https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/airbus-reveals-three-concepts-for-world-s-first-zero-emission-plane/ar-BB19fMsL?ocid=msedgdhp

Great ideas. Compared to producing large batteries to power electric motors (definitely NOT zero emissions if one discusses the battery production & disposal processes I believe), hydrogen gas is relatively clean & easy to obtain, and of course when you burn hydrogen it produces water vapour ..... win-win. A third win for me is that one would still get to hear Jet Noise.. The Sound of Freedom ©, especially if it can be used for afterburning turbines too? 

I love the look of the blended wing design! 

 

First of all the whole commercial aviation sector has received a major setback because of COVID-19. It will probably take years to recover and it may lose market share permanently, during that period to automobiles and high speed rail. The technology of battery commercial aircraft is better suited for short hops, but unfortunately there is too much competition from other modes of travel.

And hydrogen is not viable at all except for space travel where it has a alternate function of producing potable water.  Hydrogen requires too much energy to produce, it is difficult to store and transport and it is dangerous to use in any type of vehicle due to leakage from its high pressure tanks.

1 hour ago, HighBypass said:

hydrogen gas is relatively clean & easy to obtain

 

 

Not really. Not unless all of your hydrogen is created from renewable energy sources. At parent, most hydrogen is manufactured from fossil fuels. Its also inefficient to manufacture. 

 

Quote

Great ideas. Compared to producing large batteries to power electric motors (definitely NOT zero emissions if one discusses the battery production & disposal processes I believe)

 

Nothing has a zero carbon footprint. Even manufacturing hydrogen from renewable energy has a carbon footprint. For example the manufacture of the wind turbines, solar panels, hydrogen production plants etc. Transportation of hydrogen etc.  And of course, just like the manufacture of hydrogen, we could obtain our electricity for the battery manufacturing process from renewables. Tesla's Gigafactory of course is expected to be powered by 100% renewables. 

 

As for disposal of batteries, there's a huge effort underway at present to recycle used batteries. Not to mention a big demand for so called "second life" batteries, whereby after the battery can no longer run a car (or aircraft) it has a long, useful life as a grid energy storage battery. 

Edited September 21, 20205 yr by martin-w

4 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

The technology of battery commercial aircraft is better suited for short hops,

 

Depends how you define "short hop". Eviation Alice for example will have a 1000 kilometre range and carry 11 people. Alice due for its first test flight soon. And of courser we have some pretty amazing battery technology in the lab that will be with us in under 10 years, that will revolutionize electric aircraft.  So as I say, depends how you define short hop. 

 

I should add, there is also a lot of research at the moment into hybrid electric aircraft. Airbus, Rolls Royce, VoltAero etc. in fact, last year, Rolls Royce  acquired Siemens hybrid-electric aerospace activities. 

 

 

The BEV technology is great (Disclosure - I own a Tesla Model Y and BMW hybrid). It's the market for commercial air travel that's the impediment. Commercial air travel was the main long range vector for  spreading COVID-19. Aircraft can't compete with ground travel because weight limitations preclude adding needed safety features. Adding more weight to trains is not as big a consideration. 

So the airlines will have to focus on intercontinental travel and it is going to take a while for battery technology to be suitable for powering long range trips. Maybe Elon Musk will surprise us tomorrow on Battery Day.

The hydrogen-powered vehicle concept has been around for many years.  The problem is that it is a highly flammable gas and thus dangerous due to having to be stored in pressurized tanks which could leak or burst in an accident.

I have read about hydrogen storage methods which are safe, but I don't know if they are ready for practical large-scale application.

I do believe that hydrogen is a great clean energy source.  It can be made using nuclear energy to produce electricity which can then be used for the electrolysis to produce the gas.  Relatively clean and cheap.  If a safe storage method can be developed then I think it is a viable form of clean energy that can be used to power vehicles. 

I really don't see battery-powered airplanes, and even automobiles, becoming practical until higher energy density and much faster charging of the batteries can be achieved.  There is certainly a place for battery-powered electric vehicles however, such as in urban areas for short trips.  Then there is the issue of the source of electricity to charge the batteries, not to mention the energy and materials required to produce the batteries which must be replaced periodically.  Solar panels sound great, but they require a lot of surface area in order to produce enough power to be of practical use. Millions of acres of land would have to be used for solar power plants to power the USA.  Rooftop solar panels can reduce the amount of land needed to some extent.  Wind turbines sound great, too, but it would take over 500,000 wind turbines to power the USA.  There's also the issue of power generation at night or when the wind isn't blowing, requiring large battery storage plants.  My point is that there is always a cost and trade-off for any type of energy production.

Personally, I believe that a combination of nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, and solar is the way to go. 

Dave

Edited September 21, 20205 yr by dave2013

8 hours ago, martin-w said:

As for disposal of batteries, there's a huge effort underway at present to recycle used batteries. Not to mention a big demand for so called "second life" batteries, whereby after the battery can no longer run a car (or aircraft) it has a long, useful life as a grid energy storage battery. 

Yes, that is true. I think the idea of "second life" batteries is a good one - more and more small, remote settlements, especially in third world countries can benefit greatly. 

Of course I rather suspect (my opinion) that some of the environmental policies in such countries conveniently brush over the proper disposal when the batteries are beyond their second life...

Don't get me wrong. I'm becoming more enamoured with the idea of electric transport as well due to the violent performance available:- I'd love a Zero SR-F sports bike, but the PRICE???? Oh my days! Way to go to NOT get people on board. The govt. should subsidise me to go green... Same goes for Tesla model S. Admittedly they're cheap compared to hypercars but still....

"Mark used to be such a petrol head, now he's gone all green with an electric car.." Then they see me laying two smoking lines of rubber as I launch the car, do the odd donut or stand there and smoke the rear tyre of the bike. On the slow side, I reckon electric 4WD off road vehicles would be ideal for green laning  (UK version of going out on the trail, kind of) once the range and charging times ave been greatly improved. All that instant torque readily available when needed.

You can take the internal combustion away from the hooligan, but there will be other ways.. 

Anyway back to aviation - I wonder if we'll see any blended wing models in the various sims, only becasue I like the look of them? A shame the Lionheart Boeing 797 wasn't fully converted for FSX or later... it does work but could be better.

8 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

So the airlines will have to focus on intercontinental travel and it is going to take a while for battery technology to be suitable for powering long range trips......

Back to the idea of running a turbine engine on hydrogen then? After all airliners are designed for carrying tons of volatile chemicals in close proximity to humans, hydrogen just has a bit more pep to it... OK a lot more pep..

Boeing have already managed to produce a zero emissions airliner, it's called the 737 MAX - the entire fleet of them has been producing no emissions for about a year. 🤣

16 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

The BEV technology is great (Disclosure - I own a Tesla Model Y

 

If only you knew how envious I am. 🙂 

16 hours ago, dave2013 said:

 

I do believe that hydrogen is a great clean energy source.  It can be made using nuclear energy to produce electricity which can then be used for the electrolysis to produce the gas.  Relatively clean and cheap.  If a safe storage method can be developed then I think it is a viable form of clean energy that can be used to power vehicles. 

 

 

Problem is Dave, nuclear has a somewhat lower carbon footprint but it's certainly not carbon free. Not to the extent renewables are. In addition, especially in the UK, it's now MUCH cheaper to build new wind power installations than new nuclear. Then there are the other issues of course, like the extreme environmental impact of uranium mining and the issue or waste storage. Hydrogen is "clean" if it's all created from renewables. It's not though, most hydrogen is manufactured form fossil fuels.

Hydrogen has a role to play for sure, for example for ships and large vehicles like busses and lorries. Trouble is, for cars, battery tech is way ahead in its development. Hydrogen would be playing catch up. Not to mention that to cerate the hydrogen infrastructure to fuel cars is financially prohibitive. 

 

Quote

I really don't see battery-powered airplanes, and even automobiles, becoming practical until higher energy density and much faster charging of the batteries can be achieved.

 

You are a bit behind the times Dave. Tesla cars can have a range over 300 miles and I don't know many people that drive for longer times periods than that, after all, we all need to get out and eat, empty our bladders and take a break. Dangerous not to. I should add, that there are new models about to hit the market with a 400 mile range. Then we have Elon's so called million mile battery, regrading lifespan of course.

Charge times for electric cars are as low as 30 mins at a supercharger. And of course not that relevant when most owners will be charging at home over night. 

As for aircraft, Eviation Alice is the longest range aircraft. Prototype currently. 1000 kilometres and caries 11 people. For longer ranges we will see the same development path as cars, namely hybrid for longer ranges until battery tech is advanced enough for extended ranges. Airbus of course are currently working on a regional aircraft that's a hybrid.  

 

Quote

Then there is the issue of the source of electricity to charge the batteries

 

Depends were you live. Here in the UK a high percentage of our power is generated by renewables. But here's the thing, internal, combustion engines are dreadfully inefficient, so even powering an electric car from a mains supply with minimal renewables is more efficient and cleaner.

 

Quote

 Solar panels sound great, but they require a lot of surface area in order to produce enough power to be of practical use. Millions of acres of land would have to be used for solar power plants to power the USA.  Rooftop solar panels can reduce the amount of land needed to some extent.  Wind turbines sound great, too, but it would take over 500,000 wind turbines to power the USA.  There's also the issue of power generation at night or when the wind isn't blowing, requiring large battery storage plants.  My point is that there is always a cost and trade-off for any type of energy production.

 

A lot of surface are required for solar panels if you are talking about centralised power generation, but the beauty of PV panels is in terms of installation on home owners roof's. Here in the UK, there are numerous such installation. A multitude down my road. Nobody is talking about, or would consider, acres and acres of PV cells to power the entire US, that would be bonkers and is not considered at all. 

 

Quote

Rooftop solar panels can reduce the amount of land needed to some extent. 

 

They certainly can. There are such things as PV solar power plants, but the primary role is on homeowners and businesses' roofs. 

 

Quote

Wind turbines sound great, too, but it would take over 500,000 wind turbines to power the USA.  There's also the issue of power generation at night or when the wind isn't blowing, requiring large battery storage plants. 

 

Nobody is suggesting the US install JUST wind turbines to power the entire country. That's not how it works. The point of renewables is that you install a mix of all forms or renewable energy. as for battery storage, the requirement for such isn't an issue. in fact grid scale battery storage is being installed all over the world as we speak. 

 

Quote

Personally, I believe that a combination of nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, and solar is the way to go.

 

That's precisely what most nations are doing. Except that here in the UK, wind power is now way cheaper than new nuclear.

 

Quote

 

Offshore wind power cheaper than new nuclear

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41220948

 

 

 

Quote

 

Even existing nuclear plants more expensive than renewables, admits World Nuclear Industry Status report

https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/renewables-faster-and-cheaper-than-nuclear-in-saving-the-climate/2-1-677669

 

 

Personally, I would have to say I'm not a fan of nuclear power. The true cost of nuclear power in terms of CO2 and environmental; damage is often hidden from us. 

 

 

Quote

 

False solution: Nuclear power is not 'low carbon'

https://theecologist.org/2015/feb/05/false-solution-nuclear-power-not-low-carbon

 

 

Quote

 

The Health and Environmental Impact of Uranium Mining

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph241/longstaff1/#:~:text=Uranium mining facilities produce tailings,and arsenic into the water.

 

21 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

First of all the whole commercial aviation sector has received a major setback because of COVID-19. It will probably take years to recover and it may lose market share permanently, during that period to automobiles and high speed rail. The technology of battery commercial aircraft is better suited for short hops, but unfortunately there is too much competition from other modes of travel.

And hydrogen is not viable at all except for space travel where it has a alternate function of producing potable water.  Hydrogen requires too much energy to produce, it is difficult to store and transport and it is dangerous to use in any type of vehicle due to leakage from its high pressure tanks.

I agree with you. It may never reach back to pre COVID operations. I have been a business traveler for years. Weekly on an aircraft. The last 6 months, I’m working from home using different technologies. Our customers have been doing the same. Companies are evaluating this as the norm going forward in business to reduce travel expenses. Business travelers were the majority of airline revenue. 

21 hours ago, dave2013 said:

The hydrogen-powered vehicle concept has been around for many years.  The problem is that it is a highly flammable gas and thus dangerous due to having to be stored in pressurized tanks which could leak or burst in an accident.

Personally, I believe that a combination of nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, and solar is the way to go.

Hydrogen as a fuel source is a dead-end.

• Not clean - volume production of hydrogen comes from steam methane reforming of fossil fuels which leads to CO2 and CO emissions
• Eye-wateringly expensive to manufacture
• 20% energy loss when transporting
• Average of 1% loss of viability for every day kept in storage for transportation
• Boil-off losses as high as 50%
• requires 2 - 3 times more energy to travel the same distance as an electric vehicle
• and, as you pointed out, there are safety issues, namely freeze burns, flammability and high explosive capability.

4 hours ago, martin-w said:

Problem is Dave, nuclear has a somewhat lower carbon footprint but it's certainly not carbon free. Not to the extent renewables are. In addition, especially in the UK, it's now MUCH cheaper to build new wind power installations than new nuclear. Then there are the other issues of course, like the extreme environmental impact of uranium mining and the issue or waste storage. Hydrogen is "clean" if it's all created from renewables. It's not though, most hydrogen is manufactured form fossil fuels.
[...]

 

Personally, I would have to say I'm not a fan of nuclear power. The true cost of nuclear power in terms of CO2 and environmental; damage is often hidden from us.

Renewables on paper do look fantastic.
However, there's the hidden cost of running back-up fossil fuel power stations due to high supply variability from renewable sources. Until such time we build high numbers of relatively local battery systems to hold surplus energy produced by PV panels and wind turbines, a dirty fuel back-up power station needs to run nearly constantly to provide the immediate swtich over should renewable supply fall due to low wind or low daylight.

Nuclear shouldn't be dismissed too quickly either. The problem to date has been the use of large, complicated, highly pressurised light-water reactors.
Potentially, the renaissance of development into smaller, more numerous molten salt reactors, can lead us to a win-win situation. The reactors are low pressure (no dangerous radioactive steam leaks), Plutonium is not a significant by-product (the rationale behind why leading nuclear nations ended Thorium reactor research during the 1970s) and some nuclear waste can be repurposed as fuel for this type of reactor.

It's not the whole answer to our energy needs (a diverse spread of energy sources is required), but it could be the most promising for large scale energy production.

2 hours ago, Camsdad13 said:

I agree with you. It may never reach back to pre COVID operations. I have been a business traveler for years. Weekly on an aircraft. The last 6 months, I’m working from home using different technologies. Our customers have been doing the same. Companies are evaluating this as the norm going forward in business to reduce travel expenses. Business travelers were the majority of airline revenue. 

In the short-term, yes, the travel industry is going to see awful numbers and a lot of job losses.
However, the short-term thinking surrounding video conferencing, work from home, end of commuting won't last in the mid-term as a lot of it will be seen to be the false economy that it is.

The lack of ability to see non-verbal cues of people on a screen, the reading of the room when conducting negotiations, the lack of informal work connections when colleagues share off-the-cuff thoughts and ideas, the inability to connect with previously unknown contacts at conferences...
These are the value-adding pieces to business success.

Having spent the last few months dealing with colleagues, suppliers and clients virtually, I can tell you that it isn't nearly as effective or productive.
I'm happy to place a bet with 'the-end-of-office-working' advocates that a rush to discard rented office space in 2020-21 is going to see a huge swing back in 2022 (obviously, this is Covid-19 vaccine dependent).

41 minutes ago, F737NG said:

In the short-term, yes, the travel industry is going to see awful numbers and a lot of job losses.
However, the short-term thinking surrounding video conferencing, work from home, end of commuting won't last in the mid-term as a lot of it will be seen to be the false economy that it is.

The lack of ability to see non-verbal cues of people on a screen, the reading of the room when conducting negotiations, the lack of informal work connections when colleagues share off-the-cuff thoughts and ideas, the inability to connect with previously unknown contacts at conferences...
These are the value-adding pieces to business success.

Having spent the last few months dealing with colleagues, suppliers and clients virtually, I can tell you that it isn't nearly as effective or productive.
I'm happy to place a bet with 'the-end-of-office-working' advocates that a rush to discard rented office space in 2020-21 is going to see a huge swing back in 2022 (obviously, this is Covid-19 vaccine dependent).

I hope you’re right and agree with you regarding virtual meetings. They are one dimensional. What I’m seeing especially with private equity owned companies is a shift to staying with virtual meetings and not having the travel expenditures. I’m arguing that face to face relationships have a better ROI. We shall see and I hope you’re right.