I love how aviation is always talked about so heavily but the useless cruise ship industry is never mentioned. One ship burning “bunker oil” is equivalent pollution to 5 million cars per day but I guess that’s okay?…

@scottbeers2749

Жыл бұрын

Sadly, most of the times cruise ships don't have to follow any emission rules once in international waters. We need to fix that.

@joaodorjmanolo

Жыл бұрын

@@scottbeers2749 If Panamá canal and Suez canal start introducing emissions quota it'll work.

@fourthdeconstruction

Жыл бұрын

@@joaodorjmanolo gee! What a solution even if you close both canals that won't make a difference in emissions. Also I like to see what panama says about closing or restricting their canal for the environment's sake.

@alfiemiras6601

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, media and politicians like to focus on things that will bring so much inconvenience to people.

@papasquat355

Жыл бұрын

They are moving to CNG, so your point will be moot soon.

I'd like to see a similar report for the future of shipping and sea transport.

@Robert-cu9bm

Жыл бұрын

nuclear is the best option

@tonyb4773

Жыл бұрын

Best thing about shipping is that, as 40% is for fossil fuels, only 60% will be left to clean up...

@anonymousasia8187

Жыл бұрын

What> sot Nitrous Oxide emissions and lung disease in preference of carbon emissions and sunburn?, The solution is with US. We stop flying. The flight companies won't stop the supply unless the demand disappears. so it is the job of the public to renounce air travel to bring change, not the job of the companies to reduce emissions. It is us the people doing international travel all the time that are the root of the problem. Demand creates supply

@arc4055

Жыл бұрын

You know you won't believe me but shipping once was a completely green industry.

@jepleas9159

Жыл бұрын

Maersk is building green ships to test new tech.

Former USAF flight surgeon and undergrad chemistry major here. Hydrogen has a very low energy density per volume and must be stored under immense pressure and/or low temperatures in order to have adequate energy to power anything other than very short flights. That requires very heavy, very expensive alloys. The very tiny molecule hydrogen literally seeps into metals and other materials causing “hydrogen embrittlement” and accelerating material fatigue. Extremely low temperatures make all materials less malleable and more prone to sudden, catastrophic fracture. Metals are bad, but plastics and other polymers can be even worse at low temperatures. Maintaining the necessary low temperatures adds even more weight and energy expenditure not directed to flight. Air pressure decreases with altitude magnifying the material stresses even more. The repeated ascents and descents under such immense pressure changes induce accelerated material fatigue. Temperatures also drop precipitously at altitude. H2 fuel cells and their platinum or iridium catalysts do very poorly at low temperatures. Direct combustion is more plausible, but H2 is incredibly explosive if a leak develops. Shut-off valves work well with liquid jet fuel, but much less well with gaseous H2 under immense pressure. All of the fuel lines and valves must be able to withstand all of the radical changes in pressure and temperature as well as the bulk H2 storage tanks. All of this adds immensely to weight which in turn stresses the non-fuel portions of the airframe and reduces flight efficiencies. We perform non-destructive stress damage analysis on current planes. This would needed to be performed even more sedulously on hydrogen planes. More delays and costs. Hydrogen-powered ships-yes; hydrogen-powered planes-I respectfully have my reservations. I hope they prove me wrong, but I heard none of these issues addressed to any significant degree. I am willing to be persuaded. Best wishes.

@SprakanaKerum

28 күн бұрын

I love your comment. You disagree with the thesis of the video, provide adequate reasoning why, listed your former profession/education without any appeal to authority, but are willing to be proven wrong if something new comes along to refute old knowledge. Personally, I think China is on to something with what I heard was ceramic or nano-ceramic lining for hydrogen tanks (I might have misheard, or gotten a bad translation). It's time to hack the Chinese to listen in on their scientific research, get some payback for their decades of IP theft of US secrets

@user-en9zo2ol4z

8 күн бұрын

You are correct in what you say, however, the developments for storage include carbon fibre encapsulation, which has demonstrated very good qualities.

4:25 Great idea, show a random graph while talking about "airbus looking into hydrogen over time", I guess they were -25% looking into it in October 2022, whatever that means...

@SuryaSarav_

3 ай бұрын

😂

I'd like to see a documentary like this that includes some explanation of fuel storage and transportation 'why' and 'how' -- including descriptions of storage container weight, materials and construction; compression and cooling equipment design and costs (up-front capital, O&M, energy (kWh) required to run it), and; transport and storage compression pressures -- in order to help viewers understand why a fuel with, "...the highest energy per mass of any fuel..." has to be compressed to 13,000 psi or cryogenically cooled before it's useful in an aircraft, car or truck. This would help viewers appreciate what it actually takes to achieve and sustain 13,000 psi or minus 425F, and the challenges created by such pressures and temperatures during transporting and storage as compared to traditional liquid fuels.

While H2 is energy dense by mass, by volume it leaves much to be desired. H2 also needs to be either cryogenically frozen or highly pressurized in storage which drags on its round trip efficiency. H2 could still play a big role in green ammonia production, which has greater energy density by volume without the previously mentioned problems of h2. The holy grail in my view would be developing a scalable and cheap direct ammonia fuel cell (vs having to crack the ammonia back to H2, which again, drags on efficiency).

@jenniferperry87

Жыл бұрын

This honestly... Or if all else fails, we could develop e-fuels for use in aircraft and shipping, but my guess is the loss in efficiency would be higher than for ammonia.

@TheBooban

Жыл бұрын

@@jenniferperry87 yes and we’ve seen it is only good at postponing space launches. SpaceX abandoned it. Too finicky and dangerous to be practical.

@TomCook1993

Жыл бұрын

Planes don’t carry fuel for a round trip. That’s called ferrying fuel and is only done if fuel isn’t available at the destination.

@fourthdeconstruction

Жыл бұрын

I'm more worried what they left out. 1. Hydrogen production or the production of black Hydrogen which results in more pollution since it is the only cheap way to produce hydrogen. 2. hydrogen cells use rare metals like iridium and pt which has become really really expensive and only a few countries dominate the market. 3. Storage, due to the hydrogen and the way it bonds with metals all pressurized tanks have to be specially coated which makes them really expensive and heavy. So it seems that hydrogen in aviation has a lot of issue to solve.

@asphere8

Жыл бұрын

I don't think that we need to worry about the round-trip efficiency of H2 as much as we do. The extraordinary energy density by weight is the most important part of it, enabling its use as a green fuel in aviation and long-haul trucking. An electrolysis-based production process can easily be run on the excess power generated by solar and wind plants that might otherwise be wasted, making the round-trip efficiency much less important.

That is not a ATR-72 !! Thats a dash 8 !!

@johnc9658

Жыл бұрын

You beat me to it! 😂 Research CNBC! It’s not hard!

@airhabairhab

Жыл бұрын

Yeah I think the plans are to focus on ATRs but the rest bed is dash 8

No matter if the medium is battery, hydrogen, or whatever; it is only a medium. We need a massive increase in non-fossil electricity capacity to power all of these vehicles, and it needs to start now because it is going to take a while to get there. This needs to be addressed.

@agps4418

Жыл бұрын

i find it worrying that no one seemed to put spotlight on how the Big Oil is doing. The world is trying to rob them of their trillion-dollar profits. i don't think they'll just stay silent. i am worried because i believe if Big Oil isnt scheming things behind the scenes, i'm sure all-non fossil fuels will be successful. energy is our constant need.

@someotherdude

Жыл бұрын

That's actually NOT what is needed, we already have overcapacity of renewable power at least in some parts of the country. Like it or not, we need backup fossil fuel power for windless/cloudy days or we need affordable energy storage, which is not looking viable yet. So we are being forced on an arbitrary time table towards power shortages as a way of life, along with absurdly expensive power.

@jimmcneal5292

Жыл бұрын

Non-fossil energy sources either don't work very well or are potentially much more dangerous for environment than fossils

@SuperYellowsubmarin

Жыл бұрын

@@someotherdude We do need base power as you say, and since fossil will only last so long, the only other viable option is nuclear ...

@agps4418

Жыл бұрын

@@someotherdude imagine that.. being so stupid thinking that humanity need oil forever and nothing will ever change..

8:04 that’s a Dash 8 not an ATR

Hydrogen powered aircraft was investigated back in the 1970s. It wasn't economical back then for large aircraft and I doubt it will now. One of the drawbacks was storing large quantities of hydrogen at an airport.

@stoney202

Жыл бұрын

Yes but in the 70s it was competing against aviation fuel. Now we've mode on quite a lot of progress in materials science and it's competition is a very expensive inefficient storage medium in batteries.

@zulhilmi5787

11 ай бұрын

Electric vehicle also start around early 19s and dies out after that. Now it's increased in demand and competitive than the fossil fuel. Things is fossil fuel company are so powerful that they can monopoly the market to stop any competitor in the market and hinder humanity from going forward. Only now with the present of Internet that people start to realise how bad it is that this kind of company existed. Judging from your statement I can say that fossil fuel company do a good job in setting the mindset of general people

@rscott2247

10 ай бұрын

Jetliners also need strong tanks to store the hydrogen and I don't believe there light ?

@JohnSmith-pn2vl

9 ай бұрын

@@stoney202 nope, physics never change, nothign changedm hydrogen has 0 advantages over any other fuel, it is absolutely terrible at everything, especially energy storage. it doesnt even remotely come close to even fossil, and heck, hydrogen is fossil anyway. 97% of worlds hydrogen is made with gas reformation from natural gas because its insanely cheaper than electrolysis. this is one of the many hundred reasons why not to use hydrogen for anything but making steel by burning it. battery electric will power everything, hydrogen still is nonsense.

Aviation is where hydrogen makes the most sense to start a hydrogen economy. Next would be replacing natural gas with hydrogen. Then hydrogen for trains, busses, trucks, and finally passenger cars. Hydrogen is a great way of storing and transmitting energy. There are however a number of technical, safety, and economic hurdles to overcome. Hydrogen can be produced from water and electricity. Renewable, nuclear, or even fossil fuels. Thus hydrogen could ultimately be not only the cleanest fuel, but also the cheapest fuel.

HYDROGEN being the smallest atom in the universe is EXTREMELY hard to store because it just leaks from containers, that and the fact that hydrogen is also extremely flammable which means every leak has the potential for disaster.

@heinedenmark

11 ай бұрын

You can store it without a loss today. And it's very hard to ignite because it vapourise as soon as it comes in contact with the air. These people are not stupid.

@kevingw5379

11 ай бұрын

@@heinedenmark Hydrogen storage technology has gotten to the point where it can be safely used in motor vehicles where the danger of impact and damage to storage tank is higher than that of aircraft. However, hydrogen tanks in airplanes are exposed to altitude which means large pressure differences to deal with and higher risks of failure and malfunction. Plus, aviation approval and certification of hydrogen fuel for use in airplane is a real nightmare that will take a long time, because any new aircraft technology has to have high redundancy and thoroughly verified to be safe.

@nomercy411

11 ай бұрын

Not in the liquid form

@kevingw5379

11 ай бұрын

@@nomercy411 Storing hydrogen in liquid form is a viable option with one drawback, it requires storage tanks to be cooled to very low temperatures. In aviation world that means increased size, weight and complexity which is bad news because increase in weight alone is enough to not even consider that option. The only practical solution is combine hydrogen gas with another molecule to form a bistable compound which can be broken down to release the hydrogen when needed. However that is technology is still in its infancy and a lot of research and development needs to be done.

@nomercy411

11 ай бұрын

@@kevingw5379 not at all. The hydrogen tech is not like what you think.

cnbc contents are getting better by the day

@ExcessumGaming

Жыл бұрын

Agreed. They used to be so biased and one sided. Right now they are WAY better. 100% sure they got new editor!

@lixue2023

11 ай бұрын

You are a veteran follower

@yousuck9954

2 ай бұрын

​@ExcessumGaming 🤣🤣🤣if that's not sarcasm you are an idiot 😊

In a way, even hydrocarbon is some kind of battery. Plants absorb the energy from the sun and convert it to carbohydrate as energy storage. When the plant died they got buried deep overtime. The fibrous part was petrified, and the carbohydrate was refined by pressure and heat into hydrocarbon.

Electric Trams are probably the ultimate form of green transport as the batteries are not carried on the vehicle itself but soo much focus is being placed on electric cars 🤷

@whoisthatkidd2212

Жыл бұрын

Yes, but most Americans do not understand how trains work as our cities are built to encourage car use as much as possible.

@PistonAvatarGuy

Жыл бұрын

Electric trains don't really even need traction batteries.

One thing is true, Hydrogen is potentially the best option. But thats when you just see in context on a fuel to engine. But when you see supply chain, whole big cargo planes , Hydrogen generation and transportation Then you realize its still in infancy stage.

@neeljavia2965

Жыл бұрын

Perfectly summarised.

@bru512

Жыл бұрын

Not true. Batteries are the best option. If you really want to use chemicals, better to use methane.

@eaaeeeea

Жыл бұрын

We will soon get abundant renewable energy, so creating hydrogen from water will get cheap. It seems these new companies could gain a lot of market share from Airbus and Boeing much earlier than these two legacy companies realize their plans for sustainable planes.

@bru512

Жыл бұрын

@@eaaeeeea When is soon?

@anonymousasia8187

Жыл бұрын

Tes plus this is a paid placement posing ads news which is why they dont tell you Hydrogen produces Nitrogen Oxide which causes respiratory disease.

Brilliant Coverage in Hydrogen usage in aircraft! Thank you for sharing this important topic in in aviation fuel alternatives. Greetings from Madang, Papua New Guinea!

CNBC does top-notch documentaries, interesting and well researched. Ammonia is really the key here...too bad there was no mention of it (though this doc was focused on H2)...NH3 is a better H2 carrier than liquid hydrogen....about twice as much and its in liquid form can be held at a much lower pressure about 10 bar (while H2 gas is at 700 bar)...that's the real future imo. Ofc NH3 is a toxic substance, so we'd need to handle it better than we do gasoline (as it can cause blindness), but for decarbonizing, it's the pinnacle for an alternate energy source.

@wakannnai1

Жыл бұрын

I've seen some research into NH3 fuel cells. It's efficiency is at 62% vs hydrogen at 70%. I'd say it isn't too far away. Ammonia fuel cells seem quite interesting as we already have a pretty strong Ammonia production pipeline.

@StarrDust0

Жыл бұрын

@@wakannnai1 Ya that's pretty amazing, though I've heard NH3 FC's are SOFC's that work at a very high temp requiring special materials...so more costly. The other option is cracking the ammonia to H2 and using in a traditional pem fuel cell. If I recall SOFC's are also multifuel, so you can run on other sources as well...but a direct NH3 fc would be best...still cracking it is not a bad alternative.

I like the idea of a combination of two fuels: Catalytically derived, cellulosic or algae biobutanol for landings and takeoffs; Then a switchover to ammonia (NH⁴) for cruising. Might be the easy & quick low CO² fuel path. I think speed & 'anti-absolecence' is important to avoid the increase in CO² from the manufacturing of new aircraft right away.

Hydrogen isn’t just the lightest fuel, it’s the lightest element. There is no type of atom weighs less than an Hydrogen atom.

@user-ml8kh1bm9h

Жыл бұрын

that we know of

@nathanielturner2577

Жыл бұрын

@@user-ml8kh1bm9h unless we discover atoms with fractions of a proton in it, it definitely is!!

Didn't we try flying vehicles filled with hydrogen before? Like, 86 years ago? I seem to remember it didn't go so well...

@joshuagranger2416

Жыл бұрын

Yeeeeeah same thing I remember....... get into an in-flight fire in one of those you probably aren't gonna make it.....crispy critter

@ockertoustesizem1234

Жыл бұрын

it's almost like hydrogen airplanes can also crash just like how normal airplanes crash every year 🤔🤔

@joshuagranger2416

Жыл бұрын

@@ockertoustesizem1234 the point seems to have sailed right over your head?

@ockertoustesizem1234

Жыл бұрын

@@joshuagranger2416 and you guys don't seem to understand that hydrogen blimps from 86 years ago were more dangerous than modern planes. I'm not even a hydrogen fan but it's obvious that modern hydrogen planes aren't going to fail catastrophically like the almost 100 year old experiment did. "the first experiment failed so we should stop researching" is an anti innovation mindset. also hydrogen isn't the only fuel with possible risks, did you guys forget that traditional fossil fuels are also flammable

@bhanusM99

Жыл бұрын

Until now there's only a single successful flight using hydrogen that is in 1950s, they deemed it dangerous and stopped research Same with the Russians.

Quels sont les avantages de ce moteur par rapport aux autres moteurs à essence existants : peut-il être plus rapide (plus de 1 500 kilomètres par heure), avoir une autonomie plus longue, être plus doux et plus silencieux ? Puis-je transporter un tonnage plus lourd (par exemple, deux fois le tonnage du Beluga XL d’Airbus) ? Les batteries peuvent-elles atteindre une puissance de 20 à 50 mégawatts tout en conservant des dimensions appropriées ? Pourrait-il être plus automatisé/plus facile à entretenir et à gérer ? Existe-t-il une capacité de production en volume dans la région européenne ou dans la région de l’Atlantique Nord ? Nous espérons que les ingénieurs et les équipes auront des objectifs clairs et éviteront de concevoir des produits ayant un positionnement difficile sur le marché et un développement lent.

The source of the explanation as tho why hydrogen will beat batteries for aviation seems to be “trust me bro”

@Drizzelinho

7 ай бұрын

hahah Exactly

Cool video. Unfortunately, I suspect hydrogen will take longer to supplant the current air travel logistics than declared, but it will eventually happen. In the nearer term though, I suspect some mix of biofuels and carbon neutral synthetic efuels will be what initially decarbonizes air travel before hydrogen tech is able to become a superior technology. To get the ball rolling I suggest legislating that private jets be LEGALLY REQUIRED to use carbon neutral fuels, be they biofuels, efuels, green hydrogen, direct electricity, or something else. This will help stimulate the market and development to make these technologies become more available at larger scale by having those who CAN pay the premium, do so in the early days.

Can’t they target the private jet industry as a starting point? Private jets carbon footprints are much heavier per person than a commercial jet. It also gives them the opportunity to create more evidence and experiences using the new fuel type so it gains traction and becomes more standardized. Just a thought

@captsorghum

4 ай бұрын

This was my thought. That way the billionaires and politicians can jet around to their climate summits without generating negative press.

I hate when media tries to make it hydrogen vs battery when they are completing each other.

Hydrogen molecules are so small. They are prone to leaking out of hoses, pipes and connectors and storage tanks.

@Aeronaut1975

Жыл бұрын

They leak right through most metals, plastics, glass and wood. It's also insanely explosive and expensive to compress.

Boeing and Airbus should use the new propeller types to be even more efficient! ✌️

We were onboard an H2O boat not long ago, interesting stuff, exciting.

None of the above will achieve the long haul capability that's on the market now.

Những phương tiện hàng không tốc độ cao rất cần thiết cho nhu cầu thu hoạch kiến thức trí tuệ ngoài không gian hay lắm, cảm ơn video chia sẻ của bạn chúc bạn sức khỏe và hạnh phúc.

Well CNBC, you pick a bunch of people who happens to be working on hydrogen fueled engines to advocate for hydrogen powered airplanes and give an impression that there really is no other way to get to net zero emission in this industry...

This is great I was wondering when something like this would happen

@FrozenDung

Жыл бұрын

Battery electric works for short haul flights Hydrogen for long range

What about the high cost of platinum in the use of hydrogen? Flammability? Compressibility and leakage? High cost of making hydrogen? Give it up.

As a child in the fifth grade in the 1960s I learned from a science textbook how to make hydrogen and oxygen from water using electrolysis. Since then I have always wondered why not just connect a solar cell or windmill generator to a water electrolysis device and use wind or solar energy to make hydrogen. I guess there are technical reasons why this won't work. This video mentions that storing hydrogen as a gas takes a lot of room and storing as a liquid requires super cooling equipment. Hopefully scientists will come up with an answer to these issues and soon.

Airline hydrogen technology is just blowing up !

Excellent and intelligent coverage of the prospect and hope.

1937 - Hindenburg incident was attributed to atmospheric electrical discharge and a small leak of H

Planes can only be powered by ticket sales

@AvgDietCokeEnjoyer

Жыл бұрын

What’s the purchase power for air travel between consumer and commercial?

If I was a scientist, I would make a research about how to overcome gravitational forces of the earth by deflecting or changing the direction of gravitational forces to enable aircrafts fly with a minimum amount of fuel. 1. Define gravitational forces. How can we reverse it or cancel it? Can we build a machine that could make it possible? 2. Is that possible to find a material to isolate or deflect gravitational forces 3. Can we convert gravitational forces into a power source? I'm quite sure that somebody could take the challange & make it possible, like Wright Brothers. If we can convert sunlight into electricity by using solar panels why can't we achieve creating weightlessness by harnessing gravitational forces?

Commercial aviation is maybe the only one industry people shouldn't mind. Btw, private emissions aren't mentioned on this, they pollute more per person than commercial ones. Will they be regulated as well? No... ? Yeah, as I thought...

@nick_0

Жыл бұрын

they will be regulated, their per person emissions dont matter as much since their total contribution is low, that’s why commercial craft are priority to change first

@agps4418

Жыл бұрын

this is just one sector, trying to do better, when they can do better. who are you to say they shouldn't? oil/gas employee?

@joaodorjmanolo

Жыл бұрын

@@agps4418 cause it'll get expensive. Also, security reasons.

Did they mention that currently commercial hydrogen comes from fossil fuels? It could be made by electrolysis, but it's more expensive that way. But yes, continue with the experimentation. Modern avgas, used for piston airplane engines, even has lead in it.

@neutrino78x

Жыл бұрын

they just recently developed unleaded avgas....with hydrogen the idea is that you would split water using green energy.

@Nehmo

Жыл бұрын

@@neutrino78x Yes, I know electrolysis can be powered by green energy, but it's more expensive to do so. The cost difference (currently) is significant enough to prohibit anyone.

@neutrino78x

Жыл бұрын

@@Nehmo "The cost difference (currently) is significant enough to prohibit anyone." Currently, yes. It's not like aircraft are going to convert to H2 tomorrow. Like I said, the plan is for all the H2 to come from green sources. Our grid here in California is very clean. During the day only about 10-12% of our power comes from fossil. We have the largest geothermal plant in the world, we have lots of hydroelectric, we have a nuclear plant, we get 12+ GW from solar, we have two of the largest battery installations in the world. We're adding more solar and wind and storage every day.

The basic equation is that to move people quickly by air, a lot of energy is required. The amount of long distance travel has increased phenomenally since 1960. Before that most people didn't fly and rarely went on long trips. What does this all support? The engineers may be able to make hydrogen aircraft practical and economical

What great video editing.... They even cut out match end and show one last point for the losing team..... 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️ I won't even mention calling the set winner while the point is going on ....

Hurrah! you have finally won the race

OK, I'm an engineer and that will not work in the next decades, AT ALL. You need an insane amount of fuel cells to get enough power and that WILL BE EXTREMELY expensive. That will quadrupple sixtuple the ticket costs, when planes get a multiple price increase. There is currently no H2 industrie that delivers H2 in large quantities and the one that exist is even more expensive than gasoline and oil, which is already too expensive.

@Negev-Israel

Ай бұрын

Electric motors may be able to beat the conventional piston engine, but it is no match for jet engines. Jet engines can beat electric motors within a blink of an eye

@nigratruo

Ай бұрын

@@Negev-Israel No, you are mistaken my friend: jet engines are even worse than piston engines, you get a lot more blow by (fuel that is not used, but just blown out), everything you can do with a turbine with combustion, you can do 4 times more efficient with a electric motor, they have more torque, they are almost 100% efficient (piston engines only reach like 20%) and they don't need any maintenance. That is by the way why turbines are preferred to pistons: much less maintenance. You unfortunately can't see this and have no vision for the future where things change, all you can see is the status quo. You are unable to better or change the world due to this. The most powerful engines in the world are not turbines and they are not piston engines, but electric, because electric has no size limit how much power you can put in them and that is why in the world today, most powerful engines are all electric.

@Negev-Israel

Ай бұрын

@@nigratruo perhaps you should touch grass. You are using the same logic of comparing electric cars with gas cars. An electric car can win against gas car, hands down. But in aviation, things are different.

@Negev-Israel

Ай бұрын

@@nigratruo EDF or electric duct fans are the alternative for jet engines. They are not able to produce enough trust as a jet engine of a similar size. Also, the efficiency of a jet engine increases with increase in speed. Not to mention the heavy battery. The only advantage and EDF has over a jet engine is the instant acceleration, responsiveness and fine tuning. The efficiency of an electric motor might be higher, but it will go down with increase in weight due to bigger motors requiring a larger battery, which requires more thrust and in turn draws more current and this cycle of inefficiency continues. Fun fact: the starter of a jet engine is not an electric motor because of its heavy weight. Instead, it uses an air turbine starter.

The aircraft stated at 8:05 tested with Hydrogen its not an ATR72, ATR72 has 70 seats not 50-60 , airplane shown is Dash 8 Q300

The problem is that hydrogen fuel cells is an interm technology. By the time it could reach maturity it will be outpaced by competing technologies like solar paired with battery packs. This is a completly different use case but there's a reason the military already has uav drones that are solar powered and not hydrogen. They can essentially fly continuously. If hydrogen was to successfully disrupt the aviation and other industries it would of had to be implemented 15 years ago where it would of drastically outcompeted any other avaliable technology and been able to gain footing and develop the needed infostructure.

So would this increase ticket prices?

@joelimbergamo639

Жыл бұрын

For now it seems so. But no one has any idea of how cheap can hydrogen get. And even if hydrogen takes more spaes it is lighter per unit of energy than kerosene so it can get a lot cheaper

@zionismisterrorism8716

Жыл бұрын

@@joelimbergamo639 So there would be less space for cargo and luggage.

@joelimbergamo639

Жыл бұрын

@@zionismisterrorism8716 yes, but lighter aircraft.

The main issue is the production of hydrogen. The conventional method of hydrogen production involving the use of methane and fossil fuels ends up producing CO2 as a byproduct. The alternative method of using electrolysis of water is very expensive and a net energy sinking process because the amount to energy required to split water is higher than the amount of energy released in burning hydrogen if the efficiency of the entire process is taken into account.

At the 8:30 mark you said atr-72, that is either a bombardier q300 or q400…need to check your sources

Hydrogen fuels used in heavy weight duty transportation like Bus 🚌 Lorry 🚚 Van 🚛 Bio fules can be used in Aircraft Transportation.

Also, nobody seems to be mentioning the enourmous danger of carrying huge battery packs in an airplane. we have seen battery cars combust in flames instantly but you have never seen a Toyota Mirai combust in flames out of nowhere. That's because its hydrogen tanks are reinforced in a matter that it can stop a small bullet, something not even gas tanks can do.

@clavil0709

Жыл бұрын

Actually gas cars burn around 10 times more than Lithium NMC batteries and 100 times more than Lithium LFP. The comparison isn't completely fair because the gas fleet is much older that EV's.

@_Stupid_Idiot

11 ай бұрын

planes fly with hundreds of batteries onboard all the time. passenger’s phones, laptops, battery banks, you name it

You can't store hydrogen fuel in the wings unlike conventional fuels which can, which is why it's still not a great fuel for airplanes. However, hydrogen is a great fuel for hybrid airships

@fritzstauffacher6931

11 ай бұрын

Yeah that’s a massive problem.

I wonder if there will be hybrids fuel cell and batteries, or energy beamed from space in the future.

Hey @CNBC that aircraft is not an ATR it's a dash8-300 N330EN flew for piedmont airlines . this has been an aviation employee fact check

There is no "extra electricity". Any power diverted to manufacture "green hydrogen" means less power to offset power generation by burning fuels. As converting energy into a chemical fuel to be later converted back into energy elsewhere (especially hydrogen) represents major loss of efficiency it only serves to increase net CO2 emissions over if power had been directly used by the energy grid. Also, before all this money gets dumped into hydrogen as an energy carrier I'd like to see estimates of how much hydrogen leaks into the environment during its production, transportation, storage, and conversion. Leaked hydrogen quickly rises into the high atmosphere and depletes the Ozone layer and creates the greenhouse gas water vapor in the high and normally dry layers of the atmosphere.

A plane with a hydrogen combustion turbine producing jet thrust and driving either a prop or fan? Maybe, eventually, certainly before oil derived aviation fuel is exhausted in 60 years time. But in the meantime an e-fuel made by combining renewable energy produced hydrogen with atmospheric captured CO2 kit the best option was as it adds no new CO2 to the atmosphere, it just recycles it. Producing enough for large commercial airliners and distributing would be a major challenge and so it is not a solution for land transport as well. Possibly heavy shipping though.

Green or Blue hydrogen fuels would be ideal because the process of creating the fuels is low (blue) to zero( green) carbon emissions. Grey hydrogen does creates c02 emission in development. So it's not zero carbon footprint fuel by any means.

@Combat_Medic

Жыл бұрын

This example was done with hydrogen production by electrolysis with a nuclear powered plant. So yes, it’s zero emissions.

@neutrino78x

Жыл бұрын

Yes, the plan is for it to be green hydrogen.

@5353Jumper

11 ай бұрын

Some of you say that the hydrogen math they are using here is assuming electrolysis (green) hydrogen powered by nuclear energy for a zero emissions fuel. (Well except for all the emissions in making the nuclear power plant, refining the nuclear fuel, building the hydrogen plant, transporting and storing all the hydrogen, and such. So not really zero emissions but still sounds good as LOWER emissions than jet fuel). But the problem is that there is a lot of hydrogen consumption already for medical, chemical and industrial applications. That consumption is currently being answered by methane steam reforming which is actually higher emissions than jet fuel (yes even with Carbon Capture, 1. we could put carbon capture on the jet fuel production as well and 2. carbon capture wastes massive amounts of electricity which also has emissions unless we also put that on nuclear/solar). So we cannot consider any new applications of hydrogen without first cleaning up the production of hydrogen for old applications. Any hydrogen electrolysis projects made now need to go toward reducing the amount of methane reformed hydrogen production. If not then we cannot count the math of electrolysis hydrogen going toward new applications as "low emissions". Any new application of hydrogen will be considered high emissions (even if using nuclear fueled electrolysis) as long as there is still methane reforming hydrogen production still in place for old applications. On top of that we need to consider the overall use of the nuclear generation, its benefits used in hydrogen electrolysis vs its benefits it used elsewhere or just plugged into the grid to reduce the amount of fossil fuel generation in the world. So for hydrogen planes to actually be "environmentally friendly" a bunch of other things need to happen first: - we need the world to be producing all electricity with a very low percentage of fossil fuels - we need the majority of hydrogen production for other applications to already be electrolysis (or pyrolysis) with green electricity generation - we need to sort out the transportation and storage inefficiencies of hydrogen - we need to establish that there are no other better solutions like bEV That is a lot of things needed before hydrogen fueled transportation is a good idea. Really it is OK to research and experiment. But the reality is most of this is being pushed for and propagandized by the petroleum industry. The petroleum industry has an interest in us maintaining demand for things that use fossil fuels, inefficient technologies that increase any kind of energy demand, fuels that need to be transported through their infrastructure and burning even more fuels, and in general distracting from other projects that would actually reduce demand for fossil fuels. Sadly for now aviation fuel is likely the best alternative until bEV are viable for planes or some of the needs above are resolved. It is much better today if we focus our efforts on reducing emissions (fossil fuel consumption) on general electricity generation, and bEV cars/trucks, and improvements and electrification of our buildings before we get too distracted by hydrogen transportation. Let the petroleum companies have aviation fuel demand, we will take other fuel demand away from them first.

@neutrino78x

11 ай бұрын

@@5353Jumper "Well except for all the emissions in making the nuclear power plant, refining the nuclear fuel, building the hydrogen plant, transporting and storing all the hydrogen" The presumption is that all that is done with green power. "But the problem is that there is a lot of hydrogen consumption already for medical, chemical and industrial applications. " Irrelevant to aviation fuel " we need to establish that there are no other better solutions like bEV" We already know there are not. (and batteries are subject to your thing about "the whole process has to be zero emission" so you're a hypocrite here) "That is a lot of things needed before hydrogen fueled transportation is a good idea. " We already know H2 for aircraft, trains, ships, etc is something to pursue. Batteries are for small vehicles such as SUV and smaller consumer vehicles, and eVTOL. "It is much better today if we focus our efforts on reducing emissions (fossil fuel consumption) on general electricity generation, and bEV cars/trucks, and improvements and electrification of our buildings before we get too distracted by hydrogen transportation. " The people working on H2 for aircraft are focused on that. The other stuff is irrelevant to what they're doing. "But the reality is most of this is being pushed for and propagandized by the petroleum industry. " Nope. It's being pushed by MIT, Stanford, Oxford, etc. "Sadly for now aviation fuel is likely the best alternative" Sustainable aviation fuel, which has lower carbon content than normal jet fuel and is created with green energy using water and using CO2 taken directly out of the atmosphere.

I wonder if the hydrogen powered airline industry is going to be cheaper in the long run

@AWildBard

11 ай бұрын

Major improvements in converting water to hydrogen and fuel cell technology will have to be solved before it will be cheaper than today. Although we could argue the overall cost of burning fossil fuels is extremely expensive since it also causes major pollution and climate change. But hydrogen is not a solved problem and it is very expensive to make, to store, and to use.

If Airbus makes hydrogen powered planes really gives a new meaning to "Air Bus"

It can't replace typical jet fuel but it will help lessening carbon emission from the industry as a whole. And that can be considered a win.

@Aeronaut1975

Жыл бұрын

How so? The atmosphere contains 0.04% Co2. If that was reduced by half to 0.02%, then every living plant on the planet would stop photosynthesising and die. We need MORE CO2, not less. Why do you think Dutch farmers pump CO2 into their greenhouses?! to promote faster growing, larger crops with better yields. You want more crops, with bigger, healthier yields to feed more people? we need more CO2, not less.

@samsabruskongen

11 ай бұрын

Keep dreaming.

The biggest problem with hydrogen fuel is storage. This isn't like jet fuel sitting in a tank. The tech behind hydrogen fuel storage requires a skilled ground crew at every airport that services these types of aircraft. Just this past year, we've seen a number of ground crew accidents that involve things as simple as towing an airplane so it doesn't hit a building, or not standing in front of a running engine that they were told repeatedly was dangerous. Are they really competent enough to safely handle pressurized hydrogen?

What hydronated lithium as hydrogen storage, maybe the airline could get enough pull to get hydronated lithium removed the list of controlled materials.

Wonderful stuff. They've already done small scale aircraft really well, and as stated, they've been using it for rocket launches for decades, so either scale it up, or scale it down for big aircraft. All the engineering marvels that Human Beings have created already, this would be nothing to get sorted 😉😜 And WAY sooner than bloody 2035, that is shockingly slow! 🤨🥴🙄

believe it or not, Hydrogen powered aircraft been around since 1957 they had the Martin B-57B of the NACA, and Russian had a hydrogen plane in 1988 which was a Tu-155

I have stopped guessing what will make it and how fast. We always get it wrong anyway.

This media can't survive without graph statistics...😅

How about ducted fans the same as RC modellers use.

Hydrogen-electric is fine but Hydrogen fueling the jet engine itself would increase range & power but storage of that has to be developed further. Hydrogen has the highest specific impulse of any fuel, thus storage is extremely critical and whether to use vapor or supercooled liquid hydrogen will have to be figured out.

create a hydrogen factory on space using solar energy and space mining, pollution ,lack of resources ,war ,personal interest GONE FOR GOOD ,there's is abundance of everything we need in space, we just have to design a space factory XD

We already have a number of solutions for short haul flights, but none for long haul flights. Hydrogen/electric airplanes won't catch on when HSR, sleeper trains, and airships are more cost effective replacements for short haul flights.

@neeljavia2965

Жыл бұрын

But hsr is not viable for long distances.

@GeoMeridium

Жыл бұрын

@@neeljavia2965 Exactly, but hydrogen and battery airplanes are unable to effectively cover 600+ mile trips, and are inferior to the aforementioned modes on short haul distances. They are functionally useless.

@neeljavia2965

Жыл бұрын

@@GeoMeridium For short haul, hsr is the best.

Good idea! You travel in, but not me !

Can any of NBC elaborate about the process to create "Green Hydrogen"?

Canada is currently building infrastructure for electric-hydrogen from windmills and solar panels.☮️🇨🇦

Battery technology is evolving at breakneck pace. Battery density will be more than adequate for use on airplanes in the coming 10-20 years.

Effectivity on electric motors are approaching 500kwh/100km, wich are the tippingpoint aerotransport and without the risc of hydrogen!

Cause air flight and hydrogen have had such a great relationship in the past.

Their must be a solution with something like if in a flight at high speed to use that incomming fast air that with something else create frixion or somthing like that to create hot air with something where it compressed and explode pistons back and forward to create energy to charge the batteries while flying, I can't imagine that it isn't duable. Use hydrogen to take off and create kind off that sort of use of fast incomming air, air flying at 500 miles per hours is powerfull, water pushing hard is a powerfull source. Maybe Im to much thinking green, people don't want to pull away from consuming fuels and such , they want bussiness and money to flow around.

The more i watch these kinds of videos the more i realise how superior traditional fuels are.

Hydrogen up in the air! That will certainly light up the sky!

AMAZING !!!! 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

Hydrogen looks good on paper and in trade studies. But it causes a lot of problems right from the design stage. The liquid H2 pipes cannot be inside the fuselage, for obvious reasons in case of a leak. They have to be outside the fuselage, which creates more drag and you have to protect them there. Also, the insulation makes the pipes quite thick. These problems are just related to the pipes. I work in the field and there are a lot of other problems. These problems can be solved, but due to the increased complexity it will definitely have a negative impact on the price of the plane, maintenance, passenger capacity, airport handling and more... I'm really struggling right now to know if the hydrogen plane is the best way to go. It would be great if there was an e-fuel that is liquid at room temperature, has a high gravimetric energy density, is non-toxic and has low carbon emissions when burned. Can someone please develop such an E-fuel?

Interesting 💚

For short haul, approximately anything under 2 hours or less, batteries are feasible. That's not nothing, that could replace a lot of shorter flights in europe where demand is too low for high speed rail (or it's just plain impossible), and even many feeder routes in the US. But hydrogen or carbon neutral jet fuel are the only feasible alternatives for anything longer than that.

@Aeronaut1975

Жыл бұрын

The problem with batteries is that they are dead weight. A traditional aircraft gets lighter as it burns through it's fuel, battery powered aircraft don't.

@Croz89

Жыл бұрын

@@Aeronaut1975 That becomes more of a problem the longer the fight is. Eventually the batteries get so heavy the plane can't take off with any passengers or cargo.

Why is SAF not an option?

It must be green hydrogen!

They would need a gyro that can control the “fuel tank” whenever the plane pitches/rolls adding to the weight of the plane even more

ground hydrocarbons is sustainable in the sense that it is no problem to burn it. but we do need cheap new energy too.

One solution for the comming 10 years. Hyliion Karno technology, not need a huge battery pack, just alot of generators with Hydrogen and possibly other natural gasses to recharge the batterie while flying.

What's the cost for the fuel?

@Aeronaut1975

Жыл бұрын

Never mind the cost, did you ever hear about the Hindenberg disaster?!

Very exciting to see jets, and hopefully soon, ships and trains, powered by hydrogen. Makes sense to also have battery packs to power the jets on the runway to save fuel and jet equipment.

@tannerpaisley-ve6dq

Жыл бұрын

Yup remember the hindenburg? More flammable than anything else

@PistonAvatarGuy

Жыл бұрын

It's not happening, bud, this is all just pure greenwashing nonsense. The amount of hydrogen needed to power an airplane for any significant distance is absolutely IMMENSE and it's impossible to store enough on board to provide any sort of practical range.

They're going to need to test using the "toroidal propeller" to get the efficiency up! search youtube on the quoted.

The problem with hydrogen is that its atoms are small in size and a light gas, which means that it is a fugitive gas and is difficult to store, and the small size of its atoms makes it leak even from the smallest holes. I think that liquid oxygen gas is the best option.

@Brad_Fallon

5 ай бұрын

LOL

Perfect.

It's so obvious. Airlines require massive quantities of an *energy source* that is _consumed_ when it's used, meaning, they lose weight over the course of the flight. The maximum _takeoff_ weight is not the same as the maximum landing weight. Batteries do not do this - their physical weight stays virtually identical whether they're fully charged or fully discharged. A fully electrified transcontinental aircraft using current technology is no different than *Top Gear* trying to launch a _Reliant Robin_ (which they _did,_ by the way) into midair - all it will do is fall out of the sky faster than a _Gimli Glider._ Hydrogen as a gaseous fuel has major drawbacks. Its flammability relative to jet fuel is already a solved problem. Instead, the main problems have all to do with production (why aren't we capturing methane emissions from livestock, landfills and oil wells, and converting them into feedstocks?), distribution, and efficiency. Yet this may be what is ultimately necessary to wean aircraft off jet fuel. Batteries? Why don't you find me a battery technology that is *at the absolute bare minimum* _millions of times more energy dense_ than the most advanced of lithium-based chemical batteries _today_ per given unit weight *without* sacrificing anything else e.g. charging rates, cycle life, safety. I'll wait. The alternatives aren't that much better: biodiesel requires vast amounts of organic feedstock --- there simply isn't enough arable land on earth to feed the airline industry, period. Ion propulsion? Well, you better be content with nuclear weapons going off all around you, because that's what it is.

Why is it logical to consume cheap electricity to produce hydrogen and use more energy to change it to a liquid and then convert it back to a gas to burn it in an inefficient engine to produce electricity?

I wonder how a hybrid aircraft would perform. Using current jet engines as a generator to power batteries and the batteries powering engines. That would reduce some weight by using ducted fans instead of high bypass turbines but an increase in weight for batteries.

Where we come from we do teleporting ….saves a lot

the problem with Hydrogen is the cost in energy and other resources in producing pure hydrogen, storing it, distributing it, so all the advantages of hydrogen quickly evaporate when you add up all the cost. We need research on reducing the cost of all of this before we can make good use of hydrogen.