Comments by "Tony Wilson" (@tonywilson4713) on "Why Hydrogen-Powered Planes Will Beat Electric Planes" video.

As an aerospace engineer you have hit one of the big nails on the head. The media way to often do stories like this where they talk about emissions and focus on a minor subject. As they say at the start aviation is 2.5% of global emissions. When we bailed out the banks from their own selfish stupidity during the GFC the estimate was something like $17 Trillion (with a 'T'). Some estimates put it closer to $40T. So we can spend $$Trillions converting the aviation industry to hydrogen and at best we'd cut 2.5% off global emissions. BUT if we spend several Trillion on the power industry and/or the shipping industry then we could make a real difference. FYI - I'm an aerospace engineer who works in industrial control systems and automation. Back in the 1990s when people first thought we'd need to change aviation over to hydrogen $$$ Millions was spent on research. Companies like Rolls Royce, GE, Siemens have ALREADY sorted out the engines. Hydrogen burns very fast and very hot compared to other fuels, but they had that all sorted out by the late 1990s. RIGHT NOW you can by from GE and Siemens gas turbines for power generation that will run on 50% hydrogen without modification. The GE 9HA for example can do 50% out of the box and they have the kit to go 100%. Here in Australia I am advocating that we go down that path. What's held back hydrogen is generating, storing and handling it. I have had to deal with Hydrogen in my work and can tell you from experience hydrogen is WAY HARDER to deal with than any other gas. In general it prefers to go bang than burn. Its why don't think it will be good for things like aviation and cars but will be brilliant for electricity generation because it will be in a contained environment. Yeah wind and solar will be huge but they both need grid level storage. At the size the world needs, hydrogen is the technology that can be done at that scale.
5
@Neojhun Good point.
1