How's about we burn hydrogen in the firebox--a hydrogen-fueled steam engine?
Practical in the real world? Probably not. Efficient? Nope, not really.
But it still seems like it should be tried, just once.
Ed
For a slightly different carbon-neutral idea, methane can be produced on an industrial scale from manure or landfills.
Outside of propane-fired live steam models, has anyone ever built a gas-fired steam locomotive?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Problem with hydrogen is that there is very little radiant heating - probably want to take a look at steam generators from gas cooled reactors.
How to burn hydrogen the fun way : (turn up the volume LOUD!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuYoYl5kyVE
Same me, different spelling!
The steam locomotive offers the advantage of burning solid fuel that is not usable any other way. Coal and wood, mainly, but there is that group in Minnesota restoring a Santa Fe Hudson locomotive (are they still active) who are emphasizing a carbon-neutral "bio coal."
Coal, wood, or "bio coal" can be converted to liquid fuel for use in more energy efficient internal combustion engines, but depending on how you do it, such synthetic liquid fuels take a lot of energy to make, and L. D. Porta thought that a steam engine of improved efficiency could be in the running as an alternative to making liquid fuels out of solid-fuel biomass.
Gaseous fuels are the least advantagous for use in transportation, especially hydrogen gas that takes a lot of energy to store in compressed form and a huge amount of energy to story in cryogenic liquid form.
This emphasis on "luminous flame from carbon particles" being essential for heat transfer is perhaps misplaced as the reason to not consider hydrogen firing a locomotive boiler. I don't know anything about burning hydrogen that if you put a pot of water over it that you want get it to boil. The real reason is that hydrogen is expensive to make from natural gas, currently even more expensive to make by electrolysis of renewable sources of electricity, perhaps cheaply made in high-temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactors which we don't have at commercial scale, and perhaps used in other applications -- such as energy-efficient fuel-cells -- before considering using it as a boiler fuel.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
SD70Dude For a slightly different carbon-neutral idea, methane can be produced on an industrial scale from manure or landfills. Outside of propane-fired live steam models, has anyone ever built a gas-fired steam locomotive?
I'm not sure how methane can be carbon neutral, since CO2 is a byproduct of combustion.
I am certainly not saying that a hydrogen powered steam locomotive would be especially useful. Or efficient.
It's that the idea just sort of charms me.
I do see that there are no "glowing particles" with hydrogen combustion. Still, there's an enormous amount of energy; and I suspect there would be a way to transfer it into the water jacket of the boiler.
7j43k SD70Dude For a slightly different carbon-neutral idea, methane can be produced on an industrial scale from manure or landfills. Outside of propane-fired live steam models, has anyone ever built a gas-fired steam locomotive? I'm not sure how methane can be carbon neutral, since CO2 is a byproduct of combustion.
The idea is that the carbon being released originally came out of the atmosphere, in the example of cattle manure the pathway is air-grass-cow-manure-methane-air. The atmosphere does not see a net gain of CO2, so this example is carbon neutral. The same goes for burning wood or other biomass.
Of course, the livestock and landfill examples can get complicated when you try tracing exactly how much of that carbon originally came from fossil fuel hydrocarbons that were used to make things like fertilizer and other synthetic materials.
Sorry but your example is flawed. Burning methane is not carbon neutral any more than coal or oil are, just in a lesser amount of CO2 released. Natural gas is primarily methane.
I'm not talking about natural gas from underground, which is of course being a fossil fuel is not carbon neutral.
I'm talking about methane that is produced by fermenting or digesting biomass. Maybe you don't have any of these in the U.S, but several large cattle feedlots out here use their manure to produce gas, and this can be done with some other types of biomass as well.
As I outlined in my above post, burning biomass does not add any net additional carbon to the atmosphere, all that carbon originally came from the atmosphere when the plants grew.
Carbon neutral makes a distinction between fossil fuels and biologic fuels. Methane burning from an oil&gas well takes carbon that was fixed underground and puts into the atmosphere. Manure carbon is not fixed, and will brake down to CO2, so burning that carbon does not add to atmospheric carbon load.
Edit: I see the previous poster beat me to it while I was still typing.
SD70DudeThe idea is that the carbon being released originally came out of the atmosphere, in the example of cattle manure the pathway is air-grass-cow-manure-methane-air. The atmosphere does not see a net gain of CO2, so this example is carbon neutral. The same goes for burning wood or other biomass. Of course, the livestock and landfill examples can get complicated when you try tracing exactly how much of that carbon originally came from fossil fuel hydrocarbons that were used to make things like fertilizer and other synthetic materials.
Paul Milenkovic The steam locomotive offers the advantage of burning solid fuel that is not usable any other way. Coal and wood, mainly, but there is that group in Minnesota restoring a Santa Fe Hudson locomotive (are they still active) who are emphasizing a carbon-neutral "bio coal." Coal, wood, or "bio coal" can be converted to liquid fuel for use in more energy efficient internal combustion engines, but depending on how you do it, such synthetic liquid fuels take a lot of energy to make, and L. D. Porta thought that a steam engine of improved efficiency could be in the running as an alternative to making liquid fuels out of solid-fuel biomass. Gaseous fuels are the least advantagous for use in transportation, especially hydrogen gas that takes a lot of energy to store in compressed form and a huge amount of energy to story in cryogenic liquid form. This emphasis on "luminous flame from carbon particles" being essential for heat transfer is perhaps misplaced as the reason to not consider hydrogen firing a locomotive boiler. I don't know anything about burning hydrogen that if you put a pot of water over it that you want get it to boil. The real reason is that hydrogen is expensive to make from natural gas, currently even more expensive to make by electrolysis of renewable sources of electricity, perhaps cheaply made in high-temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactors which we don't have at commercial scale, and perhaps used in other applications -- such as energy-efficient fuel-cells -- before considering using it as a boiler fuel.
Gaseous fuels might be the least advantageous, but in this topic, it is assumed they will be used.
The same applies to the expense.
I am FIRST interested in how to pull it off. The other stuff is currently secondary.
I decided to post this topic because I read an article in today's paper about a guy promoting hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. I think that's GREAT. BUT. My mind wander into the idea of using it in an old-fashioned steam locomotive, and also the idea that it would be entirely non-polluting. Impractical, yes. But I still like the idea!
Paul MilenkovicThis emphasis on "luminous flame from carbon particles" being essential for heat transfer is perhaps misplaced as the reason to not consider hydrogen firing a locomotive boiler.
There is, of course, no reason why 'renewable' carbon could not be injected into an oxyhydrogen flame to make it luminous. That precise functionality was used to make oxyhydrogen a practical lighting source (limelight NOT being something that scaled to home lighting needs!) via the 'ambocarbon' burner. Other materials that incandesce appropriately could be used, but they would either have to be 'recycled' in the exhaust or pose no pollution hazards if emitted -- we could take up that discussion but carbon itself is well suited if derived from short-term atmospheric capture or sequestration.
It does have to be said that some research into submerged-flame boilers was done including hydrogen as a fuel, and if you have a cost-effective source of hydrogen and separated oxygen (e.g. at 60-80psi molecular sieve) this provides interestingly complete heat transfer. Not all boilers involve the old parody of the Alco marketing 'fire-soot-a pipe-scale-water' in heat transfer.
It should be added, though, that it is still more efficient to use something like the Oxford Catalysts cycle with dilution adjusted to the necessary degree of superheat (we used 735 to about 850; you can go higher with either oilless construction or an asynchronous compound) using renewable-based ethanol. (You could convert biomethane to methanol to reduce the absolute carbon footprint some). At least theoretically you could run this cycle with hydrogen for zero-carbon although the various controls become much more critical and the equipment more expensive. There is the 'second infrastructure' involved with biological sourcing of H2O2 and then concentration using only renewable energy or stocks, which is far from insurmountable but would (in my view at least) require a fairly high aggregate demand to be practical ... diversion of which would be extremely difficult to police effectively.
IF I place a burner in a steam locomotive firebox, and feed it hydrogen, will it "boil water"?
Liquid Hydrogen is used as rocket fuel, so it seems there would be some way it could boil some water. Of course you might need NASA's budget.
Paul Milenkovic Gaseous fuels are the least advantagous for use in transportation, especially hydrogen gas that takes a lot of energy to store in compressed form and a huge amount of energy to story in cryogenic liquid form.
I've seen a figure stating that liquefying a given amount of hydrogen takes 30% of the total energy that will be available from that given amount of hydrogen. Main issue is the amount of work needed to pump heat from 20K to 300K. An ideal Carnot refrigeration cycle would need ~15 Joules of work for every Joule of heat extracted.
LNG has similar issues, but it only needs to be cooled to 130K or so.
This emphasis on "luminous flame from carbon particles" being essential for heat transfer is perhaps misplaced as the reason to not consider hydrogen firing a locomotive boiler.
Steam loconotive boilers, especially ones with large combustion chambers, are designed for using the radiant heat from hot carbon particles. The B&W book on Steam shows that a considerably larger water wall boiler is needed with natural gas than from coal. A hydrogen flame would dictate a larger heat transfersurface area and I suspect that the general design of steam generators used in helium cooled reactors would work well for a hydrogen flame, taking onto account that hot water vapor tends to be more corrosive than hot helium.
All said and done, I would also think that biofuels would make more sense.
7j43kIF I place a burner in a steam locomotive firebox, and feed it hydrogen, will it "boil water"?
There's a reason hydrogen didn't succeed as an aircraft fuel, too. I suggest you study why that was so. Much of the lessons learned are still applicable even with modern materials and design/fabrication techniques.
In case you were wondering why that Cisleresque NaBH4 has such sirenlike appeal over the years, it's because it gets around the energy and other issues of cryo on the one hand and the weight and release issues of metal hydriding on the other.
Erik_MagI've seen a figure stating that liquefying a given amount of hydrogen takes 30% of the total energy that will be available from that given amount of hydrogen. Main issue is the amount of work needed to pump heat from 20K to 300K. An ideal Carnot refrigeration cycle would need ~15 Joules of work for every Joule of heat extracted.
Is that energy not returned?
Sounds like no radiant heat from hot carbon particles. So then, what happens to the energy when the hydrogen is burned. If it is not radiant, then it will be conductive, through the atmosphere, to the container of water. Will probably need a lot more surface--fins, and such.
Undoubtedly.
Overmod It does have to be said that some research into submerged-flame boilers was done including hydrogen as a fuel, and if you have a cost-effective source of hydrogen and separated oxygen (e.g. at 60-80psi molecular sieve) this provides interestingly complete heat transfer. Not all boilers involve the old parody of the Alco marketing 'fire-soot-a pipe-scale-water' in heat transfer.
That's got me envisioning a "fireless" locomotive, where a RECENTLY mixed hydrogen/oxygen are injected into the water and ignited. Thus generating heat and more water.
7j43kIs that energy not returned?
(It's bad enough with LNG 'cryomethane' which cannot be direct injected effectively in a positive-displacement piston motor for similar reasons...)
Overmod 7j43k IF I place a burner in a steam locomotive firebox, and feed it hydrogen, will it "boil water"? Study the history of oil firing. By the time you build a hydrogen burner with the heat release needed to make the necessary mass flow of steam without overheating some parts of the structure you'll be spending much more money on top of the upside-down economics of hydrogen as a carrier fuel.
7j43k IF I place a burner in a steam locomotive firebox, and feed it hydrogen, will it "boil water"?
Study the history of oil firing. By the time you build a hydrogen burner with the heat release needed to make the necessary mass flow of steam without overheating some parts of the structure you'll be spending much more money on top of the upside-down economics of hydrogen as a carrier fuel.
Which structure is that? The burner? The firebox walls (cooled with water)?
Overmod 7j43k Is that energy not returned? Are ye daft, man? IT'S THROWN AWAY IN THE LIQUEFICATION. There is less than nothing to be 'returned' -- MUCH less in the case of cryo H2.
7j43k Is that energy not returned?
Are ye daft, man? IT'S THROWN AWAY IN THE LIQUEFICATION. There is less than nothing to be 'returned' -- MUCH less in the case of cryo H2.
Yes, I see it now, as I envision the various cooling towers and such.
But isn't that also going to be a problem with cars with hydrogen fuel cells? How do they handle this loss of energy?
7j43kWhich structure is that? The burner? The firebox walls (cooled with water)?
Then we get into differential thermal expansion for irregular flow patterns of high temperature convective/conductive transfer -- you will not like what you find there, either.
7j43kBut isn't that also going to be a problem with cars with hydrogen fuel cells? How do they handle this loss of energy?
Those of us who have studied actual hydrogen-carrier-fuel systems over the years know that the energy loss in cryo storage is rolled into the overall system cost, just as hydrogen embrittlement and careful environmental monitoring and so forth have to be. Just as with thorium, there are many engineering reasons the hydrogen miracle has not been embraced as a consumer technology yet.
Hydrogen carrier fuel isn't really about economics; it's about realizing one form of zero-carbon when zero-carbon is explicitly mandated as the only applicable solution.
The case was often made back in the go-go days of "clean coal technology" that the ~23-30% cost increase to sequester CO2 would make the technology economically unfavorable (compared to the perceived renewable alternatives, particularly wind or solar). If the reduction in atmospheric carbon is important enough to you, you'll pay the price (or embrace the alternatives if they are feasible).
The further extension into infrastructure and supply is involved, too. One of the ongoing problems with 'renewable' ethanol is that it's incompatible with existing pipeline distribution of fuels at any great concentration (periodically we see plans to do something with butanol, which doesn't have that limitation). I don't see any practical pipeline distribution of cryo hydrogen on a 'national' scale, and the energy density is frankly lousy for moving it in the required Dewars even if we dust off the Jughead infrastructure to keep enroute losses minimized. You accept the costs if zero-carbon is the desideratum.
7j43k Erik_Mag I've seen a figure stating that liquefying a given amount of hydrogen takes 30% of the total energy that will be available from that given amount of hydrogen. Main issue is the amount of work needed to pump heat from 20K to 300K. An ideal Carnot refrigeration cycle would need ~15 Joules of work for every Joule of heat extracted. Is that energy not returned?
Erik_Mag
Part of it could in the same way that liquid nitrogen has been proposed for energy storage. That is boil LH2 at high pressure using heat from ambient air and expand it through a turbine, reheat the expanded H2 as necessary and expand some more through a turbine.
For an example of how little radiant heat comes from hydrogen combustion, take a look at films/videos of the Space Shuttle main engines at launch and compare that to an Atlas or Saturn at launch.
Erik_MagThat is boil LH2 at high pressure using heat from ambient air and expand it through a turbine, reheat the expanded H2 as necessary and expand some more through a turbine.
On the other hand, quite a bit of heat balance in a Rankine cycle can be recovered from the subsequent combustion exhaust, as conditions of entropy that prevent heat from doing pressure work do not apply to heat transfer. Proper countercurrent exchange is still likely to be large and heavy, but is limited by the phase transition on the 'other side' of latent heat of fusion of water at 32degrees F, a long way, with two bumps in latent heat from phase change along the way, from the oxygydrogen flame temperature (and note we haven't discussed monatomic hydrogen reaction for part of the combustion yet).
I suspect you'd need to use a ceramic or cermet for turbines working in cryo LH2 expansion, as hydrogen embrittlement would probably affect many superalloys. If you have references for the proposals to use hydrogen expansion for rotary-shaft power, I'd like to have them to see what was considered in that respect.
A few years ago, I came across an interesting reference to a combined internal-combustion and Stirling-cycle engine, in which the cylinders alternated and the exhaust from the combustion cylinder was used via a short path as the 'hot end' of the Stirling cycle. This appeared to have attractive characteristics as an automobile engine, but I have lost the technical reference and it doesn't seem to have 'thrived' as a commercialized approach.
BMW tried for some time to commercialize hydrogen-carrier as an automotive fuel, going to the length of producing a hydrogen 12-cylinder car (and yes, I'd have bought one whether or not the service station support for it ever eventuated!) What they came up with, though, is interesting and perhaps instructive: the 'first best use' of hydrogen is as an analogue to the little V4 engine in an SPV2000. You provide about 5000We capability in a self-contained fuel-cell system, running its auxiliaries and ancillaries off the developed current -- and use this as continuous and scalable electrical-power generation for everything in the car EXCEPT propulsion. You can then adjust a conventional IC piston engine to optimize Ultimate Driving Machine capability and convenience, subject only to using a proper energy-storage transmission arrangement, indeed with better control over pressurization of the intake tract and spot heating over a wide range of startup or restart conditions. And there is no issue with 'idling' or dwell of any kind with the combustion engine: you can happily listen to the radio with the heat or A/C as desired in your garage all day long, or warm up the interior on a depth-of-winter morning without shoving a few pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere. And the arrangement can be seamlessly integrated with shore power, plug-in hybrid connections, and distributed-generation arrangements -- this having become much easier, and much more important, in the years since the original research was done.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.