Liquid Hydrogen Jet Aircraft : A Carbon-Free Flying Future?

Liquid Hydrogen has proven a very useful energy storage solution in industrial applications for some time, but can it really ever be put to practical and economically viable use in the global aviation industry? This week we take a look.
Help support and influence the growth of the Just Have a Think initiative here:
www.patreon.com/justhaveathink
View all Just Have a Think videos here :
/ justhaveathink
If you want to translate this video into your language, click here
www.youtube.com...
Research links:
www.orcadian.c...
www.theguardia...
www.bbc.co.uk/...
www.ge.com/rep...
www.airport-wor...
careers.rolls-...
www.iata.org/p...
careers.rolls-...
www.flightglob...
www.airportwatc...
newatlas.com/n...
ec.europa.eu/p...
www.enableh2.eu/
mdx2.plm.autom...
www.greencarre...
• Space for Innovation: ...
• The Truth about Hydrogen
hypertextbook....
www.aef.org.uk/
www.theguardia...
www.theguardia...
www.theguardia...
www.theguardia...
www.theguardia...
#liquidhydrogen #cllimatecrisis #actnow

[@DocJaeBass]

A great presentation on a critically important industry that I didn't have the first inkling about. Thanks

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

Mr. O-P , Yes , a fully sustainable aviation industry is possible . It will not however , run on hydrogen . The difficulties and dangers involved make that a financial no-go . The workable alternative is ammonia , produced from water, atmosphere, and sunlight . This fuel is not only cheaper , it is also "greener" , as it's production does not involve natural-gas , etc . *To examine this subject in more detail , read my post #2 at : quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-collect-the-Sun-s-energy-in-the-Sahara-desert-and-transport-it-to-the-northern-countries/

[@David-lr2vi]

2019: Air travel is growing at 5% per year. 2020: Covid says “problem solved”!

[@DANFORTHPAPE1]

Nonsense. It's already bouncing back, and air traffic always bounces back when there's an economic recovery. Just watch and you'll see.

[@alfonsomunoz4424]

TSA throughput was down as much as 93~95% in March and April from year-earlier levels. I haven't checked lately.

[@DANFORTHPAPE1]

@@alfonsomunoz4424 You're right about down by 95% in March/April. In other words it was about 5% of the level in April 2019. By late August it had recovered to 45% the level of a year before, but recently it has dropped back to about 35% compared to the same period a year ago. Therefore US pax numbers still have a long way to increase before a full recovery is realised. Meanwhile in China domestic passenger numbers have recovered fast. They were down to 15% of normal in February, but last month they were about 90% of what they were in September 2019, so it has almost completely recovered.

[@barrygiles9149]

Another great video. The rate of change is all industries is increasing thank goodness. As a side bar the Orkney Islands have embraced H2 changing not only vehicles to H2 but their ferry and numerous static heating systems with H2 being created by cracking water with excess green power from turbines and wave action. (They had so much excess that they had to close down wind turbines because the grid couldn't handle it). Well done Dave for your great presentation.

[@gedw99]

H2 production from offshore wind turbines is already in progress. They use PEM cells to electrolysis sea water to hydrogen. 85% efficient. And solves the intermittency issues. All this industrial work needs to be sped up. I want to put in AEM cells in my backyard to run off solar PV and my water well to produce hydrogen. Have one being delivered next week. 200 euros. .storage on a standard fiberglass tank at 35 bar. No compressors needed. Feed into my hearing system requires modification of my gas boiler as the spark transition timing of hydrogen is much faster then natural gas. This is very doable is my point. Manufacturer heat pumps and gas boilers that work of hydrogen. Come on get on with it !!

[@gerardvila4685]

Sorry, I don't understand. How do you get compressed H2 at 35 bar without a compressor?

[@gedw99]

@@gerardvila4685 AEM cells pump it out at 35 bar. No compressors needed

[@emonsahariar9292]

OK, you indicated "gas boiler".... is that concerned to any kind of steam engine?

[@reypolice5231]

@@gedw99 What does AEM stand for? Looks like you did this a year ago. so have you been running your AEM at 35 bar for the last year? If so how's it working out. How often do the parts need to be replaced or do the internal metal parts disintegrate and need replacing. What company did you use to buy a unit for $200?

[@juliaset751]

A lot of this air travel is unnecessary in the first place. I was involved years ago with a scheme to use more teleconferencing at the company I worked for, to try to cut down on people flying from city to city for meetings. It was quite successful.

[@jimj2683]

It is good for peace keeping to make people travel as much as possible.

[@tllmrtr1294]

Oh and another aspects that is contra batteries in aviation: You do not lose weight over time, during the flight. The nice advantage of fossil fuels is that the aircraft becomes lighter during the flight... And I cannot really imagine electric aviaton concepts, where the empty batteries are thrown of parachutes of the atlantic... :-)

[@ramblerandy2397]

Clear educational video, Dave. I've said for quite a while now that the fossil fuel industry should stop foisting hydrogen onto the private vehicle population, where the BEV is the obvious successor to the ICE vehicle, and concentrate on the large movers, that is, planes and ships. And to produce the hydrogen in a non-environmentally impactful way, which means not steam reforming of natural gas at existing petroleum refining facilities. The fossil fuel industries have billions upon billions of liquid assets, let alone the enormous subsidies they receive, so it's high time they started to use some of it to diversify away completely to clean technologies. After all, they are currently heading down a no-through-road, and they know it. So why carry on doing the same old thing?

[@incognitotorpedo42]

We could manufacture a hydrocarbon very much like kerosene from non-fossil sources like biomass, existing waste streams, or even direct air capture. These fuels would be carbon neutral. While these would cost more than petroleum fuels, they would cost a lot less than hydrogen and would require no change to the existing fleet. USAF has already validated biomass-based Jet A fuel.

[@denisstanley6546]

Is biomass where the chop down perfectly good forrests that clean the air and use the wood for fuel for power stations or extract low calorific fuel???

[@kenyahawkins2472]

Staying at home is another great way to reduce fossil fuel use. Its sociable too..playing Scrabble etc rather than cramped in cattle class with thrombosis creeping up your legs

[@jayeshmonlbs]

Now you are saving environment You are a hero because of covid 19😄😄

[@alecto1550]

Take it a step further by limiting your calories consumption because those delicious food that you eat are transported by fossil fuel vehicle.

[@ristekostadinov2820]

@@alecto1550 take a step further go in mall and kill everyone. Less people = less co2.

[@friendlyone2706]

It also means knowing others less

[@CBC460]

Being home-schooled (online) and also working from home (also online) helps to reduce your carbon emission.

[@ttmallard]

3 things: 1. Currently, coal scrubbing & electrolysis of water, very pure fresh, distilled water are the volume producing methods for H2, this isn't "issue free" or "carbon free" per Mwh with those inputs. 2. Magnet-to-magnet & magnet-to-reluctance motors as gensets are available, you can buy these, the 1300hp motor being adapted to aircraft. 3. Magnets decay at 10%/1000yrs as a "fuel", the wasteheat for the 1300hp requires a cooling system because under load eddy currents create it, this conforming with the laws of thermodynamics, if you angle flux it spins a wheel, doesn't use Oersteds, it uses Gauss from the structure, magnets don't "generate" flux, it's frozen in with polarization. So, the 1300hp/1-Mw genset carries a "50-year no-inputs warranty", 17yr R&D, sparkless for use with explosives, ships in a container, military-spec. For home, farm, ranch, as inverter to panels: infinitysav.com/magneticgenerator/, "20yr no-inputs warranty", 10kw/$15k, 5kw/$8k is $35/mo +int, 1.2-cents/kwh. The 5kw fits a pickup toolbox, quiet, no fumes indoors, 24x7 power seems handy for construction, eh? Their Eagle Eye RF5000-Tempest Program is doing the mag•powered aircraft drones: technokontrol.com/en/current-projects/generator.php Ymmv.

[@jeffmathers355]

This is a tricky issue. If the industry can do anything to reduce it's carbon footprint, that's great. But on the other hand, it can be argued that traveling and experiencing different places increases empathy and cultural connectivity. It's hard to argue that's not a good thing, and probably helpful when trying to mobilize an entire planet of people to tackle climate change. Great videos! Just discovered you a few weeks ago and I'm almost caught up. Thanks! 👍

[@barryphipps9442]

Total worldwide gross production of electricity in 2016 was 25,082TWh. Sources of electricity were coal and peat 38.3%, natural gas 23.1%, hydroelectric 16.6%, nuclear power 10.4%, oil 3.7%, solar/wind/geothermal/tidal/other 5.6%, biomass and waste 2.3%

[@JMWflicks]

In 1968, I had the experience of traveling from Cobh in southern Ireland, to Southampton, via Cherbourg, on the RMS Queen Elizabeth. It burned something like 40 tons of bunker fuel per hour to shift about 2,200 passengers and over 1,000 crew. An Atlantic crossing took 5 days at 1000 tons/day, that is about 2.27 tons per passenger for a crossing from Southampton to New York. The more efficient airliners, namely the two examples in service that make full use of carbon fibre construction, burn far less. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft quotes the Boeing 787-8 with 294 seats, on 3,400 nautical miles (6,300 km) range burning 5.26 kg/km. That's about 113kg/passenger for the crossing (actually the great circle distance is only 5594km, but allow a few hundred km for air traffic control!). On that comparison, a modern airliner is 20 times more efficient than an ocean liner. Now it's true that the latest liners are a bit more fuel efficient. But they are optimised for cruising, rather than shuttling people across the Atlantic, so just couldn't do the trip in 5 days. Also, since service is so vital on a cruise ship, they still have about 1 crew member for every 2 passengers. Very few people bother to factor in the carbon footprint per day of people. For the flight you have little over 1 person-day carbon footprint (assuming about 1 crew member per 20 passengers). For the liner, about 8 person-days carbon footprint per passenger (perhaps more because the liner's crew effectively take 7 days, even if the voyage is only 5 days). I am puzzled that you appear to say that flights are cheaper per mile because they are subsidised. The latest data for railways published in dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/finance/rail-investment-and-subsidies/ is 6.4p per passenger km (=10.3p per passenger mile). I believe it's true that airline fuel isn't taxed (nor is diesel fuel for railways), but what subsidies? The easy hits for reduction of CO2 are house insulation, surface transport, and fossil fuel energy generation. It would help if the young people who do weekend trips to the far corners of Europe by cheap flights could be persuaded to be less profligate in their use of the facility. But aviation is by far the toughest nut to crack. If people can't be restrained perhaps a ration on flight miles per year, with a serious carbon tax imposed on those who exceed it (for leisure travel), might be worth introducing. But I would hate to see flight priced out of reach of the less wealthy by making the real cost of flying extremely high, while houses leak heat like sieves, and top it up by burning fossils. (Sorry this comment is already too long - I would like to say something about the experimental airliners you mentioned, but would take to much space, and anyway, I need to check my facts first. But for the record, I'm not a fan of tail-less aircraft designs! And for the record, I spent 38 years working as an Aerodynamicist specialising in Flight Dynamics and Flight Control Systems).

[@albinomeuff2]

At 7:40 you state that the higher flammability of hydrogen may lead to reduction of N2O emissions. I recall reading from a few sources, that the higher combustion temperature of hydrogen would actually result in higher N2O emissions. Though I'm no expert on the topic, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong about this. Also, at the end you say that gains in efficiency may lower emissions of the airline industry, but yet in the intoduction you provide pretty good evidence that it's more likely to do the exact opposite, by driving up demand through lower prices. Great content though. keep up the good work.

[@teranova5566]

You are right about NOx emissions. The hydrogen will never be cheaper then kerosene - please read my latest comment.

[@joeycathcart]

This was a great video! Lot of potential with hydrogen. Very complicated to get off the ground. Need at least two airports, an aircraft manufacturer, an airline, and utility companies on either end to come together to do a pilot project. This would be a huge step in the right direction to decarbonize long haul routes.

[@rogerbarton497]

Does the weight saving of H2 take into account the heavier (thicker) tanks needed to hold the fuel because of the higher pressure?

[@ravener96]

Its not the pressure that is the issue, you would store the fuel as a cryogenic liquid, so its mostly an issue of insulation.

[@lemonlime3020]

Correction: that's "LH2" not "H2". 😂

[@jacquessaints]

Exactly correct, liquid hydrogen is stored at 20 K and 5000-10000 psi. This means the pressure within the system caused by hoop stress is accounted for structurally as well as the expansion the liquid can create due to factors such as boil off. As a gas on the other hand the system experiences far more pressure hence structural stress, 700 bar. Insulation such as a double walled pipes, which are always used in cryogenic systems ensure the system is insulated and able to withstand stresses. The higher the compression the most fuel, the more mass. Better structural properties for the container, therefore for cryogenic liquids the system must have better insulation properties but in term more efficient and lean mixes can be used to lower the amount of fuel required.

[@rogerbarton497]

@@jacquessaints Interesting stuff. Would I be right in thinking that as no insulation is perfect, heat will eventually and slowly find its way into the container, causing an increase in pressure, so a safety valve must be provided? If the valve opens the some of the H2 will boil off to waste, and causing the temperature will drop again. As the H2 is used as it will be boiling off anyway so there should be no waste.

[@jacquessaints]

@@rogerbarton497 the storage is a vacuum hence nothing is lost. Although your correct in saying that pressure must be alleviated by venting the systems valves. This causes the pressure differential resulting in boil off which is a loss of fuel.

[@andershjelmare4462]

One of your top vids! Thank You! As much as I have tried to stay updated on the advent of fossil free planes, you still had some Cristmas goodies which I was not aware of! (P.S. I have seen, somewhere, that Russian aircraft maker Antonov has flown a jet plane on hydrogen decades ago.)

[@Th3_Gael]

And there's a reason they gave up on it 👍

[@incognitotorpedo42]

@@Th3_Gael That reason was probably cost, back in a time when petroleum was cheap and no one cared about CO2. It might be worth looking at H2 today.

[@Th3_Gael]

I gave the issues elsewhere, non flexible tanks. Required fuel volume, difficulty handling cryo fluids etc. They all still persist Antanov tried LH2 fuels and couldn't make them work due to those issues

[@ruemeese]

But methane can be synthesised from atmospheric C02 and is _much_ easier and cheaper to handle, and less dangerous than hydrogen. Flying by rocket using Space Xs starship for intercontinental flights really could be the zero carbon option of choice in the near(ish) future.

[@ruemeese]

@Some Guy Agreed, atmospheric capture is a pretty poor solution to removing excess CO2 from the atmosphere and the idea could do more harm than good if hinders the motivation to leave remaining carbon deposits in the ground. But as a sustainable carbon neutral energy storage medium for powering flights it still likely comes out ahead of hydrogen. Provided the carbon atoms come from somewhere other than fossil fuels. But that same caveat goes for hydrogen of course.

[@waitinginberniesbreadline922]

I'll take futuristic hydrogen over Elon "overthrow South America for the lithium" Musk and his rotten smelling methane boondoggle

[@criticalobserver5720]

Runaway Li batteries have already caused fatal fires in aircraft in the cargo hold. This is potentially a very dangerous technology. Tesla cars also have had battery fires which totally consumed the vehicles.

[@patrickproctor3462]

The biggest problem besides safety and reliability of storage on-craft is the production and storage infrastructure on the ground. Airports are not remotely set up to produce hydrogen on-site, and most cities have no room to make local production plants either, so the trucking infrastructure upgrades needed are enormous. And the risk from transporting hydrogen by truck are huge. We're one accident and explosion away from putting a permanent stop to that. And you have to store Hydrogen cryogenically under very high pressure. Even if you only need to store half as much by weight as kerosene for the same number of flights, the storage requirements are very stringent, with boil-off being constant. One spark, and an underground tank could level half of a commercial airport in one blast.

[@mravilious]

I think there's two key questions with any form of zero carbon aviation, before looking at technology: 1)what's the total amount on energy required to power the aviation industry? Eg how many TWh's per year? 2)where is all that energy going to come from? If renewables (only long term way it can work) then how many wind turbines, solar panels & hydro dams would we need to power all those flights?

[@infinitebeing1119]

Carbon neutral fuels is the future. Recycling the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to create synthetic fuel can solve this big problem.

[@kenjohnson6101]

@10:30: "But the biggest and quickest impact that we can make as a society ... is to apply a pricing structure that doesn't include huge subsidies ..." I would argue the exact OPPOSITE point: A "pricing structure", i.e. carbon tax, with ALL tax revenue being used to subsidize decarbonization of aviation, could be vastly more effective than any other regulator approach. Quoting from a draft paper that I've submitted to Energy Policy: The current EU ETS carbon trading price of approximately $25/t-CO2, applied to aviation fuel, would raise fuel prices by $0.063/liter and would raise air ticket prices, e.g. for a New York to London flight, by only $10. Such a meager price incentive cannot be expected to significantly impact either demand for air travel or fuel switching to SAF [Sustainable Aviation Fuel]. However, a $0.063/liter fee on aviation fuel levied on the global aviation industry would generate a revenue stream of over $17 billion per year, which could finance an SAF technology and commercialization program on the scale of the Manhattan Project. ... papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3470249

[@JustHaveaThink]

Hi Ken. Many thanks for sharing this. I'll have a careful read of your paper. All the best. Dave

[@matthewdunstone4431]

I’m watching this video 7 months after it was published. COVID has changed the graph showing the numbers of international flights 🤣😂🤣

[@TheErmerm999]

I think the focus on passengers flights is a bad starting place, cargo aircraft have a much more flexible internal space which could already fit a sizeable hydrogens tank refit, with only slight reduction in cargo space. They also traditionally have set routes which would allow extended testing with reduced risks in the event of failures. Prove the technology works.

[@Gribbo9999]

The density of liquid hydrogen is about 1/10 of the density of liquid hydrocarbon fuel. So while it may produce three times the power per cubic metre, the tanks will still have to be about 3 times the volume not even taking into account the allowance for heavier pressurised tanks and all the cryogenic peripherals required. A lot of problems but great if we can solve them. Thanks for you very informative channel!

[@Th3_Gael]

Yup, bye bye passenger compartment, that's why antanov cancelled their H2 experiments

[@macrumpton]

"and that will take Political and Societal will" I wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen.

[@northavealum]

I agree that if we wait for politicians to move the needle, or society en masse - "we are whistling past the graveyard." Experience in the U.S. over the last couple of years surrounding the production of electricity via coal-fired plants vs natural gas and/or renewable sources demonstrates that commercial enterprises will abandon the higher CO2 solution as soon as it makes economic sense - regardless of what political entities and society support. The industry is retiring coal-fired plants in the U.S. at a breathtaking (compared to what we expected) rate, while Trump tries to monkey with energy policy & regulations to designate coal-fired electricity production a "strategic national security imperative." We cannot wait for governments to do the right thing - they'll try every other "thing" before choosing the "right thing."

[@tcmtech7515]

@@northavealum ​ There is a lot more to that story than the greenies care to admit exists. At the moment the growth of renewables is over running the core national grid systems ability to adapt and work positively with them in real time due to a multitude of not easily fixed issues. Primary being, base load power generation from fossil fuel or nuclear power sources do not adapt quickly to load changes (takes them many hours to ramp up or down) and can't do negative generation (RE over powers the systems demand and they have to operate in power absorbing modes) at all. Beyond that in secondary issues, the system needs a lot of spinning-mass (10's of thousands of tons of flywheel effect) stabilization to work with the high number of totally random power demands and short term overproduction events that happen at any given time. RE is largely solid state type power production sources and thuslly are in the realm of phantom-power points that do not exhibit any significant flywheel effect stabilization ability. By design most have a very tiny safe-operating-window where if their output sees any out of spec event on the grid they are tied to they completely disconnect from it rather than work as a spinning mass type sink/source' mass based stabilizer device. Interestingly on the storage side there is the same problem. The old style pumped water type storage/ production load balancing systems do work as stabilizers due to them having the old mechanical rotating mass type instantaneous massive sink/source ability, whereas the new battery tech based load balancing tech is largely in the same boat as the RE solid state phantom power sources method of operation. It lacks the ability, let alone extremely robust resilience to do the instantaneous load sink/source/flywheel effect stabilization work huge rotating masses can do instantaneously with ease. And that's just a tiny part to the problems with adding too much RE power to the grids while taking too much of the base load sources off line at the same time and doesn't even begin to touch the real world financial cost of implementation and operational costs problems involved which when real world RE is placed in a true fair 1:1 comparison of cost is not looking so good compared to the numbers the old tech has going for it when also adjusted to the same fair and equal playing field. One very good presentation on those problems as Australia is dealing with already. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gIqriWB_l5iEa7M&t

[@ne1cup]

you can own and sell your oil , but water is free

[@franklinrussell4750]

We also have aircraft that run on electric batteries. What we need is laws that punish air pollution, If the airline industry had to pay a huge amount of fines for killing us with air pollution, they would quickly discover electric and hydrogen aircraft. The fines could be given to the NHS to fund treatment for respiratory illnesses.

[@saltyroe3179]

Used to take ocean liners across the Atlantic when they still existed. The cost of ocean trip became much more expensive than the airplane. I suspect that moving all the weight of the ship used more fuel than the plane per passenger. Hydrogen has some big obstacles for aircraft. To carry enough hydrogen must be pressurized and the pressure vessel is a challenge to build for aircraft use. If the vessel is pierced it will likely turn into a bomb with enough energy to destroy everything nearby. If at an airport the whole airport might be destroyed with all the people who are there. Current jets don't turn have this level of risk. It is interesting to watch the cars that run on hydrogen. They have quite a bit of weight in their pressure vessel and not fun filling procedures. It might happen one day but hydrogen fueled airplanes are not practical any time soon and there risk in accident cannot be avoided.

[@deathhog]

I feel obligated to point out that if the hydrogen vaporizes off quickly, that also means that if there is a spill, a spark could, instead of merely setting fire to a conventional kerosene plane, turn it into a massive bomb.

[@johnburns4017]

NASA, Imperial College and Boeing are doing research into _seaplanes._ The most efficient plane design is a flying wing, which also maximises the space inside a plane. They are looking at 2,000 seater trans-Atlantic planes. They say estuary airports with minimal environmental impact is the way. That means Thames estuary & Mersey estuary airports with as many runways as you like over water, is the way forward. Then airports in between can be decommissioned. The large seaplane airports can be linked to towns and cities *fast,* via high speed rail. Thee seaplanes can also use clean hydrogen.

[@TheGreenGolem]

Great Video! Just what I was looking for.

[@piperheine8268]

Thank you for making videos. They are always informational and positive which is needed given the anxiety-inducing subject of climate change

[@Ken00001010]

Thanks, this is a very good video. Also, you should put in a section about bio fuel production in the time between now and practical hydrogen. Bio fuel can start as mix with current fuel and move up in percentage as technology develops. It has the added benefit in that only a minor proportion of the carbon collected by the plants to grow gets into the final product, so if the waste is sequestered by burial, etc., more carbon is extracted from the air (or sea if using sea alga) than is going back into the air when the fuel is burned.

[@Ikbeneengeit]

Power failure mid-flight is one of my least favourite things when flying.

[@blackboxcameracom]

Why would liquid hydrogen even be considered with all its inherent problems and need for completely new infrastructure at every airport? Synthetic jet fuel can be created from electricity and seawater. The US Navy is considering this for their carriers, using their nuclear reactors to power the process. They have developed a way of extracting CO2 and H2 from seawater and recombining these raw materials to manufacture alkane polymers in the range C9 - C16 that are useful for conversion to jet fuel. euanmearns.com/lcoe-and-the-cost-of-synthetic-jet-fuel/ The problem with nuclear power is that to date we have built nuclear reactors as if they were cathedrals. Anyone who believes that there is a climate emergency should be in favour building reactors like the liberty ships in WWII. A standard design, mass produced with common components and fuel for every site. With nuclear as a source of always on energy backing up solar and wind, the grid can be used to run synthetic fuel production as a form of energy storage.

[@Th3_Gael]

I said this before and folk usually linch you for mentioning nuclear. One of the Founders of green peace said back in the 70s that even then nuclear was likely the only solution to energy needs

[@stevemickler452]

@@Th3_Gael Of course that was before solar thermal and solar PV/battery became so cheap and getting cheaper every day. The problem is already solved you see.

[@KalRandom]

Agree 100%. I still wonder about Thorium reactors, the molten salts reactors look like the real way to go.

[@Th3_Gael]

@@stevemickler452 Yes it was. Thing is, global energy demands are still rising, the tech you cite is no use as a base load, never has been and never will be. The problem is far from solved. Solar is a fucking nightmare for recyclers due to the toxicity, panels don't last forever. Also, where I live wind turbines have been decommissioned due to age, what happened, metals were recycled and all else land filled. If you count that as solved thwn all the world's problems will have disappeared when I next wake up

[@Th3_Gael]

@@KalRandom Green folks should be pushing nuclear commissions to speed up test and approval processes. There's designs nearly 20 years old still awaiting approval. I wouldn't mind green talk if people applied a little logic sometimes instead of the crap I've read in this comment section, 90% of comments on this video are pure dreamers

[@mattpitt]

Are you able to breakdown the subsidies that you mention which go into making flights so cheap? Great episode. This Covid crisis is the perfect opportunity to introduce a more reflective pricing structure you talk about - nobody is flying so the least painful politically it could be for the foreseeable future.

[@robertchanrussell2010]

"The insanity of our current pricing system..." try Canada. It was $750 to fly, round trip, from Regina to Halifax, but only $600 to fly from Regina to Hawaii. Not every place has cheap flights.

[@Ruf-Art-by-Tim]

Well as far as I'm concerned....being a Canadian like you....we shouldn't have to pay anything for any fossil based fuel......this shit is under our feet .

[@robertchanrussell2010]

@@Ruf-Art-by-Tim There's a lot of complex trade BS because of whining because it costs more money to ship from US to Canada. Many companies feel they cannot compete if we produce it ourselves, as it would obviously be cheaper. Our gov is more than happy to comply. I recall our apples were shipped to the US to be waxed then shipped back at a higher price. That helps US apples not seem too expensive compared to our own apples. It's a complex issue, but a lack of competition, combined with the biggest issue of all; too small a population for such a large land mass == expensive flights.

[@Ruf-Art-by-Tim]

Robert Chan Russell crap I knew the answer wasn't as simple as I would have liked......here we go again, living in the shadow of our Southern Dictator....I mean neighbor

[@Ruf-Art-by-Tim]

Pete Miller oh I'd love to be able to sell it to a GOBAL MARKET......but unfortunately we can't, as it seems as a Canadian we are only allowed to buy from the World Market at World prices.....if we try to sell it .........OUR OWN FUCKING PEOPLE AND PROVINCIAL, FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS ( and the brainwashed population) Stop it from getting to other markets ( except of course the Southern Dictatorship, it goes there at a Magog discount ) .Actually if I had any say in the process, Alberta ( yes where I live ) would keep it all and burn it to our hearts s content. No more sent to the Coast, so you could row back and forth to the mainland or use wind power,you have lots of that ( mostly hot air type) , the many new Cruise ships expected on the coast could use solar power to propell themselves. You don't need any fuel for backup systems because we live in a utopian time......fishing boats run on whale fat,the lumber industry could get by with extra Beavers for bringing trees down etc.....you get my drift.

[@peterkratoska3681]

@@Ruf-Art-by-Tim Currently heavy crude sells for $6 less in Asian markets. The US Gulf refineries are paying more. Last year China bought 12 out of 43 tankers heading out of Westridge (the first time they bought anything in 4 years) they bought so much because it was $10 a barrel. When the Alberta gov't brought in curtailing and the price went up the Chinese stopped buying. Most of the crude going out of Burrard inlet is going to Pacific Northwest and California refineries (and they sell it back to Canada at double the price because we shut down 3 of the 4 refineries in the Lower Mainland). Also we are trying to compete by selling heavy crude (which needs further refining) on Aframax tankers (the largest allowed in Burrard Inlet) with US Supertankers out of Louisiana LOOP which carry light crude and at 4x the capacity of Aframax tankers.

[@mikenorman4001]

Alright, I can't let this go. "...famous orange rocket boosters...". The "boosters" are the solid rocket motors on either side of the famous orange tank structure. The boosters, while perhaps famous, were not orange. The tank, while orange and also possibly famous, was not a booster. I'm better now.

[@visitmontgomery9963]

And... the hydrogen / oxygen rockets on the shuttle provided only 1/5 of the lift ! The polluting solid fuel thyocol boosters provided MOST of the lift ire 4/5 th. The hydrogen/oxygen was there because it could be throttled up/ down for control... the solid boosters were just very big fireworks _ once lit you just hang on for the ride. Bad example really for sustainable future ;(

[@tllmrtr1294]

One factor to also consider is: There are more than 20,000 large aircraft in the world today (>100 pax), in 2035 when a new carbon free engine+aircraft design could be available this number will have grown to more than 30,000 aircraft. If the big two( Boing and Airbus) both start to change the production to these new models in 2035 it would still take ~20 years until the existing fleet is replaced with this new design. Today aircraft are in operation between 10 and 20 years before they are retired... So a net-zero aviation industry before 2050 is very unlikely. The key to make all this go faster is to ensure that Airbus and Boeing both are politcally forced to start the development on these new aircraft designs in the next 1-2 years. The drawings for the concepts exist at least for 10 years, but nothing is developed on a large scale. The main aircraft models flying today are developments of the 1960-1980s (B737 and A320). My opinion: politics has to force the 2 big aircraft makers into disruptive developments, rather than continuing with incremental development steps... The EU and the US together should introduce a scheme , where aviation fuels are priced based on their CO2 footprint to push green P2Gas technology into the aviation market. This way the kerosene prices shall increase step by step in the next 5-15 years, which would then force airlines and aircraft makers in the application+introduction of new radical designs...

[@AshGreen359]

What most people don't realize is water vapor is also a greenhouse gas

[@dasglaubeichnichtschonewoc9857]

You heard of rain? Makes water go down again.

[@AshGreen359]

@@dasglaubeichnichtschonewoc9857 if only it was that simple

[@dasglaubeichnichtschonewoc9857]

Yeah I don't know shit but I heard it was a diminishing returns kind of feedback loop where only the vapour acts as a greenhouse gas and it - obviously - doesn't result in enough warming to be a runaway effect with infinite ocean evaporation. Excess vapour I imagine condenses and becomes clouds which cool more than warm. As I said, I don't know, but it makes sense to me.

[@AshGreen359]

@@dasglaubeichnichtschonewoc9857 the water vapor will cool if it can, but the other gases prevent that from happening.

[@stevekellar1403]

SOCIETAL DISCIPLINE IS THE PROBLEM ! AS ALWAYS ! GOOD VIDEO. WISH, WISH, WISH !

[@yggdrasil9039]

This would be brilliant. The energy density of H2 is perfect for long haul flights. Who is going to engineer this though? Clearly not Boeing who have given up on innovation and are living in the past.

[@hidden6ix742]

i fear boeing is stumped by its commitment to fossil fuels

[@fobudomh]

Toyota maybe. Expect japanese to do it. Some company for sure.

[@pennyoflaherty1345]

With so many shares, they should be projecting toward the future!! Without helpful investing you’ve much a situation similar to that of Nicola Tesla - banks not interested but , governments @ taxpayers money that’s not theirs CAN SUPPORT the development of future economy. It shouldn’t take a bright one to see this ! .

[@williamgwyntreharne9966]

We can do all the things described. Not only can we have hydrogen jet aircraft, we can also use helium to increase buoyancy and thus reduce the payload.

[@Jimmy4video]

Interesting, clip. Given that the cheapest way to make hydrogen at the moment is through fossil fuels, there will probably need to be some source control happening to ensure converted planes are indeed more environmentally friendly.

[@mr1enrollment]

Walrave: Yup correct,... at least using fossil fuels on the ground to create the H2 offers the possibility of scrubbing the CO2 from the process,... whether that happens or not is yet another issue. Fingers crossed that smart people are smart enough to figure it all out, in a way that business wonks will accept and move forward. Lot of ifs, and(s), and buts. To start we need to get the political idiots to move it the correct direction. THAT my friend will be the real challenge when 40% of the USA have their heads up their ass. But even they are impressive. They can even drink Kool Aid while shoving their heads up their ass! Amazing!

[@macmcleod1188]

Yes otherwise, cheating would be rampant.

[@donfields1234]

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190429111853.htm just one,of the multitude of meathods to get hydrogen, research people. Its NOT the cheapest way to get hydrogen unless you dont add in the cost of your wastes, THAT THINKING IS PART OF THE PROBLEM...lets be part of the solution now.

[@clivethomas6864]

I understand that sustainably produced electricity is the most efficient and cheapest way to produce hydrogen. Just watch the Fully Charged show and see how they use surplus electricity in the production of hydrogen. If you use fossil fuel to produce the electricity to produce hydrogen that doesn't make sense.

[@Jimmy4video]

@@donfields1234 producers don't add the costs of the waste, that is the problem. Recent history is full of bad policy that resulted in terrible consequences on the ground, biofuels, biomass power stations, poorly executed carbon trading schemes, car buying subsidies, let's not just assume all people, companies and governments will act honourably, let's actually think about what might go wrong ahead of time and implement solutions proactively.

[@macrumpton]

Perhaps if we can get people accustomed to the slower speeds of dirigibles, then we could keep traveling, just not as fast. Dirigibles also have the advantage that they are much roomier and have greater cargo carrying capacity as well as much lower power requirements. One thing the pandemic has shown us is that massive societal changes and huge expenditures are possible with an urgent enough motivation.

[@fortruegood8591]

Looking at the energy density factor, hydrogen needs to be encouraged for energy as well as fuel requirements. This is one of the most important steps towards sustainable development and future of our world.

[@tobiasheidmann5693]

First of all I agree completely with your points. But one thing that isn't mentioned in this Video is the Energy density not in MJ/kg but in MJ/dm^3 of the fuels. Even if LH has about 3 times more Energy per Kilogram its density is about 10 times less than that of kerosene (0,75kg/l to 0,07kg/l). So in the end you get 3.3 times more energy in the same volume with kerosene. That means that current longhaul airliners with the furthest range (A350ULR) that fly e.g. from Singapore direct to New York wouldn't be able to fly from London to Chicago with the current fuel capacity. So the only solution to this problems right now would be to build new hydrogen powered long haul airliners HUGE to have enough space to carry the very light fuel. So I see three Problems there: 1: Current Airports are not built for planes which have a wingspan greater than 80 meters. To make all major international airports suitable to accommodate 100m+ wingspan airliners the costs for the construction work would be in the hundrets of billions. 2: The current airline economy is in the middle of a transition from the hub and spoke model to a direct connection model which needs more smaller long haul airliners and less giants, hence the A380 and the B747 times are coming to an end. Wendover Productions is explaining this very nice in his Video "Big Plane Vs. Little Plane" (kzbin.info/www/bejne/hJ2sla18ZsSVa68) 3: Even if an LH Airliner would enter the market in 2030 it would take another few decades until other every long haul airliner with the current technology would be phased out. Normally airliners have a lifetime of over 20 years. I don't think the airlines would scrap their fleets immediately in which they invested billions of Dollars. The only thing to make them do that would be extraordinary kerosene prices so they couldn't sell tickets for reasonable prices.

[@kalyana9705]

@@tobiasheidmann5693 I think your problem statement contains the solution too. If the industry is going from hub and spoke to point-to-point, then there will be lesser passengers per flight. So the planes can be much smaller. Also, the overall weight of the fully fueled plane will 2/3rd (as per the video), so it will require lesser fuel, especially for long haul flights. These 2 factors combined could lead to plane sizes that are still small enough for regional airports to handle.

[@teranova5566]

​@@kalyana9705 Hydrogen is very difficult and dangerous to store. It is not even proven it can be done safely in aircraft during long lifespan. Hindenburg and Columbia disasters are the best examples. Tanks have to be big and heavy. They can weight 40 time the fuel they store. Overall weight will not be lower compare to the normal kerosene power aircraft, so the same amount of energy in fuel would be needed. Beside currelty hydrogen is 7.7 times more expensive then kerosine.

[@kalyana9705]

@@teranova5566 Regarding the weight, I'm just going by what is mentioned in the video. Regarding cost of hydrogen, the cost might be 7.7 times more than kerosene right now, but that won't necessarily be true when it is generated out of renewable sources whenever there is excess energy produced than can be consumed or stored.

[@teranova5566]

​@@kalyana9705 It always good to have critical thinking in everything. This channel is definitely bias towards green energy. I also have big hopes for renewable energy, that it can deliver cheap hydrogen. But the truth is that after so many years and investments, renewables still cannot replace fossil fuels in electricity generation at the same price. The best big scale example is Germany were billions were poured into renewables and result is that Germany has the highest prices of electricity at 0,30 Euro/kWh in EU. Renewables are good at certain percentage so that grid can be balanced. The true emission free electricity at bigger scale and competitive prices can right now fulfill only nuclear power. The best example is France with electricity at 0,19 Euro/kWh. And yet France per person has almost half the CO2 emission of Germany. Have a look at the environmentalist that changed his mind about renewables and converted to nuclear: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hF7ccn-GetWJatk

[@AlexandreLollini]

The difference between a rocket and an hydrogen burning plane is that the plane uses oxygen from air. In this case hydrogen becomes a good idea vs the bad idea of hydrogen fuel cells in cars. Still there are problems with how you produce hydrogen and tightness joints problems, but in the case of airplanes, there are no obvious alternatives. (except short flights on batteries) To finish on rockets : most of the visible flames come from either RP1 (refined fuel from oil) or solid rocket boosters that burn solid components that are far relatives of gunpowder. Hydrogen/Oxygen burning is very clean with a blue - white flame and the only smoke is water vapour. An hydrogen burning airplane is like a BEV : the vehicle itself is not a polluter : you have to focus on the complete production and supply chain to then ensure that the complete cycle pollute less than the fossil version.

[@colinnewton5254]

Hydrogen is produced by electrolysis which consumes great quantities of electricity, which in turn consumes vast amounts of carboniferous fuels.

[@CheapHomeTech]

Why not methane at 50MJ/kg? It is easy to store unlike hydrogen and is also carbon neutral if made with electricity from solar and wind. This is what SpaceX is using in their new rockets too.

[@g.zoltan]

They don't get it from solar and wind, and even if they did it wouldn't be carbon neutral unless it was taken from the air, a process most unwieldy. Many criticise SpaceX for using an environmentally unfriendly propellant.

[@CheapHomeTech]

@@g.zoltan Currently SpaceX uses LOX. In the future they will use methane. Methane can be made with solar and wind. SpaceX says they will be making their own methane so that it will be sustainable. Obviously they won't be doing so until years after they've got everything else working. It's quite a good and clean solution.

[@AlfredoMazzinghi]

Also we have to take into account that the decision to use methane on rockets comes also from the fact that it can be produced on Mars, I think the impact on Earth gets a bit less priority given the use case they expect to have.

[@Nastyswimmer]

The "orange" bit of the space shuttle was actually an unpainted (hence rusty) tank of liquid hydrogen and oxygen that fed the three rocket engines on the craft itself. The rocket boosters on the side of it provided three quarters of the thrust for the launch by burning solid propellant which had a far higher energy density than the hydrogen for the main engines

[@peterdollins3610]

Another excellent video. If solid state batteries become practical on production scale at best they will contain 4 times--perhaps 5--the energy density and may prove cheaper. But this is still way outside the flying range we need except for very short flights. Unless the batteries could be replenished by solar panels on the wings or laser shot energy from below? I feel doubtful Liquid Hydrogen can do it, but...

[@ravanella89]

Thank you so much for all your videos. They are so well-presented and explained, touching technology, economics, policy, environment... They help me a lot in my studies. Thanks again!

[@jimrichards9103]

I remember many years ago hydrogen was proposed as a aviation fuel because of fire safety in a crash. The thinking was burning hydrogen emits much less radiant heat than kerosene resulting in less heat on the fuselage so people would have more time to exit a crash that would otherwise be survivable.

[@QueenElizabeth1788]

Thank you! I'll be learning more about this in the morning. Best!

[@orlivne6227]

One more interesting and important video! You say that going electric for aviation is not reasonable at the moment for long distance flights. Will be very interesting to see what percentage of the flights are short distance ones, which can be substituted with electrical planes. Maybe the future is electrical short flights and LH2 long distance flights?

[@701983]

Maybe it's battery-electric for really short flights (~500 km), fuel-cell-electric for "short" flights (~1500 km) and turboprop/turbofan with synthetic hydrocarbons (E-Fuel) for long flights. No liquid hydrogen, just gaseous compressed hydrogen for fuel cell planes. Synthetic hydrocarbons for long distance, because of much easier handling than LH2.

[@ivanbar47]

Let's go hydrogen =]

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

Let's NOT go hydrogen , because... Generating it produces a boatload of emissions , both at the powerplants and from the transporting vehicles . Also , aircraft optimized for hydrogen use are less aerodynamically efficient , thus they burn more fuel . Finally , the infrastructure and planes involved are much more expensive , and the fuel itself is prohibitively so . This is not economically viable , large-scale . ** This technology should not be employed until most of the hydrogen can be produced using electricity from renewable sources . Even then , it would be more cost-effective to use said renewable energy to supply the world's powerplants and energy infrastructure , rather than it's vehicles . Those should definitely be the LAST priority for hydrogen use , not the first . .🤔

[@ivanbar47]

@@Prof.Megamind.thinks.about.it. It's true that hydrogen is expensive. However the same way we made kerosene planes cheap and efficient we can make them run on hydrogen, because it's better than using fossil fuels and we don't know how long it will take until we come up with a safe and reliable way to increase energy density of batteries ( and build battery powered planes ) hydrogen is the next best thing. That should happen after electric cars take over, because they pollute more than planes. I think we need to find a way to live here without ruining this planet. Hope we can agree on much needed advancements in renewable energy technology Also there will always be a demand for transportation and some sort of vehicles, assuming we don't send ourselves back into stone age a part of energy we use will have to go to transportation =]

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

@@ivanbar47 Green-tech is good , but not if it's powered by coal . Electric cars are only clean locally , and hydrogen is way too problematic for air travel . *Run the grid on solar first ! .🤨

[@emperorpicard6474]

Let's go methane =] Seriously methane is a much better solution, its lower cost and can be made carbon neutral. Its also a lot more simple to store (seriously people underestimate how difficult it is to store liquid hydrogen).

[@SofaKingShit]

@@Prof.Megamind.thinks.about.it. Oh the humanity.

[@neilmchardy9061]

I read an article a while ago about making hydrogen from spare overnight electrical generating capacity, ie wind turbines which are mostly offline at night.

[@palmshoot]

Denmark makes hydrogen with windmills, so it definitely works.

[@anoniemw.222]

we should focus on alternative transport and more efficient air desdigns (needing less energy to fly). if that is all done we could switch to hydrogen (time for infrastructure to get in place) or to batteries, because they probably got a lot better

[@Ken00001010]

A question I have about the electric planes relates to fixed batteries v. swappable battery packs. Is charging the batteries in the planes a good idea if it keeps them stuck on the ground too long between flights? Also some hard-to-recharge-in-place batteries such as aluminum/air have better energy to mass ratios. Is anyone looking into a pack changeable electric plane that can get back in the air as fast as current refueling?

[@antrog1895]

The jumbo looks like a WW1 bi plane compared to the hydrogen aircraft. I wonder how long it is before we look back and laugh and say ‘do you remember when we used to travel in those!’

[@brad4013]

I just re-watched this. 'we are unlikely to give up our right to travel whenever we choose'. It's almost like you knew. If the liquid hydrogen can be produced near enough to major airports that it was able to be piped in, it could be a great place to make good use of excess energy in the grid at times when energy production from renewables is high and demand is lower.

[@andrewpienaar4522]

The currently used industrial methods for producing Hydrogen, produces more Carbon than burning Fossil fuels. Electrolysis can be used to produce Hydrogen but it is not practical, cost effective or energy efficient.

[@iwiffitthitotonacc4673]

Actually, Belgian researchers at KU Leuven recently developed a solar cell that splits water into hydrogen using sunlight directly - no electrolysis required. Of course it's not an immediate solution but it exists.

[@andershjelmare4462]

But fossil based hydrogen, made by steam reforming, can be combined with Carbon Capture, thus producing hydrogen 'free of' fossil carbon.

[@Th3_Gael]

@@andershjelmare4462 yeah, you 2ant to pay those airfiars 😂 That's not commercially viable

[@JorgeGarcia-lw7vc]

Good point. Maybe the solution lies in using nuclear energy to produce hydrogen. Maybe thorium instead of uranium.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

See my Twitter page under the same name as this comment to see just some of what some nations are doing as they implement hydrogen into their national economies. Hydrogen is not just the future, it's here now.

[@UniversalAdjuster]

A rational alternative would seem to be hyperloop; faster, less polluting (assuming nuclear or renewable energy sources, obviates much of the land usage demanded by increasingly large airports immune to weather.

[@DavyRo]

Worldwide hyperloop would cost more money than 1000 years worth of aviation progress if not more, it would probably take a 1,000 years to build a worldwide hyperloop as well. I wouldn't like to be involved in the likely at least 100 tubes that would have to be built across the pacific.It would be soul destroying. In my opinion you need to think of another way. By the way I'm a construction engineer,

[@trungson6604]

Hyperloop is a pipedream, excuse the pun. Look at Thunderf00t video for detail: "Hyperloop: Busted." kzbin.info/www/bejne/iH-plqaXZZafos0

[@dnomyarnostaw]

What Hyperloop??? It doesn't even exist. The vehicles that use it don't exist. The safety and support infrastructure don't exist. There isn't even a firm design with performance calculations. Its juts "vapourware"

[@Soothsayer210]

I am surprised why you did NOT talk about Hydrogen/ Fuel Cell based planes which doe not require any cryogenically cooled liquid H2 instead it uses Compressed H2. I feel if this H2 can be produced using clean energy source this should be a viable option on Aircrafts as well. Already we have Drones based on these flying more than 3 hrs. of air time used for inspections. This has to be scaled up, but i believe we will see that i a few years instead of waiting for a decade as you suggests for Cryogenic Liquid H2 engines.

[@Patchuchan]

Thorium cycle nuclear power plants and solar can be used to produce not only hydrogen but even synthetic hydrocarbon fuels for low cost during off peak hours. Algae also can be used to make jet fuel. Though if you are going to use hydrogen might as well take advantage of it's cryogenic properties and use something like the Reaction Engines SABRE which uses a precooler to travel at hypersonic speeds as in the LAPCAT A2 concept.That way your green alternative ends up being much faster than existing aircraft vs slower than a 1940s piston engine airliner.

[@manfredstrata5395]

Check out a Vancouver Canada company called Harbour Air. They’re converting the 70 year old DeHaviland Beaver .

[@captainharris8980]

7:33 In regular car engines too, with no need for any kind of converter kit.

[@kenpolton3126]

Other subscribers who appreciate the potential for cryogenic H2-fuelled aircraft might like to check out Reaction Engines’ SABRE project, which is close to ground testing a hypersonic-capable engine.

[@h2opower]

Years ago a few men came around with a solution to these problems we face right now. The first was in 1968 as someone figure a way to break the bonds of the water molecules the same way mother nature does it and used that technology to convert his car to use just water in it's tank as fuel. The President of the Philippines even drove around in the car but the IMF and World Bank were long on oil and put a stop to that technology. A few years later a man in the US kinda figured that same thing out but couldn't make it work correctly but during the oil embargo of the late 70's another man came on the scene that did figure the technology out. He even managed to get the technology patented in the early 80's. He was planing on doing demonstrations of the technology powering vehicles and aircraft but in 1998 he died suddenly while at a celebration dinner getting ready to move forwards with the technology and his last words were, "They poisoned me!" After that the technology sat idle as these inventors took the technology with them in death that is until now. Through a lot of hard work I was able to get at the science behind the technology but unlike those that came before me I posted my findings in a public forum so that this time around the technology doesn't die when the person that figured out how it works passes away. In a nutshell what all of these men did was to mimic the earth's Global Electric Circuit electronically. Due to the powers that be most do not know that a thunderstorm has the power to break the bonds of practically any molecule that enters into them when the conditions are right. Believe me it wasn't easy to get at the science behind this technology as those that sell energy put up a lot of misleading and false information designed to prevent and/or discourage anyone else from figuring out how this technology worked. The most famous of these lies is, "This technology violates the laws of physics." Sadly due to the active suppression of this technology many people have lost their lives as their pilots didn't know that an active thunderstorm can produce large pockets of hydrogen and oxygen which it normally ignites and we hear and feel thunder as those are hydrogen explosions taking place overhead and a plane can intercept these large pockets of hydrogen and it's engines can ignite the hydrogen and bring the plane down. But this shouldn't come as a surprise as these people have been willing to kill to keep the cash coming in for a really long time now as all of these wars for oil is of their making.

[@h2opower]

Pete Miller, here is the link to the forum: overunity.com/7030/stanley-meyer-explained/300/ Now understand I do have a hater that goes by the name Armcortex whom after getting band from posting on the thread came up with a new name Toolofcortex and the site moderators have not yet cleaned up the thread from his nonsense posting. I will no longer post on the thread until his nonsense post are taken down. I go by the name h20power on this site. The really important stuff that I posted can be found on pages 21 & 23 as that is where I posted the actual science behind this technology. I go on further to show how it is different from Dr. Faraday's electrolysis method by taking a close look at the waveform and going into what this waveform is telling us about the technology. Enjoy 🤗

[@joaoneves9772]

There is just one problem with using H2 for planes, and that is that Water steam (their exhaust) is all very fine on the ground but up in the atmosphere where planes fly it’s a potent greenhouse gas. In fact as much 50% of greenhouse gas effect today is due to water vapor on the atmosphere, so we would be pilling on top of that. It’s likely to be better than what we currently are doing but we should by no means think it solves the problem.

[@andrewday3206]

There are recommendations for flying to minimize the effects. There are ways to deal with it like controlling time and altitude of flying. It’s about allowing the energy to escape at night.

[@teranova5566]

I do not understand your concern about water steam. Too much water steam will condensate and fall down as a rain. It's that simple.

[@macmcleod1188]

Keep in mind that new batteries with about seven times the capacity per kilogram are projected to be available starting in 2026. Still that would be about 1/7 the energy per kilogram of jet fuel. Another possibility further out would be too directly extract carbon from the atmosphere to make fuel using solar and wind power.

[@kenjohnson6101]

Not "further out" at all! www.caafi.org/resources/pdf/Direct_Air_Capture_of_CO2_and_Recycling_CO2_into_Sustainable_Aviation_Fuels_June_2019.pdf www.solarchemieforum.de/pdf/kon_01_19/SUN-to-LIQUID_Batteiger_Bauhaus%20Luftfahrt.pdf

[@kadmow]

One needs to factor in efficiency for comparing fuel sources: eg.Petrol engines "top-out" at around 35%-(claimed-toyota) 40% thermodynamic efficiency, diesel ~ 45-54% (without recouperation), turbo fans 46% or 61% (combined cycle ie. with recouperation) - turbine engines win on engine power density ie. weight of engine per unit of power. Note. these are peak efficiencies. Electric motors plus charging come out around a maximum of ~90% )"Wall to wheel". Roundtrip efficiency in any transport calculation needs to take in the energy needed to distribute the energy source... (Transmission lines, coal mining process, Tankers, pipelines, drilling and oil extraction, etc...) Point: 90% efficiency will provide 2.25 times the transport outcome to 40% given the same energy input. So when all is equal, 43 Mj / kg in a Petrol Engine results in 17MJ/kg of usable power, So a Power Density of 19MJ/kg (in a battery) may result in equivalent Energy outcomes, with the result being the heat from 43MJ does not need to be released. SO combining the Motors (ICE vs Electric) and Energy storage (Petrol vs Batteries/Fuelcell/etc) we some up with a metric which may provide the optimal choice..... ie. a ~200kg ICE can be replaced with a ~50-100kg Electric motor (Including cooling and other support systems).. but a 50kg "fuel tank"-full of fuel, currently needs to be replaced with a ~885kg (~20x weight and $$$ x up front cost) Battery at current maximum possible Energy Density (tech. not currently in production). SO we need to reduce the mass of the Battery to around 200kg (increase the energy density 4-5 times) to have an equivalent system in something the size of an "Automobile" (the engine sizes are more inline with a performance car, rather than an ECO-mobi). So ~5MJ/kg for a battery-electric car will being them into direct competition -real contention - with an ICE (gasoline/petrol) car, while an "energy equivalent" battery (battery by itself - NB this is a scaling issue with longer range aircraft - as fuel is burned off, while a battery remains on-board for the whole flight) needs to have 19MJ /kg to compare with the 43MJ/kg in petrol. (Values may vary depending on source) For Long Distance Aviation to go "Electric" the Battery density needs to be 2x the 19MJ /kg to account for weight reduction due to fuel burn... So Efficiency be-damned, we are back to a battery with ~40MJ /kg before Long distance Aviation will be a direct technological competitor to kerosene - the economics all being equal. - ok we need batteries to improve by~40 TIMES the storage per kg.... Maybe we are going to see Hydrogen carrier liquids before the long-haul planes are going to be Powered by Lithium.... Ok now to Economics, IF the Battery for such a plane will COST as much as the 2-5 year Jet-A1 (kero-fuel) spend, the Airlines will keep buying Jet-A1 as this is a shorter term budgeting issue, while a very expensive battery (Which needs to be underwritten with very good warranties and guarantees) needs funding over multiple bugeting cycles... (Current batteries will be in the weight range of 500-1000 tonnes -value out of ar$$) to get anything across the Atlantic, and then they will be to heavy to fly, back to the boats....)) DATA Reality Check: in 50kg of fuel, ~2150MJ of energy, ~860MJ are used for Motive force. A Battery-Motor System, with the same effective mechanical output, needs to have 955MJ of storage (265.3kWh) current batteries come in ~300Wh /kg = 884kg

[@macmcleod1188]

@@kadmow Yup. I swagged it at 49x and you swagged it at about 40x. Same general range. That's assuming there's not a different sweet spot (7x capacity but you use 1/2 a much so now it weighs 400kg less but has 3.5x capacity... but it will go further than 350% further because it's 400kg lighter!).

[@jay2aussie]

Fast becoming one of my favorite channels.

[@LeoBrandDenHaag]

also have a look at LOHC technology; able to use the existing global infra to store and to transport Hydrogen

[@TrevX2001]

If you do the math; flying commercial is far more fuel Efficient than individually driving.

[@millertas]

Difficult to drive over water.

[@diggleda2952]

This is SOOO important

[@anders21karlsson]

Great video as always,,

[@teranova5566]

3:21 "A round trip from New York to London produces the same amount of green house gases emission as an average household produces heating their home for entire year." The average UK household from heating produces 2,7 tons CO2 per year. Well I checked that and it looks like the one way trip New York to London produces 590 kg CO2, return flight would create 1,18 tons CO2. Obviously everything is per passenger. So the conclusion is this round trip produces only 43,7 % CO2 of the heating an average UK household. USA household would be much higher.

[@hotheadscott3341]

Helium Filled Micro and Macro Airships, power, 4 electric fans and a gps, 3d printed?

[@KalRandom]

Main problem, strong winds. And, the fact even though helium is abundant in the universe, it is a rarity here on earth. Thus, cost would be a LOT higher.

[@agsystems8220]

Or we get over our fear of hydrogen and realise that the precautions we already take for the hundreds of tons of jet fuel we surround ourselves with whenever we fly anyway are probably good enough to permit safe use of hydrogen as a lifting gas. Helium is safer, but at this point hydrogen is safe, and far cheaper.

[@jamesread11]

The added bonus of fuel is you burn off the weight so the plane goes further, the further it goes, unlike batteries where you always have the same weight.

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

I have not looked at a seriously detailed analysis, but what I do know tells me H2 in aircraft is a non-starter. You did a good job of explaining how liquid takes up slightly more volume for the same energy, but weighs less. Of course, you'll have a much heavier tank and plumbing. BTW you might want to note that SpaceX is not big on LH2, either; they seem to prefer liquid methane, which is much more manageable and not that much heavier than LH2. And H2 is pretty danged expensive. I can see a possibility, with sufficiently cheap renewable energy, where that balance could tip and LH2 could be cheaper, all factors considered, than kerosene. But as big a solar booster as I am, I don't see that happening for a LONG time. But really, biofuels might be the best choice. Why not? They can be carbon-neutral, and it's probably possible to round up enough low-grade biomass from various wastes to create the fuel. It will take a lot of plant mat'l but, if you use electric planes for shorter routes, biofuel supplies might be sufficient. BTW they might be the solution for large ocean ships, too. (But maybe the best way to reduce pollution from ocean ships is to stop using them to ship oil around!!) I still wonder about the contrails effect on global temperatures. I've seen it argued both ways, but note that LH2 does not solve this problem. Neither do biofuels. But electric planes would eliminate that. I keep looking for a real niche for H2, but any way I slice it, any niches just look vanishingly small.

[@francesconicoletti2547]

I know it’s not a magic bullet , but 1 Kj of energy coming out of a battery powering an electric fan is not equivalent to 1 Kj of energy powering a turbine. Something like 90% of the battery energy will end up in the fan while maybe half that will end up in the turbine. I thought you might have suggested using hydrogen fuel cells to do a dodge around the laws of thermodynamics.

[@mickinmerton8053]

I wonder if anyone is looking at methane for a fuel. Space-X's new engine (Raptor) uses methane. It's density is 55MJ/kg, not as good as hydrogen but better the aviation fuel. There are already turbine generators using it. I even recall it can be used in fuel cells. I would imagine its easier to generate than hydrogen ... (masks for cows ;-)

[@nicksalvatore5717]

Methane is worse for the atmosphere than CO2. Much worse. The only reason they’re using it for rockets is because even if they launched one starship a week it wouldn’t even be visible on the pie chart of emissions caused by the airline industry. Airplanes are flown so much more frequently.

[@zeroxcliche]

A big thing is night time flights particularly in winter - the contrails contain heat but also reflect energy out - during the day the balance is positive - during the night time they only contain heat & during winter the contrails are bigger - there has been some papers written on the subject - Airlines should get together & ban winter night time flights & there would be a significant drop in Aviation GWP - could be done in a way that increases profits and potentially consolidates airline market benefiting incumbents over new entrants

[@Drunknmunky501]

How about using Methane CH4 sounds stupid as it's greenhouse gas but when burnt with oxygen it produces CO2 and water which again is not good but if it is made from CO2 from the atmosphere and hydrogen from sustainable methods its a cycle. it's also easier to store than Hydrogen see @Everydayastronauts video on spacex raptor engine

[@chrisb508]

Great video. Despite the success of using lithium ion batteries in cars, it is not a one size fits all solution. I think it's obvious that hydrogen can help fill in the gaps where batteries fall short. Hopefully, research will yield some practical solutions in the near future.

[@ElijahPerrin80]

Perfect, the cryo fluid could save on air conditioning costs in the cabin and no charge time. Now for hydrogen production, I like Oceanic thermal energy conversion for many reasons hydrogen is one of them, thermal decomposition, radiolysis, plasma gasification with carbon sequestration of waste streams and various energy sources.... there are so many options including just electrolysis. Cryo storage and transport are other examples of the challenges along with maybe using the hydrogen now to add to the natural gas supply to create a demand or supply system slowly decreasing our natural gas use, same as working on hydrogen based methanol to phase out gas... so many unanswered questions still if this is a good idea but I can't see anything that is a deal breaker.

[@mikeharrington5593]

Maybe the Bill Gates Heliogen concentrated solar project (& similar others like Ivanpah en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility ) will provide the raw energy to economically split the hydrogen from water. Australia with its abundant sunshine & large distances coast-to-coast would seem a good candidate to establish an infrastructure to support hydrogen fuelled vehicles & aeroplanes. The by-product of oxygen is valuable & maybe could also be pumped into watercourse/oceanic anoxic zones? Also the water emissions from substantial burning of hydrogen fuel would beneficially increase the humidity on a dry continent like Australia?

[@tonyduncan9852]

5% Hydrogen is inflammable in 95% air. 95% hydrogen is inflammable in 5% air. The gas can be ignited by passing your hand through your hair. There isn't a hydrogen installation anywhere that hasn't had an ignition accident. *That is NOT 'perfect'.*

[@ElijahPerrin80]

@@mikeharrington5593 Absolutely and hydrogen in my opinion is perfect for these inconsistent power sources to buffer the high and low to no production times storing energy and allowing transport. There are challenges in storage and efficiency but if the ocean water is the source of hydrogen were also making fresh water from ocean water. In the example of Oceanic thermal energy conversion it would also be able to mine the ocean for minerals and metals in solution for use. Win win in my books but there are hurdles to clime.

[@ElijahPerrin80]

@@tonyduncan9852 yeah energy is dangerous, we will have to engineer the shit out of it

[@joria4256]

This is a remarkable presentation, thank you, I have believed this for decades. There is a path to a hydrogen future. Bravo

[@perseverance8]

Hydrogen fuel cell powered aircraft make sense for aircraft IF large & medium aircraft are electrified, small electric aircraft staying with batteries currently can make sense until longer ranges are demanded.

[@mrhickman53]

While I don't think Hydrogen will have much success in automobiles the three areas that it would appear to me to have an opportunity are aviation, as you presented, rail transport and long-haul trucking. Though the equipment to generate hydrogen is expensive, each these transportation modes benefit of having relatively few refueling points to retrofit (for truck routes terminating in fixed depots), vs trying to replicate the current density of gasoline stations available to the general public. Assuming electrolysis is used, hydrogen still benefits from the source energy being distributed via the electrical network. Running dedicated locomotives, planes and trucks along high density routes can have immediate significant impact on emissions while additional infrastructure is built out. Turbines and fuel cells are both subject to thermodynamic efficiencies. Assuming the same propulsion efficiencies for any fuel source, 50% thermodynamic efficiency (conservative?) for a turbine or conversion efficiency for a fuel cell and 90% efficiency charging and discharging a battery (total 81% efficiency) the turbine or fuel cell will consume 60% more energy than a battery powered vehicle to deliver the same propulsive power. Electrolysis of hydrogen is cited by one source to be 80% efficient and, as cited in this video, liquefying hydrogen is also energy intensive. Since commercial transportation is ultimately about the cost of energy consumed, the time spent consuming it and the capital investment to convert that energy, I see battery electrics win whenever their range is satisfactory and the charging cycle fits within other stationary activities of the vehicle. Hydrogen can have a niche in those missions where these are not true. Unfortunately, I see its opportunity being the greatest today and only shrinking as battery technology improves. I see it being possible to retain a long-term niche for hydrogen on the higher endurance routes but it needs to claim the intermediate endurance routes soon in order to limit BEV's unfettered entry as their technology improves. After writing this and reading it a few times I'm left with the impression that, as @UCTFtiPmi9YGo58Uu4qGipHQ mentioned below, developing the infrastructure for manufacturing non-fossil syn-fuels probably is a better bet, though I am not certain it is either a short-term play or very efficient in solar to chemical energy conversion. With solar-to-electric conversion of ~20% solar-to-syn-gas conversion efficiency would need to be somewhat higher in order to approach competitive parity, especially since that is only the 1st step in making liquid syn-fuel. The only article I found that mentioned efficiency for generating syn-gas was published in 2014 and cited a 1-2% range. I do not know what progress has been made since. However, syn-fuel does not disrupt the existing fuel transport or vehicle fueling infrastructures, only the fossil fuel extraction and refining volumes. Existing vehicles can immediately take advantage of the new fuels with little or no capital investment and fewer syn-fuel plants can service a large geographic area. Again, investors need to be aware that BEV's ultimately will be able to support many of the missions with lower overall energy cost. That will increase syn-fuel's challenge to be price-competitive. So, in ending, I first saw a niche for hydrogen but my investigation has convinced me that the niche may be somewhat small and shrinking over time. Long haul air routes are its best opportunity but that does not mean it will be a particularly good one. Anyone see any glaring holes in my thoughts?

[@AnIceCrasher]

Pretty good video, thank you :) Is waterwapor in such high altitudes not a greenhouse „gas“ too though? Heard it once or twice, bit I‘m totally unsure! Would appreciate smb seriously dighing into it. It‘s not neccesairly the same as clouds, I don‘t know how these altitudes compare

[@martinw245]

Water vapour is the most potent of all greenhouse gases. Hence the water vapour positive feedback loop

[@thecraggrat]

It goes both ways, water vapour is a greenhouse gas, but increased cloud cover increases the planet's albedo hence reflecting away sunlight back into space. Where the balance ends up I don't know. Models make estimates, but are only models without verification. The recent data with the huge reduction in flying aircraft should provide some interesting data on this impact.

[@tedrees5989]

Drag creates power drain with the cube of velocity. That and a lower lower load is why a solar powered aircraft was able to fly around the world - slowly. I wonder if that is economic.

[@sc20910]

Fantastic aswesome video. Gives hope for the future after oil eroei is too high.

[@dodgerscott95]

Maglev technology has the potential to greatly reduce the need for air travel. Why would you fly when you can get somewhere pretty much just as quick and in far greater comfort and safety by train.

[@worldpeace1822]

I’d be a little concerned flying a plane called Fly High :D

[@klgbca]

Please explain the subsidy differential. How is aviation getting more subsidy than rail or bus?

[@MDP1702]

less taxes usually.

[@donaldtank]

You are a look at the Gaylord ripples there is a lighter than air aircraft that was created using with solar panels on top the power of the engines to go forward if we had a like a Hindenburg flying that was using solar panels to power its propeller engine it would be zero emissions

[@blueeyeswhitedragon9839]

There is a very good reason why most aircraft look much the same, with long, tubular passenger sections, with wings set off from that cylinder. On the flying wing styles you see windows along the edge of the body, and this is very unlikely to ever work in real life. In a tube or cylinder design aircraft body, when the aircraft makes a turn there is a slight rolling of the aircraft body, but no centrifugal forces are exerted on the passengers. But in a wide body aircraft under the same sort of turn, a large rolling of the passengers takes place the further the seats are from the center line of the roll. This would cause motion sickness in the majority of passengers seated by the windows. Not acceptable to most passengers, and unlikely to be adopted by any airline.

[@northavealum]

Another interesting video Dave. I have two (2) questions: 1. How would the hydrogen be produced at scale to fulfill the huge input requirements for conversion of commercial aviation to convert to the solution described in the latter portion of your presentation? 2. What are the cost elements (and relative amounts) of producing the required hydrogen and oxygen.

[@palmshoot]

Some videos to answer #1: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mJiqnXhvbNd9opY kzbin.info/www/bejne/jZDXnJ1_Z85_fbM

[@bertieschitz-peas429]

I seem to recall they set a record for a solar powered plane circling the earth a few years back, in stead of having an either electric or conventional kerosene powered plane why not both, kerosene for take off and climbing to optimum altitude then rely on solar to cruise tho' you'd need two types of engine on the wing or maybe a rocket in the tail section.