean. I even have a small RO system in my house to soften the hard water we have here. You should be familiar with them. Maybe hydrogen has a future later; it's in about the same state as other storage fuels, although electric cars are available now for actual purchase.

I'm VERY familiar with RO, it's a very energy intensive way to desalinize water. OTOH, using geothermal or nuclear energy, you can take waste heat from the energy production process and use it to distill the water. Then when you transport the fuel, each KG transports 9 liters of water with it as well. If we're going to continue growing the population, we need to get a lot more efficient and waste less energy.