First Commercial Fuel Cell Powered Aircraft Just One of Many Eco-Angles at 2008 ILA Berlin Air Show
by Christine Lepisto, Berlin on 06. 1.08
First Commercial Aircraft Powered by Fuel Cells
Airbus and the German Aerospace Center (DLR) presented the first commercial aircraft powered by fuel cells at the ILA Berlin Air Show 2008. The latest addition to the DLR research fleet is an Airbus A320 which has been converted for trials of a fuel cell system. The fuel cells cannot replace the plane's jet engines for powering the heavy plane through the air. Instead, the goal is to take the first step towards meeting ambitious targets to reduce aircraft environmental impact (fuel use, CO2 emissions and noise) by 50% by 2020: the fuel cells replace the auxiliary power units which meet the plane's power demands when the plane is on the ground. The system being trialled is serving as an alternative to the RAM air turbine, which uses an extendable mini-propeller to supply power in the event of an in flight engine failure.
Biofuels Focus
Ross Walker, Engineering Program Manager for Airbus, stated at the ILA2008 that 25% of the fuel used by jet aircraft will be from alternative sources. In separate news, the formation of the Algal Biomass Organization (ABO) was announced. ABO steering committee chair, probably not by coincidence, is the managing director for environmental strategy at Boeing. Airbus is looking at algal biomass and other "second generation" biofuels, but current tests focus on more promising immediate solutions. According to Walker, these include CTL (coal to liquid) as well as gas to liquid (GTL) kerosene replacements.
PAMELA, Process for Advanced Management of End-of-Life Aircraft
Airbus offered a briefing on PAMELA, the partner program to alternative fuel studies in Airbus' full life-cycle impact minimization efforts. The first aircraft recycling plant utilizing the PAMELA principles will come on-line in October of 2008 in France. Using the PAMELA process, Airbus intends to recover 85% of the materials used in aircraft, and to reduce by two thirds the residual waste from end-of-life airplanes.
Boeing Shows One-seater Hydrogen Fuel Cell Plane
The Boeing hydrogen fuel cell plane featured in TreeHugger in March was on display for visitors at ILA. This Boeing one seater plane made aviation history early in 2008 as the first manned flight powered by fuel cell.
Via ::ILA Berlin and ::biofuel review
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Aviation Biofuels Could Be Commerically Used Within 3 Years: Boeing
- 5 Ways to Green Your Business Trip
- Renovation Nation Episode: Seattle: Lower Level Addition
- Run Cars on Green Electricity, Not Natural Gas
Martin Liefhebber on Embodied Energy of Existing Buildings
|
It's The Efficiency, Stupid: New York Times Gets It Right This Time
|
Is it true that airplane emissions are much worse than ground-level emissions? If so, fuel cells for airplanes must be priority research!
'RAM air turbine'
I think that is incorrect. The Ram air turbine is a strictly used as a emergency backup system to drive a hydraulic pump to provide some control in the event of all engines and the APU failing. The intent is to be as simple as possible there is no measurable fuel savings as it is strictly a back emergency system.
==auth. note==
You sound quite expert: perhaps you can take a look at the original source at ILA May 28. Search "Airbus and DLR" to find the article about 1/3 down the page.
It does appear to us that the function as an alternative to the RAM air turbine is not a fuel-saving measure but perhaps a redundant safety feature. The fuel savings anticipated from fuel cells derives, as noted, from the replacement of generators to produce power while the plane is on the ground.
Please let us know if you can draw any further conclusions.
Auxiliary Power Units (APUs) are indeed usually very inefficient. They are designed to be small, simple, and reliable, so they are small turbines, often single-stage, that use a lot of fuel to generate power. They don't burn particularly clean either, and are quite noisy.
The best solution is to plug the aircraft in to airport power and not use the APU at all. But in some airports power is not widely available (especially small airports), and in other airports the aircraft spends substantial idle time away from the gate, due to delays. This is where a better replacement such as this would be of value.
Please understand fuel cells: They do not produce energy, they are, at best, comparable to batteries in that they take an external source of energy which is either hydrogen or any old hydrocarbon fossil fuel, and convert it to electricity. Hydrogen isn't available free from the atmosphere and must be split out of water at a great cost in energy; we already don't have enough fuel, so why would we introduce one more intermediary step to further reduce efficiency? Fuel cells with integrated reformers get filled-up with methane or jet-A or something and crack those molecules to "produce" hydrogen which is converted by the fuel cell into electricity - once again giving up efficiency in the process. The only rational scheme to use fuel cells would use electricity from solar or wind (low, but not 0, carbon) to produce the electricity to electrolize hydrogen from water. Again, we already don't have enough renewable electricity, so how will that make sense in the near future?
Gary
A previous poster had it right - The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) is a small wind turbine that drops into the breeze in certain emergency situations to provide hydraulic/electrical power.
An APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) is a small gas turbine often run on the ground to provide air conditioning and electrical power for the aircraft. It may be run in the air, too, when certain circumstances arise.
Any CO2 savings would have to come from running it in place of the APU.
I don't understand the connection to the RAT, unless it's plumbed into the aircraft in place of the RAT for some in-flight tests.