Former USAF flight surgeon and undergrad chemistry major here. Hydrogen has a very low energy density per volume and must be stored under immense pressure and/or low temperatures in order to have adequate energy to power anything other than very short flights. That requires very heavy, very expensive alloys. The very tiny molecule hydrogen literally seeps into metals and other materials causing “hydrogen embrittlement” and accelerating material fatigue. Extremely low temperatures make all materials less malleable and more prone to sudden, catastrophic fracture. Metals are bad, but plastics and other polymers can be even worse at low temperatures. Maintaining the necessary low temperatures adds even more weight and energy expenditure not directed to flight. Air pressure decreases with altitude magnifying the material stresses even more. The repeated ascents and descents under such immense pressure changes induce accelerated material fatigue. Temperatures also drop precipitously at altitude. H2 fuel cells and their platinum or iridium catalysts do very poorly at low temperatures. Direct combustion is more plausible, but H2 is incredibly explosive if a leak develops. Shut-off valves work well with liquid jet fuel, but much less well with gaseous H2 under immense pressure. All of the fuel lines and valves must be able to withstand all of the radical changes in pressure and temperature as well as the bulk H2 storage tanks. All of this adds immensely to weight which in turn stresses the non-fuel portions of the airframe and reduces flight efficiencies. We perform non-destructive stress damage analysis on current planes. This would needed to be performed even more sedulously on hydrogen planes. More delays and costs. Hydrogen-powered ships-yes; hydrogen-powered planes-I respectfully have my reservations. I hope they prove me wrong, but I heard none of these issues addressed to any significant degree. I am willing to be persuaded. Best wishes.
I love your comment. You disagree with the thesis of the video, provide adequate reasoning why, listed your former profession/education without any appeal to authority, but are willing to be proven wrong if something new comes along to refute old knowledge. Personally, I think China is on to something with what I heard was ceramic or nano-ceramic lining for hydrogen tanks (I might have misheard, or gotten a bad translation). It's time to hack the Chinese to listen in on their scientific research, get some payback for their decades of IP theft of US secrets
All true and correct, however technology marches on and is unstoppable. It is possible that with aid of AI new trypes of impermeable lattices could be developed to counter the seepage properties of H2.
I love how aviation is always talked about so heavily but the useless cruise ship industry is never mentioned. One ship burning “bunker oil” is equivalent pollution to 5 million cars per day but I guess that’s okay?…
@@joaodorjmanolo gee! What a solution even if you close both canals that won't make a difference in emissions. Also I like to see what panama says about closing or restricting their canal for the environment's sake.
What> sot Nitrous Oxide emissions and lung disease in preference of carbon emissions and sunburn?, The solution is with US. We stop flying. The flight companies won't stop the supply unless the demand disappears. so it is the job of the public to renounce air travel to bring change, not the job of the companies to reduce emissions. It is us the people doing international travel all the time that are the root of the problem. Demand creates supply
I'd like to see a documentary like this that includes some explanation of fuel storage and transportation 'why' and 'how' -- including descriptions of storage container weight, materials and construction; compression and cooling equipment design and costs (up-front capital, O&M, energy (kWh) required to run it), and; transport and storage compression pressures -- in order to help viewers understand why a fuel with, "...the highest energy per mass of any fuel..." has to be compressed to 13,000 psi or cryogenically cooled before it's useful in an aircraft, car or truck. This would help viewers appreciate what it actually takes to achieve and sustain 13,000 psi or minus 425F, and the challenges created by such pressures and temperatures during transporting and storage as compared to traditional liquid fuels.
Well CNBC, you pick a bunch of people who happens to be working on hydrogen fueled engines to advocate for hydrogen powered airplanes and give an impression that there really is no other way to get to net zero emission in this industry...
HYDROGEN being the smallest atom in the universe is EXTREMELY hard to store because it just leaks from containers, that and the fact that hydrogen is also extremely flammable which means every leak has the potential for disaster.
You can store it without a loss today. And it's very hard to ignite because it vapourise as soon as it comes in contact with the air. These people are not stupid.
@@heinedenmark Hydrogen storage technology has gotten to the point where it can be safely used in motor vehicles where the danger of impact and damage to storage tank is higher than that of aircraft. However, hydrogen tanks in airplanes are exposed to altitude which means large pressure differences to deal with and higher risks of failure and malfunction. Plus, aviation approval and certification of hydrogen fuel for use in airplane is a real nightmare that will take a long time, because any new aircraft technology has to have high redundancy and thoroughly verified to be safe.
@@nomercy411 Storing hydrogen in liquid form is a viable option with one drawback, it requires storage tanks to be cooled to very low temperatures. In aviation world that means increased size, weight and complexity which is bad news because increase in weight alone is enough to not even consider that option. The only practical solution is combine hydrogen gas with another molecule to form a bistable compound which can be broken down to release the hydrogen when needed. However that is technology is still in its infancy and a lot of research and development needs to be done.
Aviation is where hydrogen makes the most sense to start a hydrogen economy. Next would be replacing natural gas with hydrogen. Then hydrogen for trains, busses, trucks, and finally passenger cars. Hydrogen is a great way of storing and transmitting energy. There are however a number of technical, safety, and economic hurdles to overcome. Hydrogen can be produced from water and electricity. Renewable, nuclear, or even fossil fuels. Thus hydrogen could ultimately be not only the cleanest fuel, but also the cheapest fuel.
Hydrogen powered aircraft was investigated back in the 1970s. It wasn't economical back then for large aircraft and I doubt it will now. One of the drawbacks was storing large quantities of hydrogen at an airport.
Yes but in the 70s it was competing against aviation fuel. Now we've mode on quite a lot of progress in materials science and it's competition is a very expensive inefficient storage medium in batteries.
Electric vehicle also start around early 19s and dies out after that. Now it's increased in demand and competitive than the fossil fuel. Things is fossil fuel company are so powerful that they can monopoly the market to stop any competitor in the market and hinder humanity from going forward. Only now with the present of Internet that people start to realise how bad it is that this kind of company existed. Judging from your statement I can say that fossil fuel company do a good job in setting the mindset of general people
@@stoney202 nope, physics never change, nothign changedm hydrogen has 0 advantages over any other fuel, it is absolutely terrible at everything, especially energy storage. it doesnt even remotely come close to even fossil, and heck, hydrogen is fossil anyway. 97% of worlds hydrogen is made with gas reformation from natural gas because its insanely cheaper than electrolysis. this is one of the many hundred reasons why not to use hydrogen for anything but making steel by burning it. battery electric will power everything, hydrogen still is nonsense.
I wonder how much of that decision was down to the oil industry saying that it is not feasible. They probably came up with their own "studies" stating that it is " not yet up to scratch", thereby ensuring that oil gets burned another 50 years before people start freaking out.
No matter if the medium is battery, hydrogen, or whatever; it is only a medium. We need a massive increase in non-fossil electricity capacity to power all of these vehicles, and it needs to start now because it is going to take a while to get there. This needs to be addressed.
i find it worrying that no one seemed to put spotlight on how the Big Oil is doing. The world is trying to rob them of their trillion-dollar profits. i don't think they'll just stay silent. i am worried because i believe if Big Oil isnt scheming things behind the scenes, i'm sure all-non fossil fuels will be successful. energy is our constant need.
That's actually NOT what is needed, we already have overcapacity of renewable power at least in some parts of the country. Like it or not, we need backup fossil fuel power for windless/cloudy days or we need affordable energy storage, which is not looking viable yet. So we are being forced on an arbitrary time table towards power shortages as a way of life, along with absurdly expensive power.
In a way, even hydrocarbon is some kind of battery. Plants absorb the energy from the sun and convert it to carbohydrate as energy storage. When the plant died they got buried deep overtime. The fibrous part was petrified, and the carbohydrate was refined by pressure and heat into hydrocarbon.
One thing is true, Hydrogen is potentially the best option. But thats when you just see in context on a fuel to engine. But when you see supply chain, whole big cargo planes , Hydrogen generation and transportation Then you realize its still in infancy stage.
We will soon get abundant renewable energy, so creating hydrogen from water will get cheap. It seems these new companies could gain a lot of market share from Airbus and Boeing much earlier than these two legacy companies realize their plans for sustainable planes.
Electric Trams are probably the ultimate form of green transport as the batteries are not carried on the vehicle itself but soo much focus is being placed on electric cars 🤷
OK, I'm an engineer and that will not work in the next decades, AT ALL. You need an insane amount of fuel cells to get enough power and that WILL BE EXTREMELY expensive. That will quadrupple sixtuple the ticket costs, when planes get a multiple price increase. There is currently no H2 industrie that delivers H2 in large quantities and the one that exist is even more expensive than gasoline and oil, which is already too expensive.
Electric motors may be able to beat the conventional piston engine, but it is no match for jet engines. Jet engines can beat electric motors within a blink of an eye
@@Negev-Israel No, you are mistaken my friend: jet engines are even worse than piston engines, you get a lot more blow by (fuel that is not used, but just blown out), everything you can do with a turbine with combustion, you can do 4 times more efficient with a electric motor, they have more torque, they are almost 100% efficient (piston engines only reach like 20%) and they don't need any maintenance. That is by the way why turbines are preferred to pistons: much less maintenance. You unfortunately can't see this and have no vision for the future where things change, all you can see is the status quo. You are unable to better or change the world due to this. The most powerful engines in the world are not turbines and they are not piston engines, but electric, because electric has no size limit how much power you can put in them and that is why in the world today, most powerful engines are all electric.
@@nigratruo perhaps you should touch grass. You are using the same logic of comparing electric cars with gas cars. An electric car can win against gas car, hands down. But in aviation, things are different.
@@nigratruo EDF or electric duct fans are the alternative for jet engines. They are not able to produce enough trust as a jet engine of a similar size. Also, the efficiency of a jet engine increases with increase in speed. Not to mention the heavy battery. The only advantage and EDF has over a jet engine is the instant acceleration, responsiveness and fine tuning. The efficiency of an electric motor might be higher, but it will go down with increase in weight due to bigger motors requiring a larger battery, which requires more thrust and in turn draws more current and this cycle of inefficiency continues. Fun fact: the starter of a jet engine is not an electric motor because of its heavy weight. Instead, it uses an air turbine starter.
Why is it logical to consume cheap electricity to produce hydrogen and use more energy to change it to a liquid and then convert it back to a gas to burn it in an inefficient engine to produce electricity?
CNBC does top-notch documentaries, interesting and well researched. Ammonia is really the key here...too bad there was no mention of it (though this doc was focused on H2)...NH3 is a better H2 carrier than liquid hydrogen....about twice as much and its in liquid form can be held at a much lower pressure about 10 bar (while H2 gas is at 700 bar)...that's the real future imo. Ofc NH3 is a toxic substance, so we'd need to handle it better than we do gasoline (as it can cause blindness), but for decarbonizing, it's the pinnacle for an alternate energy source.
I've seen some research into NH3 fuel cells. It's efficiency is at 62% vs hydrogen at 70%. I'd say it isn't too far away. Ammonia fuel cells seem quite interesting as we already have a pretty strong Ammonia production pipeline.
@@wakannnai1 Ya that's pretty amazing, though I've heard NH3 FC's are SOFC's that work at a very high temp requiring special materials...so more costly. The other option is cracking the ammonia to H2 and using in a traditional pem fuel cell. If I recall SOFC's are also multifuel, so you can run on other sources as well...but a direct NH3 fc would be best...still cracking it is not a bad alternative.
Can’t they target the private jet industry as a starting point? Private jets carbon footprints are much heavier per person than a commercial jet. It also gives them the opportunity to create more evidence and experiences using the new fuel type so it gains traction and becomes more standardized. Just a thought
Brilliant Coverage in Hydrogen usage in aircraft! Thank you for sharing this important topic in in aviation fuel alternatives. Greetings from Madang, Papua New Guinea!
Quels sont les avantages de ce moteur par rapport aux autres moteurs à essence existants : peut-il être plus rapide (plus de 1 500 kilomètres par heure), avoir une autonomie plus longue, être plus doux et plus silencieux ? Puis-je transporter un tonnage plus lourd (par exemple, deux fois le tonnage du Beluga XL d’Airbus) ? Les batteries peuvent-elles atteindre une puissance de 20 à 50 mégawatts tout en conservant des dimensions appropriées ? Pourrait-il être plus automatisé/plus facile à entretenir et à gérer ? Existe-t-il une capacité de production en volume dans la région européenne ou dans la région de l’Atlantique Nord ? Nous espérons que les ingénieurs et les équipes auront des objectifs clairs et éviteront de concevoir des produits ayant un positionnement difficile sur le marché et un développement lent.
I like the idea of a combination of two fuels: Catalytically derived, cellulosic or algae biobutanol for landings and takeoffs; Then a switchover to ammonia (NH⁴) for cruising. Might be the easy & quick low CO² fuel path. I think speed & 'anti-absolecence' is important to avoid the increase in CO² from the manufacturing of new aircraft right away.
Những phương tiện hàng không tốc độ cao rất cần thiết cho nhu cầu thu hoạch kiến thức trí tuệ ngoài không gian hay lắm, cảm ơn video chia sẻ của bạn chúc bạn sức khỏe và hạnh phúc.
If I was a scientist, I would make a research about how to overcome gravitational forces of the earth by deflecting or changing the direction of gravitational forces to enable aircrafts fly with a minimum amount of fuel. 1. Define gravitational forces. How can we reverse it or cancel it? Can we build a machine that could make it possible? 2. Is that possible to find a material to isolate or deflect gravitational forces 3. Can we convert gravitational forces into a power source? I'm quite sure that somebody could take the challange & make it possible, like Wright Brothers. If we can convert sunlight into electricity by using solar panels why can't we achieve creating weightlessness by harnessing gravitational forces?
As a child in the fifth grade in the 1960s I learned from a science textbook how to make hydrogen and oxygen from water using electrolysis. Since then I have always wondered why not just connect a solar cell or windmill generator to a water electrolysis device and use wind or solar energy to make hydrogen. I guess there are technical reasons why this won't work. This video mentions that storing hydrogen as a gas takes a lot of room and storing as a liquid requires super cooling equipment. Hopefully scientists will come up with an answer to these issues and soon.
You can't store hydrogen fuel in the wings unlike conventional fuels which can, which is why it's still not a great fuel for airplanes. However, hydrogen is a great fuel for hybrid airships
Cool video. Unfortunately, I suspect hydrogen will take longer to supplant the current air travel logistics than declared, but it will eventually happen. In the nearer term though, I suspect some mix of biofuels and carbon neutral synthetic efuels will be what initially decarbonizes air travel before hydrogen tech is able to become a superior technology. To get the ball rolling I suggest legislating that private jets be LEGALLY REQUIRED to use carbon neutral fuels, be they biofuels, efuels, green hydrogen, direct electricity, or something else. This will help stimulate the market and development to make these technologies become more available at larger scale by having those who CAN pay the premium, do so in the early days.
Sarawak state in East Malaysia is building the biggest Mathenol plant in South East Asia to produce hydrogen. Sarawak also producing SAF from Microalgae for clean aircraft fuel.....this is the safest and clean environmental power for the future....
The main issue is the production of hydrogen. The conventional method of hydrogen production involving the use of methane and fossil fuels ends up producing CO2 as a byproduct. The alternative method of using electrolysis of water is very expensive and a net energy sinking process because the amount to energy required to split water is higher than the amount of energy released in burning hydrogen if the efficiency of the entire process is taken into account.
create a hydrogen factory on space using solar energy and space mining, pollution ,lack of resources ,war ,personal interest GONE FOR GOOD ,there's is abundance of everything we need in space, we just have to design a space factory XD
Mungkin kita harus memikirkan bahwa permodelan dalam susunan kinerja peralatan mempunyai rangkaian yang baru dan mungkin berbeda dari yang sebelumnya . Ini suatu konsep rekayasa baru yang bisa membuat para peneliti tidak terfokus pada permodelan yang sudah ada saja melainkan pembaharuan model dan rangkaian sistem yang harus mulai dirubah
Under the Challenges section, I was hoping for some realistic discussion of safety in the storage, transportation and use of hydrogen. Another thought was that adapting regional aircraft to use hydrogen is a less effective emissions control measure than simply eliminating short-hop regional commercial flights via regulations, like France has done, and Spain is considering doing. Both have excellent train networks that can provide equally efficient (in some cases more efficient) regional travel options.
You can't increase the density of liquid hydrogen, but you can build planes with bigger tanks. Nonstop transatlantic flights with hydrogen should be no problem.
Theoretically, you could achieve a higher density with cryo-compressed supercritical hydrogen, but due to the high weight of pressure tanks, it's no reasonable option for planes.
Yes look at Japan, even normaal high speed trains can do 500KM an hour maglev can be even better ans no need for batteries and use greenisch energy. Not in regular service but look at the video "tgv record 574.8 km" they did that with a normal train and track.
@@RoderikvanReekum not a normal train tho, iirc they stripped it of some things and had different motors and such in it. But having regular trains drive services at 500km/h isn't doable. The wear on the train and tracks is way too much for now
They aren't combusting hydrogen. The cell combines hydrogen with oxygen and the chemical reaction produces electricity. It's safer than current combustion engines. They don't need hydrogen combustion engines unless it's something like a jet fighters, which in that case, yes, they are essentially flying a hydrogen bomb.
Commercial aviation is maybe the only one industry people shouldn't mind. Btw, private emissions aren't mentioned on this, they pollute more per person than commercial ones. Will they be regulated as well? No... ? Yeah, as I thought...
they will be regulated, their per person emissions dont matter as much since their total contribution is low, that’s why commercial craft are priority to change first
the problem with Hydrogen is the cost in energy and other resources in producing pure hydrogen, storing it, distributing it, so all the advantages of hydrogen quickly evaporate when you add up all the cost. We need research on reducing the cost of all of this before we can make good use of hydrogen.
There is no "extra electricity". Any power diverted to manufacture "green hydrogen" means less power to offset power generation by burning fuels. As converting energy into a chemical fuel to be later converted back into energy elsewhere (especially hydrogen) represents major loss of efficiency it only serves to increase net CO2 emissions over if power had been directly used by the energy grid. Also, before all this money gets dumped into hydrogen as an energy carrier I'd like to see estimates of how much hydrogen leaks into the environment during its production, transportation, storage, and conversion. Leaked hydrogen quickly rises into the high atmosphere and depletes the Ozone layer and creates the greenhouse gas water vapor in the high and normally dry layers of the atmosphere.
We had a Hydrogen powered airplane in the past. It's called the Hindenburg. The only difference now is the tank pressure is 10,000 PSI or more. Imagine the damage it could unleash.
LZ 129 Hindenburg was no airplane, but an airship. At it was not powered by hydrogen, but by diesel fuel. And hydrogen powered airplanes will rather use cryo-cooled liquid hydrogen, not pressurized hydrogen. Of course, the safety effort will be higher than with kerosene, nevertheless there is not much similarity to an airship with hydrogen "balloons" for lift.
Hydrogen powered vehicles, aircraft or space rockets require that engineers succeed in completely sealing hydrogen containers so that the tiny molecules cannot escape. This makes for extremely complicated valve technology, which to date has only been partially successful.
If aircraft are responsible for ONLY 2.5% of global emissions, then they're not the problem; they're the solution, especially when considering that 4.5 billion passengers (out of a 7 billion world population) travel by aircraft each year.
But this number is going up rapidly, as global fleets are increasing and other areas are being cleaned up. It'll look very different in 20 years time if we don't act now.
you can't compare population to passengers as people take multiple fights. For instance, you can half that instantly due to the fact people like to get home after they've flown.
I wonder if they have considered flying boats? It might be a good solution for building larger planes with less energy dense fuel, it's how range issues were combatted with early airlines and postal aircraft 😊
You don't really need hydrogen to reach 0 CO2 emission goal. You can just produce a conventional aviation fuel from plant sources. For example corn is used to produce fuel in Brazil. Whatever CO2 produced by such fuels will be re-absorbed by the plants to produce oxygen. So overall the total net emission of CO2 would be 0. If there is not enough land for planting, they can use sea and using algae, the same goal is achieved. This is much less costly and can re-use the existing airplanes and technology.
I'm doing research in this area. The problem with hydrogen is that the molecules are so small that they will phase out of any storage tank you place them in. Combine that with hydrogen's explosive reaction to being mixed with air, and that is a massive problem. The only solution (I believe) is using ammonia as a storage molecule for hydrogen, then cracking the molecule to release the hydrogen. Then it's a matter of mitigating the NOx emissions from this process, which can worsen climate change more than CO2.
believe it or not, Hydrogen powered aircraft been around since 1957 they had the Martin B-57B of the NACA, and Russian had a hydrogen plane in 1988 which was a Tu-155
Problem is us the people flying everywhere. If we stop then the problem stops. Don't blame the air companies, blame human proletarians flying to Benidorm for a holiday It is us the people who need to renounce flying, not expect the companies to solve it
It would be awesome if hydrogen somehow could work. Working around jets is hard when you have to breathe in all their unhealthy exhaust, which there’s a lot of
Not discussed is that burning hydrogen in a conventional turbine engine requires oxygen. To save weight, that oxygen will come from ambiant air which contains nitrogen. The result of that combustion will also generate not desirable NOx
Wouldn't it be better to find a green way to produce jet fuel? You wouldn't need to produce any new technology and it would work with existing engines.
The biggest problem with hydrogen fuel is storage. This isn't like jet fuel sitting in a tank. The tech behind hydrogen fuel storage requires a skilled ground crew at every airport that services these types of aircraft. Just this past year, we've seen a number of ground crew accidents that involve things as simple as towing an airplane so it doesn't hit a building, or not standing in front of a running engine that they were told repeatedly was dangerous. Are they really competent enough to safely handle pressurized hydrogen?
I think an electrical plane is much better and safer than an H2 powered plane because A) H2 is extremely light and to keep it for the entire flight you need some extremely heavy alloy B) H2 can sneak between any gaps and mix with oxygen which will cause an explosion C) it's not clear how H2 powered engine is gonna work and D) like with a nuclear powered vehicle a plane powered by H2 will be extremely expensive to produce
How so? The atmosphere contains 0.04% Co2. If that was reduced by half to 0.02%, then every living plant on the planet would stop photosynthesising and die. We need MORE CO2, not less. Why do you think Dutch farmers pump CO2 into their greenhouses?! to promote faster growing, larger crops with better yields. You want more crops, with bigger, healthier yields to feed more people? we need more CO2, not less.
think one of the worst ideas the modern era could come up with is fully electric planes, batteries explodes, starts fires, gets sudden power drains depending on temperature, run out of power, you die, hydrogen is the way to go though, could try to funnel air moisture to keep hydrogen planes fueled
You'd need mini chemical plants inside an airplane to purify and split that air moisture, that's impossible any time in the near future, so so so many process units are required for proper hydrogen production
Former USAF flight surgeon and undergrad chemistry major here. Hydrogen has a very low energy density per volume and must be stored under immense pressure and/or low temperatures in order to have adequate energy to power anything other than very short flights. That requires very heavy, very expensive alloys. The very tiny molecule hydrogen literally seeps into metals and other materials causing “hydrogen embrittlement” and accelerating material fatigue. Extremely low temperatures make all materials less malleable and more prone to sudden, catastrophic fracture. Metals are bad, but plastics and other polymers can be even worse at low temperatures. Maintaining the necessary low temperatures adds even more weight and energy expenditure not directed to flight. Air pressure decreases with altitude magnifying the material stresses even more. The repeated ascents and descents under such immense pressure changes induce accelerated material fatigue. Temperatures also drop precipitously at altitude. H2 fuel cells and their platinum or iridium catalysts do very poorly at low temperatures. Direct combustion is more plausible, but H2 is incredibly explosive if a leak develops. Shut-off valves work well with liquid jet fuel, but much less well with gaseous H2 under immense pressure. All of the fuel lines and valves must be able to withstand all of the radical changes in pressure and temperature as well as the bulk H2 storage tanks. All of this adds immensely to weight which in turn stresses the non-fuel portions of the airframe and reduces flight efficiencies. We perform non-destructive stress damage analysis on current planes. This would needed to be performed even more sedulously on hydrogen planes. More delays and costs. Hydrogen-powered ships-yes; hydrogen-powered planes-I respectfully have my reservations. I hope they prove me wrong, but I heard none of these issues addressed to any significant degree. I am willing to be persuaded. Best wishes.
I love your comment. You disagree with the thesis of the video, provide adequate reasoning why, listed your former profession/education without any appeal to authority, but are willing to be proven wrong if something new comes along to refute old knowledge.
Personally, I think China is on to something with what I heard was ceramic or nano-ceramic lining for hydrogen tanks (I might have misheard, or gotten a bad translation). It's time to hack the Chinese to listen in on their scientific research, get some payback for their decades of IP theft of US secrets
You are correct in what you say, however, the developments for storage include carbon fibre encapsulation, which has demonstrated very good qualities.
All true and correct, however technology marches on and is unstoppable. It is possible that with aid of AI new trypes of impermeable lattices could be developed to counter the seepage properties of H2.
I love how aviation is always talked about so heavily but the useless cruise ship industry is never mentioned. One ship burning “bunker oil” is equivalent pollution to 5 million cars per day but I guess that’s okay?…
Sadly, most of the times cruise ships don't have to follow any emission rules once in international waters. We need to fix that.
@@scottbeers2749 If Panamá canal and Suez canal start introducing emissions quota it'll work.
@@joaodorjmanolo gee! What a solution even if you close both canals that won't make a difference in emissions. Also I like to see what panama says about closing or restricting their canal for the environment's sake.
Yeah, media and politicians like to focus on things that will bring so much inconvenience to people.
They are moving to CNG, so your point will be moot soon.
I'd like to see a similar report for the future of shipping and sea transport.
nuclear is the best option
Best thing about shipping is that, as 40% is for fossil fuels, only 60% will be left to clean up...
What> sot Nitrous Oxide emissions and lung disease in preference of carbon emissions and sunburn?, The solution is with US. We stop flying. The flight companies won't stop the supply unless the demand disappears. so it is the job of the public to renounce air travel to bring change, not the job of the companies to reduce emissions. It is us the people doing international travel all the time that are the root of the problem. Demand creates supply
You know you won't believe me but shipping once was a completely green industry.
Maersk is building green ships to test new tech.
I'd like to see a documentary like this that includes some explanation of fuel storage and transportation 'why' and 'how' -- including descriptions of storage container weight, materials and construction; compression and cooling equipment design and costs (up-front capital, O&M, energy (kWh) required to run it), and; transport and storage compression pressures -- in order to help viewers understand why a fuel with, "...the highest energy per mass of any fuel..." has to be compressed to 13,000 psi or cryogenically cooled before it's useful in an aircraft, car or truck. This would help viewers appreciate what it actually takes to achieve and sustain 13,000 psi or minus 425F, and the challenges created by such pressures and temperatures during transporting and storage as compared to traditional liquid fuels.
That is not a ATR-72 !! Thats a dash 8 !!
You beat me to it! 😂
Research CNBC! It’s not hard!
Yeah I think the plans are to focus on ATRs but the rest bed is dash 8
Yep I was just going to comment that 😂
Well CNBC, you pick a bunch of people who happens to be working on hydrogen fueled engines to advocate for hydrogen powered airplanes and give an impression that there really is no other way to get to net zero emission in this industry...
HYDROGEN being the smallest atom in the universe is EXTREMELY hard to store because it just leaks from containers, that and the fact that hydrogen is also extremely flammable which means every leak has the potential for disaster.
You can store it without a loss today. And it's very hard to ignite because it vapourise as soon as it comes in contact with the air. These people are not stupid.
@@heinedenmark Hydrogen storage technology has gotten to the point where it can be safely used in motor vehicles where the danger of impact and damage to storage tank is higher than that of aircraft.
However, hydrogen tanks in airplanes are exposed to altitude which means large pressure differences to deal with and higher risks of failure and malfunction. Plus, aviation approval and certification of hydrogen fuel for use in airplane is a real nightmare that will take a long time, because any new aircraft technology has to have high redundancy and thoroughly verified to be safe.
Not in the liquid form
@@nomercy411 Storing hydrogen in liquid form is a viable option with one drawback, it requires storage tanks to be cooled to very low temperatures. In aviation world that means increased size, weight and complexity which is bad news because increase in weight alone is enough to not even consider that option.
The only practical solution is combine hydrogen gas with another molecule to form a bistable compound which can be broken down to release the hydrogen when needed. However that is technology is still in its infancy and a lot of research and development needs to be done.
@@kevingw5379 not at all. The hydrogen tech is not like what you think.
Aviation is where hydrogen makes the most sense to start a hydrogen economy. Next would be replacing natural gas with hydrogen. Then hydrogen for trains, busses, trucks, and finally passenger cars. Hydrogen is a great way of storing and transmitting energy. There are however a number of technical, safety, and economic hurdles to overcome. Hydrogen can be produced from water and electricity. Renewable, nuclear, or even fossil fuels. Thus hydrogen could ultimately be not only the cleanest fuel, but also the cheapest fuel.
Hydrogen powered aircraft was investigated back in the 1970s. It wasn't economical back then for large aircraft and I doubt it will now. One of the drawbacks was storing large quantities of hydrogen at an airport.
Yes but in the 70s it was competing against aviation fuel. Now we've mode on quite a lot of progress in materials science and it's competition is a very expensive inefficient storage medium in batteries.
Electric vehicle also start around early 19s and dies out after that. Now it's increased in demand and competitive than the fossil fuel. Things is fossil fuel company are so powerful that they can monopoly the market to stop any competitor in the market and hinder humanity from going forward. Only now with the present of Internet that people start to realise how bad it is that this kind of company existed. Judging from your statement I can say that fossil fuel company do a good job in setting the mindset of general people
Jetliners also need strong tanks to store the hydrogen and I don't believe there light ?
@@stoney202 nope, physics never change, nothign changedm hydrogen has 0 advantages over any other fuel, it is absolutely terrible at everything, especially energy storage.
it doesnt even remotely come close to even fossil, and heck, hydrogen is fossil anyway.
97% of worlds hydrogen is made with gas reformation from natural gas because its insanely cheaper than electrolysis.
this is one of the many hundred reasons why not to use hydrogen for anything but making steel by burning it.
battery electric will power everything, hydrogen still is nonsense.
I wonder how much of that decision was down to the oil industry saying that it is not feasible. They probably came up with their own "studies" stating that it is " not yet up to scratch", thereby ensuring that oil gets burned another 50 years before people start freaking out.
8:04 that’s a Dash 8 not an ATR
No matter if the medium is battery, hydrogen, or whatever; it is only a medium. We need a massive increase in non-fossil electricity capacity to power all of these vehicles, and it needs to start now because it is going to take a while to get there. This needs to be addressed.
i find it worrying that no one seemed to put spotlight on how the Big Oil is doing. The world is trying to rob them of their trillion-dollar profits. i don't think they'll just stay silent.
i am worried because i believe if Big Oil isnt scheming things behind the scenes, i'm sure all-non fossil fuels will be successful. energy is our constant need.
That's actually NOT what is needed, we already have overcapacity of renewable power at least in some parts of the country. Like it or not, we need backup fossil fuel power for windless/cloudy days or we need affordable energy storage, which is not looking viable yet. So we are being forced on an arbitrary time table towards power shortages as a way of life, along with absurdly expensive power.
Non-fossil energy sources either don't work very well or are potentially much more dangerous for environment than fossils
@@someotherdude We do need base power as you say, and since fossil will only last so long, the only other viable option is nuclear ...
@@someotherdude imagine that.. being so stupid thinking that humanity need oil forever and nothing will ever change..
In a way, even hydrocarbon is some kind of battery. Plants absorb the energy from the sun and convert it to carbohydrate as energy storage. When the plant died they got buried deep overtime. The fibrous part was petrified, and the carbohydrate was refined by pressure and heat into hydrocarbon.
woah you just finish first year of high school ?
@@1marcelfilms You'll be surprise how many "graduates" don't know about this.
One thing is true, Hydrogen is potentially the best option. But thats when you just see in context on a fuel to engine. But when you see supply chain, whole big cargo planes , Hydrogen generation and transportation Then you realize its still in infancy stage.
Perfectly summarised.
Not true. Batteries are the best option.
If you really want to use chemicals, better to use methane.
We will soon get abundant renewable energy, so creating hydrogen from water will get cheap. It seems these new companies could gain a lot of market share from Airbus and Boeing much earlier than these two legacy companies realize their plans for sustainable planes.
@@eaaeeeea When is soon?
Tes plus this is a paid placement posing ads news which is why they dont tell you Hydrogen produces Nitrogen Oxide which causes respiratory disease.
Electric Trams are probably the ultimate form of green transport as the batteries are not carried on the vehicle itself but soo much focus is being placed on electric cars 🤷
Yes, but most Americans do not understand how trains work as our cities are built to encourage car use as much as possible.
Electric trains don't really even need traction batteries.
OK, I'm an engineer and that will not work in the next decades, AT ALL. You need an insane amount of fuel cells to get enough power and that WILL BE EXTREMELY expensive. That will quadrupple sixtuple the ticket costs, when planes get a multiple price increase. There is currently no H2 industrie that delivers H2 in large quantities and the one that exist is even more expensive than gasoline and oil, which is already too expensive.
Electric motors may be able to beat the conventional piston engine, but it is no match for jet engines. Jet engines can beat electric motors within a blink of an eye
@@Negev-Israel No, you are mistaken my friend: jet engines are even worse than piston engines, you get a lot more blow by (fuel that is not used, but just blown out), everything you can do with a turbine with combustion, you can do 4 times more efficient with a electric motor, they have more torque, they are almost 100% efficient (piston engines only reach like 20%) and they don't need any maintenance. That is by the way why turbines are preferred to pistons: much less maintenance. You unfortunately can't see this and have no vision for the future where things change, all you can see is the status quo. You are unable to better or change the world due to this. The most powerful engines in the world are not turbines and they are not piston engines, but electric, because electric has no size limit how much power you can put in them and that is why in the world today, most powerful engines are all electric.
@@nigratruo perhaps you should touch grass. You are using the same logic of comparing electric cars with gas cars. An electric car can win against gas car, hands down. But in aviation, things are different.
@@nigratruo EDF or electric duct fans are the alternative for jet engines. They are not able to produce enough trust as a jet engine of a similar size. Also, the efficiency of a jet engine increases with increase in speed. Not to mention the heavy battery. The only advantage and EDF has over a jet engine is the instant acceleration, responsiveness and fine tuning. The efficiency of an electric motor might be higher, but it will go down with increase in weight due to bigger motors requiring a larger battery, which requires more thrust and in turn draws more current and this cycle of inefficiency continues.
Fun fact: the starter of a jet engine is not an electric motor because of its heavy weight. Instead, it uses an air turbine starter.
I hate when media tries to make it hydrogen vs battery when they are completing each other.
Hydrogen molecules are so small. They are prone to leaking out of hoses, pipes and connectors and storage tanks.
They leak right through most metals, plastics, glass and wood. It's also insanely explosive and expensive to compress.
Why is it logical to consume cheap electricity to produce hydrogen and use more energy to change it to a liquid and then convert it back to a gas to burn it in an inefficient engine to produce electricity?
CNBC does top-notch documentaries, interesting and well researched. Ammonia is really the key here...too bad there was no mention of it (though this doc was focused on H2)...NH3 is a better H2 carrier than liquid hydrogen....about twice as much and its in liquid form can be held at a much lower pressure about 10 bar (while H2 gas is at 700 bar)...that's the real future imo. Ofc NH3 is a toxic substance, so we'd need to handle it better than we do gasoline (as it can cause blindness), but for decarbonizing, it's the pinnacle for an alternate energy source.
I've seen some research into NH3 fuel cells. It's efficiency is at 62% vs hydrogen at 70%. I'd say it isn't too far away. Ammonia fuel cells seem quite interesting as we already have a pretty strong Ammonia production pipeline.
@@wakannnai1 Ya that's pretty amazing, though I've heard NH3 FC's are SOFC's that work at a very high temp requiring special materials...so more costly. The other option is cracking the ammonia to H2 and using in a traditional pem fuel cell. If I recall SOFC's are also multifuel, so you can run on other sources as well...but a direct NH3 fc would be best...still cracking it is not a bad alternative.
Can’t they target the private jet industry as a starting point? Private jets carbon footprints are much heavier per person than a commercial jet. It also gives them the opportunity to create more evidence and experiences using the new fuel type so it gains traction and becomes more standardized. Just a thought
This was my thought. That way the billionaires and politicians can jet around to their climate summits without generating negative press.
The source of the explanation as tho why hydrogen will beat batteries for aviation seems to be “trust me bro”
hahah Exactly
Brilliant Coverage in Hydrogen usage in aircraft! Thank you for sharing this important topic in in aviation fuel alternatives. Greetings from Madang, Papua New Guinea!
None of the above will achieve the long haul capability that's on the market now.
Quels sont les avantages de ce moteur par rapport aux autres moteurs à essence existants : peut-il être plus rapide (plus de 1 500 kilomètres par heure), avoir une autonomie plus longue, être plus doux et plus silencieux ? Puis-je transporter un tonnage plus lourd (par exemple, deux fois le tonnage du Beluga XL d’Airbus) ?
Les batteries peuvent-elles atteindre une puissance de 20 à 50 mégawatts tout en conservant des dimensions appropriées ? Pourrait-il être plus automatisé/plus facile à entretenir et à gérer ?
Existe-t-il une capacité de production en volume dans la région européenne ou dans la région de l’Atlantique Nord ?
Nous espérons que les ingénieurs et les équipes auront des objectifs clairs et éviteront de concevoir des produits ayant un positionnement difficile sur le marché et un développement lent.
Hurrah! you have finally won the race
Airline hydrogen technology is just blowing up !
I like the idea of a combination of two fuels:
Catalytically derived, cellulosic or algae biobutanol for landings and takeoffs;
Then a switchover to ammonia (NH⁴) for cruising.
Might be the easy & quick low CO² fuel path.
I think speed & 'anti-absolecence' is important to avoid the increase in CO² from the manufacturing of new aircraft right away.
Hydrogen isn’t perfect but it’s a better option than electric
Những phương tiện hàng không tốc độ cao rất cần thiết cho nhu cầu thu hoạch kiến thức trí tuệ ngoài không gian hay lắm, cảm ơn video chia sẻ của bạn chúc bạn sức khỏe và hạnh phúc.
If I was a scientist, I would make a research about how to overcome gravitational forces of the earth by deflecting or changing the direction of gravitational forces to enable aircrafts fly with a minimum amount of fuel.
1. Define gravitational forces. How can we reverse it or cancel it? Can we build a machine that could make it possible?
2. Is that possible to find a material to isolate or deflect gravitational forces
3. Can we convert gravitational forces into a power source?
I'm quite sure that somebody could take the challange & make it possible, like Wright Brothers. If we can convert sunlight into electricity by using solar panels why can't we achieve creating weightlessness by harnessing gravitational forces?
As a child in the fifth grade in the 1960s I learned from a science textbook how to make hydrogen and oxygen from water using electrolysis. Since then I have always wondered why not just connect a solar cell or windmill generator to a water electrolysis device and use wind or solar energy to make hydrogen. I guess there are technical reasons why this won't work. This video mentions that storing hydrogen as a gas takes a lot of room and storing as a liquid requires super cooling equipment. Hopefully scientists will come up with an answer to these issues and soon.
You can't store hydrogen fuel in the wings unlike conventional fuels which can, which is why it's still not a great fuel for airplanes. However, hydrogen is a great fuel for hybrid airships
Yeah that’s a massive problem.
Planes can only be powered by ticket sales
What’s the purchase power for air travel between consumer and commercial?
Hydrogen up in the air! That will certainly light up the sky!
Cool video. Unfortunately, I suspect hydrogen will take longer to supplant the current air travel logistics than declared, but it will eventually happen. In the nearer term though, I suspect some mix of biofuels and carbon neutral synthetic efuels will be what initially decarbonizes air travel before hydrogen tech is able to become a superior technology. To get the ball rolling I suggest legislating that private jets be LEGALLY REQUIRED to use carbon neutral fuels, be they biofuels, efuels, green hydrogen, direct electricity, or something else. This will help stimulate the market and development to make these technologies become more available at larger scale by having those who CAN pay the premium, do so in the early days.
Sarawak state in East Malaysia is building the biggest Mathenol plant in South East Asia to produce hydrogen. Sarawak also producing SAF from Microalgae for clean aircraft fuel.....this is the safest and clean environmental power for the future....
The main issue is the production of hydrogen. The conventional method of hydrogen production involving the use of methane and fossil fuels ends up producing CO2 as a byproduct. The alternative method of using electrolysis of water is very expensive and a net energy sinking process because the amount to energy required to split water is higher than the amount of energy released in burning hydrogen if the efficiency of the entire process is taken into account.
create a hydrogen factory on space using solar energy and space mining, pollution ,lack of resources ,war ,personal interest GONE FOR GOOD ,there's is abundance of everything we need in space, we just have to design a space factory XD
Mungkin kita harus memikirkan bahwa permodelan dalam susunan kinerja peralatan mempunyai rangkaian yang baru dan mungkin berbeda dari yang sebelumnya . Ini suatu konsep rekayasa baru yang bisa membuat para peneliti tidak terfokus pada permodelan yang sudah ada saja melainkan pembaharuan model dan rangkaian sistem yang harus mulai dirubah
Under the Challenges section, I was hoping for some realistic discussion of safety in the storage, transportation and use of hydrogen. Another thought was that adapting regional aircraft to use hydrogen is a less effective emissions control measure than simply eliminating short-hop regional commercial flights via regulations, like France has done, and Spain is considering doing. Both have excellent train networks that can provide equally efficient (in some cases more efficient) regional travel options.
You cannot overcome Hydrogen's volume problem.. There is absolutely no beating physics..
thank you for saying this. people are dumb.
You can't increase the density of liquid hydrogen, but you can build planes with bigger tanks.
Nonstop transatlantic flights with hydrogen should be no problem.
Theoretically, you could achieve a higher density with cryo-compressed supercritical hydrogen, but due to the high weight of pressure tanks, it's no reasonable option for planes.
Excellent and intelligent coverage of the prospect and hope.
The actual solution to this problem is rails
it's a bit hard laying rail tracks over water... but for continental trips i 100% agree.
Yes look at Japan, even normaal high speed trains can do 500KM an hour maglev can be even better ans no need for batteries and use greenisch energy.
Not in regular service but look at the video "tgv record 574.8 km" they did that with a normal train and track.
@@RoderikvanReekum that is not true. the fastest regular shinkansen train in japan tops out at 320 km/h. the maglev will operate at 500 km/h.
@@klnsblNot in regular service but look at the video "tgv record 574.8 km" they did that with a normal train and track.
@@RoderikvanReekum not a normal train tho, iirc they stripped it of some things and had different motors and such in it. But having regular trains drive services at 500km/h isn't doable. The wear on the train and tracks is way too much for now
1937 - Hindenburg incident was attributed to atmospheric electrical discharge and a small leak of H
Doesn’t hydrogen easily catch fire?
As easily as kerosene, that's the whole point of combustion.
So wouldn’t the chance of any accidents substantially increase if we switch to this?
@@pakshal24 there isnt really a reason to. As I said, we already use a highly flammable fuel
Joel beat me to it, gas is also incredibly flammable. Its no difference.
They aren't combusting hydrogen. The cell combines hydrogen with oxygen and the chemical reaction produces electricity. It's safer than current combustion engines.
They don't need hydrogen combustion engines unless it's something like a jet fighters, which in that case, yes, they are essentially flying a hydrogen bomb.
This is great I was wondering when something like this would happen
Battery electric works for short haul flights
Hydrogen for long range
We were onboard an H2O boat not long ago, interesting stuff, exciting.
Innovations like these are not possible on the grand scale because we rely on a piece of paper to do what's right in the world.
The aircraft stated at 8:05 tested with Hydrogen its not an ATR72, ATR72 has 70 seats not 50-60 , airplane shown is Dash 8 Q300
If Airbus makes hydrogen powered planes really gives a new meaning to "Air Bus"
Commercial aviation is maybe the only one industry people shouldn't mind. Btw, private emissions aren't mentioned on this, they pollute more per person than commercial ones. Will they be regulated as well? No... ? Yeah, as I thought...
they will be regulated, their per person emissions dont matter as much since their total contribution is low, that’s why commercial craft are priority to change first
this is just one sector, trying to do better, when they can do better. who are you to say they shouldn't? oil/gas employee?
@@agps4418 cause it'll get expensive. Also, security reasons.
Kept the Hindenburg flying ….
Hydrogen powered air travel. Oh the humanity!
Cause air flight and hydrogen have had such a great relationship in the past.
the problem with Hydrogen is the cost in energy and other resources in producing pure hydrogen, storing it, distributing it, so all the advantages of hydrogen quickly evaporate when you add up all the cost. We need research on reducing the cost of all of this before we can make good use of hydrogen.
This media can't survive without graph statistics...😅
There is no "extra electricity". Any power diverted to manufacture "green hydrogen" means less power to offset power generation by burning fuels. As converting energy into a chemical fuel to be later converted back into energy elsewhere (especially hydrogen) represents major loss of efficiency it only serves to increase net CO2 emissions over if power had been directly used by the energy grid. Also, before all this money gets dumped into hydrogen as an energy carrier I'd like to see estimates of how much hydrogen leaks into the environment during its production, transportation, storage, and conversion. Leaked hydrogen quickly rises into the high atmosphere and depletes the Ozone layer and creates the greenhouse gas water vapor in the high and normally dry layers of the atmosphere.
Hydrogen fuels used in heavy weight duty transportation like
Bus 🚌
Lorry 🚚
Van 🚛
Bio fules can be used in Aircraft Transportation.
We had a Hydrogen powered airplane in the past. It's called the Hindenburg. The only difference now is the tank pressure is 10,000 PSI or more. Imagine the damage it could unleash.
LZ 129 Hindenburg was no airplane, but an airship.
At it was not powered by hydrogen, but by diesel fuel.
And hydrogen powered airplanes will rather use cryo-cooled liquid hydrogen, not pressurized hydrogen.
Of course, the safety effort will be higher than with kerosene, nevertheless there is not much similarity to an airship with hydrogen "balloons" for lift.
Hydrogen powered vehicles, aircraft or space rockets require that engineers succeed in completely sealing hydrogen containers so that the tiny molecules cannot escape. This makes for extremely complicated valve technology, which to date has only been partially successful.
Can companies make the whole experience more comfortable....flying used to be so memorable... NOW EVERYTHING FEELS LIKE RIDING A PUBLIC BUS .
Hydrogen plane , semi trucks to the moon 🌚
Good idea! You travel in, but not me !
If aircraft are responsible for ONLY 2.5% of global emissions, then they're not the problem; they're the solution, especially when considering that 4.5 billion passengers (out of a 7 billion world population) travel by aircraft each year.
But this number is going up rapidly, as global fleets are increasing and other areas are being cleaned up. It'll look very different in 20 years time if we don't act now.
you can't compare population to passengers as people take multiple fights. For instance, you can half that instantly due to the fact people like to get home after they've flown.
@Robert You're right. But since they say 4.5 billion passengers, not flights. So I'm just gonna go with that information, at least for now.
I wonder if they have considered flying boats?
It might be a good solution for building larger planes with less energy dense fuel, it's how range issues were combatted with early airlines and postal aircraft 😊
You don't really need hydrogen to reach 0 CO2 emission goal. You can just produce a conventional aviation fuel from plant sources. For example corn is used to produce fuel in Brazil. Whatever CO2 produced by such fuels will be re-absorbed by the plants to produce oxygen. So overall the total net emission of CO2 would be 0.
If there is not enough land for planting, they can use sea and using algae, the same goal is achieved. This is much less costly and can re-use the existing airplanes and technology.
The problem with biofuels (particularly ones made from corn) is that they require astronomical amounts of water
This guy really doing an interview with his A20s... on the ground.
Hey @CNBC that aircraft is not an ATR it's a dash8-300 N330EN flew for piedmont airlines . this has been an aviation employee fact check
It must be green hydrogen!
Where we come from we do teleporting ….saves a lot
Battery technology is evolving at breakneck pace. Battery density will be more than adequate for use on airplanes in the coming 10-20 years.
I'm doing research in this area. The problem with hydrogen is that the molecules are so small that they will phase out of any storage tank you place them in. Combine that with hydrogen's explosive reaction to being mixed with air, and that is a massive problem. The only solution (I believe) is using ammonia as a storage molecule for hydrogen, then cracking the molecule to release the hydrogen. Then it's a matter of mitigating the NOx emissions from this process, which can worsen climate change more than CO2.
Do you know anything about basic chemistry?
believe it or not, Hydrogen powered aircraft been around since 1957 they had the Martin B-57B of the NACA, and Russian had a hydrogen plane in 1988 which was a Tu-155
Problem is us the people flying everywhere. If we stop then the problem stops. Don't blame the air companies, blame human proletarians flying to Benidorm for a holiday It is us the people who need to renounce flying, not expect the companies to solve it
I’ll fly all I want even if it’s a 30 minute flight 😂
We need to work on more sustainable fuels, but I see electric aircraft powered by hydrogen being in the future
AMAZING !!!!
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Let’s first decarbonise the easy to decarbonise uses of Hydrogen. Ammonia production for fertilisers would be a good start.
It would be awesome if hydrogen somehow could work. Working around jets is hard when you have to breathe in all their unhealthy exhaust, which there’s a lot of
The more i watch these kinds of videos the more i realise how superior traditional fuels are.
your reporter says ~90% of hydrogen are produce using non renewable energy. Well that is in the US. In other countries they are 100% renewable.
Worldwide just < 1% is produced using renewable energy. Most hydrogen production plants are industrial for gas purposes and use natural gas or coal
I know it's not the same technology, but when you say flying with hydrogen, I just think Hindenburg
Not discussed is that burning hydrogen in a conventional turbine engine requires oxygen. To save weight, that oxygen will come from ambiant air which contains nitrogen. The result of that combustion will also generate not desirable NOx
Time to say goodbye for tesla 😂
Wouldn't it be better to find a green way to produce jet fuel? You wouldn't need to produce any new technology and it would work with existing engines.
I would name my Hydrogen Plane the "Hindenburg II"
Effectivity on electric motors are approaching 500kwh/100km, wich are the tippingpoint aerotransport and without the risc of hydrogen!
The biggest problem with hydrogen fuel is storage. This isn't like jet fuel sitting in a tank. The tech behind hydrogen fuel storage requires a skilled ground crew at every airport that services these types of aircraft. Just this past year, we've seen a number of ground crew accidents that involve things as simple as towing an airplane so it doesn't hit a building, or not standing in front of a running engine that they were told repeatedly was dangerous. Are they really competent enough to safely handle pressurized hydrogen?
I think an electrical plane is much better and safer than an H2 powered plane because A) H2 is extremely light and to keep it for the entire flight you need some extremely heavy alloy B) H2 can sneak between any gaps and mix with oxygen which will cause an explosion C) it's not clear how H2 powered engine is gonna work and D) like with a nuclear powered vehicle a plane powered by H2 will be extremely expensive to produce
I hope shipping goes Hydrogen even sooner than aircrafts.
Perfect.
They would need a gyro that can control the “fuel tank” whenever the plane pitches/rolls adding to the weight of the plane even more
Very interesting
It can't replace typical jet fuel but it will help lessening carbon emission from the industry as a whole. And that can be considered a win.
How so? The atmosphere contains 0.04% Co2. If that was reduced by half to 0.02%, then every living plant on the planet would stop photosynthesising and die. We need MORE CO2, not less. Why do you think Dutch farmers pump CO2 into their greenhouses?! to promote faster growing, larger crops with better yields. You want more crops, with bigger, healthier yields to feed more people? we need more CO2, not less.
Keep dreaming.
Canada is currently building infrastructure for electric-hydrogen from windmills and solar panels.☮️🇨🇦
No co2 out of the exhaust, just water vapour, the most potent greenhouse gas there is.
Well if it catches fire the passengers won't have time to be afraid.
Hydrogen is too expensive to be commercially feasible.
They're going to need to test using the "toroidal propeller" to get the efficiency up! search youtube on the quoted.
HYDROGEN PLANES ARE ELECTRIC PLANES. HYDROGEN PLANES ARE POWERED BY ELECTRIC MOTORS. ELECTRICITY IS PRODUCED IN HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS.
think one of the worst ideas the modern era could come up with is fully electric planes, batteries explodes, starts fires, gets sudden power drains depending on temperature, run out of power, you die, hydrogen is the way to go though, could try to funnel air moisture to keep hydrogen planes fueled
You'd need mini chemical plants inside an airplane to purify and split that air moisture, that's impossible any time in the near future, so so so many process units are required for proper hydrogen production