Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

that_other_goat t1_j56sx3f wrote

only if it's green hydrogen

Brown and black hydrogen would be a catastrophe.

Blue would be well no real difference from what we have now.

Most hydrogen is sourced from coal and oil they're called hydrocarbons for a reason they're hydrogen compounds.

46

Mollymusique t1_j56uwlc wrote

How would green hydrogen be attained?

16

that_other_goat t1_j57h3nq wrote

All hydrogen is color coded based on its feedstock and or the power source used to extract it.

The worst and sadly most common are black and brown hydrogen which use hydrocarbons.

Green hydrogen, the best, would be split from water using renewable or low carbon power. Using hydro electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen would be an example of green hydrogen.

Pink hydrogen is split from water using nuclear power. It's a clean source but it's problematic for certain other reasons mainly a desire to prevent nuclear proliferation.

37

culingerai t1_j57t4o9 wrote

And blue hydrogen?

11

that_other_goat t1_j57ukgo wrote

Methane sourced.

Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2.

Blue overlaps with grey hydrogen which used both methane as the feedstock but differ in production.

Add to that they both still need the entire carbon rich transport sector to work so neither are really carbon neutral despite the attempts at carbon capture for blue.

18

zoinkability t1_j58186r wrote

And even green hydrogen isn’t as carbon neutral as one would think if it is produced using renewable energy that otherwise could have fed a non-100% green grid. Because in that case there is demand that needs to be met with fossil fuels — you might as well have just used fossil fuels to make the hydrogen and had the same carbon footprint. The only way green hydrogen is really green is if it is using renewable power that would otherwise have been dumped.

6

Zephyr104 t1_j584hg7 wrote

Not every reactor design requires enriching of uranium or only very limited amounts of enriching. CANDU reactors for example are heavy water reactors that use very little to no enriched uranium. If anything nuclear power is great for hydrogen production as it's consistent. Perhaps not great for poorer nations but for larger nations that cause the bulk of the world's emissions let's not discount it.

2

that_other_goat t1_j58b0j4 wrote

It's funny that you brought up CANDU reactors as that's the exact design India used to develop it's atomic weapons.

They produce both plutonium and tritium.

This use of what was thought to be a "safe design" for nuclear arms is the one of the major anxieties behind not using nuclear power.

6

Ok_Emphasis2116 t1_j59xir9 wrote

Preventing nuclear proliferation is a ludicrously silly reason to discount clean energy when the major polluters already have nuclear stockpiles.

2

Dantheking94 t1_j583csb wrote

At first I thought you were making a joke. I didn’t even realize they color coded them based on their origins. Thanks teaching me something today.

3

cyrixlord t1_j5904v6 wrote

my concern would be that the hindenfluger would be an extremely flammable plane in the event of an emergency. i wonder if survivability has been thought out enough yet. hopefully electric flight becomes more sustainable

2

kek__is__love t1_j56rjb3 wrote

To make a viable hydrogen powered airliner you need to basically rethink the concept of an airplane. Conventional kerosene powered planes store most of their fuel in the wings and it's not possible for hydrogen. Instead you need to build a wing-shaped (similar to B-2 bomber, but magnitudes bigger and for passengers) plane.

11

Words_Are_Hrad t1_j58394i wrote

Not really. You can use cryogenic liquid hydrogen that doesn't need to be stored under high pressure. Let the boil off keep the fuel cold and burn the gas to keep the pressure down.

6

kek__is__love t1_j597x4l wrote

Either way it needs a bulky container and the shape of the standard wings isn't plausible neither for pressurised nor for liquid hydrogen. And storing it in the main fuselage is reducing cargo capacity.

4

Mollymusique t1_j56h9ry wrote

I hope we can reach that goal! Until that is achieved, I'll boycott flying. I hope more people join in staying on the ground for the climate :)

8

AtaracticGoat t1_j56l371 wrote

Not being able to afford a plane ticket isn't boycotting /s

39

medfreak t1_j57anx1 wrote

Yea I don't fly either. Instead when I have to travel overseas, I take a large diesel cruise ship. That'll show 'em!

10

x31b t1_j57k103 wrote

Or a bunker fuel freighter..

4

ssjgsskkx20 t1_j56w5dn wrote

I was doing it all my life until I got a thing called money.

1

InGenAche t1_j57w9kc wrote

I have up having kids so I can have my 2 weeks a year in the sun.

1

ovirt001 t1_j56tczr wrote

Reduced demand means reduced funding for progress. Fly today so we can have a green tomorrow!

0

hallowass t1_j57ctuv wrote

Lol there are plenty of worse things that pollute than planes, maby check out how cows do and re think youre statement.

−2

Mollymusique t1_j599a5d wrote

Have you ever thought about that there is more than one way to approach a problem?

1

DisasterousGiraffe OP t1_j55m10m wrote

ZeroAvia's flight is part of the UK Government-backed HyFlyer II project, which aims to develop a 600kW powertrain to allow zero-emissions flight for 9-19 seater aircraft, and is targeting a 300 nautical mile range. The flight was conducted under a full Part 21 flight permit with the UK Civil Aviation Authority.

The company aims to be serving commercial flights with the technology by 2025. It also aims to scale up the technology to larger 90-seater aircraft, with "further expansion" into narrowbodies in the next decade, they said in a statement. By 2027, they aim to be able to power a 700-mile flight in a 40-80 seater aircraft.

6

allnamestaken1968 t1_j58j8gq wrote

The timelines are such BS. Even for freight for commercial flight, the certification takes a long time, and they do t have anything close to anything that would work commercially for 300 miles plus taxi plus circle plus deviation plus safety - and they can’t get around that requirement for anything “commercial”. Funny enough the infrastructure could be there if you do point to point and slowly build it out. If you deviate you are a bit screwed obviously - tankers here we come

As for 50 seats by 2027 - nope. For passenger, you need redundancy approved and certified in systems that dont exist yet - like fuel cells that can provide the needed power or even the electric motors. Also likely not possible with existing airframes- so forget that.

6

DisasterousGiraffe OP t1_j5a72ir wrote

> approved and certified in systems that dont exist yet - like .. or even the electric motors

The UK already has fully certified electric aeroplanes with batteries and electric motors in commercial operation. They are quieter and cheaper to run than the fossil fuel equivalents.

3

allnamestaken1968 t1_j5akb92 wrote

This is not scheduled commercial operation with massive freight into major airports with requirements for holding and deviation and redundancies. Not comparable

2

captainjack63 t1_j5d8n8n wrote

🤗 I so love working on hydrogen fuel cells and thought it would be the thing that would be super clean for the environment back in the 1990s. I wished the technology was adopted back then and we would be much further with it today.

With that, I think hydrogen fuel cell tech is dead. Battery electric is good for short-haul flights. It's cost-effective aircraft to purchase and maintain. But what about long-haul flights? Well with current battery tech it's unscaleable. I think SpaceX's Starship will make long-haul flights of current jets obsolete. When Starship can go anywhere in the world in 30 minutes or less, who would ever book a 9 hour flight?

I see battery electric aircraft being used for short flights that are not practical for Starship. I see Starship being the fastest for hops from the west coast to the east coast of the US or places in between.

2

FuturologyBot t1_j55qho2 wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/DisasterousGiraffe:

ZeroAvia's flight is part of the UK Government-backed HyFlyer II project, which aims to develop a 600kW powertrain to allow zero-emissions flight for 9-19 seater aircraft, and is targeting a 300 nautical mile range. The flight was conducted under a full Part 21 flight permit with the UK Civil Aviation Authority.

The company aims to be serving commercial flights with the technology by 2025. It also aims to scale up the technology to larger 90-seater aircraft, with "further expansion" into narrowbodies in the next decade, they said in a statement. By 2027, they aim to be able to power a 700-mile flight in a 40-80 seater aircraft.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/10h038z/successful_test_flight_of_hydrogenelectric/j55m10m/

1

path_name t1_j57hcfm wrote

hydrogen for take off and wind turbines for cruising

1

Words_Are_Hrad t1_j582f4r wrote

>wind turbines for cruising

I have no words...

3

path_name t1_j582xyg wrote

they’re not that hard 😛

1

Words_Are_Hrad t1_j5844xb wrote

They aren't possible... That's like saying we could put wind turbines on electric vehicles to power them forever and ever. That's not how thermodynamics works.

1

path_name t1_j584g0b wrote

sorry i didn’t realise u were a physicist

  • i was referring to words not being that hard
1

Knichols2176 t1_j587x4f wrote

Ok ELI5 please. I sincerely don’t understand why there can’t be a wind driven simple magnetic motor on an EV to recharge batteries understanding that there needs to be a switch and 2 systems of batteries. One charging while other is in use. This inability has been hard for me to grasp.

0

Words_Are_Hrad t1_j58btq6 wrote

The wind turbine reducing the aerodynamics of the vehicle. Now your electric motor is having to put more power out to overcome the greater resistance the air is putting on the vehicle. If you had a wind turbine that captured energy with 100% efficiency and a motor that used that energy with 100% efficiency you would end up with the energy the wind turbine is making being exactly enough to overcome the additional air resistance the wind turbine puts on the vehicle. So at best you end up where you started but since those things can't be 100% efficient you only end up losing energy.

3

funkysax t1_j5j4oiy wrote

So, how are they making the hydrogen, definitely not using electricity from coal power plant, right?

1

fapalicius t1_j55zx4g wrote

I don't understand why everyone wants to ban gas powered cars when planes produce a multitude CO2 what cars do. Ban flying i say!

−3

Words_Are_Hrad t1_j582az8 wrote

Lmao maybe because road travel accounts for 74% of transportation GHG emissions while panes account for 12%... Real hard to figure out the math on that one huh??

7

Zephyr104 t1_j5855sv wrote

Overall when compared to all sources of GHG's, it's a whopping 1%. Emissions from producing food and deforestation account for far more.

2

fapalicius t1_j58m2hh wrote

You can not tell me that a vehicle burning 1 gallon fuel per second is justified to be used in times of global warming considering that about 100 000 flights occur every day. And please proceed to push your condescending ways up your butt!

1

fapalicius t1_j58oggk wrote

Im not saying don't ban fuel inefficient cars, but generally banning "burners" is a mistake imo. Especially considering the progress being made, for example in japan they developed a diesel engine that uses hydrogen as a second fuel that needs less than one quarter of of a gallon diesel per 100 miles. Planes (with combustion engines) on the other hand are pretty much as efficient as it's possible at the moment. We should consider not baning but innovating is all.

1

Words_Are_Hrad t1_j5atz3w wrote

>Ban flying i say
>
>We should consider not baning but innovating is all

..............................................

1

fapalicius t1_j64de5k wrote

Yeah, what's questionable? I said before I would ban cars i'd ban flying. And the second statement was also related to cars.

1

IRMacGuyver t1_j57ur1g wrote

If you think hydrogen is zero carbon then you don't understand how hydrogen is made.

−5

Words_Are_Hrad t1_j582jrb wrote

No they think hydrogen CAN be made with zero carbon. Just like how an electric car can be powered by renewables in the future even if at this exact moment it is mostly powered by fossil fuels...

2

JeremiahBoogle t1_j587vqh wrote

Who said it was zero carbon?

0

FirmRace7008 t1_j58qro8 wrote

It’s not zero carbon when you need to use a turbine engine on the other wing to make it fly.

2

IRMacGuyver t1_j5bq9wj wrote

Literally the OP.

0

JeremiahBoogle t1_j5csmd8 wrote

You didn't reply to anyone?

Or do you mean the article? Because that doesn't say its zero carbon either, just that the fuel could be.

1

IRMacGuyver t1_j5nrpbp wrote

I replied to the person that shared a link to the article. Do you not know how reddit works?

1

JeremiahBoogle t1_j5o076i wrote

Neither the OP nor the article said it was zero carbon. Only that it could be.

1

IRMacGuyver t1_j5qhfk1 wrote

And it can't be. Hydrogen is produced by breaking down hydrocarbons. Getting hydrogen from seawater is a fantasy that's not practical in the real world due to the insanely high energy cost. Of course on top of that the energy used to break down sea water is 70% coal powered.

1

JeremiahBoogle t1_j5rfgqy wrote

Nice about, first you said the OP was saying it was zero, carbon and instead of just admitting you were incorrect, all of a sudden we're arguing about something else when this only came about because you criticised the OP and article for something they didn't say.

But you're missing the point, most of the electricity to power electric cars comes from fossil fuels as well, but it could be low or zero carbon.

The point of this fuel isn't to demonstrate that this aircraft is zero carbon, its to demonstrate alternative fuels that could potentially be low carbon.

Current battery tech isn't anywhere near the energy storage to weight that we need to power an aircraft that's going to carry a useful amount of people over a long distance.

>Getting hydrogen from seawater is a fantasy that's not practical in the real world due to the insanely high energy cost

Right now, yes. In the future, who knows.

0

IRMacGuyver t1_j60lt9i wrote

I'm not incorrect. It says zero carbon. You're trying to ignore that and misdirect the conversation.

In the future the robots will kill us all before we have a chance to switch over to a truly zero carbon power source. Because even making solar panels and wind turbines produces carbon emissions.

0

JeremiahBoogle t1_j61sp6o wrote

>Hydrogen has been identified as a promising fuel solution for planes because it produces no greenhouse gases when burned. However, unless the hydrogen is produced using renewable energy, the process for creating it relies on fossil fuels.

5th paragraph of the article. FFS, give it up, even the article itself states that it is NOT Zero Carbon.

>In the future the robots will kill us all before we have a chance to switch over to a truly zero carbon power source. Because even making solar panels and wind turbines produces carbon emissions.

Now WTF are you talking about? Killer robots? There's some next level subject changes going on here.

1

IRMacGuyver t1_j6h8h2w wrote

That's what I said it's not zero carbon so the OP shouldn't have said it could be.

0

JeremiahBoogle t1_j6kgu48 wrote

But it can be. It isn't right now.

I don't get how we're still arguing this.

Burning fossil fuel derived jet fuel can never be zero carbon.

Burning hydrogen derived from fossil fuel isn't zero carbon, BUT that fuel can be made from renewables, which would make it zero carbon for all intents and purposes.

Of course right now that's highly inefficient, but this may not always be the case.

0

IRMacGuyver t1_j6lq00x wrote

Except it can't be ever. There just isn't an efficient way to make and store hydrogen that can't be done better by regular batteries. The making of hydrogen will always produce more carbon emissions than battery technologies.

1

JeremiahBoogle t1_j6m1wwn wrote

Right but this is an article about jet fuel.

And batteries right now weigh around 50 times more for the same energy density as jet fuel. Even taking into account the efficiency differences between electrical powered props & a jet engine. Its still not even close.

On a car this is not an issue, it doesn't need to take off and it can always stop to recharge.

Right now battery tech isn't close to being able to replace aviation fuel. Which leaves either bio fuels, or an alternative like Hydrogen.

1