‘They said we were eccentrics’: the UK team developing clean aviation fuel:
“Anyone passing would have wondered why these people were staring at a pipe and whooping and laughing,” says Bobby Sethi, associate professor of gas turbine combustion at Cranfield University. “But we were almost certainly the only people in the world right then burning anything without producing CO2.”
[...] “We were able to demonstrate successful ignition and safe combustion of pure hydrogen and air at high temperature and pressure – producing no carbon emissions,” he says. Even if, he adds, the passing layperson would have only seen a pipe and some steam.
[...] Sethi recalls the scepticism of even five years ago, when he was pursuing funding for the hydrogen research project, known as Enable H2: “They said we were eccentrics. Now they’re queueing up to be on our advisory board.”
There are broadly three strands of work that the aviation industry is frantically investigating for an environmentally acceptable future. One is to create greener fuels for the large aircraft currently in service. A second is electric flight, which appears feasible for smaller aircraft and short-haul hops. And a third is hydrogen.
Two projects pioneered at Cranfield are using hydrogen in the form of fuel cells to power electric motors and propel planes: ZeroAvia flew a six-seater from here last September, and hopes to scale up the technology for commercial short-haul flights in the coming decades. Another, Project Fresson, is planning to use fuel cells for a green, short-hop passenger service around the Orkney islands as soon as 2023.
But the ambitions for direct combustion of hydrogen are on a bigger scale; whether a radically different plane and propulsion system could replace the modern, paraffin-fuelled passenger jet. Which is where Sethi’s research comes in.
Nothing yet in the sheds looks anything like a plane. The rig here is a unique facility, Sethi says, assembled to show that hydrogen can be clean, safe and efficient for aviation, and produce data showing the optimum temperature and pressure to minimise other harmful emissions such as nitrogen oxides or NOx, a family of highly poisonous gases.
Not the only scientists looking for controlled ignition of hydrogen. What's described still seems a long way away from something that produces thrust, which is the ultimate need. However, technology usually advances in small steps, and that's fine as long as there's an ultimately reachable goal.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 21 2021, @06:05AM (1 child)
It was the singular reason why they wound up using hydrogen even though the Hindenburg was designed for helium: The only supplier in the world wouldn't sell to them. That they didn't retrofit to make it hydrogen safe was because it would have cost too much, the high cost of hydrogen safety being why they designed it for helium in the first place.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday August 21 2021, @09:30PM
Exactly. They *chose* to invite the disaster by operating a passenger airship in a manner they knew perfectly well was highly unsafe, for purely financial reasons. Idiocy. In a just world everyone involved in that decision would have been convicted of multiple counts of murder.
Though I suppose for some reason we consider willful criminal negligence to make it only manslaughter, despite that premeditation is supposed to make it murder. They didn't premeditate to kill those specific people, but they did to kill *someone*, whoever the dice finally landed against.