Sign up for your FREE daily newsletter from MorningBrew: morningbrewdaily.com/ziroth - Stay up to date on interesting science and business news, without wasting time by aimlessly scrolling.

Interestingly, the very first operational jet engine ran on hydrogen. When they were developing the jet engine in Germany during WWII one of the main problems was flame stability. By switching to hydrogen as fuel they managed to prove that a jet engine was possible and that lead to the development of the German jet fighters.

Unpopular opinion: Hydrogen powered vehicles are the new fusion reactors of our time. They will always be 20 years away from full adoption.

Specifically, I'd add the problem of boil off. No matter how good the insulation is there will always be some boil off. When a rocket is sitting on the launch pad the propellants are constantly boiling off. As such, the gas must be continuously vented off and the propellant tanks must be constantly replenished with more liquid. This is acceptable for a rocket because on the pad it remains connected to the propellant supply and then the climb to orbit only takes about 12 minutes. But during a long commercial flight a lot of the hydrogen is going to boil off and not be replaced. Its like flying around with a leak in the fuel tank.

Excellent presentation and content! 😀

30 odd years back Lockheed had one of their L1011 ( Tristar) flying around with one engine running on hydrogen. As stated in this video storage and handling were the main problems.

I've been looking at Rolls Royce's hydrogen engine recently. You mention that because hydrogen burns hotter it creates more nitrous oxide emissions. I did a video on JCB's new hydrogen engine and they came up with a unique injection system that allowed them to run the engine at drastically cooler temperatures which meant nitrogen oxide is not produced at all. Very interesting if the same tech/principle can be applied to jet engines using hydrogen.

I really enjoyed your video. The details and the work you had to do to make this video is outstanding! Great job. I will watch your channel. Thank you

Glad you mentioned the NOx problem.

While hydrogen combustion is tricky, the real problem is the tank. In particular if you want the plane to be able to take off and fly any meaningful distance. And have space for cargo and/or passengers.

Can tell by the intake its designed for Turbo-Props! Such a good move for short commuter aircraft

Great video. As an A&P currently it’s going to be very interesting in the decades ahead.

i hope this takes off... ;) 😉 we need it. Love your content.

Good report even got the nO2 issue. You didn't mention storing the fuel as a hydride is more energy dense than a liquid. And a turbine is the wrong way to use the fuel a fuel cell will do twice the efficiency.

Nuclear power plants are going to be the new hydrogen fuel production plants here soon. The reactors waste heat is hot enough to start thermochemical electrolysis which is 45% efficient at producing hydrogen from the water vapor, so even the steam that is released from the generator is being converted to hydrogen fuel. Pink or purple hydrogen as it's called. Japan is pioneering that tech right now. It's such an amazing energy process.

Thanks for the video well presented .

I learned about and built a few revisions of electrolysis devices in middle school since I thought hydrogen jet engines would revolutionise Air travel since you could have more airports without needing fuel infrastructure just pluging into the wall. Never did make a "jet engine" and certainly not one powered by hydrogen but made some fun bottle rockets with the HHO I did make, so technically that counts.

We always hear about water being the exhaust, but very little about sourcing the hydrogen and the extreme problems of pressure or low temperature, (-250C) to store it. Being the smallest molecule, it can escape from virtually any containment.

Good job. Thank you. 👍

Outstanding!!! Kudos to Rolls-Royce. Let us hope this is the future.

Problem with turbine type hydrogen drives (as opposed to ramjets) is that the turbine shovels tend to melt in the hotter hydrogen. Solving this problem would be absolutely incredible.

More of these deep dive detailed engineering topics please. The more challenging the better.

All of the Turbo Fan engines produce something like 80% of their thrust from the front fan assembly which bypasses the core of the engine. I know this while working at GE making parts for CF6-80C, CF6-80C2, GeNX, GE 90 85,000, 90,000, & the 115B pounds of thrust. I also made parts for the LEAP, LEAP X, & GE90X engines. All of the parts I made where for the rotating parts such as the compressor, high & low pressure turbine discs along with the front fan hub for most of the engine mentioned above.

It will be fun to watch one of these blow up!

After listening to Prof, David Cebon who is a hydrogen expert, it's not the fact we can run transport like aircraft with hydrogen, it's the higher cost, and the inefficiencies/complexity of making/storage and transportation that will make it unviable unless there is a large government subsidy to make the fuel. He said it's better to make electric aircraft for short hall and use all the current biofuels in aircraft and shipping, not perfect but when you consider aircraft and shipping make up currently around 6% of greenhouse emissions, it's not the biggest problem we should focus on.

Aviation might indeed be one of the few viable uses of hydrogen as a fuel. The fuel could be generated and stored onsite at airports, avoiding all the issues with transportation of hydrogen. But I do fear that the hydrogen may not be "green": there are several other colour variations.

Great video, have subscribed and to Morning Brew

all very intersting Ziroth thank you

How do the efficiency/range/emissions compare between combusting hydrogen and using fuel cells?

Fuel prices are currently one of the most significant costs in running an airline. I'm sure they can make hydrogen work in this type of engine but it will be very expensive, as the electricity from renewable sources will be in great demand.

In the early 60's, P&W simultaneously developed a hydrogen engine, along side the J-58, for use on OXCART (A-12,...later the SR-71). The reasons for NOT choosing it over 60 years ago, were nearly identical for the same reasons fronted in this video; namely space and weight. The more things change, the more they stay the same. P&W has been there, done that.

Great explanation

Well... at least they're only being incredibly inefficient on the electrolysis side and don't have those losses burning it in a turbine. RR would still be better off creating methane, methanol or ammonia as these are denser sources of combustion (at reasonable pressures and temperatures) Someone please let me know when metallic hydrogen comes into vogue as a fuel.

If there's a way to mitigate or eliminate the production of nitrous oxide, this could be a viable option. But as things stand at the moment, fuel cell propellers might be better suited for short haul flights. Nitrous oxide is 300 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and is also toxic to humans. I'm interested to see how one might eliminate NOx from the combustion process.

Used to work in a chemical plant that made hydrogen as a “waste” product from the main reaction. We would vent 95% of that hydrogen to atmosphere while only using 5% for making hydrochloric acid. The hydrogen was processed in a small facility with some dewatering units and a couple of gas compressors. We had three explosions inside of that building before we gave up putting the walls back on it and left it uncovered. Hydrogen is a very hard molecule to contain in any system. It leaks out of every connection, flange and fitting. It will accumulate until it finds a source of ignition and the lower limit for that ignition is very low. The main 48 inch vent stack caught on fire one day because it was snowing and the wet snow made enough static electricity to cause it to flash over. Using it as a fuel on a plane is going to be challenging.

If you can't store the fuel (hydrogen) in the wings, then you might as well do a blended wing design. It would require some big changes to airport infrastructure, but might be worth it. Also, the problem of affordable green hydrogen can be solved fairly efficiently by also considering red hydrogen. This comes from nuclear reactors and it's getting pioneered in Japan right now.

Yes, you can burn many fuels in gas turbines. Kerosene (Jet A/Jet A1) is commonly used in 'jet engines'. I suggest you take a look at Agent JayZ who has many videos on 'jet engines'. A different fuel nozzle only is typically required when changing fuel. His outfit regularly runs industrial gas turbines on butane or propane, Changing to hydrogen shouldn't really be too tricky.

Another drawback is the HUGE amount of energy required to liquefy the hydrogen, just to turn it back into a gas before combustion.

I was at RR in 1982 when the 'Hydrogen' Engine was being contemplated, the obvious problem was that the fuel tank is so heavy to be able to get ANY range, the aircraft could not take off.

Why don't we just take that Hydrogen and mix it with carbon from forestry waste and add heat to create synthetic hydrocarbons that have no carbon footprint? We wouldn't even need to change our engines, would just cost more.

Very Interesting

GOLD STAR for The Historical Research mention

You use liquid hydrogen and don't try to prevent its evaporation. No pressure vessel, no heat pumps, just some lightweight insulation to control the evaporation rate. As long as you keep the passive evaporation rate less than your engines' burn rate, you have a self feeding fuel which doesn't require heavy tanks.

Clickbait title saying hydrogen jet engine will change flight forever when actually about all the problems with the idea😠

Brian from real engineering will be proud of this insane title!!!

US Navy designed fuel cells and engine mods to convert aircraft during the 73 oil embargo. Non exploding fuel cells were the tough part. All tested good, plans put aside till needed.

Two Videos. Just too. Thats what it took for me to subscribe. Great content, and very well done on the topics. I love the idea of hydrogen power because its literally the most common element in the known universe. Even our species cant make that run out!! I actually got to see a hydrogen powered car at the last car show I went to. It was a Toyota but Lord help me if I could remember the name. Anyways, Great content, on a scale of one to nuclear fuision, I give rate you as damn awesome. (my scales never make sense)

Sounds like it could have explosive performance.

I believe you meant nitrogen oxides not nitrous oxide, different molecules entirely. NOx VS N20. Nitrous oxide, or commonly referred to as nitrous or NOS is laughing gas, and is also used for sort of a chemical supercharger in a internal combustion engine. Nitrogen Oxide is a byproduct of combustion from a number of fuels.

I love hijajen technology, it is marvelous to behold

the tu-154 flew on LNG not hydrogen if memory serves me correct.

thanks

Super cool new technology! Thanks for a great video

Thanks for the production, I enjoy your stuff. Just check out the pronunciation of "hai druh jn" 😏

Hydrogen isn't really used in liquid form for energy density reasons, but because Hydrogen is the smallest known molecule. The stuff just leaks and seeps out of any tank you can put it in, no matter how good the sealants are. It even can just diffuse through the wall of the tank. Cooling it down and liquefying it is the only way of slowing it down and minimizing the rate at which it just disappears out of your tank without making the walls of the tank crazy thick and heavy.

There was an issue of *POPULAR MECHANICS* magazine from the latter 1970s that had an article about a Lockheed {now Lockheed-Martin} proposal for a hydrogen-fueled version of their L1011 airliner. The fuel tankage was accomodated by putting two large cylindrical-ish tanks in the fuselage. One was in the tail section, the other was in the front between the cockpit and the cabin.

Very interesting video . future is hydrogren

From the thumbnail, i thought that thing was a light saber lol. I guess this is cool too.

A problem with the fuel being in the fuselage instead of the wings is needing to lift it. When it's in the wings, the weight is lifted. However, when in the fuselage, not only is the weight lifted, but the fuselage to wing joint has to be able to handled this extra weight. It also reduces the amount of storage space in the fuselage for cargo and passengers. The reduction in cargo & passenger weight may offset the weight of the hydrogen tanks on the wing joint, I don't know. I'd have to see the figures. It would, at least, to some extent offset.

The volume constraints make me think some kind of flying wing would be better...

This will make flying more expensive than it already is

vergeet het, alleen al het feit dat klassieke brandstof vloeibaar is en hete gassen vormt voor de stuwkracht, het extreem dure waterstof is gas en wordt vloeibaar bij verbranding, een enorm verlies van stuwkracht.

Maybe we should use ammonia (NH3) since it is easier to store and handle. Then convert it to N2 and H2 by fuel cell technology when it needs to be used.

In the 70's I worked in the research branch of a gas turbine engine manufacturer. One of their (many) customers supported research into the use of Metal Hydrides for storing Hydrogen Gas. Storing Hydrogen in the structure of a metal hydride can increase the 'volumetric efficiency' of storing hydrogen significantly. The safety benefits are many. In addition, there's no need for cryogenic temperatures or 'uncomfortably' high pressures. The best hydride for the task is illegal to purchase or manufacture for sale ... it's a government/military thing.

if the storage system is anything like the storage tank for space engines. then a big issue is storage space for fuel. which affects its overall range

I like your delivery Lad, thank you.

Bravo Rolls Royce. Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, they are making it better. Considering how much child labor goes in to mining lithium and cobalt currently, a fully electric future scares the living daylights out of me. I would much rather have a zero emissions fuel that can be used in current vehicles rather than plague the environment to try to be “zero emissions” but only while in use, not in production

Everything is getting revolutionized. #breakthrough

Pump some of that NO2 back into the passenger area. It might make flying fun.

Please do some reserach on SILAN fuel (Hydrogen and fuel gained from Silicone)

I probably I missed that part but why don't they fill the plane cabins up with helium? Cause think about it that would help so much because the tanks are to big and heavy. Great channel!

5:13 that looks like a center of gravity issue built right into the plane…

I have loved hydrogen for years

Sweet! Let's name it after the Hindenburg.

Interesting to see how they plan on storing a fuel that needs cryogenics for any kind of reasonable density and also interested to see how they plan to store it for hours at a time when its atoms are so small they leak through solid tank walls.

Source is not a problem, the Philippines posses the deuterium in the Philippines deep unlimited supply if harnessed

You could store it as ammonia instead of hydrogen?

Energy density far lower than Kerosene requires larger volume tanks and high pressurisation which increases structural requirements increasing weight etc

There is still one unaddressed major problem: Hydrogen is the most reactive element in the periodic table. Which means Hydrogen is a very dangerous substance. Any kind of leakage would be a recipe for disaster. The Flashpoint of Hydrogen is at -135 Degrees Celsius, The Flashpoint of Kerosene in this case Jet-A has a Flashpoint of 38 Degrees Celsius which makes it a lot more dangerous than Jet-A.

It already did, remember the Hindenberg:-)

The Orkney Islands wants to become a part of Norway, I just read in the news. We welcome them 🇳🇴

Now this is a major advance in jets engines.

something with water and aluminium would make a pretty dense fuel --- it has even been experimentally tested in some rockets

Almost no one is talking about the negative side, bulk and weight of the fuel tanks, so range is limited, something that seems like the most important developement in passenger aircraft these days.

i dont get the last sentence . how do you need more space for fuel on a H plane than on a conventional one ,if its more power dense ?

ANOTHER PERPETUAL MOTION POWER SOURCE

Hydrogen goes BOOM..

Some of these solutions might make tail strikes and belly landings a bit hazardous.

I look forward to the first net zero war/dogfight/tank battle 🙂

There is another worth-mentioning, huge challenge for expanding the use of hydrogen fuel - a critically important role of precious Platinum (together with even rarer Iridium) as a crucial Catalist in both - the production and the fuel cells of Hydrogen: if to process all the numbers of demand and supply - for the transition on global-scale, of the requirement for Hydrogen fuel, there is simply not enough Platinum available on Earth, to meet such demands; nor there are technologies that avoid use of Platinum...

Maybe there's another fuel like green ammonia? Doesn't need refrigeration and can be handled with current equipment.

Containing the smallest element in the universe is not just difficult, it's expensive, but also, sometimes impossible to have both light and good containment. The last thing you want is a bunch of jets, with hundreds of tons of leaking hydrogen on a tarmac.

Certain other country also once flew plane with hydrogen but dropped it because of weight issue when going by Japan

for the liquid hydrogen problem you could simply store it high enough pressures though that may require a extra strong tank

Finally some brilliance yeah to rolls Royce

The current internal combustion engine with only a few tweaks could be made to run on hydrogen with an exhaust of mostly oxygen and water.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that after hydrogen was liquified, and sealed in a tank, it no longer needed to be pressurized ... the confinement withing the tank would keep it from returning to a gas, until it was released into a lower pressure atmospheric system. Am I wrong?

The Soviet program shown at the beginning in Russian description (running text) mentions engines powered by natural liquidized gas, but not by hydrogen.

Giant runway travellators would reduce peak power demand (takeoff).

There's also one very big glaring problem though, that water. Now normal turbofan engine's also produce water vapour, that's why you see white trials from them at high altitudes but a purely hydrogen fuelled engine would only produce water vapour, that's what clouds are made of and clouds are very good at trapping heat. Just look at Venus for a perfect example. To me? Plasma engine's are gonna eventually be better, powered by a fusion reactor the very air itself is the fuel. Subjected to pressure and an intense magnetic field to excite the atoms and create tremendous amounts of heat without combustion at all. The same air that goes in, comes out it's just several thousand degrees hotter and the basics of external thrust is if you want more power you need to move the hot gas faster or make it burn hotter. Plasma does both so you'd end up with such an incredibly powerful engine can even make them alot smaller meaning more space for passengers and luggage. This is a cool breakthrough but, it's like me changing a V8 to run on biofuel or say ethanol or hydrogen instead of LPG. It's not that impressive when you actually think about it.