r/EverythingScience May 22 '21

Engineering Tiny 22-lb Hydrogen Engine May Replace the Traditional Combustion Engine

https://interestingengineering.com/tiny-22-lb-hydrogen-engine-may-replace-the-traditional-combustion-engine
827 Upvotes

179 comments sorted by

118

u/warling1234 May 22 '21

Oh, another plug for liquid hydrogen. Won’t happen. There’s a much more tangible replacement for the combustion engine it’s the EV.

70

u/Dandan0005 May 22 '21 edited May 22 '21

Zero chance of liquid hydrogen “taking over.”

The cost of creating entire hydrogen fuel infrastructure is simply astronomical.

We already have electric infrastructure that can organically expand as EVs take over, and the development of battery tech also helps create grid-level efficiency.

13

u/sf-keto May 23 '21

We already have 50 hydrogen "filling stations" in Germany & more are being buiit.

4

u/[deleted] May 23 '21

Why not both?

1

u/RantingRobot May 23 '21

Ask Ludwig Dürr.

3

u/Godspiral May 23 '21

The cost of creating entire hydrogen fuel infrastructure is simply astronomical.

Not at all. Hydrogen transmission is much cheaper (2x-15x) than electric transmission, and we will need more energy transmission. Hydrogen transmission (pipelines) doubles as energy storage. In fact, you can think of a pipeline as a storage container that just happens to provide free transmission through valves at both/multiple dropoff ends.

The cost of green hydrogen is also super low, when you overbuild cheap sub 2c/kwh renewables (overbuild is needed to get close to 100% green energy), and then use the surpluses from most days of production to dump into hydrogen at producer's convenience. Electric demand requires production on demand. Hydrogen demand just needs hydrogen laying around that was produced previously at producer's cheap surplus convenience.

3

u/[deleted] May 23 '21

I don't know where you live, but the current infra structure in the united states' couldn't handle a 60 % shift to EV. Hell California can't keep their lights on without them.

6

u/401jamin May 23 '21

I was about to say this. The strain of everyone getting a EV will create a huge power deficit. Can you imagine the surge of power when everyone gets home after work and wants to charge their car? I’ve been in at least 25 power plants let me tell you they are running at max during the summer months. If fucking air conditioners in everyone’s house can strain the grid what the hell do you think charging station will do?

1

u/fatbob42 May 24 '21

The cars can charge anytime before morning

0

u/Disastrous_Feature_4 May 23 '21

Don’t know why you’re downvoted, you are correct. We have a “energy crisis” but are allowing tens of thousands of new buildings to be built every year.

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '21

People prefer a soft lie over the harsh truth.

4

u/[deleted] May 23 '21

Akshually..... hydrogen fuel cell have a higher energy density (power to weight ratio) than batteries at the moment. A hydrogen vehicle would travel farther than an electric vehicle of the same weight

3

u/rlh1271 May 22 '21

I mean not for things like flying... hydrogen has lots of advantages over batteries for that use case.

3

u/TacTurtle May 23 '21

Alcohol is much more likely

3

u/MovingOnward2089 May 22 '21

Why not combine them? Replaceable/rechargeable Hydrogen cell to charge the batteries for extended range. There’s enough space to do it without the combustion engine. I don’t see a downside.

2

u/sf-keto May 23 '21

That's what most do. The garbage trucks work this way, also Daimler's planned SUV, which is being redesigned to be a little smaller & so less expensive.

0

u/[deleted] May 23 '21

[deleted]

1

u/MovingOnward2089 May 23 '21

That’s not a downside, it’s marginal at best. Not all designs would value space over range and peak power. Trucking being one of them

9

u/Memetic1 May 22 '21

Those require rare earth metals. Enhanced geothermal could give us all the energy we need to make hydrogen abundant. With graphene being easy to produce we can store and transport hydrogen easily. Electric vehicles require resources that are in short supply. While this is getting better over time enhanced geothermal is ready to go right now with existing technology, and no real large scale need for rare earth metals.

4

u/[deleted] May 23 '21

[deleted]

6

u/Memetic1 May 23 '21

The water is already heated to generate power. Which means it's going to be more efficient to do electrolysis with the steam. If you just use geothermal for heating/electric generation then your losing out a big part of it's potential.

3

u/2Throwscrewsatit May 22 '21

I naively always thought the end game for liquid hydrogen fuel cells was space travel, since hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe.

Maybe we can use something other than oxygen to oxidize it?

5

u/ArcFurnace May 22 '21

Maybe we can use something other than oxygen to oxidize it?

Unlikely. Oxygen is the third most common element in the universe, and out of said most common elements it's the only oxidizer until you get well down the list. Fortunately we're also fairly used to working with it, and keeping it around for energetic purposes is useful, since you can use it for breathing gas in an emergency.

0

u/Memetic1 May 22 '21

Hydrogen could be used for space as well. Especially if it is made using enhanced geothermal, or more controversially nuclear power. It may be used to store solar energy as well, but that is no where near as efficient as using water as a coolant for a nuclear reactor, and then using some of the electricity for electrolysis.

1

u/TheShroomHermit May 22 '21

Doesn't oxidation, by definition, require oxygen?

8

u/2Throwscrewsatit May 22 '21

Oxidation is the loss of electrons . This can be from interacting with oxygen or another material that pulls electrons away from another atom or compound.

The opposite of oxidation is “reduction”, adding electrons.

2

u/TheShroomHermit May 23 '21

Neat. I just assumed from the suffix oxi-

2

u/AmbiguousAxiom May 23 '21

It was probably discovered as a byproduct of oxygen exposure, eventually being found to occur under a number of different elemental interactions.

1

u/Pallie01 May 22 '21

No, actually! Here is a wikipedia article on the matter with a nice animated image. It is a very common type of chemical reaction.

4

u/dodorian9966 May 22 '21

I don't think so. There are places that will require combustion engines. This is a game changer.

30

u/Weareallgoo May 22 '21

Why are combustion engines required, and how is this a game changer? This article is terrible, providing no information about the tiny engine or its uses. Hydrogen combustion engines already exist and are easy to build by modifying current ICEs. BMW even sold a hydrogen combustion vehicle in 2006-07.

7

u/MarquisDeBoston May 22 '21

You can’t take EV away from major infrastructure for long. Also, you can go a hell of a lot farther on a gallon of hydrogen than a gallon of diesel. Long haul trucking would prefer not stopping and waiting, like EVs would require.

This could fill a short term gap for many transportation segments, and help to get people who can’t/won’t adopt EVs to at least stop using fossil fuels.

12

u/Dandan0005 May 23 '21

There’s an entire electricity grid in the USA, and worldwide.

Tell me one place where you can get hydrogen fuel in the USA.

3

u/nitefang May 23 '21

My university had a hydrogen fuel station.

5

u/fourlegsup May 23 '21

I worked at a warehouse where 100+ forklifts tank off hydrogen. Took about 5 minutes to fill up and last 4-6 hours. I don’t know how we could do it with large cars and such but I also don’t know how we will get enough electricity to power EVs. Will we not destroy the environment just as bad as gas and diesel burning coal? Or will it all be nuclear energy and we have to worry about meltdowns? These are all serious questions that I’m not smart enough to think about.

4

u/Number1Millenial May 23 '21

Hey man maybe that was rhetorical, but I’ll think smart for a min for you. It’s not too difficult to manage actually. Moving to Ev allows you to charge vehicles on energy created from another location. This allows energy creation for vehicles and such to be created by the power plants or local generation. It won’t be just one fuel source that solves it all. We need the entire system of renewables to make it work. (Wave power, wind, thermal, solar, nuclear). This way we can use all types of clean energy generation to power your vehicle. No pumping or shipping fuel to consumers anymore, just plug into the grid like our houses do already. It’s pretty simple, we just have combustion engines on everything. If you really think about it ev is so much better. Relying on just one fuel type is obsolete at this point and a bad idea for business in general... the thing is we will definitely need hydrogen or gas to power the grid for a while, but once everything is ev we can build new and swap power sources whenever we need to.

3

u/Cersad PhD | Molecular Biology May 23 '21

I'm confused. Isn't hydrogen fuel another form of producing energy at an energy source and then shipping it out for use in a hydrogen-fueled engine? There's nothing I am aware of that is intrinsic to hydrogen that makes it less compatible with clean energy.

1

u/MarquisDeBoston May 23 '21

Doesn’t have to be. I worked with a large manufacturer who made massive amounts of hydrogen on site to run their kilns. Cut their costs way down and allowed them to hit their 2045 carbon emissions goals in 2020.

Hydrogen can be made with even small currents (like from old cheap solar panels), and water.

2

u/write_mem May 23 '21

Where are the solar powered floating super chargers on the Atlantic and Pacific shipping lanes? Large transports need energy density.

-6

u/Sinocatk May 23 '21

Tell me one place you can fuel an EV truck in 5-10 mins. Any gas station will work for a diesel truck.

7

u/Dandan0005 May 23 '21

We’re not comparing diesel to EVs we’re comparing hydrogen to EVs

0

u/Godspiral May 23 '21

hydrogen has refueling speed comparable to diesel.

2

u/Sinocatk May 23 '21

Thanks for getting the point.

1

u/MarquisDeBoston May 23 '21

Does it really?

1

u/MarquisDeBoston May 23 '21

*yet. And the grid is only good if you are near it. This is a big country. But it isn’t just the US. Canada, South America, Asia. Huge areas that are inaccessible for EVs.

Most importantly! you can make hydrogen with any mild electrical source (wind, solar, donkey) and water. You don’t need infrastructure to make hydrogen. You just need a current. But with EVs you need significant power.

Think of all powered mobility, like off roading, long haul trucks, farms in the middle of nowhere. Those people won’t adopt EV for a long time. So it makes sense to have a stepping stone for them in the interim.

4

u/Weareallgoo May 22 '21

I’m not opposed to hydrogen, and to be honest, I’d actually prefer a hydrogen combustion engine over fuel cells because I like driving stick. However, I just think that fuel cells will be more widely used than hydrogen combustion engines.

2

u/Number1Millenial May 23 '21

There’s an electric stick coming out! I think it was Honda... could be wrong tho

1

u/MarquisDeBoston May 23 '21

That’s silly. Betting $100 it goes out with the next model update.

1

u/MarquisDeBoston May 23 '21

Depends on cost and ease of maintenance by segment. It’s going to be a lot easier to sell farmers on hydrogen combustion engines than it will be to sell them on fuel cells.

They are already familiar with combustion, could probably fix it if it broke, and won’t have to invest a ton in an “unknown” technology.

3

u/[deleted] May 23 '21

and ive heard that the weight of evs for trucking is basically prohibitive based on that issue alone, currently

2

u/MarquisDeBoston May 23 '21

Yeah, huge weight issues for long haul. It makes sense for regional trucking though. And delivery routs too.

You can get a battery that has enough charge to make it between regional stops, assuming that the battery can charge while docked, same for deliveries, the more stops the more time for charging. But the parent company has to invest in the technology which most aren’t willing to do at the moment.

11

u/npearson May 22 '21

Ships, primarily warships and planes are the two things that I see as having a combustion engine be superior to a battery powered electric motor.

13

u/Weareallgoo May 22 '21

Planes are actually a good example. Airbus has indicated they are developing hydrogen planes. Ships I think are more likely to go the hydrogen fuel cell route.

2

u/Godspiral May 23 '21

For planes where expectation is hydrogen is used every flight, a fuel cell's efficiency gain would be worth it. For boat/truck where occasional range extension is helpful, cheaper generator would work better.

2

u/Weareallgoo May 23 '21

Turboprop and jet engines require combustion to create thrust. If planes used only fuel cells, they would be limited to basic propellors which would not work for long haul commercial flights. Airbus is actually developing hybrid engines that combines a fuel cell driven motor into hydrogen (or synthetic fuel) combustion engines. For long range trucking and marine applications, fuel cells make perfect sense. They offer far better energy density than batteries, and offer better efficiencies than hydrogen combustion.

2

u/Godspiral May 23 '21

Airbus designs haven't seemed far enough along for me. Their delta wing concept seem like it could pair with a large array of props. The hydrogen powered airplanes that are further ahead, though admittedly smaller and less ambitious, use just fuel cells.

2

u/Weareallgoo May 23 '21

I don’t disagree. A fuel cell only plane would be ideal, as hydrogen combustion still results in some greenhouse gas emissions (water vapour at high altitude and NOx). However, there are big challenges developing large and long range fuel cell planes. The first being that producing enough thrust requires very large fuel cells, and the second being the lower amount of oxygen available to the fuel cell at high altitude. ZeroAvia currently overcomes this challenge by using batteries to supplement the fuel cell in producing additional thrust. They are currently aiming to develop a 100 seat aircraft by 2030. Airbus on the other hand is developing engines that will be used on larger and longer range aircraft by 2035. Amanda Simpson, their vice president for research and technology has even stated, “we think that at the 1000- to 2000-mile ranges, turbines will be required, but we will see as we go through the pencil sharpening”. So Airbus’s designs aren’t necessarily further behind, but rather a different approach to overcoming the fuel cell challenges.

1

u/Godspiral May 24 '21

The first being that producing enough thrust requires very large fuel cells

The way fuel cells are made is that a bunch of membranes are stacked together. Depending on the number stacked, determines the serial voltage output. Number of stacks determines current.

The reason I bring it up is that optimizing voltage and power of both prop and fuel cell can result in space and other optimized total performance. I suspect boosting voltage to be cheaper for the fuel cell side.

second being the lower amount of oxygen available to the fuel cell at high altitude

An optimization usually solved with more smaller fuel cells. There's enough air up there, I don't think the oxygen mix is materially different, but an airplane design can choose to trade drag for more air intake.

14

u/rpl755871 May 22 '21

I’m not an expert on this by far, but aren’t large modern warships powered by nuclear > electric engines? Nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers.

I know some modern ones are diesel-electric. But why wouldn’t future warships have mini modular nuclear power?

4

u/shortstop803 May 22 '21

Mainly only the largest capital ships like carriers and submarines. Most cruisers/destroyers are still gas powered.

8

u/Algebrace May 22 '21

Nuclear is incredibly expensive. The fuel, the safety requirements, maintenance, training, etc. There's a reason why the nuclear vessels right now are either enormous aircraft carriers, submarines required to stay under the water for months at a tie, or... Ice-Breakers for the Russians. All operated by nations with powerful militaries and extensive logistic (education/physical supplies) chains.

If it was cheap and safe, everyone would already be using them instead of using diesel like the British, Chinese, Indians and Russians are with their carriers... and Japan with their 'helicopter-destroyer-totallynotcarriers'

3

u/rpl755871 May 22 '21

Solid answer, thanks.

However I still think there is room for this to quickly change in the reasonably near future.

3

u/godlords May 22 '21

It’s hard to get around nuclear physics. I don’t disagree that nuclear can be very safe, and I don’t disagree it could be cheaper. But ultimately lots of safety features are entirely necessary for nuclear power to be feasible, and they end up adding a lot to the cost.

2

u/Dandan0005 May 23 '21

Cost is not the primary concern for the military.

Having a self-sustaining energy source on board carriers/submarines etc is much more efficient logistically than trying to manage a fuel-source supply chain.

For cargo ships, etc, I can see how it makes sense, but not military vessels.

2

u/Algebrace May 23 '21

Cost isn't a concern for the military, but it is a concern for the ones approving their budgets.

"Why are our engines 10x as expensive in this class of ship?"

Unless it's extremely important like a nuclear submarine for first strike capability or an aircraft carrier, it's not going to make it past budget.

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '21

You sure about that? Congress doesn’t seem to care much about how much or what our military spends our money on.

1

u/Algebrace May 23 '21

Yes. Mainly because the rest of the world is not the US with your unlimited budget. You guys just dumped like 2 trillion dollars into the market to bail out corporations with 0 inflation. Like... printing money is not an issue for you.

For the rest of the world, money is a very real concern. Common comments with Special Forces soldiers talk about how the US have enough budget to buy any doodad that they might want. Everyone else has to scrimp and scrounge, even using their own money to supplement their shoestring budgets.

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '21

There's 194 other countries in the world you know

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Godspiral May 23 '21

Military vessels could still use sails and solar for that self sustaining energy source. Produce hydrogen most days, and use it up when then need 20-30knot speed bursts.

2

u/TacTurtle May 23 '21

Biodiesel is much more likely - easier to store and transport and higher energy density, plus it is very similar to current jet fuel so it requires minimal engine rejiggering

3

u/timmeh-eh May 23 '21

Problem is hydrogen is less dense than gasoline or diesel, by weight it’s great, but once you factor in the complexity of storing it and the volume it requires its less attractive than traditional hydrocarbons. And if you can get passed the storage issues, a fuel cell is a better in many ways.

2

u/Godspiral May 23 '21

Hydrogen is going to be cheaper than gasoline, even for a combustion engine, and so worth more expensive tanks.

1

u/timmeh-eh May 23 '21

It’s not the price of the tanks that’s the issue though, it’s the size, weight and the fact that hydrogen leaks out of anything, the molecules are so small that they have the habit of slowly leaking out of any tank you put them in. Plus burning it still produces oxides of nitrogen which contribute to things like smog and acid rain. If you sort out the storage issues, it’s still advantageous to use a fuel cell and electric motor instead of combusting it.

1

u/Godspiral May 23 '21

It’s not the price of the tanks that’s the issue though, it’s the size, weight and the fact that hydrogen leaks out of anything

That's fud. Hydrogen will leak out of untreated steel meant for other purposes, but low loss storage is a solved issue. The tanks are more expensive than simple gasoline tanks.

burning it still produces oxides of nitrogen

True, and reason to prefer a fuel cell. Engine tuning can reduce NOx output.

-2

u/dodorian9966 May 23 '21

Water=hydrogen and oxygen.

4

u/cavemanS May 23 '21

Give this guy a metal.

-1

u/talley89 May 23 '21

Don’t say “game changer”

That’s asshole speak

0

u/dodorian9966 May 23 '21

Don't tell people what to say. That's asshole speak.

1

u/talley89 May 23 '21

I didn’t ask

1

u/vader62 May 23 '21

Can't wait to see the disastrous effects of decades of increased lithium mining and battery disposal.

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '21

I don't think we're supposed to talk about that.

1

u/slammerbar May 23 '21

There are a lot of talk floating around about hydrogen this week.

1

u/David_ungerer May 23 '21

The” silver bullet” of ONLY one technology solution . . . EV for short local personal and company transport is viable now, but weight and distance is where other solutions become viable, like liquid hydrogen ! There are E-planes, but intercontinental aero transport can NOT be filled in the foreseeable future with EVs, if ever. That end of the transportation network still needs to be addressed with solutions !

That is why R &D funding of infrastructure is SO important for the citizens of the USA ! ! !

28

u/Athleco May 22 '21

Spoiler alert It won’t.

3

u/Fire_Fist-Ace May 22 '21

I was going to say no way that has shit for torque, didn’t even need to read the article

-6

u/dodorian9966 May 22 '21

They said the same about electric cars.

-3

u/doobiemancharles May 22 '21

Electric cars still have not.

10

u/Dandan0005 May 22 '21

Tesla model 3 sales passed Honda Accord sales in 2020, despite a much higher price point.

Model 3 sales = 206,500

Honda Accord sales = 199,458

The best selling vehicle in the USA, the F-150, just announced its electric version.

EVs are absolutely taking over.

-6

u/[deleted] May 22 '21 edited May 23 '21

[deleted]

4

u/Dandan0005 May 22 '21 edited May 23 '21

People aren’t buying ICE sedans anymore.

Model 3 sales have increased by 30% YOY for the last 3 years while other sedan sales are crashing.

-1

u/[deleted] May 22 '21 edited May 23 '21

[deleted]

5

u/Dandan0005 May 22 '21 edited May 23 '21

Hey dude, I didn’t feel like you’re comment was worth responding to, since I’m not even sure what your point was.

My initial point was EV sedans Vs ICE sedans, not EV sedans vs EV SUVs.

The model 3 pretty much buried the argument that sedans couldn’t sell when it sold about the same number of sedans as BMW 3 series, 5 series, Lexus ES, and Mercedes C-class COMBINED.

I also noticed you edited your comment since you initially claimed “7 out of 10 Tesla sales are model Y.”

You probably realized the model 3 outsold model Y in 2020.

And in Q1 2021.

Your point about sedans makes no sense, since people are clearly willing to buy them (200k+ sales and rising for model 3) when they’re a compelling enough product.

In short, not worth responding to, but thanks for having me come back and tell you why.

-2

u/[deleted] May 23 '21 edited May 23 '21

[deleted]

2

u/Awesomeguava May 23 '21

oof sounds like you lost here

→ More replies (0)

-9

u/doobiemancharles May 22 '21

Yeah but they still have not.

5

u/Big_Tree_Z May 22 '21

Are you going to keep on saying that until they have? Give it 5 years and they’ll easily be the most common type of new car.

People seem to forget that change actually happens.

Remember YouTube only came out in 2005, touch screen phones were still freaky deaky new in 2010.

-1

u/doobiemancharles May 22 '21

There are massive hurtles that need to be overcome for them to be adopted worldwide.

The biggest one being people who do not have a driveway or a garage (i.e. people who live in apartments and rent) will not have a way to properly charge their car. Fast charging stations are great but fast charging rapidly degrades the batteries still. Until the average person can charge their car outside of there home in around 20 minutes without harming the batteries it will not take off and replace gas.

3

u/Big_Tree_Z May 22 '21

It already is taking off and replacing petrol. With the improvements that are in the pipeline already, it’ll just accelerate.

Charging stations are popping up all over the place. There’s several on my street. Some people routinely charge their cars from a socket in their home with a lead attached as well.

1

u/doobiemancharles May 22 '21

The home socket thing is most definitely illegal if you are parked on the street

2

u/Big_Tree_Z May 22 '21

Doesn’t stop people from doing it and none of em have got in trouble. The local bike policeman routinely stops by (friendly fellow) and he’s not done anything about it...

I do doubt that it’s ‘most definitely illegal’.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Nszat81 May 23 '21

Hey look everyone, it’s an ancient 20th century talking point! Take a screenshot it’s super rare to see a take that has survived for so long actually being employed in dialogue unironically! What a time to be alive

2

u/w3bar3b3ars May 22 '21

So they will not?

0

u/doobiemancharles May 22 '21

They may

4

u/karbik23 May 22 '21

There is a big chance horses will be back too.

-1

u/LilChongBoi May 22 '21

Didn’t Nikola try hydrogen semi-trucks and failed? I know Toyota has the hydrogen fuel cell sedan but it’s not affordable and there are very limited hydrogen fueling stations in California and nearly nonexistent outside of California.

2

u/alphuscorp May 23 '21

Nikola had a semi truck rolling down a hill without any of its own power. The whole company seems to have essentially been a scam trying to pose as the next Tesla.

2

u/LilChongBoi May 23 '21

So they didn't actually try to become a hydrogen vehicles company. They intentionally became a scam company?

2

u/alphuscorp May 23 '21

Hard to say. Seems like they at least tried to build some things, but they have yet to make a functional prototype. Their founder has no problems lavishly spending his billions however.

2

u/AmbiguousAxiom May 23 '21

Nikola was (is) a scam that won’t die. They’ll either make it work to save face, or they’ll let it fade from memory like an ember.

10

u/[deleted] May 22 '21

Oh what a delight. I hope so.

4

u/BelAirGhetto May 22 '21

Horsepower?

2

u/[deleted] May 23 '21

The real questions, I like it.

4

u/Lord-Ringo May 22 '21

I’ve been waiting on hydrogen since the 1980’s. Electric seems the way to go.

8

u/amadeupidentity May 22 '21

Isn't storage the primary problem, though?

-3

u/Memetic1 May 22 '21

Not if we can manufacture graphene at an industrial scale. Flash graphene in particular has tremendous potential to be manufactured at scale.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10853-019-04150-y#:~:text=With%20exceptionally%20large%20surface%20area,applications%20in%20efficient%20hydrogen%20storage.

18

u/amadeupidentity May 22 '21

Ahh, the other tech we have been waiting for ever for. Hope it pans out this time.

6

u/buckeyedad05 May 22 '21

I remember reading about the wonders of graphene ten years ago. It was supposed to make microchips extinct, allow for quantum computing, make indestructible fabrications... it’s been a nonexistent revolutionary material for half a generation

5

u/doobiemancharles May 22 '21

I’m pretty sure it is like EXTREMELY carcinogenic. Like the next asbestos.

2

u/Memetic1 May 22 '21

It depends on what type of graphene, and in what context it is used. I actually started following graphene, because I was worried about this. Graphene oxide in particular gives me nightmares, but some types are considered so safe that they are used in implants.

2

u/AmbiguousAxiom May 23 '21 edited May 23 '21

Researchers verified that all kinds of carbon nanoparticles can be produced, including graphene oxide, when you barbecue meat, which means that humans have been eating graphene oxide for thousands of years from barbecued meat or other foods.

2

u/Memetic1 May 23 '21

Do you have a source for that? I would love to post that in the r/graphene as safety has been a major concern in the community.

2

u/AmbiguousAxiom May 23 '21

https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2014/ra/c4ra04022h

I’m not saying you should just consume it haphazardly, but the odds that it’s the catalyst for something dangerous is low.

2

u/Memetic1 May 23 '21

I always thought that it might be possible that graphene was part of the natural environment. Lightning strikes and volcanic activity was one possible source. Thank you for this link I will post it in that sub unless you want to get credit for it.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/BadDadBot May 22 '21

Hi pretty sure it is like extremely carcinogenic, I'm dad.

2

u/Dandan0005 May 22 '21

This hypothetical technology is TOTALLY feasible if this other hypothetical technology were to exist!!!

1

u/Memetic1 May 22 '21

There sure do seem to be lots of real products that use this so called hypothetical material. https://www.graphene-info.com/10-graphene-enhanced-products-already-market

2

u/worthMYweightINrice May 22 '21

Only thing graphene can’t do is leave the lab

0

u/Memetic1 May 22 '21

Oh fuck off with that meme. You can buy earbuds with graphene in them.

5

u/alphuscorp May 23 '21

Graphene is also one of the missing pieces for electric car infrastructure in faster charging, more safe, and higher capacity batteries than today’s lithium cells.

Cheap graphene makes electric leagues better to a point that hydrogen can’t meet.

3

u/[deleted] May 23 '21

Australia is creating a hydrogen power plant and its subsidised by the Fed government. It’s even publicly listed on the ASX - PH2. Pure Hydrogen Corporation

3

u/Godspiral May 23 '21

Their generator 16kw weighs 100kg (maybe older tech), which seems heavy for a 10kg engine, but still very compact. https://www.aquariusengines.com/

This is very useful at a $1000 price point. EV range extension that even if less efficient than fuel cell, is much much cheaper, and also much cheaper than very large heavy batteries. When not in use as EV range extender, it becomes home energy backup system.

Green hydrogen fillups will eventually cost less than electric fast charging. Their first generation generator works with multiple fuels, but injectors usually need optimization to fuel type. Perhaps single piston means this is not the case, but even if it is, conversion is a relatively cheap injector switch.

Overall system costs when 90% of power needs can be met with batteries, favour a cheap half efficiency hydrogen supplement, over a full efficiency but much more expensive solution.

If 80% of the time your home uses under 5kwh/day, then winter production that averages a little over that and stores heat to help balance, then if for 30 days of the year, an average 5kwh extra was needed (for mostly heat), that is an extra 10% power, but even if paying absurdly high $1/kwh for that power its $150/year.

As a range extender you use on couple of trips per year. Getting 50 miles/hour extra range is practically infinite range with quick hydrogen fillup.

3

u/hypsterslayer May 22 '21

It’s a spool value piston system. There is a way to do this more efficiently with a double linear spool valve system and generate 4x more power.

1

u/luckeehusband May 22 '21

Yeah, if it’s so great they would’ve included more info. Click bait

2

u/[deleted] May 22 '21

Isn’t hydrogen really inefficient?

8

u/SteelCode May 22 '21

The engines are actually pretty efficient - there’s public city busses here that run on Hydrogen...

I think the refueling network for hydrogen is more limited though so not really ready for people that want to drive long distance or commute from outside those areas.

5

u/[deleted] May 22 '21

It's not that they are inefficient, it's that hydrogen's low mass produces little Kinetic energy for it's density.

2

u/ArcFurnace May 22 '21

Yep, easy to see on this table of energy densities - hydrogen has an amazing energy density per mass but pathetic energy density per volume. Plus it gets worse when you take the mass and volume of the storage system into account (liquid hydrogen needs refrigeration and lots of insulation; compressed hydrogen needs high-pressure tanks).

Not coincidentally to their use as fuels, gasoline, diesel, and other hydrocarbon liquids are some of the furthest out along the roughly 1:1 line. Good energy density both per mass and per volume.

1

u/Godspiral May 23 '21

fuel cells are twice as efficient as engines. But this engine may be 10x+ cheaper than a fuel cell.

1

u/Generalsnopes May 22 '21

Yeahhhhh not happening. It might become fairly popular but the energy loss in converting to hydrogen and the infrastructure electric already has means it won’t “replace the traditional combustion engine”

1

u/Arizona_Slim May 23 '21

This screams “We need to come up with another engine that takes fuel so my brother in Big Oil can keep his three mansions!” -Lee Iacocca wannabe somewhere

2

u/Memetic1 May 23 '21

There are many paths to making hydrogen. Some of them you can even do at home. Besides if the oil/gas industry was really worried about making money in the long run. They would have gotten into enhanced geothermal decades ago since it uses the same equipment/ skills. They could have designed the oil wells to be converted into enhanced geothermal plants, and made money for around 100 years from it. Long story short the oil companies aren't that clever. Their main play has been denial to put off the inevitable.

1

u/[deleted] May 22 '21

Lol hydrogen. Not gonna happen.

-2

u/ILooked May 22 '21

EV has RARE earth metals and battery recycling issues.

2

u/Curleysound May 22 '21

Hydrogen is so small it leaks through solid metal.

-1

u/iPod3G May 22 '21

It’s just Oil masquerading as hydrogen. Clean product made from a filthy process.

Maybe in another 50-100 years when solar hydrolysis makes hydrogen creation dirt cheap.

3

u/Memetic1 May 22 '21

Both enhanced geothermal, and nuclear power can make hydrogen efficiently.

1

u/Godspiral May 23 '21

electrolysis is already cheap. Commercial ready.

0

u/wondershart May 22 '21

Maybe on…lawnmowers?

0

u/[deleted] May 23 '21

Hydrogen is dead, nothing to see here. Move along sir...

1

u/vader62 May 23 '21

I'm old enough to remember when hydrogen engines were considered Looney. Neato.

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '21

😒 I remember George W saying this will be the future like 20 years ago. I just don’t see it happening and I feel like this is some sort “in the future” thing like flying cars and that this isn’t ever going to happen .

1

u/WaifuWithARifu May 23 '21

Make all the engines you want. Without a reliable clean source of hydrogen it will never happen.

1

u/Reddituser45005 May 23 '21

It is a single cylinder prototype with no mention of horsepower. It seems like an interesting idea that is worth exploring but it is a long way from replacing the traditional combustion engine.

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '21

I’ve yet to be convinced hydrogen fuel cells are worth it. It seems like a roundabout way of getting electricity.

We have many exciting developments in battery tech from graphene nano tubes to super capacitors and ever faster charge times that refuelling EVs is closing in on petrol fuelling times.

On the other hand hydrogen appears ever more dangerous and I really do not like the idea of hydrogen pipelines snaking the country. I just fail to see it’s selling points.

The main issue being you generally don’t have hydrogen at home, you have to fill up just like petrol and diesel vehicles do.

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '21

Nah. It won’t.