Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Technology

Hydrogen-Powered Passenger Plane Completes Maiden Flight In 'World First' (cnbc.com) 78

Posted by BeauHD from the world's-first dept.
ZeroAvia's hydrogen fuel-cell plane that's capable of carrying six passengers completed its maiden flight this week. The aircraft has been retrofitted with a device that combines hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity. CNBC reports: ZeroAvia has said the trip, described as a "hydrogen fuel cell powered flight of a commercial-grade aircraft," is a "world first." Other examples of hydrogen-fuel cell planes that can host passengers do exist, however. Back in 2016, the HY4 aircraft, which is able to carry four people, undertook its first official journey when it flew from Stuttgart Airport in Germany. The HY4 was developed by researchers at the German Aerospace Center alongside "industry and research partners." Thursday's ZeroAvia flight was carried out at the company's research and development site at Cranfield Airport, in England -- 50 miles north of London. The airport is owned by Cranfield University.

"While some experimental aircraft have flown using hydrogen fuel cells as a power source, the size of this commercially available aircraft shows that paying passengers could be boarding a truly zero-emission flight very soon," Val Miftakhov, the CEO of ZeroAvia, said in a statement. The next step of the HyFlyer project will see ZeroAvia work toward carrying out a flight of between 250 and 300 nautical miles from the Orkney Islands, an archipelago located in waters off the north coast of mainland Scotland. The plane on this flight will use hydrogen-fuel cells. It's hoped this trip will happen before the end of 2020.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hydrogen-Powered Passenger Plane Completes Maiden Flight In 'World First' More

Hydrogen-Powered Passenger Plane Completes Maiden Flight In 'World First'

Comments Filter:
  • sorry, somebody had to say it

  • If not, that's pretty terrible range. Trying to play catchup with electric airplanes, while battery tech keeps improving dramatically.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Motard ( 1553251 )

      No, I'm sure they felt comfortable spending a shit ton of money on this - secure in the knowledge that taking off and flying around an airport would satisfy everyone.

    • The second-to-last sentence in the summary is pretty promising, check it out sometime.
    • Range is a major problem with hydrogen, it has low power density unless you use liquid hydrogen.

      • Then let's go one step further and use solid hydrogen.

        • they're talking about "green hydrogen" these days, that must be some sort of exotic new state in the phase diagram, let's hope it's high density at pressures/temperatures that are technically feasible.
    • the spirit of saint louis was designed to do only one thing as efficient as possible given the existing technology.
      giving the engineers time to scale up fuel cell power plants would be a useful action.
      fuel cell exhaust is water vapor.
      which is superior to the jet exhaust

      • Fuel cells sound better, until you do the math.

        You need 10000psi tanks to get anywhere near the same capacity as lithium ion (jet-alone jet fuel). Add in the additional weight/cost for the required fuel cell stack for converting hydrogen to electricity, and they're going to have similar weight for similar range to pure electric

        Just have a look at the curb weight of the Toyota Mirai versus the 2020 Model 3:

        Mirai: 4,075 lbs
        Model 3::3,552 to 4,100 lbs

        And the Model 3 probably throws in a way more powerful en

  • Raises hand ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Friday September 25, 2020 @06:05PM (#60544458)

    ... hydrogen fuel cell powered flight of a commercial-grade aircraft ... a truly zero-emission flight ...

    Um, where did they get the hydrogen? Were fossil fuels used to generate / extract it?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Xenx ( 2211586 )
      They source from nothing but the highest quality free-range hydrogen. But, seriously, I was wondering the same thing. I'm sure they could use solar/wind/etc, but really "zero-emission" gets over used and is never technically accurate.
      • it is doable.
        a test program was done i believe in sweden
        solar station converting water to hydrogen with oxygen as exhaust

      • They source from nothing but the highest quality free-range hydrogen.

        ...lovingly steamed, flavoured with sesame seeds, whipped into a fondue, and garnished with lark's vomit.

        [...] really "zero-emission" gets over used and is never technically accurate.

        I somewhat agree, but I think some people also push this a bit far.

        For example, "Yeah, your car is electric but the energy being used to fill up the batteries comes from coal!" Yeah, and that's bad. But it's a lot easier to clean up one coal-fired power plant than it is to clean up 3,000,000 polluting cars. And since we have to start somewhere, why not start with the hard thing?

        That said, I do worry a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Motard ( 1553251 )

      Um, where did they get the hydrogen? Were fossil fuels used to generate / extract it?

      I'm sure they could've used hydrogen generated from a totally green solar process. It just would have cost a bit more.

      But I don't see why it would really matter for a demo flight.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Z80a ( 971949 )

      Given california is basically paying people to buy their excessive solar, it's quite possible you can abuse this to make hydrogen for very cheap and very clean.

      • So, you can either use that cheap electricity to recharge a liion battery to power your plane, or you can waste 3x as much of it converting water to hydrogen.

        If you do some research into the stuff, you will find that 10,000 psi hydrogen fuel tanks weigh the same as a current lithium ion batterer (with around the same range). maintaining both devices will end up costing similar amounts over time.

    • Do you also not consider electric cars zero-emission because the electricity may come from a dirty source? What do you use the term for?

      • do you know of an example of a twin engine aircraft that uses batteries to turn the props.
        it would be cool
    • Hy.I'm serh a bd by fr relaing tgethr I m waiting you Se me hre ==>> kutt.it/2H1qPB

    • Um, where did they get the hydrogen?

      Either Walmart or Amazon, I guess.

    • Given they fly from Germany, my bet is they used electrolysis from power plant running on coal. Because nuclear energy is so dirty... 500.000 people die on a yearly basis sure to air pollution. In Europe.

  • Can someone please explain why hydrogen-powered transportation is such a big deal?

    The exhaust from a hydrogen-oxygen reaction is water vapor. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Yes, it condenses in a few days but the supply is constantly replenished, and filling the world with hydrogen-powered vehicles will surely increase the overall level of atmospheric water.

    Water vapor's most significant effect is that it doubles the effect of atmospheric CO2. That seems like a big deal, so more H20 means an increased ef

    • Take a deep breath and exhale. How much water vapor did you just exhaust along with that CO2?

    • "Can someone please explain why hydrogen-powered transportation is such a big deal?"

      It isn't since most of the hydrogen is made out of natural gas, it's a joke.
      Nobody can afford green hydrogen for a long time to come.

    • Re:Hydrogen engines' exaust is a greenhouse gas&am (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Friday September 25, 2020 @07:31PM (#60544578) Homepage

      Can someone please explain why hydrogen-powered transportation is such a big deal? The exhaust from a hydrogen-oxygen reaction is water vapor. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Yes, it condenses in a few days

      Bingo. It condenses.

      but the supply is constantly replenished, and filling the world with hydrogen-powered vehicles will surely increase the overall level of atmospheric water.

      Not even slightly. The surface of the Earth is covered by 150 million square miles of water, which evaporates into the atmosphere. You can't make enough airplanes to add enough water vapor to the atmosphere to even notice compared to the evaporation of 150 million square miles (which come to about a trillion tons per day [louisiana.gov], if you care.)

      Everything else you say is true, but irrelevant: you simply can't put enough water in the atmosphere by burning hydrogen to notice.

    • Re:Hydrogen engines' exaust is a greenhouse gas&am (Score:4, Interesting)

      by s_p_oneil ( 795792 ) on Friday September 25, 2020 @09:09PM (#60544708) Homepage

      One flaw in your argument is that hydrocarbons (e.g. oil) have H, C, and O, so burning hydrocarbons produces BOTH CO2 and H2O vapor. Using your own argument, burning oil would be a "double whammy" compared to burning hydrogen. But your argument has another flaw:

      "Water vapor's most significant effect is that it doubles the effect of atmospheric CO2." - You have that backwards.

      Example: https://research.noaa.gov/arti... [noaa.gov].

      Quote: "For well over 100 years it has been known that increased emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide will warm the planet. As the lowest layer of the atmosphere, called the troposphere (surface to ~7 miles), is warmed, the air becomes more humid because warmer air holds more water vapor. This “tropospheric water vapor feedback” approximately doubles the initial warming caused by carbon dioxide."

      Adding CO2 to the air by itself will:
      a) Warm the air, allowing more water vapor to be trapped in the atmosphere.
      b) Warm the ocean's surface, increasing its evaporation rate, ensuring that the additional capacity for water vapor will always be filled.
      c) Remain in our atmosphere forever until real work is done to remove it.

      Adding H2O to the air by itself will:
      a) Compete with the other water vapor evaporating from the ocean.
      b) Condense far too quickly to cause a noticeable warming effect.

      Adding both to the air will basically just do what adding CO2 does all by itself.

    • Imagine you can't leave the room you're in now. You fart. It stinks, but it dissipates pretty quickly. In a few hours you find you need to shit. Not being a savage, you pick a corner. Unfortunately, although it will decompose eventually, it's going to be there for a long time. Tomorrow the pile gets bigger. And the next day.

    • Adding to the other replies, there is also the question of the greenhouse effect itself. The basic point is that the Sun heats the Earth. When the Sun stops shining on some area, the heat is released as heat radiation (basically light). Some of this light is reflected by the atmosphere, so it keeps our planet warm. This is the greenhouse effect and it is a very good thing.

      As you note, water vapor is a very potent greenhouse gas because it reflects a very wide range of the light that comes from heat. However

  • The Hindenburg is not impressed.

    • Just ignore the stated previous occurrence 4 years previous: "Back in 2016, the HY4 aircraft, which is able to carry four people, undertook its first official journey when it flew from Stuttgart Airport in Germany."

      Can we not trust ANY press or news reporting?

  • I wonder, when you include the weight, is a fuel cell + electric a win over a hydrogen fueled turbine, or even a hydrogen fueled piston engine (which is more efficient than a turbine, but heavier).

    This is assuming that hydrogen makes sense as a fuel in the first place - which is barely possible in some scenarios where essentially all prime power is non-carbon based.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Rei ( 128717 )

      250-300 miles - their goal - is pretty terrible range. Pipistrel Alpha Electro (on the market today, and has been for years) is just a simple electric trainer, and it does 370mi. Eviation Alice (which unfortunately had a setback when their prototype was destroyed during ground testing) is designed for 620mi.

      Fuel cells and hydrogen tanks just aren't advancing as quickly as batteries.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Motard ( 1553251 )

        Wikipedia describes the Eviation Alice as a 'projected electric aircraft'.

        The Pipistrel is described as the only commercially available electric aircraft.

        You seem to think these are indications that there's already a crowded market.

        • And you seem to think that marketshare or market saturation has anything to do with technological advances.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Rei ( 128717 )

          Did you miss the part where this hydrogen plane literally just took off for the first time?

      • The Pipistrel Alpha Electro looks pretty cool. In the US the certificate lists it as "experimental" and "exhibition". I'm not a pilot, but I think that means it could not be used for training in the US. That's a shame, if so.

        • Its not clear a training aircraft should be unique. Engine management is an important part of flight training and learning in an aircraft with a unique power system might not be that useful. Some knowledge of course would transfer.

      • There is also the electric seaplane that had first flight back in December 2019. It's a collaboration between Harbour Air and magniX. Harbour Air wants to replace their fleet with all electric seaplanes. While the range is limited, around 100 miles I believe, it's plenty for what the company needs.

        Here is the company's announcement of the seaplanes' first flight: https://www.harbourair.com/har... [harbourair.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tupper ( 1211 )
      Headline fuel numbers are great: Hydrogen has 120 kJ/g. This is better than hydrocarbons (jet fuel has 43 kJ/g) and worlds better than Li Ion batteries at 0.9 kJ/g.

      We lose in storage: Hydrogen is normally a liquid, so we need a pressure tank. Those are heavy.

      So, as a fuel, Hydrogen seems plausible to me and promising versus batteries.

      Electric motors are cheap and very light: this means you can have motors for takeoff and fewer (or different) motors for cruising which could help efficiency (and

      • I think hydrogen storage mass efficiency scales with size. On the scale of an airliner, a liquid hydrogen tank might not be that bad - you can tolerate a 20 hour boil-off time, if the boil off runs the engines.

        Fuel cells are less obvious. Aircraft are extremely weight sensitive, that is why all modern large planes use turbines rather than more efficient but much heavier piston engines. Small planes use pistons just because turbines don't scale well below about 500HP.

        Fuel cells probably lose power densi

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by amorsen ( 7485 )

          that is why all modern large planes use turbines rather than more efficient but much heavier piston engines

          Large turbines are generally more efficient than piston engines. Gas power plants generally use turbines because of that, unless they are very small power plants.

          Do you have numbers saying otherwise?

          • Take a look at:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
            Large fixed turbine engines are very efficient because they can use heat exchangers to extract energy out of the exhaust gas, but those are too heavy for aircraft use.

            If you look at the 2000KW Pratt and Whitney aircraft turboprop, ;its best efficiency is 290grams/KWH. The old 1945 cyclone piston aircraft engine its 231g/KWH. Small diesels are around 200

            Ships and locomotives almost all use diesels because they are more efficient than turbines (there are exce

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by amorsen ( 7485 )

              You are right, I am somewhat astonished. I thought modern materials had made extremely high combustion temperatures possible in turbines. It also makes sense that having a break between cycles helps cooling, whereas turbines cannot easily be pulsed like that.

      • Is this @StephanForce Steve Tupper? This fellow _knows_ aviation, folks.
    • ya.
      fuel cells are more efficient.
      you do not need an oil well and staff to extract from it and maintain extraction from it.
      as for the oil companies.
      if might be for efficient they get into the energy business.
      i am just throwing it out there.
      i think i need a reference for the coal industry
  • To use use fossil fuel and recapture the carbon to stay neutral. Or synthesize carbon fuel from air and water and electricity (from nuclear...) in the long run. That way you can keep flying the current planes.
    • the problem is carbon emissions.
      to many carbon as an energy source things are effecting the climate by heating of the planet.
      that is bad. fuel cell emissions are water.
      that is useful.
      living things use water.
      this is good
  • What am I missing here?
    • the engineers redesigned hydrogen based aircraft with things called wings.
      and power plants to push the air craft around.
      and also better containers for the hydrogen.
      that is good
      • Sure, but how does that stop the risk of a hydrogen explosion?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by amorsen ( 7485 )

          The same way the risk of a fuel explosion is stopped in a regular plane: Avoid rupturing the tanks whenever possible.

          Worst case scenario with current planes is a direct strike on a high-rise building resulting in 1000+ deaths. It is difficult to imagine that the worst case scenario for a hydrogen plane is any worse than that, and my guess is that such a strike would be unable to bring down the building.

  • Hydrogen...I'm a big fan but... (Score:3)

    by tiqui ( 1024021 ) on Saturday September 26, 2020 @12:43AM (#60544896)

    [a] it's nothing new and [b] eco-freaks will NEVER allow it to be scaled-up beyond the occasional demo.

    As for it being nothing new, well Boeing was flying the Phantom Eye [wikipedia.org] quite well on hydrogen. That was unmanned, so this "new" plane can grab the minor award for doing something manned that was solidly proven unmanned first (whoopee).

    As for it never being allowed: it's long been understood that mass-use of hydrogen as fuel will only ever be reasonable by using large nuclear plants to produce it from sea water - and we know full-well where the sort of people who want "green" stand on nuclear power. It's one thing to power a little 6-person plane with hydrogen, but fleets of airliners == nuclear power plants.

    Personally, I'm a HUGE fan of hydrogen; it burns extremely clean (pure steam as exhaust, though one could argue that it contributes to global warming) with absolutely NO toxic byproducts. It's also VERY high energy and high-efficiency (which is why Von Braun's team needed it for the upperstage on the Saturn rockets for the moonshots). Unfortunately, it's VERY hard to contain and store since it's the smallest atom and it leaks through many common materials and it's very low-density so it's best stored densified as a liquid, which means at insanely low cryogenic temps.

    Here's something everyone should be aware of which favors planes like this (fueled with liquids or gasses) over battery-powered planes, no matter where you stand on the environment or politics:

    A battery weighs the same whether it is fully charged, or fully drained. A fuel tank gets lighter as the contents are sucked-out and burned. Modern aircraft are as successful and efficient as they are precisely for this reason: they would have dramatically shorter ranges if they were not losing weight all along the flight path. Modern large aircraft are designed to be able to taxi and takeoff with full tanks, but it's even a stress on the landing gear and airframes to land with full tanks, which is one of several reasons why aircraft making premature emergency landings will circle for a while dumping fuel before landing if they can possibly do so.

    • Where are you taking this necessity of nuclear for hydrogen? Electrolysis is perfectly ok with running whenever there is cheap power available and sitting idle when not so really it's an ideal load for wind and solar. That's the only reason hydrogen is interesting at all, you generate when you have more power than you need and burn when you are short, caps the price swings to something you can live with in a renewables only grid.

    • The weight loss from hydrogen burned in flight is insignificant compared to the weight of the pressure vessel and the fuel cell.

      A hydrogen powered plane is nonsensical. Go for synthetic biofuels if you want renewable.

    • it's long been understood that mass-use of hydrogen as fuel will only ever be reasonable by using large nuclear plants to produce it from sea water

      Understood by who? I've never heard this claim before. The problem with hydrogen is storage, not production.

    • Hydrogen has a number of problems. It's essentially a battery in a different form from what we're used to.

      Currently one of the big issues with Hydrogen is that because electrolysis is so energy intensive is it easier to obtain it from fossil fuels, mainly natural gas. This defeats the whole purpose of using Hydrogen to get away from fossil fuels in the first place. If you use fossil fuels as a feedstock and use fossil fuels as the energy to produce the Hydrogen then one really isn't solving the issue. It's

  • Fools! Don't they know hydrogen is extremely rare and incredibly hard to make?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Here comes Mr. Bill's dog." -- Narrator, Saturday Night Live

Close