Hydrogen: The Fuel That Could Power Your Next Flight | WSJ
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 06. 2024
- While some hydrogen planes exist, it could be decades before you ever step foot in one for a flight. Aircraft manufacturers like Airbus have thrown their weight behind the technology and are aiming for hydrogen planes entering service in 2035. Boeing meanwhile is more cautious over the technology.
Here’s why even though there are hydrogen planes flying today, the technology has a long and bumpy runway before takeoff.
0:00 Hydrogen fuel cells
0:45 Why aviation needs to decarbonize
1:44 How hydrogen powers planes
2:54 Hydrogen plane developers
4:51 Hydrogen’s limitations
#Flight #Aviation #WSJ
I am an Electrical Engineer and the bit at around 2:30 when explaining how hydrogen fuel cells work has been the best I have seen. Very well done
Anyone can make hydrogen themselves for free
The Hinderberg dissaster was not because of hydrogen, but because of the highly vlamable paint that was used on the outside of the balloon. Rectification would be nice
The paint ignited it, the H2 turned it into an inferno. H2 and aviation is idiotic! Not only because of physics and technology, but much more importantly logistically and economically.
It is much easier to use green electricity to create a liquid fuel, which can be used in existing infrastructure and airplanes.
Excuse me, the airship was called Hindenburg 🤓
Fuel cell hydrogen to GHG excellent 👌😎👍👏🙌😀👌 .Keep it up.
Any progress is progress, but there’s an outsized amount of scrutiny on airplanes when they only amount to 2% GHG annually
2% is huge compared to the social service it provides. So no, no outsized scrutiny
@@mintberrycrunch6657 Airplanes facilitate tourism (literally millions are able to eat thanks to it), Air cargo accounts for around 1/3 of world trade by value, airplanes enable air defense and patrolling (effectively making the world a safer place). Airplanes create countless direct and indirect jobs be it in manufacturing, designing, maintaining and operating the entirety of the aviation industry.
So no, the social service provided by airplanes is massive.
And it is very nice that, despite being an industry notoriusly hard to decarbonize, the aviation industry is trying so hard to reduce their emissions.
bruh largest green house gas is water vapor.... this plane about to release more of it lol
It's the fastest growing polluter though so that is why the industry is trying to be proactive before legislators ban almost all flights which is a movement in Europe and other parts of the world. Realistically planes work best for long-distance inter-city non-stop travel which is only PART of the entire market... A lot of heavy transport lifting is better off done with electric trains...
Bruh, it doesn't stay up in the atmosphere for 50 years like methane or CO2 so it's not as big a deal as trolls make it out to be...@@Huppy1234567
Hydrogen: the fuel that's been just 5 years away for the last 25 years.
How silly to compare using hydrogen as a combustion fuel to the Hindenburg, then to completely dismiss it because of that.
Whether you use it for combustion or fuel cell, you still have compressed hydrogen tanks. No difference
except there isn't an insanely large amount of surface area where you have to control sparks causing an explosion... this is much more controlled storage
Or there are companies and universities that have been developing a much better hydrogen storage solution.....
I completely agree. We're still waiting for a fuel cell hydrogen tank that's reliable enough to be developed, that's why the hydro-tech-heads don't like talking about the leakage issues, or the embrittlement issues, or the tank ruptures...etc. etc.
@@Spliceozome what you all are forgetting is that byproduct is watervapor.... if concerns are about global warming then why are we endorsing the creation of the largest greenhouse gas water vapor
as you said its is futuristic technology but wont it be cause damage on aircraft like aircraft corrosion because the exhaust is water wont it affect aerodynamics
please let me know about it
Fun side note, all those planes have a 10 to 20 year life span so yes it is feasible to replace all the planes before the deadline of the tech is ready.
Realistic central note. Planes are typically flown for decades before replacement. Sure the planes could be replaced early. Do you have a few hundred billion dollars spare change in your pocket you could donate to make that happen?
what about the airlines? will they trust the hypothesis that hydrogen will take place at the market and stop ordering planes? what are you opinions?
@@simaysokmen Planes are ordered years before they are needed due to long lead times. And they last for decades. Airlines are also risk averse; they are not likely to order a plane with a questionable fuel supply in all the locations fuel is needed. Even with the volatility of current jet fuel prices, it's the devil they know vs. the devil they don't know. Unless the heavy hand of government steps in and ruins it for everyone.
Y'all never googled Universal Hydrogen? They are making conversion kits for all kinds of existing aircraft... Problem solved... Ish... They use hydrogen capsules that will eat up interior space however the economics will probably make it a viable solution for small and regional aircraft which are the least fuel efficient today... The largest long-range jets like A350-1000 are already super fuel efficient machines that are still better off flying on SAF...
The volume issue is a killer problem.
So is the chronic leakage and boil off issue. Hydrogen fuel handling system are incredibly complex and very high maintenance. You can't store hydrogen for more than a few hours
Yeah... you guys know better. Sure.
@@alainpannetier2543 , they are speaking information that is literally public, hydrogen does have those problems. 'Donut' and 'Real Engineering' on CZcams have great videos explaining hydrogen, I recommend.
They also forget to talk about the development of safer and much better hydrogen storage solution.
I've heard liquid ammonia as an alternative which doesn't have these issues.
Interesting
Yes it's the near future and Morocco 🇲🇦 is on it👍👍👍
Interesting very interesting…
The problem is hydrogen is not readily available without injecting high energy into its extraction
One solution that's happening here in Edmonton is the airport is planning on building a solar farm and a hydrogen reforming station together so that surplus solar can be used to make hydrogen for aircraft.
I think if gov push this hydro in every transport industry its goin to work better for all of us.
What is the science about venting water, as a byproduct of hydrogen propulsion, at altitude?
Water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. However, I can imagine it is fine since it just rejoins the water cycle. CO2 is a problem because it accumulates and there is no way to quickly recapture it at the rate it is released. Burning hydrogen is just releasing water vapour that was electrolyzed a couple of hours ago on the ground.
Nevertheless, it is a good question, since the scale of commercial flight might introduce factors that need to be examined.
Water vapor is an incredible potent greenhouse gas when emitted in the upper atmosphere. If flying shall be climate neutral, we can't emmit anything up there.
Water vapor down on earth isn't much of an issue though.
Just capture it into a tank. It probably won't be enough extra weight to make flight impractical.
It's the same as venting water vapor from jet engines at altitude. That's what jet contrails are composed of. It's also what clouds are composed of. Clouds reflect sunlight back into space, reducing global warming. The atmosphere is already full of water vapor. It's called humidity.
It is very volatile. But it's a great idea.
The only obstacle that gets in the way of hydro fueled playing technology will be the petroleum company. In addition when solar power first came out it was also way too expensive, but now it's gotten much cheaper. But this is true with all new technologies.
The last commercial aviation using hydrogen was the Hindenburg.
This is for me dhdhdhdhdh😂❤
I know there are concern about explosive danger of hydrogen. Why not hydrogen fuel towed via a connecting metal pipe to the plane, plus some more motors to ease take off and crossing of the detached hydrogen ? With a parachute in case of hydrogen explosion
Super chilled liquid hydrogen or methane
Or gas but stored in COPV?
Maybe electric ion propulsion
Maybe batteries
hydrogen powered ekranoplans?
📍4:51
Install small modular reactors at airports to produce green hydrogen. Boom...
The locations which get the most airplane crashes in the world are airports. Some airplanes crash away from airports, but most airplane crashes are at airports.
It's not a good idea to have a nuclear reactor in a location where airplane cashes can and do happen.
@@matthewbaynham6286 why say something so untrue? Why speak when there is nothing valuable to say?
@@matthewbaynham6286 they can put the reactor underground tho, if plane crashes are that prevalent
@@pacresfrancis1565 and where do you plan to have the cooling system?
Most likely it's not going to happen. SAF is a way more realistic solution. Also, battery electric short hall flights could replace large parts of total aviation market pretty quickly
Note, that any vehicle driven by hydrogen isn't more emission friendly than the way the hydrogen is produced.
Most H2 is produced from petrochemicals.
Only 100% natural energy produced H2 is emission natural.
most hydrogen is a byproduct of making petrol and other petro chemicals.
they just throw most hydrogen out btw.
that's exactly what the video said.
The story talks about a hydrogen fuel cell producing electricity, but then internal combustion (not electric) engines are shown on the plane. This story needs to get its story straight.
One engine is electric and one combustion, its for safety as these are experimental aircraft. I've also seen another video featuring the same plane and the back of the plane is stuffed full of hydrogen equipment and fuel so good luck getting 19 passengers on it.
@@stevenewley1 Electric motors don't need air intakes, like the engine in the video. Something is incorrect about this story.
@@dzcav3 They may need air intakes for cooling, they are used on electric cars for this. Not doubting you but its possible.
@@stevenewley1 The size of those intakes is much larger than required for cooling.
Just use synthetic zero carbon kerosine. You can just keep on flying the current airplanes and emit no Co2.
As long as you don't mind paying twice as much for your plane tickets.
@@dzcav3it is thrice the price
Kerosene is a mixture of hydrocarbons in the range of 6 to 20 carbon atoms per molecule. When this is burned with oxygen from the air inside a running aircraft engine, you will create CO2 at that point. That is not avoidable, whether you start with some 'eco' synthetic fuel or whatever, it's basic chemistry.
If someone's managed to make kerosene that doesn't contain any carbon atoms in it's molecular structure, then it is not kerosene, it's something else entirely.
Aviation Jet fuel also contains a lot of additives that are required for it to work which are also burned as the engine runs, it's not simply 'pure' kerosene or naptha in there.
wow wondweful ,
Airplanes are THE hardest thing to make carbon free. They fly
True🎉🎉🎉
Followed by ships.
@@PatRisberg Then, consider how millions of cargo arrived to the USA in the first place.
@@PatRisberg no carbon targets on rocket ships as I recall. Prbly because it's so niche it doesn't count. And I think it's established it's practically impossible anyway. But I haven't looked into nuclear powered rockets could it power itself on nuclear from earth?
@@dbclass4075 sail solar and battery is an option. But also thinking if 30% of a cargo ship had space for hydrogen tanks I imagine it could go quite a distance. The weight of a hydrogen tank wouldn't matter so much on a ship
The trickster
The Hindenburg was first. How did that turn out.
LZ 129 Hindenburg was no plane, but an airship.
It was not the first Zeppelin and not the first airship.
It wasn't powered by hydrogen, but diesel.
Hardly any relation to hydrogen powered planes.
This topic is very complex, and I do believe you are for a large part correct in your prediction. It is however imperative to note the downsides of SAF, as opposed to hydrogen.
First and foremost, non-CO2 emissions account for more than half of aviations GHG emissions, and flying on SAF will not solve this problem. Aviation is responsible for around 2.5% of global CO2 emissions, however due to the beforementioned fact, it is responsible for around 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Eliminating only half of that by switching to (very expensive) SAF, is not enough in the long run. Hydrogen fuel cell technology can completely eliminate all nitrous oxide emissions, solving this almost completly.
Another thing is that making large amounts of SAF will require production using the Fischer-Tropfsch process. This process uses hydrogen, and carbon monoxide (derived from CO2, which would ideally come from carbon capture) to produce long chain hydrocarbons such as kerosine. This process, although feasable, is not very energy efficient. The absolute upper limit, based on computer simulations of entire production plants, is around 60 to 70%. This is considering extremely favorable process efficiencies for electrolysis and carbon capture, as well as very high conversion rates. Realistically this efficiency is much, much lower. This means that the energy consumption to produce these fuels is extremely high, and producing enough renewable energy for this would be much more difficult than for hydrogen.
Improvements in hydrogen fuel cell efficiency, and aerodynamic efficiencies, as well as eventually very different airplane concepts (such as blended wing bodies, or flying V designs) Will allow for longer range due to increased efficiency, and also more internal volume in the aircraft. This is however not possible to do within the next 30 years, and for now SAF is a good step forward, while replacing short and medium haul flights with hydrogen or even bettery electric airplanes. However, clean aviation is the only way forward, and the best conceivalbe way to get there, is hydrogen power.
Combustion of hydrogen in the atmospheric air produces a lot of nitrogen oxides. A LOT more than combustion of hydrocarbon fuels
This topic is not complex at all, it is so simple even the most idiotic person understands.
H2 and aviation is idiotic! Not only because of physics and technology, but much more importantly logistically and economically. It is much easier to use green electricity to create a liquid fuel, which can be used in existing infrastructure and airplanes all around the world.
It totally baffles me, how these dumb journalists dig up these old stories over and over again. The only economic and "save the climate" solution are e-fuels.
4:05 thats a lie it takes energy to produce hydrogen and where do you think that energy come from?
Magic Pixie Dust
Solar, geothermal, wind, obviously.
I like the idea hopefully renewable energy can supply enough power to bring down the price i would much rather have water vapor blown into the air over gasolines 150 different chemicals i feel like the oil industry will fight tooth and nail so it doesn't happen though
and yall know what the largest green house gas is? water vapor lol
The dumbest fuel idea possible, it's hard to contain, volatile and expensive to make. What a complete waste of time.
And also water vapor is the worst green house gas in the world.
but there's money to be made by all the players in the supply chain
We need a liquid stabilised hidrogen fuel that can be both electrolised or burned.
Those laws of physics are such a nuisance.
They are suggesting using liquid ammonia, NH3 1 Nitrogen atom and 3 Hydrogen atoms, on ships for a similar use except its heavy which is OK on ships but not so much on planes.
@@stevenewley1 Ammonia works in theory, but no ammonia burning engines currently exist, and cost for ammonia is higher than petroleum fuels.
@@dzcav3 I think the idea of ammonia is for a fuel cell system to heat it to release the hydrogen then generate electricity, this is for ships but as you say there are no engines yet, all theoretical.
The only way to see how it works is to put hydrogen burning engines on the 2 most popular passenger aircraft, the Boeing 737 & the Airbus A320. Maybe the whole under floor luggage space is filled with hydrogen tanks and passengers can only have one carry on bag each. The market will determine if the economics works in regards to ticket costs. Building an all new aircraft for hydrogen fuel is not viable, at this point, when a new aircraft development costs are measured in billions of dollar or euros. Still need to sort out where this supply of green hydrogen is going to come from. I’m not sure who has worked out but how much can one giant wind turbine generate & convert wind into how much green hydrogen in a 24 hour period? Failing that how many acres PV panels can generate & convert sun into green hydrogen in a 24 hour period?
Its an interesting idea, but the economics just don't work. Removing checked luggage option means that you are forced to sell seats in a lower price bracket to be able to compete. That is, neglecting the cost of certifying these aircrafts for hydrogen in the first place.
Personally, I think electric battery technollgy would make a better economical case by 2050, purely due to improvements to energy density. Hydrogen is just too finicky.
Boeing is jusy saying: we dont care, we love jet fuel. we are in big oil pockets.
😂😂
that hidenburg commonplace is so cliché.
Just use an "Electric Powered Aircraft"
What's the challenge to adapt Cryo-Engines used for Rockets for Atmospheric flight?
Hydrogen is sure for tomorrow but today it is Sustainable Aviation Fuel!
Hydrogen jet engine for aviation
Airships
Inflated With Helium
Running On Hydrogen
😎😎
Well I think there is something here. Being the first and big enough is a good idea. I think Airbus is on roght track. Just look Elon Musk and what he did with Tesla and SpaceX. I see more and more Teslas in europe every day instead of German or Asian electric cars. There is practically none compared to Tesla.
Boring can’t do it because they can’t do airplanes at all. When you check air crash investigation, almost all planes are Boeing. Yeah they sell a lot. But yeah they drop a lot and usually there are big problems for whole model.
Most people don't realize that u don't find hydrogen in pure form. Where does it come from to use as fuel? 😊
Currently most of it comes from natural gas and most of the CO2 created in the process is dumped in the atmosphere
Have seen a research prototype that does direct solar to hydrogen
Maybe it is(it's a theory that are large poked of hydrogen deep underground created by water interaction with volcanic rocks) , but extraction of that hydrogen would be more expensive than it is for methane.
@@theOrionsarms that's as likely as cold fusion, over time hydrogen even leaks through steel, let alone rock
@@flemlion13 not, that is based on chemical reaction between hot minerals and water, in the end that hydrogen ending in the atmosphere and reacting with oxygen(and producing water), or more likely used as energy source by bacteria that use as only source of energy, such deep ground bacteria are well know in deep mines , but from where take that hydrogen to survive was kind of mystery.
The Hindenburg was just the beginning...
Lol!!! Are you a kid!? That was decades ago we have the technology to contain hydrogen lol!!!!
@@carholic-sz3qv That's a very low-IQ comment. Stop gaslighting everyone, sport, the adults are having a conversation.
speaking of being late, this video, identical talking points have been made 7 years ago, why did you release this video, nothing new
okay but hydrogen plane emitting large qualities of water in the atmosphere, will that be a problem?
There is no perfect solution but best overall solution.
Current jet engines emit primarily both CO2 and H2O, along with SO2 and NOx, etc. A little more H2O is worth it to get rid of the CO2 and the other pollutants.
bigger clouds I guess
Falling ice!
No because its the same water that would've been electrolyzed before take off, so there no extra water in the atmosphere. Also in that regard, fossils fuel are worse because they introduces more water in the atmosphere when burning that wasn't present before.
Not even close to enough juice for the squeeze.
It's thersoldbreaking of organization who paste people encouraging biofuels driven and it's all credit goes to Elon Musk Sir.
I would to know zero avia detail
The only conclusion we can make from this clip is that hydrogen as a fuel for planes is NOT a realistic solution unless we want to move 10 people across the ocean on a 737 this is pure waste of time.
It's cute that Boeing still thinks it will be around in 2050... But I disagree with their traditional American pessimism entirely. These dudes are sounding like people who also doubted computers and electricity... And yet here we are... SAF is a good choice for SOME flights, but for where it will do the most good? Short and medium haul? Hydrogen will work just fine... And do the most good... Shorter flights use more energy per mile so it seems win-win to me... Also you should do a follow up on Universal Hydrogen which is building conversion kits for the aircraft the WSJ is whining about in this piece still being around in 2050... We can clean up jets that exist now with their technology so that really isn't much of a hurdle...
In regards to aviation, hydrogen is only viable for short trips. Trains are a better alternative than aircraft for short trips.
Can we just reduce travel using jet fuel.. Use 10% hydrogen 2026, 35% 2030 etc
I don't think increasing ticket prices would be a bad thing, tbh. It's because of the bus fare like low prices (for some domestic flights) that people fly everywhere and anywhere at a whim. Investing in high speed rail in North America would be a much better long term investment.
Every time you “think” you’re hurting the team, guy.
I think most people in the US would be happy with function rail transport in the US before we take the leap to high speed rail.
@@TacgnolSimulacrum Totally!
The world is not the USA
@@udipta21 Who said that it was?
the entire Aviation and Military use ( Aviation Fuel ) and have spent a ton of time thinking the about what to do in the future, and it doesnt seem like anything will change. They should just stop with these nonsense projects , waste of money in a way. But very cool . thank for the Video
Problem is not 0 emissions from the transportation. The real problem is hydrogen can only be gained by electrolysis process with currently available technology. It requires a lot of electrical energy. Electricity is gain mostly by burning gas, coal or something else. In essence, 0 emission from planes or cars just transfers emissions to some other point technologically and geographically, but doesn't solve anything in total emissions amount. Besides, hydrogen must be compressed and transported what requires some more energy. Some more electricity from the same source?
Not just through electrolysis.
Today its made from natural gas - methane - via chemical reaction that at the end leave you with H2 and CO2.
Hypothetically it is also possible to make special nuclear power plants that will use thermal decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen (basically very high temperature causes that reaction to happen - same process that produced explosive mixture in Chernobyl and Fukushima) but as far as I know none of such plants were built thus far.
Global coal consumption keeps increasing. So...
This video is a distortion of the truth
Someone tell me where all this magical hydrogen comes from and how much energy it takes to create it?
Not sure what the Hindenburg has to do with using hydrogen for fuel....
It goes "Boom"
@@DSAK55 Like kerosene
No way hydrogen is made as plentifully or cheaply as jet-A!
Hydrogen combustion spewing all that NOx at that height is probably not what we want to do to our atmosphere.
Which is why fuel cells are better. They are about 60% efficient too (don't know those specific ones though), so more than you'd get from heat engine.
Water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas😢
Exactly THIS!!!
OMG 2 whole percent of emissions!!! Won’t someone think of the children?!?
UNACHIEVABLE by 2050!
I recommend anyone who thinks otherwise to read the book "How the World Really Works" by Vaclav Smil.
Nope.... Do your know how much energy IT TAKES to create the liquid hydrogen ??? Did you know you can't seal a tank of liquid hydrogen? It leaks through the walls of the tank!!! ALWAYS LOSING.... Airbus will absolutely let go of hydrogen....
should use nuclear power or battery, to be truly green
Anything wrong with cheap solar panels?
@@alainpannetier2543 Flights canceled due to clouds.
@@alainpannetier2543 can't be used for sustained load
@@franciscogodoy9158 SoIar PaneIs ON THE GR0UND to generate H2. 🤣🤣
@@wahdangun ?????????????????????
Hydrogen fuel cells are a dead-end technology, not because of the fuel cells (they work great) but the fuel tanks.
Nobody has managed to make a fuel tank that can withstand tens of thousands of psi *repeatedly* without leaking from cyclic fatigue to the point of catastrophic failure, that's also light enough to be carried on any kind of a vehicle. To do this with any reliability, it needs to be made from thick stainless steel, we're talking inches thick here. That's heavy and prohibitively expensive.
This is the fact that these techno-environmentalists do not want you to know, because it's inconvenient for them. Aircraft? This has bad idea written all over it.
Total and utter nonsense. H2 for aviation is a nonstarter!
It truly might be too late to become a big thing, due to the fact that electric trains are nearly taking the number 1 spot when it comes to transportation.
Let's try London New York in your electric train.
Electric trains have their places so does aircrafts, helicopters......
Garbage reporting as always from the WSJ
Water vapor is an incredible potent greenhouse gas when emitted in the upper atmosphere. If flying shall be climate neutral, we can't emmit anything up there.
It's important to note that fossil fuel powered aircraft also emit tons of contrails.
We have the technology to capture water. Like, instead of letting the water run out of a pipe it can run into a water tank. It's that simple.
" incredible potent greenhouse gas " is an exaggeration, even for high altitudes.
But yes, you wouldn't get climate-friendly planes just by switching to hydrogen.
But fuel cell electric planes would fly in lower altitudes, where the emission of water vapor has no grave climate effects.
Concepts like "ZEHST" would be no climate-friendly solution of course, despite the hydrogen fuel.
Wish I could listen and watch the video but with the weirdo music I just had to stop. I prefer no music in the background.
H2 is not non-emissions. It doesn’t emit CO2 and SOx, but still emits NOx.
It only emits NOx when it's burned not when it's used in fuel cells lol!!
@@carholic-sz3qv Well, you're technically right. But in this video, we're talking about USING H2 as an alternative to Kerosene, not fuel cells.
Water is available everywhere (where humans and industry are anyway). Turn on the tap and make hydrogen right at the airport. Like we can't build the infrastructure within the next 27 years... C'mon
🤨 so you want to dump large amounts of a green house gas into the atmosphere?.... For the record water vapor is a green house gas.
It doesn't stay up there for thousands of years, it comes down to earth as rain.
Hydrogen is just that last gasp of the legacy fossil fuel industry
Hydrogen is not a fossil fuel
What are you talking about??
@@willdejong7763 Maybe never heard of electrolysis.
Exactly, electrolysis is too expensive and energy intensive.
@@johnsamuel1999 That's nonsense, The energy spent during electrolysis is released during combustion.