Green pie-in-the-sky dream crash lands on the runway of reality.
Like communism did in the 20th century, the green revolution has produced an infinite number of fantasies, promises and unrealistic dreams. Amateurish plans that look wonderful on paper are turning out to be complete nonsense when put to the test of reality.
Blackout News reports on the latest green wake-up call: European aviation giant Airbus has halted the development of hydrogen-powered aircraft, which originally had been slated to be introduced by 2035, has been canceled. The major reason for the halt is reported to be the lack of necessary hydrogen infrastructure. In short: planners realized that it isn’t financially feasible and it isn’t going to work.
And, as is the case with almost every pie-in-the-sky green project, the cancellation always gets followed by a statement that the project is simply being put off temporarily and that it still remains the target for the future.
“The company still wants to develop a marketable hydrogen aircraft and make a contribution to the decarbonization of aviation. The industry is pursuing the goal of becoming climate-neutral by 2050,” reports Blackout News. “However, experts are increasingly questioning whether this goal is achievable.”
According to analysts, the focus remains on alternatives such as synthetic aviation fuels, but these face formidable technological and investment hurdles as well. That too probably will soon join the”it remains the target of the future” club.
Currently demand for air travel is increasing rapidly and is expected to continue on its current trajectory for the next two decades. Converting over to a completely new aviation infrastructure is far more daunting and complex than naive climate activists could ever understand.
“The focus will now be on the further development of sustainable fuels and increasing the efficiency of existing aircraft,” adds Blackout News. “The vision of a hydrogen-powered aircraft is a distant prospect for the time being.”
Either “Airbus abandon”, or “Airbus abandons” (the first is the better), but not “abandon’s”…
You can delete the comment after fixing the headline…
It’s better
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Hindenburg_disaster.jpg
Notes from the wiki:
“Kerosene-type jet fuel (including Jet A and Jet A-1, JP-5, and JP-8) has a carbon number distribution between about 8 and 16 (carbon atoms per molecule); wide-cut or naphtha-type jet fuel (including Jet B and JP-4), between about 5 and 15. World total kerosene consumption for all purposes is equivalent to about 5,500,000 barrels per day as of July 2023.”
I wonder how much H2 would be needed to replace 5,500,000 barrels per day of refined kerosene?
Hydrogen has LHV at 120 MJ/kg, and practical density at 55 kg/m3 or lower depending on its state. Kerosene has LHV at 43 MJ/kg and practical density at 820 kg/m3. To be able to understand energy matters you need to know how these numbers answer your question.
Check Luigi’s response below. It isn’t just about energy density.
I think hydrogen use for mass air transport was abandoned in the 1930’s after the R101 and The Hindenburg.
I am not sure that there will be much enthusiasm from the general public to take quite expensive air travel. Perhaps Airbus were thinking of the mass transport needed for those Climate Conferences.
[…] From the NoTricksZone […]
[…] From the NoTricksZone […]
And this is exactly my field:
Projects to develop a H2 commercial plane are born only because some public institution offers funds and each company is happy to get the money.
H2 civil aeroplanes are not technically feasible for several reasons.
The most relevant is H2 storage.
H2 is a gas and must be either compressed or liquefied.
If you want to store hydrogen at let’s say 500bar, then you need such a heavy structure that it makes the difference in the field of aeroplanes. It is dangerous because of the amount stored and the speeds at which impacts may occur even in the case of a rejected take off or a crash for simple brake failure during landing.
If you liquefy H2, well it is not less dangerous. At 1bar and -250°C H2 is liquid. It has 3.5 times the volume of the energetically equivalent amount of gasoline, but 1/3 of the weight. This means that if you want to fly from A to B you need a fuel tank which is 3,5 times bigger, but the overall fuel weight will be 1/3 of the gasoline equivalent. Therefore an aircraft propelled by LH2 must have huge tanks, which pose arrangement problems in the aeroplane. The fuel is cryogenic, that means, if there is a leak or a crash, and by exiting the tank LH2 becomes gaseous very quickly, passengers may be invested by a cryogenic gas.
If the aeroplane is refuelled and immediately takes off, there is no problem, but if it has to weight on the ground there are huge losses due to boil off,even if the tank is superinsulated.
Costs are prohibitive because of the safety measures which will be needed.
I have taken part in such studies over 25 years ago and all was moved only by the simple reason that the EU was paying money and the company wanted get them. But nobody has ever believed in it.
Than, if you want to fly in a fuselage in which a 10000L gas bottle with H2 at 500bar inside, or a 30000L LH2 tank with fluid at -250°C able to freeze you at the slightest contact, you are welcome. For sure it must be an “experience”
An excellent analysis and a fly in the communist agenda, thanks.
A small mistake (I apologise for that)
“but if it has to wait (not weight) on the ground”
thank you
[…] From NoTrickZone […]
I recall that Jimmy Carter converted the US from gasoline to hydrogen a long time ago. That went well.
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
Technical difficulties may be given as the excuse, but money is the real reason.
You are free to do what we tell you to do.
You are not free to do or say what we say you can’t do or can’t say.
We’ll keelhaul you first, then we’ll hang you, then we’ll burn you at the stake, then we’ll chop off your head with a guillotine.
For good measure, a couple of rounds through a wood chipper works too.
After all of that, we’ll kill ya.
They’ll do it every time.