Technology

[–] Revanee@lemmy.one 37 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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

parent

[–] MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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

parent

[+] iturnedintoanewt@lemm.ee 28 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

[deleted]

hideshow 12 child comments

parent

load more comments (12 replies)

[–] pedroapero@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

So what, we keep burning coal because it is cheaper ?

parent

[–] MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years 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.

parent

[–] KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

parent

[–] where_am_i@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

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.

parent

[–] Pottsunami@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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?

parent

[–] SamboT@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago

ok brb

parent

[–] jayandp@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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.

parent

[–] anlumo@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years 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.

parent

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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)?

parent

[–] A_A@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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.

parent

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years 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.

parent

[–] MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

parent

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years 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.

parent

[–] infeeeee@lemm.ee 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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.

[–] eggymachus@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Oh, the humanity!

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Should have used helium. Works for balloons!

parent

[–] A_A@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

LEL for Hydrogen: 4.0 (% in air)
UEL is 75 %
This is the most severe (wide range) for any fuel.
LEL and UEL Explained (Explosive Gas) - Projectmaterials

This is on top to hydrogen enbrittlement and low temperature enbrittlement of metals.

Good luck with the insurance fees for commercial flights.

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

parent

[–] Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Yeah getting aircraft onto renewable energy is probably the lowest priority, if everything else was renewable it wouldn't even matter if they were never renewable.

parent

[–] A_A@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

I agree...
( except for a small typo : it's carbohydride or hydrocarbon )

parent