Hydrogen works pretty well for aviation, though there are three main challenges they’re still working on: size, materals, and fuel source.
Hydrogen is nice and lightweight, but the tanks and plumbing take up a lot of space, which cuts into cargo volume, basically limiting the range if you want to take passengers with you.
The second issue is that fuel cells currently require quite a lot of platinum, and the PEM electrolysis also requires a lot of PGMs and rare metals like Iridium. The material scientists are working on this, and I figure if they can take the cobalt out of batteries, they can take the platinum out of fuel cells.
The question that comes up the most when talking about hydrogen is where the hydrogen itself comes from. Right now, it’s mostly made by steam methane reformation or similar fossil fuel processing, which is nearly as bad for the environment as burning the fossil fuel directly. But there are promising advances in renewable electrolysis (such as taking advantage of peak solar for “free” electricity) which are closing the gap between SMR and renewable H2. It’ll never be as cheap as jet fuel, but it’s at least economically feasible.
I’m not 100% convinced by some of the terrestrial applications for H2, on the economics side.
In my opinion, the aviation industry can handle the cost increases inherent to greener fuel. People fly because it’s fast, not because it’s cheap. As long as the planes are still fast, there’s still a market.
By contrast, people ride the bus because it’s cheap. According to Tokyo, H2 busses cost 2.6x as much to operate as diesel. According to Montpellier, H2 busses cost 6.3x as much to run as battery-electric busses (that’s including amortization). So while the tech seems like a great fit, the commercial case is weak.
Shipping with semis is a toss-up. H2 can transport more cargo a longer distance than batteries, and I think some people will pay the premium for next-day shipping. But personally… I’d get the cheap-but-slow shipping 90% of the time.
Hydrogen works pretty well for aviation, though there are three main challenges they’re still working on: size, materals, and fuel source.
Hydrogen is nice and lightweight, but the tanks and plumbing take up a lot of space, which cuts into cargo volume, basically limiting the range if you want to take passengers with you.
The second issue is that fuel cells currently require quite a lot of platinum, and the PEM electrolysis also requires a lot of PGMs and rare metals like Iridium. The material scientists are working on this, and I figure if they can take the cobalt out of batteries, they can take the platinum out of fuel cells.
The question that comes up the most when talking about hydrogen is where the hydrogen itself comes from. Right now, it’s mostly made by steam methane reformation or similar fossil fuel processing, which is nearly as bad for the environment as burning the fossil fuel directly. But there are promising advances in renewable electrolysis (such as taking advantage of peak solar for “free” electricity) which are closing the gap between SMR and renewable H2. It’ll never be as cheap as jet fuel, but it’s at least economically feasible.
deleted by creator
I’m not 100% convinced by some of the terrestrial applications for H2, on the economics side.
In my opinion, the aviation industry can handle the cost increases inherent to greener fuel. People fly because it’s fast, not because it’s cheap. As long as the planes are still fast, there’s still a market.
By contrast, people ride the bus because it’s cheap. According to Tokyo, H2 busses cost 2.6x as much to operate as diesel. According to Montpellier, H2 busses cost 6.3x as much to run as battery-electric busses (that’s including amortization). So while the tech seems like a great fit, the commercial case is weak.
Shipping with semis is a toss-up. H2 can transport more cargo a longer distance than batteries, and I think some people will pay the premium for next-day shipping. But personally… I’d get the cheap-but-slow shipping 90% of the time.