Airbus Future Plane Concept - ZEROe - Hydrogen, New Cabins And Zero Emissions - Never Built

[@ab_stro]

Just wanted to let you know about a mistake in the video..."Hydrogen dioxide" is not water (H2O).

[@JohnKruse]

Ha. He could have said Dihydrogen Oxide, or even Hydrogren Hydroxide, right? High school chemistry was a long time ago!

[@Leo-cc4ip]

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.

[@purinnyova]

Hydrogen Dioxide would be HO2 Sometimes refers to H2O2 also or Hydrogen Peroxide

[@nightly._4779]

also he said O2 for oxygen but im almost positive the chem symbol for oxygen is just O

[@Nice_Person7379]

Dihydrogen monoxide

[@danielwhyatt3278]

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.

[@airman122469]

Blended bodies have existed since the 70’s. They aren’t used for commercial aircraft because no airports support them.

[@itzibrahimm2616]

@@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.

[@HuyV]

​@@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.

[@fabiocf3708]

They have a number of shortcomings in terms of engineering, despite being more efficient.

[@alekslk]

Chemically, radioactive, pollution-free. And, for sure, gluten-free :) Nice overview, thanks!

[@rajkiranthomas3579]

😄😂🤣😃😆😆😆😆

[@normanstewart7130]

Zero fat too.

[@stasiekpiekarski]

Burning hydrogen in air results in NOx emission.

[@solarissv777]

@@stasiekpiekarski that's why Airbus intends to use fuelcells and electric propulsion, and not burning hydrogen

[@devoid-of-life]

@@stasiekpiekarski lmao do you really think hydrogen fuel cells just burn hydrogen?

[@justins.1283]

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.

[@ssoffshore5111]

That could also mean a rougher flight for the passengers due to the more ridge structure.

[@Sciguy95]

Also in the designs the entire body generally produces lift helping to make them more efficient.

[@Greatdome99]

That's a relatively old McDonnell design.

[@___Chris___]

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!

[@electricaviationchannelvid7863]

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...

[@fergar0206]

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.

[@WWG1-WGA]

It’s even that great, now it’s just another bigger seat . But no service and same same everything. We are stocked

[@evannibbe9375]

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.

[@coconutisland.]

but kerosene still emits greenhouse gases when burned... it would not be a 'clean' aircraft

[@coryhall7074]

@@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.

[@kingkea3451]

Man I LOVE looking at concepts like this - I'm obsessed haha

[@juibhagwat8255]

I also love the blended wing design for it is cheap and more efficient than existing commercial aircraft,and offcourse, it looks awesome 🛫😎

[@allangibson8494]

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.

[@FoundAndExplained]

Yes the rear 1/3 Of these plane designs actually have hydrogen storage fuel tanks

[@allangibson8494]

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).

[@Putindidnothingwrong]

@@allangibson8494 synthetic ethonol releases co2 when burned which defeats the purpose of a hydrogen powered plane in the first place

[@bonaventura3924]

@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.

[@fuelbasti]

The only thing that develops on these concepts are the computer simulations

[@TheDrjehr]

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.

[@NarasimhaDiyasena]

Tragically. It’s like Renault and their car concepts, which in reality ends up being a potato

[@donaldespeut2042]

Yes when Boeing does it.

[@CocoaPimper]

Every plane starts like this.

[@fuelbasti]

@@CocoaPimper no it does not. Those kind of simulations are only made for press and public.

[@jebise1126]

liquid hydrogen is much less dense than kerosene so fuel tanks need to be bigger so... no luggage in that plane?

[@FoundAndExplained]

The whole back 1/3 of the plane is the storage tank

[@jebise1126]

@@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...

[@FoundAndExplained]

@@jebise1126 Oh god I didn't think about the center of gravity changing! haha wow!

[@raidzor5452]

Yes but it’s heat value is 4 times higher, so 4 times less fuel is needed.

[@worldcomicsreview354]

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.

[@flamingmohmohawesome4953]

1:16 Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) not Hydrogen Dioxide. Subbed BTW love your vids

[@FoundAndExplained]

Haha I knew I shouldn’t have skipped chemistry

[@divyeshpatel147]

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

[@bazoo513]

@@divyeshpatel147 Gaseous under ~1000 bar pressure.

[@Prof.Megamind.thinks.about.it.]

@@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..😎

[@TheDrjehr]

@@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.

[@matt9140]

My new favourite channel!

[@FoundAndExplained]

Excellent!

[@CaptainWhimsiio]

Mine too!

[@Gurci28]

4:09

[@Gurci28]

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/

[@Gurci28]

4:44

[@smallstudiodesign]

Vancouver 🇨🇦 has the world’s first electric seaplane in regular service starting 2019.

[@electricaviationchannelvid7863]

It is on my channel...

[@harry130747]

Range? (Tiny)

[@kaarebreivik8051]

This is the future for travel .. Look forward for my first trip

[@naincygoreja7892]

Nice video! I think you are the closest competitor to living aviation!

[@joethorn5015]

This.is going to make the A380 look like a success!

[@kristofferisaiahatienza8202]

Wow! Your animations just get better and better!

[@guanda76]

Eco friendly innovation is the upcoming business for many industries. Airbus taking lead for aviation is a good sign.

[@da480]

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.

[@Elimba78]

I like planes being as they are in design, it's sleek and simple.

[@pablomuzzobar8940]

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.

[@airman122469]

@@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.

[@pablomuzzobar8940]

@@airman122469 kzbin.info/www/bejne/sKKoXqiiqdiKqpI 1000 passanger seats with a $2million price tag per flight is $2000 for 30min flight anywhere in the world. I guess you are wrong

[@georgepavlenko6776]

found and explained is the coolest!!!

[@FoundAndExplained]

Thanks so much dude! You are the coolest!

[@alexios2306]

Very nice video, thank you!

[@FoundAndExplained]

A pleasure!

[@LOLmusics]

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

[@FoundAndExplained]

Haha this is the best comment!

[@gerhardzeitler352]

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"

[@malloryemclaren]

Got to have that BWB.

[@kronsclips]

Yay thanks for the new news!

[@ducmkie]

Nice video, now I have more information for my class project tomorrow :), keep it up!

[@prakashchopde9227]

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.

[@FoundAndExplained]

Well said - thanks for watching!

[@rfldss89]

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).

[@ckdigitaltheqof6th210]

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.

[@Veldtian1]

That'd be seriously sweet.

[@Herowebcomics]

Omg! These planes look great! Airbus is awesome!

[@Xeschel]

unnecessary exclamation marks!

[@SkepticalCaveman]

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.

[@SkepticalCaveman]

@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.

[@netsbot]

This guy deserve more views and subs

[@FoundAndExplained]

Thank you sir! You have made my day!

[@warehousetechtips]

Yes he dose

[@FeralRabbit]

“Only the engines need upgraded”. Ever harvest, compress, and store hydrogen?

[@tricosteryl]

@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.

[@SirFlukealot]

He said "Only the engines need to be upgraded, TO ANY EXISITING AIRFRAME" meaning the planes themselves just need HHO engines, learn to listen.

[@FeralRabbit]

@@SirFlukealot sorry you have failed your critical thinking test. No more internet for you today with your magical thinking.

[@FeralRabbit]

@Thomas Lucas VIDEO OF IT OR ELSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

[@FeralRabbit]

@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.

[@juibhagwat8255]

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

[@Greggspies]

Beans methane power the Future

[@alonsoruizsepulveda7022]

Good ... Bro... Good ...

[@geoffnottage8894]

Invest in Heinz now!

[@Hansen95]

My Honest Opinion on The Blended Wing Body Aircraft. The plane is incredibly ugly by its design. The traditional aircraft designs look better against the background of their beautiful and beautiful expression. In relation to the Blended Wing Body Aircraft, which most of all looks like a pacifier that has had 2 finger bones mounted on it where the tips have just been broken out of joint. It also has no windows, which I personally cannot accept as I need to sit by a window seat during a flight. And being able to document and record what happens along the way, as it is part of my experience of travelling. I also didn't think that the aircraft manufacturers think about the people who either suffer from a fear of flying or the people who are going out to fly for the first time and who might need a window to look out of in order to follow involved in what is happening outside. I hope that any Airbus Employees or Employees from other Aircraft Factories see this message and possibly ask their bosses to either drop these ugly planes, or at least put some windows in them, because if not these planes have windows fitted in them if they are put into service then I wouldn't put my feet aboard them. I hope that there are people out there who agree with me and have the same attitude towards these planes, and if you do, please leave a like in the comment section. And to those of you who thought I was overreacting and thought I should relax a bit in terms of my opinion on these planes, I don't care.

[@VRtechman]

Yeah man, optimistic to say the least!

[@Pandak-Bonsay]

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.

[@riliryrimaddyvia9630]

So what ever happened to the boarding of the future you know that concept that was forgotten.

[@FoundAndExplained]

The blended wing looks like a nightmare to board

[@nikobelic4251]

2050 for the future boarding

[@jebise1126]

@@FoundAndExplained seems like it has huge ramp at back...

[@marksinthehouse1968]

You beam aboard

[@AnicaundFranzKornek]

Wow 😉🕊

[@philipumar753]

Wow amazing Airbus👍

[@Reddit-Incognito]

This channel is do underrated! Subbed!

[@FoundAndExplained]

You are do kind! Thanks so much :)

[@spindle7397]

@@FoundAndExplained haha 😄

[@jacqueshuot6288]

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?

[@tspshilt]

Yeah I'm not clear on the H2 either, but O2 would be from the atmosphere, these aren't spaceships ;)

[@electricaviationchannelvid7863]

You have to compress it to make it liquid...and the H2 will diffuse through any tank material...

[@rogerb5615]

We've come a long way from the Hindenberg, but have we now really got reliable and safe fuel storage for such combustible products?

[@abdulhagiputah9998]

สร้างเลย ครับ เพื่ออนาคตที่ดี

[@antr7493]

INteresting concepts. Kinda hyping things up for the stock price

[@anniedsouza2596]

Well planned in term's of interior, eco friendly and advanced technology.... taken care of minute things delighted to see the video.

[@macbuff81]

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

[@FoundAndExplained]

Its more aligned with a billionairs private jet than a commercial aircraft.

[@FunAviTM]

JetBlue: y-you sure? Lol

the concept looks good ecept the hydrogen

[@maxprivate3805]

Air Hindenburg.

[@ijazhussain7100]

Impressive..... please share developments for designing planes avoiding crash.... i heard of planes in future with parachute ...

[@kitegaming6428]

That turboprop is only one that can make it

[@Pluspython]

This is why we should go for electric fusion power, almost 0 flaws.

[@Tifsa123]

Sounds like one of those too good to be true PR stunts

[@Luredreier]

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...)

[@msnpassjan2004]

It these contaminates are already in the air, how does burning H2 and whatever is already in the air make the air worse?

[@msnpassjan2004]

@@fahrbot1 Thanks for the explanation. Never knew that.

[@msnpassjan2004]

@@fahrbot1 Awesome Facts - and nobody is looking at this way...

[@ralphsmith242]

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.

[@podwardog]

I think the blended wing design in the best idea, and it can still use regular jet fuel and reduce the amount needed.

[@justsomeguywashwd_jbm821]

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.

[@EnderZigg]

If anyone can design something totally new and cutting edge while still prioritizing & maintaining safety, it’s Airbus ❤️

[@jeffharris7777]

Also, Aptera 👍

[@DK-vw1of]

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.

[@carholic-sz3qv]

Nonsense Nonsense, space x still uses fossil fuels the RP1 which is refined kerosene, wtf are you talking about?!?

[@normanstewart7130]

Too late for what?

[@vincevanderperre8660]

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

[@DK-vw1of]

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

[@normanstewart7130]

@@vincevanderperre8660 Oh yeah, of course; how could I forget? Thanks for reminding me. I musn't forget to cancel the milk.

[@janhulst8189]

For the skeptics, the Soviets, of all people, had a Tupolev-155 flying on hydrogen in 1988. Pictures here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i2rdmHapetahfZY 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.

[@jebise1126]

well... size matters too for drag. thou if nuclear fusion will work that we could have enough hydrogen for using it...

[@vahehatch2800]

Hindenburg had hydrogen. promising isn't it?

[@701983]

@@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.

[@vahehatch2800]

@@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.

[@701983]

@@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.

[@Ntyler01mil]

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.

[@FoundAndExplained]

I don't believe Hydrogen is the future

[@TylerWitucki]

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.

[@rafaelpereira6205]

If possible, it would be interesting to Airbus to create a project of H2 version of A330.

[@riliryrimaddyvia9630]

Is it me or the cookpit window or frame kind of looks like the A350s

[@FoundAndExplained]

It would be! The a350 and a330neo and I suppose every future version of an airbus plane has them

[@Bentnocino]

Tq Sir

[@billmorris2613]

Good afternoon from St John Parish, Louisiana 04 Oct 20.

[@knobjob2839]

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.

[@FoundAndExplained]

Batteries are too heavy and too big currently

[@TheTalkWatcher]

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.

[@aidanclarke6106]

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.

[@TheTalkWatcher]

@@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.

[@slendii366]

For existing planes, biofuels would be nice.

[@kalsikherensk8440]

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.

[@williamkennedy3837]

ZERO EMMISON FLIGHT!!! WOW, No wait we have had unicorns for ages.

[@bravofoxable]

Hydrogen for sure 👍🏻

[@geno9919]

I feel like cargo holes are really good

[@hrh2092]

If they can do, it is good

[@mhhhhgjhjhj]

I don't think I'll be the first person to fly on those planes. MAX 8 had a lot of new technologies too:)

[@nkoranda1]

Wait, dont they use hydrogen and oxygen in rockets? Correct me if I am wrong.

[@thomascheney6083]

H2O forms contrails which has a warming effect although H2 fuel might have a lower optical thickness

[@spawnof200]

all airbreathing engines form contrails

[@hypercomms2001]

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.

[@bazoo513]

Probably gaseous under ~1000 bars. Takes larger volume, but less mass than kerosene.

[@hypercomms2001]

@@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.

[@bazoo513]

@@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.

[@hypercomms2001]

@@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

[@bazoo513]

@@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.

[@00crashtest]

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.

[@yorha26b]

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

[@tgmccoy1556]

The ghost of the Hindenburg has to exorcised first.

[@raptor2265]

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.

[@bassboosted9708]

Exercise facility in aircraft hahahaha. The airlines wants the passenger to be crammed like sardines

[@nguyenchanh224]

super

[@FoundAndExplained]

No your super!

[@cedriceric9730]

As long as hydrogen is not burned in a turbine, it's range is infact insanely longer

[@comptegoogle511]

I can see structural capacitors made by nano deposition of metal and ceramic in a prepreg material to be used for electricity storage.

[@rolandknoll4464]

the russians had already done this in 1989 a tu155 and 30 years later airbus is still 15 years behind

[@rolandknoll4464]

@webnothing yes you are right but there are alternative fuel one maybe compressed natural gas which is similar to hydrogene but has 30% greater efficiency so good comment

[@cgplayz545]

*hindenburg flashbacks*

[@robertwyness2464]

Shot down by Canadian Safety Standards as there is not enough doors to escape!

[@josipcuric8767]

These arebjust concepts, they don't even have lights

[@geoffreythorberg2580]

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.

[@___Chris___]

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.

[@geoffreythorberg2580]

@@___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... :)

[@___Chris___]

@@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.

[@makisekurisu4674]

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.

[@rexquite5547]

3:27 AKA we will stuff you in there till its not Livable

[@hauer54]

AIRBUS all the way!

[@appa609]

Make it bigger! Hydrogen planes need to be big to get good range!

[@jamestunstell9255]

Ready

[@wilber504]

where does all the energy come from to make, store, and transport the liquid hydrogen?

[@fergar0206]

Idk where does all the energy come to extract, refine, store and transport fossil fuels?

[@maxdefire]

@@fergar0206 from burning fossil fuels, obviously.

[@cuteduckdontlie4636]

Giant flying Kiwi 🐦

[@eduardpertinez4767]

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.

[@almerindaromeira8352]

Wake up. Batteries weight too much. It has been said a million times already.

[@eduardpertinez4767]

@@almerindaromeira8352 400kWh/kg is where they start to make sense. Yesterday Elon said that could be achievable, surely. But sure you know more.

[@almerindaromeira8352]

@@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...

[@carringtonmangwroi3241]

Airbus not messing around

[@safirahmed]

A smaller version of the blended wing aircraft could sell as a corporate jet.

[@thirdy_ty3496]

I hope it's so safe that it can be used forever

[@zephyrprime]

Hmm, well hydrogen is lighter weight than hydrocarbons but it also requires higher pressure tanks to hold it. It probably needs to be refrigerated too.