Below are the comments posted to this message thread:
https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/pipistrel-flies-liquid-hydrogen-demonstrator/
75 COMMENTS
Arthur J Foyt September 11, 2023 At 8:40 am
Bending the English language to the point of calling this an
“emissions-free” flight or calling H2 a “sustainable fuel” is a lie by omission.
Reply
Igor Pfajfar September 11, 2023 At 8:58 am
Emmission-free. Yes, that’s the real question. True, it doesn’t have
direct emissions. Emphasis is on DIRECT. Emissions in all these ”eco”-
and ”sustainable” are usually just off-set. Clear of view, clear of
mind.
H2 is mostly produced from fossil fuel. Shocking discovery, right? Just
a small portion is produced by electrolysis.
Untill we have surplus of sustainably produced electricity H2 will not
be a viable source. To be more precise, it will ectually never be a
source, just an intermediary.
Reply
LDighera September 11, 2023 At 10:26 am
Dear Mr. Foyt,
Apparently you missed this bit of information about the flight’s use of green-hydrogen:
https://www.h2-view.com/story/h2fly-completes-worlds-first-manned-liquid-hydrogen-flight-with-fuel-cell-aircraft/
“Fuelled with green hydrogen produced by Air Liquide at its French
liquefaction facility, […]”
Green hydrogen is hydrogen produced by the electrolysis of water, using renewable electricity such as photovoltaics (solar).
Best regards,
Larry Dighera
Reply
Rush S. September 11, 2023 At 11:16 am
Interesting read, thanks for posting the link. Here’s a bit more on Air Liquide:
http://www.airliquide.com/hydrogen-everything-you-need-know-7-questions
Reply
LDighera September 11, 2023 At 5:50 pm
Thanks you for your gratitude.
Here are more links:
*
https://www.h2-view.com/story/h2fly-completes-worlds-first-manned-liquid-hydrogen-flight-with-fuel-cell-aircraft/
*
https://heaven-fch-project.eu/heaven-newsletter-06/
*
https://www.futureflight.aero/news-article/2023-04-06/h2fly-tests-liquid-hydrogen-refueling-process-hy4-technology-demonstrator
*
https://aerospace.honeywell.com/us/en/about-us/press-release/2023/01/honeywell-launches-disruptive-research-on-hydrogen-fuel-cells-for-aircraft
*
https://www.flyingmag.com/joby-backed-firm-completes-piloted-flights-of-liquid-hydrogen-powered-aircraft/
*
https://www.mrobusinesstoday.com/joby-subsidiary-h2fly-flies-first-piloted-liquid-hydrogen-electric-jet/
*
https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/features/why-hydrogen-as-an-aviation-fuel-is-in-for-the-long-haul.html
*
Reply
Arthur J Foyt September 11, 2023 At 11:18 am
You can produce H2 with hydro/solar, but liquefying it to -423F takes
even more energy than you get back by using it. That, and the huge
losses due to venting means it is an energy loser. Energy losers are
not “sustainable”. That makes it a lie by omission.
Reply
LDighera September 11, 2023 At 2:59 pm
If the energy used to produce H2 is free sunlight, and you use sunlight
to power the cryocooler to liquefy H2, the energy used is of little
importance; it’s virtually free.
With regard to H2 venting, given the fact that the Space Shuttle was
powered with LH2, its use has a proven record of feasibility.
Today’s Dewar technology will store cryogenic liquids for many months.
Reply
Igor Pfajfar September 11, 2023 At 4:22 pm
This might be in this case, generally most of H2 is produced from
fossil fuels.
Production of H2 is highl energy intensive.
Commendable that you use solar energy for production.
What people most often overlook is energy ballance. It takes much more
energy to produce H2 than the energy reclaimed. And then there is a
”small” matter of compression and storage. That takes a lot of energy.
Another minor problem is storage. I won’t even try to aproach the
problems of cooling. H2 is the smallest gas mollecule and as such
requires pretty expensive, nonporous materials. But you know that,
right?
The old Eric W September 11, 2023 At 5:38 pm
Not so fast!
A recent study showed that communist Chinese solar panels (indirectly subsidized by the USA and others) have such a huge CO2 footprint they
will not ever make it back up with solar energy production. They burn
coal to make them, and don’t do it very efficiently at that.
At this point, you’d think there would be a LOT of emergency research
into real CO2 output and a pause on government meddling in the markets
so as to do no more harm. I won’t hold my breath.
LDighera September 11, 2023 At 8:22 pm
With regard to:
“The old Eric W
September 11, 2023 At 5:38 pm
A recent study showed that communist Chinese solar panels (indirectly subsidized by the USA and others ) have such a huge CO2 footprint they
will not ever make it back up with solar energy production. They burn
coal to make them, and don’t do it very efficiently at that.”
Environmental pollution resulting from phototaic panel manufacture
dwindles to insignificance when amortized over their useful life.
Typically, electrical output is reduced to 80% in the span of twenty-
five years.
Eric W, are you certain you want to bring finincial subsidies into the discussion? ?
The old Eric W September 12, 2023 At 9:01 pm
I’m happy to talk about subsidies, if you can be honest about what
subsidies are. I’m pretty sure I know where you are going, and if you
believe that BS, you need to fact check those Marxist demagogues you’ve
been believing without checking.
LDighera September 13, 2023 At 2:23 pm
Year Federal Petroleum Subsidy Estimate (in billions of USD)
2019 $475.6
2018 $377.3
2017 $331.2
2016 $286.5
2015 $244.1
2014 $209.2
2013 $177.3
2012 $147.8
2011 $122.3
2010 $98.7
2009 $85.6
2008 $73.9
2007 $63.7
2006 $55.2
2005 $48.3
2004 $42.9
2003 $38.7
2002 $35.3
2001 $32.5
2000 $29.9
It’s worth noting that these estimates do not account for all forms of
federal petroleum subsidies, only those related to exploration,
production, and refining. Other forms of subsidies, such as tax credits
and deductions, are also available but are not included in these
estimates.
Richard Phillips September 12, 2023 At 4:06 pm
Oh, please. Can we make as much as we want, without relying on digging
stuff out of the ground? Yes. Thus, sustainable.
Can we make it with renewable energy? Already have. So, at scale, can
be carbon neutral. Thus, green.
ALL forms of converted energy put out less than what it took to make
them. That is true of all fossil fuels, as well.
Reply
LDighera September 12, 2023 At 7:05 pm
Namibia Signs $10 Billion Green Energy Deal With Germany’s Hyphen
https://www.voanews.com/a/namibia-signs-10-billion-green-energy-deal-with-germany-s-hyphen-/7118163.html
The old Eric W September 12, 2023 At 9:05 pm
Who is we? What is want?
If we is the World population, and want is an American, or even UK
level of lifestyle, then no, we cannot currently do that without petro.
We won’t be able to for decades. Maybe a couple decades if the
governments of all the top tier countries get very serious about
nuclear right now.
LDighera September 13, 2023 At 9:42 am
The world is already moving toward large scale Green Hydrogen
production. Google: Namibia Signs $10 Billion Green Energy Deal With
Germany’s Hyphen.
Rich K #2. September 14, 2023 At 8:08 am
Compare the source of the electrolosis energy- nuclear? Coal? Natural
gas?
If nuclear- cool. Otherwise, wasted energy making the hydrogen.
Reply
LDighera September 14, 2023 At 11:53 am
How would you suggest electricity be stored for use to power an
aircraft at a later time?
Reply
JimH in CA September 11, 2023 At 10:45 am
The emissions from a fuel cell is water vapor, a much more powerful
‘green house’ gas than CO2. So, what are they ‘saving’ ?
These ‘renewable’ fuels are hardly emissions free. They all require
fossil fueled equipment to produce the machinery to that produces the solar/wind hardware.!
CO2 is not a problem since there is no ‘climate crisis’.
Reply
LDighera September 11, 2023 At 3:42 pm
Implicit in your thesis is the notion that it is not possible to
recover the pure H2O produced by fuel-cells. Or, did I miss something?
Reply
JimH in CA September 11, 2023 At 4:05 pm
Since fuel cells operate at elevated temperatures of up to 200 degC,
the H2O is a vapor when emitted.
It could certainly be condensed back to a liquid state.
Reply
Ed Fix September 11, 2023 At 12:34 pm
Hydrogen is not an energy source, it’s an energy storage medium. The
energy ultimately has to come from somewhere else.
Reply
LDighera September 11, 2023 At 3:55 pm
You are correct. The storage of electricity has been a fundimental
issue since its discovery, that has yet to be satisfactorially resolved
in a general way.
It was the attempt to store electricity that lead to Dutch scientist
Pieter van Musschenbroek of Leiden (Leyden), Netherlands to develop the
“Leyden Jar” in 1745. He was attempting to “pour” high-voltage static
charge into a glass vessle …
Reply
Richard Phillips September 12, 2023 At 4:08 pm
Sort of getting “semanticky” here. Is oil from the ground an energy
source? You can go up a level or two and say “sun!” … or ultimately,
“big bang!”
Reply
mcapocci@yahoo.com September 11, 2023 At 12:37 pm
That completely depend on the source of H2. Solar power is now the
cheapest source of electricity to the point where others (Toyota) have determined that it may be better to use H2 made from same in IC engines
vs Batteries to power autos.
Current Cost at the site in California w/o tax subsidies for
Electricity is 3 cent per KWH. the factors to $ 1.50 used for a one Kg
which is a one gallon of gasoline energy Eq. 127 Mj for gasoline 1
gallon vs 141 Mj for 1 kg of H2. so it is actually closer tio 1.25 a
gallon for energy neede to make the theoretical gallon of fuel
equivalent.
Reply
JimH in CA September 11, 2023 At 4:10 pm
Where do I sign up for that 3 ct per kWhr ? PG&E is charging $0.36 per
kWhr, and $0.40+ over the baseline of 360 kWhr ?
20 years ago, before CA installed huge amounts of solar pv and wind,
PG&E was charging me $0.13 per kWhr.
utility scale solar pv and wind is a huge boondoggle for the mfgr and installers. !!!
Reply
R N September 12, 2023 At 11:13 am
Better than the billions ExxonMobil Royal Dutch She’ll eat al?
Reply
Ron E September 11, 2023 At 9:19 am
Just saw a lengthy documentary last night on the hydrogen powered
Hindenburg. Didn’t work out too well for them. Probably different
hydrogen……….. Ready for incoming
Reply
Will Alibrandi September 11, 2023 At 10:03 am
Was waiting for a Hindenburg reference to pop up. That ship used
hydrogen gas, not liquid-state hydrogen which is much safer from what
I’ve read.
Reply
JimH in CA September 11, 2023 At 10:36 am
The hydrogen was use in the lift bags…a lighter-than-air dirigible. The
US would not sell helium to the Germans.
For propulsion, it used a number of diesel engines.
Reply
mcapocci@yahoo.com September 11, 2023 At 12:38 pm
Hinderburg was Diesel fuels. H2 was used for lift.
Reply
Don Lineback September 11, 2023 At 9:43 am
That is great! We can just head over to the Hydrogen store and buy some
liquid that is cheaper than gas. Airports are just going to love
storing that stuff for pilots who may never show up!
Reply
Rush S. September 11, 2023 At 12:43 pm
Not quite yet, but Air Liquide is working on the infrastructure. Note
that Air Liquide is not a niche company focused on iffy technology but
a major player in gas production and supply.
Universal Hydrogen takes a similar approach. From their website:
“We are building a flexible, scalable, and capital-light approach to
hydrogen logistics by transporting it in modular capsules over the
existing freight network from green production sites to airports around
the world. At the airport, the modules are loaded directly into the
aircraft using existing cargo handling equipment. No new infrastructure
is needed. Starting with regional airplanes, we are also developing
conversion kits to retrofit the existing fleet with a hydrogen fuel
cell powertrain.”
I wonder if A.L. is using a similar approach. I saw one shot of the
A.L. supplied aluminum tank in the Pipistrel – it looked like it could
be readily swapped out.
Reply
The old Eric W September 11, 2023 At 5:42 pm
Air Liquide does not have a very good corporate reputation in Houston,
where they have a major presence. Employees and customers generally
don’t have much good things to say. As a former vendor, I found them
unusually hard to deal with.
Reply
Rob September 11, 2023 At 9:58 am
This is pretty cool. The challenge with green energy (solar, wind,
tidal, and (to some extent) nuclear) is that the operator loses direct
control over the amount of power being generated. Hydrogen production
is one way to absorb excess energy and save it for later. While there
is clearly a lot of development left to go (that’s an awfully big two-
place airplane) and cryogenics aren’t going to be at the self serve
pump anytime soon. But this could be significant step towards bringing
the energy density of hydrogen into a usable range… something batteries
have yet to achieve.
To the naysayers, I can see you sitting on the sand at Kitty Hawk in
October of 1902 complaining that “Those two boys are idiots. That
stupid thing doesn’t even have an engine. They should go back to
building bicycles. What are they going to do… pedal that thing?”
Reply
JOHN K. September 11, 2023 At 11:18 am
These alternative energy paths strike me as being much like the WW-I &
-II era efforts in Sweden and other petrol-starved countries to operate vehicles on wood or charcoal. The “gasifiers” used to do this produced
carbon monoxide gas which could power an internal combustion engine and
allow operations to continue, albeit with major downsides comparable to
those being faced today. They were “usable” in the sense that they
worked, but…
Reply
LDighera September 11, 2023 At 3:24 pm
If history serves, the challenge will likely be the politics of the
petroleum industry losing control of energy production, much as is
beginning with domestic solar electricity generation.
I can foresee a future in which each home has a rooftop photovoltaic
generation system, and ultimately a H2 liquefaction and storage system,
and a bank of fuel-cells.
The redundancy inherent in such a decentralized system would be very
much appreciated in the event of a disaster ….
Reply
The old Eric W September 11, 2023 At 5:45 pm
Your future better include nuclear plants to provide energy to make the
panels as well as some serious battery innovations.
Reply
Tom C September 11, 2023 At 11:01 pm
I live in a comfortable 2000 sqft suburban home on a 1/5 acre plot, in
a very quiet neighborhood. Sure, I can get a second mortgage to pay for
my power generation & storage equipment, not sure if a second basement
would be an option to build it.
Reply
svanarts September 11, 2023 At 10:11 am
Any thoughtful reply to this article requires a meme *. Since we can’t
post graphics here I shall refrain.
* The meme would be directed at the subject of the article not the
author.
Reply
LDighera September 11, 2023 At 12:09 pm
I apologize for posting in this message thread, but are you able to
provide information on how to upload an avatar. I couldn’t find it in
my Account Details page, nor the FAQ. I was also unable to find a way
to contact you directly.
Reply
JOHN K. September 11, 2023 At 1:45 pm
Yes, I see one appear from time to time. If one of those who has found
a path to doing this could post the info, it would a nice public
service for the group.
Reply
Erik September 11, 2023 At 10:17 am
“Pipistrel claims the use of liquid hydrogen instead of compressed
hydrogen gas doubles the range of the aircraft to about 800 nautical
miles.” Looking forward to Pipistrel developing this technology further
towards a future 800 NM flight. That’s roughly the range of a C172; and
if we can scale petroleum from C172 range and speed to long haul range
and speed perhaps the same will be possible with the hydrogen burning
jet engines currently being researched. As to how hydrogen fuel can be
produced with little emissions, electrolysis powered by any number of
energy sources (wind, solar, hydro [to take advantage of the storage of
surplus power a la Rob’s comment], or likely the cheapest option,
nuclear) are available today. What I’m not aware of (and what would
make for a great avweb article) is what the potential economics of a
hydrogen based airplane might be.
Reply
John B September 11, 2023 At 10:18 am
Liquid hydrogen may be viable – in many years to come. Currently, it is
riddled with so many issues that yes, you can make it work (as seen
here) but it is so far from practicality that it borders on absurd. It
takes a lot of energy to produce it and much more to liquefy it and
store it, not to mention the hazards of handling. Researchers at (I
think) Michigan State have been experimenting with using liquid ammonia
as a fuel. Rich in hydrogen (NH4), simple to produce, store, and
handle, it has promises. Never rule one out, but be practical.
Reply
LDighera September 11, 2023 At 10:29 am
How would you characterize viability of the Wright Flyer after its
first flight? ?
Reply
John Mc September 11, 2023 At 1:13 pm
Well, I hate to “rain on your parade”, but ammonia probably isn’t the
fuel of the future.
Yes, ammonia will burn, and it is easier to liquefy (requiring only -40
degrees of refrigeration, versus -420 degrees), but there are a few
little problems. First, it is highly toxic to humans. Second, it
produces large volumes of oxides of nitrogen when burned. Combined with
the water from the combustion, it will create nitric acid and other
corrosive compounds that would likely eat engine and exhaust system
materials. Third, forget trying to use it in a fuel cell to make
electricity. But at least, it will be easy to detect a leak, given its
very pungent odor.
Reply
LDighera September 11, 2023 At 10:48 am
The potential of LH2 powered flight is awesome, given this fact:
The gravimetric energy density of a fuel is the amount of energy that
can be released by a given mass of
fuel. It is typically measured in megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg) 12.
Liquid hydrogen has a gravimetric energy density of 141.8 MJ/kg 3. In comparison, gasoline has a
gravimetric energy density of 46 MJ/kg 13. Therefore, liquid hydrogen
has a 300%+ higher gravimetric
energy density than gasoline.
However, at this point in development, the efficiency of electrolysis
is ~70-80%, and the efficiency of fuel-cells is about ~60%.
What makes electric motive power of automobiles and aircraft viable
today is the dismal ~20% efficiency of internal-combustion engines.
Reply
LDighera September 11, 2023 At 12:04 pm
I neglected to mention that electric motors are ~98% efficient.
Reply
Arthur J Foyt September 11, 2023 At 7:12 pm
Well, you have to expend 4x the energy to create liquid H2 and then
practical use means you waste half of that to venting; Gasoline looks
to be at least 3x better as far as a practical fuel. Again the “lie of omission” is that liquid H2 is a terrible liquid fuel for practical
use.
Reply
LDighera September 11, 2023 At 9:06 pm
I’m not being intentionally obtuse, but “4x the energy” of what?
Are you implying it requires four times the energy contained within the
LH2 liquified from solar-powered H2O electrolysis and liquified with
cryocooler technology, to produce it? If so, please cite empirical
research that supports such an assertion.
With regard to LH2 venting, vented H2 is easily recaptured for re-
liquefaction with a simple hood above the containment vessel, as H2 is significantly lighter than air, or perhaps a cryocooler within the
Dewer.
As has been discussed elsewhere in these comments, when gasoline was at
the stage LH2 is currently, it too was thought impracticable. It takes
time for technology to develop.
I’ll grant you there are many technological challenges to address
concerning the practicality of LH2, but I see evidence they are slowly
being overcome.
Thank you for providing your viewpoint.
Reply
Arthur J Foyt September 11, 2023 At 9:49 pm
I’m saying that since it’s NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE that it’s a lie to
say that it is. Q.E.D.
Reply
Raymond Fraze September 11, 2023 At 11:18 am
Bit disappointed in the lack of history and technology in some of the
comments. In 1912 30% of the automobiles were electric. Gasoline was combustible, explosive under the right conditions and considered
dangerous. There were no gas stations (infrastructure) and electric
battery powered automobiles were considered the future. The problem
with both systems was distance. Automobiles were good for around town
but not between cities. Then along came this guy named Rockefeller and
he had all these oil wells and he got together with this other guy
named Ford and then the two of them talked to Vanderbilt who controlled
the railroads and they built the infrastructure for petroleum powered automobiles. They paid farmers and such to store gasoline drums along
dirt roads and sell it to drivers. These men created the infrastructure
we have today, it just didn’t happen! I did a study for a client on
this historical process a few years back. One of the biggest concerns
was that the safety of pumping a flammable product would require people
to be trained for safety, just such things as we do today when we
ground our airplanes. Think Hydrogen is this nasty explosive fuel and
100LL is a safe non-flammable fuel? Really? If we were switching our
automobile fuel from electric to gasoline presently, people would not
be allowed to fuel their vehicles. Some attendant in a fireproof suit
would saunder out, ground your vehicle after you got out and pump the
gasoline for you. You can read all about the creation of the gasoline infrastructure and the demise of electric cars. I found it very
interesting including the creation of our national highway system.
There are many interesting historical articles about this. Keep an open
mind.
Reply
Rush S. September 11, 2023 At 12:01 pm
Interesting comment; thanks for the post.
With respect to how we’d treat gasoline pumping if it had just been
introduced: Imagine proposing an infrastructure which would allow cars
to legally travel on the same road, in opposite directions, with a
closing speed of over 100mph, only yards (or feet!) between them, and
with nothing to protect them except a dotted line on the highway and a
driver who’s supposed to know the rules…
Maybe a quarter mile between opposed carlanes, with GTC (Ground Traffic control) controlling the on-ramps?
Reply
Raymond Fraze September 11, 2023 At 3:09 pm
I know. One rocket fueler from Vandenberg commented to me that the gas
station attendant would have a haz mat degree and a SCAPE suit. ?
Reply
LDighera September 11, 2023 At 3:38 pm
The Vandenberg fueler’s commant was obviously meant tongue-in-cheek, as
today there exist H2 fueling stations at which motorists refueling
their Toyotas require no special apparel.
Reply
William September 11, 2023 At 12:23 pm
Hydrogen fuel cells are superior to batteries and the only current
viable way to make electric airplanes practical and functional as the
weight of batteries is a non-starter in aviation.
BUT its still unnecessary.
Jet A remains cheap and plentiful and has existing infrastructure. We
have generations of oil left in the ground. Drill, pump, refine,
repeat. Problem solved.
Reply
JimH in CA September 11, 2023 At 4:14 pm
Amen.!!!
Reply
David Gagliardi September 11, 2023 At 12:27 pm
Battery powered electric aircraft will always be limited to small short
haul planes unless somebody changes the laws of physics.
Hydrogen seems to be the only viable path to larger, longer ranged
electric aircraft. I doubt I will ever fly on one in my lifetime but I
am sure the technology will eventually become commercially viable.
Reply
Larry S September 11, 2023 At 1:23 pm
All these ‘sustainable energy’ schemes are little more than diversions
from reality. There is no free lunch no matter what you do. If
something is moving, energy was used in one way or another to build it
and fuel it. No one ever talks about the real problem. There are too
many humans clomping around the earth. It can be calculated how much
energy it takes to feed, clothe, house, move and even bury each. Anyone
trying to tell me that a hydrogen powered airplane is gonna “save” the
planet is full of … well … beans … aka bravo sierra.
Reply
William September 11, 2023 At 2:19 pm
I’d add the planet doe not need saving. It was here before Man was
created and will be here after we are done.
Reply
Bibocas Bibocas September 11, 2023 At 2:53 pm
That’s the first comment with the all truth I’ve read in this space
related to topic. If (and only if) there’s a change in climate caused
by humans that will, soon or later, cause the death to all of them,
earth, as a planet containing forms of life will survive and those form
will survive too and a new reality will appear. In that virtualization,
humans are spared and they deserve that.
Reply
J Bridges September 11, 2023 At 1:38 pm
Food for thought: If we keep reducing the amount of CO2 currently being produced by everything; will the Trees, plants and phytoplankton still
be able to produce enough oxygen to keep 8+ billion people alive and
well?
Reply
Rush S. September 11, 2023 At 2:17 pm
Fortunately, politicians, punsters, and Monday morning quarterbacks
will provide an unending supply of waste gas.
Reply
Larry S September 11, 2023 At 2:40 pm
That’s precisely the issue, J B. Small percentage (relative) of
increased levels of co2 help plants to produce MORE food for what is essentially becoming a population too big for the earth to sustain.
Trying to build vehicles to move humans around without producing co2 is
like a cat chasing its tail in a circle. Ridiculous. Reduction in so
called greenhouse gases or decarbonization of the planet is nothing
more than a scam by governments and politicians trying to control the
masses.
Reply
Bill September 11, 2023 At 3:03 pm
I agree with Larry!
Every “thing” that damages the environment is a function of humans.
More humans equals more demand on the environment. No way around that.
Unless and until “environmentalists” go back to working on “Zero
Population Growth” they have no credibility.
In this case the issue isn’t that hydrogen has worked, but that the
folks working on it and supporting it are touting it as “the answer.”
If you think it’s the answer you’re not looking deeply enough.
I’m glad it’s been done and I’d like to see them keep working on it,
but depending what changes and how it changes (because everything
changes sometime) this may be pointless in the end. But it is worth
exploring.
But y’all go easy on those of us who fail to jump on the “Rah-Rah! This
is the answer!” bandwagon right now. We’re just seeing things y’all
aren’t – or are ignoring.
Reply
LDighera September 11, 2023 At 4:06 pm
We humans must start viewing the biosphere as a closed system (among
other things).
Reply
Larry S September 12, 2023 At 12:37 am
Here ya go, LDig … if ya want to save the planet, don’t build a H2
powered airplane … just stop mowing your lawn:
msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/home-and-garden/mind-blowing-side-by-side- photos-reveal-the-hidden-cost-of-mowing-your-lawn-now-this-is- interesting/ar-AA1eNLET?
The old Eric W September 11, 2023 At 5:49 pm
I want to congratulate pipistrel for once again finding an excellent
use for an airplane, the Taurus, which seems to be able to do
everything. Different variations of this plane have won all sorts of
contests and set all sorts of records.
Just none of them sales records. Maybe they should figure out if they
can make a version that people will buy to fly around in.
Reply
LDighera September 11, 2023 At 9:32 pm
Pipistrel has sold around 100 Velis Electro electric planes since its
launch in 2020.
Pipistrel had delivered 100 aircraft of the microlight glider Taurus
family by 2011.
Given the niche market, I’d say Pipistrel’s sales record is stellar.
Their mere continued existence is a testament to their sustainability,
in the face of a difficult market.
Reply
The old Eric W September 11, 2023 At 9:44 pm
I’m not knocking anything here except lack of sales for what seems to
be an excellent design. 100 isn’t a lot.
I was not happy they sold to Textron, and not surprised that hasn’t
resulted in better sales.
I’ve not sat in any of their aircraft, but I suspect they are missing
something in the marketing department.
Reply
Arthur J Foyt September 11, 2023 At 6:39 pm
LDighera said:
“and you use sunlight to power the cryocooler to liquefy H2”
—–Nope. Solar is already being used on the grid. If you take it away
for this project then you back-fill with traditional oil/gas/coal to
make up for it for this. That’s another lie by omission.
“With regard to H2 venting, given the fact that the Space Shuttle was
powered with LH2, its use has a proven record of feasibility.”
—–Nope, it’s venting so much that ice builds up on the structure before
launch. Shuttle launches are a poster boy of waste when it comes to H2.
Just because it’s feasible does not make it sane to use.
Reply
David Bunin September 12, 2023 At 9:48 am
“ it’s venting so much that ice builds up on the structure “
I don’t disagree with your premise, but it’s a strange use of ‘so
much’. It doesn’t take much to get moisture and even ice out of the
Florida atmosphere.
Reply
Arthur J Foyt September 12, 2023 At 10:36 am
Point is main tank is open to the atmosphere and has to be connected
full time to an LH source until liftoff. H2 cars in Europe are banned
from parking garages for this same reason! Any airplane will need to be completely UNFILLED before you can put it in a hangar.
Reply
LDighera September 11, 2023 At 10:12 pm
This $10-Billion Desert Solar Green Hydrogen Megaproject typifies the
current worldwide trend toward LH2 production:
https://youtu.be/J4d-f7aHXOY?si=icGbA6pfjrk2GL4a
Reply
David Bunin September 12, 2023 At 9:44 am
Video total of 1:28. Of that, 1:14 is the airplane turning around on
the ramp and taxiing in the direction of the runway. Then 14 seconds of
footage of the airplane flying away from the traffic pattern. No
footage of the actual takeoff, none of the landing. Lame video.
Reply
LEAVE A REPLY
On Mon, 2023-09-11 at 10:34 -0700, Larry Dighera wrote:
THE WORLD'S FIRST MANNED LH2 POWERED FUEL-CELL ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT!
The potential of LH2 powered flight is awesome, given this fact:
The gravimetric energy density of a fuel is the amount of energy that
can be released by a given mass of
fuel. It is typically measured in megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg) 12.
Liquid hydrogen has a gravimetric energy density of 141.8 MJ/kg 3. In comparison, gasoline has a
gravimetric energy density of 46 MJ/kg 13. Therefore, liquid hydrogen
has a 300%+ higher gravimetric
energy density than gasoline.
However, at this point in development, the efficiency of electrolysis
is ~70-80%, and the efficiency of fuel-cells is about ~60%.
What makes electric motive power of automobiles and aircraft viable
today is the dismal ~20% efficiency of internal-combustion engines
compared to electric motors ~98% efficiency.
https://www.h2-view.com/story/h2fly-completes-worlds-first-manned-liquid-hydrogen-flight-with-fuel-cell-aircraft/
“Fueled with green hydrogen produced by Air Liquide at its French liquefaction facility, […]”
Green hydrogen is hydrogen produced by the electrolysis of water,
using
renewable electricity such as photovoltaics (solar).
===================================================================== https://www.h2-view.com/story/h2fly-completes-worlds-first-manned-liquid-hydrogen-flight-with-fuel-cell-aircraft/
H2FLY completes world’s ‘first’ manned liquid hydrogen flight with
fuel
cell aircraft
By Charlie Currie
on Sep 07, 2023
Germany’s H2FLY has completed the world’s “first” manned liquid hydrogen-powered flight of a fuel cell electric aircraft in a
demonstration in Maribor, Slovenia.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)