Here is their marine version:

https://teco2030.no/solutions/teco-marine-fuel-cell/

' Advanced fuel conditioning system, enabling operations on compressed and liquid H2, ammonia, methanol and other H2 based carriers.'

Dunno whether that might come in handy on trucks.
Cummins are doing different versions of their trucking engines, each one modified for different fuels, so presumably it might.

Hi Gryf

There was a recent article here about a fuel cell system for smaller boats, which interested me but I can't seem to spot again.

In fact, I must apologize to folk here for my memory, as the likes of you, sd, SJC, and EP patiently address my questions, and I often forget!

A case in point, you referred to the use of LOHCs in trains, and I blathered on in reply, when ages ago, I find on re-reading some articles and comments, you posted this excellent link:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ese3.646

It looks as though there is good prospect of solving the issues, and that when I was repeating that the system of compressed hydrogen works, the distances etc could be increased and safety and convenience enhanced, which is why Siemens which already have compressed NG trains is developing LOHC ones:

https://www.environmentalleader.com/2021/07/siemens-tests-lohc-technology-for-hydrogen-trains/

So I am not only the slow student at the back of the class, but the forgetful one too!

Thanks everybody, for bearing with me.

Here is the article on smaller systems for boats I was thinking of:

https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/torqeedo-takes-on-hydrogen-fuel-cells-for-emission-free-boating-2/

Dunno I would fancy hydrogen though, methanol or something should be way better on a boat

@sd

My attitude has always been, if the product fits the application, use it!

What I tend to dispute is the wisdom of 'first principles' sweeping judgements for whole areas of technology.

So just as for road trucking, if a BEV train does the job, that's fine.

Alstom are the leaders in fuel cell trains, and those are actually in service, with other areas to introduce them after their early successes, and they give a rather greater operating envelope.

Whilst you are about, I'd like to pick your brains on the Piasecki PA 890

After re-reading the stuff here and elsewhere on it, I would put it at the top of the list for likely successful early introduction, as perhaps certification may be somewhat easier with the substantial use of many tried and tested helicopter systems?

And unlike Toyota and their Joby investment, they are experts in aviation, not a car manufacturer trying their hand at it, whilst for the Joby and several other designs they are full of rotating this and that, often heavy and complex parts.

The wing on the Piasecki should be relatively simple to rotate?

They are aiming at the same market as Beta Technologies, but perhaps their design is rather more conservative in using tested components?

However, what battery density they are assuming is not specified, whilst Beta are explicit.

What is your assessment?

Apologies if this is something which you have addressed in detail elsewhere, and I did not understand or have forgotten!

Thanks Gryf

To put you on the spot, what is your assessment of the Piasecki vs Beta Technologies?

They are aiming at the same customers!

The Piasecki is basically a helicopter with different flight characteristics than the Beta Alia-250 which is a VTOL/CTOL aircraft. While both could be used as Air taxis they really do have different missions. If you need hover capability, possibly for search and rescue than you need a helicopter. If you are going point to point, than the Beta Alia-250 works great. Though I do not have exact specs it looks like it has a Disk Loading like a CV-22 (20.9 lb/sq ft assuming 10 ft rotors), while the PA-890 is much better.

I am not a fan of Liquid H2 for aircraft. It is technically possible (the Soviet Union flew the TU-155 in 1988 and Lockheed did research on the Suntan CL-400 in 1956 . . Clarence “Kelly” Johnson, one of the greatest aviation designers of all time reportedly told the Air Force, “I’m building you a dog,” and recommended cancellation of the program.)
Liquid hydrogen is a terrific fuel on a per-weight basis, it isn’t very dense. It thus occupies a much higher volume than other fuels. More volume means more skin area for the vehicle. This isn’t that much of a problem for a rocket, however for an aircraft it means more drag and more fuel.
Safety, cost, reliability, flying around in a DO328 which is not very large and needs 2x1.5 MW fuel cells, BoP made of Inconel, Multi-Megawatt electric motors. Definitely take the R&D money from the German government if only for science value. By 2050, we may even be flying Aneutronic Fusion powered aircraft by then for all I know.

The efficiencies and power densities of fuel cells will be no match for Geared Turbofan with a STIG cycle.
https://www.mtu.de/newsroom/press/press-archive/press-archive-detail/blazing-new-trails-mtu-aero-engines-showcases-innovative-evolutionary-and-revolutionary-technologies-for-commercial-aircraft-at-the-2019-paris-air-show-1/
An Airbus 220 with the MTU turbofans (currently uses PW1500 Geared Turbofans which MTU has a 15% stake). This aircraft would seat 150 passengers, cruise at 470 knots and have a range of over 6,700 km.
So burning SAF, you may only get a 60% reduction of GHG compared to 75% GHG reduction for the hypothetical LH2 FC Aircraft that will have a per seat cost at least 3X (remember water vapor is a GHG).
Airbus obviously knows all of this, too.

Here is Airbus on their efforts to provide storage for liquid hydrogen:

https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/news/2021-12-how-to-store-liquid-hydrogen-for-zero-emission-flight

They fairly point out the issues of using hydrogen for flying as opposed to rockets, and are going for metal at first before trying to move to composites etc.

Will it work?
Dunno, but I think that the engineers there think they can make it work, or at least it is worth the attempt, as for really big companies as opposed to start ups which can take government money then fold, with the founders departing with loot, 'cough' Nikola, 'cough', they are going to get government money pumped into them whatever their technical choices, so they are going to do loads better if they pick one that works.

Of course, their R & D department may have managed to mislead senior management on the likelihood of success for their favoured options! :-(

The 3 times the seat costs for fuel cell planes is just a cursory comparison to an expensive 3 MW fuel cell powered Q400 which currently carries 50 passengers (a large part of the cabin will be filled by the LH2 tank, so maybe 35-40 passengers).
The A220 is a popular, very efficient 150 passenger aircraft with a low seat cost due to the P&W PW1500G Geared Turbofans. If these are enhanced with a STIG cycle they would be just as efficient as a fuel cell.
The Airbus reference points out many of the same issues I have stated. One particular point:
“ . . . weight and volume are critical for aircraft. To go further still, we can dial down the temperature to -253°C. That’s when hydrogen transforms itself from a gas to a liquid, increasing its energy density even more. Returning to our example, four litres of liquid hydrogen would be the equivalent of one litre of standard jet fuel .”

Still 4:1 kerosene advantage. Those metallic tanks could be aluminum, but everything else must be steel or Inconel, i.e, valves, tubing, fittings,etc.
We have have not even started on infrastructure costs or additional expense of converting hydrogen from a gas to a liquid which would be substantial no matter what the color of H2.
Then we have “Safety”, think about flying an LH2 aircraft 40 years.