Todos
← Back to Squawk list
5 problems facing hydrogen-powered airplanes
BRUSSELS — The best way to cut greenhouse gas emissions from flying is to fly less — but that's a non-starter for the industry and millions of passengers. Instead, the sector is hunting for a tech fix that would allow airplanes to keep flying while polluting less — and one idea is to use hydrogen. But there are big questions over whether this is a workable solution. Here are five challenges facing hydrogen-powered aviation. 1. Sourcing clean hydrogen won't be easy Hydrogen can be very… (www.politico.eu) Más...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
They also don't mention the problem with hydrogen fuel leaks. If NASA sometimes has problems fueling its rockets with hydrogen, you gotta think United will also have problems.
I spent 5 years testing an LH2 powered rocket engine. No doubt hydrogen leaks are a big problem, but there's also hydrogen embrittlement. Basically, LH2 molecules are so small, they can get between the atoms of the process pipe and cause it to become brittle and eventually require replacement (much more often than a pipe carrying petrochemicals). This means it would be unfeasible to run the process piping underground; imagine the logistics and architectural nightmare it would be to run fuel piping all over a major international airport above ground.
The article touched on, but didn't explicitly talk about energy density of LH2. LH2 is very energy-dense from a mass perspective, but not from a volume one. It's why it's such a useful fuel for rocketry - the square-cube law means more volume can be added without as much mass and given how rockets operate, large boosters are not a problem. However, I can't see airlines using large drop-tanks or wanting large extensions to fuselages to carry the volume of LH2 required for many of the routes flown. I really don't think there's any engineering that can overcome the limitations of LH2 as an economically feasible fuel for transport services. I really believe we'd be better off pursuing LNG type fuel sources over hydrogen.
The article touched on, but didn't explicitly talk about energy density of LH2. LH2 is very energy-dense from a mass perspective, but not from a volume one. It's why it's such a useful fuel for rocketry - the square-cube law means more volume can be added without as much mass and given how rockets operate, large boosters are not a problem. However, I can't see airlines using large drop-tanks or wanting large extensions to fuselages to carry the volume of LH2 required for many of the routes flown. I really don't think there's any engineering that can overcome the limitations of LH2 as an economically feasible fuel for transport services. I really believe we'd be better off pursuing LNG type fuel sources over hydrogen.
Only 5? I can think of 31 reasons why it won't work right off the top of my head! Pointless as tits on a boar hog...
Well really nothing new to read here that has not been hashed over so many times its not worth reading again.
Why should we cut greenhouse (sic) gas emissions? A warmer planet grows more food, feeding more people, lessening starvation. That's a good thing...right? I mean, does ANYONE know the ideal temperature for the planet, and for every corner of the planet? If so...HOW do you know those ideal temps? How do you know a slightly warmer planet ISN'T the ideal?
This fanatical, ignorant global warming cr@p has got to stop. Time to grill a few burgers.
This fanatical, ignorant global warming cr@p has got to stop. Time to grill a few burgers.
Totally dude. It's not like we need Florida.
Why, where's Florida going?
underwater
We’ve been hearing that since the 80s. It was supposed to be under water 10 years ago yet sea levels are still the Sam’s as they were back in the 70s.
Really? You think sea levels are the same as in the 70's? "In the same area around Miami, sea levels increased 6 inches over the last 31 years, from 1985 to 2016, but they are expected to rise another 6 inches in half that time, over the next 15 years, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers high scenario projections."
Ah, like the frog in the slowly warming pot on the stove, I guess you just haven't been paying attention.
See the source - https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/topics/sea-level-rise#historicSLR
Ah, like the frog in the slowly warming pot on the stove, I guess you just haven't been paying attention.
See the source - https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/topics/sea-level-rise#historicSLR
From your link…. “ Global mean sea level rose rapidly following the last ice age approximately 20,000 years ago.” It was those DAMN wooly mammoths, wasn’t it? Good thing we got rid of those to stop global warming. Just think, glaciers in Kansas so that the sea levels wouldn’t (naturally) rise.
