The Hindenburg and Hydrogen






There was a time, before the Second World War, when air transport was dominated by zeppelins —which are basically self-propelled aerostats that remained in the air thanks to being filled with hydrogen, which, being lighter than oxygen, allowed aerostatic lift. Also known as dirigibles, zeppelins had as their basic principle a rigid structure that supported the walls of the balloon where the hydrogen was located.

Since the 1890s, Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin began the development of the rigid dirigible that, finally, bore his name and was completed in 1900. The LZ-1, as the first zeppelin was called, measured 128 meters long.

The first airline in the world, DELAG, operated seven zeppelins in 1914. By then it had already transported almost 35,000 passengers on more than 1,500 commercial flights, accumulating more than 170,000 kilometers and more than 3,000 hours of travel. The First World War stopped the advance of commercial flights, since the German army took DELAG’s aircraft to use them in combat.

By the end of the war, the British developed their own zeppelins, with the R34 being the first to cross the Atlantic in July 1919. After several attempts, in 1931, DELAG —using the LZ-127 of the Zeppelin company— launched several national, regional and transatlantic routes; there was even a route between Germany and South America. At that time, zeppelins were far ahead of the capabilities of airplanes; by 1937, around 140 transatlantic trips and a complete trip around the world in an airship had been made.

However, in 1937 the future of zeppelins ended in tragedy with the Hindenburg disaster. On May 6, the German aircraft LZ-129 of the Hindenburg class caught fire in New Jersey, United States. Of the 97 people on board, among passengers and crew members, 35 died.

Although there are different theories regarding the cause of the tragedy, the dominant one indicates that a spark caused by static provoked a chain reaction that, due to the large amount of hydrogen inside the zeppelin, caused it to ignite and magnified the tragedy.

Hydrogen is highly flammable and is considered a high-power fuel that burns at high speed and with great force. It is normally used in industries that require high power, such as aerospace, particularly in rocket launches.

Despite the fact that incidents related to hydrogen, such as that of the Hindenburg, have had great relevance, in reality hydrogen as a fuel is potentially safer than petroleum derivatives such as gasoline and diesel. When these petroleum products spill and ignite, it is highly probable that the fire will last a considerable time. In contrast, in an accident related to hydrogen, it tends to disperse quickly, rising at a speed of 72 kilometers per hour into the atmosphere; in case of fire, the fire generated has less heat because of the absence of carbon, so it goes out quickly.

The lesson of the Hindenburg was not the colossal impact for the time derived from its fire, but rather that, in reality, it demonstrated that hydrogen, although more unstable, can be safer. In that sense, there remains an important area of opportunity before speaking of hydrogen service stations and hydrogen automobiles: increasing the safety associated with its storage and distribution, much of which has been learned thanks to the development of the conventional automobile industry.

This article was originally published by Business Insider México.
Date: December 9, 2020
Original Link: https://businessinsider.mx/hindenburg-accidentes-hidrogeno-combustible-opinion-energia-circular/ [offline]
Archived Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240424101358/https://businessinsider.mx/hindenburg-accidentes-hidrogeno-combustible-opinion-energia-circular/ [Archived]

Electric Cars in Flames






Those who follow Formula 1 will have seen that last Sunday at the Bahrain Grand Prix, the French driver Romain Grosjean suffered a spectacular accident. To his good fortune, he did not suffer serious injuries, but the flames of the accident inspired me for this column.

In one maneuver, Grosjean crashes into the containment wall, splitting the car in half and immediately causing an explosion. The flames were impressive; however, in seconds the F1 team was trying to put out the fire and open a space so that the driver could get out from among the flames. No more than 30 seconds passed between the impact and Grosjean’s exit.

We are used to seeing these scenes: after an accident, a conventional car runs the risk of catching fire. Normally, we see that water or chemical extinguishers are used to put out the fire. What this seeks is to isolate the fuel to control the fire and prevent another one from starting. But electric cars bring their own challenges and this works differently.

A conventional electric car could require up to 1,125 liters of water per minute and up to 24 hours to be extinguished. Why? Well, basically, because the fire of a lithium battery in electric cars cannot be extinguished; it will continue until all the cells are consumed.

The batteries of electric cars are composed of many cells that are grouped into modules and, in turn, into packs. The batteries of electric cars can have one or several packs and, in the event of a short circuit, the fire can reach a temperature of 2,700 degrees Celsius. To give you an idea, the fire of a conventional car is 800 degrees Celsius, that is, a fire of an electric car is three times more intense.

Once at the place, the protocol changes. What is sought is not to put out the fire but to reduce the heat enough to be able to activate the mechanisms that separate the modules and avoid a chain reaction and, at the same time, remove other objects at risk, for example, nearby cars in a parking lot. If this is not possible, the car will continue burning for approximately 24 hours.

Water extinguishers are the tool of choice because of the way the chain reaction of the fire in the battery pack works. However, it must be used following certain precautions because, given the heat, water can separate into its components, oxygen and hydrogen, causing a violent flare-up by providing the combustion with more oxidizing agent.

But it does not end there; there are other associated risks: electric shock, heat burns, chemical burns, toxic smoke. The worst? If the dismantling protocols are not followed to stop the chain reaction, the battery could catch fire again in a period no longer than 24 hours.

The accident in Formula 1 demonstrates the technological, safety and protocol advances that we have in fires of conventional cars. But electric cars change the game; if the car that Grosjean crashed had been electric, perhaps the result would not have been so favorable.

As electric cars become widespread and become the rule, the challenge of electric car fires will increase, but this period represents the most complicated learning curve for all countries. In Mexico, we are still in time to begin designing the necessary protocols to prepare ourselves for this new reality and include the large batteries of mass transport.

This article was originally published by Business Insider México.
Date: December 2, 2020
Original Link: https://businessinsider.mx/autos-electricos-accidentes-llamas-opinion-energia-circular-paul-sanchez/ [offline]
Archived Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240715042612/https://businessinsider.mx/autos-electricos-accidentes-llamas-opinion-energia-circular-paul-sanchez/ [Archived]

Cemetery for Renewable Technologies






I shared with you in a previous installment that the waste of the future has to do with the technology that is used. Just as today we see dumps of tires or technological waste —such as computers and cellphones—, in the future we could be witnesses of dumps of solar panels and batteries. If this is a possibility, then, should we not be planning a cemetery for renewable technologies with the purpose of conducting them in an appropriate and sustainable way to their final resting place?

It is expected that in the coming years there will be a boom regarding distributed generation on rooftops. For example, San Francisco has already passed a law that prevents new residential constructions from using fossil fuels. If this trend continues, the solar panels and batteries that will be part of the everyday landscape of the future must be disposed of responsibly.

This cemetery of renewable technologies is not a conventional dump; because it requires a recycling and treatment process to, first, reuse the greatest possible part of the discarded materials; second, to dispose of in a sustainable and adequate way the waste that can have a negative impact on the soil and the environment.

Regarding solar panels, conventionally more than 75% of these is glass that can be recycled without much problem; 10% is plastic, 10% metals and 5% silicon. Perhaps the greatest value of recycled panels is the metals, which are mainly aluminum, silver and copper. Although aluminum is easy to extract, silver and copper require more complex chemical processes that can reduce the recovery of plastic and glass.

Batteries, for their part, can have a somewhat more complicated process because, although they have iron, aluminum, plastic and copper, there are also chemicals in liquid state of lithium, nickel, cobalt and other substances. The final disposal of batteries is more complex than that of solar panels since the cells represent chemical risk that can derive in fires and burns; poisoning by toxic substances in the environment and causing cancer.

In this way, the cemetery for batteries must be much more careful since the greatest part of the materials must be recovered through physical, chemical separation and by means of heat; subsequently, safely storing those substances that represent risks to the health and safety of communities.

The recycling and final disposal of renewable technologies, due to their complexities, is not a cheap process. Despite this, it is rarely considered in the budgets of installers, leaving under the protection of the final consumer the responsibility of replacing and safely disposing of these components.

This, at the end of the useful life of the technology, would represent a cost not considered at the moment when the renewable solution was budgeted. In this sense, the real savings would be adjusted downward and in a single exhibition, which would imply allocating more resources for the removal and disposal of the technology.

For these reasons, in Europe the extended responsibility of the producer has been promoted, which requires all producers to consider in their prices and within their responsibilities the removal of solar panels and batteries that are installed in homes, businesses and other buildings; with the purpose that the final cost also reflects the cost of getting rid of these technologies when their useful life ends. In Mexico, we are still in time to promote the extended responsibility of the producer and the minimum standards to dispose of renewable technologies —this cemetery for renewable technologies—, before it becomes a public problem that gets out of our hands. At the end of the day this is the principle of circular energy.

This article was originally published by Business Insider México.
Date: November 25, 2020
Original Link: https://businessinsider.mx/cementerio-tecnologias-renovables-opinion-paul-alejandro-sanchez-energia-circular/ [offline]
Archived Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20211023143433/https://businessinsider.mx/cementerio-tecnologias-renovables-opinion-paul-alejandro-sanchez-energia-circular/ [Archived]