It's so nice to see the original A380 continuing to make contributions to the future of commercial aviation. There are a number of zero emission options being investigated both hydrogen and electric propulsion systems seem to be at the forefront right now. We may see other viable solutions but my gut feeling is it with be either hydrogen or electric which will win the contest. No matter which way it goes the change is a must if we are hope to maintain and grow global air travel while most importantly reach the zero emission target. We can and will do it.
Real engineering has a good video on hydrogen vs electric but for trucks. Short version is, with current capabilities of hydrogen and battery tech, electric is great for short haul trucking. Hydrogen is good for longer distances. I can see something like that for airplanes too with smaller ones have battery power and larger ones with hydrogen. This is assuming we don't have a breakthrough with battery tech that massively improves it's energy density
and how does anyone plan to produce hydrogen without using more energy than they're producing??? You'll have to burn SOMETHING to make energy to get the hydrogen. I guess it's a good argument for more nuclear fission but still.
@@98f5 there are multiple ways to get the energy for hydrogen production without burning: solar, wind, hydro to name a few. The minimum barrier to clear is hydrogen production be cleaner and efficient than fossil fuel
Farr to dangerous ,hydrogen, inside a tank, to dangerous, hard to control this gas, you need a extra converta to produce the hydrogen gas the plane flights , rather use it from a tank.too dangerous , one error, and here you are...
Excellent strategy to use 380! Most "green" initiatives start small and fail, when you start big and succeed, you dominate the market. If Airbus pulls off building worlds largest passenger aircraft twice (older and newer generation emission perspective), that's hats off! :)
No, you didn't understand. They don't want to make a hydrogen A380. They are merely using the A380 for testing purposes, and if the tests succeed, they will proceed to make new aircraft types powered with hydrogen.
@@osasunaitor actually did understand, just did not phase is the best way (english is not my 1st language), but basically using it is achieving it twice. 380 (or any other that size paxAC)isn't ever going back to production, that's basic knowledge.
@@GenericGeeza It depends on your criteria, in terms of volume you're probably correct although the C-5 Galaxy could be a contender. Length wise 747-8 is the longest, Stratolaunch is the widest.
This is like the best news for me. I am 11 and I want to be an A380 pilot. I was heartbroken when it was going out of service. Thank You for this video, Simple Flying..
Hey buddy! Really cool that you want to be a pilot. Even if you won’t be able to pilot the A380 there will be many other fantastic new aircrafts to pilot in the future 👍🙌
@@LuLeBe exactly. It's shifts the design focus to volumetric efficiency rather than weight. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just different to the status quo.
Airbus always looking at the future. It currently has an autonomous A350 testbed. It taxis, takes off, flies, and lands with no human inputs using new onboard tech.
I wish the developments could go faster. The task is getting everything to scale up and built up the logistics. I hope they really make haste on the low-hanging fruit. For example; hydrogen needs more storage volume? Then perhaps regional airlines where range is not the biggest issue can be tackled first. Makes the ground logistics easier too; the airfields from where they'd fly would be closer together and supplying them all with hydrogen for refueling should be plenty doable. Still, go! Rock on!
with work being done by the Schmid group in Germany developing nanotechnology that can create hydrogen using only the energy from the sun, no external energy input needed. very promising
Have you ever thought that maybe “groundbreaking” isn’t the most appealing term to refer to aircraft that, if all goes well, won’t be impacting the ground? 🤪
how does anyone plan to produce hydrogen without using more energy than they're producing??? You'll have to burn SOMETHING to make energy to get the hydrogen. I guess it's a good argument for more nuclear fission but still. I am highly curious how it could possibly be economically or ecologically viable to use hydrogen as a fuel in this manner since there aren't ponds of hydrogen under the ground to just pump it up. There are ways to extract it chemically, electrically, and mechanically. my guess is the best option would be chemically but I am not sure even this could be possible to extract enough hydrogen in which you don't nullify any positive gains you would get by using hydrogen as a fuel to begin with.
Well, hydrogen can be synthesised in a variety of ways. Google the hydrogen rainbow, essentially the different ways of making it are assigned colours, from grey hydrogen (made using natural gas), blue hydrogen (as with grey hydrogen, but you store the CO2 produced), to green hydrogen (made using electrolysis powered by renewable sources), pink hydrogen (made using electrolysis with nuclear reactors), and many more. You can also produce it from biomass too. In terms of efficiencies, electrolysis is ok, somewhere between 50-70%, so for 1 MWh of energy you would get 0.5-0.7 MWh of hydrogen out, other methods can be better.
@@onetrickhorse Thanks for the reply! after i posted this I've thought about some ways to get around the cost problems using renewables and nuclear for electrical, and yeah biomass and chemical options as well. I still wonder about the overall cost of the energy however, especially with electrolysis. solar panels are not cheap to build and also take a lot of power to create, I am not sure the amount of energy a solar cell can output on it's life but i wonder if it's more or less than the energy expended to create it to begin with. Regardless there is still hydro and wind. It's a shame the solar reflectors in AZ failed with the plant that liquefied salts. I Also saw a method by which you can produce hydrogen directly on solar cells, it involved running water over them to cool them which improved their efficiency by a large amount, I tried to find that video but couldn't. Anyways. It's just a cool topic to me.
@@98f5 Anytime! And for what it's worth, you're asking the right questions, many people assume that because solar offers a zero carbon output once made, that it is therefore zero carbon. The reality is that it isn't an eco friendly manufacturing process, and recycling is also energy intensive too. With any energy generation technique, the ultimate comparison metric has always been cost per unit energy output, or $/MWh (or £/MWh in my case!), or if you're a consumer, cents or pence per kWh. Here in the UK, to be competitive in the energy market, you need to be able to sell energy to the grid at £60/MWh or less. Now, solar is cheap, perhaps about £40-50 per MWh, and that factors in initial cost (CAPEX) and lifespan costs (OPEX) and eventual decommissioning/recycling costs. Now, that's actually pretty cheap, in fact it's about as cheap as it gets energy-wise. But here in the UK, the sun isn't always shining, in fact, it's rarely shining enough to make the most of a solar installation, and when it does, it's not always when we want it. Wind is expensive, perhaps more like £60/MWh, with offshore being more, but it's subsidised. Wind in the UK is no doubt plentiful and common, but like solar, is intermittent, and often difficult to predict. So you need something reliable, like nuclear or gas to provide that baseload when it's a cloudy calm day, or a calm night when solar and wind is useless. Now, why am I telling you this? Well, global energy generation works on a 'just in time' operating model. The moment energy is produced, it is used, and power grids react according to demand. That is problematic when you have intermittent energy supply like solar or wind, and it causes wild price fluctuations as demand for reliable methods like gas increase. This pushes up the cost of the energy. Now, what if we could store that energy instead, so instead of shutting down wind farms on windy days when we have too much energy, we store it somehow. Hydrogen could be a potential solution to the problem. You build overcapacity in your renewables, generate a load of hydrogen, store it as either a liquid or convert it into ammonia, and then you have options. On days where you have no wind or solar, you either burn hydrogen in CCGT's, or use it in fuel cells to supply the grid. Or, if you dare to dream really big, create a wider hydrogen economy, and use it for other industries, like aviation, which works to offset the cost. You mention efficiency, and quite rightly so. Think round-trip efficiency of a hydrogen storage network; you generate 1 MWh of electricity at say £50/MWh average. Then you generate hydrogen using electrolysis, so lets be optimistic and say 70% efficiency, so that price now is £71/MWh. You spend about 20% of the remaining energy liquefying it, or 10% converting it to ammonia, so now that £71/MWh is now £88/MWh or £78/MWh respectively. Then there's conversion back into energy when you need it, and lets say you run the electrolysers in reverse to generate energy (like a fuel cell), so about 70% once more. Now we've got 1 MWh of energy costing us £112/MWh for ammonia, and £125/MWh for liquid hydrogen. Which is extremely expensive of course. But now let's consider the cost of natural gas. Gas is now costing £120/MWh. And that is going to rise. So suddenly, those costs of storage look very competitive. Once the price of gas reaches about £140/MWh, the CAPEX costs of investing in hydrogen storage technology will be competitive. So food for thought!
It is interesting to finally see hydrogen take off, pun intended. It's even better to see if used intelligently, by burning it. But it still has to compete with battery technology that shrinks its energy density by an average of 7% every year. That's a tough one to compete with. Both mean cleaner skies and thumb nose to the rest of the mobility industry ;)
Yes a battery powered aircraft has one glaring issue: it doesn’t shed weight as it flies like other engine types. So takeoffs have to be done at landing weight
@@TheTubadMoose It's not a glaring issue. It's something every and any aviation engineer knows and understands well. All the electric aviation startups I've spoken to and interviewed say that they toughened up the landing gears. As always, there are always more solutions than obstacles. That's why these people find them for us :)
@@ElectricUAM I’m not talking about gear strength. The heavier something is, the more energy is needed to move that weight. So unless the batteries get to the point of weighing less than a plane with its fuel reserves, they will never be able to carry more pax/cargo.
@@TheTubadMoose I'm sure you're aware that that point is more than well understood in the aviation world. Like I said previously, all the UAM/AAM companies I know and have interviewed know this basic fundamental of AAM aircraft design. Furthermore, once a plane glides with enough lift, it doesn't need a lot of energy to do so. Airliners cruise with maybe 30% of their total power output at cruising speeds and ceilings. Planes are highly efficient. You're referring to battery energy density, which at the moment, is not big enough for more than four people flying for 10 to 15 minutes. However, new batteries are coming on the market this year raising that energy density for much longer flights with higher payloads. Think of Atrium with 450 kW/h commercial packs available right now and with 500 at the end of the year. Also, keep in mind battery energy density shrinks about 7% a year, something unmatched by internal combustion engines. Add to it that the price also shrinks and you can see the potential for the future. I think you're also thinking batteries are so big it's hard to carry passengers. Nothing could be further from it. Check out Ampaire. They use a Cessna 333. The only thing they did was to add the battery below the cabin, much like a Cessna Caravan. Or look at the Volt Aero which takes the Cessna 333 design but redesigns it completely with integrated batteries. Look at Jaunt or any other eVTOL/eSTOL for that matter of fact. There is room. Again, there are always more solutions than obstacles in this known observable Universe.
Definitely this is a viable fuel alternative, for obvious reasons. I strongly support its usage. In fact, I would favor accelerating its development (no pun intended).
Honestly I would be a little worried to fly on a hydrogen powered airplane. I know airbus would have made those tanks ultra durable and strong, but in case of some kind of leak, and knowing how hydrogen combusts, I would be a little scared. But I’m interested in seeing how this would work.
Several below observe that Hydrogen has to be generated in some way, and the way it is now merely puts the Carbon emissions somewhere else. With electric power the same thing happens; it's just that Hydrogen would allow longer flight duration. I don't pretend to know the entire Science, and it seems the engineers solve these problems, but for now this will require a lot of new windmills and solar farms.
This is brilliant. Airbus and F1 together can save our future with new fuel and combustion process. Batteries are not the future of transportation for sure.
Back in 1976, I was on my high school debate team. The topic was how to solve the energy crisis. My partner and I developed a plan where cars, planes, and trains would migrate from engines burning petroleum-based fuels to engines burning compressed hydrogen. I'm glad to see what opponents thought was a crazy idea in 1976 is being taken seriously by one of the world's largest aerospace companies 46 years later.
Sounds good but don't forget, hydrogen is an energy carrier - not a fuel. It does not exist anywhere on earth in its pure form. So making hydrogen is a very dirty process as it stands, mainly by burning gas or coal. For making green H2 in the quantities needed for aviation, the upscale in infrastructure needed is going to be very, very expensive.
should AIRBUS introduces a stretched variant of the A380-800 it should be powered by a HYBRId® power pack . . . the A380-1000 Neo LR which is a concept super stretched variant of the A380-800 or the A380-900 for that matter . . .
Based on how much modification it needs to just run one test engine I don't see existing planes being retrofitted with that, so it's doubtful the 380 will be any more than a test platform IMHO
And you’re right, this is just a test platform with no plans of adding it to already existing aircraft other than test aircraft. The aim is to built aircraft entirely running on hydrogen with experiences gained from the program
@@johnlove7328 1: cryogenic under pressure 2: high volume 3: vesil very heavy 4: very energy intense to compress/chill 5: very energy intense to produce 6: very low efficency
Gee… am very excited about this hydrogen technology, which is a true answer to problems of our own creation, addressing the damaging emissions of the 9,740 aircraft in the air when I wrote this (according to FlightRadar24). Hydrogen technology, if realistic, offers a way forward for the human activities that now contribute to increasingly damaging daily weather events across the globe and loss of biodiversity found in critical habitats like Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.
It’s a test aircraft to first of all test an engine running on hydrogen. All four engines the A380 already has run on Jet A1, only the fifth engine will run on hydrogen. That’s a common practice when it comes to testing new engines as you of course want to test the engines at all kinds of altitudes and in different scenarios. Maybe you have already seen pictures of GE‘s 747 with the GE9X installed or PW‘s 747 which also uses a similar set up to the hydrogen A380
This is just like testing any new engine. You keep most of the original engines to fly the airplane and put one new engine to test. If the new engine does not work as expected, you fly on the old engines.
As a person that is obsessed with the periodic table, I think hydrogen is going to give the passengers a chilly flight and it will be unbearable with the altitude and hydrogen, so fuel might be the choice, but it won't for the environment, so the only possible option I can think of is using electricity ⚡⚡⚡
This plane is not intended for airline service. Using a 777 has no real benefits, to be honest probably also no disadvantages but still. Simply it not being an Airbus aircraft rules utilizing it out. Also, the A380 may have the needed size for the hydrogen tanks.
I love & welcome the hydrogen revolution in the aviation industry BUT I still don't understand how this is a practical means for lessening the amount CO2 in the atmosphere since making hydrogen takes more energy than what it what gives back. 🤷♂️ Well, unless fusion reactor becomes a reality and stable.
If course the way hydrogen is obtained has to be worked out in the future, but it’s kinda normal that you need to first "invest" CO2 before having benefits. Producing new batteries of electric cars emits a lot of CO2 and the car has to driven for quite some distance for it to compensate the CO2 it in service life doesn’t emit. It’s also similar with wind turbines: To build them you need machinery which is more than likely using e.g. electricity made from coal. Maybe at a certain point we’re able to enter a cycle and use the energy of already existing wind turbines to produce more, but until that point is reached a lot has to be done :/
The strategy assumes that in 2035 we have spare renewable electricity generation capacity - or an alternatively clean electricity source, fusion or fission. The positive news is that the delivery of electricity does not have to happen at precise point of time, like let's say when cooking, watching TV or charging a car that needs to be used the next day. Hydrogen can be generated when spare electricity capacity is available and stored for later use.
@@nathanieong6212 Why not? If plants can extract CO2 from the air and split it into carbon and oxygen, so should we be able to do as well. I am not saying this is feasible, as hydrogen is easier, but given enough "free" energy, it should be doable.
Unfortunately this idea is a huge waste of money. "In order to produce hydrogen (with zero emissions) a process called, electrolysis. 20 - 30% of energy is lost in the process of creating hydrogen. The hydrogen must then be compressed and stored, losing another 10%. Finally, another 30% is lost when converting the hydrogen into electricity. This leaves you with 30 - 40% of the original energy used. " and unfortunately this process really can't become much more efficient. Hydrogen requires nearly as much energy to produce as it delivers. The CE rating (energy efficiency) for hydrogen is around 60%
Where did you copy and paste this from? There are a few oversights in your comment. First, the hydrogen is not converted to electricity - it is burned in the engine, negating the energy loss of converting to electricity. Second, distribution and storage is very easy with planes vs something like a car. A car can be anywhere when it needs refuelling so many locations are needed creating additional transport and storage losses. A plane can only refuel at airports so they could even have hydrogen plants on site or nearby via pipeline. Third, jet fuel also uses a good amount of energy to make and transport with drilling, extraction, distillation and final processing. Hydrogen as aircraft fuel is a lot more viable than other modes of transport.
I don’t see this as exciting, Hydrogen when burnt as a liquid gas is very inefficient & extremely polluting as it creates a large quantity of co2 to make it. There is talk of it replacing natural gas but i don’t see that happening either.
As of now you need a lot of CO2 to obtain hydrogen, yes, but it’s the same for most other green energies (for example wind turbines also first have to be made). We can only wait and see what new and better ways of obtaining can be found
Because currently hydrogen is the most dense way to store energy in a clean and renewable way. If we use batteries, we cannot store the same energy in an efficient way, nor can we produce the batteries in an environment clean way. Using other synthetic fuels based on carbon will not be much better than what we have today.
Of course it will never be a real estate Woopsie real world technology. The reason that I need 380 is being used, is it the entire airplane is used as fuel tank! The energy density of hydrogen is very low compared to Petrolia. And if you think that we are going to liquefied hydrogen, think again. It takes an enormous amount of energy to liquefy hydrogen
Liquid hydrogen just doesn't provide enough energy to get even a small aircraft off the ground. Plus, it either has to be kept VERY cold or under a great deal of pressure...not something that will be practical machinery you want on a commercial aircraft. Don't expect much from this...feels mostly like environmental PR from Airbus as usual. 🤷♂️
Finally I found a single rational comment here. Unfortunately this idea is a huge waste of money. "In order to produce hydrogen (with zero emissions) a process called, electrolysis. 20 - 30% of energy is lost in the process of creating hydrogen. The hydrogen must then be compressed and stored, losing another 10%. Finally, another 30% is lost when converting the hydrogen into electricity. This leaves you with 30 - 40% of the original energy used. " and unfortunately this process really can't become much more efficient. Hydrogen requires nearly as much energy to produce as it delivers. The CE rating (energy efficiency) for hydrogen is around 60%
It's so nice to see the original A380 continuing to make contributions to the future of commercial aviation. There are a number of zero emission options being investigated both hydrogen and electric propulsion systems seem to be at the forefront right now. We may see other viable solutions but my gut feeling is it with be either hydrogen or electric which will win the contest. No matter which way it goes the change is a must if we are hope to maintain and grow global air travel while most importantly reach the zero emission target. We can and will do it.
Real engineering has a good video on hydrogen vs electric but for trucks.
Short version is, with current capabilities of hydrogen and battery tech, electric is great for short haul trucking. Hydrogen is good for longer distances. I can see something like that for airplanes too with smaller ones have battery power and larger ones with hydrogen. This is assuming we don't have a breakthrough with battery tech that massively improves it's energy density
and how does anyone plan to produce hydrogen without using more energy than they're producing??? You'll have to burn SOMETHING to make energy to get the hydrogen. I guess it's a good argument for more nuclear fission but still.
@@98f5 there are multiple ways to get the energy for hydrogen production without burning: solar, wind, hydro to name a few. The minimum barrier to clear is hydrogen production be cleaner and efficient than fossil fuel
@@anzer789 haha thanks for the response. I can't believe i didn't think of other renewables. SMH musta been tired when i posted those questions.
Farr to dangerous ,hydrogen, inside a tank, to dangerous, hard to control this gas, you need a extra converta to produce the hydrogen gas the plane flights , rather use it from a tank.too dangerous , one error, and here you are...
That's nice, happy to see that the A380 will play an important role in the future and the evolution of Airbus and all of Aviation! :D
Airbus knows what they're doing. No doubt they'll be more than successful.
Yea.. they are colecting subsides from the EU while reserching a dead end
Nice!happy to see that the a380 is making contributions to the future!
Excellent strategy to use 380! Most "green" initiatives start small and fail, when you start big and succeed, you dominate the market. If Airbus pulls off building worlds largest passenger aircraft twice (older and newer generation emission perspective), that's hats off! :)
You're just extremely uneducated. This has nothing to do with the a380
🤔
No, you didn't understand. They don't want to make a hydrogen A380. They are merely using the A380 for testing purposes, and if the tests succeed, they will proceed to make new aircraft types powered with hydrogen.
@@osasunaitor actually did understand, just did not phase is the best way (english is not my 1st language), but basically using it is achieving it twice. 380 (or any other that size paxAC)isn't ever going back to production, that's basic knowledge.
Airbus a380 (as the new largest aircraft in the world to date): But... I can't do this without you!
Antonov 225: You must believe... **Burns down**
There are other cargo planes bigger than a380
The A380 is the biggest aircraft now. I am 97% sure it is bigger than the Dreamlifter, I do know however it definitely is bigger than the Beluga.
@@GenericGeeza It depends on your criteria, in terms of volume you're probably correct although the C-5 Galaxy could be a contender. Length wise 747-8 is the longest, Stratolaunch is the widest.
@@FTFXclan and by most paper is a paper plane
This is like the best news for me. I am 11 and I want to be an A380 pilot. I was heartbroken when it was going out of service. Thank You for this video, Simple Flying..
well you as still at the border very difficult for a new guy to become a A380 pilot now
Hey buddy! Really cool that you want to be a pilot. Even if you won’t be able to pilot the A380 there will be many other fantastic new aircrafts to pilot in the future 👍🙌
Best of Luck
Hydrogen powered planes is a good step as electric ones probably won’t have the capability to go transatlantic.
Battery energy density, both by weight and volume, is pretty much hopeless for anything other than a regional flight.
@@geonerd even at that.. the economy of is horrible
Hydrogen has a really really really low energy density though. So you need huge tanks to hold the volume required. It's not the weight but the volume.
@@LuLeBe exactly. It's shifts the design focus to volumetric efficiency rather than weight. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just different to the status quo.
Maybe a good option is to use a hydrogen based fuel cell to power an electric motor .
Curious about specialized A350-900 CARIBIC & A319OH Open Skies
Airbus always looking at the future. It currently has an autonomous A350 testbed. It taxis, takes off, flies, and lands with no human inputs using new onboard tech.
So did Soviet Space Shuttle, Buran, except it went to space on its own, and did so in the 80s...
I love the background music tune that starts at the 1-minute mark. Please use this tone more often 😍😍
Batteries will never get light enough for longer flights, hydrogen is a must.
They will, someday
@@_Boni_ they won't, if you know how they work
Guys you should equalize the audio of the intro, it goes from a super loud chime that destroys your ears to a soft voice over
That is very interesting. They would be better served to use one of the Emirates A350s.
I vote the first one be named Hindenburg.
Highly excited
I wish the developments could go faster. The task is getting everything to scale up and built up the logistics. I hope they really make haste on the low-hanging fruit. For example; hydrogen needs more storage volume? Then perhaps regional airlines where range is not the biggest issue can be tackled first. Makes the ground logistics easier too; the airfields from where they'd fly would be closer together and supplying them all with hydrogen for refueling should be plenty doable. Still, go! Rock on!
Why go faster into a dead end?
with work being done by the Schmid group in Germany developing nanotechnology that can create hydrogen using only the energy from the sun, no external energy input needed. very promising
Top tip.. dont read technews in the tabloids
That's interesting
0:10 now just world's largest jet period. RIP Antonov
Have you ever thought that maybe “groundbreaking” isn’t the most appealing term to refer to aircraft that, if all goes well, won’t be impacting the ground? 🤪
Excellent
Good enough for me to want to share on social media
I’m looking forward
Which energy dense fuel will be used going into the future for long haul flight will be interesting to see the outcome and which gets developed fully.
how does anyone plan to produce hydrogen without using more energy than they're producing??? You'll have to burn SOMETHING to make energy to get the hydrogen. I guess it's a good argument for more nuclear fission but still. I am highly curious how it could possibly be economically or ecologically viable to use hydrogen as a fuel in this manner since there aren't ponds of hydrogen under the ground to just pump it up. There are ways to extract it chemically, electrically, and mechanically. my guess is the best option would be chemically but I am not sure even this could be possible to extract enough hydrogen in which you don't nullify any positive gains you would get by using hydrogen as a fuel to begin with.
Well, hydrogen can be synthesised in a variety of ways. Google the hydrogen rainbow, essentially the different ways of making it are assigned colours, from grey hydrogen (made using natural gas), blue hydrogen (as with grey hydrogen, but you store the CO2 produced), to green hydrogen (made using electrolysis powered by renewable sources), pink hydrogen (made using electrolysis with nuclear reactors), and many more. You can also produce it from biomass too. In terms of efficiencies, electrolysis is ok, somewhere between 50-70%, so for 1 MWh of energy you would get 0.5-0.7 MWh of hydrogen out, other methods can be better.
@@onetrickhorse Thanks for the reply! after i posted this I've thought about some ways to get around the cost problems using renewables and nuclear for electrical, and yeah biomass and chemical options as well. I still wonder about the overall cost of the energy however, especially with electrolysis. solar panels are not cheap to build and also take a lot of power to create, I am not sure the amount of energy a solar cell can output on it's life but i wonder if it's more or less than the energy expended to create it to begin with. Regardless there is still hydro and wind. It's a shame the solar reflectors in AZ failed with the plant that liquefied salts. I Also saw a method by which you can produce hydrogen directly on solar cells, it involved running water over them to cool them which improved their efficiency by a large amount, I tried to find that video but couldn't. Anyways. It's just a cool topic to me.
@@98f5 Anytime! And for what it's worth, you're asking the right questions, many people assume that because solar offers a zero carbon output once made, that it is therefore zero carbon. The reality is that it isn't an eco friendly manufacturing process, and recycling is also energy intensive too.
With any energy generation technique, the ultimate comparison metric has always been cost per unit energy output, or $/MWh (or £/MWh in my case!), or if you're a consumer, cents or pence per kWh. Here in the UK, to be competitive in the energy market, you need to be able to sell energy to the grid at £60/MWh or less. Now, solar is cheap, perhaps about £40-50 per MWh, and that factors in initial cost (CAPEX) and lifespan costs (OPEX) and eventual decommissioning/recycling costs. Now, that's actually pretty cheap, in fact it's about as cheap as it gets energy-wise. But here in the UK, the sun isn't always shining, in fact, it's rarely shining enough to make the most of a solar installation, and when it does, it's not always when we want it. Wind is expensive, perhaps more like £60/MWh, with offshore being more, but it's subsidised. Wind in the UK is no doubt plentiful and common, but like solar, is intermittent, and often difficult to predict. So you need something reliable, like nuclear or gas to provide that baseload when it's a cloudy calm day, or a calm night when solar and wind is useless. Now, why am I telling you this?
Well, global energy generation works on a 'just in time' operating model. The moment energy is produced, it is used, and power grids react according to demand. That is problematic when you have intermittent energy supply like solar or wind, and it causes wild price fluctuations as demand for reliable methods like gas increase. This pushes up the cost of the energy. Now, what if we could store that energy instead, so instead of shutting down wind farms on windy days when we have too much energy, we store it somehow. Hydrogen could be a potential solution to the problem. You build overcapacity in your renewables, generate a load of hydrogen, store it as either a liquid or convert it into ammonia, and then you have options. On days where you have no wind or solar, you either burn hydrogen in CCGT's, or use it in fuel cells to supply the grid. Or, if you dare to dream really big, create a wider hydrogen economy, and use it for other industries, like aviation, which works to offset the cost.
You mention efficiency, and quite rightly so. Think round-trip efficiency of a hydrogen storage network; you generate 1 MWh of electricity at say £50/MWh average. Then you generate hydrogen using electrolysis, so lets be optimistic and say 70% efficiency, so that price now is £71/MWh. You spend about 20% of the remaining energy liquefying it, or 10% converting it to ammonia, so now that £71/MWh is now £88/MWh or £78/MWh respectively. Then there's conversion back into energy when you need it, and lets say you run the electrolysers in reverse to generate energy (like a fuel cell), so about 70% once more. Now we've got 1 MWh of energy costing us £112/MWh for ammonia, and £125/MWh for liquid hydrogen. Which is extremely expensive of course. But now let's consider the cost of natural gas. Gas is now costing £120/MWh. And that is going to rise. So suddenly, those costs of storage look very competitive. Once the price of gas reaches about £140/MWh, the CAPEX costs of investing in hydrogen storage technology will be competitive. So food for thought!
Good. We need to end our dependency on fossil fuels.
It is interesting to finally see hydrogen take off, pun intended. It's even better to see if used intelligently, by burning it. But it still has to compete with battery technology that shrinks its energy density by an average of 7% every year. That's a tough one to compete with. Both mean cleaner skies and thumb nose to the rest of the mobility industry ;)
Yes a battery powered aircraft has one glaring issue: it doesn’t shed weight as it flies like other engine types. So takeoffs have to be done at landing weight
@@TheTubadMoose It's not a glaring issue. It's something every and any aviation engineer knows and understands well. All the electric aviation startups I've spoken to and interviewed say that they toughened up the landing gears.
As always, there are always more solutions than obstacles. That's why these people find them for us :)
@@ElectricUAM I’m not talking about gear strength.
The heavier something is, the more energy is needed to move that weight. So unless the batteries get to the point of weighing less than a plane with its fuel reserves, they will never be able to carry more pax/cargo.
@@TheTubadMoose I'm sure you're aware that that point is more than well understood in the aviation world. Like I said previously, all the UAM/AAM companies I know and have interviewed know this basic fundamental of AAM aircraft design. Furthermore, once a plane glides with enough lift, it doesn't need a lot of energy to do so. Airliners cruise with maybe 30% of their total power output at cruising speeds and ceilings. Planes are highly efficient.
You're referring to battery energy density, which at the moment, is not big enough for more than four people flying for 10 to 15 minutes. However, new batteries are coming on the market this year raising that energy density for much longer flights with higher payloads. Think of Atrium with 450 kW/h commercial packs available right now and with 500 at the end of the year. Also, keep in mind battery energy density shrinks about 7% a year, something unmatched by internal combustion engines. Add to it that the price also shrinks and you can see the potential for the future.
I think you're also thinking batteries are so big it's hard to carry passengers. Nothing could be further from it. Check out Ampaire. They use a Cessna 333. The only thing they did was to add the battery below the cabin, much like a Cessna Caravan. Or look at the Volt Aero which takes the Cessna 333 design but redesigns it completely with integrated batteries. Look at Jaunt or any other eVTOL/eSTOL for that matter of fact. There is room.
Again, there are always more solutions than obstacles in this known observable Universe.
Hydrogen is far more energy dense than battery
So green!
MSN001 should be in a museum, not a test lab.
It’s a test aircraft and this will not be its first mission and the first change made to it as a test aircraft
Definitely this is a viable fuel alternative, for obvious reasons. I strongly support its usage. In fact, I would favor accelerating its development (no pun intended).
How is it viable? Both volume and energy use is unresonable
How are liquid hydrogen fuel storage tanks safe to have on or in an aircraft?
How is having thousands of liters of jet fuel to have in/on an aircraft? Appropriate storage vessels that would be routinely inspected and maintained.
Same technology with hydrogen cars.
Even coal fired locomotives or ships could catch fire.
@@danielroytanked2375 liquid fuel dont burn. Gas do
@@matsv201 sure bud. Sure
Imagine if this project success ... A380 gonna back to the factory
Looks promising!
Imagine that you are from a 100years ago and see the A380 takeoff humm!
You proboly be more imprest by the B36 or something.. becuase you would still be alive. Orvile died in 1948
Chang the world 🌏🌍🤗🤗
Honestly I would be a little worried to fly on a hydrogen powered airplane. I know airbus would have made those tanks ultra durable and strong, but in case of some kind of leak, and knowing how hydrogen combusts, I would be a little scared. But I’m interested in seeing how this would work.
I agree about a liquid hydrogen fuel leak being more dangerous than a jet fuel leak.
Ah yes airbus now have B777-9x competetor
Several below observe that Hydrogen has to be generated in some way, and the way it is now merely puts the Carbon emissions somewhere else. With electric power the same thing happens; it's just that Hydrogen would allow longer flight duration. I don't pretend to know the entire Science, and it seems the engineers solve these problems, but for now this will require a lot of new windmills and solar farms.
Does Hydrogen have trust for liftoff or they need both fuels?
The 4 engines the A380 already has run on normal aviation fuel, only the fifth engine runs on hydrogen
As long as it can fly me somewhere sunny I don’t care what it runs on
I feel like the A380 could be converted to Hydrogen and still have lots of room for passengers and cargo.
This is brilliant. Airbus and F1 together can save our future with new fuel and combustion process. Batteries are not the future of transportation for sure.
I would add it on the tail
Getting the fuel up there could be difficult
Back in 1976, I was on my high school debate team. The topic was how to solve the energy crisis. My partner and I developed a plan where cars, planes, and trains would migrate from engines burning petroleum-based fuels to engines burning compressed hydrogen.
I'm glad to see what opponents thought was a crazy idea in 1976 is being taken seriously by one of the world's largest aerospace companies 46 years later.
Good for emirates ?
huge if true
cool
Hydrogen is the future, electric is in no way what´s so ever the future, and sustainable aviation fuel is a good steppingstone, but not permanent.
Sounds good but don't forget, hydrogen is an energy carrier - not a fuel. It does not exist anywhere on earth in its pure form. So making hydrogen is a very dirty process as it stands, mainly by burning gas or coal. For making green H2 in the quantities needed for aviation, the upscale in infrastructure needed is going to be very, very expensive.
should AIRBUS introduces a stretched variant of the A380-800 it should be powered by a HYBRId® power pack . . . the A380-1000 Neo LR which is a concept super stretched variant of the A380-800 or the A380-900 for that matter . . .
Plus a swimming pool inside
Yes! Yes! I love hydrogen power. This is such exciting news.
Why?
New supply lines for hydrogen
propulsion need investment.
What are Boeing doing to develop sustainable aircraft?
Nothing, because developing something costs money and does not increase stock market value immediatly.
While I think electric is the way to go for cars, for more energy dense things you’ll need hydrogen
Conspiracy theorists will say this is for chemical or biological seeding of the atmosphere. 😂
Based on how much modification it needs to just run one test engine I don't see existing planes being retrofitted with that, so it's doubtful the 380 will be any more than a test platform IMHO
And you’re right, this is just a test platform with no plans of adding it to already existing aircraft other than test aircraft. The aim is to built aircraft entirely running on hydrogen with experiences gained from the program
I wish this would work but ask anyone who works with H2 and you will start to see dozens of MAJOR problems
Please elaborate on the major problems with H2
@@johnlove7328
1: cryogenic under pressure
2: high volume
3: vesil very heavy
4: very energy intense to compress/chill
5: very energy intense to produce
6: very low efficency
Gee… am very excited about this hydrogen technology, which is a true answer to problems of our own creation, addressing the damaging emissions of the 9,740 aircraft in the air when I wrote this (according to FlightRadar24). Hydrogen technology, if realistic, offers a way forward for the human activities that now contribute to increasingly damaging daily weather events across the globe and loss of biodiversity found in critical habitats like Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.
Aya da sok ,ngenke papangih ieh.
Install ejection seats
Conceptual..looks more like a hybrid use between hydrogen and JET A1..for takeoff power and maybe hydrogen for cruise
It’s a test aircraft to first of all test an engine running on hydrogen. All four engines the A380 already has run on Jet A1, only the fifth engine will run on hydrogen. That’s a common practice when it comes to testing new engines as you of course want to test the engines at all kinds of altitudes and in different scenarios. Maybe you have already seen pictures of GE‘s 747 with the GE9X installed or PW‘s 747 which also uses a similar set up to the hydrogen A380
This is just like testing any new engine. You keep most of the original engines to fly the airplane and put one new engine to test. If the new engine does not work as expected, you fly on the old engines.
The Hindenberg flew on hydrogen.
Yeah, and?
@@spongebubatz It was the worst air disaster of it's time.
@@coldpizzasoda8641 I know, still the Hindenburg can’t be compared to hydrogen aircraft
Dame bruh
If it can lift a a380 it can lift a a220
Hydrogen...Zepplin....Hmmmm...
Ask the Hindenburg how that went?
Ask the Hindenburg how it can’t be compared
As a person that is obsessed with the periodic table, I think hydrogen is going to give the passengers a chilly flight and it will be unbearable with the altitude and hydrogen, so fuel might be the choice, but it won't for the environment, so the only possible option I can think of is using electricity ⚡⚡⚡
They should test with Boeing cause 777 has wide range with airlines
Why would Airbus test this on a Boeing airplane?
This plane is not intended for airline service. Using a 777 has no real benefits, to be honest probably also no disadvantages but still. Simply it not being an Airbus aircraft rules utilizing it out. Also, the A380 may have the needed size for the hydrogen tanks.
meanwhile, Boeing is still cleaning his mess
I love & welcome the hydrogen revolution in the aviation industry BUT I still don't understand how this is a practical means for lessening the amount CO2 in the atmosphere since making hydrogen takes more energy than what it what gives back. 🤷♂️ Well, unless fusion reactor becomes a reality and stable.
If course the way hydrogen is obtained has to be worked out in the future, but it’s kinda normal that you need to first "invest" CO2 before having benefits. Producing new batteries of electric cars emits a lot of CO2 and the car has to driven for quite some distance for it to compensate the CO2 it in service life doesn’t emit. It’s also similar with wind turbines: To build them you need machinery which is more than likely using e.g. electricity made from coal.
Maybe at a certain point we’re able to enter a cycle and use the energy of already existing wind turbines to produce more, but until that point is reached a lot has to be done :/
The strategy assumes that in 2035 we have spare renewable electricity generation capacity - or an alternatively clean electricity source, fusion or fission. The positive news is that the delivery of electricity does not have to happen at precise point of time, like let's say when cooking, watching TV or charging a car that needs to be used the next day. Hydrogen can be generated when spare electricity capacity is available and stored for later use.
So much wasted electricity from renewable just can't store it. Can't store virtually any solar. Plan is to use the excess to make hydrogen.
There’s no way you can make fossil fuel sustainable, but hydrogen can be zero emissions. It’s money that’s the issue but it can be sorted out later.
@@nathanieong6212 Why not? If plants can extract CO2 from the air and split it into carbon and oxygen, so should we be able to do as well. I am not saying this is feasible, as hydrogen is easier, but given enough "free" energy, it should be doable.
Very dangerous, hydrogen, in tanks? In liquid form?far too dangerous to control, one small error, and here you are!!!!!
Oh not fuel cell?
Combustion Hydrogen still has emissions.
Good point! Is anyone developing hydrogen fuel cells for powering jet engines?
@@johnlove7328 Not sure.
I would imagine it would be be called a High Bypass Electric fan?
For me, I think adding hydrogen engines AT THE BACK will make it slightly ugly
Unfortunately this idea is a huge waste of money. "In order to produce hydrogen (with zero emissions) a process called, electrolysis. 20 - 30% of energy is lost in the process of creating hydrogen. The hydrogen must then be compressed and stored, losing another 10%. Finally, another 30% is lost when converting the hydrogen into electricity. This leaves you with 30 - 40% of the original energy used. " and unfortunately this process really can't become much more efficient. Hydrogen requires nearly as much energy to produce as it delivers. The CE rating (energy efficiency) for hydrogen is around 60%
Where did you copy and paste this from? There are a few oversights in your comment.
First, the hydrogen is not converted to electricity - it is burned in the engine, negating the energy loss of converting to electricity.
Second, distribution and storage is very easy with planes vs something like a car. A car can be anywhere when it needs refuelling so many locations are needed creating additional transport and storage losses. A plane can only refuel at airports so they could even have hydrogen plants on site or nearby via pipeline.
Third, jet fuel also uses a good amount of energy to make and transport with drilling, extraction, distillation and final processing.
Hydrogen as aircraft fuel is a lot more viable than other modes of transport.
Good idea for a presently dead airliner
I think in 2035 Airbus will have a new airframe. What the A380 is good for, as the video mentioned, is the space onboard for experimental equipment.
I don’t see this as exciting, Hydrogen when burnt as a liquid gas is very inefficient & extremely polluting as it creates a large quantity of co2 to make it.
There is talk of it replacing natural gas but i don’t see that happening either.
As of now you need a lot of CO2 to obtain hydrogen, yes, but it’s the same for most other green energies (for example wind turbines also first have to be made).
We can only wait and see what new and better ways of obtaining can be found
H2 is extremely inefficient. Hope they can sort it out but it seems but...
It was hydrogen that destroyed the Hindenburg.
And it is the Hindenburg that can’t be compared
Early
Why hydrogen? Is it cheaper ? I know it's cleaner ,but I just cannot believe it is worth the infasture investment
Money as of now doesn’t matter. The aim of the project is to find a zero emission or at least a more climate friendly way of propulsion
developers are racing to produce H2 from H2O instead of CH4. Economies of scale and further advancements in electrolysis is all one needs
Because currently hydrogen is the most dense way to store energy in a clean and renewable way. If we use batteries, we cannot store the same energy in an efficient way, nor can we produce the batteries in an environment clean way. Using other synthetic fuels based on carbon will not be much better than what we have today.
Because govement grants
Terrible idea..
FIRST!!!!
Someone else is
Of course it will never be a real estate Woopsie real world technology. The reason that I need 380 is being used, is it the entire airplane is used as fuel tank! The energy density of hydrogen is very low compared to Petrolia. And if you think that we are going to liquefied hydrogen, think again. It takes an enormous amount of energy to liquefy hydrogen
Liquid hydrogen just doesn't provide enough energy to get even a small aircraft off the ground. Plus, it either has to be kept VERY cold or under a great deal of pressure...not something that will be practical machinery you want on a commercial aircraft. Don't expect much from this...feels mostly like environmental PR from Airbus as usual. 🤷♂️
Finally I found a single rational comment here. Unfortunately this idea is a huge waste of money. "In order to produce hydrogen (with zero emissions) a process called, electrolysis. 20 - 30% of energy is lost in the process of creating hydrogen. The hydrogen must then be compressed and stored, losing another 10%. Finally, another 30% is lost when converting the hydrogen into electricity. This leaves you with 30 - 40% of the original energy used. " and unfortunately this process really can't become much more efficient. Hydrogen requires nearly as much energy to produce as it delivers. The CE rating (energy efficiency) for hydrogen is around 60%