4 ms·

I like hydrogen and support trying it in aviation (the Soviet Union actually had an airliner that ran on liquid hydrogen, so this isn't really that new of an id

I like hydrogen and support trying it in aviation (the Soviet Union actually had an airliner that ran on liquid hydrogen, so this isn't really that new of an idea), but I really don't see how hydrogen can compete on economics with fossil fuels.

jandrese 6y ago
Thus far several companies have experimented with H2 aircraft and come to the conclusion that it doesn't make sense with current technology.
- jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  Yeah, I think hydrogen is a few decades too early. Maybe if there is real regulation limiting GHG emissions or high oil prices hydrogen will make sense, but until then I don't see how it can be made to work.
- sandworm101 6y ago
  Others have concluded that it doesn't make sense even with future technology. The energy density of hydrogen, while better than batteries, just isn't worth all the headaches. For a similar cost to an extensive LH2 infrastructure, various diesel-from-air solutions could produce simple non-cryogenic hydrocarbon fuels. (CO2 + H2 = CHC + O2)
- ncmncm 6y ago
  New insulation technology changes the balance. Practical aerogel production means that heavy, shape-constrained high-pressure tankage is no longer needed, so that tanks may now be light and have the most convenient shape. Furthermore, recent advances in catalysts for hydrolysis, some directly from sun exposure with no detour through electric form, make production of hydrogen from water and light practical. New airframes with lifting-body designs, already better than those used now, have more room for tankage as a side benefit. The practicality of any idea can change very, very rapidly, as details of solutions to engineering problems change. Recently solar and wind power were impractical. Now they are cheapest, and coal-fired power is impractical.
  - woodandsteel 6y ago
    Is anybody building a plane that makes use of these new technologies?
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      No. At least not that they are telling anyone about. But there is plenty of evidence people equipped to do something are thinking about it.
hannob 6y ago
That is if you assume fossil fuel users remain being allowed to dump their emissions into the atmosphere without caring for the consequences?
- jeffreyrogers 6y ago
  Yes, I'm assuming that, since there is no political will to change that anytime soon. (This is not a value judgement on my part, just an observation.)
ZeroGravitas 6y ago
Economics with or without carbon externalities internalized via a carbon fee? One is like saying "it's cheaper if I dump my pollution in this river than using your new tech" and one is like saying "even after cleaning the output so thats its pure water and disposing of it properly to the same degree as your new tech, I'd still be making money doing the old tech plus cleanup".
- woodandsteel 6y ago
  Any alternative must use renewable energy. The question is whether that should be used to produce hydrogen or synfuel kerosene.

jandrese 6y ago

Thus far several companies have experimented with H2 aircraft and come to the conclusion that it doesn't make sense with current technology.

jeffreyrogers 6y ago
Yeah, I think hydrogen is a few decades too early. Maybe if there is real regulation limiting GHG emissions or high oil prices hydrogen will make sense, but until then I don't see how it can be made to work.
sandworm101 6y ago
Others have concluded that it doesn't make sense even with future technology. The energy density of hydrogen, while better than batteries, just isn't worth all the headaches. For a similar cost to an extensive LH2 infrastructure, various diesel-from-air solutions could produce simple non-cryogenic hydrocarbon fuels. (CO2 + H2 = CHC + O2)
ncmncm 6y ago
New insulation technology changes the balance. Practical aerogel production means that heavy, shape-constrained high-pressure tankage is no longer needed, so that tanks may now be light and have the most convenient shape. Furthermore, recent advances in catalysts for hydrolysis, some directly from sun exposure with no detour through electric form, make production of hydrogen from water and light practical. New airframes with lifting-body designs, already better than those used now, have more room for tankage as a side benefit. The practicality of any idea can change very, very rapidly, as details of solutions to engineering problems change. Recently solar and wind power were impractical. Now they are cheapest, and coal-fired power is impractical.
- woodandsteel 6y ago
  Is anybody building a plane that makes use of these new technologies?
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    No. At least not that they are telling anyone about. But there is plenty of evidence people equipped to do something are thinking about it.

hannob 6y ago

That is if you assume fossil fuel users remain being allowed to dump their emissions into the atmosphere without caring for the consequences?

jeffreyrogers 6y ago
Yes, I'm assuming that, since there is no political will to change that anytime soon. (This is not a value judgement on my part, just an observation.)

ZeroGravitas 6y ago

Economics with or without carbon externalities internalized via a carbon fee? One is like saying "it's cheaper if I dump my pollution in this river than using your new tech" and one is like saying "even after cleaning the output so thats its pure water and disposing of it properly to the same degree as your new tech, I'd still be making money doing the old tech plus cleanup".

woodandsteel 6y ago
Any alternative must use renewable energy. The question is whether that should be used to produce hydrogen or synfuel kerosene.