By P Gosselin
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.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The hydrogen airplane nonsense always made me wonder how many of its backers thought hydrogen would make the plane lighter. Some Greens are certainly that dumb, but you’ve got to be pretty dumb even to not wonder how a plane could be big enough to hold enough hydrogen to travel any reasonable distance with a reasonable payload. Then there’s the idiots pushing eVTOL who somehow think the most inefficient style of airplane, VTOL, can work even better when saddled with heavy batteries and no range. Regular corrupt politicians are at least understandable as just greedy power control freaks. Greens I do not understand.
SR,
The best way to get a deeper understanding of what passes for Green thinking is to spend a few months eating a low fat, low protein diet so that your brain is barely functioning; then hit yourself in the head with a large hammer a few times! This will give you a deeper appreciation of how well your brain normally works, while filling you with compassion for the plight of libtards everywhere!
Do not follow the diet too long as it has been found to greatly increase the risk of developing dementia; another condition associated with depression, self-harm, and paranoia. Along with TDS, these are what should now be called the Green Cluster “E” Personality Disorders!
Turns out to be a lead Zeppelin.
If you put the hydrogen in a large gas bag, you have your hydrogen aircraft! (Apologies to the Hindenburg.)
Al Gore?
Well, he’s a large gasbag…
ROFL.
AFAIK even promoters of airships for cargo aren’t suggesting that.
(A popular notion in Alaska and Canada for remote areas.)
Has anyone seen any of these latter cargo zeppelins flying, other than the Goodyear fleet of 3? There was a company in Tustin CA testing a small scale demonstrator inside the old Navy hangar at former NAS Tustin, until the roof fell and crushed the ship. Two years ago that very hangar burned to the ground, but the company had left years earlier.
It seems that they’ve all disappeared or gone dormant in recent years, after publishing shiny renderings of giant gluteus shaped ships that were said to be able to lift thousands of tons (tonnes?) of cargo to almost anywhere on the planet’s surface.
I competed in a Marines sponsored Volkslauf “Mud Run” at NAS Tustin in the mid 90’s. Right after the start we ran though the big blimp hanger. They tuned us up for the coming race by fire hosing us as we ran by. Fun run – the kind of drunk Marines chicken fighting at the start was hilarious.
Bjorn Fehrm has covered alternative fuels in http://www.leehamnews.com.
He does the calculations for alternative energy schemes.
(As for range of transportation devices, ‘Road trippin’ in the 2025 VW ID.Buzz EV’, Detroit News reprinted in Times Colonist of 14Feb25, details range problems that still exist.
Availability of recharging stations and reliability of them was a major problem, range reduced by cold weather, cost to use stations a concern.
Trip took almost twice as long as a fossil-fueled vehicle would have taken.)
More good news. Airbus is pitiful. If they had any cajones they would say we are putting all net zero/green programs on hold until it is shown that CO2 is in fact capable of catastrophically over heating the planet. No one has shown that CO2 can do that.
Harold the Organic Chemist Says:
CO2 Does Not Cause Warming Of The Atmosphere!
Shown in the chart (See below) are plots of temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather station in Death Valley from 1922 to 2001. In 1922, the concentration of CO2 in air was ca. 300 ppmv (0.59 g of CO2/cu. m.), and by 2001, it had increased to ca. 370 ppmv (0.73 g of CO2/cu. m.), but there was no corresponding increase in the temperature of the air
at this remote arid desert. The reason there was no increase in the air temperature at this remote desert is quite simple: There is just too little CO2 In the air.
At the MLO Hawaii the concentration of CO2 in dry air is currently 425 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air contains 0.83 g of CO2, a 14% increase since 2001.
The above empirical temperature data show the claim by the IPCC and collaborating since 1988 that CO2 causes global warming is a fabrication and a deliberate lie. The purpose of this lie is to provide the UN with the justification for the distribution of funds, via the UNFCCC and the UN COP, from the rich donor countries to the poor countries to help cope with global warming and climate change. At the recent COP29 conference in Baku, the poor countries came clamoring for not billions, but trillions of funds from the rich countries. The poor countries left the conference empty handed with pledges of funds from the rich countries.
Hopefully, President Trump will put an end to Green New Deal, the greatest scientific fraud in recent human history since the Piltdown Man.
NB: The chart of the temperatures in Death Valley was obtained from the late John Daly’s website: “Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at:
http://www.John-Daly.com. From the home page scroll down to the end and click on “Station Temperature Data.” On the “World Map”, click on a country or region to obtain the charts of air temperature for the weather located there. Be sure to check out all the charts for the weather stations in Oz, especially the chart for Adelaide which starts in 1857.
Finally, keep in mind that 71% of the earth’s surface is covered in H2O, the main greenhouse gas by far.
i never get tired reading this Harold.
Harold I fully agree. Something to add from an award winning chemist, Hoyt Hottel. I asked Grok to use his charts.
From Grok AI:
Emissivity for CO2 at <30°C and <1 atm: Given these conditions, the emissivity would likely be:
– Very close to zero for practical purposes. Let’s say, for an extremely rough estimate, somewhere around 0.001 or even less, depending on the exact conditions. This is because at such low temperatures and pressures, CO2’s interaction with thermal radiation is minimal.
CO2 can’t do what is claimed.
If Grok was intelligent, it should have objected that Hottel’s charts are broadband absorption at higher temperatures and far higher CO2 partial pressures than atmospheric CO2….and much better line-by-line methods exist today. Try extrapolating Hottel’s charts at say -55 C at top of tropospheretemp and pressure, and see if you can tell what the emissivity might be, since the line is starting to vertically increase. But I’m sure Grok can grok it to 4 decimal spaces despite not knowing how thick Hottel’s pencil was when he drew the chart.
Hint: use Hitran instead.
They pander in PR, especially as governments own them.
Oh, thank God!! When I first saw the picture for this story I thought that the Greens had come up with some new, irrefutable science that would require a ban on Key Lime pie; but it’s only about hydrogen for fuel! What a relief!
I’m willing to give up my SUV, my smoker and BBQ, hell, I’ll even submit to eating bugs and living in a city again; just don’t take away my precious Key Lime! And I will continue to look forward to the development of a Green hydrogen infrastructure; like fusion, forever, only twenty years away!
Hillary in 2004: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good” And yes, Her Nastyness is still around.
Either “abandon” or “abandons”, but not “abandon’s”… Please fix the headline.
Does ‘ sustainable fuel’ mean crops? Another non starter. There’ll be the Great CO2 Wake-up soon
It will take some time for sanity to return to the human race I fear. This era will make fascinating reading for future children.
I can see my great grandchild’s doctoral thesis: “The Gadarene Effect. The Role of the Media in the Carbon Dioxide Illusion”
I hope it will be earlier than that.
As long as publicity is given to virtue signalers society will suffer this annoying absence of intelligent analysis of problems and the discovery of potential solutions.
It is unfortunate politics is so jam packed full of unworthy hypocrites with nothing better to do than tell lies and make trouble but that is what we get for not having honesty as the top value virtue in everything worthwhile in life including our media output.
Coal, gas, nuclear and hydro keep us warm. When the ‘green machine’ finds another viable alternative we will all want to see how it does in the real world but please spare us the BS, the lies and the costly crazy intermittent ideas that just don’t work and never will. Nuclear is still a leader as a clean alternative which pays dividends on investments and so please can we see it used to bring down global energy bills alongside our already known more traditional solutions. .
Bullshit talks. Money walks.
vice versa
It is so sad to see all the resources and cost that has been spent on pointless needless and hopeless Green headlined energy ideas. We had a very effective science and technology industry that was confident enough to speak truth to power back in the day. What ever happened to those sound science based realists.
We used to have a society that worked and spent tax payers money wisely. Those who came to the public purse with crazy requests to retry previously tried and failed ideas were politely reminded of the past failures.
The hydrogen will fix all our energy needs dreamers, would have been shown the door not the keys to the public funds safe.
Those who wanted to plant solar panels in British fields at 50 deg. North latitudes would be shown the door too.
The windmill enthusiast would have been shown Holland and told why steam pumps replaced windmills for water pumping duty. It was because they worked and did not rely of the vagaries of the weather.
Thank god the new administration n the USA are sensible.
“…pointless needless and hopeless Green headlined energy ideas.” True story! And historically competent companies fell for them! (As Airbus did in this case.)
“The vision of a hydrogen-powered aircraft is a distant prospect for the time being.”
It’s all in how you market it! Even now, you could just emphasize that hydrogen is the intentional source of the stored energy in jet fuel. The carbon is just a stabilizer, and is harmlessly exhausted as the starting material for another round of photosynthesis.
If you understand that the H2O from using hydrogen as fuel is harmless in respect to “warming,” then you will eventually understand that the CO2 from the fuel stabilizer is also harmless in respect to “warming” for the same reason – the dynamics of the general circulation completely overpower any tendency for the static radiative effect of aviation emissions of either H2O or CO2 to drive any trend of any climate metric in a bad direction.
There. Cleared for takeoff. Hydrogen propulsion engaged!
Imagine if you will, a slight mishap at the gate and the entire terminal is engulfed by a hydrogen bomb.
Bring back the Hindenburg zeppelin that used hydrogen, although designed for helium which Germy could not get.
Germany could not obtain helium for its Zeppelins because the United States, which held a near monopoly on helium production, refused to export it due to concerns about potential military use by Germany, particularly during the lead-up to World War II; this forced Germany to use flammable hydrogen instead, which ultimately contributed to the disastrous Hindenburg
According to most historical records, the Hindenburg completed 62 successful flights.
#63 had a landing problem
But the good news was 64% of passengers survived
(62 of 97)
Also bring back Led Zeppelin. All we have now are cover bands: This one is good, at least for the first four minutes
Zepparella Dazed and Confused
Post says:”But the good news was 64% of passengers survived”
Now there’s a headline that every aircraft accident report should lead with.
Led Zeppelin I is the ultimate Willie Dixon cover album.
It has also been determined that the Hindenburg skin was flammable and that is what initially caught fire.
I prefer helium. It does not burn and it makes one talk funny.
Hmm…my history is a little rusty but it seems to me we already tried hydrogen aircraft once up on a time didn’t we?
“Airship” is not the same as “aircraft”.
The author is correct. In other breaking news…
Story tip from: https://www.geekwire.com/2025/eviation-lays-off-employees-and-pauses-development-of-electric-powered-airplane/
With the world awash in models maybe they heard about model airplanes and learned something about energy density.
From the article:”…experts are increasingly questioning whether this goal is achievable.”
If they were real experts they know it is not achievable.
Like climate scientists, they are more political than scientific in nature! Those with authoritarian proclivities ALWAYS portray themselves as “experts;” any doubt is anathema to their rule!
“Airbus Abandon’s”
ummm.
Wouldn’t you, too?
If you want to see what engineers think will really work, remove the subsidies.
No need for hydrogen aircraft. Flying cars are (always) just a few years away. Make them flying EVs fueled by wind/solar. No emissions, no cost!
They want to do that in D.C.
Lime cheesecake is very good.
Climate catastrophism will kill people.
I think this is probably the end of the project originally planned to be in operation by 2035. They have moved the target back by 5 to 10 years, reduced the budget by 25% and cancelled previously planned tests of hydrogen fuel cell propulsion using an A380 as a flying test bed.
Airbus have a factory on Deeside about 18 miles from where I live in NE Wales. They manufacture wings there for Airbus commercial planes and fly them to the factory in Southern France for final assembly. The ‘Beluga’ plane that carries them is something wondrous to behold.
Hydrogen was tried in the development cycle for the SR71, and found unworkable. Hydrogen, even as LH, lacks the density to be a practical transportation fuel.
Significantly, SpaceX has chosen to use liquid methane in their recoverable boosters. I believe it has to do with smaller tank sizes on the booster.
Many space enthusiasts, including Elon Musk, view methane as an propellant suitable for in-situ manufacturing and storage on the surface of Mars . . . not so much considering hydrogen, especially at the extremely low cryogenic temperature that needs to be maintained to store it in relatively dense, liquid phase.
The second and third stages of the Saturn V rocket, and the Atlas Centaur upper stage, the Space Shuttle, the Delta IV Heavy, and the Ariane 5 have proven that LH2 propellant can be successfully used for launch vehicles, albeit with attendant larger volume fuel tanks.
A secondary—but critically important—consideration is that liquid methane is assumed to be relatively easy to transfer ship-to-ship under zero-g conditions, a current requirement for the SpaceX Starship HLS mission as part of the Artemis return-to-the-Moon program. Every knowledgable spacecraft engineer cringes at the thought of trying to transfer LH2 under zero-g conditions!
Airplane manufacturers are already working hard to make planes more efficient. Because that’s what their customers want. The airlines want more efficient planes because even a small increase in efficiency saves then a lot of money in fuel costs.
These big government types are convinced that only government knows what is good for you and that nothing will ever improve unless government policy drives it.
Why not simply ban air travel except across oceans! For example, outlaw air travel from New York to LA, where travel by rail is available!!
You could even build a Very Fast Train….
You know… like California has (n’t)
Did you know that China now has over 30,000km of VFT tracks.. operating.
USA has … ?
You’re kidding right?
Is that you, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?
Yeah, Jerry Brown’s Toy Train project cannot figure how to cross the Diablos or the Tehachapis, both with multiple earthquake faults. Following the freeway path involves grades and curves no high speed train can surmount. Imagine a Bullet Train on the Grapevine?
The Green fantasy is not control of the planet’s climate; it’s control of the planet’s population.
Reduction of the population. The Population Bomb is the manual.