07 Feb 2008
Press reports of guilt-free aviation from a futuristic aircraft design are overstated, according to the aeroplane's designers.
The A2, a proposed hypersonic airliner based on reusable spacecraft technology, could theoretically travel at Mach 5. It would take 300 passengers from Brussels to Sydney in under five hours, whisking people from Europe over the North Pole and the Pacific and down to Australia.
The craft would emit no carbon dioxide, because it would be powered by liquid hydrogen, which is an effective way to power an aircraft at such high speeds.
The prospect of zero-carbon flights has led several reports to praise the proposed plane's environmental credentials. However, Richard Varvill, technical director of the aircraft's designer, Reaction Engines, downplayed the design's green credentials. Instead he highlighted the environmental problems posed by creating the large quantities of hydrogen fuel that would be required.
Using today's techniques, copious amounts of fossil fuels would be needed to create and transport the 200 tonnes of liquid hydrogen needed for each A2 flight.
Long term, electrolysis using electricity to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen might be a viable approach, but could create other hazards. "In this case almost certainly you would need nuclear power – and lots of it, " Varvill said. "You would need a nuclear power station placed near an airport, generating the power, and producing the liquid hydrogen and piping it to the airport."
Varvill, who pointed out that anything shorter than a transatlantic flight for the A2 would not be viable, also raised another concern. The A2 would fly higher than normal aeroplanes, placing it in the middle of the ozone layer, where it would deposit water vapour, the waste product from hydrogen.
"What's not known is whether the release of water vapour into the ozone layer has any deleterious effect on it," he warned.
That is one subject which will be tackled by the four-year LapCat 2 project, an EU-funded initiative following on from the LapCat study which funded the A2's design. Due to start by the end of this year, LapCat will also pursue an alternative Mach 8 aeroplane design that is competing with the A2.
With futuristic ventures still presenting environmental issues, aircraft manufacturers are looking for alternatives. Airbus recently completed a test flight of its A380 passenger aircraft using a mixture of conventional jet fuel and liquified gas, which the firm claims emits almost no sulphur. Meanwhile, Virgin Atlantic will later this month undertake the first test flight of a commercial airliner using biofuel.
LATEST STORIES ABOUT TRANSPORT
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
LATEST JOBS
TODAY'S TOP STORIES
HIGHLIGHT
Model X sports Back to the Future-style "falcon doors" and is set to go on sale in 2014
INSIGHT
INSIGHT
The science and practical application of an improved method for the specification of power and cooling infrastructure for data centres
A look at alternative approaches to managing energy for cost and/or sustainability reasons in data centres
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Add your comment
Solar Energy for water electrolysis
See the web site www.nanosolar.com This company produces flexible solar foil with 15% efficiency * cos(alpha) In Arizona it is possible to get some 200W/sqm. Please tell me how many joules are needed for each liter of water.
Posted by Jaime Soto, 30 Jan 2011
Totally misses the point.
This article misses the point and is consequentially misleading: The proposed plane is potentially a whole lot greener. Hydrogen can be manufactured in many ways that are greener... think solar, wind, and so on. The ways to make green hydrogen are endless. designs like this get us closer to the solutions that we need to create sustainable technology.
Posted by jason, 17 Apr 2009
Nuclear power stinks, take Wavepower instead
I don't get it why people always think they need nuclear power just because they need large amounts of electricity. Nuclear power only accounts for a small fraction of the electricity we consume today. In the European Union, it's about 15% of total electricity consumption - which by all means we could easily spare it, because there are cleaner alternatives available. Why not take something like these instead: http://www.pelamiswave.com/ Clean, cheap, safe, and scalable. And by the way cheaper than nuclear (3 Euro cent per kWh produced, when scaled up). Nuclear power costs like 2-4 Euro cents per kWh produced, but only after massive subventions (from taxpayer's money, of course), for initial technology research, massive subventions to the construction of nuclear power plants, continuous public safety research and monitoring, waste management, and governmental supervision. All this ties up ressources, costs us money, and makes the effective price more like 5 to 10 cents per kWh, not counting that it's a high risk technology and waste management will keep us busy for the next 40.000 years. Just screw it.
Posted by Daniel Alvarez Arribas, 04 Mar 2009
plenty of cheap hydrogen
the key to cheap hydrogen is to produce H2 gas from industrial waste streams using waste heat and solar thermal power. then use pulse tube refrigerators to chill hydrogen to its liquid form. duh hydrogen is superior to any other aviation fuel. mach that! biofuels are a joke. make hydrogen from bio-waste. gasify or liquify... the choice is yours. PS if you need to sequester CO2 make carbon nanotubes!
Posted by Andrew John Heath, 18 Mar 2008