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.
Wait, I know – wood-fired airplanes! And just think of all the green jobs it would create. Win-win.
Everyone should read Charles MacKay’s fantastic tome “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds!”
It explains so much of Climate Seance.
While they’re at it, they’d better also abandon pipe dreams of electrically-powered aircraft as well. I had to laugh at a recent posting that showed videos of a battery-powered model plane flying around some schoolyard in the US. One of the captions claimed this would be the future of aviation and passenger travel. What he didn’t tell us was when and on what planet. The hydrogen one was in the same fantasy-world category.
I have been visualizing a solar powered, mid -air, recharging plane so the passenger planes can get where they are going.
Damn, I thought this story was going be about our beloved Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, who has been nicknamed Airbus for his propensity for flying around the world telling everyone how Austrayah is on the road to Net Zero thanks to his government and everyone should copy his glorious example. Fortunately, there is a good chance he’ll be rolled in the upcoming election, mainly due to unaffordable and unreliable power prices.
I’m curious about something:
Setting aside the practical considerations, what happens in the event of a fuel leak? Let’s assume a situation where the fuel is not ignited, so it’s just coming out of the tanks. How fast would they lose the hydrogen, as compared to liquid fuel?
In the case of a fuel leak currently, there is at least a chance of reaching a safe landing before fully running out. I don’t know for sure, but I think it likely that hydrogen would be lost much more quickly.
Can you imagine how nasty a hydrogen airline fire would be?
From the above article:
“The major reason for the halt is reported to be the lack of necessary hydrogen infrastructure.”
WTF??? How about the FACT that liquid hydrogen does not provide an energy volumetric density compatible with modern jet transportation aircraft design?
Liquid hydrogen has a significantly higher energy density per unit mass compared to JP-1 (also known as kerosene), but due to its low density, its volumetric energy density is much lower, meaning you need a much larger volume of liquid hydrogen to store the same amount of energy as JP-1; roughly speaking, liquid hydrogen has around 2.8 times the energy density per kilogram as JP-1, but only about 1/4 of the energy density per liter.
IOW, to use LH2 as a replacement for aviation jet fuel, the fuel tank on a modern passenger would need to be at least 4 times larger volume, not including the extra insulation volume needed to minimize LH2 boiloff from the time of refueling to the next landing.
You can ignore the facts of physics and thermodynamics, but the truth will win out!
From the above article:
“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.”
Well, that’s sounds like a plausible reason but it ignores the basic science/engineering that underlies the infeasibility of using LH2 to fuel commercial aircraft.
Liquid hydrogen has a significantly higher energy density per unit mass compared to JP-1 (also known as kerosene), but due to its low density, its volumetric energy density is much lower, meaning you need a much larger volume of liquid hydrogen to store the same amount of energy as JP-1; roughly speaking, liquid hydrogen has around 2.8 times the energy density per kilogram as JP-1, but only about 1/4 of the energy density per liter.
So, for the same combustion energy expended to power a commercial aircraft (buning the tanked fuel with ambient air), the LH2 tanks would need to be at least four times larger than the existing JP-1 fuel tank volume, which is contained in the wings of modern aircraft. Factor in the super-insulation needed to minimize LH2 boiloff during a flight and because that has to be on the outside surface of the tanks, you’re likely looking at requiring an effective five-fold or higher increase in fuel tank volume in order to use LH2. That’s not very compatible with the goal of minimizing aerodynamic drag to reduce fuel use during flight!
Try to tank that LH2 within the fuselage of any hypothetical future aircraft and the problems grow exponentially (e.g., c.g. control, passenger safety risk in event of a crash).