Slashdot Mirror
Boeing to Develop a Fuel Cell Powered Airplane
gilgsn writes: "From Yahoo News: Boeing is working with a light airplane manufacturer in Spain on a fuel cell powered plane. The efficiency of electric motors, with their reliability, acceleration, lack of vibrations and noise has a lot to offer to general aviation. The project aims at exploring environmentally friendly modes of propulsion. I can easily imagine a hybrid aircraft using fuel cell technology for take-off and altitude gain, coupled with solar cells to sustain flight. I hope a kitplane manufacturer in the United States will read this. I can't wait to fly a fuel cell powered ultralight!" CD: The question is can a fuel cell deliver enough energy for a flight long enough to be practical.
Is hydrogen that dangerous? In a leak situation it quickly disperses and floats away right? As opposed to other fuels that will burn in an accident. I mean everyone dies in plan crashes anyways, I donlt think the survival record can get much worse. And if we all had secure hydrogen fuel tanks in a safe location in our cars and then I proposed that we instead carry around many gallons of flamable and explosive gasoline in thin tanks that rupture in accidents followed by the fuel spilling and flowing until it found a spark you would all call me crazy.
-Steven
Jet fuel can explode too. A 767 jet carries 200,000 gallons of jet fuel. Enough to fill a very large swimming pool. That can blow a plane apart no problem. I was just 3 blocks from the world trade center when the planes hit and believe me I say that during the explosion, the sound was so loud that it could be heard as far as 20 miles away and the fireball was over 30 stories high and blew over the top of the towers. I talked to people as far as staten island which is about 15 miles away and they heard it. Even if the sound was from the high acceleration of the aircraft hiting the building and not the fuel exploding, the size of the fireball itself showed how much power an exploding tank can do. Either way, if an oil filled tank or a fuel cell explodes the passengers are dead.
http://saveie6.com/
A rethink on the air network strategy to produce lighter, smaller, more efficient aircraft which possibly fly a bit slower and take shorter 'hops' would bring Fuel Cell flight closer.
This would be a worthwhile trade off for a more environmentally sound and sustainable flight infrastructure.
Even more environmentally friendly would be if everyone just walked. I got news for you--transportation technology is based on getting people where they want to go fast and cheap. Many small planes on short flights means a lot more overhead, and a hell of a lot more fuel spent taking off and landing (the most inefficient parts of flight), not to mention longer travel times.
Uh, the major cause of suffering for Kuwaitis has been the DUP's and unexploded ordinance dropped inside Kuwait by the good old US of A.
I'm actually agreeing with your point, I'm just saying that there never was an ethical or moral motivation in the Gulf War. It was purely pragmatic: restore the regional balance of power, prop up a friendly dictatorship (sorry, "monarchy"), try out some new war toys, score a huge PR coup. And oil, oil, oil.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Actually the wtc would survive. It was the intense heat of the jet fuel and not the explosion which brought it down. This is why alternative fuel cell technology is bieng developed. Also not all fuel cells use hydrogen.
http://saveie6.com/
A rethink on the air network strategy to produce lighter, smaller, more efficient aircraft which possibly fly a bit slower and take shorter 'hops' would bring Fuel Cell flight closer.
That doesn't solve the problem of trans-atlantic flights. Or any long-distance flight (how many people would want to take off and land 8 times to go from the UK to Australia for example?). Also as take-off and landing are the most dangerous parts of air-travel, increasing the frequency of them would make air-travel more dangerous as well.
He said the Cells were dangerous. Not the fuel itself. That's like asking if an IC engine design is 'safe' and we know it is, since we can regulate the flow well. When was the last time a car engine (not gas tank) just blew up?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Good Lord people, stop talking about how impossible it is an welcome it as a good thinng. If nothing else then it will, at the very least, foster some additional research into a promising area of clean, renewable energy sources. At the best they come up with a light, clean, cheap, powerfull fuel cell that could have applications in many other areas. Its a win win situation for everyon except boing (if it fails it could lose money). Any way even if it is impossible that just makes it more attractive. Since when did progress rely only on what was possible?
I'm a programmer, I don't have to spell correctly; I just have to spell consistently
I've always thought that aircraft wings are one of the most obvious places to put solar cells. On a day-time flight, you're practically garuanteed maximum sunshine for the whole duration.
Even if you don't use it directly to power the engines, there's still plenty of electronics on your average aircraft that could use it.
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
Of course I RTFA! And I almost wrote a comment like yours, but
Boeing Commercial Airplanes will develop and test an electrically powered demonstrator airplane,
so they are building a plane. It looks to me like they are setting the bar low. No, I don't expect them to come out with a fuel-cell powered business jet, that wouldn't be possible would it, but they are exploring environmentally friendly fuel cell technology for future Boeing products. Note the plural.
The exciting thing about this announcement is that a sector which uses huge amounts of fossil fuel is looking into environmentally sound alternatives!