Great Quotations collected by Dick Caro

 Great Quotations link:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PoR4D1irUB6gGmyfemiSRGzSH6iEzrZb8EPTlTRaTDw/edit?usp=sharing

Nuclear Power Plants - 2024

 Nuclear Power Plants generate electricity without producing CO2 the dominant Greenhouse Gas (GHG.) This article explains the current process used to generate electricity in the 429 nuclear power plants in the world. Then it relates the new design for Nuclear Power plants now under construction.

 https://constructiondigital.com/articles/bechtel-launches-carbon-free-nuclear-power-plant

The nuclear power plants of the world today and in the near future all depend upon nuclear fission; specifically the fission of Uranium 235 under controlled conditions to prevent the "run-away reaction" called a melt-down. Control is typically supplied in modern fission plants by a computer-based digital control system. So far only one such plant has failed to prevent melt-down: the plant at Fukushima, Japan following a 9.1 magnitude earthquake and a 30 foot high tsunami that flooded the basement where the reactor water circulation pumps were located. While the plant was designed to withstand earthquakes, the flood caused by the tsunami caused failure of the cooling water pumps and an explosion of hydrogen gas accumulated at the reactors. Both the Chernobyl and 3-mile island nuclear power plant failures were due to inadequate control systems installed before computers were applied to control.

Modern pressurized water nuclear reactors use purified water to cool the reactor core and provide absorption of excess neutrons called moderation. The fuel consists of stainless steel rods that contain uranium 238 and are "enriched" with uranium 239. Control rods are also stainless steel but filled with Boron that can absorb excess neutrons and thereby reduce the rate of the reaction of uranium 239 that splits into smaller (less atomic weight) elements and releases neutrons that continue the chain reaction. Some of the released neutrons also convert the uranium 238 to plutonium 239; a byproduct of the fission reaction that occurs in this pressurized water fast breeder nuclear reactor.

The primary product of nuclear fusion is heat that passes into the cooling water, and then is exchanged with fresh water to generate steam that powers electric generators. Reactor cooling water is flittered and recycled through heat exchangers that produce the steam to power the electric generators. Generally, the steam condensate that is produced after powering the generators is cooled in the cooling towers that often identify a nuclear power plant. The steam condensate is not radioactive.

All modern nuclear reactors are controlled by a digital control system that looks much like a modern high reliability DCS used in process control. Many of the components are redundant to assure high availability. Often the entire control center has a duplicate off-site to be used in case a radiation leak forces abandonment of the human operators from the control center. All communications is redundant secure and highly available. Lessons learned at Fukushima require cooling water pumps, primary and backup, to be located above the maximum flood level for the area.

The "fast breeder" term is used because the Plutonium 239 that is produced in the nuclear reaction is later recycled into new fuel rods, since Plutonium 238 is also a fissionable material. The lower molecular weight byproducts of fission are less than 10 percent of the original fuel and are encased in glass and stored for future disposal. Fortunately the most radioactive byproducts are small in volume and are not a serious problem. It should be noted that fast breeder nuclear power reactors can be scaled and are the primary power source for all modern submarines and naval vessels.

Nuclear technology is not classified as secrete or proprietary. There are hundreds of textbooks of information about safe design of nuclear power plants.Yet the publicity of power plant failures at Chernobyl, 3-mile island, and Fukushima and the 1950 movie "China Syndrome" have strongly and in my opinion, wrongly biased public opinion negatively about nuclear power. It produces electric power at lower cost than any fossil fueled power plant, and does not generate or use any greenhouse gases.

Possible Future of Nuclear Power

Without much effort, the technology used to produce small nuclear power plants for US military/naval vessels can be used to build new smaller and lower cost nuclear power plants at any location with access to fresh water. Desalinization as used on shipboard could extend this to seaside installations.

Understandably, the public has an unfounded fear of nuclear power from the few accidents that have occurred. We have learned and compensated for those early failures so now plants cannot experience a core melt-down. But melt-down is the primary source of fear of nuclear power.

To remove the fear of melt-down, several new process for the reactor portion of nuclear power has been created:

a) Liquid sodium cooled reactor

Here is a description of Liquid Sodium Cooled nuclear reactors created by AI:

A liquid sodium cooled fast reactor (SFR) is a type of nuclear reactor that uses liquid sodium as a coolant instead of water. SFRs are considered a promising candidate for next generation nuclear technologies. Some of their features include: 

• Fast neutron spectrum: Neutrons can cause fission without being slowed down first, which could allow SFRs to use both fissile material and spent fuel from current reactors. 
• High power density: SFRs can achieve high power density with low coolant volume fraction. 
• High thermal efficiency: SFRs have high thermal efficiency. 
• Closed fuel cycle: SFRs have a closed fuel cycle. 

Some other features of SFRs include: 

• Oxygen-free environment: The oxygen-free environment prevents corrosion. 
• Sealed coolant system: Sodium reacts chemically with air and water, so SFRs require a sealed coolant system. 
• Special precautions: Sodium is chemically reactive, so special precautions are required to prevent and suppress fires. 

Some disadvantages of liquid metal cooled reactors include: Difficulties associated with inspection and repair, Fire hazard risk for alkali metals, Corrosion, and Production of radioactive activation products.

b) Liquid salt nuclear reactor

Here is a summary of information gathered by AI on the topic of a "Molten Salt Nuclear Reactor:

A liquid salt nuclear reactor, also known as a molten salt reactor (MSR), is a type of nuclear power reactor that uses molten salts to cool its core and produce electricity. MSRs are similar to conventional reactors, but they use salts instead of water to cool the core, which may make them more efficient and better suited for non-electric applications. 

MSRs can use molten salts as both a coolant and a fuel. In some designs, the fuel is dissolved in the molten salt-based coolant, while others use solid fuel rods with the molten salts only acting as a coolant. MSRs can operate at higher temperatures and for longer periods of time than other reactor types, and they can also be designed to operate in low-pressure environments. 

MSRs have several potential advantages, including: 

• No solid fuel

  Some designs don't require solid fuel, which eliminates the need to manufacture and dispose of it. 
• Nuclear waste burners

  MSRs can be designed to burn nuclear waste. 
• Safety

  MSRs have low excess reactivity, a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity, and low pressure, which can help keep things stable. The fuel salt is also generally not very reactive with the environment. 

• Corrosion

  Over time, alloys that don't dissolve in molten salt can form a protective coating that slows corrosion. 

c) Thorium fueled nuclear reactor

Here is a discussion about Thorium-fueled nuclear reactors gathered using AI:

Thorium-fueled nuclear reactors have several advantages over uranium-fueled reactors, including: 

• Abundance

  Thorium is three times more abundant than uranium. 
• Environmental impact

  Thorium-fueled reactors produce less long-lived nuclear waste than uranium-fueled reactors. They also don't emit greenhouse gases while operating. 
• Safety

  Thorium-fueled reactors have safety features that reduce the risk of nuclear accidents and proliferation. 
• Weaponization potential

  Thorium-fueled reactors have a lower potential for weaponization than uranium-fueled reactors. 
• Location

  Thorium-fueled reactors can be installed in remote and arid regions, far from coastlines and watercourses. 
• Efficiency

  Molten salt reactors (MSRs) that use thorium as fuel are highly efficient. MSRs use a suspension of molten salts instead of solid fuel rods to drive the chain reaction. 

However, there are some challenges to thorium-fueled reactors, including: 

• Extraction costs: Thorium is expensive to extract, despite its abundance.

 False Roots of Antisemitism

It was during a reception during my first business trip to Saudi Arabia that I heard what has prevailed among the anti-Jewish sentiments often spoken today: "They killed the Prophet." At that time, I did not understand those words spoken by a devout Muslim businessman, a graduate of Cornell University. My question to him was "why do Muslims hate the Jews?" As I later learned, he was referring to the Muslim prophet Jesus of Nazareth. Yes, the Qur'an refers to Jesus of Nazareth as the prophet Asa. Indeed, this sentiment has been attributed to the Roman Catholic church, but later refuted. [Kertzer DI. The Roman Catholic Church, the Holocaust, and the demonization of the Jews: Response to "Benjamin and us: Christianity, its Jews, and history" by Jeanne Favret-Saada. HAU. 2014 Winter;4(8):329-333. doi: 10.14318/hau4.3.020. PMID: 27011787; PMCID: PMC4800995. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4800995/]

Although I am no bible scholar, my encounter with the wonderful people I met during my many trips to Saudi Arabia and my own curiosity led me to try to understand this sentiment that seems to underscore, at least partially, the rationale for the World War II holocaust, and the current rise of antisemitism. I purchased an English language translation of the Qur'an. [Note: Islam believes that only the Arabic version of the Qur'an is authentic.] There I learned that the foundation of Islam is the Torah, the first five books of Moses contained in the Old Testament of the bible, used by Jews and Christians alike. Islam reveres Moses (Musa), Noah (Nuh), Jesus (Asa), and Abraham (Ibrahim). The Qur'an is believed to be the transcription by Muhammad as dictated by the Archangel Gabriel beginning in year 610 of the Common Era (AD to Christians.)

As a dedicated Christian, I have been greatly troubled by antisemitism, especially since much of my family are practicing Jews. From my own understanding, I need to tell the story of the life of Jesus from my own perspective, which may not be the viewpoint of many theologians.

Jesus of Nazareth was a man who lived and died in ancient Israel. He was the son of a carpenter, and probably was an apprentice to his father Joseph. His mother, Mary was a young girl who at the time of Jesus' conception, was engaged to Joseph. Jesus was obviously a brilliant student of the scripture, and felt a strong calling to fix the prevailing religious practices and beliefs of his faith. When he was about 30 years old, he began his ministry by contacting has cousin John (the Baptist.) He recruited several young men and women to help him and began to demonstrate his mission by performing acts of healing and by teaching in the synagogue and to crowds gathered to hear his speeches. Sometime during his ministry, he began to understand that the people were looking for a political leader to free them from the Roman occupiers, not for a new religious leader. 

I am convinced that Jesus realized that he had to create an event that would be accurately recorded in history, be completely undeniable and authentic, and be spectacularly dramatic to illustrate the message that he was convinced needed to be told. The old Covenant of Moses was not enough to assure salvation; following the letter of the Law was insufficient to obtain the Grace of God. Half of the leaders of the Jewish clergy did not even believe in the afterlife. He felt the need to prove that there was life after death, and the only way to prove it was for him to die a proven death, and then rise from the dead himself. He had told this to his disciples over and over again, but they did not believe him. If his closest friends were not convinced, then how were others to believe. HE HAD TO DIE, AND RISE AGAIN FROM THE DEAD.

Jesus had earlier raised Lazarus from his death, but Jewish elders easily dismissed this as a recovery from an unknown disease. From that time, Jesus was determined to find a way for himself to die in such a way as to remove all doubt about his death, although he asked God to find another way. The New Testament gospels detail the many attempts of Jesus to violate provisions of the Law that seem to have no real valid purpose other than to irritate the Pharisees, but they did not have the power to execute Jesus; only Rome had that power. So Jesus had to do something that offended the Pharisees so much that they would accuse him of a crime against Rome itself so that he would be put to death by Rome authorities. The timing also had to be right - he probably knew that a total eclipse of the sun was about to happen during the upcoming Passover (always observed during a full moon. Note: this would be a miracle, since the position of the earth, moon, and sun can make a lunar eclipse possible during Passover, but a solar eclipse would require the moon to pass across the sun - this is not possible with a full moon that defines Passover.) That was the day for his death to occur. We know that Jesus refused to defend himself before Pilot. and a crucifixion was scheduled at that time. The Roman crucifixion was a public and undeniable death, just what was needed - and so it happened. Death upon the cross verified by a Roman guard when he pierced his side and bodily fluid ran out, but not blood; the Roman proof of death beyond a doubt. The sun was obscured during the eclipse and there was an earthquake as well splitting the veil in the Temple.

At sundown immediately following the crucifixion was the start of Passover, forcing his disciples to wait in hiding until the following Sunday to prepare his body for burial. In those days, it was considered woman's work to prepare the body for proper burial. A group of his women followers, including Mary of Magdala went to the temporary tomb where Jesus' body had been laid, but the heavy stone sealing the tomb had been rolled away and there was no body inside. The risen Jesus spoke to Mary who ran back to tell the rest of the disciples the good news, Jesus had risen from the dead just as he had been telling them. Jesus visited his disciples twice in the upper room and was seen by thousands of people in the following days. On the 40th day after his living body reappearance, scripture tells us that he ascended into heaven.

However, his work was still not done. His work was to correct the behavior of mankind, in his own words to establish the New Covenant that he had attempted to teach his disciples. While the remaining 11 disciples lead by Peter, and now including Stephen who replaced Judas, were good men, they seemed to be insufficient to the task of spreading the Gospel to the rest of the world. As promised, he returned, at Pentecost,  after his Ascension as the Holy Spirit giving them the power to speak and understand the languages of the people of the world, and granting them the power of healing as well. But, even then that was not enough - he needed a powerful speaker and organizer who was a Roman citizen and spoke and wrote in the language of the Roman empire of that day - Greek. For this, he needed to accomplish the greatest miracle of all - he needed to convert the most antagonistic Pharisee of that time - Saul of Tarsus.

The bible does not detail what happened after the healing of Saul's blindness resulting from his encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus, but Saul was converted to Paul, the most published author in the New Testament - without question the leading advocate of Christianity. In the biblical novel The Road to Bithynia by Frank G. Slaughter, the author postulates that Saul/Paul returned to his hometown, Tarsus, on the Mediterranean coast and supported himself in his trade as a sail and tent maker. During a period of three years, Paul had almost daily contact with Jesus to educate him and to instill in him the necessary spirit to take on the task of spreading the Good News among the Gentiles. To me, the conversion of Saul is one of the greatest miracle of the bible. The first and greatest miracle of the bible is the Resurrection of Jesus, the very foundation of Christianity. Since Jesus had to die in order to be resurrected, how can his death be the fault of any group of people. Blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus is the root of antisemitism and the holocaust, and as we have learned from this analysis - antisemitism is a false belief - a lie.

And if that was not enough, there was a pamphlet published in Russia in the 1890's called "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" that was fabricated, originally in French, explicitly to convince the population that a group of Jewish businessmen were plotting to control the world by taking over all business and eventually governments. [Protocols of the Elders of Zion/The lie that would not die; by Brigitte Sion] This was a complete fabrication, a lie, a hoax, written to inflame the world against the Jewish people. The actual author appears to be a Russian living in France. This pamphlet was translated into Russian and later used by Stalin to purge the Russian population of a great portion of its Jews. It was translated into German and used by the Nazis to explain the defeat of Germany in World War I, and eventually by Josef Goebbels the architect of Hitler's purge and extermination of the Jewish population of Europe - the Holocaust. All based on a hoax, a lie.

Whatever happened to cursive writing? Here is an answer from the Word Genius Blog.

 

A Brief History of Cursive Writing [https://www.wordgenius.com/a-history-of-cursive/YqEsQOgUJwAHVnFv?utm_source=blog&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2127365756]

Good penmanship was long considered a status symbol, in that it meant one had the wealth, privilege, and time to access education. The ancient Romans borrowed aspects of the Etruscan alphabet to create one of the earliest forms of written script for transactions and correspondence. In the late eighth century, Charlemagne instructed an English monk to standardize the craft of penmanship, which resulted in Carolingian minuscule, a form of writing that crept closer to modern script. A heavier typeface reigned supreme upon the invention of the printing press in the mid-15th century, but Italian humanists revolted by creating an even more elegant handwriting style, known as “italic.” This became such a status symbol that, by the 1700s, some writing schools emerged in the American Colonies. At Boston schools such as the Latin School and the Writing School in Queen Street — where subjects included spelling, reading, writing, arithmetic, and the catechism — there was a heavy focus on penmanship and different forms of ornamental script and calligraphy.

This idea of teaching penmanship as a school subject caught on, and in the 19th and 20th centuries, cursive English was standardized in the American school system. As cities grew and more job opportunities (such as secretarial positions) opened up outside of fields and factories, strong writing skills were required. In many ways, good penmanship meant better opportunities, plain and simple.

Technology and Obsolescence

However, by the beginning of the 20th century, typewriters had entered the picture. They arrived in classrooms by the 1930s, eventually to be replaced by computers in the late 1980s. Much in the same way good penmanship had once been a key professional skill to get certain jobs in the previous century, educators began to understand typing as an essential skill for burgeoning professionals, and typing classes became part of the school curriculum.

Once email and texting became major forms of communication by the early 2000s, schools began to emphasize computer literacy even more. It became common practice for college students to use laptops for taking notes and completing exams and assignments, eschewing the need for good penmanship. By 2010, the Common Core State Standards declared American students no longer needed cursive proficiency, and many schools removed it from their curriculum.

Modern Resurgence

While it may not be required coursework across the board, cursive is making a comeback. Research shows that handwriting notes activates multiple brain regions associated with optimal memory, much more so than note-taking with digital devices. Taking notes by hand or writing a to-do list on paper will preserve that memory a lot longer than typing into a laptop or phone. As of February 2022, 14 states passed legislation requiring cursive to be taught in schools, with legislation pending elsewhere. Educators argue that such instruction is essential to developing fine motor skills.

With cursive back in classrooms, maybe the art of penmanship won’t be relegated to assignments. Perhaps sending long missives through the mail will be the next trend of 2023.

 I asked GPT-4 to chat about anhydrous ammonia and fuel cells to replace gasoline as the automotive fuel of the future. Here is the conversation with GPT-4:

Explain how anhydrous ammonia used in fuel cells is the preferred future replacement for gasoline in automobiles.

2 / 2

Anhydrous ammonia is a promising fuel for fuel cells, which are electrochemical devices that convert the chemical energy of a fuel directly into electrical energy. It has several advantages over gasoline, making it a preferred future replacement for gasoline in automobiles. Here are some reasons why:

1. Abundance and availability: Anhydrous ammonia is one of the most abundant chemicals in the world. It is widely used in agriculture as a fertilizer, and there is already an established infrastructure for its production, storage, and transportation. This means that it is readily available and can be easily distributed, making it an attractive alternative to gasoline.

2. High energy density: Anhydrous ammonia has a high energy density, meaning it contains a lot of energy per unit of weight or volume. This makes it a very efficient fuel for powering automobiles, as it can provide a lot of energy while being relatively lightweight.

3. Clean and environmentally friendly: Anhydrous ammonia is a clean-burning fuel, producing only nitrogen and water vapor as byproducts when used in fuel cells. This means it does not release harmful pollutants into the environment, unlike gasoline, which emits carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter.

4. Low cost: Anhydrous ammonia is relatively inexpensive compared to gasoline, which makes it an attractive fuel option for consumers.

5. Easy to produce: Anhydrous ammonia is relatively easy to produce, requiring only air, water, and natural gas as raw materials. This makes it a more sustainable and renewable fuel option than gasoline.

Overall, anhydrous ammonia has many advantages as a fuel for fuel cells, making it a promising future replacement for gasoline in automobiles. Its abundance, high energy density, clean and environmentally friendly properties, low cost, and ease of production make it an attractive option for consumers and manufacturers alike.

But anhydrous ammonia made from natural gas produces greenhouse gas CO2.

That's correct. While anhydrous ammonia is a clean-burning fuel, its production process can produce greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2). The majority of anhydrous ammonia production today relies on the Haber-Bosch process, which requires natural gas as a feedstock and produces CO2 as a byproduct.

However, there are efforts to mitigate the carbon footprint of anhydrous ammonia production by using renewable energy sources such as wind or solar to produce the hydrogen needed in the ammonia synthesis process. This approach, known as green ammonia, produces zero carbon emissions and can be a more sustainable option.

Additionally, as more alternative methods for ammonia production are developed and scaled up, the carbon footprint of anhydrous ammonia could be further reduced. These methods include using renewable energy to power the Haber-Bosch process, or using alternative feedstocks such as biomass or waste products.

In summary, while anhydrous ammonia produced from natural gas does produce CO2 emissions, there are efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of ammonia production and make it a more sustainable fuel option for the future.

What is the catalyst used by fuel cells to convert ammonia to electricity?

2 / 2

The catalyst used in fuel cells to convert ammonia (NH3) to electricity is typically a combination of metals such as platinum (Pt), ruthenium (Ru), or a mixture of both. These catalysts facilitate the electrochemical reactions that occur within the fuel cell.

In an ammonia fuel cell, the catalyst is responsible for two main reactions:

1. Ammonia oxidation at the anode: At the anode (the fuel electrode), the catalyst assists in the oxidation of ammonia (NH3) into nitrogen gas (N2) and protons (H+):

   2 NH3 + 6 H2O → 3 N2 + 8 H+ + 6 e-

2. Oxygen reduction at the cathode: At the cathode (the air electrode), the catalyst helps in the reduction of oxygen (O2) from the air and combines it with protons and electrons to form water (H2O):

   O2 + 4 H+ + 4 e- → 2 H2O

These reactions occur on the surface of the catalyst, allowing the movement of electrons (electricity) through an external circuit to perform useful work.

Platinum is a commonly used catalyst due to its high activity and stability in these reactions. Ruthenium can also be used as a co-catalyst to enhance the catalytic performance. However, it's worth noting that research is ongoing to develop more efficient, cost-effective, and abundant catalyst materials for ammonia fuel cells.

 Controlling the Future

I want to direct you to the new book by Béla Liptak

https://www.isa.org/Standards-and-Publications/ISA-Publications/ISA-Books/authors-corner/Author-Q-A-Controlling-the-Future

 

Market Analysis for Future Transportation Fuels

Richard H. Caro

Certified Automation Professional, International Society of Automation

Copyright 2022

Richard@Caro.us, Arlington, MA

Abstract

Public and private transportation vehicles mostly burn fossil fuels. Even
today’s electric vehicles are powered by electricity originating largely from electric
power plants that burn fossil fuels. Only a small percentage of electricity is
generated by solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, or nuclear sources, all of
which do not depend upon combustion of fossil fuels. While battery-based
electrical vehicles are likely to expand rapidly, battery storage of electrical energy
may not be an optimal solution for the future of automotive power, and is certainly
not a solution for passenger and cargo aircraft. The evolution of fuels for powering
land and air transport vehicles is the purpose of this market analysis. The
conclusion of this study is that anhydrous ammonia manufactured with the use of
green hydrogen and green electricity will emerge to be the common fuel of the
future for all forms of transportation: land, sea, rail, and air.
Keywords: Automotive, aircraft, fuels, fossil, ammonia
 

Market Analysis for Future Transportation Fuels

Fuels Currently Used in Transportation Vehicles

The Oil and Gas industry dominate the production of the fuels used to power
automobiles, trucks, ships, and aircraft for transport of people, goods, and
commodities. While compressed natural gas and propane are used to power some
municipal buses, three forms of hydrocarbon fuels all distilled from crude oil
dominate: gasoline, kerosene/jet fuel, and diesel oil dominate ground and air
transportation. All such fossil-based fuels are burned in the vehicle to produce
power at varying degrees of efficiency, and all produce carbon dioxide (CO2) as a
byproduct of combustion and it is considered by most experts to be the greenhouse
gas most responsible for global warming.

It seems obvious that electric-powered vehicles (EV) are likely to replace
fossil-fueled vehicles, as recently required by the state of California by 2034. Even
so the power for battery-powered EVs generally comes from electric utilities that
still use combustion of fossil-based hydrocarbon fuels. Solar, wind, nuclear, hydro,
and geothermal sources (green electricity) still make up only a small, but modestly
increasing fraction of the electrical generation energy sources. Only the passenger
rail service, and to a lesser degree freight rail service, have developed a way to
directly power trains with electricity, but only over a small segment of the total US
rail service. Electrification of rail service is almost universal in Europe and Japan,
but not in the US due to the size of the US and the large capital investment
required to install electrical third-rails or catenary wiring. Even with electrified
trains, the source of electricity for rail use mostly comes from electric utilities that
burn fossil fuels. Interesting is that the common diesel-fueled locomotive for rail
transport actually has a number of electric motor traction engines with an on-board
diesel-fueled generator.

For most of the transportation sector, a way to store or create electrical
power in the moving vehicle itself must be found to allow random mobility of
vehicles. The most common electrical storage method has been use of rechargeable
batteries. The most common battery technology uses lithium/ion chemistry that is
known for its limited capacity, long re-charge times, and potential fire hazard due
to its flammable electrolyte. For automotive use, lithium/ion batteries are very
large, heavy, expensive, and flammable in some instances. Research continues to
develop solid-state batteries that promise higher capacity for the same weight,
faster re-charge cycle, more compact dimensions, and safer due to use of a nonflammable electrolyte. However, we are not there yet (2022).

Some use of fuel cells in which hydrogen is used to generate electricity and
power the vehicle is being used in some long-distance cargo vehicles, and in some
AGVs (Automated Guided Vehicles) used in warehouses and factories. There are a
few hydrogen/fuel cell powered automobiles being sold to test the market for such
architectures. Broad use of hydrogen fueled vehicles will depend upon the creation
of an all-new of a hydrogen distribution and dispensing network that currently does
not yet exist.

For passenger and freight aircraft electric power can only be used to rotate a
propeller, that is currently used in light aircraft, and was common prior to the jetage. It is unlikely to resume except for light aircraft and a few short-hop passenger
services. Longer distance aircraft will still require jet engines that burn nonhydrocarbon fuels such as hydrogen to avoid generation of greenhouse gasses.

More about Hydrogen

The fuel most publicized to replace hydrocarbons for both automotive and
aeronautic use is hydrogen. When hydrogen is burned with atmospheric oxygen,
only water vapor, some Nitrogen Oxide (NO), and heated nitrogen from the
atmosphere are produced in the exhaust. The environmental problem remains
however: where does all this hydrogen come from?

• Green Hydrogen – produced by the electrolysis of fresh (non-salt) water
using electricity produced by methods that do not release carbon dioxide to
the atmosphere (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, or nuclear.)

• Grey Hydrogen – the most common method (95%) for production of
hydrogen using a steam reforming of natural gas (methane) that produces
greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) as a byproduct that is currently vented
to the atmosphere.

• Blue Hydrogen – produced from hydrocarbon sources like Grey Hydrogen,
but adding carbon capture to the process so that carbon dioxide is not
released to the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide may be injected into old oil
wells to recover oil that no longer flows freely, or to just store the carbon
dioxide in underground voids. There are some other carbon-capture
processes that are being developed that are intended to avoid atmospheric
venting of carbon dioxide.

Economics of Grey or Blue hydrogen production strongly depends upon the price
of natural gas, the availability and price of green electricity, and the cost of
disposal of carbon dioxide. In mid-2022, where green electricity and fresh water is
available, green hydrogen can be produced for less than the cost of grey hydrogen.
However green electricity (solar) is often available with significant investment in
dessert areas where fresh water is not generally available, or in coastal areas (wind)
where the water has high salt content. Fortunately, green electricity from hydro
water power provides plenty of fresh water for electrolysis to produce green
hydrogen. Many nuclear generation sites also have access to fresh water for reactor
cooling as well, but nuclear power has fallen on disfavor, and for this study is
being deprecated. Perhaps electrolysis of salt water will prove to be economically
feasible as well using desalinization methods, but it is not yet developed. Perhaps
new geothermal processes will produce green electricity in locations where fresh
water is plentiful and where wind and solar are less feasible, but this too is
speculative.

Problems with distributing hydrogen.

Hydrogen gas cannot be transported in mild steel piping like natural gas. The
hydrogen molecule can permeate steel piping causing embrittlement and
potentially failure and leakage of the hydrogen. This means that hydrogen is NOT
a safe substitute for natural gas since specialized materials are required for its safe
pipeline distribution. Pressurized hydrogen gas can safely be stored or transported
in tanks or pipelines made of carbon fiber, 316 or 304 stainless steel.
Storage of hydrogen as a liquid appears infeasible since it would require
intense refrigeration to the liquid hydrogen boiling point -273oF. However,
advances in materials for hydrogen absorption and adsorption are being developed
that may enable such methods to safely transport hydrogen as an adsorbed gas in a
solid storage medium. The vehicle would then be required to carry the solid filled
adsorbent, the hydrogen, and the container plus any heating mechanism required to
de-adsorb the hydrogen. This too is speculative.

Finally, another approach to transport hydrogen is to change the chemical
composition from hydrogen to another non-carbon containing chemical that is
easily reacted to release hydrogen. There are two such chemicals: anhydrous
ammonia (NH3), and hydrazine (N2H4). Each of these molecules, hydrogen,
anhydrous ammonia, and hydrazine can be directly used in fuel cells to generate
electricity with only water and nitrogen as byproducts. Which one to be used in the
future requires an economic and logistical appraisal as follows:

• Hydrogen – under pressure, hydrogen may be stored in non-metallic tanks or
may be stored as a hydrate of a solid. Storage as a hydrate is a process called
adsorption and is under development. So far there are no conclusive results.
This also assumes that the adsorbed hydrogen will not become a hazard
worse than today’s gasoline tanks in case of an automobile collision. If the
hydrogen is stored as a compressed gas, the fuel tanks must be strong
enough to protect it in case of an accident because any released hydrogen
would be highly flammable.
• Anhydrous Ammonia – can be contained under moderate pressure in
lightweight steel tanks. In case of fuel tank rupture in an accident, the
released ammonia gas, being lighter than air, would rapidly dissipate and is
generally not flammable although it is highly toxic and an extreme irritant.
• Hydrazine – is only liquid above 28 degrees F (-2 deg. C), therefore must be
contained in steel tanks that can be heated. In case of fuel tank rupture in an
accident, hydrazine is highly flammable and would present a serious
explosive hazard.

Conclusion: Hydrazine is too hazardous for automotive use. Compressed hydrogen
presents several unanswered questions for fuel tank materials and weight and
presents a hazardous condition in case of accident. Anhydrous Ammonia seems to
be a less hazardous and more economic fuel of the future for automotive use.

More about Anhydrous Ammonia

Anhydrous ammonia can be considered as a safe way to transport and store
hydrogen. Anhydrous ammonia is easily converted to release hydrogen in the
presence of a Nickle catalyst such as in a solid oxide fuel cell. For jet aircraft use,
anhydrous ammonia can be heated with recirculated exhaust gases and passed
through a catalyst converting it to hydrogen for combustion in the jet engine with
heated nitrogen and water vapor as exhaust gases.
Anhydrous ammonia has been in mass production for many years as
fertilizer for many crops. The anhydrous ammonia is typically applied to the soil
before planting a crop in order to replenish the nitrogen that was used to grow the
previous harvest. This application has created a very large market for anhydrous
ammonia that is safely transported by truck or rail in lightly pressurized steel tanks.
However, most of today’s anhydrous ammonia is produced by a process that uses
hydrogen and steam to reform natural gas, but carbon dioxide is a byproduct. It
will take new plants to produce green anhydrous ammonia starting with green
hydrogen and nitrogen from the atmosphere (3 H2 + N2 –> 2 NH3) that uses ferric
oxide as a catalyst.

Conclusion

Now we have identified the fuel of the future: anhydrous ammonia for solid
oxide fuel cells in electric automobiles, buses, trucks, trains, and ships; it will also
power jet aircraft by decomposition with heat and catalyst to generate hydrogen
which is the combustion fuel.