#Hydrogen is touted by some as THE great climate remedy.
Parts of the #aviation industry are also telling us that we will soon be flying on hydrogen.
Why this is not true - a thread. 🔽 🧵
The basics: in order to use hydrogen as a power source for aircraft instead of kerosene it could either be burned in a jet engine or used to feed a fuel cell to generate electricity to power a propeller.
Hydrogen is produced from other energy sources, has a significant energy loss during the process and is usually stored in liquid form at −253 °C.
Some hydrogen "colours" (= production methods) are: grey (produced from methane or coal), blue (grey hydrogen + carbon capture & storage), green (produced via electrolysis from water with renewable electricity). The last one is the only more or less "sustainable" kind.
Hydrogen and aviation: Airbus studied hydrogen aircraft in the 2000s but shelved their plans in 2010 due to technical issues. In 2020, they then announced their intention to restart development of new hydrogen aircraft that could enter into service in 2035.
Airbus are studying four concept aircraft and will select one by 2025. Other manufacturers are also developing small hydrogen aircraft that may be certified in the 2020s.
But: there are several problems with flying on hydrogen!
Problem 1: hydrogen aircraft are unable to meet climate targets in time and quantity
Even if the schedule announced by Airbus in 2020 is met, it will be too late. According to @UNEP, global GHG emissions must be reduced by 55% by 2030 and 90% by 2050 for staying below #1point5.
The design of a whole range of aircraft and the conversion of the fleet to hydrogen would start too late and take too long to meet this goal. Aircraft have a typical lifetime of 25 years.
Also, hydrogen would be best suited for regional and short- to medium-haul flights. For long-haul flights, which contribute about one third of aviation emissions, hydrogen would not economically compete with synthetic fuels before 2050.
Recently, Airbus stated that a medium-haul aircraft would not be available before 2050, so, before that time hydrogen could potentially displace less than 20% of CO2 emissions.
Problem 2: hydrogen planes would still have significant non-CO2 impacts
The total climate impact of flights is 3.1 times that of CO2 alone. With hydrogen the total climate impact could be reduced by only 50-75% if it's burned in turbines, 75-90% if it's used in fuel cells.
Problem 3: producing green hydrogen would require huge renewable electricity resources
If 40% of the aircraft fleet were converted to liquid hydrogen in 2050 and the rest used e-fuels, the resulting electricity demand would be equivalent to the current total global electricity production and about four times the production of renewable electricity in 2018.
As demand for electricity grows so does the risk that renewable electricity supply will not be able to match it, which will increase the risk of using non-renewable power.
Problem 4: financial support from governments is unjustified - but polluters should pay
Airbus wants "support from governments" to "encourage the use of sustainable fuels and accelerate the
renewal of aircraft fleets".
Most people rarely or never fly. So it would be unfair for them to subsidise research and development, particularly as the success of hydrogen is uncertain, timescales are lengthy and any significant deployment of hydrogen aircraft would be a waste of limited renewable energy.
Bottom line: hydrogen's potential to mitigate the
climate impact of aviation is less than 10% of its total impact by 2050.
This is due to the long timeframes for development and deployment as well as hydrogen's non-CO2 impacts and energy demand. In addition, funding is unclear.
What the aviation industry tells you: electric planes will play a big role in decarbonisation.
What they don't tell you: due to heavy batteries, electric planes are viable only for short distances - which won't change for decades to come.
Learn more: stay-grounded.org/wp-content/upl…
🧵🔽
Efficiency has a problem - it's called #ReboundEffect. History shows us that "efficiency improvements" have always been accompanied by increased emissions! This is because efficiency also reduces the cost of flying and contributes to air traffic growth = emissions growth.
Emissions reductions through efficiency gains can also be cancelled out by airlines upgrading the class of seats, and by flying further or faster.
"Small cuts in air traffic would level off global heating caused by flying"
Good article by @katerav about an important paper by @milankloewer et al. - but with a few blind spots.
First of all: the article talks about a 2.5% reduction in air traffic each year. That is not a small change! Because until now, air traffic has grown at >5% per year. And it wants to continue to do so after Covid - despite rising emissions and climate emergency.
What is important is that aviation cannot become climate-neutral through technology. All "alternatives" deliver too little and have disadvantages. See our new factsheets:
🧵🔽 A thread about the top 5 false promises and the limits of 'green technologies' for '#SustainableAviation'.
#1 Efficiency. The #aviation industry tells us that it emits less and less CO2 per kilometre. What it doesn't tell us is that air traffic is growing much faster than efficiency is improving - resulting in higher climate pollution. #ReboundEffect
#2 Electric Flight. The aviation industry tells us the contribution of electric aircraft to reduce emissions will be significant. That's not true: the only aircraft likely to be certified this decade will be very small, we won’t see larger ones before 2050. Too late for #1point5.
1. Waiting for such technologies prevents climate mitigation today.
Disruptive technologies have been announced in various sectors for decades, and the world is still waiting for the vast majority of them. In the meantime, emissions continue to rise.
2. The aviation industry is lobbying against real climate action, promising technological shifts.
E. g.: The industry has not been meeting its own (low) targets for (harmful) biofuels for years. Why should the target for hydrogen in particular be reached?
We can keep flying if we just offset the emissions, right? 💸➡️🌳
No, because so-called carbon offsets pose many problems and in most cases do not compensate emissions - on the contrary. #CarbonOffset#ClimateJustice
Let us explain. Thread. ⬇️
What are offsets? #Offsets are projects meant to reduce emissions that occur elsewhere. #Offsetting projects are mostly located in countries of the Global South. Many of them are hydroelectric projects, claiming to prevent production of energy from fossil fuels.
1/2
Also forest conservation projects, operators of tree plantations, or organisations that distribute climate-friendly cooking stoves to women in rural parts can sell offset credits.
2/2
To keep the global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees, emissions must be reduced to 2.5 tonnes CO2eq per person per year by 2030.
One long-haul flight alone can exceed this budget – per person!
Air traffic is a major obstacle to climate justice. While it may seem normal for Western Europeans or Americans to fly, this "normality" has only existed for the last few decades and is still rare worldwide. Only about 10% to 20% of the global population have ever taken a flight.
But everyone suffers from the consequences of flying and the climate crisis, especially those in countries of the global south.
And not all flights are equally necessary. Particularly, privileged people should question their choices take sustainable ones and call for change.