Aviation is the most climate-intensive form of transport, so for the sake of the planet, will we have to quit flying for ever? I asked Professor Pericles Pilidis from the Centre for Propulsion Engineering at Cranfield University whether the promise of hydrogen planes could keep our holiday hopes alive.
Thanks for joining me on Zoom, Pericles. Is that a plane you have as your background?
Yes! It’s a hydrogen aeroplane.
Is that the one that had its successful maiden voyage in 2020, but then crashed in 2021?
No, this one doesn’t exist yet but is based on detailed analysis.
It looks just like a regular passenger plane. How do hydrogen planes work?
They look the same but inside they’ll be very different. Currently, planes use hydrocarbon fuel. When it burns, carbon dioxide is produced, which increases global warming. But with hydrogen, you are only producing water. About 3% of the carbon humans produce comes from aviation.
By humans, though, we’re really talking about people in the west.
Yes, but there are global benefits to aviation. I’ve just come back from a holiday in Barbados where roughly half the economy is tourism. If people stop flying, it won’t affect Britons much, but it will have a horrific economic impact in Barbados.
Don’t get me wrong, I love travelling! I think there’s a reason people say someone is “worldly” as a compliment – it’s wonderful to experience other cultures. So how long until hydrogen can give us guilt-free wings?
I’d say 10 years. The problem is that hydrogen costs three to four times the price of conventional fuels. Plus, airports will have to change, because transporting hydrogen is not easy, and aircraft designs will change, too. We don’t have the rules around safety qualifications for these planes – that needs to be developed. It’ll all cost billions, and we need to do it all without using fossil fuels. There’s no point using oil to produce hydrogen. Yet all these things can be done. We’ve been making aircraft safe for 120 years: we can make hydrogen aircraft safe in 10. We just need a lot of money.
Wow! I’m guessing these costs will be passed down to the consumer.
I’d expect some to be, yes.
But wouldn’t that be temporary? A century ago only the wealthiest could have cars. Now everyone does. New technology usually becomes cheaper
If the political will is there, yes. This is somewhere national investments should come in. The UK government is spending £100bn on HS2. That’s the sort of money we need. It sounds like a lot but it’s not dissimilar to what the government’s already doing.
I won’t hold my breath for such political will. They can’t even nationalise the trains even though it makes financial sense and would be popular.
I’m not advocating nationalisation, but supporting private industry, like with wind and solar energy. Grants brought the cost of solar panels down, so it’s now a few per cent of what it used to be. But it’s still private companies making this happen. The difference with aerospace is that instead of buying from Germany or China like we do with solar panels, we can actually produce the engines. That’s British jobs being created.
Sounds quite good, doesn’t it?
It’s like having your cake and eating it, but before you can have your cake or eat it, you need to buy it first.
