Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Still Waters

First hydrogen-powered commercial aircraft

Recommended Posts

Still Waters

The world's first hydrogen-powered commercial aircraft has taken to the skies above Bedfordshire.

The only thing that the six-seater Piper M-class plane emits is water vapour - and ZeroAvia, the company behind the technology, says its aim is to make hydrogen planes available commercially in three years.

"What we're doing is replacing fossil fuel engines with what's called hydrogen electric engines," ZeroAvia founder and chief executive Val Miftakhov told Sky News.

https://news.sky.com/story/worlds-first-hydrogen-powered-commercial-aircraft-takes-to-the-skies-above-bedfordshire-12080886

Video:

https://news.sky.com/video/hydrogen-powered-passenger-plane-takes-flight-12081955

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Zaphod222
2 hours ago, Still Waters said:

The world's first hydrogen-powered commercial aircraft has taken to the skies above Bedfordshire.

The only thing that the six-seater Piper M-class plane emits is water vapour - and ZeroAvia, the company behind the technology, says its aim is to make hydrogen planes available commercially in three years.

"What we're doing is replacing fossil fuel engines with what's called hydrogen electric engines," ZeroAvia founder and chief executive Val Miftakhov told Sky News.

https://news.sky.com/story/worlds-first-hydrogen-powered-commercial-aircraft-takes-to-the-skies-above-bedfordshire-12080886

You still have to burn fossils to make the energy to produce the hydrogen, so the narrative about replacing fossils is nonsense.

Nothing wrong with trying to power combustion engines with H, however how do they want to store it? Afaik, that problem is not solved. Can they pack the same amount of energy in form of H into the volume and weight of a gas tank? I doubt it. H is low density, and if you compress it you need heavy containers.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
1 hour ago, Zaphod222 said:

You still have to burn fossils to make the energy to produce the hydrogen, so the narrative about replacing fossils is nonsense.

Your assessment is caused by your lack of knowledge of the matter. Maybe you dont know already, Green Hydrogen is doing the trick.

Quote

Nothing wrong with trying to power combustion engines with H, however how do they want to store it? Afaik, that problem is not solved.

There is no problem with hydrogen storage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zaphod222
Just now, toast said:

Your assessment is caused by your lack of knowledge of the matter. Maybe you dont know already, Green Hydrogen is doing the trick.

There is no problem with hydrogen storage.

Green Hydrogen is a concept, not something that exist on an economical scale.

And your Wiki article refers to UNDERGROUND storage, not something you can use in a plane. My question remains: How much energy do they manage to put in that tank?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
1 minute ago, Zaphod222 said:

Green Hydrogen is a concept, not something that exist on an economical scale.

Again, you are not informed well. Example of commercial hydrogen use:  RWE unveils 100MW German green hydrogen project

Quote

And your Wiki article refers to UNDERGROUND storage,

You have to read the full article:

Quote

Fuel cells and storage: Due to its clean-burning characteristics, hydrogen is one of the most promising fuel alternatives in the automotive industry. Hydrogen based fuel could significantly reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, SO2 and NOx. The three limiting factor for the use of hydrogen fuel cells (HFC) include efficiency, size, and safe onboard storage of the gas. Other major disadvantages of this emerging technology involve cost, operability and durability issues, that are still to be improved from the existing systems. To address these challenges, the use of nanomaterials has been proposed as an alternative option to the traditional hydrogen storage systems. The use of nanomaterials could provide a higher density system that is expected to increase the driving range limit set by the DOE at 300 miles. Carbonaceous materials such as CNTs and metal hydrides are the main focus of researchers. Carbonaceous materials are currently being considered for onboard storage systems due to their versatility, multifunctionality, mechanical properties and low cost with respect to other alternatives.[87]

 

Quote

not something you can use in a plane.

Wrong, because the plane is flying with hydrogen.

Quote

My question remains: How much energy do they manage to put in that tank?

Its all on the web and I`m not your Google monkey.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zaphod222
Just now, toast said:

Again, you are not informed well. Example of commercial hydrogen use:  RWE unveils 100MW German green hydrogen project

You have to read the full article:

 

Wrong, because the plane is flying with hydrogen.

Its all on the web and I`m not your Google monkey.

From your link:

The three limiting factor for the use of hydrogen fuel cells (HFC) include efficiency, size, and safe onboard storage of the gas. Other major disadvantages of this emerging technology involve cost, operability and durability issues, that are still to be improved from the existing systems.

And yes, the plane is flying, but how far? Without reading the article, I predict a ridiculously low range. Because nowhere have I seen that the storage problem has been solved for Hydrogen. if it had, we would have H vehicles all over the place.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zaphod222

Checked the linked article..... unsurprisingly it says nothing about the range. Google for another article, which describes the Hydrogen flight as:

 

The craft had been retrofitted to run off the cell, which utilizes hydrogen and oxygen to generate electricity. The voyage consisted of a taxi, takeoff, “full pattern circuit” – a flight path in which the craft is always in view of the airfield – and, a successful landing, CNBC reported. The flight took place at Cranfield Airport, roughly 50 miles north of London.

 

One round arond the airstrip.... LOL LOL  LOL LOL LOL

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
25 minutes ago, Zaphod222 said:

Checked the linked article..... unsurprisingly it says nothing about the range.

No you didnt because its clearly stated in the article, range of the maiden flight and the next flight as well. Why do you feel forced to discuss about the articles content even if you dont have read it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zaphod222
12 minutes ago, toast said:

No you didnt because its clearly stated in the article, range of the maiden flight and the next flight as well. Why do you feel forced to discuss about the articles content even if you dont have read it?

I read link and it did not state the range. As the other article said, the "flight" consisted of one circle around the airport.

Please stop wasting peoples time by making up stuff.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
2 hours ago, Zaphod222 said:

You still have to burn fossils to make the energy to produce the hydrogen, so the narrative about replacing fossils is nonsense.

No its actually your sentence that is nonsense. It is perfectly possible to produce energy without fossil fuels. Wind, solar, hydro electric and nuclear power uses no fossil fuels.

2 hours ago, Zaphod222 said:

Nothing wrong with trying to power combustion engines with H, however how do they want to store it? Afaik, that problem is not solved. Can they pack the same amount of energy in form of H into the volume and weight of a gas tank? I doubt it. H is low density, and if you compress it you need heavy containers.

While it is more difficult to store liquid hydrogen than it is to store kerosene the Soviets managed to make a full size passenger plane fly on hydrogen back in the 80's. So why should it be more difficult today ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-155

I have no idea if this is ever going to be a viable option or not and I strongly suspect that you don't either, but just because its difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zaphod222
Just now, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

While it is more difficult to store liquid hydrogen than it is to store kerosene the Soviets managed to make a full size passenger plane fly on hydrogen back in the 80's. So why should it be more difficult today ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-155

I have no idea if this is ever going to be a viable option or not and I strongly suspect that you don't either, but just because its difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do it. 

From your link:  It used first liquid hydrogen and later liquified natural gas (LNG).

So obviously the Hydrogen did not work out. Look, it is really tiring looking up these misleading links to see where they are invalid. If you want to show something, find a valid link. I am not your google monkey.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
10 minutes ago, Zaphod222 said:

I read link and it did not state the range. As the other article said, the "flight" consisted of one circle around the airport.

Please stop wasting peoples time by making up stuff.

It`s you who is wasting other peoples time with stupid statements like " You still have to burn fossils to make the energy to produce the hydrogen, so the narrative about replacing fossils is nonsense" and " H, however how do they want to store it? Afaik, that problem is not solved". 

"Afaik" isnt enough, at least in this topic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Zaphod222
Just now, toast said:

It`s you who is wasting other peoples time with stupid statements like " You still have to burn fossils to make the energy to produce the hydrogen, so the narrative about replacing fossils is nonsense" and " H, however how do they want to store it? Afaik, that problem is not solved". 

"Afaik" isnt enough, at least in this topic.

LOL, getting personal now, eh? Typical reaction when people dont have the integrity to admit they were wrong.

Again your "flight" consisted of one, ONE circle within sight around the runway. Yeah, clearly a viable technology.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
3 minutes ago, Zaphod222 said:

Again your "flight" consisted of one, ONE circle within sight around the runway. Yeah, clearly a viable technology.

Nobody claimed the flight was to reach the maximum flight range of the plane, the flight was performed as per OEMs test protocol and additional flights will follow.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
43 minutes ago, Zaphod222 said:

Typical reaction when people dont have the integrity to admit they were wrong.

You mean how you acknowledged that you were wrong when you said you couldn't make hydrogen without without fossil fuels ?

Oh wait no you didn't. 

54 minutes ago, Zaphod222 said:

From your link:  It used first liquid hydrogen and later liquified natural gas (LNG).

You said that the problem about storing hydrogen wasn't solved and I showed that it was done 32 years ago. Again you not acknowledging you were wrong.

54 minutes ago, Zaphod222 said:

So obviously the Hydrogen did not work out.

It was a prototype. Plenty of prototypes never make it into mass production. Still remember this was 32 years ago and technology have moved on a lot, particularly in alternative energy solutions.

54 minutes ago, Zaphod222 said:

Look, it is really tiring looking up these misleading links to see where they are invalid. If you want to show something, find a valid link.

You might find this hard to believe but I actually put the link because I thought you might be interested in the subject. My mistake.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zaphod222
7 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

You mean how you acknowledged that you were wrong when you said you couldn't make hydrogen without without fossil fuels ?

I clarified that I meant "commericallly viable". Of course it is possible to hook up some windmill or solar panel to an electrolzyer. Sheesh.

 

7 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Oh wait no you didn't. 

You said that the problem about storing hydrogen wasn't solved and I showed that it was done 32 years ago. Again you not acknowledging you were wrong.

Again I meant "commrecially viable": Of course we can store it, but storage is difficult and inconvenient. Which your article itself mentions.

 

7 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

It was a prototype. Plenty of prototypes never make it into mass production. Still remember this was 32 years ago and technology have moved on a lot, particularly in alternative energy solutions.

Your article describes a prototype, which then was discontinued and switched to LNG.... which also was discontinued n the end. If fuelling planes from LNG tanks was viable, we would have seen a lot of it.

Instead of lobbying insults, you might read your own links a bit more critically.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zaphod222
9 hours ago, toast said:

No you didnt because its clearly stated in the article, range of the maiden flight and the next flight as well. Why do you feel forced to discuss about the articles content even if you dont have read it?

Read your own article. It said the maiden flight took 20 minutes, which includes taxiing on the runway. The "next flight" is only theoretical, so the range is irrelevant. Why do waste peoples time with false claims?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.