back to article Future airliners will run on hydrogen, vows Airbus as it teases world-plus-dog with concept designs

Airbus has lifted the lid on proposals for airliners that run on hydrogen, months after pulling the plug on a battery-powered testbed aircraft. The three concept planes unveiled by the European aircraft manufacturer today represent “a business opportunity and a moral obligation and we are going to put everything behind it to …

  1. Adair

    Looks good to me

    ... and if I die screaming in a ball of fire I doubt very much if I will care whether the fuel is wood, petrol, kerosene, methane or hydrogen. Anyway, shoving it all into the back end of the fuselage may be as good as you can get - certainly an improvement over being a tail end barbecue when current wing tanks shed flaming death all over the rear end.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Flame

      Re: Looks good to me

      Sounds good until you consider that you're more likely to die in a fiery wreck using hydrogen.

      Liquid hydrogen... hmmm lets start to see how many ways things can go wrong.

      1. Adair

        Re: Looks good to me

        Really, can you present any evidence that a hydrogen fuel-cell setup presents a greater risk of being cremated than present hydrocarbon fuel systems?

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Looks good to me

          A fuel that disperses into a very light gas and floats away vs a liquid fuel that pools over the crash and soaks into materials before burning steadily - I know which one I'd bank on.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Looks good to me

            “ a very light gas”

            More like an extremely volatile gas.

            It’s more likely to go bang than a pool of fuel.

            1. david 12 Silver badge

              Re: Looks good to me

              >It’s more likely to go bang than a pool of fuel.<

              It doesn't though.

              Propane is known to be dangerous, and sometimes goes 'bang', but hydrogen doesn't. Even the Hindenberg didn't go 'bang'.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Looks good to me

                Hydrogen in the Hindenburg wasn’t under pressure. It’s use was to lift the craft and filled that huge space (was it in bags?) ensuring the craft was less dense than air hence floated.

                Hydrogen used to power an airliner will be pressurised ensuring the aircraft has enough hydrogen fuel to reach its destination.

                You can put a fire out with jet fuel, hydrogen in air and an ignition source will readily combust.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Looks good to me

                  Think foam might be better at putting out a fire than jet fuel - just the inner pedant coming out....

            2. Xenobyte

              Re: Looks good to me

              "It’s more likely to go bang than a pool of fuel."

              I remember the Mythbusters showing just how safe jetfuel really is. They were investigating the scene from "Die Hard 2" where fuel leaking from a jumbo (Boing 474) as it takes off is ignited and the fire races after the plane and jumps up along the stream of leaking fuel and blows up the plane.

              First step was to see if jetfuel could ignite from a lit flare or a cigarette or a Zippo lighter. Turns out it can't. You can put out a cigarette in jet fuel. It is close to impossible to ignite it under normal atmospheric pressure unless you use extreme heat. The heat requirement goes down as the pressure goes up or if you turn the fuel into a vapor.

              The scene in the movie was done using ether mixed with regular gasoline. The ether evaporated quickly and burned hot enough (almost invisible flame) to ignite the gasoline, creating the orange gasoline fire.

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Looks good to me

              It’s more likely to go bang than a pool of fuel.

              Hydrogen doesn't go bang in the situations we're talking about here.

              The closest example I can think of is the destruction of Space Shuttle Challenger, when an SRB seal burned through and ignited the hydrogen in the main tank. While the tragic result looks explosive, the released cloud of hydrogen and oxygen grew into a rapidly expanding fireball but left the shuttle completely intact. What actually killed the vehicle and crew was the resulting asymmetric drag at an airspeed in excess of Mach 2, causing the shuttle to turn or yaw far beyond its ability to withstand the stresses involved at those speeds, breaking up into a nose section, tail section and rapidly disintegrating cargo / wing section in a matter of seconds.

              Same thing happened when an SR71 Blackbird suffered an engine flameout when doing Mach 3.2 at 78,000 feet during a turn, causing an unrecoverable roll and pitch up. The aircraft disintegrated completely within 2-3 seconds, killing the navigator, but miraculously the unconscious pilot survived and parachuted to safety.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Mushroom

                Re: Looks good to me

                Bang?

                Hmmm 4 parts H 1 part O?

                (I think that's the right mix to go bang. )

                But there's more to it.

                What's a small leak of fuel? You mentioned the SR71. Try igniting that fuel.

                Now you have a small leak w hydrogen.

                Not good.

                Also you have another problem. Think about the maintenance schedule of a jet airliner.

                Do the math.

                Boom.

        2. cornetman Silver badge

          Re: Looks good to me

          > Really, can you present any evidence that a hydrogen fuel-cell setup presents a greater risk of being cremated than present hydrocarbon fuel systems?

          Well we have horrific footage from the Hindenberg "disaster" that shows how terrifying a hydrogen fire can be. It just burns extremely rapidly and hot.

          As to how much of a greater risk it is, I guess it depends on how the storage can mitigate the possibility of a significant leak during an accident. Not really sure about that. Which ever way you look at it, a crash of a jet liner fully loaded with fuel is not going to be great, regardless of the fuel.

          1. Adair

            Re: Looks good to me

            Actually the Hindenberg is an interesting case, but fairly irrelevant to a modern fuel-cell setup given the completely different storage to passenger arrangement. The Hindenberg fire was intense but extremely vertical - watch the footage. In comparison jet fuel sits on the ground and the fuel air mixture can produce a far more destructive explosion.

            So, thus is quite a technical area, but I would suggest no substantive evidence has been presented here that a hydrogen fuel-cell setup is a greater risk to passenger safety than current systems.

            1. cornetman Silver badge

              Re: Looks good to me

              It seems to me that the bulk storage of hydrogen is the real issue, not the method by which the hydrogen is reacted to generate energy. Why do you think that the fact that a fuel cell is used is a significant factor in its safety?

              1. Adair

                Re: Looks good to me

                'Why do you think that the fact that a fuel cell is used is a significant factor in its safety?'

                Sorry, I've never said such a thing. The 'fuel-cell' is the reality - that is what Airbus are looking to use.

                My argument is that no one here is coming up with any substantive evidence that such a setup will put passengers at a greater risk of a fiery death (which hardly ever happens anyway these days). For all we know they may be at a lesser risk.

                All we've got is emotional fear-mongering, based largely on a spectacular burn out 83 years ago involving a completely different level of technology and an unrelated use of hydrogen, i.e. huge gas bags being used for bouyancy.

              2. Man inna barrel

                Re: Looks good to me

                Hydrogen is extremely difficult to store, because it leaks through any container, including solid metal. The molecules are small enough to get through tiny imperfections. I am not sure how this is fixed in practice.

                In order to get a usable energy density, there is a strong motivation to store the gas under high pressure, which makes the leakage problem worse.

                I believe the leakage problem is controllable, though. One fuel-cell application I came across was a portable CCTV system, which my firm used on construction sites. The kit had two hydrogen tanks. Every few weeks, an engineer would swap out the empty tank for a full one. This was reckoned to be more efficient than using batteries. It should be noted that batteries have a self-discharge rate, so a leaky gas container is probably no worse that a typical battery.

                1. Lotaresco

                  Re: Looks good to me

                  "Hydrogen is extremely difficult to store, because it leaks through any container, including solid metal. The molecules are small enough to get through tiny imperfections. I am not sure how this is fixed in practice."

                  Given the rate of fuel consumption by an airliner it's not really a problem. The aeroplane will need to be fuelled before take off and will use most of the fuel to get to its destination. Aircraft don't hold full tanks for long periods. Although hydrogen does diffuse through metals the rate of diffusion is relatively slow.

                  It may be a problem for cars, where the car sits around losing fuel in a parking place, but not so much for air transport.

                  1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
                    Joke

                    Re: Looks good to me

                    "Given the rate of fuel consumption by an airliner it's not really a problem. The aeroplane will need to be fuelled before take off and will use most of the fuel to get to its destination. Aircraft don't hold full tanks for long periods."

                    So, lets see, tanks full of the lightest possible element, hydrogen at take off, fuel burned throughout flight, hydrogen in tanks gets replaced by air. Does that mean the plane will be heavier when it lands than at take off? At least batteries weigh the same at take off and landing!

                    CAUTION! ICON ALERT! A-WOOO-GAH ---------->

            2. Imhotep

              Re: Looks good to me

              And I believe a lot of that flame was from the aluminum powder based fabric coating that was extremely flammable.

              1. Mike 137 Silver badge

                Re: Looks good to me

                "the aluminum powder based fabric coating that was extremely flammable"

                Ultra flammable. An aluminium impregnated nitro-based dope on cotton (cellulose) fabric. About as unstable as you could think up - capable of spontaneous combustion.

                1. Man inna barrel

                  Re: Looks good to me

                  My friend used to be a cinema projectionist, in the days of nitro-cellulose film. You had to be dead careful to turn off the carbon-arc lamp if the projector got jammed, or you could be blown to bits as the heat of the lamp ignited the film.

                  One jolly jape was disposing of film that was too worn out to be worth repairing. You take the film in its can out to the car park, light the end of it, and retire to a safe distance. Made quite a bang, I gather.

                  This was featured at the end of the film Inglorious Basterds, where loads of nitro film was piled behind a cinema screen, and detonated, to blow up a some Nazis.

                  Just a bit of chemistry lesson here. Stuff like nitrocellulose is particularly inflammable, because it contains its own oxygen supply. Even throwing water on a nitro fire probably will not put it out.

                  Another fun fact. Nitrocellulose was one of the earliest plastics. One the applications was making billiard balls, instead of using ivory. I think all would agree that this was a major advance in a noble cause. Except the new balls tended to explode during vigorous play. Oops!

            3. eldakka

              Re: Looks good to me

              So, thus is quite a technical area, but I would suggest no substantive evidence has been presented here that a hydrogen fuel-cell setup is a greater risk to passenger safety than current systems.

              Of the three variations of aircraft presented here, only one of them uses fuel-cells for generating electiricty used for propulsion, the blended wing design.

              The other two, turbofan and turboprop, use hydrogen injected directly in the engines as a combustible fuel. As stated in the article, they will be direct replacements for kerosene, not intermediate steps used to generate electricity in a fuel cell which is used to power engines.

              1. Adair

                Re: Looks good to me

                Fair enough, my mistake, but I have to say that, on a technical level, a rather disappointing use of hydrogen - especially given the difficulties in keeping it captive for any length of time. I would have hoped they would be keen to keep the fuel system as compact and jointless as possible.

                It would be good to see fuel-cell tech being more intensively developed, especially as I imagine that powering fans/props by combustion is a technology that probably only has marginal developmental gains left to be had. OTOH, that it is mature cost-effective tech is perhaps a good reason to use it, at least in the short term.

            4. Lotaresco

              Re: Looks good to me

              "The Hindenberg fire was intense but extremely vertical"

              I know people like to get worked up over the Hindenburg disaster each time hydrogen is mentioned, but the fact is that the disaster had a remarkable survival rate. Of the 97 passengers and crew 62 survived, a 64% survival rate. All the more remarkable because the fire started when the Hindenburg was 295 feet above the ground. It was a tragedy for the 35 who died and their relatives, but if we compare it with heavier than air crashes the odds were pretty good.

              Part of the reason for the high survival rate was as stated that the fire tended to lift vertically away from the airframe. Also unlike a kerosene fire hydrogen burns with a blue flame and emits relatively little radiant energy. People in the gondola were not subjected to high temperatures. Finally although the hydrogen was burning it continued to provide enough lift to lower the airframe to ground at a survivable velocity.

              Yes it was a disaster but given the engineering of the era (no seat belts, no crash protection structures) it was the use of hydrogen as the lifting gas that actually saved lives.

            5. Holtsmark Silver badge

              Re: Looks good to me

              What is often overlooked with Hindenburg and other airship disasters (R101) is that these airships were not filled with pure Hydrogen, but rather with a mix of Hydrogen and various gasses found in the air.

              Low internal pressure, low technology membranes (see goldbeater's bladder) and long periods between hydrogen exchange meant that hydrogen could slowly permeate out of the lifting bladders, while atmospheric gases, including oxygen could permeate in.

              After a while, a Hydrogen airship of that era would fly with a pre-mixed combustible gas-mix.

              Should anyone decide to build a modern airship with Hydrogen lifting gas, then the would need to find a way to scrub all oxygen out of the lifting gas. The first thing that comes to mind is to use something similar to a mining lamp to burn off Oxygen while consentrations are low.

              I have little experience with liquid Hydrogen, but we have flown using pressurised Hydrogen.

              The pressure vessels are massive, and I would expect them to be found intact on the crash-site. Safety systems like in-tank valves prevent uncontrolled leakage.

              As long as the system is not allowed to leak into a large enclosed volume, like a garage or a hangar, the assosiated risks are limited.

              The ease of ignition of Hydrogen vs. JP1 is somewhat a moot point. There have been more than enough airliner accidents to demonstrate that a hot jet engine can easily ignite JP1. With Hydrogen, escaped gas moves up, up and aawaaay. JP1 can trickle towards the hot engine minutes after having been released.

            6. Anonymous Coward
              Boffin

              Re: Looks good to me

              The interesting thing about the Hindenberg... people who didn't panic and didn't jump from the height simply waited until closer to the ground and ran off away from the wreck.

              You are right about the hydrogen fuel cell.

              What happens if you have a small leak. Then lets say an issue w the lithium batteries?

              Hydrogen / Oxygen mix... boom could be large enough to cause a hole in the fuselage.

              Ooops. Rapid decompression not good.

          2. el_oscuro

            Re: Looks good to me

            This being a British website, how come there aren't any references to the R101? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R101

            1. werdsmith Silver badge

              Re: Looks good to me

              Didn’t happen on film so doesn’t get the same attention. Same for Akron and Dixmude.

            2. Lars Silver badge
              Happy

              Re: Looks good to me

              @ el_oscuro

              You have a good point there considering how many films and programs there are about the Titanic.

            3. Lotaresco

              Re: Looks good to me

              "This being a British website, how come there aren't any references to the R101?"

              The R101 was a flawed design, hence the crash. I'd prefer to see references to the R100 designed by Barnes Wallace and Neville Shute which was a success, it managed to visit Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, and Niagara Falls in a single tour. The R101 only just made it across the Channel. 69 miles from Dieppe before crashing, roughly outside a McDonalds, had one been there at the time.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Looks good to me

                And the R101 didn't burst into flame spontaneously - it was basically controlled flight into terrain, followed by a fire. More a lesson in not flying overloaded aircraft in fog with hills around.

          3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: Looks good to me

            "It just burns extremely rapidly and hot."

            Somewhere along the scale of "slow burn" to "extremely rapid burn" is a line at which point "burn" becomes "bang".

        3. Binraider Silver badge

          Re: Looks good to me

          Hydrogen can leak through the interstices of solid 2" thick steel. Hydrocarbons don't (unless there's corrosion involved).

          The engineering problems of manufacturing things like flanges and joints for Hydrogen aren't unsurmountable; but the list of laboratory fires involving liquid hydrogen is extremely long indeed (as a former dabbler in low-temperature physics, Liquid hydrogen was important in certain processes for working with superfluid Helium).

          I would suggest resolving the problems on military aircraft first would be a sensible starting point over targetting airliners. Besides, you can sell the performance advantages of higher CV for Hydrogen in the military.

      2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

        Re: Looks good to me

        you're more likely to die in a fiery wreck using hydrogen.

        Not really, it evaporates and blows away very quickly. It's likely to be far safer than a pool of burning petrol/gasoline.

      3. Commswonk

        Re: Looks good to me

        or not, as the case may be.

        Liquid hydrogen... hmmm lets start to see how many ways things can go wrong.

        and

        “You see the aft part of the fuselage being windowless, that is where the hydrogen is stored.”

        So the liquid hydrogen is used up leaving the aft section "empty" and thus lighter than it was at take-off. What is to stop the nose going down - dramatically - with the flight ending much like a 737 MAX? While my area of expertise (such as it is) is not aircraft design the change in trim would seem to be greater than any trim tabs could accommodate.

        1. Chris G

          Re: Looks good to me

          With liquid hydrogen having a density of only 71Kg/M3 compared to kerosene's 775-840Kg/M3, I think it will be less of a problem than you imagined, even allowing for the obvious difficulties of containment compared to kerosene.

          I am still interested in the effects of the water vapour released worldwide in the event of the World becoming a hydrogen economy with similar levels of transport to today, that would be a lot of atmospheric vapour and I haven't seen anyone produce an estimate of either the amounts or the potential effects.

          It's a bit beyond my skills as a mathematician.

          1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

            Re: Looks good to me

            Aviation fuel usage is about 1.4E13 BTU(/year? the source is particularly unclear). If I guessed correctly what the badly labelled graph shows that works out at less that 30kg/s of water vapour if all aviation switches to hydrogen.

            Cars do not have the severe weight constraints of aircraft so are fine with batteries and do not need hydrogen. Trains have overhead power lines and do not need hydrogen. I could not quickly find how much fuel the world's ships use. Even if it is a hundred times as much as air travel no-one is going to notice as over 1.5E10kg/s of rain falls on Earth.

          2. WhatMeWorry?

            Re: Looks good to me

            Hydrogen fuel works or will work in many land-based applications where the energy density is less a factor than in flight. On aircraft it could provide electrical power reducing the need for bleed air and generators as aircraft use more electrics (as in the 787).

            Kerosene, gasoline, and other hydrocarbons can and should be supplanted by hydrogen power when H2 production is more efficient along with transportation and storage.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Looks good to me

              It’s the hydrogen in the kerosene/ hydrocarbons compound that is the active element that is combined with oxygen to release energy in the form of heat.

              Think of Hydrocarbons as a form of high density hydrogen, more hydrogen in the same space.

              1. Man inna barrel

                Re: Looks good to me

                > It’s the hydrogen in the kerosene/ hydrocarbons compound that is the active element that is combined with oxygen to release energy in the form of heat.

                That is not true. Pure carbon, e.g. coal, burns on its own. I am not sure how much energy comes from hydrogen versus carbon in a typical hydrocarbon fuel, but I am pretty sure the energy contribution from carbon is significant. One might say that hydrocarbons are a convenient way of storing and transporting carbon, rather than hydrogen.

                1. Charles 9

                  Re: Looks good to me

                  Actually, coal isn't pure carbon. In fact, the two purest forms of carbon are common graphite and diamond. And last I checked, neither graphite nor diamond burn easily. Coal is typically a solid hydrocarbon (meaning it also contains hydrogen and usually a pinch of other stuff), and the composition can differ depending on the type of coal, ranging from pretty crude lignite, to the hybrid bituminous coal (so named because it also contains bitumen, aka asphalt), to high-grade anthracite which, while having high amounts of carbon, still has hydrogen in it.

                2. tip pc Silver badge

                  Re: Looks good to me

                  “ That is not true. Pure carbon, e.g. coal, burns on its own. I am not sure how much energy comes from hydrogen versus carbon in a typical hydrocarbon fuel, but I am pretty sure the energy contribution from carbon is significant. One might say that hydrocarbons are a convenient way of storing and transporting carbon, rather than hydrogen.”

                  https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Hydrocarbon_combustion

                  Take a 1kg lump of coal and put a match to it and the match will eventually burnout without the coal catching fire.

                  We all know that the same mass of methane or other domestically available hydrocarbon would instantly ignite the moment a lit match is introduced.

                  Hydrocarbons are hydrogen and carbon compounds, in air and add enough energy and the carbon readily, relatively, liberates itself of the hydrogen in preference to forming a more stable carbon-oxygen compound and releasing heat, the liberated hydrogen also seeks stability by combing with oxygen to form hydrogen-oxygen compound further releasing heat. Hydrocarbons with more hydrogen will will release more heat than those with less.

                  Getting the oxygen hydrocarbon ratio, stoichiometry right is key for efficient reaction and reduced CO vs CO2 emissions.

                  The more carbon, the more energy required to ignite the fuel, a good example is diesel requiring much higher pressure to combust in a car engine than petrol.

                  Incidentally most things, including metals, will burn given the right conditions. Burning is effectively oxidation but faster and liberates more heat in a shorter time. We are all familiar with metals rusting, and the colours seen in fireworks. Iron filings burning, iirc, produce a red colour, copper green etc. Put iron filings in a test tube, heat it red hot while passing steam over will liberate oxygen from the h2o producing hydrogen gas and rust aka iron oxide.

                  Imagine a room containing pure hydrogen, something producing sparks inside that room will not ignite the hydrogen as there will be no oxygen for the hydrogen to combine with, add enough oxygen and you will have an explosion.

                  After the twa 747 explosion in New York all passenger aircraft fuel tanks now fill with inert, I think it’s nitrogen, gas to prevent any accidental fuel tank explosions.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inerting_system

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800

                  1. Charles 9

                    Re: Looks good to me

                    "The more carbon, the more energy required to ignite the fuel, a good example is diesel requiring much higher pressure to combust in a car engine than petrol."

                    Then what makes anthracite (which has more carbon and less hydrogen) so prized among coals?

                3. aqk
                  Coffee/keyboard

                  Re: Looks good to me- Carbon & hydrogen?

                  Surprise! -

                  There is more hydrogen stored in a gallon of gasoline / kerosene / methane than in a gallon of pure Hydrogen.

                  1. JCitizen
                    Go

                    Re: Looks good to me- Carbon & hydrogen?

                    And I'd wager more hydrogen atoms per molecule in ammonia than kerosene, gasoline, or methane. Hydrogen is three to one atom ratio of nitrogen in the ammonia molecule, so more hydrogen dense. In fact that is what they should use as the fuel for the fuel cells in this theoretical airplane. Advancement in light weight thermal insulators makes it possible to store ammonia on board at the required temperature, and of course the more fuel is used the lighter the aircraft gets, so it has that one advantage over batteries for sure.

                    Recent lab successes have found a way to release the H2 using a fairly simple catalytic process just before powering the fuel cell, although there are probably fuel cells that can burn ammonia directly, I'd put my bet on the former design. The only question is can such a system exhibit the energy density to attain the speeds we are used to in the airline industry? That may cause some sacrifice.

                    Another problem is that only biochemical means of making ammonia are sustainable if we are going to solve the global climate change problem, and I'm not sure those sources could meet demand. Making pure hydrogen first is too energy intensive and not practical if we are to afford an airline ticket in the future. I've always thought we should make airplanes as a blimp hybrid, so that lifting energy is not required, or at least reduced, so that fuel would go toward forward motion. Using an air screw would make 300 mph possible even on old technology - it would be interesting if we could get that back up to at least 500 mph.

                    1. Charles 9

                      Re: Looks good to me- Carbon & hydrogen?

                      "And I'd wager more hydrogen atoms per molecule in ammonia than kerosene, gasoline, or methane."

                      And you'd lose the wager. Hydrocarbons are pretty high in H count. Methane is the lightest of them all, and it's CH4 (versus NH3 for ammonia). It only gets heavier from there. Common gasoline is mostly octane (C8H18) and heptane (C7H16). Kerosene is even more complex but tends to have heavier hydrocarbons like undecane (C11H24) and tridecane (C13H28).

                      As for airliner bodies, don't forget about aerodynamics and drag, especially at speed. There's a reason airliners today use a bullet-like design.

          3. Dagg Silver badge

            Re: Looks good to me

            I am still interested in the effects of the water vapour released worldwide

            Not an issue as if it is done correctly the hydrogen is generated via electrolysis from water using hopefully green electricity.

            1. Charles 9

              Re: Looks good to me

              And if used up gets converted back to water vapor...which happens to ITSELF be a greenhouse gas at volume, not to mention it aggravates humidity.

              1. Wellyboot Silver badge
                Joke

                Re: Looks good to me

                >>>aggravates humidity<<<

                When humidity gets up to 100% this water stuff will be falling out of the sky across great swathes of the earth, how will we cope with all the water pollution!

                1. Zolko Silver badge

                  Re: Looks good to me

                  "how will we cope with all the water pollution!"

                  you mean pollution by hydrogen-hydroxide ? Scary stuff indeed.

                  1. Francis Boyle Silver badge

                    Dihydrogen Monoxide

                    to give it its (in)correct name.

                    1. DJO Silver badge

                      Re: Dihydrogen Monoxide

                      Hydroxyl hydride is a much scarier name, the hydroxyl radical is really dangerous.

                2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

                  Re: Looks good to me

                  When humidity gets up to 100% this water stuff will be falling out of the sky across great swathes of the earth, how will we cope with all the water pollution!

                  If SO2 pollution in the atmosphere causes acid rain - we're going to need a new name for H2O pollution being washed out of the atmosphere.

                  I suggest solvent rain. As the rain has been polluted by large amounts of solvent and could therefore do serious damage to natural rock formations - particularly around rivers.

          4. Primus Secundus Tertius

            Re: Looks good to me

            When is someone going to point out that water vapour is a greenhouse gas?

            Mind you, most of it is produced by the sun shining on the oceans. So human activity makes a negligible difference.

            The next step will be for an eco-campaigning health & safety group to demand that hydrogen be replaced by helium.

            Edit: I now see that people have made the point about greenhouse gas.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Looks good to me

              "When is someone going to point out that water vapour is a greenhouse gas?"

              Not only that, it's more than 100 *more effective* greenhouse gas than CO2.

              So switching to hydrogen is making situation *worse*, not better. Thoroughly stupid.

              Not even counting the fossil fuels burned to make, transport and store H2: It will immense amount as "liquid H2" doesn't really exist above 33K. That's right, 33 Kelvins.

              1. Dagg Silver badge

                Re: Looks good to me

                The use of hydrogen obtained from water by electrolysis then then used in a fuel cell and converted back to water is a closed loop. Those who appear to think that it will increase greenhouse gases don't appear to understand the process.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Looks good to me

                So switching to hydrogen is making situation *worse*, not better.

                Err no! Burning fossil fuel already emits water vapour equivalent to the levels of burning hydrogen. Contrails anyone...

              3. Anonymous Coward
                Boffin

                Re: Looks good to me

                The difference is that water vapour lives for a few days in the atmosphere, while CO2 persists for many years. That makes ... quite a big difference.

                1. Charles 9

                  Re: Looks good to me

                  Does that lifetime include above the cloud line where the water cycle doesn't normally operate?

        2. Natalie Gritpants Jr

          Re: Looks good to me

          I can't be bothered to google how much water a good-sized tree will put into the atmosphere per day but it in the kilo-bucketful. Now multiply by the number of trees we have left. I'd guess that aviation switching to hydrogen will put back less water than we lose from a years deforestation.

          1. Wellyboot Silver badge

            Re: Looks good to me

            I'm pretty certain the average hurricane also dumps gigatons of the stuff as they barrel away from the tropics.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Looks good to me

            " I'd guess that aviation switching to hydrogen will put back less water than we lose from a years deforestation."

            Low athmosphere compared to high athmosphere, totally different beasts and do not really compare.

            Low water is just more rain, high water is a serious greenhouse gas.

          3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: Looks good to me

            "I can't be bothered to google how much water a good-sized tree will put into the atmosphere per day but it in the kilo-bucketful."

            Not sure where you live, but around here we don't have very many 30,000' trees.

        3. PerlyKing
          Boffin

          Re: What is to stop the nose going down

          Hydrogen is very light.

          Pressure vessels to contain hydrogen are not very light.

          The centre of mass is not going to move very far due to the hydrogen tanks emptying.

          1. JassMan
            Joke

            Re: What is to stop the nose going down

            They can always slide/swing the wings forward to compensate if the the range of elevator trim becomes too much.

            Not really that unserious as several fighter planes use this technique to cope with chages in aerodynamics as you go supersonic.

        4. eldakka

          Re: Looks good to me

          Since the fuel will be used up in a slow burn over hours, there won't be a sudden, dramatic, unexpected, unplanned, loss of weight in the aft section that has to be compensated for quickly. It will be a gradual loss, easily countered by trim tabs and stabilisers, or don't you think the designers have thought of this already?

          MCAS that caused the 737MAX crashes caused uncontrolled, uncommanded (by the pilots), runaway adjustments of the trim system. If MCAS is able to force the nose down to such an extent, don't you think a properly functioning system would be able to compensate for this slight, gradual, known, calculated, planned, shift in center of balance to keep the nose up? It is, after all, part of what the trim systems are intended for.

      4. Man inna barrel

        Re: Looks good to me

        I have read that hydrogen is a much safer fuel than most flammable gases or volatile liquids, because it so light. If there is an accidental escape, the stuff goes straight up, and does not collect into an explosive gas-air mixture.

        LPG is particularly dangerous on boats, because any leaks end up in the bilges, making your boat into a bomb. Spilled petrol produces invisible vapour that tends to cling to the ground.

        1. The obvious

          Re: Looks good to me

          Unless it leaks into the cabin. My understanding is that, mixed with oxygen, it doesn’t so much burn as go off with a BANG!!!!

        2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
          Flame

          Re: Looks good to me

          "Spilled petrol produces invisible vapour that tends to cling to the ground."

          And that's why you never use petrol as a starter for your bonfire. By the time you throw the match, you're already standing in a "pool" of petrol vapour.

    2. Floydian Slip

      Re: Looks good to me

      Well, that blows my flight plan. I always opted to sit at the back of planes. After all, who ever heard of a plane that reversed in to the mountain.

    3. Lars Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Looks good to me

      I hope we understand there are more important things to consider than howto die or not to die in an airplane crash.

    4. macjules

      Re: Looks good to me

      Oh bugger.

      One of the reason I liked sitting at the back of the plane was that that is the place they stored the black boxes.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    FTFY

    "The year 2035 will be close to the centenary of the 1937 Hindenburg disaster, when an airship painted with compounds currently used as solid-fuel rocket propellant caught fire after a static spark ignited its waterproof coating. Future fliers will be hoping the promises of new technology are matched with equally strong promises about future safety."

    1. don't you hate it when you lose your account

      Re: FTFY

      Thanks. Knew there was more to the inferno but that one had passed me by.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: FTFY

        It gets mentioned in a book about hydrogen fuel. This chapter is particularly interesting.

    2. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: FTFY

      There are a lot of counter theories that suggest the speed of combustion of the outer fabric was much quicker than expected in pure air.

    3. Dagg Silver badge

      Re: FTFY

      Another indication that the coating was the problem was the colour of the flames. Hydrogen burns as an almost invisible blue while the Hindenburg burnt bright yellow.

  3. vtcodger Silver badge

    OTOH

    "The year 2035 will be close to the centenary of the 1937 Hindenburg disaster, when a hydrogen-filled airship caught fire after a static spark ignited its onboard gasbags."

    OTOH, The Graf Zeppelin made dozens of trans-Atlantic crossings between 1928 and 1937 as well as a round the world trip in 1929. It was a little slow for long distance travel -- max speed 117kph (a bit over 70mph). I imagine a modern version would be substantially faster and hopefully less likely to self-destruct. Likely not what you'd want to fly from London to Melbourne, but for shorter trips like Dublin to Paris or Washington,DC to Boston, it'd likely be a lot faster than a train and not much slower than a jet once airport delays are taken into account. And the economy seats might even be an appropriate size for an adult human being.

    1. Mark 85

      Re: OTOH

      And the economy seats might even be an appropriate size for an adult human being.

      Fat chance of that happening as "more seats" equals "more profit" for a given airframe.

      1. Wellyboot Silver badge

        Re: OTOH

        That doesn't really apply in the same way to airships.

        Squeezing a few more seats into an airliner just results in faster take off & landing speeds until you hit max weight, airships OTOH require adjustments around neutral buoyancy to do all their up/down travelling.

        1. John Jennings

          Re: OTOH

          And windage..... to make a modern blimp which could carry a hundred souls is so large - they tend to blow about. Engines are sized for that, rather than actually moving the beast.

          Combination wing and (near) neutral buoyancy planes might be more interesting.... There are some prototypes in the pipeline

    2. Geoff May (no relation)

      Re: OTOH

      And the economy seats might even be an appropriate size for an adult human being.

      Only for future generations because Genetic Control will have a restriction of four foot to humanoid height.

      1. Intractable Potsherd

        Re: OTOH

        True, but will they get them out by Friday?

  4. bombastic bob Silver badge
    Stop

    “four times more voluminous"

    hydrogen fuel is “four times more voluminous than kerosene so naturally we aim at shorter distances to be flown,”

    So, with increased fuel tank cost/weight and shorter flight distances (assuming the cost per Joule is still the same), WHY are we doing this again???

    And, I'm NOT convinced that cost per Joule is lower for Hydrogen, either...

    (not saying "do not use Hydrogen", but rather "use good economic sense", and last I checked, jet engines do NOT use fuel cells)

    Because, increased costs coupled with less freedom of movement is ALWAYS a BAD thing.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: “four times more voluminous"

      >And, I'm NOT convinced that cost per Joule is lower for Hydrogen, either...

      On a long enough timescale the cost of hydrogen goes down, cost of petroleum goes up.

      1. Justthefacts Silver badge

        Re: “four times more voluminous"

        > On a long enough timescale the cost of hydrogen goes down, cost of petroleum goes up.

        Errrm.....no. 100% opposite. That’s a complete misunderstanding of both chemistry and economics.

        Hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water, and “in future” will use “renewable” electricity of some sort. The *amount of effort required to produce a given amount of hydrogen* goes down, as we invent better ways to produce electricity. Yes. Spot on.

        But, once we’ve mastered that, light alkane fraction (or petroleum as you insist on calling it) can be produced synthetically too from “renewable” electricity, water and scrubbing CO2 from air. Petrol is a great *chemical storage medium* of energy, not a magical boogeyman of fossil fuel.

        Petrol is more energy dense than hydrogen. It is also more easily handleable, and more easily converted at point of use to usable energy. It is therefore intrinsically more valuable, per joule of energy embodied.

        In fact, making hydrogen is a monstrous waste of lovely clean renewable energy. Using electricity to make hydrogen is an eco-crime of the first water (pun fully intended).

        Finally - economics. “Cost” relative to dollars is a misnomer. The deeper truth is to count everything in terms of our primary energy source. Today, that is fossil fuel, which means *by definition* the cost of a barrel of oil is one barrel of oil. The true cost of a barrel oil was exactly the same in 1950 as 1974 as 2000 as 2020. It costs a barrel of oil. What has changed is that the dollar has become worth less.

        And for example, one barrel of oils worth of energy produced as wind power, *used* to cost 100 barrels of oil, and currently only costs 1.3 barrels of oil.

        In the near future, something miraculous happens. One of those renewables crosses over that Cost parity point. Suddenly, that becomes the economic primary energy source, and it becomes the new denominator of true value.

        At that point, a litre of petroleum is still worth....a litre of petroleum, because it’s a really great means of running engines. How you produce it, that’s another matter. But *hydrogen*......that becomes ever more expensive. Because as we are able to produce more and more green electricity, and plentiful supply of the good energy transfer medium of petroleum, hydrogen becomes relatively ever more costly relative to that synthetic petroleum.

        So, no, you got it absolutely wrong. “The hydrogen economy” is neither green nor cheap, it’s vicious environmental vandalism.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: “four times more voluminous"

          "And for example, one barrel of oils worth of energy produced as wind power, *used* to cost 100 barrels of oil, and currently only costs 1.3 barrels of oil."

          Oh, I wish it was that simple. Moving electricity hundreds of kilometers is causing *huge* losses, 30% is considered "normal".

          While barrel of oil is still almost barrel of oil 500km away if you use any sensible method to transport it.

          Huge difference which commentards regurarly ignore. Unless you want to live at coastline, windmills nearby.

          " “The hydrogen economy” is neither green nor cheap, it’s vicious environmental vandalism."

          Yes, the losses at storing and transporting are *huge* compared to any naturally liquid hydrocarbon Doesn't really make sense to make H2 and then try to transport it as it is. Total insanity..

          1. Charles 9

            Re: “four times more voluminous"

            "While barrel of oil is still almost barrel of oil 500km away if you use any sensible method to transport it."

            MINUS the fuel you used to transport it, which has a cost of its own, thus the Tsiolkovsky equation. Just saying and so on.

        2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: “four times more voluminous"

          "Finally - economics. “Cost” relative to dollars is a misnomer. The deeper truth is to count everything in terms of our primary energy source. Today, that is fossil fuel, which means *by definition* the cost of a barrel of oil is one barrel of oil. The true cost of a barrel oil was exactly the same in 1950 as 1974 as 2000 as 2020. It costs a barrel of oil. What has changed is that the dollar has become worth less."

          Surely the cost of a $unit of energy is the amount of work/effort that goes into producing it? The barrel of oil from 1950 was generally a lot cheaper in effort to produce than one from a 2020 deep sea platform.

          1. Justthefacts Silver badge

            Re: “four times more voluminous"

            I understand what you’re saying, but the rabbit-hole is a recursive regress below that,

            In the modern world, the amount of work you can do is a negligible fraction of what you can leverage out of the primary energy source. It’s all boot-strapped.

            Yes, the source of value is human effort, which can be brainpower, but how do you produce that brainpower? First you will have to keep the lights on, power the data centre where your repo is stored, and power your laptop, and you drive to have a meeting with the client to help you understand what the real problem is to be solved, and, and, and.

            It all comes back to primary energy consumption. Without leveraging massive external primary energy input, you’re just a ape sitting in the mud, saying uggg, and starving. Your labour ain’t worth s*t

        3. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: “four times more voluminous"

          "Hydrogen is produced by electrolysis of water, and “in future” will use “renewable” electricity of some sort. The *amount of effort required to produce a given amount of hydrogen* goes down, as we invent better ways to produce electricity. Yes. Spot on."

          Hydrogen is mostly produced through steam reformation of Natural Gas (CH4). The energy content of the H is substantially less than the CH4 - the energy it takes in the process.

          Extracting Hydrogen from other molecules will always be the same. The binding energy holding the H has to be overcome to release it. There isn't a way around that. Hydrogen is not available as a free element on Earth.

    2. IGotOut Silver badge

      Re: “four times more voluminous"

      Bob, maybe you missed the memo about clnate change.

      Oh I forgot, it's you.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: “four times more voluminous"

        I think you've missed it: Water vapour is 100* more effective greenhouse gas than CO2.

        Adding it into upper athmosphere is *not* a good idea.

    3. You aint sin me, roit
      Facepalm

      Because the world is running out of hydrocarbons...

      And burning them has catastrophic effects on the climate.

      See, even if you are a climate change denier it still makes sense, because we know we are going to run out of oil sooner or later.

      No oil, no transport based on oil. So if we don't have alternatives we have less freedom of movement, ALWAYS a BAD thing...

      1. Charles 9

        Re: Because the world is running out of hydrocarbons...

        Not if we MAKE oil. Look up the US Navy's advances on synthetic hydrocarbons for their aircraft carriers.

        1. Vath

          Re: Because the world is running out of hydrocarbons...

          It's cheaper to make hydrogen.

          You could even use excess renewable power to generate it, perhaps not in large quantities yet, but it'd be an interesting way to rebalance the grid. Too much renewable power for the current grid demand: generate some H2. Not enough renewable to meet H2 demand: crank up the nuclear baseline. It could actually all work out quite elegantly.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Because the world is running out of hydrocarbons...

            "It's cheaper to make hydrogen."

            *Making* it, yes. About 0.1% of the actual cost of storing and moving it to somewhere.

            Then the problem: In order to *keep it*, it must be freezed to 30K. That' right, 30 Kelvins, about -240C.

            You need a nuclear plant just to keep the generated hydrogen cold enough. Doesn't make any sense at all.

            Then the minor problem that H2 isn't staying in any steel container, it literally seeps through steel.

            In a large container you typically lose 2% per *week*. Good luck on storing it in large quantities while generating *less* than what the storage is losing to air.

            Most people talking about hydrogen have *no idea* what kind of stuff it is to handle in real life.

            You generate hydrogen, then you use it with CO2 to make hydrocarbons and then you burn those.

            That's how it's done: Hydrocarbons are stable and really easy to store and transport.

            Unlike hydrogen.

          2. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: Because the world is running out of hydrocarbons...

            "You could even use excess renewable power to generate it"

            It makes more sense to make Ammonia from excess wind/solar energy.

        2. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: Because the world is running out of hydrocarbons...

          it is my understanding that pretty much any hydrocarbon-based substance (including rotting refuse and sewage) could theoretically be made into oil, Seeing as we aren't likely to run out of "those things" any time soon, I think we're good.

          /me imagines growing weeds to make oil

          1. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: Because the world is running out of hydrocarbons...

            "it is my understanding that pretty much any hydrocarbon-based substance (including rotting refuse and sewage) could theoretically be made into oil,"

            If you have heat, pressure and a lot of time on your hands, sure. If you want to shorten the time from eons to hours, it might take a big expenditure of energy to speed up the process.

      2. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: Because the world is running out of hydrocarbons...

        And burning them has catastrophic effects on the climate.

        No.l it does NOT. CO2 doesn't even absorb IR radiation for black body radiation corresponding to temperatures ACTUALLY FOUND ON EARTH. This means it is NOT a "greenhouse gas" because it is TRANSPARENT to the escaping IR radiation that COOLS THE PLANET. Water, on the other hand, is an EXCELLENT greenhouse gas. And HYDROGEN PRODUCES WATER WHEN IT IS BURNT.\

        So, where's your logic NOW?

        icon, because, this is the REAL science.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Because the world is running out of hydrocarbons...

          Oh good. Can I possibly ask in what peer reviewed journal you read this? Was it by any chance 'Ranty Rubbish on the Internet Monthly?' . CO2 is not transparent to IR radiation. It is a greenhouse gas. It doesn't cool the planet. However your last sentence is actually right. Hydrogen does produce water vapour. Well done you!

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Because the world is running out of hydrocarbons...

        Running out? Won't happen as long as we have hydrogen and carbon Neither is in short supply.

        "And burning them has catastrophic effects on the climate."

        I call BS on that. Current IPCC official forecast for next hundred years is +0.6C, cumulative.

        If you call that "catastrophic effect" you're an idiot. And a cult member. Double idiot, sorry.

        Or do we get a chance to *choose* *which* IPCC prediction we believe today? I remember "+1.6C *per year by 2020*." Do you? Did that happen?

        Also I remember "+70 meters to sea levels by 2050" Do you? Did *that' happen?

        Why do you believe *any* of their predictions *is going to happen* when none of them has happened in last 30 years? Literally none, not a single one.

        Even an idiot can predict correctly 1 out of 100. IPCC can't.

        Current sea level rise is about 1", which is basically heat expansion of sea water, matching to about +4C since coldest years in 1980s. Warming yes, but one thing is sure: IPCC has no idea why it happened.

        Coldest decade in the century has to change to warmer, unless you want an ice age. Which, was also predicted by UN scientists to start by 2025. Similar people now sit in IPCC.

        Also we *know* Vikings were living by farming in Greenland around year 1000, at least several decades. That's why it *is* Greenland. IPCC denies that, vehemently.

        Doesn't mean it's a good idea to pollute (CO2 isn't pollution per se) as much we do now, but another *UN driven political movement with basically zero scientific proof*.

        See the correlation between global average CO2 and temperature: There isn't any unless you smooth it so much it's totally meaningless.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Because the world is running out of hydrocarbons...

          What a load of ranty twaddle. As we have warmed by more than 0.6 degrees already your 0.6 claim is already demonstrably false.Your memory of IPCC predictions suggests that your problem is memory. IPCC never predicted 1.6 degrees per year, they predicted 1.6 degrees per century under some emissions scenarios, and a 70 metre sea level rise was never an IPCC prediction - it's just what would happen if all the polar ice melted. 1 inch is sea level rise from expansion and ice melt over the last 15 years, and there's evidence of accelerating rates. God knows what you are ranting about about Ice ages. IPCC never denied Viking Settlement in Greenland. But what is denied, because it's not true, is that warm weather in Greenland was anything other than a local European/North Atlantic change in weather. It wasn't global. And as for the CO2/Temperature correlation even without adjusting for known confounding variables (El Nino, volcanism, aerosols and solar) the correlation is both obvious and statistically robust.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: “four times more voluminous"

      Hey designers, pack up and go home. Why? An AC on El Reg isn't convinced. He ignores he fact that hydrogen can be made using renewable energy and be carbon neutral, unlike kerosene, but stil.....

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: “four times more voluminous"

        "he ignores he fact that hydrogen can be made using renewable energy and be carbon neutral, unlike kerosene, "

        *Can* yes, but where you are getting that in large amounts? Burning coal to make hydrogen is what will happen in real life.

        And how much it will cost just to *store* said H2? It needs to be stored under 33K, that's about -240C.

        Transporting H2? Forget it, really, really hard in large quantities. Even LNG is difficult and it's piece of cake compared to H2.

        Also water vapour is 100* more effective greenhouse gas than CO2. And it won't come down as rain from upper athmosphere. CO2 isn't a major greenhouse gas either. Never has been: Water vapour and methane are the worst ones and all the rest are basically meaningless.

        Facts you choose to ignore. IPCC too, as it doesn't fit into "sell CO2 permissions by billions of dollars and pocket the money". -ideology. Grand theft, literally.

        Also: All I see is bunch of believers who don't give a f***k about facts if they don't fit into cult agenda. The cult exists solely for making cult leaders richer than Croesus.

        *That's* something that fit into facts. All facts.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: “four times more voluminous"

          Damm it. I should have become a climate scientist and coined the big bucks. Like all those famous rich climate scientists.....oh wait you mean rich as in actually having money - not rich as in thankful to get paid £10 grand a year as a student?

  5. chivo243 Silver badge
    Devil

    hydrogen engines?

    Wouldn't we have seen them in cars if this was viable?

    icon, because it resembles a red car in flames

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Boffin

      Re: hydrogen engines?

      You do see it .. or rather there are hydrogen fuel cell engines.

      The problem is that you will have a hard time containing and storing the gas long term and then recharging or filling the tank. That's why the concept never took off, along with some safety concerns.

      1. Imhotep

        Re: hydrogen engines?

        The issue is also cost for generating the hydrogen. A company called Nikola is in the news recently, one of the reasons being that a touted breakthrough in doing this turned out to be 'vapor'.

        1. Neil Barnes Silver badge
          Joke

          Re: hydrogen engines?

          Nah, hydrogen generation is easy!

          Conveniently, you can just take the exhaust product (H2O) to bits using the energy you generate when you burn the H2 in your fuel cell... oh, wait...

        2. AMBxx Silver badge
          Joke

          Re: hydrogen engines?

          Nikola is great technology - you just need to plan your routes to be downhill all the way.

          1. Francis Boyle Silver badge

            Hey, it works for Hotwheels

            I heard they're working on a wind up spring for the uphill parts.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Happy

              Re: Hey, it works for Hotwheels

              > I heard they're working on a wind up spring for the uphill parts.

              Don't joke. In London when there were still horse-drawn trams, they experimented with clockwork springs fitted to the trams. The driver would engage when going downhill to wind the spring and provide additional braking and then release going uphill to help the horse(s).

              1. bombastic bob Silver badge
                Devil

                Re: Hey, it works for Hotwheels

                dynamic braking, and charge while going downhill. Like a Prius.

                (they were pretty smart back then, too)

              2. MachDiamond Silver badge

                Re: Hey, it works for Hotwheels

                "they experimented with clockwork springs fitted to the trams"

                A hydraulic accumulator works on larger vehicles such as delivery vans and work had even been done on incorporating flywheels.

      2. JassMan

        Re: hydrogen engines?

        The biggest problem to solve will be the pressure vessel. I hope they will do a lot more research into hydrogen embrittlement before any passengers are flown. The actual process is currently poorly understood and seems to affect alloys more than purer metals. I have never seen any studies into hydrogen embrittlement as a result of thermal and pressure cycling.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: hydrogen engines?

          " I have never seen any studies into hydrogen embrittlement as a result of thermal and pressure cycling."

          I've read some while studying metallurgy and let's put it this way: You don't want to drop steel can containing liquid hydrogen.

          1) Steel is brittle as glass in 30K, ~-240C.

          2) Hydrogen seeping through makes it even worse very, very fast.

          3) *Any* cyclic load? Forget it.

          4) ~2% per week loss *through* the steel can. H2 molecule is smaller than the Fe grid, there's no way to stop that.

          Sorry, no sources and this is from memory but metallurgists know: H2 *is evil*.

          I don't wonder why the actual article didn't have any metallurgist comments: They've said several times that with current materials H2 isn't viable in large scale.

          Oh, works OK, if you can pump it in NTP in large quantities, but cooled & pressurized? Nope.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: hydrogen engines?

        "You do see it .. or rather there are hydrogen fuel cell engines."

        BMW was using it directly in ordinary combustion engine instead of gasoline. Worked very well and *all* the problems were related to storing and moving hydrogen.

        It became so expensive it was dead on arrival. Didn't make any economical sense even if the hydrogen was free.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: hydrogen engines?

          Hydrogen isn't free.

          Think about that for a second.

          And yeah. you hit the nail on the head as to why it never took off.

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: hydrogen engines?

      >Wouldn't we have seen them in cars if this was viable?

      Cos Saudi Arabia and Venezuela still exist - once they're empty you need a plan 'B'

      For cars it's probably a battery because you don't care about weight so much and make lots of short journeys and can top up at home

    3. IGotOut Silver badge

      Re: hydrogen engines?

      There are a couple of small car companies that make them, not sure if you have heard of them.

      Toyota

      Hyundai

      Honda

      Mercedes Benz

      And some other called Audi and Kia have them in testing phases

      1. chivo243 Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: hydrogen engines?

        yes, yes, the horseless buggies.

        But seriously, do they have their own filling stations that aren't marketed? or Marked?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: hydrogen engines?

          Norway opened its first commercial hydrogen filling station back in 2006. There are a handful in the country today. One of them even exploded last year [due to a manufacturing error on the plug of a high pressure tank / in an attempt to prove how safe they are].

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: hydrogen engines?

            "with the goal of a market-realistic demonstration of hydrogen refuelling stations"

            Says wiki and I do believe Wiki more.

            So *proof of concept* by energy company, "commercial" it might be but not generating profit. It never was meant to do so either.

            "There are a handful in the country today. "

            Yes, literally: 4. And every one of them are basically proof of concepts, research pieces.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: hydrogen engines?

              I never said there was any point to them. Merely that they existed. :) Hydrogen cars have been on the market here for the last four years or so. I think they've sold about 50 of them in total.

              Norway has pretty much chosen to go with electric vehicles, and rightly so. 99(ish)% of electricity generated in Norway is from renewable sources (mostly hydro), and the charging infrastructure is pretty much in place nationwide right now. Hydrogen doesn't bring anything new to the table.

          2. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: hydrogen engines?

            "Norway opened its first commercial hydrogen filling station back in 2006."

            I think I heard that there are around 36 in the US with 24 of those in Los Angeles.

            1. aqk
              Coat

              Re: hydrogen engines?

              Hydrogen re-filling stations?

              Vancouver, Canada has them! Since 2011! To re-fuel all those Hydrogen-powered buses that were built during the 2010 Vancouver Olympics!

              Come to Vancouver and ride on a Hydrogen-powered bus! And ask about Ballard Fuel-cells- THE FUTURE!

              Oh! Prefer to go to Iceland? Yes, Reykjavik has also been running loads of these Hydrogen-powered buses since 2010! Very fashionable!

      2. Stork Silver badge

        Re: hydrogen engines?

        I have stated this at earlier discussions about hydrogen as energy carrier but happily do it again: one of the things about hydrogen is that it is a real PITA to handle - it doesn't just stay where you put it. It goes through all sorts of materials (incl steel) which means you have to plan for ventilation around the storage too. No least because it it flammable from 4% to 75% concentration in air, virtually anything else has a narrower range.

        The article mentioned liquid hydrogen, that implies keeping it below its critical temperature of 33K. On a plane. Also when waiting for clearing for takeoff, and it missed the slot at Heathrow.

        On cars I think pressure tanks has been the most popular solution, but as pointed out weight is not the same concern.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: hydrogen engines?

        "There are a couple of small car companies that make them, not sure if you have heard of them."

        And how many of those are found on nearerst dealer?

        Oh, none?

        "Making" 1 laboratory equipment isn't "making cars" by any meaningful sense.

    4. Old Used Programmer

      Re: hydrogen engines?

      You mean like the RiverSimple "town car"?

    5. Headley_Grange Silver badge

      Re: hydrogen engines?

      Hydrogen-powered buses ran in Aberdeen as a test project for a while and a fleet of double-deckers was planned for this summer, but I assume COVID has set it back. If I recall correctly, one of the idiot things holding H2 road vehicle tech back is that there are two "standards" of filling and pressurization which are being argued about - bit like VHS vs Betamax - and until that gets sorted out investment is either on hold or being split inefficiently.

      Note that I might be wrong about the 2 standards thing; I went to a lecture about it a couple of years ago and my memory is hazy. Happy to be corrected.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: hydrogen engines?

        Good thing that all the car manufactures have agreed on a standard plug and socket arrangement for charging electric vehicles. Oh wait...

        1. Francis Boyle Silver badge

          I upvoted you for the humour

          but seriously it's been sorted. (Yes they had to humour the Americans but such is life).

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Joke

            Re: I upvoted you for the humour

            Yeah, I heard the nozzle size of petrol pumps was originally because the Americans wanted to ensure it was large enough for their coal chips.

      2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
        Happy

        Re: hydrogen engines?

        It's a solved problem. One standard of filling/pressurisation was preffered by the porn industry. And once they adopt a standard it becomes dominant across the industry relatively quickly...

    6. TRT Silver badge

      Re: hydrogen engines?

      Dozens of buses in our area run on it.

    7. Glen Turner 666

      Re: hydrogen engines?

      "Wouldn't we have seen them in cars if this was viable?" You mean, like we see kerosene-burning turbines in cars today?

      The requirements are very different. Weight is a major concern for aviation engines, less so for terrestrial engines. Fueling for aircraft can be complex, because it can be limited to professionals.

      Hydrogen is going to cost a lot, far more than using wind+solar to charge a battery. But it looks like batteries are going to remain too heavy to be economically practical in aircraft. So hydrogen is where aviation finds itself when looking for a power source which is not based on hydrocarbons (which make global warming worse).

      Even then the economics are going to be interesting. Airbus are allocating a third of the former cabin space for fuel. That implies ticket prices rising roughly 30%, and likely more. That leads to an interesting regulatory question, with consequences for EU-US relations depending which of Airbus and Boeing have a practical plane available for order.

      1. Tuomas Hosia

        Re: hydrogen engines?

        "So hydrogen is where aviation finds itself when looking for a power source which is not based on hydrocarbons (which make global warming worse)."

        Cooling H2 to -240C (33K) isn't going to be easy and you know, aluminium is brittle as glass at -240C. Pressure container, cooling equipment, insulation: All of those *weight*. And cost money, a lot of money.

        Too bad. Planes aren't going to fly with H2 unless someone invents a way to store it as easily as kerosene.

        Water vapour is 100* worse greenhouse gas than CO2 and spreading it into upper athmosphere is really a move from a genius. Right?

    8. chivo243 Silver badge
      Holmes

      Re: hydrogen engines?

      Well, I have been under a rock??

      https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/27/hydrogen-is-at-a-tipping-point-with-11-trillion-market-set-to-explode-says-bank-of-america.html

      partial paywall

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Boffin

    Storing hydrogen at altitude

    Because of its minute molecular size, hydrogen leaks very readily from everything but the tightest seals. I'd think that an aircraft traveling at speed and altitude, experiencing the normal amount of structural fatigue that airliners suffer from due to turbulence and shaking, would need to have the whole fuel system and engine seals checked and replaced very frequently to keep from losing lots of hydrogen to leakage.

    1. Adair

      Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

      I suspect that the whole fuel-cell package will be a very compact module - possibly one that can simply be dropped out and replaced when maintenance is required. So, while hydrogen leakage is certainly a thing, it is such a well known 'thing' that one has to suspect the engineers feel it is something that can be properly and effectively managed to allow a safe and cost-effective system.

      1. Chris G

        Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

        The fuel cell is unlikely to be compact when you consider that kerosene/litre is 4.3 times as energy dense as liquid hydrogen/litre so litre for litre you need 4.3 times as much volume of liquid hydrogen.

        1. Adair

          Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

          I'm talking about the power-pack, not the fuel storage. Even so, the hydrogen is likely to be stored very close to the fuel-cell module, for the reason mentioned - mitigating the leakage issue.

          1. Chris G

            Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

            What Airbus are considering is a series of hydrogen powered turboprops for shorter haul and hydrogen fueled jets for the larger longer haul aircraft, in both cases, based on the pics they released, the fuel will be stored in the aft section of the fusleage and will feed the engines mounted on the wings.

            These are nothing like the previous fuel cell electric motor powered aircraft they had considered, although a fuel cell power pack to operate internal services and avionics would make sense.

            In any case fuel (hydrogen) feed systems from the aft fuselage to wing mounted engines will necessitate high integrity lines to avoid leakage more for economic reasons as trace amounts of hydrogen should not really present much of a problem unless it builds up in an enclosed space and finds an ignition source,

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

        The article states that they will be using wing-mounted engines, and not fuel cells.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

        "it is such a well known 'thing' that one has to suspect the engineers feel it is something that can be properly and effectively managed to allow a safe and cost-effective system."

        I call BS on that. it can happen *if* someone invents material that can hold liquid H2 in at 33K, -240C, without losing 2% of it weekly.

        With any known material it can't be managed at all. And so far, suitable materials doesn't exist even in theory.

        Good luck on that.

      4. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

        "possibly one that can simply be dropped out and replaced when maintenance is required"

        Work on an aircraft is very expensive. Everything has to be done according to very specific directions by certified mechanics. Just normal "annuals" are a big expense. No airline will want to add to that.

    2. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

      Their big advantage is that they are refuelled immediately before each flight, with exactly the amount of fuel needed. That's an advantage over a car which gets filled once every few weeks but might be left sitting around for days or weeks.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

        "That's an advantage over a car which gets filled once every few weeks but might be left sitting around for days or weeks."

        No, the reverse: That's literally a disadvantage, major one.

        "Refuelled" is also a joke; There's no way you can *move* liquid H2 "just like that". Nope.

        First: It's 33K: Anything will be more or less a solid pipe.

        Second: It doesn't stay within any container too long: You can't store it in some tin can and believe it will stay there.

      2. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

        "Their big advantage is that they are refuelled immediately before each flight, with exactly the amount of fuel needed."

        You've never had a delay on a flight were you were left sitting with your seat belt on for ages while the plane is sat at the gate?

        Planes always have extra fuel on board for weather diversions or to get to an alternate airport if needed. Some time ago a plane ran out of fuel when the pilot was trying to resolve a problem while circling the destination airport and didn't pay attention to the fuel gauges. That crash led to the concept of Crew Resource Management where co-pilots and other flight staff are encouraged strongly to point out concerns and the Pilot in Charge is required to take their input.

    3. Mike 137 Silver badge

      Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

      I think you also have to allow for the massive pressure differential between the liquefied H2 and the atmosphere at 30,000 feet. That alone should tax not only seals, but the intrinsic porosity of any containment material used for the tanks.

      1. Roger Greenwood

        Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

        As hyrogen is generally stored at quite high pressure (several hundred bar) the one bar between ground level and the stratosphere is pretty much a non event. Thermal expansion of materials however.....

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

          "As hydrogen is generally stored at quite high pressure "

          Yes, but just because it's *not* liquid. For it much, much lower pressure is enough.

          Also 33K/-240C which is a tad unconviniently low to reach in most practical uses.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

        Liquified gas doesn't exert a pressure, only the vapour as it boils will do that, which depends on temperature.

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

          "Liquified gas doesn't exert a pressure, only the vapour as it boils will do that, which depends on temperature."

          So the more head space you have the higher your pressure can go.

    4. lglethal Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

      Speaking as an Aerospace Engineer, none of this is too different to what we already do. Piping is already heavily designed with redundant collection systems because in an aircraft ANY leak is a bad thing. Will this require even tighter restrictions, sure, but nothing too excessive. Additional ventilation between sections will be required to prevent Hydrogen build up, but there is absolutely nothing in these designs that will require Airbus to develop new aircraft design technologies.

      There will be plenty of years of design ahead for sure (they do talk about 2035 as delivery, which means 10 years of intensive development), and a lot of testing and learning, but really there is nothing too much involved in this. The hardest parts will be the actual hydrogen tech (the hydrogen storage, the fuel cell-electricity converters, and the actual engines themselves). Everything else should be relatively normal development...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

        Dear Iglethal. Would you please stop posting common sense and fact based rebuttals based on professional expertise. You are massively distracting from the proper focus of El Reg commentary. In future please confine your responses to the standard: e.g., Hindenburg, it will never work, steam engines were good enough for Henson and Stringfellow, or the ever popular 'but I need a plane that can fly non-stop to Hawaii'.

        1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

          I need a plane that can fly non-stop to Hawaii

          From where?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

          "Would you please stop posting common sense and fact based rebuttals based on professional expertise."

          Common sense definitely doesn't apply at 33K. That's -240C.

          And "professional expertise" is from wrong profession. Too bad. You'd need a metallurgist to tell what happens to airplane aluminium when you freeze it to 33K.

          It's not pretty.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

        "Speaking as an Aerospace Engineer, none of this is too different to what we already do"

        Really? You normally store your fuel at 33K? -240C?

        You know, because an iota more and it's not liquid anymore, and it will burst the tank used to contain it.

        I'll bet you've no idea of hard cryogenics (temps <50K) and that's what is needed here.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Holmes

        @Iglethal Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

        The devil is in the details.

        Now as an 'Aerospace Engineer' take a look at how today's jet aircraft are maintained.

        Then do the math and risk analysis.

        Then do the math on the costs vs alternatives.

        I suggest you go for your MBA and start to look at the P&L side of the house.

        It doesn't pan out.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Marketing Hack... Re: Storing hydrogen at altitude

      Yup which is why its DOA on the start except for good marketing.

  7. Krassi

    bio-kerosene

    Energy density has so much value for aircraft that expensive biofuels could actually make sense. Much more sensible to convert all land & sea transport to hydrogen or electric before doing anything about flight. I believe several airlines have already made trials with bio-fuel mixes and some small scale production. Solution is there - just needs society to accept the price. OTOH battery and hydrogen powered aircraft research is mostly green-wash.

    1. DanielsLateToTheParty

      Re: bio-kerosene

      The advantage of biofuels is they stay within the carbon cycle (and the engine technology required is mature). The disadvantage is burning them produces particulates like soot. As I recently learnt from the news, climate change is causing weird green bumps in Siberia, whereas air pollution kills 7 million people per year. If that's the damage to humans then just try to imagine the same effect to all other life.

      1. Krassi

        Re: bio-kerosene

        Certainly there is a lot more to pollution than CO2 emissions. If you're looking to reduce particulates, jet engines burning kerosene are probably not the worst offenders. And synthetic fuels tend to be a little cleaner than refinery based fuels.

        Diesel road vehicles are pumping out particulates right next out homes, ship engines burning low grade fuel are hugely polluting, although more distant. Plenty of problems to fix, it is a question of priorities and where best to start.

        1. Francis Boyle Silver badge

          Re: bio-kerosene

          Exactly there are some serious nasties in diesel emissions and they get released right where people are. In contrast a small amount of soot high in the atmosphere is unlikely to have a serious health effect and might even be useful in blocking sunlight.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: bio-kerosene

            "Exactly there are some serious nasties in diesel emissions and they get released right where people are."

            Here in EU they've prohibited most of those and US has some limitations too.

            "Diesel emissions" are basically irrelevant with current regulation compared to ships and power plants.

    2. DJO Silver badge

      Re: bio-kerosene

      OTOH battery and hydrogen powered aircraft research is mostly green-wash.

      Hydrogen, yes I agree. Electric aircraft do have a role as two seat trainers and small ultra-short haul such as 25 seat island hoppers.

      Any role where there is minimal time in the air would be fine for electric aircraft but for medium and long haul, forget it.

  8. Zebo-the-Fat

    Bring it back

    Bring back the horse drawn zeppelin!

    1. Martin Gregorie

      Re: Bring it back

      Doesn't work: horses are monumentally inefficient in converting fuel (hay and oats) into work (pulling vehicles), though I'd love to see a horse-powered airliner with its herd of horses galloping on a treadmill to drive the propellers and its pilot riding the lead stallion.

      The United Kingdom probably cannot feed its current population without importing food, so horse-drawn transport is impossible here without a return to 19th century population and city sizes.

      The USA does not have the farmland to feed the horses needed to replace fossil fuelled land transport and has not had this capability since the late 1960s. Thats even assuming that farms are not needed to feed people. This calculation was done in the early '70s during the first Oil Crisis and published in Scientific American.

      1. PerlyKing
        Happy

        Re: Doesn't work

        Whooosh! <--- The joke

        O <--- Your head

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Bring it back

        The UK actually went through the greater part of it's transition from rural to urban in the industrial revolution - so post trains but pre-car, and while our population has grown I would hazard that modern yields per hectare have outpaced that growth. We could go back to horses for last mile connectivity - we might find it harder to find enough farriers and grooms though.

        1. Intractable Potsherd

          Re: Bring it back

          Not to mention the little-addressed issue of horse emissions. People in towns were pleased to see the end of horse-drawn transport because they could have clean feet at last. And if you think diesels produce horrible substances, just think about the smell and bacterial pollution from the porridge-like slurry on every city road!

      3. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

        Re: Bring it back

        Martin Gregorie,

        I disagree. Whilst horses are impractical for pulling normal aircraft due to the high speeds - they seem perfectly suited to the lower speed, more environmentally sympathetic Zeppelins. Plus, if we're going to re-indtroduce airship travel, then I feel that steampunk is the way to go in terms of styling and uniforms. This should give lots of nice design opportunities for aeronautical horse tack - and some tasteful souvenir items to be sold in the inevitable gift shop. An important consideration in any travel strategy, I'm sure you will agree.

        This also removes weight from the Zeppelin, as it will no longer require either engines or fuel - thus freeing up a lot of carrying capacity for extra passengers.

        I feel that international air travel might be better suited to the fitting of onboard gyms - in order for richer passengers to help power the aircraft, and reduce fuel use, as part of their regular work-out strategies. Although downgrading economy class passengers to the status of galley slaves is also an attractive option.

        Finally, to add to your interesting observations on the problems of horse feeding requirements, I would like to add some useful information of my own. The average horse produces 0.5L of urine a day and around 7-15kg of manure.

        In 1900 New York had about 100,000 working horses - which equates to 1,100 tonnes of poo and 50,000L of wee per day.

        Although this needn't be all bad. For example, New Yorkers could have filled 7 Olympic swimming pools per year with horse urine, just from their working population of horses alone. And their roses must have been spectacular...

        However on the downside, the average working horse only lasted about 3 years, which means a staggering 30,000 horse carcasses per year to deal with. I think we can all agree, that's a lot of lasagne.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Joke

          Re: Bring it back

          > I disagree. Whilst horses are impractical for pulling normal aircraft due to the high speeds - they seem perfectly suited to the lower speed, more environmentally sympathetic Zeppelins.

          I beg to differ my good Sir! Trained geese are clearly the way to propel an environmentally sympathetic Zeppelin. They can cross water, they are already used to flying long distances in groups and their honking alerts other Zeppelin pilots of their approach.

      4. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Bring it back

        "The USA does not have the farmland to feed the horses needed to replace fossil fuelled land transport"

        It might. I suggest that a large amount of travel would not be done if cars were replaced with horses. Society would have to change back to a much slower pace. Trips of a few hundred miles would take days and in the desert SW, nobody would travel that far during summer. In other parts of the country, trips wouldn't be taken in the winter.

        1. aqk
          Pint

          Re: Bring it back

          Gosh!

          Kinda sounds like a Covid19 society of our future.

        2. Charles 9

          Re: Bring it back

          "I suggest that a large amount of travel would not be done if cars were replaced with horses."

          Except you're talking something macroeconomic. One thing about macroeconomics: It's HARD to go back to a simpler time as expectations have risen along with the tech. Now that people are used to being able to cross the country in a few days by car and in hours by plane, it'll be hard for them to go back. Barring a catastrophe (at which point we're probably already dead), people will keep demanding everything yesterday.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Meh.

    Haven’t seen reason to fly anywhere for the past 10 years. Sure as hell don’t see reason to fly anywhere for the next 10.

  10. theOtherJT Silver badge

    Not convinced.

    Energy density is sort of a massive deal when doing heavier than air flight. Every kilo of fuel you're carrying is a kilo of something you actually wanted to move about (be that people or cargo) that you're not. Not only is hydrogen significantly less energy dense than Jet Fuel, the storage cells needed to keep it liquid are much heavier than a typical fuel tank required for traditional fuels.

    The laws of physics say something has to give somewhere. If we're going to give over 1/4 of the cargo volume to carrying fuel instead, flying is going to have to get a lot more expensive. Maybe that's inevitable, but if it _is_ I'm not sure hydrogen planes are the best value way of spending the extra money in terms of keeping things moving vs not producing a ton of greenhouse emissions.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not convinced.

      "terms of keeping things moving vs not producing a ton of greenhouse emissions."

      Water vapour *is* a greenhouse gas. Not only that, it's 100* worse than CO2.

      Producing more of it *is not* a wise move.

  11. devTrail

    Carbon neutral but still not climate change neutral

    If it could go into actual commercial operation it would be a step ahead, but not a complete solution.

    It would be carbon neutral, but also water vapour when it is release at an altitude is a greenhouse gas.

    1. lglethal Silver badge
      Go

      Re: Carbon neutral but still not climate change neutral

      It's true Water Vapour is a greenhouse gas, BUT it is a significantly milder greenhouse gas. The value i found on New Scientist says that CO2 is about 30 times worse that Water Vapour. So if the Hydrogen aircraft produces the same quantity of exhaust as a current Aircraft, then the overall effect would be that its greenhouse gas emissions have 30 times less effect on climate change.

      Actually its more complex then that, because Water Vapour's effect on climate change is dependent on temperature to a large extent (the hotter it is, the more effect it has). But you get the idea, water vapour even though its a greenhouse gas, it is significantly less polluting then carbox dioxide.

      1. devTrail

        Re: Carbon neutral but still not climate change neutral

        It's true Water Vapour is a greenhouse gas, BUT it is a significantly milder greenhouse gas.

        This is not correct because there is far more water vapour than CO2 in the atmosphere. The overall effect is a stronger greenhouse contribution.

        Actually its more complex then that, because Water Vapour's effect on climate change is dependent on temperature to a large extent (the hotter it is, the more effect it has).

        The effect depends on the altitude. if it is close to the ground the reflected sunlight might be more than the trapped heath. If it is very high instead it is the opposite, you can easily notice by yourself comparing the temperature you feel in a night with or without clouds. That is why vapour released by engine planes is the worst one.

        Temperature comes into play because the warmer it is the higher the chance it goes up with a thermal current. That is why the vapour released by the cooling tower of a power plant (and all the other combustion engines to a lesser degree) is more damaging than vapour created in other ways.

        1. lglethal Silver badge
          Go

          Re: Carbon neutral but still not climate change neutral

          This is not correct because there is far more water vapour than CO2 in the atmosphere. The overall effect is a stronger greenhouse contribution.

          Actually it is correct. On an emissions basis (which is what we were talking about) 1g of CO2 is 30x more problematic than 1g of Water Vapour. Thats why our raising of the CO2 in the atmosphere by a few ppm is having such a large effect. Yes the overall effect of Water Vapour is more because there is substantially more of it, but the vast majority of water vapour is produced naturally.

          But lets say this another way, if every man made polluting source of CO2 production was changed overnight to produce water vapour instead, the affect would be that climate change would be 30 times less devestating than it currently is. The maths would need to be done, but I'd willing to bet that if that was the case, we would no longer be causing a noticable temperature rise.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Carbon neutral but still not climate change neutral

            " On an emissions basis (which is what we were talking about) 1g of CO2 is 30x more problematic than 1g of Water Vapour."

            False. 1g of water vapour is 100* more problematic than 1g of CO2. Anyone claiming otherwise is lying.

            CO2 is still *weak* greenhouse gas.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Carbon neutral but still not climate change neutral

        "It's true Water Vapour is a greenhouse gas, BUT it is a significantly milder greenhouse gas. The value i found on New Scientist says that CO2 is about 30 times worse that Water Vapour. "

        This a blatant lie: CO2 is only 1% as efficient as water vapour. Or methane.

        CO2 is and has been *weak greenhouse gas*, while methane and water vapour are strong greenhouse gases.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Carbon neutral but still not climate change neutral

          Any danger of you popping a citation in there?

  12. cantankerous swineherd

    can they pull this off before they go bust? make and distribute hydrogen, make engines, possibly whole new planes while everyone's getting on with zoom and thinking how nice it is not going through the abusive ticketing and airport experience? meanwhile rail, in Europe at least, will ramp up.

    a long shot and I'd be interested to see the outcome.

  13. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: Isn't that a tad... explosive?

      This is not good, because current aircraft fuels are not flammable at all.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Isn't that a tad... explosive?

        Compared to hydrogen they aren't.

        You can't ignite kerosene with a match, it just dies.

  14. Chairman of the Bored
    Stop

    Im going to say the quiet bit out loud...

    Most industrial production of hydrogen is achieved through steam reforming of natural gas, coal gassification, and oxidizing methane. This is all extremely dirty and inefficient.

    Failing to include the H2 production environmental effects in the system boundary under discussion is disingenuous. Unless we bring high temperature has reactors online, designed so that we can use extremely high temperature coolant for process heat, H2 production will remain dirty.

    The deadliest bullshit it odorless and transparent. And, apparently, lighter than air.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360319911017319

    1. Wellyboot Silver badge

      Re: Im going to say the quiet bit out loud...

      If we have to go to the effort of making clean H2 (electrolysis is spectacularly inefficient hence the current dirty methods) we might as well just use it to make synthetic fuel and avoid all the fiddling with aircraft design until technology gets a lot better.

      At the moment we have CO2 & pollution problems, if we reduce that to 'just' pollution that is still a major improvement.

      1. happy but not clappy
        Boffin

        Re: Im going to say the quiet bit out loud...

        Amplifying this point.

        Lets say we had a bunch of, I dunno, windmills producing electricity no-one can use. Then efficiency is no longer the issue, just make something that can be burned. Could be hydrogen, which can then be combined with CO2 from, say, a massive green-tinted wood-burning station. Or it is possible to do it directly from solar, apparently. Seems more likely than giant battery packs.

        The resulting fuel can drive turbines, be they in wings, or in a power station. Rolls Royce might have some spare these days.

        Efficiency will suck, but that just means we need more windmills. You can buy a shitload of windmills and infrastructure for £50 billion, or whatever a nuke costs these days.

        So, m'lud, I suggest this is all just green posturing by airlines and their political cronies desperate to avoid having to do anything before their gold-plated pensions are due.

        Maybe Elon could help before he goes off to Mars?

        1. Intractable Potsherd

          Re: Im going to say the quiet bit out loud...

          What about the environmental costs of building and decommissioning all those wind turbines?

  15. Morrie Wyatt
    Flame

    The other issue with Hydrogen.

    Hydrogen is only liquid at extremely low cryogenic temperatures 20.28ºK (-353ºC), or at very high pressures.

    So hydrogen in an aircraft will be able to destroy it if the tank ruptures, spray all aboard with cryogenic liquid, or go up in flames given oxygen and an ignition source. Kerosene based fuels by contrast are liquid across the range of temperatures experienced during flight without need for pressurisation, and don't transition from liquid to gaseous state anywhere near as easily as hydrogen.

    1. Neil Barnes Silver badge

      Re: The other issue with Hydrogen.

      They're probably going to be really serious about the no smoking signs, then.

  16. Daytona955

    2000nm? Sh*t! That IS short range...

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The future of sustainable technology for both cars and planes is

    to use them a lot less

  18. MJI Silver badge

    More to the point

    Which engine manufacturer is working on Hydrogen engines?

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It also shortens the potential ranges of airliners

    yes and no. Remember the range of the first manned flight? If there's demand...

    either way, it's a long-term dream. The only way to make it shortened significantly is, if suddenly, all the oil were gone. Or used up by the military waging WW3 ;)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It also shortens the potential ranges of airliners

      "yes and no. Remember the range of the first manned flight? If there's demand..."

      Demand can't and won't change the physics involved an iota. Physics just is. And it is a very unmovable object in this case.

      There's *huge* demand for supraconnectivity, but it's still not really available. There's even huger demand for a method to store gigawatts of electricity to somewhere, semi-permanently and cheaply.

      How many of those you've seen so far? None?

      Demand for H2-powered airplanes? I can safely say it's less than 0. Use H2 and CO2 to make kerosene and you get more BTUs/kg than from H2.

      *Without* container. With container, H2-plane won't have any payload as containing H2 is seriously difficult and container will weight more than the payload is for a kerosene-fueled plane.

      Nasty realities always confuse these consults who make living by bulls**ting naive people.

      1. Charles 9

        Re: It also shortens the potential ranges of airliners

        Not trying to "rain" on anyone's parade, but there are criticisms that state that water vapor's net effect on temperature is moderating as it causes negative feedback (otherwise, we'd have been in Hothouse Earth long ago because of massive oceanic evaporation from the sun). Perhaps someone can elaborate on specifics on how water vapor can be both a worse greenhouse gas and a temperature moderator at the same time.

        PS. I DO agree that hydrogen as a fuel is a nonstarter, thus the US Navy is researching into creating synthetic fuel instead using power from the reactors aboard their carriers.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    aft part of the fuselage being windowless

    That'll be fun as a passenger, not being able to look out the window. Not much of a passenger experience.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: aft part of the fuselage being windowless

      Most of the passengers in a modern wide-bodied jet don't get to look out the window.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: aft part of the fuselage being windowless

        Used to drive me mad in good old pre-covid days. You snaffle a window seat, looking forward to watching mountains and seas and desert drift by as you sip your G&T and then they insist on closing the blinds so the mind dead can sleep....

  21. devTrail

    Hydrogen as an explosive

    Hydrogen might be volatile and explosive, but kerosene vapour is not much better. Repeating over and over again the story of the Hindenburg is just scaremongering based on a 80+ years old technology. I think that with all the unmanned blimps and balloons that companies around the world are currently testing hydrogen has some room to make a comeback also as a lifting gas.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hydrogen as an explosive

      "Hydrogen might be volatile and explosive, but kerosene vapour is not much better."

      Oh yeah. And *what you need to do to get kerosene vapour*? Instead of having a microscopic leak in H2 container.

      You can't even ignite kerosene with a match.

      1. Sanguma

        Re: Hydrogen as an explosive

        You can't even ignite kerosene with a match.

        Ever used a Tilley lamp? A kerosene lamp? umm, ahh, what does a kerosene lamp burn?

        Enlighten us, please.

    2. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Hydrogen as an explosive

      "but kerosene vapour is not much better."

      What makes kerosene into "jet fuel" are the additives that control things like it turning into a fine mist if a tank is ruptured.

  22. RLWatkins

    There is only one effective way to store hydrogen...

    ... which is to use carbon from the environment, i.e. from atmospheric CO2, to convert hydrogen to far more easily manageable hydrocarbons.

    And that is "carbon-neutral".

    Batteries, fuel cells and other means of providing power won't store energy as effectively, either because of the difficulty of storing fuel, i.e. plain old H2, or the chemically less-energetic reactions upon which batteries are based.

    We know the solution to this problem already. All this gee-whiz technology handwaving is nothing but public relations hype. [sigh]

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: There is only one effective way to store hydrogen...

      ".. to far more easily manageable hydrocarbons."

      Yes. *huge* energy content per liter compared to H2, trivial to store *and* transport. Also stays in container if you've a lid on, on room temperature.

      Only an idiot thinks about using H2 as it is: It's literally a PITA to handle, in any shape or form.

      Liquid H2 will produce really funny effects when (not if: One H2-station in Norway already exploded to that and literally nothing was left) the temperature rises above 33K. Basically a major bomb (not kilotons but hundreds of kilos of TNT) as no container can stand the pressure it will generate. In milliseconds.

      Some people believe Hindenburg was bad: It wasn't. An airplane exploding to H2 expansion above an airfield will kill everyone in the plane and almost everyone on the field too, thousands of people.

      Good luck on that.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: There is only one effective way to store hydrogen...

        Literally nothing left - apart from literally just about all of it. And remind me how many petrol filling stations have ever caught fire?

        And as for your fantasy exploding cloud of hydrogen above an airport? How's that going to work? I guess you could in some weird way get a fuel air explosion going - but that's a lot easier to do with Kerosene, which you can aerolize before ignition. And the Hindenburg had over 200,000 m3 of hydrogen, so that's 14 tons of the stuff. Remind me how many thousands were killed?

  23. blankCD

    Duh - use biofuel

    Well we could either change our fuel to something less energy dense like batteries or hydrodgen or <drumroll> not change it!

    I'm not saying that air travel should ever recover to pre-COVID levels of burn-the-planet-cos-I-want-sunburn but we can make biofuel from cellulosic ethanol which we can make sustainable. It's a much lower cost route than building new aircraft - we already have a surplus of them parked up that should last us a few decades.

  24. MachDiamond Silver badge

    Cryo is a non-starter

    Handling cryo fuels and oxidizers is dangerous. It takes much more training and infrastructure to do it safely. There is still a big risk of accidents. Jet-A spilling on the ground is a hazard, but one that easily dealt with. Routine handling is much more involved with cryogenic liquids. Tanks must be highly insulated. Redundant safety pressure relief devices have to be installed everywhere a trapped volume can occur. There is also extensive monitoring needed when dealing with a flammable gas.

    One presenter demonstrated that for a given distance, a hydrogen fuel cell car would cost $85 to make the trip and an EV $12. It's not aircraft, but a good metric for what H2 costs when it's been extracted, transported, pressurized and sold to the customer at a profit (subsidized, I'm sure).

    A new physics will have to be discovered where it's easier to snap off the Hydrogen atoms from a water molecule than it is right now. It all come down to breaking those bonds at the greatest efficiencies. Electrolyzing water is very inefficient. Water is the ashes of a H and O fire. We don't try to resurrect trees after we've had our camp fire.

    Some years ago I looked into the HHO scheme to increase the efficiency of a petrol engine and it does work to a certain extent. The downside is that it's not very kind to Aluminium. It's also more gubbins to keep topped up and in good order. The premise was to increase the burn efficiency of the petrol/diesel and not to make the H a fuel. I'm not sure something like this wouldn't work on an aircraft.

    It was mentioned above that it's better to go after the lower hanging fruit right now. Cars, trucks, trains and some ships are easier targets. We have overhead electric passenger trains, why not freight trains? Freight trains in the US are already diesel/electric hybrids. I don't see why they also couldn't be made to work from overhead power lines. Even if it's only in and around cities to start. Passenger cars are going electric fast and delivery/work vans are following close behind as it becomes financially more advantageous for companies to convert their fleets. We can wait for aircraft to switch over to something new.

    1. aqk
      Boffin

      Re: Cryo is a non-starter

      You don't seem to understand.

      Hydrogen is HOT! (figuratively speaking) Politicians and journalists, who mostly slept through their Physics classes, are ripe for this sales job.

      People (still) think Hydrogen is sexy. Hydrogen SELLS. We have to work it into our society one way or another, and some folks will always see a stock-market benefit, or an IPO in their future.

      Me? I'm still waiting for my 2008 hydrogen-powered BMW (or was it a Toyota?) that those big ads on the back covers of Scientific American (or was it the National Geographic?) promised me 16 years ago.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like