Boeing recently announced that it will have a hydrogen plane in the air later this year. The Boeing Fuel Cell Demonstrator Airplane is scheduled to fly at an altitude of about 2,000 feet (610 meters). The plane has a wing span of 16.3 meters (53.5 feet) and can fly at a speed of about 100 kilometers (62 miles) per hour.
The technology is identical to what is used in hydrogen cars such as the Ford HySeries, GM's HydroGen4 and Kia's 4×4 Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle, i.e. tanks holding hydrogen in the form of compressed gas, fuel cells, lithium-ion batteries and electric motors, in the case of this plane a single motor coupled to a conventional propeller.
Just like cars can (and already are) getting their electricity and hydrogen from the solar panels on top of parking lots, planes could similarly be powered from clean energy, such as from solar or wind power facilities in our backyards.
Boeing first announced the electric plane project in November 2001, when it said the first test flights could begin in early 2004. At the time, there was even speculation that the first flight would coincide with the celebrations of the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers first powered flight back in December 17th, 2003. Those plans have since been pushed back several times, but it now looks like it is finally going to happen.
Planes like this have the potential to reshape the face of the world. Imagine if we all used personal aircraft instead of cars. We no longer needed any roads, nor large, noisy airports. Instead we could use small airstrips to take off and land, perhaps in our backyards.
Communities without roads constitute a dramatic change in urban design. Houses could be smaller, as there's no need to put cars in garages. Without roads, houses could also be built much closer together - that in itself could reduce travel time. Simple pathways would be sufficient, connecting all such houses with a center comprising of shops, restaurants, medical specialists, lecture theaters, all within walking distance. Imagine the cost savings on cars, roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, railway tracks and railway stations, on gasoline and service stations. People could largely work from home and meet at facilities of the center closeby, resulting in further savings on office buildings and their car parking facilities.
There would also be huge time savings; given an abundance of small landing strips, planes could take us in a more direct line from one place to another, as opposed to the congested road system where cars line up for a multitude of traffic lights. GPS-navigation and radar technology could also result in a spectacular drop in traffic accidents; after all, there is much more space in the three-dimensional air than on the two-dimensional ground.
To help such developments take off, we need to tax items that cause greenhouse gas emissions, such as fossil fuel, meat and fertilizers, with the tax proceeds going to local supply of better alternatives, such as solar and wind power, agrichar and vegan-organic food served in restaurants in communities without roads.
Please support our efforts to change the world and copy, post or email this article widely!
References:
Into the Wild Green Yonder - Boeing’s super-clean fuel-cell aircraft will create history this year with aviation’s first zero-emissions flight
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2007/july/ts_sf06.pdf
Boeing's fuel cell-powered electric demonstrator airplane - August 2003
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2003/august/i_atw.html
Boeing Announces Partners for Fuel Cell Demonstrator Airplane Project - July 11, 2003
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q3/nr_030711p.html
The Hydrogen Economy - articles featured in this group
http://www.gather.com/viewArticles.jsp?filter=feature&grpId=3659174697249995&nav=Groupspace
Change the World - articles featured in this group
http://www.gather.com/viewArticles.jsp?filter=feature&grpId=3659174697250134&nav=Groupspace
Solar-Hydrogen Demo Project in Sacramento - by Steve B.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977163811
Tax the sale of meat! - by Sam Carana
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977123673
Agrichar - by Sam Carana
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977155102
Communities without roads - by Sam Carana
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977128488
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
Markets are best suited to sort this out, Larry, but I've given some examples in earlier articles and comments:
Hydrogen could be produced by burning biowaste by means of pyrolysis, which will also provide agrichar
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977155102
Solar panels on top of hangars could provide the hydrogen for the planes, in a similar way as in the Solar-Hydrogen Demo Project in Sacramento
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977163811
For those without easy access to hydrogen from such facilities, a range of alternative power sources, including geothermal, solar and wind power could feed electricity into the electric grid and power local electrolysis units in people's homes and at their work. The heat produced in the process could be used to heat up hot water systems (co-generation). I expect prices for such units to fall rapidly, as people buy hydrogen cars, but those who don't have one could always buy hydrogen tanks in a store or have it home-delivered.
I'm not sure if I'd be interested in having one of these planes for personal use. I think I'd prefer to stay on the ground, so I hope there will be hydrogen fuel cell cars as well.
Larry: "Where do we get the hydrogen?"
Hydrogen is produced from any energy source. Today, most hydrogen is produced by reforming natural gas, but in the future, renewable energy sources will produce hydrogen by splitting hydrogen and oxygen molecules in water, a process known as electrolysis. Sam has provided links to "The Hydrogen Economy" group on Gather and to my article, "Solar-Hydrogen Demo Project in Sacramento," which describes a pilot solar-hydrogen project due to open by year's end. Also, you can learn a great deal about hydrogen at the Rocky Mountain Institute website.
Plug in hybrids are pretty clearly the most promissing techonology out there. It has the advantages of electric cars, but with the unlimited range of conventional ICE cars. First of all, the increased cost from a conventional car is about $5000--far less than a fuel cell. Also, the infastructure is allready in place, and little extra electrical capacity would actually be needed because they would mostly be charged during off peak electrical hours. Also, while hydrogen is even more expensive than gasoline, electricity is the equivilant of ~$1 per gallon. Also, there's nothing to say that plug-in hybrids need to be fueled by gasoline--when cellulosic ethanol begins to be brought on line, that could be used, or even if hydrogen does become a viable fuel, could use hydrogen (hydrogen fuel cells also need batteries, because fuel cells can't quickly change power that would be needed to opperate a car normally).
Bes of all, the technology is allready here for the most part. There are several after market companies that do the conversion already, and the Chevy Volt is expected to be the first mass produced plug-in hybrid in 2010.
California encouraged new industrial buildings to put up solar roofs and to sell back excess power generated. Apparently this is working pretty well in some places.
Between solar and alcohol, it's hard for me to see how hydrogen is going to compete, and then there is wind...
In a society structured as described in the article, greenhouse gas emmissions will be minimal. Our current society is unsustainable. If you have any better alternatives, I look forward hearing them, Paul.
I'm sure there will be, Steve, at least for many years. Gradually, communities without roads will be built in many places, with only footpaths interconnecting each building around one or more central areas.
In other places, people will prefer to continue living further apart and they will therefore have to continue to use (electric) cars. But the extra cost they will have to pay is not merely the car, but the entire infrastructure of roads, traffic police, car parking facilities, etc, and it will need not double, but at least three times as much land.
Cost considerations will make many people opt for communities without roads, as well as other considerations, such as time savings, social interaction, convenience, health and safety considerations. And, of course, concerns about global warming will hasten such developments. I suggest that market mechanisms can and will work things out. That would imply that people living in communities without roads wouldn't be taxed to pay for roads used by others.
Communities without roads would have several airstrips nearby, so that everyone can go there either by walking, cycling or using small electric vehicles. Since such communities cater for all daily needs, only a few people would require to travel over longer distances, so there would only be demand for a rental company to have a few airplanes on standby.
Denise: "and Imagine how hard it would be to get a lisence."
As the article says, GPS-navigation and radar technology could also result in a spectacular drop in traffic accidents; one would only need to use Google Maps to find the destination coordinates, enter them into the plane's navigation system and switch it on auto-pilot. After all, there is much more room in the (three-dimensional) sky than on the (two-dimensional) ground.
Communities without roads would only require the occasional air travel, when someone needed to travel to other communities. They would wouldn't need this entire infrastructure of roads, cars, traffic police, offices, gasoline, garages and other car-parking facilities, etc. They would replace all that with smaller houses built close together (and thus requiring less land) and a few small airstrips where some rental airplanes are waiting for the occasional traveler. Such airplanes could be parked in hangars covered by solar panels to supply all the energy those planes need.
It looks more like it's the other way around, Daniel, such communities without roads using a few of those airplanes would be far more economic, they would emit far less greenhouse gases and would have numerous further attractions. Your idea that gasoline was cheaper is based on supply that causes unsustainable pollution, requires police and military protection and an infrastructure that is hugely subsidized in many other ways. Even if you switched to ethanol, that still means you're not totally clean. Also, you needed both combustion engines and electric motors. As I said before, Daniel, I suggest that we let market mechanisms work things out.
Excellent article, thanks!
I do think you communities without roads is more pie in the sky that hopeful reality. It is simply not feasible in the visible future. We have too many people in this country and they can't all own or fly private aircraft, even if they wanted to! Without roads, you'd be cut off from a good deal of what make life worth living. The concept of getting as many people as reasonably possible, as close to their work as can reasonably be done is good if they have a job at a factory or similar fixed location. Many jobs are not. The people who supply those homes, build those homes, etc., all need to have road access. What about the fire truck or ambulance that needs to get to the home to save a life? Gonna have the walk 10 blocks? Or are you thinking of people living in sky hight breeding stalls with no life outside the house?
James: "We have too many people in this country"
That's an argument in favor of communities without roads, with their greater population density.
James: "they can't all own or fly private aircraft"
In communities without roads, most people will walk down the footpath for all their daily needs. Only for the occasional long distance travel would they need access to an airplane.
James: "what make life worth living"
Communities without roads - some will like it, others will not want to change. Those who do embrace it will envisage financial benefits, more social contacts, a more healthy lifestyle, less greenhouse gas emissions, more safety, etc. Some people like gardening and will put up greenhouses and sell their produce. There are more considerations, but once there are enough people who see the benefits, they will build such communities and start living there.
James: "[it] is good if they have a job at a factory or similar fixed location"
Instead, I see most people work from home and meet at nearby restaurants.
James: "[those who] build those homes, etc., all need to have road access"
Houses can be built from materials that are carried along a footpath, e.g. see:
http://www.ts1-project.com/
Each component weighs less than 45kg and you can set it up yourself in a matter of hours. If 45kg is too much to carry, you can use a trolley.
James: "What about the fire truck?"
Such houses will have water tanks. In case of a fire, there will be more water from all the nearby tanks immediately available than what would take a fire truck quite a while to get there.
James: "[What about the] ambulance that needs to get to the home to save a life?
If needed, people could be carried on a stretcher to nearby medical specialists, which would probably take less time than it takes on average for an ambulance to reach you now, but in many cases it will make more sense for medical specialists to come to the patient. For complicated operations, either the patient would need to be transported by air, or the specialist would need to fly in. I believe many people will want to move to communities without roads for the very reason that medical facilities will be within walking distance, so medical specialists will be keen to set up a practice there. Indeed, it may well be that such communities will first develop around old folks homes, hospitals, universities and the like.
The most promising technology I've heard of is one my friend who has show dogs told me about. She is going to be using methane gas, generated from her dogs' excrement, to power her car. I suppose the catch is that there will be noplace for her to refill if she goes far from home... but if enough farms were to do this then any farm would become a methane gas station. Very sustainable, renewable, and smart.
Houses can be built from materials that are carried along a footpath, e.g. see:
http://www.ts1-project.com/
Each component weighs less than 45kg and you can set it up yourself in a matter of hours. If 45kg is too much to carry, you can use a trolley.
Also read Small houses - perfect for communities without roads, at:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977175654
Lydia: "...methane.."
Read the articles, Agrichar, at:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977155102
and 'Tax the sales of meat!', at:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977123673
Yes, I'm aware of that and I love it! I have been fascinated for years by powered gliders such as the Antares 20E. I've also seen this flightreport and further specs (in german) of the Antares 20E.
http://www.nadler.com/public/Antares_2005.html
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lange_Antares_20E
http://www.lange-flugzeugbau.com/htm/english/products/antares_20e/antares_20E.html
We've got to realize, though, that these are gliders. Normally, gliders are towed aloft by a powered airplane or by a long rope behind a vehicle accelerating down a runway, or by a winch tow, which launches the glider by winding a cable up around a motor-driven drum. To climb without such assistance, gliders circle upwards in thermal updrafts found under cumulus clouds. This allows gliders to sometimes cover distances of over 500 miles.
Powered gliders such as the Antares 20E can take off and climb without assistance, and can also cover long distances, but only as long as the battery lasts. Without battery power, they can only stay in the air if they manage to catch good updrafts and if the weather conditions are right.
The Boeing plane described in this article has hydrogen and fuel tanks, which allows it to make powered flights over longer distances. Batteries are rather heavy, so taking further batteries onboard would not be much help in terms of extending the distance.
The best balance therefore seems to be to use the battery when you need a lot of power, such as during take off or when there's a need to climbe or avoid obstacles. But at times when power needs are low, such as during a straight flight in good conditions, hydrogen alone can make the plane cover a lot of distance.
Some other fascinating ideas:
- Using Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch Systems (EMALS) to assist take off.
- Adding photovoltaic panels on top of the wings and the body to recharge the battery, both when parked and in flight.
- Recovering energy when reducing altitude or speed, similar to regenerative braking in electric cars. The existing propellor and electric motor could be used in reverse to collect energy in descent, or when decellerating, in order to top up the battery.
- Launching aircraft from a high structure, with an elevator lifting the planes (including pilot and passengers) to launch position and releasing it in free flight from an altitude high enough to keep it going to a desired destination. Obviously, to travel over longer distances, one needed to either use battery power or hydrogen, or lift in thermal updrafts.
I thank all who sent me messages to discuss these fascinating ideas.
The body is a Souricette kit aircraft, adapted to carry a 25-horsepower British-made motor of a type that powers golf carts. It has a 9m (30ft) wingspan. A rack of new generation of light lithium-polymer batteries, weighing 48kg (105lb), supply power in the Electra.
Cost of flying per hour of the Electra was €1 (70p), which is cheap compared with about €60 for an equivalent petrol-driven machine. The motor and batteries cost between €10,000 and €15,000, about the same as existing small petrol engines.
See: Air travel switches to electricity
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3123681.ece