World’s first crewed liquid hydrogen plane takes off::undefined

    • Revanee@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      The point is that, unlike kerosene, hydrogen can be made using clean energy

      • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        The point is that, until electrolysis is cheaper than using natural gas, it will continue to be made with natural gas.

        • iturnedintoanewt@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, but now the onus is moved away from finding a non polluting engine, which needs to be on the moving vehicle, to a non polluting fuel, which can be produced anywhere. And can technically and with proper regulation be produced with no pollution. Which is a lot more than the current state of affairs.

          • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s really lucky for fossil fuel companies who will be making bank on hydrogen, and stalling any research or innovation in green hydrogen. You act like there are no major players making tons of money from hydrogen already, who don’t want electrolysis to gain any ground against the status quo which is making them filthy rich

            • iturnedintoanewt@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              1 year ago

              Again, this can be achieved through regulation. Regulating the source of hydrogen manufacturing process, for once. If a government wants, it can do it and enforce it.

              • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Have you heard of regulatory capture? What makes you think we’ll regulate hydrogen, when we’re not regulating fossil fuels, which is why we’re in this mess in the first place? The first thing these companies are going to do is say that we need to be deregulated to fight climate change.

                • xodoh74984@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You are a person arguing to do nothing to attempt to solve the problem of CO2 emissions from airplanes, which account for a very large proportion of global emissions. You are arguing incessantly about why progress shouldn’t be made. Cut it out. The energy density of liquid hydrogen makes it the only viable fuel source for air travel that isn’t a petrochemical. That’s why this is important. Fuck your whining about boogymen in the fossil fuel industry as a backdrop to this. It’s irrelevant. What matters is progress, because zero carbon air travel is probably the most difficult challenge we face in cutting fossil fuels out of modern society.

          • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            nice false equivalency. And I’m not prescribing anything, I’m describing what is currently happening, and that it will continue to happen until electrolysis is more profitable than natural gas.

      • KSP Atlas@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It can be, but it takes a huge amount of power to do it, and the biggest hydrogen production method (reforming) produces GHGs itself

        • where_am_i@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          So what? Build solar plants in Africa, pump out hydrogen, keep flying as often as you want emissions free. It is a solution and as such a hydrogen plane is a massive advancement towards a sustainable future for the aviation. Whether it will turn oit this way is a different question.

          • Pottsunami@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Make it with nuclear power. Turn water to hydrogen and oxygen. Release the oxygen. Package the hydrogen. Burn the hydrogen and it mixes with the oxygen. Maybe eject the spent radioactive fuel into space some day?

            • jayandp@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Disposing of radioactive material via space is not a great idea. Not to mention the cost inefficiencies, the risk of something going wrong with the rocket and spreading nuclear material all over the place is non-zero.

              • anlumo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Nothing has zero risk attached. We’re pumping radioactive material into the atmosphere all the time in coal power plants, and nobody bats an eye. This isn’t even a failure condition, this is just normal.

    • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Was this one though? It says they’re using Air Liquide, and here’s a quote FTA:

      Something else a future of clean-burning, hydrogen-powered aviation requires is — other than the actual fuel — is refuelling infrastructure. For Project HEAVEN, H2FLY has been working with Air Liquide.

      For the French industrial gas supplier, which is betting heavily on green hydrogen as part of the future energy mix, it is also about demonstrating viability and shoring up industry demand. “This is the very first time we have brought liquid hydrogen to be refuelled at a commercial airport,” said Pierre Crespi, Innovation Director at Air Liquide Advanced Technologies.

      (Emphasis mine) if it’s green hydrogen, doesn’t that mean it was made using clean energy (as opposed to gray hydrogen)?

      • A_A@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Air Liquide is the supplyer of the hydrogen. You have green and blue hydrogen. One is produced with reformation and carbon capture while the other one is produced with electrolysis. So, if the electricity is from renewable then it’s technically zero emission.

        • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes I understand that. OP said it wasn’t, and the article didn’t say specifically what was used for this flight, only that Air Liquide wants to use green H2 for this project.

      • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wouldn’t bet on a company telling you that they’re using “green hydrogen” to be doing anything other than pulling the wool over your eyes. There’s a reason the fossil fuel industry is heavily invested in hydrogen and pro hydrogen propaganda. Once you start noticing it becomes really obvious

        • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          In this very specific area, though, it’s like a badge of honor. If it was Shell or Exxon, lol no. And you’re right to be skeptical. But for the Fuel Cell airplane company, they specifically sought out a company who could provide green hydrogen because that is their goal and motivation. There are some companies who do provide this service for the same reasons - they genuinely care about the climate crisis and want to change things. They “nerd out” about being able to do this, for lack of a better expression. If you’re ever in a room with a lot of them, it’s very obvious.

  • infeeeee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That’s not a new plane, that’s the double fuselage version of Pipistrel Taurus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipistrel_Taurus

    Pipistrel Taurus is a glider, first flown in 2004. There is an added benefit of using a glider for testing a new engine: gliders have a much better L/D ratio, so less power needed for longer flights, and if there is a malfunction they can land safely while gliding.

    • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Aviation is the one field, where burning some form of carbohydrate is actually the only viable option. Batteries may be an option for short flights, but I don’t see any solution for long haul flights.

      Whether the fuel ends up being (synthetic) kerosene or some plant oil stuff doesn’t really matter, the turbine isn’t going anywhere.

    • Graphine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I like how you just assume that we haven’t advanced technology or safety features at all since the 1930s.

    • A_A@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago


      The space shuttle contain a huge reservoir of liquid hydrogen at very low temperature creating extremely difficult engineering stresses.
      So, insurance cost will be sky high if ever such planes take commercial flights.

      • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It also had 5 pressure vessels’ worth of liquid H2 for the fuel cells in the payload bay, sometimes more depending on the flight (and never had any issues wrt that, though of course it did present its own challenges). Challenger’s “failure mode” was in the SRB. The ET happened to be right next to it. We can talk about the ET and its direct impact on Columbia because the foam shedding was a problem with the ET. And of course, the issues with the NASA culture that were present for both.

        I’m not going to wade into the semantics of explosive vs flammable argument further down because at the end of the day it’s semantics.

        And I am an expert since you seem very intent on only experts partaking in this discussion.

        • A_A@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I agree the SRB was the start of the huge explosion that somehow involved liquid hydrogen. I was posting that example because I was replying to an example where it was gaseous hydrogen combustion and because for the plane in the post it is liquid hydrogen which is used.

          I don’t mind talking to non-expert as long as they don’t believe they know what they don’t know and do not insist they know better when they don’t.

          From your comment I don’t know what “ET” means but I suppose “SRB” is something like side booster rocket solid rocket booster (?) I am not an expert of the space shuttle so please tell me if it pleases you to do so.

          • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            ET is the External Tank, the orange part of the Shuttle that held liquid H2 and O2.

            The gaseous H2 was still a concern for the H2 tanks in the Payload Bay. If there was a leak that accumulated H2 in the bay after the Payload Bay doors were closed for re-entry, that would be a flammability concern.

            They both present their own sets of problems and failure modes that need to be discussed and mitigated, but we do have experience in other areas to look back on and learn from.

            • A_A@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I want to apologize for posting that explosion image if maybe you were working on the space shuttle or close to people in there.

              Many years ago I came to know an industry where accidental hydrogen explosions were to be described as “rapid oxidation events” (ROE) for insurance paperwork. Somehow writing the word “explosion” would have made insurance costs explode !
              There are strong (& more) reasons to disbelive commercial transport projects involving hydrogen as energy source (energy vector).

              Thanks for your time and explanations.