Airbus Future Plane Concept - ZEROe - Hydrogen, New Cabins And Zero Emissions - Never Built
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- Welcomed to found and explained! I have many videos just like this one on the channel, so check it out and if you like it, subscribe!
The first of three major concepts unveiled today by Airbus is the new zero-emission aircraft labeled the ZEROe. Planned to enter the market by 2035, it will be powered by a hydrogen-based fuel instead of petrochemicals or electric.
What is hydrogen fuel you may ask? Well, layman's turn is that liquid hydrogen is burned with oxygen in a gas turbine, which then creates a highly efficient hybrid-electric propulsion system. The resulting emission of Hydrogen Dioxide, or water, is seemly released into the atmosphere, chemically, radioactively, and pollutant free. The only real zero-emission technology.
The killer is that hydrogen fuel can work with existing aircraft technology.
Airbus has created three concept aircraft that will use this technology.
The first is a hydrogen turboprop that looks just like an ATR72 or Q400 that is used in regional networks today. It will have a range of around 1,000 nautical miles and be powered by two special hydrogen turboprop engines. It will carry just under 100 passengers, but as it is designed for regional feeder routes its specifications suit it.
The 2nd design by Airbus is the blended wing body concept. Carrying 200 passengers to a range of 2,000 nautical miles, this aircraft looks just like the planes that we see flying in the world today - abit no emissions. The range is perfect for most routes, as the average distance traveled by most flights today is only 1,240 nautical miles or 2300 km.
The last concept, and by far the most interesting, is the blended wing concept. This will seat passengers and carry cargo in a completely different way than modern aircraft, but as the aircraft itself is the wing, it will be able to shave tens of percentiles off its fuel burn, longer range with more passengers.
One airline has already shown a heavy interest in the concept, easyJet.
"EasyJet remains absolutely committed to more sustainable flying and we know that technology is where the answer lies for the industry."
For one, while there will still be windows there will be augmented reality on the walls to improve visual fidelity. They also revealed concepts such as a living space, that can be modified for certain activities such as exercise or a bar for those to mingle.
Airbus has also suggested that there will be sleeping opportunities air quotes, such as life flat bunk beds
The concepts we unveil today offer the world a glimpse of our ambition to drive a bold vision for the future of zero-emission flight,” said Guillaume Faury, Airbus CEO. “I strongly believe that the use of hydrogen - both in synthetic fuels and as a primary power source for commercial aircraft - has the potential to significantly reduce aviation's climate impact.”
Alas, there are some flaws to this hydrogen technology that we should discuss. for one, we are talking about a fuel type that isn't produced on a scale that is required by airlines around the world. Even bio-fuel production, which has seen massive advancements in recent years, is lightyears behind having really any impact on operations. And we are talking about another fuel, that doesn't exist even on the same scale as bio-fuels.
Plus, the range offered by hydrogen is much smaller than the range offered by jet fuel, and it is likely that aircraft flying today will never switch over. You can't fly more than 2,000 nautical miles on this technology, so while the idea is ambitious, there is still a need for long-haul aircraft burning petroleum. But who is to say that future versions, such as 2.0 hydrogen aircraft can't compete on transatlantic journies.
Plus airports will require significant hydrogen transport and refueling infrastructure to meet the needs of day-to-day operations. Support from governments will be key to meet these ambitious objectives with increased funding for research & technology, digitalization, and there will need to be mechanisms that encourage the use of sustainable fuels and the renewal of aircraft fleets to allow airlines to retire older, less environmentally friendly aircraft earlier.
Lastly, Airbus has a bit of a pooer track record when it comes to environmental aircraft. They planned to fly an electric aircraft called the E-Fan X that had a single electric engine (and three jet fuel engines) in partnership with rolls Royce, although they ended up canceling the concept completely just this year in April. So will these hydrogen aircraft see the light of day? I won't hold my breath.
According to Airbus, the world is bright, clean although we might all get a little bit wet. With air travel firmly on the front line of climate change, any movement in the right direction to emission less travel is very good indeed.
Thanks for watching!
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA Finals D1 | Fall | ยิงต้องโหด ให้เหมือนโกรธกันมาก่อน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OnTdfGySmds/mqdefault.jpg)
Just wanted to let you know about a mistake in the video..."Hydrogen dioxide" is not water (H2O).
Ha. He could have said Dihydrogen Oxide, or even Hydrogren Hydroxide, right? High school chemistry was a long time ago!
I listened to this like three times and it just didn’t sound right. But for some reason hydrogen dioxide seems like it should be water. Mandela effect in full effect right here.
Hydrogen Dioxide would be HO2
Sometimes refers to H2O2 also or Hydrogen Peroxide
also he said O2 for oxygen but im almost positive the chem symbol for oxygen is just O
Dihydrogen monoxide
I really do hope that these new hydrogen hybrid aircraft become a reality. Especially the single blended wing body design. That just looks so awesome. We need to be pushing innovation in this so much more.
Blended bodies have existed since the 70’s. They aren’t used for commercial aircraft because no airports support them.
@@airman122469 the main purpose of this type of body is the hydrogen tank , also this type of airplane isn't ready for airports, the airports aren't ready to work with these airplanes.
@@airman122469 That is not the main reason. The main reason is, that up until now it was simply way too expensive to manufacture these types of planes. You see, the tube fuselage has a very important advantage and that is it is the perfect pressure vessel and spreads out the cabin pressure, that passengers need to breathe normally, out evenly across the circumference. The blended or flying wing bodies will not do that. So you need stronger materials to compensate for this -> carbon fiber. Modern manufacturing technology incresingly puts carbon fiber fuselages into the realm of economic feasibility.
Furthermore, the blended wing has inherent pitch instability since it lacks horizontal stabilizers, thus requiring a lot more sophisticated flight controllers, which have been in use with militaries, but have not made it into civil aviation yet. Safety is even more critical in civil aviation since we have a loooot more flight hours here.
Also, we probably aren't gonna get past this in the long run anyways. The blended wing reduces surface area that is not used for lift dramatically which is a boon for efficiency, it also increases internal volume usably to store hydrogen, which we will definitely need for longer ranges. It is the only way to get long range hydrogen planes, there is literally no way to do this with current designs.
They have a number of shortcomings in terms of engineering, despite being more efficient.
I think the far more sensible solution to making airlines more environmentally friendly is just to invest in facilities that use a bacterium that was invented recently that can convert sunlight, CO2 and water into perfect kerosene.
but kerosene still emits greenhouse gases when burned... it would not be a 'clean' aircraft
@@coconutisland. True, but this - if scalable - would massively reduce the fossil fuel use needed to extract and refine hydrocarbons into jet fuel, and that in total is the majority of the emissions for a liter of the stuff.
Chemically, radioactive, pollution-free. And, for sure, gluten-free :) Nice overview, thanks!
😄😂🤣😃😆😆😆😆
Zero fat too.
Burning hydrogen in air results in NOx emission.
@@stasiekpiekarski that's why Airbus intends to use fuelcells and electric propulsion, and not burning hydrogen
@@stasiekpiekarski lmao do you really think hydrogen fuel cells just burn hydrogen?
I like the blended wing body design because of the potential of reduced drag and it's stronger structurally even if conventional engines are used.
That could also mean a rougher flight for the passengers due to the more ridge structure.
Also in the designs the entire body generally produces lift helping to make them more efficient.
That's a relatively old McDonnell design.
I disagree regarding higher structural stability. Keep in mind that the cabin has to be pressurized. This isn't just for breathing comfort, but also a huge factor for structural stability. A pressurized body with round cross sections has increased stiffness.
Regarding wing stiffness: there can be too much of a good thing - (elastic) bending is better than breaking!
It was prohibited for Germany to develop blended wing designs after WW2...that is why the USA/GB got ahead...(B2,Vulcan) and they took those engineers...
But Horten got a new GA blended wing aircraft...
The interior concepts just remind me of the early prototypes of the A380 interiors. A lot of promise about how the space would bring about a revolution in comfort for passengers with a bunch of new facilities but instead everything remained the same as it had for the past 30-40 years. The only significant changes have been made to first class travel and most people will very rarely experience that.
It’s even that great, now it’s just another bigger seat . But no service and same same everything.
We are stocked
liquid hydrogen is much less dense than kerosene so fuel tanks need to be bigger so... no luggage in that plane?
The whole back 1/3 of the plane is the storage tank
@@FoundAndExplained oh yeah i see some versions dont have windows at back... still when they burn fuel center of gravity will change and that will cause some problems...
@@jebise1126 Oh god I didn't think about the center of gravity changing! haha wow!
Yes but it’s heat value is 4 times higher, so 4 times less fuel is needed.
Storing hydrogen is a sod, too. All the world's cars could quite easily be switched over to run on hydrogen gas and be pumping nothing but steam out the back, but they'd need filling twice daily and would lose fuel just standing still.
Using as Hydrogen as fuel requires massive modifications to the fuel systems not just the engines. Cryogenic fuels are incompatible with existing wet wing fuel tanks. That means the builders must find room in the fuselage for a fuel tank with twice the volume of existing tanks in the wings and the aircraft cannot be left with fuel onboard.
Yes the rear 1/3 Of these plane designs actually have hydrogen storage fuel tanks
Found And Explained That also impacts the wing designs as without the fuel in the wings the wing roots are carrying a heavier bending load so need to be corresponding heavier. (One of the reasons airliner fuselage tanks are the last to be filled as well).
It is not a simple swap. Other fuels would be easier - synthetic ethanol or methanol for example is compatible with existing designs or with more modifications ammonia (ammonia production currently swallows 1/3 of global natural gas production to make hydrogen).
@@allangibson8494 synthetic ethonol releases co2 when burned which defeats the purpose of a hydrogen powered plane in the first place
@webnothing
You are wrong sir. Farmer has to plow his field, then plant the seeds,than apply fertilizer, then harvest the crop, delivered it to plant, when lots of energy is used to process it and distribute etanol. That's disaster for environment.
1:16 Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) not Hydrogen Dioxide.
Subbed BTW love your vids
Haha I knew I shouldn’t have skipped chemistry
It could be H-OH , hydrogen has one positive bond and oxygen has 2 negative bond usual comical formula it’s H-O-H , hydroxide ion OH-(negative charge) with active hydrogen H+ (positive charges), however liquid hydrogen (H2) must be store in very low temperature ( lower than -252.87 C)it will be hard to use , don’t know how they are going to use but it’s very hard challenge
@@divyeshpatel147 Gaseous under ~1000 bar pressure.
@@divyeshpatel147
It's not really practical for transportation, but would be great for powerplants . The desert countries of the world could produce vast quantities of it , if they used solar-power to electrolyze seawater
, and giant tanker-ships to deliver it .
Addendum : Aircraft such as the one pictured above , might then be practical to run above beamed-power tracks , and thus provide totally green air-transport .
😎
Ref.: quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-collect-the-Sun-s-energy-in-the-Sahara-desert-and-transport-it-to-the-northern-countries?
*Concentrate on my post/comments..😎
@@divyeshpatel147 , sorry, but burning hydrogen gives H2O, and is properly named dihydrogen monoxide, or simply dihydrogen oxide. Either is ok and its chemical structure is H-O-H.
Man I LOVE looking at concepts like this - I'm obsessed haha
Vancouver 🇨🇦 has the world’s first electric seaplane in regular service starting 2019.
It is on my channel...
Range? (Tiny)
I also love the blended wing design for it is cheap and more efficient than existing commercial aircraft,and offcourse, it looks awesome 🛫😎
All “fancy” ideas end up in stuffing more and more (and more again) seats into a plane. I’m highly sceptical that there will be any changes in commercial aviation design for a generation, let alone as drastic as described in this video.
I like planes being as they are in design, it's sleek and simple.
Look into spacex if elon succeeds we could be travelimg 24hr flights in 30mins with spaceships costing the same as a plane ticket in a decade or 2.
@@pablomuzzobar8940 Nope.
The amount of fuel required to get above the troposphere is far greater than just flying at conventional altitudes. It will never be the same cost as commercial airline tickets.
@@airman122469 th-cam.com/video/zqE-ultsWt0/w-d-xo.html
1000 passanger seats with a $2million price tag per flight is $2000 for 30min flight anywhere in the world. I guess you are wrong
Like the concept but what about the state of the O2 and the H2, liquid or compressed? And what about the structural strength of the fuel tanks?
Yeah I'm not clear on the H2 either, but O2 would be from the atmosphere, these aren't spaceships ;)
You have to compress it to make it liquid...and the H2 will diffuse through any tank material...
We've come a long way from the Hindenberg, but have we now really got reliable and safe fuel storage for such combustible products?
People that think seats is storing humans better than beds haven't seen a Japanese capsule hotel. Capsules arranged in a honeycomb hexagonal pattern would be very efficient and also healthier for the passangers. Store the luggage at the lowest tow of capsules. Give each capsule a digital window/screen and it would be a great way to travel, sound isolated from other passengers. Passangers that travel together can communicate through the screen and larger capsules that fits couples or families could be available. Sleeping would also be much easier this way.
@Norm T The moron is you. You made a lot assumptions that were incorrect about my suggestion. It's very easy and fast to get out of a capsule by pulling and sliding out using the emergency grips. Cleaning the capsule is very easy just as they do at capsule hotels, also being isolated from other passangers makes you much safer than sitting in a seat with open air shared with others. I also already mentioned the digital window/screen so the claustrophobic argument also falls.
The only thing that develops on these concepts are the computer simulations
Yes, computer simulations provide tremendous value, but , unfortunately, to many people they are no different than the cgi they see in the movies. They think that programmers can desertice what the result looks like, like they show planets blow up in movies. They have no foundation in science, and as people today are fond of saying, ‘sufficiently advanced science cannot be differentiated from magic.’ They are essentially no different that the primitive indigenous people when they first encountered people from the civilized world. They have no understanding and are rejecting our world.
Tragically. It’s like Renault and their car concepts, which in reality ends up being a potato
Yes when Boeing does it.
Every plane starts like this.
@@CocoaPimper no it does not. Those kind of simulations are only made for press and public.
lol all these "goodies" inside the airplane are great, (exercise and bar area), but when you hit that clear air turbulence, its game set and match! lol
Haha this is the best comment!
This.is going to make the A380 look like a success!
“Only the engines need upgraded”. Ever harvest, compress, and store hydrogen?
@Thomas Lucas Producing H2 from water with electrolyse efficiency is 30% at best
How do you bring that electric power onto the plane ?
You alos need to produce ENOUGH H2 in time... that is clearly impossible. People just dont imagine how much gaz is produced/ moved by an aircraft. This is by tons / second.
Storing hydogene is very hard, and the tanks continuoulsy link because the H2 is a really tiny molecul that can go through metal. Thats why rockets are filled just before liftoff and not in advance.
He said "Only the engines need to be upgraded, TO ANY EXISITING AIRFRAME" meaning the planes themselves just need HHO engines, learn to listen.
@@SirFlukealot sorry you have failed your critical thinking test. No more internet for you today with your magical thinking.
@Thomas Lucas VIDEO OF IT OR ELSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.
@Thomas Lucas electrolysis is not the debate. We know it exist. It is energy intensive however. You made a claim so back your claim.
This video's fault is that it claims if you throw new engines on a plane that suddenly they're clean energy vehicles. It does not address industrial scale production, storage, transport of hydrogen, far beyond what we use today nor fact the the fuel tanks of the aircraft will be radically different. You simple type however ignore all that.
All airlines care about is squeezing as many people as possible into their tin cans. All those interior perks are simply not profitable for the masses.
However, it is nice to see that manufacturers trying something new when it comes to the blended wing design. I would love to see sleeping cabins that would allow economy passengers to actually sleep instead of those ridiculously tight seating arrangements we have now. If done right they could squeeze just as many people in it, but at least folks could sleep
Its more aligned with a billionairs private jet than a commercial aircraft.
JetBlue: y-you sure?
Lol
Eco friendly innovation is the upcoming business for many industries.
Airbus taking lead for aviation is a good sign.
In All your aircraft stories posted, the plot leads to a crashing or deserted hanger stashed idea, in this one, it was the faith in hydrogen powered fuel.
Yes Hydrogen can have range effects, including stability similar to collision/fire impact. Perhaps they will mix breed electric power engines with hydrogen afterburner affects, a future version would be plasma combustion as afterburners, with mini nuculear cells to amp battery duriation.
That'd be seriously sweet.
5:00 maybe beds similar to those used in capsule hotels? Could be useful for long haul flights, basically what overnight trains used to do. (Although not sure it's really that interesting, considering differences in time zones).
Actually, hydrogen fuel cells make the most sense and not hydrogen combustion. Fuel cells are way more energy efficient than combustion. Combustion is one of the most inefficient forms of energy conversion. Also, the high temperature of hydrogen combustion still produces nitrogen oxides, whereas the much lower temperatures of hydrogen fuel cells don't produce any emissions except for pure water vapor.
When the water is released in the atmosphere, did anybody calculate the greenhouse effect from the water vapor and compared it with the released Co2 from normal petrolium planes? Would be interesting if it is better and how much better. :)
Probably a drop in the ocean compared with what evaporates from the ocean.
There is no real greenhouse effect from that. It’s water vapor, it forms clouds and then rains down as pure water.
Water vapor is qite an extreme greenhousgas - pops up in the calculstions...but I honestly don't understand it, because as you pointed out - clouds. Maybe it's different in a cloud or it probably has to do with how high you you release the water vapor. Don't know.
My new favourite channel!
Excellent!
Mine too!
4:09
3 Applications of Augmented Reality in the Travel Industry
Augmented reality is taking over the travel industry, making travel safer, more convenient, educational, and worthwhile.
"Augmented reality enhances the world around us by incorporating elements of a virtual environment into our own. It can make the most mundane experiences more exciting. This is the power of AR. It’s also what makes AR ideal for the travel industry."
By Gergana Mileva
arpost.co/
4:44
I am I interested in the practical engineering aspect. Being a cryogenic, where would the hydrogen be stored? Being hydrogen, and being less dense than a Hydrocarbon, is it any reduction in range with a hydrogen based fuel source when compared to åHydrocarbon? With the X 31, there were significant engineer in problems with the hydrogen fuel tanks, as they were composites.
Probably gaseous under ~1000 bars. Takes larger volume, but less mass than kerosene.
@@bazoo513 1000 bars..really? The LH2 tank on the Space Shuttle was pressurised to 202 kPa, or 2 Bar [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_external_tank#Liquid_hydrogen_tank]....To contain the pressure tank would be so heavy, all of the plane will not be able to takeoff, or the payload would be extremely limited, Or not at all, the plane would be trying to fly only the LH2 tank! . Sir, let's deal with practical engineering problems, and solutions. Even if you had composite tanks, it will not work..but the LH2 Composite tanks on the X-31 Had such fundamentally Difficult engineering problems to solve, Nasa gave up and canceled the whole program. This is not gonna fly! This is why in over 100 years of flight, no one has built a practical aircraft using hydrogen as a fuel, except for aircraft Flying faster than Mach 4...Where they need to cool the leading edges, And aircraft body so it will not melt.
@@hypercomms2001 Yes, really. Shuttle's external tank was cryogenic - both hydrogen and oxygen there were liquid. Hydrogen fuel cell cars, OTOH, store hydrogen as a gas under high pressure (e.g. Toyota Mirai - about 700 bar). Those will be relatively small, cylindrical lightweight composite tanks.
X.33 (not X-31) had problems with carbon composite tank delamination (which was, BTW, solved at the moment of project cancellation), and it contained cryogenic, not pressurized hydrogen.
@@bazoo513 there's a difference in vehicles, Cars are not as concerned with power to weight as aircraft....
As for the tank failure... here is the report... ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20040086019
Storing hundred as a cryogenic is smart because the volume of hydrogen that can be stored.
This was the only serious investigation into the use of Hydrogen...for hypersonic propulsion... 1964...
www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/87708main_H-361.pdf
@@hypercomms2001 Google around for available, relatively cheap commercially available products - they store hydrogen ar ~500 bar and weight ~200kg for 10kg of hydrogen. Larger tanks will have better weight-to-content ratio.
Bur recall that Airbus chief also mentioned "hydrogen in synthetic fuels" - my guess would be methane produced from CO2 captured from air and water, via Sabatier process. But this is just a guess.
Nice video! I think you are the closest competitor to living aviation!
Sir, I am technology savvy. I understand what you are saying.
The credit goes to the proper diction, meant for atleast for dumbos like me.
Most of the other posts are such that we see, visualize but understand no words.
Great . Keep it up.
Well said - thanks for watching!
Got to have that BWB.
where does all the energy come from to make, store, and transport the liquid hydrogen?
Idk where does all the energy come to extract, refine, store and transport fossil fuels?
@@fergar0206 from burning fossil fuels, obviously.
This is the future for travel .. Look forward for my first trip
So what ever happened to the boarding of the future you know that concept that was forgotten.
The blended wing looks like a nightmare to board
2050 for the future boarding
@@FoundAndExplained seems like it has huge ramp at back...
You beam aboard
You missed another point about hydrogen. Hydrogen, when used with a catalyst in a fuel cell, may be zero emission, but apparently burning hydrogen as a direct replacement for hydrocarbons is not quite as non-polluting as many people think.
Apparently, the increased temperature of the combustion enables/causes some kind of reaction with the nitrogen in the air, producing... some sort of pollutant. I want to say nitrogen dioxide, but I'm not sure. It's definitely something involving nitrogen, anyway.
I am convinced you can do it. With greater pressure yesterday. I am skeptical about the concepts of the passenger cabin, as more comfortable ones already exist today. But who is surprised, only in "first class"
For the skeptics, the Soviets, of all people, had a Tupolev-155 flying on hydrogen in 1988. Pictures here:
th-cam.com/video/U9zgCsEqnG4/w-d-xo.html
It does work. On top of that, hydrogen has a staggering 2.8 higher energy density than kerosine (but also 4 times the amount of volume required for the same energy). But in aviation reducing weight is more important than extra volume. You can for instance store liquid hydrogen in the ceiling, think Airbus Beluga. Hydrogen promises a far larger range than possible with heavy batteries. The world minus the US has decided that fossil needs to go. Hydrogen will replace it. Conventional fossil fuel is depleting anyway.
well... size matters too for drag. thou if nuclear fusion will work that we could have enough hydrogen for using it...
Hindenburg had hydrogen. promising isn't it?
@@vahehatch2800 Concorde had kerosene. Who would ever take a kerosene-powered plane after the Gonesse-disaster?
And by the way: The planes won't use thin-walled balloons as fuel tanks.
@@701983 if you follow closely the video about Tu155, you'll notice that they had "Azot", that is Nitrogen aboard to keep the compartment around their 20m^3 hidrogen tank safe during operation. For kerosene such precocionary measures are not required. Plus, the entire project is meant only to beat some environmental issues, not the Soviets. So, we won't be flying Hydrogen any time soon.
@@vahehatch2800 Liquid hydrogen is undoubtedly a very inconvenient fuel. And you might be right and there will be no commercial hydrogen airplane in foreseeable future.
But I just can't stand this idiotic Hindenburg-argument any more.
Using hydrogen in balloons for lift is completely different to the use of liquid hydrogen in robust fuel tanks.
By the way: The major part of crew and passengers survived the Hindenburg fire and crash.
Unlike the fire and crash of the concorde.
Wait, dont they use hydrogen and oxygen in rockets? Correct me if I am wrong.
the concept looks good ecept the hydrogen
Air Hindenburg.
The hydrogen concept is far from over and scientists probably find an answer to the scarcity of hydrogen for aircraft,but the interior concept might find the light of day for existing aircraft
The big hurdle for hydrogen-powered aircraft is the handling and storage of the hydrogen itself. Hydrogen gas, stored at around 100 bar of pressure and at 20 degrees Celsius, is over 100 times less dense than kerosene (0.0078g/cm^3 vs 0.79-0.81g/cm^3), meaning that you need enormous tanks to hold a comparative amount of fuel. Even as a liquid, it has a very low density compared to kerosene, being only about 1/9th as dense - this is why, when you look at the big orange tank on the Space Shuttle or its successor, the new SLS, over 3/4 of the tank is for liquid hydrogen, with the part for liquid oxygen being the small section in the nose above the ribbed intertank.
Density aside, hydrogen is dangerous and difficult to work with. Recall how I gave the example of gaseous hydrogen being stored at 100 bar? To those who don't use metric, that's about 1450 PSI - EXTREMELY high pressure. Even if the hydrogen didn't combust in a tank failure, the pressure alone would cause a devastating explosion, so those tanks must be very, VERY over-engineered to prevent that.
Secondly, it's hard to keep hydrogen in the tanks without it getting away; gaseous hydrogen, being the smallest molecule found in nature, will slip through even the tiniest cracks; helium balloons deflate over time, and helium molecules are twice as large! And that's not even talking about the tribulations of liquid hydrogen; a cryogenic gas that must be cooled to insanely low temperatures and kept at extremely high pressures. Even with excellent insulation, liquid hydrogen will boil off over time (yes, hydrogen gas can still boil at 100 degrees below zero), so unless you consume it faster than it boils off, to prevent the tank from over-pressuring and rupturing, you'll have to vent it off, causing you to lose that fuel. So, you can't just swap out the engines and then fill up the tanks of existing airliners with hydrogen.
Hydrogen is an EXCELLENT fuel from a performance standpoint, but from a logistical standpoint, it's a nightmare to work with. The key to the future is finding better ways to store and handle hydrogen.
Well planned in term's of interior, eco friendly and advanced technology.... taken care of minute things delighted to see the video.
Very nice video, thank you!
A pleasure!
Beans methane power the Future
Good ... Bro...
Good ...
Invest in Heinz now!
This guy deserve more views and subs
Thank you sir! You have made my day!
Yes he dose
It takes a lot of energy to make hydrogen. Unless the hydrogen is produced with green energy, the emissions are just being shifted, not eliminated.
I don't believe Hydrogen is the future
Just like electric cars shift the emissions "a gram of carbon dioxide emitted from an ICE car's tailpipe has the same effect as a gram of carbon dioxide emitted from the stack of a power station."
The point isn't to achieve "net zero” emissions from airplanes. Instead they are making a big move from fossil fuels to cheap renewable energy that is sustainable and cost efficient in the long run.
Hydrogen has a lot potential that BATTERY electric technology is very far from achieving in ships, planes, race cars etc.
2035 is just to late, simple as that. If they really wanted to they could build it in 5 years. SpaceX went to space in just 10 years, can't tell me they need 15 years to just adapt a plain.
Nonsense Nonsense, space x still uses fossil fuels the RP1 which is refined kerosene, wtf are you talking about?!?
Too late for what?
Norman Stewart End of the earth, on this pace of burning fossil fuels, we only have 7 years until a non stoppable chainreaction has begun, we won’t be able to stop the earth warming up and all organisms will die
Le Chat Botté I know mate but I mean if spaceX can build a rocket from scratch in 10 years, they can also build a H2 plane in 10 years
@@vincevanderperre8660 Oh yeah, of course; how could I forget? Thanks for reminding me. I musn't forget to cancel the milk.
The plane with the propeller doesn't burn hydrogen in a turbine at all.
It uses fuel cells to produce electricity to drive electric engines, a completely different form of propulsion.
Also burning hydrogen in turbines isn't entirely environmentally friendly if it's burned in air (in part because said air contains other things then just O2 but also because the temperatures in question allows other chemical reactions, with fuel cells you really just get one chemical reaction, oh, and another thing, planes fly high enough that some of the gas coming in is ozone, perhaps not ideal to burn that...)
It these contaminates are already in the air, how does burning H2 and whatever is already in the air make the air worse?
@@fahrbot1 Thanks for the explanation. Never knew that.
@@fahrbot1 Awesome Facts - and nobody is looking at this way...
The plane with the propeller doesn't burn anything. It is nothing but a digital picture. The purpose of these ads is to increase public pressure for additional illegal taxpayer subsidies to Airbus. There is a word for this in the English language. It is called Greenwash. Look it up.
No current or foreseeable hydrogen turbine has anything resembling the energy density required to power an aircraft. The only non-hydrocarbon technology that comes close is lithium-ion batteries running electric motors with propellers attached, and even that is decades away from feasibility at current rates of technological progress.
It is sad that voters are fooled by this. We need journalists who can identify and remove technological fake news.
What about a methanol fuel cell in a plane? Methanol seems to be more accessible than hydrogen at the moment.
Nice video, now I have more information for my class project tomorrow :), keep it up!
Did I hear hydrogen dioxide or commonly known as water? 1:16
Shot down by Canadian Safety Standards as there is not enough doors to escape!
These arebjust concepts, they don't even have lights
Is it me or the cookpit window or frame kind of looks like the A350s
It would be! The a350 and a330neo and I suppose every future version of an airbus plane has them
INteresting concepts. Kinda hyping things up for the stock price
I'm pro-H2 but what would the long term effect be if we add tons of water vapor to the atmosphere? Would rain increase and would we go into another ice age with the amount of cloud cover?
I don't know and I haven't seen anyone talking about it
H2 combustion and traditional Fossil fuel combustion produce roughly the same amount of water. Fuel cells do produce more, but not a massive quantity more. The difference is that H2 only emits water, whilst FF produces water and other compounds as well.
This is design concept of Zeroe by Mr. Iwan Pangalila?
You can air-travel 2000+ miles on hydrogen with a different design.
LAPCAT A2, an airbreathing offshoot of the Sabre Skylon spaceplane. Mach 5.5, 300 passengers, 8500 mile range.
Go to bed Marcus! It's 2am!!
You need coal and oil to produce eletricity to produce hidrogen. Green ?
found and explained is the coolest!!!
Thanks so much dude! You are the coolest!
Hydrogen dioxide is definitely not called as Water H2O. But good insights, thank you!
Is it possible,
By changing every aircraft to hydrogen powered which create heavy h20 emision, can lead high rate of rain/storm or bigger cloud? And if that happen will it cool down the earth or drown netherland?
This channel is do underrated! Subbed!
You are do kind! Thanks so much :)
@@FoundAndExplained haha 😄
Wow! Your animations just get better and better!
Yay thanks for the new news!
If anyone can design something totally new and cutting edge while still prioritizing & maintaining safety, it’s Airbus ❤️
Also, Aptera 👍
This is why we should go for electric fusion power, almost 0 flaws.
If possible, it would be interesting to Airbus to create a project of H2 version of A330.
สร้างเลย ครับ เพื่ออนาคตที่ดี
minor nitpick, it's dihydrogen monoxide/oxide, not hydrogen dioxide - that would be HO2
More viable alternaive: Startup AirZep, which goes retro to airships of pre-Hindenberg era that float lighter than air with H2. Designed to begin a journey at high altitude, it consumes its flotation inflation-gas as a fuel, shrinking, but descending to lower altitudes where buoyancy is higher as the ship gains relative weight to volume.
How to account for the pressure changes and fatigue caused by it?
I have a few questions tho. Where will they get the hydrogen? Water electrolysis? That is very energy expensive. Most hydrogen plants (farms) today work by gasifying Methane or long chain hydrocarbon at high temperature to produce Hydrogen, and Carbon Monoxide (which will be released in the atmosphere).
I am a fan of the wing shape, i think it is about time because we have enough experience with single wing aircraft for that but the hydrogen engine is a big risk.
I think the blended wing design in the best idea, and it can still use regular jet fuel and reduce the amount needed.
That turboprop is only one that can make it
Omg!
These planes look great!
Airbus is awesome!
unnecessary exclamation marks!
Unusual, new and unlike what I am used to seeing and been-in several times. But it looks good. I wish travel times were quicker like 5 minutes more or less.
THEY CAN PRODUCE HYDROGEN FUEL ON SITE AND FOR ADDITIONAL LIFT ASSISTANCE THEY COULD USE BETAVOLTAIC POWER CELLS WITH STORAGE CAPACITORS NOTHING LIKE A SELF-RECHARGING BATTERY TO KEEP YOU UP IN THE AIR
Wow amazing Airbus👍
Impressive..... please share developments for designing planes avoiding crash.... i heard of planes in future with parachute
...
Sounds like one of those too good to be true PR stunts
H2O forms contrails which has a warming effect although H2 fuel might have a lower optical thickness
all airbreathing engines form contrails
For existing planes, biofuels would be nice.
A smaller version of the blended wing aircraft could sell as a corporate jet.
We tried hydrogen before for flying, it did not end well.
Oh, the humanity!
Dihydrogen is massively produced for agriculture actually ... as a derivate from methane.
I just can't understand how people can think that
- electric planes can be commercial aircrafts, even with the projection on the technology for the next 20 years
- lifting bodies with be practical aricrafts.
- Hydrogene as a mass production electricity storage solution will be a reality (and less armful to the Earth than burning fuel...)
I can say these things :
- compared to a turbofan, a power-equivalent electric engine group will weight dozen times more - this is a major problem
- electric propulsion means airscrews. Think of the implications.
airscrews mean planes flight lower, with mor noise, slower and are overall less efficient for middle to long range duties.
There are so many things that bring us to think that electric plane will be far less efficients than thermic-powered planes.
One solution is less planes, only for valuable journeys (no tourism...)
AIRBUS all the way!
Three seats in rows takes up the exact same space as a triple bunk bed to lay flat. On flight longer than five hours, I always Sleep so would pay Extra to have a flat bed similar to the new Austrian Night Trainsets. Triple to quad bunks with sliding privacy doors.
Crash safety would be a problem. There is no alternative to seat belts. Nothing would keep you strapped down while lying in bed... unless somebody invents gigantic airbags to keep you from smashing into the the upper bunk.
@@___Chris___ Before covid, there was always over a million people in the air (in planes) at any time of the day, 24x7x365.
The number of crashes are rare.
A laying down bed can have, often have belts, straps. They prevent rolling out of bed and on planes keep in the bed during turbulence. There are several airlines with first class seats that become beds and back to seats. They exist and are very comfy for flights over seven to eight hours... :)
@@geoffreythorberg2580 I'm aware of the rarity of crashes. It's not that relevant. Safety is often a psychological and legal discussion. I'm sure that a single crash with more victims lying in those beds compared to seated passengers would be enough to create a media shitstorm and have NTSB recommendations to ban those beds. You can't compare this to first class seats that can fold back at any time. You also can't strap down the entire body. Nobody would want to sleep tied up like that and easy&quick release in case of an evacuation, ditching etc would also be required. All in all: not very realistic that this would ever pass an FAA (/EASA) certification. Yes, those agencies are paranoid, but keep in mind that we have these low fatality numbers BECAUSE they are paranoid. I'm a (private) pilot myself and have owned an aircraft for many years, so I have my own experience with seemingly exaggerated air safety rules. Moreover: certification would not be based simply on common sense (which is where I would agree with you), but according to the results of crash test models, no matter how rare severe crashes actually are.
i think airbus should make a hydrogen cargo plane so that delivery companies like ups and fedex can fly aircrafts that have no co2 emissions
ZERO EMMISON FLIGHT!!! WOW, No wait we have had unicorns for ages.
I don't think I'll be the first person to fly on those planes. MAX 8 had a lot of new technologies too:)
Thunderf00t has a great video on why we don't use battery powered planes and why we don't use hydrogen as fuel for most things.
Batteries are too heavy and too big currently
What’s the difference between nautical and regular miles?
Hydrogen for sure 👍🏻
Batteries is the way to go for short and middle distance aviation. Gains in energy price on batteries will justify its adoption. Right now H2 can only try to match fuel in price. Yet much more explosive.
Wake up. Batteries weight too much. It has been said a million times already.
@@almerindaromeira8352 400kWh/kg is where they start to make sense. Yesterday Elon said that could be achievable, surely. But sure you know more.
@@eduardpertinez4767 where they start to make sense does not equal they are the future of aviation! What do you consider middle distance? How much payload? Do you realize that we are talking about half the speed? There are studies out there, one very easy to read from NATO also has a case study for regional aircraft in the middle that you can check out.
Does not however address problems like safety, maintenance and charging. Did you know average aircraft utilisation in the US is 12 hours flying/day/plane? That means the battery must take in energy at the same rate it releases it...
Elon musk is the guy who tried to reinvent the tunnel...
The ghost of the Hindenburg has to exorcised first.
Exercise facility in aircraft hahahaha. The airlines wants the passenger to be crammed like sardines
Amazing how the airline industry has given up on SST. In the 1950's futurists and aerospace experts all thought that we would be flying on nuclear powered airliners traveling Mach 3+. The fact that there are sleeper cabins on airliners today shows just how little we have really progressed. Travel times do not have to be this long. They are only this long because the industry refuses to develop SST technology.
The industry has not given up but they can't overcome the main problem which is the sonic boom. That precludes any widespread use of SST.
For normal planes, we could technically go faster but it requires too much fuel so it was chosen not to go faster.
@@aidanclarke6106 Is it really a problem at high altitude >100K feet? We could go nuclear and be zero carbon. We could build new airports offshore on in lowly populated desert regions to mitigate crash problems. Then customers get on a commuter plane or bullet train to their final destination.
I can see structural capacitors made by nano deposition of metal and ceramic in a prepreg material to be used for electricity storage.
Cryogenic hydrogen requires extremely large tanks because of it lower density as well as shielding to prevent it from boiling.
Ethanol or bio diesel is more effective despite it producing some CO2 as it can be produced from algae farms.