Airbus: Hydrogen Powered Airliners by 2035
#11
New Hire
Joined APC: Mar 2021
Posts: 3
FedEx Commits to Carbon-Neutral Operations...
FedEx announced their operations will be carbon neutral by 2040.
I thought this was an impossible goal. I can see all ground equipment complying, but am dubious about the aircraft.
Could this be part of their plans?
FedEx Commits to Carbon-Neutral Operations by 2040
https://newsroom.fedex.com/newsroom/sustainability2021/
I thought this was an impossible goal. I can see all ground equipment complying, but am dubious about the aircraft.
Could this be part of their plans?
FedEx Commits to Carbon-Neutral Operations by 2040
https://newsroom.fedex.com/newsroom/sustainability2021/
#12
FedEx announced their operations will be carbon neutral by 2040.
I thought this was an impossible goal. I can see all ground equipment complying, but am dubious about the aircraft.
Could this be part of their plans?
FedEx Commits to Carbon-Neutral Operations by 2040
https://newsroom.fedex.com/newsroom/sustainability2021/
I thought this was an impossible goal. I can see all ground equipment complying, but am dubious about the aircraft.
Could this be part of their plans?
FedEx Commits to Carbon-Neutral Operations by 2040
https://newsroom.fedex.com/newsroom/sustainability2021/
#15
Why not? They’ve bough in to stupider ideas than that...
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...olitics-477620
#16
Why not? They’ve bough in to stupider ideas than that...
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...olitics-477620
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...olitics-477620
#17
Don’t know that THAT would be a realistic concern. If anything it might increase the albedo a little, reflecting solar energy back up and decreasing global warming. But in any event, it’s difficult to see where a combustion product of water would be worse than a combustion product of water, CO2, oxides of Sulfur, Oxides of Nitrogen, unburned fuel, and soot, which are the products of combustion of Jet A.
#18
Don’t know that THAT would be a realistic concern. If anything it might increase the albedo a little, reflecting solar energy back up and decreasing global warming. But in any event, it’s difficult to see where a combustion product of water would be worse than a combustion product of water, CO2, oxides of Sulfur, Oxides of Nitrogen, unburned fuel, and soot, which are the products of combustion of Jet A.
There's a graph in this article:
https://jpenhall.wordpress.com/2012/...-water-vapour/
Carbon-neutral SAF might actually be better for global warming than H2.
Also considering the stoichiometric process Jet A combustion produces only C02 and water vapor. The other pollutants are the results of impurities or catalytic processes involving atmospheric N2.
An H2 combustion of an equivalent amount of O2 would produce more H2O than Jet A and zero carbon... so while you're reducing the carbon you emit more H2O than before so now that's significant for greenhouse purposes. The other pollutants need to be considered too of course, but there's no equation to compare/contrast C02 vs. smog pollution... that's in the eye of the beholder.
#19
New Hire
Joined APC: Apr 2021
Posts: 2
"What is the Disadvantage of Hydrogen Fuel Cells?
Hydrogen Extraction
Despite being the most abundant element in the Universe, hydrogen does not exist on its own so needs to be extracted from water via electrolysis or separated from carbon fossil fuels. Both of these processes require a significant amount of energy to achieve. This energy can be more than that gained from the hydrogen itself as well as being expensive. In addition, this extraction typically requires the use of fossil fuels, which undermines the green credentials of hydrogen."
Source: https://www.twi-global.com/technical...gen-fuel-cells
Those who claim that hydrogen is the future of fuels for: "trains, planes and automobiles" do not know physics and chemistry.
Hydrogen Extraction
Despite being the most abundant element in the Universe, hydrogen does not exist on its own so needs to be extracted from water via electrolysis or separated from carbon fossil fuels. Both of these processes require a significant amount of energy to achieve. This energy can be more than that gained from the hydrogen itself as well as being expensive. In addition, this extraction typically requires the use of fossil fuels, which undermines the green credentials of hydrogen."
Source: https://www.twi-global.com/technical...gen-fuel-cells
Those who claim that hydrogen is the future of fuels for: "trains, planes and automobiles" do not know physics and chemistry.
#20
I've done some homework on this, since it seemed pretty far-out for airbus...
I was right. The genesis of this "project" is that it was actually a condition imposed on airbus by some euro-politicians (who are probably not physicists or engineers).
The fine print is that airbus expects longer-range aircraft will still require conventional liquid fuel of some sort (presumably SAF) due to the energy density limitations of H2.
I was right. The genesis of this "project" is that it was actually a condition imposed on airbus by some euro-politicians (who are probably not physicists or engineers).
The fine print is that airbus expects longer-range aircraft will still require conventional liquid fuel of some sort (presumably SAF) due to the energy density limitations of H2.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post