Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by VLM 3043 days ago
The problem with nifty solutions to removing carbon from raw fuels resulting in carbon free hydrogen, is the best engineering solution to the remainder of the task list of transport, store, and burn the resulting carbon-free hydrogen, is to modify the hydrogen by synthesize up some carbon containing hydrocarbons to make some delicious hyper optimized liquid fuels, which coincidentally we have massive infrastructure to use.

Not as snarky as might sound. Given infinite fusion energy via the real thing or solar panels, truly pure synthetic fuel opens up some interesting ideas WRT catalysts and efficient burn designs to squeek out another percent or two of performance. Inherently zero (not low, but ZERO) sulfur diesel is interesting, for example. And no one says the carbon thats added has to come from underground; go harvest some trees that sucked the carbon right out of the air, then when you put it back in the air after a couple months of storage, nothing bad happened.
2 comments
jessaustin 3043 days ago
You can burn anhydrous ammonia in a regular ICE. If we adopt GP's hypothesis that energy is cheap, then it's also cheap to turn H2 into NH3. We already have a robust infrastructure for the manufacture, storage, and transportation of liquid anhydrous ammonia. It does present some dangers to human safety, but so does any fuel.

If cars ever run on hydrogen in significant numbers, they'll actually be running on ammonia.

link
semi-extrinsic 3043 days ago
> the best engineering solution to the remainder of the task list of transport, store, and burn the resulting carbon-free hydrogen, is to modify the hydrogen by synthesize up some carbon containing hydrocarbons

If that's the case, it's equally true for H2 from renewables, no?

And I don't think it's true. LPG vehicles today are common enough, and they've solved very similar transport and distribution problems.

link
nine_k 3043 days ago
Not really. Hydrocarbons are much easier to store and handle. Cars may not need it so much, but as a jet fuel, kerosene is much easier than hydrogen.
link
semi-extrinsic 3043 days ago
Easier, sure. But Tupolev built and flew 100 flights with the Tu-155, a cryogenic H2 fueled narrow-body airliner, in the 1980s. So it's very far from impossible, it's just a matter of time IMO. Currently aviation is pushing biofuels to kick the can down the road, but they can't do that forever.
link