While technically zero emission, 95% of hydrogen is created using natural gas reformation. It's really really disingenuous to say zero emission when it uses a huge amount of fossil fuels in the creation of the fuel
The point is that, unlike kerosene, hydrogen can be made using clean energy
The point is that, until electrolysis is cheaper than using natural gas, it will continue to be made with natural gas.
Yes, but now the onus is moved away from finding a non polluting engine, which needs to be on the moving vehicle, to a non polluting fuel, which can be produced anywhere. And can technically and with proper regulation be produced with no pollution. Which is a lot more than the current state of affairs.
That's really lucky for fossil fuel companies who will be making bank on hydrogen, and stalling any research or innovation in green hydrogen. You act like there are no major players making tons of money from hydrogen already, who don't want electrolysis to gain any ground against the status quo which is making them filthy rich
Again, this can be achieved through regulation. Regulating the source of hydrogen manufacturing process, for once. If a government wants, it can do it and enforce it.
Have you heard of regulatory capture? What makes you think we'll regulate hydrogen, when we're not regulating fossil fuels, which is why we're in this mess in the first place? The first thing these companies are going to do is say that we need to be deregulated to fight climate change.
You are a person arguing to do nothing to attempt to solve the problem of CO2 emissions from airplanes, which account for a very large proportion of global emissions. You are arguing incessantly about why progress shouldn't be made. Cut it out. The energy density of liquid hydrogen makes it the only viable fuel source for air travel that isn't a petrochemical. That's why this is important. Fuck your whining about boogymen in the fossil fuel industry as a backdrop to this. It's irrelevant. What matters is progress, because zero carbon air travel is probably the most difficult challenge we face in cutting fossil fuels out of modern society.
Very well said. 100% agreed. We can't let perfection be the enemy of good progress. This is absolutely necessary work and a good demonstration that hydrogen fuel is viable.
bogymen in the fossil fuel industry? You absolute fucking moron, THEY ARE THE BAD GUYS. the fuck are you talkin about bogeymen? Is the fossil fuel industry not culpable then? Fuck off, you're not serious.
Your fears are making you advocate to impede progress. The government supercedes the fossil fuel industry. That is my point. Yes, there are many barriers to us seeing any meaningful action, including regulatory capture and general corruption by the interests of the fossil fuel industry, but that is absolutely not a reason to give up on addressing the issue of carbon emissions in air travel. The fossil fuel industry advocates are boogeymen. At the end of the day they have no power over the government, and you are acting like they're "too scary" to be confronted.
Moreover, that is not the point when it comes to technological advancements to make modern society carbon neutral. We should celebrate every advancement that gets us closer to that goal. And yes, I am fully aware that we are very late and millions of innocent lives will likely be lost to the affects of climate change before we get there. But that is all the more reason to work harder.
I'm not saying to give up on stopping climate change. don't put words in my mouth. I'm calling out hydrogen propaganda as being part of the fossil fuel industry's attempt to keep us using fossil fuels as opposed to making progress without using fossil fuels. You're saying we need to use fossil fuels to stop climate change. Fuck right off dude, you're not serious, if anything you're a shill for the fossil fuel industry. Whether you're aware of it or not
Liquid hydrogen is the only viable carbon neutral fuel source for air travel due to its energy density. Reducing weight is the #1 most important factor in building aircraft. This shouldn't come as a surprise. It's common sense. Hydrogen can be produced via electrolysis, whether you want to whine about the current situation with natural gas based production or not. It is the only option we know about that is capable of addressing the issue of carbon emissions from air transport. Unfortunately, liquid hydrogen much less energy dense than kerosene, but it's all we have. The important part is that hydrogen is a clean fuel source which can be produced via clean energy.
Unless you have a Nobel Prize winning alternative energy solution in mind to power aircraft with zero carbon emissions with an energy density as good or better than liquid hydrogen, your advocacy against its use is an impediment to progress.
So what, we keep burning coal because it is cheaper ?
nice false equivalency. And I'm not prescribing anything, I'm describing what is currently happening, and that it will continue to happen until electrolysis is more profitable than natural gas.
It can be, but it takes a huge amount of power to do it, and the biggest hydrogen production method (reforming) produces GHGs itself
So what? Build solar plants in Africa, pump out hydrogen, keep flying as often as you want emissions free. It is a solution and as such a hydrogen plane is a massive advancement towards a sustainable future for the aviation. Whether it will turn oit this way is a different question.
Make it with nuclear power. Turn water to hydrogen and oxygen. Release the oxygen. Package the hydrogen. Burn the hydrogen and it mixes with the oxygen. Maybe eject the spent radioactive fuel into space some day?
ok brb
Disposing of radioactive material via space is not a great idea. Not to mention the cost inefficiencies, the risk of something going wrong with the rocket and spreading nuclear material all over the place is non-zero.
Nothing has zero risk attached. We’re pumping radioactive material into the atmosphere all the time in coal power plants, and nobody bats an eye. This isn’t even a failure condition, this is just normal.
Was this one though? It says they’re using Air Liquide, and here’s a quote FTA:
Something else a future of clean-burning, hydrogen-powered aviation requires is — other than the actual fuel — is refuelling infrastructure. For Project HEAVEN, H2FLY has been working with Air Liquide.
For the French industrial gas supplier, which is betting heavily on green hydrogen as part of the future energy mix, it is also about demonstrating viability and shoring up industry demand. “This is the very first time we have brought liquid hydrogen to be refuelled at a commercial airport,” said Pierre Crespi, Innovation Director at Air Liquide Advanced Technologies.
(Emphasis mine) if it’s green hydrogen, doesn’t that mean it was made using clean energy (as opposed to gray hydrogen)?
Air Liquide is the supplyer of the hydrogen. You have green and blue hydrogen. One is produced with reformation and carbon capture while the other one is produced with electrolysis. So, if the electricity is from renewable then it's technically zero emission.
Yes I understand that. OP said it wasn’t, and the article didn’t say specifically what was used for this flight, only that Air Liquide wants to use green H2 for this project.
I wouldn't bet on a company telling you that they're using "green hydrogen" to be doing anything other than pulling the wool over your eyes. There's a reason the fossil fuel industry is heavily invested in hydrogen and pro hydrogen propaganda. Once you start noticing it becomes really obvious
In this very specific area, though, it’s like a badge of honor. If it was Shell or Exxon, lol no. And you’re right to be skeptical. But for the Fuel Cell airplane company, they specifically sought out a company who could provide green hydrogen because that is their goal and motivation. There are some companies who do provide this service for the same reasons - they genuinely care about the climate crisis and want to change things. They “nerd out” about being able to do this, for lack of a better expression. If you’re ever in a room with a lot of them, it’s very obvious.
While technically zero emission, 95% of hydrogen is created using natural gas reformation. It's really really disingenuous to say zero emission when it uses a huge amount of fossil fuels in the creation of the fuel
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-fuel-basics#:~:text=Today%2C%20hydrogen%20fuel%20can%20be,solar%2Ddriven%20and%20biological%20processes.
The point is that, unlike kerosene, hydrogen can be made using clean energy
The point is that, until electrolysis is cheaper than using natural gas, it will continue to be made with natural gas.
Yes, but now the onus is moved away from finding a non polluting engine, which needs to be on the moving vehicle, to a non polluting fuel, which can be produced anywhere. And can technically and with proper regulation be produced with no pollution. Which is a lot more than the current state of affairs.
That's really lucky for fossil fuel companies who will be making bank on hydrogen, and stalling any research or innovation in green hydrogen. You act like there are no major players making tons of money from hydrogen already, who don't want electrolysis to gain any ground against the status quo which is making them filthy rich
Again, this can be achieved through regulation. Regulating the source of hydrogen manufacturing process, for once. If a government wants, it can do it and enforce it.
Have you heard of regulatory capture? What makes you think we'll regulate hydrogen, when we're not regulating fossil fuels, which is why we're in this mess in the first place? The first thing these companies are going to do is say that we need to be deregulated to fight climate change.
You are a person arguing to do nothing to attempt to solve the problem of CO2 emissions from airplanes, which account for a very large proportion of global emissions. You are arguing incessantly about why progress shouldn't be made. Cut it out. The energy density of liquid hydrogen makes it the only viable fuel source for air travel that isn't a petrochemical. That's why this is important. Fuck your whining about boogymen in the fossil fuel industry as a backdrop to this. It's irrelevant. What matters is progress, because zero carbon air travel is probably the most difficult challenge we face in cutting fossil fuels out of modern society.
Very well said. 100% agreed. We can't let perfection be the enemy of good progress. This is absolutely necessary work and a good demonstration that hydrogen fuel is viable.
bogymen in the fossil fuel industry? You absolute fucking moron, THEY ARE THE BAD GUYS. the fuck are you talkin about bogeymen? Is the fossil fuel industry not culpable then? Fuck off, you're not serious.
Your fears are making you advocate to impede progress. The government supercedes the fossil fuel industry. That is my point. Yes, there are many barriers to us seeing any meaningful action, including regulatory capture and general corruption by the interests of the fossil fuel industry, but that is absolutely not a reason to give up on addressing the issue of carbon emissions in air travel. The fossil fuel industry advocates are boogeymen. At the end of the day they have no power over the government, and you are acting like they're "too scary" to be confronted.
Moreover, that is not the point when it comes to technological advancements to make modern society carbon neutral. We should celebrate every advancement that gets us closer to that goal. And yes, I am fully aware that we are very late and millions of innocent lives will likely be lost to the affects of climate change before we get there. But that is all the more reason to work harder.
I'm not saying to give up on stopping climate change. don't put words in my mouth. I'm calling out hydrogen propaganda as being part of the fossil fuel industry's attempt to keep us using fossil fuels as opposed to making progress without using fossil fuels. You're saying we need to use fossil fuels to stop climate change. Fuck right off dude, you're not serious, if anything you're a shill for the fossil fuel industry. Whether you're aware of it or not
Liquid hydrogen is the only viable carbon neutral fuel source for air travel due to its energy density. Reducing weight is the #1 most important factor in building aircraft. This shouldn't come as a surprise. It's common sense. Hydrogen can be produced via electrolysis, whether you want to whine about the current situation with natural gas based production or not. It is the only option we know about that is capable of addressing the issue of carbon emissions from air transport. Unfortunately, liquid hydrogen much less energy dense than kerosene, but it's all we have. The important part is that hydrogen is a clean fuel source which can be produced via clean energy.
Unless you have a Nobel Prize winning alternative energy solution in mind to power aircraft with zero carbon emissions with an energy density as good or better than liquid hydrogen, your advocacy against its use is an impediment to progress.
So what, we keep burning coal because it is cheaper ?
nice false equivalency. And I'm not prescribing anything, I'm describing what is currently happening, and that it will continue to happen until electrolysis is more profitable than natural gas.
It can be, but it takes a huge amount of power to do it, and the biggest hydrogen production method (reforming) produces GHGs itself
So what? Build solar plants in Africa, pump out hydrogen, keep flying as often as you want emissions free. It is a solution and as such a hydrogen plane is a massive advancement towards a sustainable future for the aviation. Whether it will turn oit this way is a different question.
Make it with nuclear power. Turn water to hydrogen and oxygen. Release the oxygen. Package the hydrogen. Burn the hydrogen and it mixes with the oxygen. Maybe eject the spent radioactive fuel into space some day?
ok brb
Disposing of radioactive material via space is not a great idea. Not to mention the cost inefficiencies, the risk of something going wrong with the rocket and spreading nuclear material all over the place is non-zero.
Nothing has zero risk attached. We’re pumping radioactive material into the atmosphere all the time in coal power plants, and nobody bats an eye. This isn’t even a failure condition, this is just normal.
Was this one though? It says they’re using Air Liquide, and here’s a quote FTA:
(Emphasis mine) if it’s green hydrogen, doesn’t that mean it was made using clean energy (as opposed to gray hydrogen)?
Air Liquide is the supplyer of the hydrogen. You have green and blue hydrogen. One is produced with reformation and carbon capture while the other one is produced with electrolysis. So, if the electricity is from renewable then it's technically zero emission.
Yes I understand that. OP said it wasn’t, and the article didn’t say specifically what was used for this flight, only that Air Liquide wants to use green H2 for this project.
I wouldn't bet on a company telling you that they're using "green hydrogen" to be doing anything other than pulling the wool over your eyes. There's a reason the fossil fuel industry is heavily invested in hydrogen and pro hydrogen propaganda. Once you start noticing it becomes really obvious
In this very specific area, though, it’s like a badge of honor. If it was Shell or Exxon, lol no. And you’re right to be skeptical. But for the Fuel Cell airplane company, they specifically sought out a company who could provide green hydrogen because that is their goal and motivation. There are some companies who do provide this service for the same reasons - they genuinely care about the climate crisis and want to change things. They “nerd out” about being able to do this, for lack of a better expression. If you’re ever in a room with a lot of them, it’s very obvious.