A point I've made, countless times, to idiots who say be must become carbon neutral, is carbon is not a pollutant, the delusions of 5 SCOTUS judges notwithstanding. And the fact oil is not only for gasoline, but for over 6000 other items we cannot live without. I've often asked, where will you get jet fuel, aka Kerosene, from? I remember a young man (looked like he was in his 20s) screaming on the Facebook page, "We have to do something!!!!" Such great intellect from the people who will pay my Social Security.
But I did find this article and it was an interesting question of how to use hydrogen to power jets. I'll give it this, it's not based on religion, but more science based.
How Will Aircraft Fuel Tanks Accommodate The Switch To Hydrogen Power?
Aviation Week Senior Propulsion Editor Guy Norris responds:
Hydrogen propulsion holds significant potential to reduce climate impact in flight by as much as 75% when used in engines for direct combustion and as much as 90% when used in fuel cells to power electrically driven hybrid engines or distributed propulsion systems. Although liquid hydrogen (LH2) has three times the gravimetric energy density of jet fuel, it has a low volumetric density (approximately 2.4 kWh/liter compared with 10.4 kWh/liter for kerosene). This creates a huge challenge for aircraft designers because hydrogen fuel will require about four times the volume of jet fuel to carry the same onboard energy.
Even assuming lightweight tanks can be developed, the volumetric density issue means hydrogen propulsion will—at least for the near to mid-term—be best suited to smaller regional, short- and medium-range aircraft.Although hydrogen fuel is technically feasible for use in longer-range aircraft, the size of the fuel tanks would result in much longer or larger fuselages and greater energy demand, resulting in costs as much as 50% higher per passenger. For the longer term, however, it is possible that new volumetrically efficient airframe designs, such as blended wing body (BWB) configurations, would enable hydrogen to be considered for future long-range applications.
According to a recently published independent review of hydrogen-powered aviation prepared by McKinsey & Co. for the European Union’s Clean Sky 2 research initiative, developers are considering multiple options to enable fast-tracking service entry of hydrogen-powered aircraft so they could have a material impact on the climate before 2050. The initial evolutionary option is to develop versions of current tube-and-wing designs in which engines and fuel systems are adapted to run on LH2.
For an Airbus A320/Boeing 737-size aircraft flying on typical ranges up to 1,100 nm (2,000 km), for example, the issue of fuel volume would be handled by stretching the fuselage to accommodate LH2 tanks behind the passenger cabin. Power would be provided by a hybrid system that combines hydrogen-burning turbine engines sized for takeoff and climb with an 11-megawatt fuel cell to generate the bulk of power for cruise...
Again, they can see out three decades, but not next week. Got it. I don't question Mr. Norris' expertise or opinion, but the need for this. As I've also said, thousands of times, if you can make a business model work, fantastic. Purduce this form of energy, sell it on the open market, make a fortune by providing a needed service. I think it's called capitalism. I'm not a fan of crony capitalism. Sorry for putting reality into your business model, but the sun doesn't always shine (solar), the wind doesn't always blow (windmills), and battery technology is not close to being what's needed for long term storage of electricity. But I wish these people well. As many forms of energy possible, the better.