Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

CBSnews t1_j56zpjm wrote

Thanks for sharing! Here's a preview of our story by reporter Megan Cerullo:

A startup company made aviation history Thursday when it successfully flew the largest ever hydrogen-electric powered aircraft, which could pave the way for less environmentally harmful flights.

ZeroAvia's 19-seat plane, called the Dornier 228, took off from Cotswold Airport in Gloucestershire, U.K., on a flight lasting 10 minutes. Retrofitted with a prototype hydrogen-electric powertrain, it performed as expected and marks a major milestone for the future of zero-emission aviation, according to the company.

ZeroAvia counts commercial carriers, including American and United Airlines, among its investors, as the aviation industry — one of the world's most pollutive — invests in technology to decarbonize air travel. Hydrogen is considered among the most promising alternate fuel sources, and Thursday's demonstration marks a major step forward in ZeroAvia's goal of operating commercial routes with its technology by 2025.

Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hyrdrogen-electric-flight-zeroavia-zero-emission-commercial-aviation/

23

SilverNicktail t1_j571ko0 wrote

Damn, CBS coming in here with the Reddit support.

I didn't realise hydrogen-electric power trains were so far along, honestly - though it makes sense considering they've existed in cars for years.

22

JayGeeCanuck22 t1_j59qxcn wrote

If the hydrogen is sourced from electrolysis powered by zero emissions sources, sure, there could be a niche there. If it's just a lifeline for the oil and gas industry to turn natural gas into hydrogen - FUCK THAT.

9

My_Soul_to_Squeeze t1_j5ajan4 wrote

Exactly. There are several different ratings for hydrogen sources. If it's not "green" (renewable sourced) or "pink" (nuclear sourced), it is precisely what you described. Just a way for hydrocarbon producers to prop up demand for their products a few more years.

3

TaXxER t1_j5exvb7 wrote

For now the goal is just to make planes run on hydrogen at all. It’s obvious that we will have an abundance of green hydrogen in the future, even if today we do not, given that we reach the point where wind + solar generation exceeds demand more and more often.

If we’re using a bit of blue hydrogen just to progress R&D in hydrogen planes and be ready for green hydrogen flights in the future, that seems totally fine by me.

2

Tigen13 t1_j57xbzs wrote

Hydrogen could prove ideal for large trucks and planes. Boats as well.

5

vasya349 t1_j59jkzw wrote

Long-distance trains are already testing on line afaik.

1

Wafkak t1_j59tpp2 wrote

Here in Europe they just run on electric cables.

1

My_Soul_to_Squeeze t1_j5aie3q wrote

You can almost make the case that overhead electrification is too expensive to implement in some places. I'm not totally sold on that math, but I keep hearing there are niche cases for hydrogen.

E: typo

2

Wafkak t1_j5aj53h wrote

That mostly due to us freight rail being very focused on tight margins. That's why even in very dense rail areas they still use diesel trains.

1

My_Soul_to_Squeeze t1_j5akcyi wrote

I was talking specifically about European applications. US passenger rail is a disaster regardless of power source for legal, logistical, political, and social reasons. It's really sad. I like having my car as much as any other suburbanite, but I've seen good passenger rail systems around the world, and they're really nice to have.

2

vasya349 t1_j5bj8ox wrote

In Europe you have an extensive electrified passenger network that’s easy to supply with electrical facilities due to a general lack of remote areas.

Many rail networks in the world have these areas where it is incredibly expensive to install electricity and they also don’t have the privilege of having invested in electrification for a century. There’s really not a good way to just electrify part of a network if mainlines are going through areas where electrical rolling stock can’t/won’t be served.

1

ashebwead t1_j59yylo wrote

electrification is still much better, especially for long distance trains

1

vasya349 t1_j5bie9p wrote

Lol the electrification circlejerk is coming for me even outside of rail subs.

Electrification is not the only solution! It is really fucking expensive and only justified by medium to high volume lines. It requires installation of new electrical facilities in potentially remote or environmentally sensitive areas. It’s also an longterm process that can’t be done globally by the time we need to deal with emissions, because you can’t use electric rolling stock for a 99% complete route. That basically writes off any freight because nobody is ever going to pay for electrifying industrial spurs. They’d just pave over them and use trucks.

2

ashebwead t1_j5bkq4u wrote

the countries with serious rail infrastructure mostly use electrification, hydrogen makes sense in places where it's really hard to electrify the route because of hard geography, or for shunting locomotives

electric trains are faster, ligther, safer and just much more efficient in general than hydrogen. and they're really not that much more expensive, india is electrifying the majority of its network, just like china did

also there's electrification on every and i mean every rail line in switzerland, so the remote or sensitive area argument is kinda weak

obviously not every route can be electrified, but most of them actually can, and i've already cited three major examples

edit: basically electrification is the only option for high speed rail, the best option for commuter, long-distance freight and intercity, while hydrogen is a good option for local/rural lines, shunting, branch line/shortline freight and some exceptions. most new lines are built already electrified, by the way

2

vasya349 t1_j5bpkgi wrote

Your examples are regions covered pretty completely with substantial population (and therefore have electrical infrastructure throughout) implementing electrification in the small minority of areas that are remote for interoperability reasons. This is different than places like the Americas and sub-Saharan Africa where some main lines cross up to thousands of miles of mostly inadequate electrical-services areas. You basically have to build and service infrastructure exclusively for the trains in those cases.

Electrification can still be a goal in these places, but it’s not unreasonable for them to pursue hydrogen or even retain diesel while working on high-volume freight shuttle/passenger electrification. Please don’t do the thing everyone else does and assume I’m arguing against electrification - I’m just saying it’s not going to happen anytime soon in a lot of places for real reasons.

2

kjmajo t1_j59si9u wrote

A very important thing to keep in mind when talking about hydrogen is that is only more sustainable if produced using renewables, which is less than 0.1% of current hydrogen production. If it is produced with fossil fuels, which 99.9 % of it is, it is worse for the environment than burning coal, or conventional jet fuel, for the same energy. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/blue-hydrogen-pushed-by-gas-companies-harms-climate-more-than-coal-study-says/

2

PartsWork t1_j5a5k3t wrote

Thanks for the interesting read. I suspect it's the effect of nascent technologies, like transistors being more expensive than vacuum tubes at first, and printing presses being more expensive than quills and inkwells.

Further reading from the EPA about the methods of production and the emissions data for motor-vehicle use. EPA says about 95% is produced by reclamation from natural gas, so if it was 99.9% before it's growing exponentially, which is what we can hope for as non-grid production technologies are developed. Last point is that the ArsTechnica article only discusses one type of hydrogen fuel augmentation being used in one (massive) sector. The uplifting news is that in the foreseeable future, only antiques will use vacuum tubes fossil fuels.

3

AutoModerator t1_j56wmbs wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

PartsWork t1_j5a072j wrote

>ZeroAvia's 19-seat plane, called the Dornier 228​

The Dornier 228 is already a plane, they took a stock one and changed the left wing engine to hydrogen-electric, according to ZeroAvia's press release. There's a video of the flight on their Youtube channel, as well as a bunch of other videos about their work and the industry.

1

WikiSummarizerBot t1_j5a08a1 wrote

Dornier 228

>The Dornier 228 is a twin-turboprop STOL utility aircraft, designed and first manufactured by Dornier GmbH (later DASA Dornier, Fairchild-Dornier) from 1981 until 1998. Two hundred and forty-five were built in Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany. In 1983, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) bought a production licence and manufactured another 125 aircraft in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India. In July 2017, 63 aircraft were still in airline service.

^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)

1

Shilo788 t1_j5bwg8a wrote

US should do this on range lands taken over by welfare ranchers like the Bundys

1