Can you even load enough hydrogen onto a jet for this to be practical?

Why not methane, or ammonia?

https://h2sciencecoalition.com/blog/hydrogen-for-aircraft-number-crunching-the-solution-or-the-hoax/ >When you crunch the numbers it’s clear that hydrogen is not suitable for transportation. It requires too much energy to produce it without CO2 emissions (green hydrogen) and there is a significant storage problem, even for grey hydrogen. 

Most NFL jets are Rolls Royce . Idk why but I found that interesting

Hydrogen gas is the obvious choice and the technology is improving everyday which will eventually lead to a more efficient storage method to solve the "transportation" issue. As for the production, yes it take more energy to create than is extracted but leave that issue to the producers, if it is a competitive price and its green, why not. There is a TON of unused power around the world that could be used to produce H2, transportation is the only hurdle and we look to be able to clear it soon.

[deleted]

>which will eventually lead to a more efficient storage method to solve the "transportation" issue.

You will not 'eventaully' change the physics of hydrogen's energy density. Liquid ammonia has twice the energy density of 69MPa gaseous hydrogen. LNG/Liquid methane has four times the energy density. And commercial jets will not be using cryogenic hydrogen, not that this would solve the energy balance problem either.

This is very exciting news! I think hydrogen will have a major role to play in the future of airports and aircraft. It's very early to say exactly but I can see massive storage tanks beneath airports that powers everything, from the baggage cars to the airplanes. It would be very exciting to see if the efficiency of almost zero downtime on fueling compared to alternative green energy methods would effect the cost of business.

I was not saying you can change the physics of hydrogen's density, rather the way in which it is currently stored in gaseous form will improve as technology progresses. I agree that ammonia is a viable green alternative but as I understand it is not the best for combustion and adds to engine complexity and cost. LNG is not a green alternative.

LNG is not currently a viable green alternative just like Hydrogen isn't.

There is no limitation of either chemistry or physics that would prevent totally green LNG from becoming a thing, like there is for practical hydrogen stroage for transportation.

And many of the limitations you mention of ammonia can be overcome by adding a small percentage of hydrogen to the fuel mix. A much more ready to go alternative than hydrogen alone. And the hydrogen can be obtained by cracking the ammonia itself as needed as part of the engine system's operation, using waste heat.

https://newatlas.com/aircraft/aviation-h2-ammonia-fuel-jet-aircraft/

Unless they can change the laws of physics I don't see how they going to get the energy density of hydrogen they need it for it to power a plane.

Not without taking up virtually all the space in the aircraft with fuel tanks.

Nope. Nope. And nope.

Now you just need the questions. But the answer is nope.

> I think hydrogen will have a major role to play in the future of airports and aircraft.

It's not going to happen.

I don't get how people aren't seeing this.

Any engineer could do the maths on this in an afternoon and see that hydrogen is not a viable fuel for aviation.

It requires too much weight to keep it stable.

> rather the way in which it is currently stored in gaseous form will improve as technology progresses

Technology cannot change the laws of physics.

There is a base minimum amount of space requires to store gaseous hydrogen, if you go below that you get liquid hydrogen and even bigger storage problems.