I am an Electrical Engineer and the bit at around 2:30 when explaining how hydrogen fuel cells work has been the best I have seen. Very well done

@HydrogenAgent129

8 ай бұрын

Anyone can make hydrogen themselves for free

The Hinderberg dissaster was not because of hydrogen, but because of the highly vlamable paint that was used on the outside of the balloon. Rectification would be nice

@cyberslim7955

9 ай бұрын

The paint ignited it, the H2 turned it into an inferno. H2 and aviation is idiotic! Not only because of physics and technology, but much more importantly logistically and economically. It is much easier to use green electricity to create a liquid fuel, which can be used in existing infrastructure and airplanes.

@Hoschie75

7 ай бұрын

Excuse me, the airship was called Hindenburg 🤓

How silly to compare using hydrogen as a combustion fuel to the Hindenburg, then to completely dismiss it because of that. Whether you use it for combustion or fuel cell, you still have compressed hydrogen tanks. No difference

@Spliceozome

10 ай бұрын

except there isn't an insanely large amount of surface area where you have to control sparks causing an explosion... this is much more controlled storage

@carholic-sz3qv

10 ай бұрын

Or there are companies and universities that have been developing a much better hydrogen storage solution.....

@mazdamaniac4643

10 ай бұрын

I completely agree. We're still waiting for a fuel cell hydrogen tank that's reliable enough to be developed, that's why the hydro-tech-heads don't like talking about the leakage issues, or the embrittlement issues, or the tank ruptures...etc. etc.

@Huppy1234567

9 ай бұрын

@@Spliceozome what you all are forgetting is that byproduct is watervapor.... if concerns are about global warming then why are we endorsing the creation of the largest greenhouse gas water vapor

Any progress is progress, but there’s an outsized amount of scrutiny on airplanes when they only amount to 2% GHG annually

@mintberrycrunch6657

10 ай бұрын

2% is huge compared to the social service it provides. So no, no outsized scrutiny

@alfredoalfaro5000

10 ай бұрын

@@mintberrycrunch6657 Airplanes facilitate tourism (literally millions are able to eat thanks to it), Air cargo accounts for around 1/3 of world trade by value, airplanes enable air defense and patrolling (effectively making the world a safer place). Airplanes create countless direct and indirect jobs be it in manufacturing, designing, maintaining and operating the entirety of the aviation industry. So no, the social service provided by airplanes is massive. And it is very nice that, despite being an industry notoriusly hard to decarbonize, the aviation industry is trying so hard to reduce their emissions.

@Huppy1234567

9 ай бұрын

bruh largest green house gas is water vapor.... this plane about to release more of it lol

@stickynorth

5 ай бұрын

It's the fastest growing polluter though so that is why the industry is trying to be proactive before legislators ban almost all flights which is a movement in Europe and other parts of the world. Realistically planes work best for long-distance inter-city non-stop travel which is only PART of the entire market... A lot of heavy transport lifting is better off done with electric trains...

@stickynorth

5 ай бұрын

Bruh, it doesn't stay up in the atmosphere for 50 years like methane or CO2 so it's not as big a deal as trolls make it out to be...@@Huppy1234567

Fun side note, all those planes have a 10 to 20 year life span so yes it is feasible to replace all the planes before the deadline of the tech is ready.

@dzcav3

10 ай бұрын

Realistic central note. Planes are typically flown for decades before replacement. Sure the planes could be replaced early. Do you have a few hundred billion dollars spare change in your pocket you could donate to make that happen?

@simaysokmen

10 ай бұрын

what about the airlines? will they trust the hypothesis that hydrogen will take place at the market and stop ordering planes? what are you opinions?

@dzcav3

10 ай бұрын

@@simaysokmen Planes are ordered years before they are needed due to long lead times. And they last for decades. Airlines are also risk averse; they are not likely to order a plane with a questionable fuel supply in all the locations fuel is needed. Even with the volatility of current jet fuel prices, it's the devil they know vs. the devil they don't know. Unless the heavy hand of government steps in and ruins it for everyone.

@stickynorth

5 ай бұрын

Y'all never googled Universal Hydrogen? They are making conversion kits for all kinds of existing aircraft... Problem solved... Ish... They use hydrogen capsules that will eat up interior space however the economics will probably make it a viable solution for small and regional aircraft which are the least fuel efficient today... The largest long-range jets like A350-1000 are already super fuel efficient machines that are still better off flying on SAF...

Fuel cell hydrogen to GHG excellent 👌😎👍👏🙌😀👌 .Keep it up.

Hydrogen: the fuel that's been just 5 years away for the last 25 years.

The volume issue is a killer problem.

@ph11p3540

10 ай бұрын

So is the chronic leakage and boil off issue. Hydrogen fuel handling system are incredibly complex and very high maintenance. You can't store hydrogen for more than a few hours

@alainpannetier2543

10 ай бұрын

Yeah... you guys know better. Sure.

@pacresfrancis1565

10 ай бұрын

@@alainpannetier2543 , they are speaking information that is literally public, hydrogen does have those problems. 'Donut' and 'Real Engineering' on KZread have great videos explaining hydrogen, I recommend.

@carholic-sz3qv

10 ай бұрын

They also forget to talk about the development of safer and much better hydrogen storage solution.

@djayjp

10 ай бұрын

I've heard liquid ammonia as an alternative which doesn't have these issues.

as you said its is futuristic technology but wont it be cause damage on aircraft like aircraft corrosion because the exhaust is water wont it affect aerodynamics please let me know about it

The problem is hydrogen is not readily available without injecting high energy into its extraction

@stickynorth

5 ай бұрын

One solution that's happening here in Edmonton is the airport is planning on building a solar farm and a hydrogen reforming station together so that surplus solar can be used to make hydrogen for aircraft.

Interesting

What is the science about venting water, as a byproduct of hydrogen propulsion, at altitude?

@AhmedHassan-yc5fb

10 ай бұрын

Water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. However, I can imagine it is fine since it just rejoins the water cycle. CO2 is a problem because it accumulates and there is no way to quickly recapture it at the rate it is released. Burning hydrogen is just releasing water vapour that was electrolyzed a couple of hours ago on the ground. Nevertheless, it is a good question, since the scale of commercial flight might introduce factors that need to be examined.

@tillthiemann6448

10 ай бұрын

Water vapor is an incredible potent greenhouse gas when emitted in the upper atmosphere. If flying shall be climate neutral, we can't emmit anything up there. Water vapor down on earth isn't much of an issue though.

@Paelorian

10 ай бұрын

Just capture it into a tank. It probably won't be enough extra weight to make flight impractical.

@dzcav3

10 ай бұрын

It's the same as venting water vapor from jet engines at altitude. That's what jet contrails are composed of. It's also what clouds are composed of. Clouds reflect sunlight back into space, reducing global warming. The atmosphere is already full of water vapor. It's called humidity.

Yes it's the near future and Morocco 🇲🇦 is on it👍👍👍

Interesting very interesting…

The last commercial aviation using hydrogen was the Hindenburg.

Note, that any vehicle driven by hydrogen isn't more emission friendly than the way the hydrogen is produced. Most H2 is produced from petrochemicals. Only 100% natural energy produced H2 is emission natural.

@leihtory7423

9 ай бұрын

most hydrogen is a byproduct of making petrol and other petro chemicals. they just throw most hydrogen out btw.

@zumabbar

4 ай бұрын

that's exactly what the video said.

Most likely it's not going to happen. SAF is a way more realistic solution. Also, battery electric short hall flights could replace large parts of total aviation market pretty quickly

📍4:51

Install small modular reactors at airports to produce green hydrogen. Boom...

@matthewbaynham6286

10 ай бұрын

The locations which get the most airplane crashes in the world are airports. Some airplanes crash away from airports, but most airplane crashes are at airports. It's not a good idea to have a nuclear reactor in a location where airplane cashes can and do happen.

@seancreighton9154

10 ай бұрын

@@matthewbaynham6286 why say something so untrue? Why speak when there is nothing valuable to say?

@pacresfrancis1565

10 ай бұрын

@@matthewbaynham6286 they can put the reactor underground tho, if plane crashes are that prevalent

@matthewbaynham6286

10 ай бұрын

@@pacresfrancis1565 and where do you plan to have the cooling system?

Just use synthetic zero carbon kerosine. You can just keep on flying the current airplanes and emit no Co2.

@dzcav3

10 ай бұрын

As long as you don't mind paying twice as much for your plane tickets.

@hafizuddinmohdlowhim8426

10 ай бұрын

@@dzcav3it is thrice the price

@mazdamaniac4643

10 ай бұрын

Kerosene is a mixture of hydrocarbons in the range of 6 to 20 carbon atoms per molecule. When this is burned with oxygen from the air inside a running aircraft engine, you will create CO2 at that point. That is not avoidable, whether you start with some 'eco' synthetic fuel or whatever, it's basic chemistry. If someone's managed to make kerosene that doesn't contain any carbon atoms in it's molecular structure, then it is not kerosene, it's something else entirely. Aviation Jet fuel also contains a lot of additives that are required for it to work which are also burned as the engine runs, it's not simply 'pure' kerosene or naptha in there.

This topic is very complex, and I do believe you are for a large part correct in your prediction. It is however imperative to note the downsides of SAF, as opposed to hydrogen. First and foremost, non-CO2 emissions account for more than half of aviations GHG emissions, and flying on SAF will not solve this problem. Aviation is responsible for around 2.5% of global CO2 emissions, however due to the beforementioned fact, it is responsible for around 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Eliminating only half of that by switching to (very expensive) SAF, is not enough in the long run. Hydrogen fuel cell technology can completely eliminate all nitrous oxide emissions, solving this almost completly. Another thing is that making large amounts of SAF will require production using the Fischer-Tropfsch process. This process uses hydrogen, and carbon monoxide (derived from CO2, which would ideally come from carbon capture) to produce long chain hydrocarbons such as kerosine. This process, although feasable, is not very energy efficient. The absolute upper limit, based on computer simulations of entire production plants, is around 60 to 70%. This is considering extremely favorable process efficiencies for electrolysis and carbon capture, as well as very high conversion rates. Realistically this efficiency is much, much lower. This means that the energy consumption to produce these fuels is extremely high, and producing enough renewable energy for this would be much more difficult than for hydrogen. Improvements in hydrogen fuel cell efficiency, and aerodynamic efficiencies, as well as eventually very different airplane concepts (such as blended wing bodies, or flying V designs) Will allow for longer range due to increased efficiency, and also more internal volume in the aircraft. This is however not possible to do within the next 30 years, and for now SAF is a good step forward, while replacing short and medium haul flights with hydrogen or even bettery electric airplanes. However, clean aviation is the only way forward, and the best conceivalbe way to get there, is hydrogen power.

@skipperg4436

10 ай бұрын

Combustion of hydrogen in the atmospheric air produces a lot of nitrogen oxides. A LOT more than combustion of hydrocarbon fuels

@cyberslim7955

9 ай бұрын

This topic is not complex at all, it is so simple even the most idiotic person understands. H2 and aviation is idiotic! Not only because of physics and technology, but much more importantly logistically and economically. It is much easier to use green electricity to create a liquid fuel, which can be used in existing infrastructure and airplanes all around the world. It totally baffles me, how these dumb journalists dig up these old stories over and over again. The only economic and "save the climate" solution are e-fuels.

I think if gov push this hydro in every transport industry its goin to work better for all of us.

The only obstacle that gets in the way of hydro fueled playing technology will be the petroleum company. In addition when solar power first came out it was also way too expensive, but now it's gotten much cheaper. But this is true with all new technologies.

It is very volatile. But it's a great idea.

Airplanes are THE hardest thing to make carbon free. They fly

@thbnkk

10 ай бұрын

True🎉🎉🎉

@dbclass4075

10 ай бұрын

Followed by ships.

@dbclass4075

10 ай бұрын

@@PatRisberg Then, consider how millions of cargo arrived to the USA in the first place.

@quackcement

10 ай бұрын

@@PatRisberg no carbon targets on rocket ships as I recall. Prbly because it's so niche it doesn't count. And I think it's established it's practically impossible anyway. But I haven't looked into nuclear powered rockets could it power itself on nuclear from earth?

@quackcement

10 ай бұрын

@@dbclass4075 sail solar and battery is an option. But also thinking if 30% of a cargo ship had space for hydrogen tanks I imagine it could go quite a distance. The weight of a hydrogen tank wouldn't matter so much on a ship

I know there are concern about explosive danger of hydrogen. Why not hydrogen fuel towed via a connecting metal pipe to the plane, plus some more motors to ease take off and crossing of the detached hydrogen ? With a parachute in case of hydrogen explosion

The story talks about a hydrogen fuel cell producing electricity, but then internal combustion (not electric) engines are shown on the plane. This story needs to get its story straight.

@stevenewley1

10 ай бұрын

One engine is electric and one combustion, its for safety as these are experimental aircraft. I've also seen another video featuring the same plane and the back of the plane is stuffed full of hydrogen equipment and fuel so good luck getting 19 passengers on it.

@dzcav3

10 ай бұрын

@@stevenewley1 Electric motors don't need air intakes, like the engine in the video. Something is incorrect about this story.

@stevenewley1

10 ай бұрын

@@dzcav3 They may need air intakes for cooling, they are used on electric cars for this. Not doubting you but its possible.

@dzcav3

10 ай бұрын

@@stevenewley1 The size of those intakes is much larger than required for cooling.

4:05 thats a lie it takes energy to produce hydrogen and where do you think that energy come from?

@DSAK55

10 ай бұрын

Magic Pixie Dust

@sagunsingh7415

10 ай бұрын

Solar, geothermal, wind, obviously.

Super chilled liquid hydrogen or methane Or gas but stored in COPV? Maybe electric ion propulsion Maybe batteries

This is for me dhdhdhdhdh😂❤

The trickster

hydrogen powered ekranoplans?

wow wondweful ,

We need a liquid stabilised hidrogen fuel that can be both electrolised or burned.

@dzcav3

10 ай бұрын

Those laws of physics are such a nuisance.

@stevenewley1

10 ай бұрын

They are suggesting using liquid ammonia, NH3 1 Nitrogen atom and 3 Hydrogen atoms, on ships for a similar use except its heavy which is OK on ships but not so much on planes.

@dzcav3

10 ай бұрын

@@stevenewley1 Ammonia works in theory, but no ammonia burning engines currently exist, and cost for ammonia is higher than petroleum fuels.

@stevenewley1

10 ай бұрын

@@dzcav3 I think the idea of ammonia is for a fuel cell system to heat it to release the hydrogen then generate electricity, this is for ships but as you say there are no engines yet, all theoretical.

Most people don't realize that u don't find hydrogen in pure form. Where does it come from to use as fuel? 😊

@flemlion13

10 ай бұрын

Currently most of it comes from natural gas and most of the CO2 created in the process is dumped in the atmosphere

@flemlion13

10 ай бұрын

Have seen a research prototype that does direct solar to hydrogen

@theOrionsarms

10 ай бұрын

Maybe it is(it's a theory that are large poked of hydrogen deep underground created by water interaction with volcanic rocks) , but extraction of that hydrogen would be more expensive than it is for methane.

@flemlion13

10 ай бұрын

@@theOrionsarms that's as likely as cold fusion, over time hydrogen even leaks through steel, let alone rock

@theOrionsarms

10 ай бұрын

@@flemlion13 not, that is based on chemical reaction between hot minerals and water, in the end that hydrogen ending in the atmosphere and reacting with oxygen(and producing water), or more likely used as energy source by bacteria that use as only source of energy, such deep ground bacteria are well know in deep mines , but from where take that hydrogen to survive was kind of mystery.

The Hindenburg was first. How did that turn out.

@701983

6 ай бұрын

LZ 129 Hindenburg was no plane, but an airship. It was not the first Zeppelin and not the first airship. It wasn't powered by hydrogen, but diesel. Hardly any relation to hydrogen powered planes.

I like the idea hopefully renewable energy can supply enough power to bring down the price i would much rather have water vapor blown into the air over gasolines 150 different chemicals i feel like the oil industry will fight tooth and nail so it doesn't happen though

Hydrogen is sure for tomorrow but today it is Sustainable Aviation Fuel!

The only way to see how it works is to put hydrogen burning engines on the 2 most popular passenger aircraft, the Boeing 737 & the Airbus A320. Maybe the whole under floor luggage space is filled with hydrogen tanks and passengers can only have one carry on bag each. The market will determine if the economics works in regards to ticket costs. Building an all new aircraft for hydrogen fuel is not viable, at this point, when a new aircraft development costs are measured in billions of dollar or euros. Still need to sort out where this supply of green hydrogen is going to come from. I’m not sure who has worked out but how much can one giant wind turbine generate & convert wind into how much green hydrogen in a 24 hour period? Failing that how many acres PV panels can generate & convert sun into green hydrogen in a 24 hour period?

@AhmedHassan-yc5fb

10 ай бұрын

Its an interesting idea, but the economics just don't work. Removing checked luggage option means that you are forced to sell seats in a lower price bracket to be able to compete. That is, neglecting the cost of certifying these aircrafts for hydrogen in the first place. Personally, I think electric battery technollgy would make a better economical case by 2050, purely due to improvements to energy density. Hydrogen is just too finicky.

The dumbest fuel idea possible, it's hard to contain, volatile and expensive to make. What a complete waste of time.

@Sanyu-Tumusiime

10 ай бұрын

And also water vapor is the worst green house gas in the world.

@DSAK55

10 ай бұрын

but there's money to be made by all the players in the supply chain

The only conclusion we can make from this clip is that hydrogen as a fuel for planes is NOT a realistic solution unless we want to move 10 people across the ocean on a 737 this is pure waste of time.

and yall know what the largest green house gas is? water vapor lol

Boeing is jusy saying: we dont care, we love jet fuel. we are in big oil pockets.

@hafizuddinmohdlowhim8426

10 ай бұрын

😂😂

Well I think there is something here. Being the first and big enough is a good idea. I think Airbus is on roght track. Just look Elon Musk and what he did with Tesla and SpaceX. I see more and more Teslas in europe every day instead of German or Asian electric cars. There is practically none compared to Tesla. Boring can’t do it because they can’t do airplanes at all. When you check air crash investigation, almost all planes are Boeing. Yeah they sell a lot. But yeah they drop a lot and usually there are big problems for whole model.

Hydrogen jet engine for aviation

It's cute that Boeing still thinks it will be around in 2050... But I disagree with their traditional American pessimism entirely. These dudes are sounding like people who also doubted computers and electricity... And yet here we are... SAF is a good choice for SOME flights, but for where it will do the most good? Short and medium haul? Hydrogen will work just fine... And do the most good... Shorter flights use more energy per mile so it seems win-win to me... Also you should do a follow up on Universal Hydrogen which is building conversion kits for the aircraft the WSJ is whining about in this piece still being around in 2050... We can clean up jets that exist now with their technology so that really isn't much of a hurdle...

that hidenburg commonplace is so cliché.

Airships Inflated With Helium Running On Hydrogen 😎😎

Just use an "Electric Powered Aircraft"

What's the challenge to adapt Cryo-Engines used for Rockets for Atmospheric flight?

The Hindenburg was just the beginning...

@carholic-sz3qv

10 ай бұрын

Lol!!! Are you a kid!? That was decades ago we have the technology to contain hydrogen lol!!!!

@dmomintz

10 ай бұрын

@@carholic-sz3qv That's a very low-IQ comment. Stop gaslighting everyone, sport, the adults are having a conversation.

I don't think increasing ticket prices would be a bad thing, tbh. It's because of the bus fare like low prices (for some domestic flights) that people fly everywhere and anywhere at a whim. Investing in high speed rail in North America would be a much better long term investment.

@Semper_Iratus

10 ай бұрын

Every time you “think” you’re hurting the team, guy.

@TacgnolSimulacrum

10 ай бұрын

I think most people in the US would be happy with function rail transport in the US before we take the leap to high speed rail.

@ropro9817

10 ай бұрын

@@TacgnolSimulacrum Totally!

@udipta21

10 ай бұрын

The world is not the USA

@ropro9817

10 ай бұрын

@@udipta21 Who said that it was?

It's thersoldbreaking of organization who paste people encouraging biofuels driven and it's all credit goes to Elon Musk Sir.

Problem is not 0 emissions from the transportation. The real problem is hydrogen can only be gained by electrolysis process with currently available technology. It requires a lot of electrical energy. Electricity is gain mostly by burning gas, coal or something else. In essence, 0 emission from planes or cars just transfers emissions to some other point technologically and geographically, but doesn't solve anything in total emissions amount. Besides, hydrogen must be compressed and transported what requires some more energy. Some more electricity from the same source?

@skipperg4436

10 ай бұрын

Not just through electrolysis. Today its made from natural gas - methane - via chemical reaction that at the end leave you with H2 and CO2. Hypothetically it is also possible to make special nuclear power plants that will use thermal decomposition of water into hydrogen and oxygen (basically very high temperature causes that reaction to happen - same process that produced explosive mixture in Chernobyl and Fukushima) but as far as I know none of such plants were built thus far.

Not even close to enough juice for the squeeze.

In regards to aviation, hydrogen is only viable for short trips. Trains are a better alternative than aircraft for short trips.

speaking of being late, this video, identical talking points have been made 7 years ago, why did you release this video, nothing new

okay but hydrogen plane emitting large qualities of water in the atmosphere, will that be a problem?

@hafizuddinmohdlowhim8426

10 ай бұрын

There is no perfect solution but best overall solution.

@willdejong7763

10 ай бұрын

Current jet engines emit primarily both CO2 and H2O, along with SO2 and NOx, etc. A little more H2O is worth it to get rid of the CO2 and the other pollutants.

@pacresfrancis1565

10 ай бұрын

bigger clouds I guess

@briancavanagh7048

10 ай бұрын

Falling ice!

@Randomguy-wd5lw

9 ай бұрын

No because its the same water that would've been electrolyzed before take off, so there no extra water in the atmosphere. Also in that regard, fossils fuel are worse because they introduces more water in the atmosphere when burning that wasn't present before.

Global coal consumption keeps increasing. So...

I would to know zero avia detail

This video is a distortion of the truth

Can we just reduce travel using jet fuel.. Use 10% hydrogen 2026, 35% 2030 etc

Nope.... Do your know how much energy IT TAKES to create the liquid hydrogen ??? Did you know you can't seal a tank of liquid hydrogen? It leaks through the walls of the tank!!! ALWAYS LOSING.... Airbus will absolutely let go of hydrogen....

the entire Aviation and Military use ( Aviation Fuel ) and have spent a ton of time thinking the about what to do in the future, and it doesnt seem like anything will change. They should just stop with these nonsense projects , waste of money in a way. But very cool . thank for the Video

UNACHIEVABLE by 2050! I recommend anyone who thinks otherwise to read the book "How the World Really Works" by Vaclav Smil.

Water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas😢

@Sanyu-Tumusiime

10 ай бұрын

Exactly THIS!!!

No way hydrogen is made as plentifully or cheaply as jet-A!

should use nuclear power or battery, to be truly green

@alainpannetier2543

10 ай бұрын

Anything wrong with cheap solar panels?

@franciscogodoy9158

10 ай бұрын

@@alainpannetier2543 Flights canceled due to clouds.

@wahdangun

10 ай бұрын

@@alainpannetier2543 can't be used for sustained load

@alainpannetier2543

10 ай бұрын

@@franciscogodoy9158 SoIar PaneIs ON THE GR0UND to generate H2. 🤣🤣

@alainpannetier2543

10 ай бұрын

@@wahdangun ?????????????????????

Hydrogen combustion spewing all that NOx at that height is probably not what we want to do to our atmosphere.

@2ebarman

10 ай бұрын

Which is why fuel cells are better. They are about 60% efficient too (don't know those specific ones though), so more than you'd get from heat engine.

Someone tell me where all this magical hydrogen comes from and how much energy it takes to create it?

OMG 2 whole percent of emissions!!! Won’t someone think of the children?!?

Not sure what the Hindenburg has to do with using hydrogen for fuel....

@DSAK55

10 ай бұрын

It goes "Boom"

@djayjp

10 ай бұрын

@@DSAK55 Like kerosene

Total and utter nonsense. H2 for aviation is a nonstarter!

Garbage reporting as always from the WSJ

Wish I could listen and watch the video but with the weirdo music I just had to stop. I prefer no music in the background.

Hydrogen fuel cells are a dead-end technology, not because of the fuel cells (they work great) but the fuel tanks. Nobody has managed to make a fuel tank that can withstand tens of thousands of psi *repeatedly* without leaking from cyclic fatigue to the point of catastrophic failure, that's also light enough to be carried on any kind of a vehicle. To do this with any reliability, it needs to be made from thick stainless steel, we're talking inches thick here. That's heavy and prohibitively expensive. This is the fact that these techno-environmentalists do not want you to know, because it's inconvenient for them. Aircraft? This has bad idea written all over it.

Water vapor is an incredible potent greenhouse gas when emitted in the upper atmosphere. If flying shall be climate neutral, we can't emmit anything up there.

@remcovanwoerkom2016

10 ай бұрын

It's important to note that fossil fuel powered aircraft also emit tons of contrails.

@Paelorian

10 ай бұрын

We have the technology to capture water. Like, instead of letting the water run out of a pipe it can run into a water tank. It's that simple.

@701983

6 ай бұрын

" incredible potent greenhouse gas " is an exaggeration, even for high altitudes. But yes, you wouldn't get climate-friendly planes just by switching to hydrogen. But fuel cell electric planes would fly in lower altitudes, where the emission of water vapor has no grave climate effects. Concepts like "ZEHST" would be no climate-friendly solution of course, despite the hydrogen fuel.

It truly might be too late to become a big thing, due to the fact that electric trains are nearly taking the number 1 spot when it comes to transportation.

@alainpannetier2543

10 ай бұрын

Let's try London New York in your electric train.

@carholic-sz3qv

10 ай бұрын

Electric trains have their places so does aircrafts, helicopters......

Water is available everywhere (where humans and industry are anyway). Turn on the tap and make hydrogen right at the airport. Like we can't build the infrastructure within the next 27 years... C'mon

H2 is not non-emissions. It doesn’t emit CO2 and SOx, but still emits NOx.

@carholic-sz3qv

10 ай бұрын

It only emits NOx when it's burned not when it's used in fuel cells lol!!

@NguyenHuy-gl3oy

10 ай бұрын

@@carholic-sz3qv Well, you're technically right. But in this video, we're talking about USING H2 as an alternative to Kerosene, not fuel cells.

🤨 so you want to dump large amounts of a green house gas into the atmosphere?.... For the record water vapor is a green house gas.

@matthewbaynham6286

10 ай бұрын

It doesn't stay up there for thousands of years, it comes down to earth as rain.

Hydrogen is just that last gasp of the legacy fossil fuel industry

@Grahamaan27

10 ай бұрын

Hydrogen is not a fossil fuel

@willdejong7763

10 ай бұрын

What are you talking about??

@alainpannetier2543

10 ай бұрын

@@willdejong7763 Maybe never heard of electrolysis.

@johnsamuel1999

10 ай бұрын

Exactly, electrolysis is too expensive and energy intensive.

@alainpannetier2543

10 ай бұрын

@@johnsamuel1999 That's nonsense, The energy spent during electrolysis is released during combustion.