Rolls-Royce announced on Monday that it has successfully run a converted Rolls-Royce AE 2100-A regional aircraft engine on hydrogen. The ground test was conducted in partnership with U.K.-based budget airline easyJet at military aircraft testing site MoD Boscombe Down in Amesbury, England. According to the companies, additional testing is in the works with the long-term goal of running hydrogen-powered flight tests.
People abandoned hydrogen as a motor fuel a century ago. Not sure how rational people with a sense of context would ever call re-creating abandoned ideas as an “exciting milestone”.
It is astounding (and actually rather amusing and entertaining) at how much there is in common with the residue of ancient plant life / fossilized remains of extinct dinosaurs and certain AVweb commenters.
Interesting story, thanks. Also interesting that the initial commenters on this story seem to think they know better than Rolls-Royce and without due consideration given to what Rolls and easyJet are trying to achieve here; i.e., committing to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. 2050 is still nearly 30 years away, that should be plenty of time to work on new aero engine technology that will be acceptable to the paying public by that time.
Your body is 18% carbon, the breath you exhale emits carbon dioxide all day long. The vegetables you eat grew by using carbon dioxide. CO2 is the feedstock for photosynthesis which is the engine of life on earth. The goal of zero-carbon emissions is an ignorant political tool. Chemophobia.
I appreciate the work by Rolls-Royce to make some progress. The problem not discussed is the production of hydrogen. Although it’s a very common element, to produce fuel grade hydrogen it takes massive amounts of energy. Breakthroughs will be required in the fuel production.
This will more likely be the future than battery/electric vehicles.
I’ve got $10 that says we won’t have to wait until 2051 for a line boy somewhere to inadvertently figure out how to sidestep all mechanical incompatibilities and fill 'er up with Jet-SAF.
Bad logic. If the goal is actually “carbon neutral” or “sustainable” then the worst approach would be to use a jet engine! If the goal is actually “new aero engine technology” then using known engines and known fuels is already a failure. You don’t need to be an expert if you know the basics: history, logic, physics and the denotation of written words.
I’m not sure how much of an “exciting milestone” this is or what relevance it has to the real problem of getting enough H2 safely onto an aircraft to be useful. Whatever happens, I remain convinced that battery technology will continue to advance far more quickly that that of H2 production and storage, especially when efficiency is factored in.
Given that oil, regardless of its climate effects or how vast the remaining supply may be, is in fact a limited resource that sooner or later must be replaced. Hydrogen as a fuel obviously has major, major problems related to both initial production and storage/handling. Still, for aviation at least, hydrogen may well prove to be our least bad option.
While on the subject of least bad options: It’s worth mentioning that while batteries are likely our least bad option for moving power into ground vehicles, selecting them as the primary storage dictated by using intermittent wind/solar for primary power production (itself a not-least-bad option we were railroaded into) is not. As the national grid is forced more and more towards the stated goal of 100% intermittent-plus-stored power for all energy needs, meeting the demand for scarce materials essential to build and then maintain the vast battery farms that will be required will be a nightmare, if it is even possible.
The immense weight of batteries can be hidden, for the most part, in cars but this will never be the case with aviation, and my other passion, motorcycling. The car may be ill handling, but it will get Johnny to soccer practice.
The periodic table is a cruel mistress and there are only so many potential differentials to be exploited and we are near the top of that curve. Witness the asymptote we are approaching regarding the graph of battery energy density.
As far as hydrogen being the best (non fossil) option I also agree, but more likely as fuel cell or perhaps a piston engine (more efficient than a turbine) powering a generator with battery hybrid. Analogous to what I believe Ampair is doing.
It is amazing that ignorant children with apparently no real world experience or first-hand knowledge are so eager to criticize those who do have experience-based common sense.
While I commend Rolls Royce on the achievement, it’s not all that impressive they got a turbine engine to run on hydrogen. After all, a gas turbine engine will run on just about any combustible gas or liquid fuel; you just have to get the fuel metering system properly adjusted. As others have mentioned, the real trick is figuring out how to store enough hydrogen in an aircraft fuel tank to replace several thousand gallons of jet fuel. The only practical way is as a liquid, and as NASA can attest, that ain’t no easy project. In all reality, Rolls Royce has accomplished the easy part. Now the fun begins!
Rogue states - North Korea, Iran, and madmen such as Putin and Xi are simply waiting for the broad expansion of and dependence on the electric power in the US and Europe. Then just a few atmospheric nuclear blast EMPs will destroy western civilization. All those classic cars sold at Mecum and Barrett-Jackson will be more valuable than ever since they will be the only things still running.
Limited resources?
Since you have to syntysize Hydrogen; it’s actually more economical to just synthysize liquid fuel and keep going for the next 300 years.
and without due consideration given to what Rolls and easyJet are trying to achieve here; i.e., committing to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050. 2050 is still nearly 30 years away, that should be plenty of time to work on new aero engine technology that will be acceptable to the paying public by that time.