Electric and Hydrogen aeroplanes - feasibility and issues

Zoo Tycoon

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
777
Reaction score
1,303
The breaktrough technology is supposed to be the liquid H2, ……should be compact enough to be retrofitted in existing airframes. Hence their idea of converting an existing lightplane.

No, not really, LH2 can’t be stored in the wings which is where the kerosene normally goes. Fuselage storage leads to CoG problems unless the pax number is halved. Now your wing fatigue design doesn’t work as the fuel mass offsets the bending moment. Then there’s the problem of purging the leaked H2 from around the cabin tank, with H2/air extra large flammability range and min ignition energy it’s becomes explosive;- the Tu155 couldn’t do this even with a He purge system so they gave up after just 4 flights out of a planned 100 (note 96 further flights were undertaken with LPG)
 
Last edited:

Zoo Tycoon

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
777
Reaction score
1,303
, why is there not an interest in synthetic kerosine, using CO2 from the air or dairy farms and H2 from water and using windturbines and solar cells for production energy?

Extracting the CO2 from the air, and burning it during flight will result in a net zero emission.

The price at this moment is about 2 à 3 times the cost of regular kerosene

The practicality of extracting CO2 from air is being regularly grossly miss-represented by many self appointed, but clueless, technology strategist.

See https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/zero-carbon-fuel-pn-calum.37508/#post-485727

There are two types of people in green issues;-

1 those that do the maths and physics
&
2 those that think any green solution can be obtained in the same manner as order pizza.

Unfortunately type 2 people are getting a lot of air time.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
8,701
Reaction score
8,229
Interesting - somewhat aimed at the Cessna 208 Caravan market though it may wish to change the fuselage to offer more utility factors if that is the case.

vaeridion-e-flugzeug-electric-aircraft-2022-01-min.png

Vaeridion or very idiot ? (runs for cover)
 

FXXII

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
48
Reaction score
18
It will cost an enormous amount of money and effort to clean up the planet. CO2 emission world wide is aboout 36 10>9 ton. About 3 % is aviation, so you need to capture 1.2 10>8 ton CO2. Occidental Oil (Oxy) in Texas is building a plant which will extract 10>6 ton CO2 from the atmosphere. If that is used to produce synth. keros. you will need around 100 plants of that magnitude world wide. That is feasable in the next 10 to 15 years. From what I see in all the information is that the bottleneck is supplying green energy (windturbines and solar systems), not CO2 capture. Additional cost for the pax ticket will be around +100 $. So I'm not sure why the human race should be divided in those who order pizza's and those who do not.
 

Zoo Tycoon

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
777
Reaction score
1,303
It will cost an enormous amount of money and effort to clean up the planet. CO2 emission world wide is aboout 36 10>9 ton. About 3 % is aviation, so you need to capture 1.2 10>8 ton CO2. Occidental Oil (Oxy) in Texas is building a plant which will extract 10>6 ton CO2 from the atmosphere. If that is used to produce synth. keros. you will need around 100 plants of that magnitude world wide. That is feasable in the next 10 to 15 years. From what I see in all the information is that the bottleneck is supplying green energy (windturbines and solar systems), not CO2 capture. Additional cost for the pax ticket will be around +100 $. So I'm not sure why the human race should be divided in those who order pizza's and those who do not.

Commercial air travel used 95 billion gallons of Jet A in 2019 (ref1) which given the chemistry (ref2;- 3.07:1) produces close to a giga ton of CO2. (0.86 giga tons)

Now consider Carbon Engineerings Ltd (regarded as the most efficient in the business ) as described by Howard Herzog;-

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9uRHKnQ3b5s


My take on Howard’s message is that to remove a giga ton of CO2/year needs an air intake 10m high by approx. 5000km long. Additionally the process is horribly inefficient such that just the air induction alone would need the entire present day European electrical generating capacity which of course would have to be in itself Carbon zero.

I’m sorry but I just can’t get 100 bucks a ticket increase against a new build 5000Km long structure, in addition to replicating the entire European generating capacity in zero carbon just for air travel, and that’s before the system has even produced a drop of synthetic kerosene.

Sorry for the rather grim maths but I’m sure you’ll be able to explain the error in Howard’s and my understanding.
(BTW 1 your figure for annual JET A is a factor of about 10 out but the wrong way
BTW 2 the only similar length man made structure, the Great Wall of China, was four times longer but took 2300years to build)

Ref 1 - https://www.statista.com/statistics/655057/fuel-consumption-of-airlines-worldwide/

Ref 2-
 
Last edited:

alberchico

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 14, 2014
Messages
317
Reaction score
548

At least the Chinese are making steady progress with large unmanned aircraft. It has a conventional powerplant, but is still an intriguing project.
 

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
4,699
Reaction score
3,878
Website
beyondthesprues.com
 

Nicknick

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 12, 2021
Messages
269
Reaction score
144
, why is there not an interest in synthetic kerosine, using CO2 from the air or dairy farms and H2 from water and using windturbines and solar cells for production energy?

Extracting the CO2 from the air, and burning it during flight will result in a net zero emission.

The price at this moment is about 2 à 3 times the cost of regular kerosene

The practicality of extracting CO2 from air is being regularly grossly miss-represented by many self appointed, but clueless, technology strategist.

See https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/zero-carbon-fuel-pn-calum.37508/#post-485727

There are two types of people in green issues;-

1 those that do the maths and physics
&
2 those that think any green solution can be obtained in the same manner as order pizza.

Unfortunately type 2 people are getting a lot of air time.
this is to pessimistic, as can be seen on my table:


from electricity and air to Methanol, Methan, DME the effeciency is around 50 %. Using water instead of air as source for CO2 will be very likely more efficient (there is a link here about a project of producing jet fuel on nuclear aircraft carrier).

lease see also:

we should go on with that in the old thread an not continue here...
 

Nicknick

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 12, 2021
Messages
269
Reaction score
144
This concept is much more feasable than battery electric planes. The storage volume in the wings is higher than in cars, here it is about 0,85 m³ (which is totally realistic).
 

Similar threads

Top