Updated: Airbus unveils three hydrogen concepts

kalvado · Mon Sep 21, 2020 5:09 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
BrianWilkes wrote:
Hmmmm one thought: Hindenburg!

yup. An vehicle drops out of the sky with almost 60 tons of JP worth as Hydrogen on board, and 2/3 of the people inside survived. Try that with Jetfuel...

best regards
Thomas

Well... How much fuel did BA38 have? Should be at least 40 minutes worth of reserves. Ditto OZ214.
US1549 and Ural airlines A321 are two more examples.
THey really need much more work to achieve 2/3 survival rate!

Antaras · Mon Sep 21, 2020 5:14 pm

NYPECO wrote:
We shouldn't bother trying to develop new technology since the experts here on A.net say it's not possible.

+1

tommy1808 · Mon Sep 21, 2020 5:14 pm

kalvado wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
BrianWilkes wrote:
Hmmmm one thought: Hindenburg!

yup. An vehicle drops out of the sky with almost 60 tons of JP worth as Hydrogen on board, and 2/3 of the people inside survived. Try that with Jetfuel...

best regards
Thomas

Well... How much fuel did BA38 have? Should be at least 40 minutes worth of reserves. Ditto OZ214.
US1549 and Ural airlines A321 are two more examples.
THey really need much more work to achieve 2/3 survival rate!

Neither one was on fire.

Best regards
Thomas

Antaras · Mon Sep 21, 2020 5:16 pm

filipinoavgeek wrote:
Those planes look just like an ATR and an A321. I know these are just concepts, but I wonder if they'd actually pursue similar designs if these ever become a reality.

Ooops don't forget the 787-mixed-with-350 cockpit and the lengthen A330neo's winglet :duck:

UA748i · Mon Sep 21, 2020 5:20 pm

Antaras wrote:
filipinoavgeek wrote:
Those planes look just like an ATR and an A321. I know these are just concepts, but I wonder if they'd actually pursue similar designs if these ever become a reality.

Ooops don't forget the 787-mixed-with-350 cockpit and the lengthen A330neo's winglet

Those dont look like any Airbus winglet. If anything, they look like the E175LR winglets :O

The largest concept there is my favorite. Makes me wonder if was derived from the A220.

kalvado · Mon Sep 21, 2020 5:31 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
kalvado wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

yup. An vehicle drops out of the sky with almost 60 tons of JP worth as Hydrogen on board, and 2/3 of the people inside survived. Try that with Jetfuel...

best regards
Thomas

Well... How much fuel did BA38 have? Should be at least 40 minutes worth of reserves. Ditto OZ214.
US1549 and Ural airlines A321 are two more examples.
THey really need much more work to achieve 2/3 survival rate!

Neither one was on fire.

Best regards
Thomas

That's exactly the point!

Sokes · Mon Sep 21, 2020 5:34 pm

"Comparison of as-published and harmonized life cycle greenhouse gas emission estimates for selected electricity generation technologies":

source: https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/life-cycl ... sment.html

NREL belongs to the US department of energy.

Wind energy is something around 13 g CO2/ kWh, solar around 50 g CO2/ kWh, Combined Cycle Gas Turbines around 440 g CO2/ kWh and coal mostly within 800-1100 g CO2/ kWh.

Hydrogen made from renewable generated electricity is clean.

keesje · Mon Sep 21, 2020 5:54 pm

UA748i wrote:
Antaras wrote:
filipinoavgeek wrote:
Those planes look just like an ATR and an A321. I know these are just concepts, but I wonder if they'd actually pursue similar designs if these ever become a reality.

Ooops don't forget the 787-mixed-with-350 cockpit and the lengthen A330neo's winglet

Those dont look like any Airbus winglet. If anything, they look like the E175LR winglets :O

The largest concept there is my favorite. Makes me wonder if was derived from the A220.

When researching new concepts with calculations, simulations, wind tunnel test or scale models, it is efficient to take a know platform as starting point.

It makes it easier to determine effects compared to existing known platforms and saves a lot of modeling, costs. Goal is to test, verify models, hypothesis, performance expectations against test results. Not creating the optimized end solution.

tommy1808 · Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:37 pm

kalvado wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Well... How much fuel did BA38 have? Should be at least 40 minutes worth of reserves. Ditto OZ214.
US1549 and Ural airlines A321 are two more examples.
THey really need much more work to achieve 2/3 survival rate!

Neither one was on fire.

Best regards
Thomas

That's exactly the point!

JP catches fire about as easily as hydrogen, so the point is mute. Its much easier to get JP to detonate than hydrogen, which won't ever detonate in open air. Leaked hydrogen fuel will evaporate in seconds, JP will be a fire hazard for double digit minutes.

You know everyone killed in the Hindenburg disaster fell/jumped out, was hit by debris or was burned by.... diesel fuel. None killed by burning hydrogen, all survivors rode the burning airship to the ground.

Best regards
Thomas

EIBPI · Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:59 pm

Does this mean the A320 replacement has been pushed out until the early 2040s?

We might take this seriously if Airbus had actually launched a programme, but they in fact just did a big PR push from the work of a few graphic designers. No aircraft programme, no technological roadmap, so nothing much to get excited about.

Distributing hydrogen to and within airports will be a rather interesting topic, if this ever gets beyond pretty pictures.

mxaxai · Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:53 pm

EIBPI wrote:
Distributing hydrogen to and within airports will be a rather interesting topic, if this ever gets beyond pretty pictures.

It's probably the easiest to provide water and electricity to airports, and set up some electrolysis plants. Alternatively (if hydrogen sees more widespread use in other industries, e. g. ground transport), expect large airports to get hooked up to pipelines and smaller airports to get supplied by 'fuel' trucks - like it's currently done with kerosene.

EIBPI wrote:
Does this mean the A320 replacement has been pushed out until the early 2040s?

RR ultrafan aside, there are no new major engine developments currently. The PW1000 and Leap engines will see continuous improvement but that can be done via PIP's. So no A320neo_neo.

On the airframe side, neither the MC-21 nor the C919 appear to improve much over the A320, if at all. So there isn't much competition there either. As long as A & B manage to keep production and maintenance costs low, they have little to fear.

Boeing may launch a clean-sheet 737 replacement, but efficiency gains (assuming the same engines) are likely in the low double digits. If hydrogen or electric propulsion become practical in the 2030s or 2040s, a kerosene-burning aircraft could look outdated very quickly; like the late piston aircraft were obsolete once jets and turboprops hit the market. So the traditional approach of reusing a fuselage & wing for 20+ years is threatened. I think Boeing will wait and see which new technologies become useful.

So yes, a clean sheet A320 replacement probably won't happen before 2035, perhaps 2040. The only interesting developments until then are a potential A350 / 787 NEO with the RR Ultrafan, and the upcoming fight for the NMA / small widebody market.

kalvado · Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:00 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
kalvado wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

Neither one was on fire.

Best regards
Thomas

That's exactly the point!

[
JP catches fire about as easily as hydrogen,] so the point is mute. Its much easier to get JP to detonate than hydrogen, which won't ever detonate in open air. Leaked hydrogen fuel will evaporate in seconds, JP will be a fire hazard for double digit minutes.

You know everyone killed in the Hindenburg disaster fell/jumped out, was hit by debris or was burned by.... diesel fuel. None killed by burning hydrogen, all survivors rode the burning airship to the ground.

Best regards
Thomas

This is VERY wrong.
Jet-A cannot be ignited at room temperature. Flash point minimum of 38 degrees C (100°F)
Hydrogen forms explosive mixtures with air at room temperature- limits of detonability of hydrogen in air are 18 to 59 percent by volume, flammability limits are even wide - 4 to 76% or so.
You may talk about fire hazard forming in minutes - however it is first second when the problem is going to occur due to released energy of the accident and/or hot parts of the engine

WayexTDI · Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:01 pm

AngMoh wrote:
keesje wrote:
Sokes wrote:
I don't understand what you mean. Can you expand?
Your graph suggests that nuclear has no future.
But it's true that we are only at the beginning of the energy transition. That's not surprising. Crucial technologies like H2 or High Voltage Direct Current are still in development.

If you build / integrate a windmill, you have to include all the energy required, to create / form / transport the steel, create the basements in the sea, the cabling, power stations and required infrastructure to manage power variations when there is no / too much wind. And after 20 years thye energy required to dismantle / remove process everything back in an environmentally friendly way. Add everything up and distract that from the electricity generated by the mindmill over those 20 years. Nobody wants to know, we want to take action & see progress, for our grandchildren. So we start counting just production.

https://www.clepair.net/Udo201303payback.html

You have no clue about these calculations. Today, solar and wind are cheap. If you add the cost of dismantling a nuclear power plant. It does not make sense. If you do the same for a coal or a gas plant, it does not make sense. I know about projects which are non-subsides and wind and solar were significantly cheaper than fossil fuels.

Please wake up.

He's talking about the energy cost (kWh), not the cost cost ($$$).
Right now, solar and wind are not as "green" energy as people want to believe. Point in case: right now, most windmill blade are buried onsite and the concrete base remains as is when a windmill is decommissioned. That alone ain't green at all.

lightsaber · Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:14 pm

jdevora wrote:
Hi,

There are a few studies about H2 in aviation.
All of them say that is not more dangerous than current fuels, there are multiple reasons, but addressing your "risk of explosion" claim, the H2 is so light that goes away before enough is build up for be able to explode.

Bjorn Fehrm is writing a series of articles about H2 in aviation right now:
https://leehamnews.com/2020/08/14/bjorn ... en-safety/

Very good introduction about the subject

Cheers
JD

2175301 wrote:
I just cannot see this really working out. Even with cryogenic tanks for liquid hydrogen (and pressurized hydrogen tanks are extremely heavy).

One factor is the fire and explosion factor in an aircraft crash where the tank is breached. I don't see a high survival rate vs kerosene...

Yes you can build concept aircraft... I just don't see the economics of it for realistic passenger service. Cryogenics are very costly and require an incredibly costly and complex infrastructure (and there is nothing energy efficient about liquefying hydrogen).

Have a great day,

The dirgebles were hard to set on fire, until they weren't. Hydrogen is the smallest molecule. The handling costs are very high in cryogenic or gas form

I use hydrogen to "cheat" and start any fire as no explosives permit required and it has the broadest flamability range.

One advantage, super easy lean burn combustors.

Range will plummet. I hope for fuel cells powering on wing ducted propellers ( faster cruise, less noise). I think methane fuel cells and then hydrogen.

15 years in the future us industry talk for maybe never. 15 years away means big problems to be solved by someone else.

If we started today, we could have one regional fuel distribution network in 12 years.

As a combustion Engineer, it scares me how blase people are on hydrogen safety. When we buy in quantity, the same protocols as moving really dangerous stuff must be followed.

Do they allow trucking cryogenic hydrogen? We always get it by rail for safety as the required safety cage weighs over 80,000 pounds (the maximum weight for a truck)!

Lightsaber

djpearman · Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:28 pm

Isn't water the number one greenhouse gas?

kalvado · Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:42 pm

lightsaber wrote:
jdevora wrote:
Hi,

There are a few studies about H2 in aviation.
All of them say that is not more dangerous than current fuels, there are multiple reasons, but addressing your "risk of explosion" claim, the H2 is so light that goes away before enough is build up for be able to explode.

Bjorn Fehrm is writing a series of articles about H2 in aviation right now:
https://leehamnews.com/2020/08/14/bjorn ... en-safety/

Very good introduction about the subject

Cheers
JD

2175301 wrote:
I just cannot see this really working out. Even with cryogenic tanks for liquid hydrogen (and pressurized hydrogen tanks are extremely heavy).

One factor is the fire and explosion factor in an aircraft crash where the tank is breached. I don't see a high survival rate vs kerosene...

Yes you can build concept aircraft... I just don't see the economics of it for realistic passenger service. Cryogenics are very costly and require an incredibly costly and complex infrastructure (and there is nothing energy efficient about liquefying hydrogen).

Have a great day,

The dirgebles were hard to set on fire, until they weren't. Hydrogen is the smallest molecule. The handling costs are very high in cryogenic or gas form

I use hydrogen to "cheat" and start any fire as no explosives permit required and it has the broadest flamability range.

One advantage, super easy lean burn combustors.

Range will plummet. I hope for fuel cells powering on wing ducted propellers ( faster cruise, less noise). I think methane fuel cells and then hydrogen.

15 years in the future us industry talk for maybe never. 15 years away means big problems to be solved by someone else.

If we started today, we could have one regional fuel distribution network in 12 years.

As a combustion Engineer, it scares me how blase people are on hydrogen safety. When we buy in quantity, the same protocols as moving really dangerous stuff must be followed.

Do they allow trucking cryogenic hydrogen? We always get it by rail for safety as the required safety cage weighs over 80,000 pounds (the maximum weight for a truck)!

Lightsaber

LH2 trucking is definitely allowed, I walked past those trucks myslef (outside safety zone of transfer area, hehe). I have no idea how much paperwork and insurance is included, though.

tomcat · Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:39 pm

zuckie13 wrote:
One thing that I can also see is at-airport generation of Hydrogen. It's a pain to transport volume wise - but if you can take renewable energy and build hydrogen generators at airports as part of their fuel farms, you can avoid needing the infrastructure to transport it long distances. Something not really feasible with petroleum based fuels.

Interesting but what if an airport is located inland or far from the windfarm? High voltage power lines would then need to connect the windfarms with the airport. In regions or countries with a high density of population, this would be difficult or even impossible to implement. Would you then consider that generating the hydrogen offsite and transporting it somehow (by pipeline?) to the airport would be a viable alternative?

zuckie13 · Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:53 pm

tomcat wrote:
zuckie13 wrote:
One thing that I can also see is at-airport generation of Hydrogen. It's a pain to transport volume wise - but if you can take renewable energy and build hydrogen generators at airports as part of their fuel farms, you can avoid needing the infrastructure to transport it long distances. Something not really feasible with petroleum based fuels.

Interesting but what if an airport is located inland or far from the wind farm? High voltage power lines would then need to connect the wind farms with the airport. In regions or countries with a high density of population, this would be difficult or even impossible to implement. Would you then consider that generating the hydrogen offsite and transporting it somehow (by pipeline?) to the airport would be a viable alternative?

It's like any other problem - one solution may not fit all - I won't argue with that.

tomcat · Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:04 pm

zuckie13 wrote:
tomcat wrote:
zuckie13 wrote:
One thing that I can also see is at-airport generation of Hydrogen. It's a pain to transport volume wise - but if you can take renewable energy and build hydrogen generators at airports as part of their fuel farms, you can avoid needing the infrastructure to transport it long distances. Something not really feasible with petroleum based fuels.

Interesting but what if an airport is located inland or far from the wind farm? High voltage power lines would then need to connect the wind farms with the airport. In regions or countries with a high density of population, this would be difficult or even impossible to implement. Would you then consider that generating the hydrogen offsite and transporting it somehow (by pipeline?) to the airport would be a viable alternative?

It's like any other problem - one solution may not fit all - I won't argue with that.

I didn't mean to argue with anything. When reading

It's a pain to transport volume wise

I was just wondering how painful it actually is. Is it such a burden that there is no viable way to do it? It's a genuine question.

tomcat · Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:24 pm

EIBPI wrote:
We might take this seriously if Airbus had actually launched a programme, but they in fact just did a big PR push from the work of a few graphic designers. No aircraft programme, no technological roadmap, so nothing much to get excited about.

Well, there is a bit more than a PR push. It's related to the EU Cleansky programs and the EU Hydrogen Strategy. You can expect EU to fund substantial research programs on this topic in the coming months.

Here are some background info:
https://www.fch.europa.eu/press-releases/press-release-hydrogen-powered-aviation-preparing-take

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/hydrogen_strategy.pdf

mxaxai · Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:42 pm

tomcat wrote:
I didn't mean to argue with anything. When reading
It's a pain to transport volume wise
I was just wondering how painful it actually is. Is it such a burden that there is no viable way to do it? It's a genuine question.

You can buy it online easily and I recall that we used it in school ocassionally. https://www.boconline.co.uk/shop/en/uk/ ... n-cylinder

The problems only start when you need huge amounts or cryogenic hydrogen (like for certain rockets) but that's more due to the lack of a widespread supplier network. Industrial customers like the chemical industry usually either generate it themselves from hydrocarbon fuels or build pipelines to facilities that generate hydrogen as a byproduct. https://www.airliquide.com/industry/supply-modes

M564038 · Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:51 pm

Keesje, judging from your posts in this thread it seems you prefer full on lies, cherry-picked figures and extremely damaging and dangerous solutions that are in no way sustainable.
Being conservative and feeling comfortable with old tech is OK. But you need to understand that it is simply not an option for the future. There is a complete and fundamental change coming, and if you want to keep things flying, it needs to be by other means than Jet-A.

Infact, on top of all the other up-sides, you can add the reduction of electricity used in refineries.
That covers about 40% of the increased demand right there.

keesje wrote:
Maybe hydrogen is a solution to store energy for aircraft, but only if we are able to create hydrogen with clean energy. For electric aircraft battery energy intensity would have to grow maybe 60 folt to be useful. At that point they would have energy density like ..dynamite? Which leads experts to believe the last fossil fuels will end up in aircraft. Hard to electrify or find alternative fuels. We would have done so 45 yrs ago, if it wasn't. (people on the moon: 51 years ago).

Probably less flying, more high speed land transport and non fossil fuels help. Biofuels are also window dressing bottom line, often destroying woods, plants in a very inefficient way.

It seems a big majority (globally) is now convinced we need to move on to cleaner energy, including Airbus. Justified in my opinion. But there are a ton of companies, individuals and institutions making money out of our concerns by presenting half truths, incomplete figures and unrealistic solutions. Creating jobs, incomes and profits. Feeding public perceptions.

Everybody loves to hear we are on the right track. Just confirm, promise and create awesome graphics and you are a visionaire. Who'll remember in 20 years? We tend to see what we want to see & forget quickly if we missed the boat.

keesje

Kilopond · Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:37 pm

Guys, you must not in any way look at hydrogen as if it was applied in an isolated aviation sector only. As of today, some countries already have more public H₂ filling stations than IATA coded airports: Japan, ROK, FRG.

kalvado · Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:56 pm

Kilopond wrote:
Guys, you must not in any way look at hydrogen as if it was applied in an isolated aviation sector only. As of today, some countries already have more public H₂ filling stations than IATA coded airports: Japan, ROK, FRG.

And how many accidents per fill compared to the regular gas stations?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-auto ... SKBN1W936A
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/06 ... ures-fuel/
https://nelhydrogen.com/status-and-qa-r ... -incident/
I suspect that number of these accidents is disproportional to the number of end users.

kalvado · Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:04 am

tomcat wrote:
zuckie13 wrote:
One thing that I can also see is at-airport generation of Hydrogen. It's a pain to transport volume wise - but if you can take renewable energy and build hydrogen generators at airports as part of their fuel farms, you can avoid needing the infrastructure to transport it long distances. Something not really feasible with petroleum based fuels.

Interesting but what if an airport is located inland or far from the windfarm? High voltage power lines would then need to connect the windfarms with the airport. In regions or countries with a high density of population, this would be difficult or even impossible to implement. Would you then consider that generating the hydrogen offsite and transporting it somehow (by pipeline?) to the airport would be a viable alternative?

First of all, despite huge energy per mass value, low density of H2 means low per-volume energy density. SO if 747 takes, as I believe it was mentioned on this site, 3 regular fuel tankers (18-wheelers) to fill up, it will be ~9 for liquid hydrogen and 15-20 for compressed gas. If you look at Airbus pictures, they have a windowless section in the tail - that is probably the fuel tank. No wings storage, sorry.
Next thing is hydrogen embrittlement - some metals, notably steel, become brittle after hydrogen contact. Aluminum works better, but at a higher price.
Then - unlike liquid fuels, hydrogen leaks (and even fires) are not detectable by human senses. Natural gas is half way there - flame is bright, but methane itself is undetectable. Natural gas supplied to end users has odorants added to enable leak detection - which will not work for liquid H2 and may be difficult for fuel cell gas due to membrane poisoning.
None of those issues are the end of the world, but each is an added cost.

keesje · Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:29 am

M564038 wrote:
Keesje, judging from your posts in this thread it seems you prefer full on lies, cherry-picked figures and extremely damaging and dangerous solutions that are in no way sustainable.
Being conservative and feeling comfortable with old tech is OK. But you need to understand that it is simply not an option for the future. There is a complete and fundamental change coming, and if you want to keep things flying, it needs to be by other means than Jet-A.

Infact, on top of all the other up-sides, you can add the reduction of electricity used in refineries.
That covers about 40% of the increased demand right there.

M564038, what unsubstantiated crap is that? What lies and dangerous solution are you talking about? Better come up with some some solid back up here. Did you do also study aero engineering and work in the industry for 25 years? No place for dreamers and reliance on "breakthroughs are around corner" idealists. Physics and safety are a given.

DocGATTACA · Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:50 am

SR380 wrote:
It still amuses me how people are sure that "this is impossible" and "it will never change". This reminds me when I was still studying mechanics. I was the only one believing that EV would take over, and sooner or later all major car companies would embrace that energy. Fortunately for all the Nah sayer I was damn wrong ! Anyway, on a lighter note, some pictures have licked already:

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-zero-em ... source=pop

And let's not forget Lord Kelvin, the father of thermodynamics, who pointed out in 1895 that heavier than air flight was impossible.

NameOmitted · Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:55 am

keesje wrote:
The wing configuration on this one is interesting. It has nothing to do with hydrogen, but aligns with ongoing research. (Blade & AlbatrossOne) https://simpleflying.com/airbus-albatro ... ing-wings/

The wings appear pretty far aft. As in, 727 with three engines in the tail far aft. Is this an indication of how heavy the tanks are, and where the center of gravity will be?

planecane · Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:08 am

[twoid][/twoid]

NYPECO wrote:
We shouldn't bother trying to develop new technology since the experts here on A.net say it's not possible.

Burning hydrogen in a gas turbine engine isn't new technology.

PPVLC · Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:10 am

tjwgrr wrote:
”Zero E” Not if you’re burning natural gas or coal to produce the electricity to create hydrogen. Guess we’ll have to build more landscape polluting and bird killing windmills.....

More birds die flying into windows, due to pesticides or colliding with cars than flying into wind turbines, that's the sad truth. I live in a rural area and there are many wind turbines around here, I don't think they "pollute the landscape", as a matter of fact, windmills exist for centuries and no one complained they are ugly, wind turbines are just a modern version of them.

MavyWavyATR · Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:29 am

Interesting concepts, but I think it all comes down to what the technology looks like by then as well as the cost of said technology.

Nomadd · Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:30 am

tommy1808 wrote:
2175301 wrote:
I just cannot see this really working out. Even with cryogenic tanks for liquid hydrogen (and pressurized hydrogen tanks are extremely heavy).

the tanks are a little heavy, but the hydrogen is really light for the given energy.

One factor is the fire and explosion factor in an aircraft crash where the tank is breached. I don't see a high survival rate vs kerosene...,

Hydrogen is no more dangerous that kerosene. Its actually harder to get a detonation out of it than with JP.
https://leehamnews.com/2020/08/14/bjorn ... en-safety/

best regards
Thomas

That's what they said about methane too. It doesn't make my ears ring any less from a methane detonation 4 months ago. All hydrogen needs for a detonation is a proper mix with air. JP just makes a fireball. That analysis you linked is somebody selling something.

Elementalism · Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:02 am

LaunchDetected wrote:
With the cancellation of E-Fan X, it means that Airbus is more confident in hydrogen engines than in battery efficiency develoments for future "clean" aircrafts.

Battery energy density has a thermodynamics issue. If they make the batteries as energy dense as gasoline. They will create a lot of heat and with current technology explode\burn. Batteries also present a problem in they bring their own oxidizer and will burn with no way of putting out the fire.

Hydrogen is a compromise in being more green but being able to build an aircraft that isnt the size of an A380 to carry 120 people.

JonesNL · Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:47 am

keesje wrote:
Sokes wrote:
keesje wrote:
To build a windmill, put it in a sea, connect it & make sure we have power when there is no wind, remove it after 20-25 years, clean up, costs about the same amount of energy it takes to create / operate.

I don't understand what you mean. Can you expand?
Your graph suggests that nuclear has no future.
But it's true that we are only at the beginning of the energy transition. That's not surprising. Crucial technologies like H2 or High Voltage Direct Current are still in development.

If you build / integrate a windmill, you have to include all the energy required, to create / form / transport the steel, create the basements in the sea, the cabling, power stations and required infrastructure to manage power variations when there is no / too much wind. And after 20 years thye energy required to dismantle / remove process everything back in an environmentally friendly way. Add everything up and distract that from the electricity generated by the mindmill over those 20 years. Nobody wants to know, we want to take action & see progress, for our grandchildren. So we start counting just production.

https://www.clepair.net/Udo201303payback.html

Damm, your Source is a 7 year old article :banghead:

. The prices of windmills have been going down rapidly, same with solar. And the trend is Probably to continue which will cause wind and solar to be the cheapest Source of electricity.

Noshow · Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:28 am

Nice graphics and everything but these are pure concepts intended for far out entry into service 15 years away. How clean and "green" it finally will be depends mainly on how much money you want to spent to create the hydrogen needed. It's a financial and therefore political decision. Above Airbus level if you want.

I see this as some Airbus marketing move ahead of the MAX RTS. Like "see they reactivate their old stuff while we are busy thinking ahead and we are so green and such". Own the headlines before anybody else. It's still good to see people doing research. And I like that battery power is NOT used but hydrogen. Way more promising.

Kiwirob · Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:29 am

Motorhussy wrote:
keesje wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Where will all this hydrogen needed come from? From "clean" nuclear energy?

Yes. All options taking into account, I see little alternatives.

Sun & wind are just the window dressing we love to believe in

We ignore the massive energy requirements / current generation because we love to cheer progress.

Today we are totally on coal, oil & gas. Also if we don't want to be.

https://ourworldindata.org/energy

A picture we should make mandatory on every school in the world.

To prevent everyone having idealistic, totally unrealistic expectations.

And many people making a lot of money out of it, selling feel-good & dreams. .

That is really disturbing. In New Zealand we produce 39.5 percent of our primary energy supply from renewable sources last year and it’s improving.

Applause to Airbus, particularly during these tough times.

#NoPlanetB

Which is a bit sad because we were many years ago we were around 80-90% renewable.

tommy1808 · Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:32 am

Kiwirob wrote:
Motorhussy wrote:
keesje wrote:

Yes. All options taking into account, I see little alternatives.

Sun & wind are just the window dressing we love to believe in

We ignore the massive energy requirements / current generation because we love to cheer progress.

Today we are totally on coal, oil & gas. Also if we don't want to be.

https://ourworldindata.org/energy

A picture we should make mandatory on every school in the world.

To prevent everyone having idealistic, totally unrealistic expectations.

And many people making a lot of money out of it, selling feel-good & dreams. .

That is really disturbing. In New Zealand we produce 39.5 percent of our primary energy supply from renewable sources last year and it’s improving.

Applause to Airbus, particularly during these tough times.

#NoPlanetB

Which is a bit sad because we were many years ago we were around 80-90% renewable.

for primary energy? That was around a century ago or so?

best regards
Thomas

Kiwirob · Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:33 am

JonesNL wrote:
keesje wrote:
Sokes wrote:
I don't understand what you mean. Can you expand?
Your graph suggests that nuclear has no future.
But it's true that we are only at the beginning of the energy transition. That's not surprising. Crucial technologies like H2 or High Voltage Direct Current are still in development.

If you build / integrate a windmill, you have to include all the energy required, to create / form / transport the steel, create the basements in the sea, the cabling, power stations and required infrastructure to manage power variations when there is no / too much wind. And after 20 years thye energy required to dismantle / remove process everything back in an environmentally friendly way. Add everything up and distract that from the electricity generated by the mindmill over those 20 years. Nobody wants to know, we want to take action & see progress, for our grandchildren. So we start counting just production.

https://www.clepair.net/Udo201303payback.html

Damm, your Source is a 7 year old article . The prices of windmills have been going down rapidly, same with solar. And the trend is Probably to continue which will cause wind and solar to be the cheapest Source of electricity.

The cost to install and maintain a windfarm at sea is incredibly high.

Kiwirob · Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:44 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Motorhussy wrote:

That is really disturbing. In New Zealand we produce 39.5 percent of our primary energy supply from renewable sources last year and it’s improving.

Applause to Airbus, particularly during these tough times.

#NoPlanetB

Which is a bit sad because we were many years ago we were around 80-90% renewable.

for primary energy? That was around a century ago or so?

best regards
Thomas

The peak was just over 84% in 1980, it's been going backwards ever since, it's mostly due to environmental resistance to any new dams. Although this would change if the Lake Onslow pumped hydo storage scheme is approved, the capacity will be approx 5000 GW.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ew_Zealand

IMO NZ should do what Norway has done and built micro dams, this is a 9.9MW plant north of where I live. Its a better solution than visually polluting wind-farms all over the country.

keesje · Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:54 am

JonesNL wrote:
keesje wrote:
Sokes wrote:
I don't understand what you mean. Can you expand?
Your graph suggests that nuclear has no future.
But it's true that we are only at the beginning of the energy transition. That's not surprising. Crucial technologies like H2 or High Voltage Direct Current are still in development.

If you build / integrate a windmill, you have to include all the energy required, to create / form / transport the steel, create the basements in the sea, the cabling, power stations and required infrastructure to manage power variations when there is no / too much wind. And after 20 years thye energy required to dismantle / remove process everything back in an environmentally friendly way. Add everything up and distract that from the electricity generated by the mindmill over those 20 years. Nobody wants to know, we want to take action & see progress, for our grandchildren. So we start counting just production.

https://www.clepair.net/Udo201303payback.html

Damm, your Source is a 7 year old article . The prices of windmills have been going down rapidly, same with solar. And the trend is Probably to continue which will cause wind and solar to be the cheapest Source of electricity.

I you think so, check your sources, are they really independent? Check our national CBS. Distract 65% for biomassa from sustainable (another xx Billion sheepish farce we all want to forget asap) https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2020/22 ... t-gegroeid, and inhale what the real contributions is of sun & wind, despite all the windmill & solar panels we bought. https://www.clo.nl/indicatoren/nl0054-e ... giedrager-.

IMO the lack of basic knowledge & understanding of the electorate is astonishing IMO. And sun and wind industry clusters are are pumping in marketing millions to keep it that way. Most think everything hefty subsidized is cheap. I foresee a national parliamentary investigation into this in the Netherlands. How come we spend xx Billions on sustainable energy & still are nowhere? Moments of truth.

IMO hydro energy (dams) are maybe indeed the best renewable source, because you can store excess energy from elsewhere into them too. But we don't have the mountains e.g. our NZ & Alps friends have..

tommy1808 · Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:01 am

Kiwirob wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

Which is a bit sad because we were many years ago we were around 80-90% renewable.

for primary energy? That was around a century ago or so?

best regards
Thomas

The peak was just over 84% in 1980

that was electricity, not primary energy.

best regards
Thomas

Noshow · Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:01 am

Making more use of ocean tides would be cool. However you don't want to scare fish with underwater noises or even chop them up in underwater turbines.

StTim · Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:15 am

I am interested to see what changes this will make to wing structures when they are not being used to store the fuel? Now you will effectively be hauling around a lot of dead space.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. 15 years seems like a long time but in aerospace it is not. A current technology new plane takes circa 5 years to design, build and test these days!

Noshow · Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:24 am

You could fit all this morphing wing stuff inside.

keesje · Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:55 am

StTim wrote:
I am interested to see what changes this will make to wing structures when they are not being used to store the fuel? Now you will effectively be hauling around a lot of dead space.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. 15 years seems like a long time but in aerospace it is not. A current technology new plane takes circa 5 years to design, build and test these days!

I think most of the fuselage can be developed anyway. If Hydrogen goes the electric aircraft way, the wing / aft fuselage, cog needs to be adjusted. But materials, production technology could be developed, tested, improved, finetuned meanwhile.

Specially for the 80-120 seat regional turbo prop design, fitting inbetween the the smaller, slower ATR's and bigger, 3000NM A220s.

Turboprop: Similar to the turbofan aircraft, this concept’s liquid hydrogen storage and distribution system is located behind the rear pressure bulkhead. However, two hybrid hydrogen turboprop engines, which drive the six-bladed propellers, provide thrust.

Don't blame them, they work for communication & didn't check back if it were really 6 bladed propellers..

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/stories ... ommon.html

Nomadd · Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:15 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

Which is a bit sad because we were many years ago we were around 80-90% renewable.

for primary energy? That was around a century ago or so?

best regards
Thomas

The peak was just over 84% in 1980, it's been going backwards ever since, it's mostly due to environmental resistance to any new dams. Although this would change if the Lake Onslow pumped hydo storage scheme is approved, the capacity will be approx 5000 GW.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ew_Zealand

IMO NZ should do what Norway has done and built micro dams, this is a 9.9MW plant north of where I live. Its a better solution than visually polluting wind-farms all over the country.

Destroying an entire river system is better than wind farms because it's prettier?

Kiwirob · Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:28 pm

Nomadd wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

for primary energy? That was around a century ago or so?

best regards
Thomas

The peak was just over 84% in 1980, it's been going backwards ever since, it's mostly due to environmental resistance to any new dams. Although this would change if the Lake Onslow pumped hydo storage scheme is approved, the capacity will be approx 5000 GW.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ew_Zealand

IMO NZ should do what Norway has done and built micro dams, this is a 9.9MW plant north of where I live. Its a better solution than visually polluting wind-farms all over the country.

Destroying an entire river system is better than wind farms because it's prettier?

Micro hydro doesn't destroy river systems. Wind farms are horrible things, if you've ever been to Denmark youd know what I'm on about. I don't think there is any place in the Danish countryside where you can't see a wind turbine, it's just horrible.

keesje · Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:46 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Nomadd wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

The peak was just over 84% in 1980, it's been going backwards ever since, it's mostly due to environmental resistance to any new dams. Although this would change if the Lake Onslow pumped hydo storage scheme is approved, the capacity will be approx 5000 GW.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ew_Zealand

IMO NZ should do what Norway has done and built micro dams, this is a 9.9MW plant north of where I live. Its a better solution than visually polluting wind-farms all over the country.

Destroying an entire river system is better than wind farms because it's prettier?

Micro hydro doesn't destroy river systems. Wind farms are horrible things, if you've ever been to Denmark youd know what I'm on about. I don't think there is any place in the Danish countryside where you can't see a wind turbine, it's just horrible.

My problem with Windfarms is that they are so inefficient, low capacity, unpredictable and expensive and people can still be brainwashed into putting in more billions.
Pushed by a well financed and strong industry lobbies and opportunistic politicians that quickly dropped physics when they were 15 yrs old.
Thousands of jobs and billions in subsidies are at stake.

The looks are more a human problem, a price we would have to pay, if wind energy was a real good idea.

Coming back on Hydrogen, maybe if we have nuclear powered hydrogen plants it could be a options. But the risks (300 bar..) logistical disadvantages and extreme costs can't be overlooked for the "good cause". We don't want this to have the Tesla trauma, no exhaust car on electricity stored from coal power plants a hundred miles away.

trigged · Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:15 pm

keesje wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Where will all this hydrogen needed come from? From "clean" nuclear energy?

Yes. All options taking into account, I see little alternatives.

Sun & wind are just the window dressing we love to believe in

We ignore the massive energy requirements / current generation because we love to cheer progress.

Today we are totally on coal, oil & gas. Also if we don't want to be.

A picture we should make mandatory on every school in the world.

To prevent everyone having idealistic, totally unrealistic expectations.

And many people making a lot of money out of it, selling feel-good & dreams. .

I'm glad there are other realists out there besides me, thank you for a dose of reality. I do like the advances in solar and wind power, but people need to be realistic about them. Hydrogen storage will need to come a long way before its viable, solving the issues of permeation and embrittlement. I would rather see the aviation industry invest in the green / renewable fuels market.

kalvado · Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:40 pm

trigged wrote:
keesje wrote:
Noshow wrote:
Where will all this hydrogen needed come from? From "clean" nuclear energy?

Yes. All options taking into account, I see little alternatives.

Sun & wind are just the window dressing we love to believe in

We ignore the massive energy requirements / current generation because we love to cheer progress.

Today we are totally on coal, oil & gas. Also if we don't want to be.

A picture we should make mandatory on every school in the world.

To prevent everyone having idealistic, totally unrealistic expectations.

And many people making a lot of money out of it, selling feel-good & dreams. .

I'm glad there are other realists out there besides me, thank you for a dose of reality. I do like the advances in solar and wind power, but people need to be realistic about them. Hydrogen storage will need to come a long way before its viable, solving the issues of permeation and embrittlement. I would rather see the aviation industry invest in the green / renewable fuels market.

In a grand scheme of things, my impression is that hydrogen came up as a way for US to substitute imported oil with domestic coal during Bush II. It may become more viable once fusion reactors take off (and my humble opinion is that civilization will not survive without fusion)
In terms of aviation, if any amount of coal is burnt for electric generation, going for H2 on planes is net negative in terms of CO2 emissions, actually.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net