Airbus said it plans to test a hydrogen-powered engine on a modified A380 by the middle of the decade, in hopes of bringing lower-emission fuels to commercial air travel.
The European aircraft giant said Tuesday that it’s working with engine maker CFM International — a joint venture of General Electric’s aviation arm and France’s Safran — on the test plane, which will include a modified version of an engine already in use that will have to handle higher temperatures at which hydrogen burns. Test flights could begin 2026, Airbus said. …
Airbus reportedly informed its employees on February 6 that it would push back the development timeframe of its ZEROe program to as far afield as 2040 or 2045.
This news was subsequently shared by French trade union Force Ouvrière, which also revealed that the budget allocated to Airbus’s ZEROe program would also be cut by a quarter. Plans to test hydrogen fuel-cell propulsion using an A380 as a test bed were also shelved, according to the trade union.
At the moment, sustainable aviation fuel from biomass appears to have a clearer pathway to success than hydrogen. For one thing, it is already being used in fuel blends and so doesn’t require a radical departure from current jet technology.
Experts continue to tell us hydrogen is a clean fuel but it continues to be expensive. Electric jet engine is not possible. Synthetic fuels like SAF are also possible but they too will be expensive. Easy enough to dilute jet fuel with biodiesel for some reduction in greenhouse gases. But they continue to tell us supplies of biodiesel are not sufficient.
Long term low cost hydrogen is essential. Low cost green energy could make that practical. Maybe nuclear power plant power to hydrogen. Hydrogen production by electrolysis is well suited to intermittent green energy.
Or will we give up on zero carbon because its too expensive?
From a thermodynamic point of view, electric jet engines are possible. The problem is that the energy density of batteries needed to achieve take off and go any distance makes it not practical.
The problem is misdirection about corporate tax levels. We need factories built here but not all of the wealthy concerns are in manufacturing.
It is like telling Thomas Jefferson to raise taxes so we can increase factory production while all he cared about was his reckless personal debts and slaves keeping him afloat. He was only a good poet.
Is this narrative about bringing production back to the US all misdirection? The “JCs” can tell you that the easiest money is from financial manipulation/speculation, not productive work. iirc, that was another lesson learned from Jack Welch. Are the tariffs not to move production to the US, but only to replace the revenue from the income tax, so the “JCs” get the ultimate tax cut?
