HES Energy Systems revealed its plans for Element One, the world’s first regional hydrogen-electric passenger aircraft. They have been developing hydrogen propulsion systems for drones for the last 12 years.
Element One merges HES’ ultra-light hydrogen fuel cell technologies with a distributed electric aircraft propulsion design. With virtually no change to its current drone-scale systems, HES’ distributed system allows for modularity and increased safety through multiple system redundancies.
Element One is designed to fly 4 passengers for 500 km to 5000 km depending on whether hydrogen is stored in gaseous or liquid form. This performance is several orders of magnitude better than any battery-electric aircraft attempt so far, opening new aerial routes between smaller towns and rural areas using an existing and dense network of small-scale airports and aerodromes.
Refueling Element One will take no more than 10 minutes using an automated nacelle swap system that applies AGVs and automated warehouse operations such as those used by Amazon and Alibaba.
Last week, HES announced its plans to begin associating on-site hydrogen generation with fuel cell powered unmanned aircraft across a network of hydrogen-ready airports, in preparation for larger-scale electric aircraft such as Element One. HES is now in discussion with industrial-scale hydrogen producers to explore energy-efficient refueling systems using renewable solar or wind energy produced locally.
In an effort to explore new business models that help position Element One into new travel segments, HES has aligned its zero-carbon aviation roadmap with Wingly, a French startup that offers flight sharing services for decentralized and regional air travel: “We analyzed the millions of destination searches made by the community of 200,000 pilots and passengers on our platform and confirm there is a tremendous need for inter-regional transport between secondary cities”, says Emeric de Waziers, CEO of Wingly. “By combining autonomous emission-free aircraft such as Element One, digital community-based platforms like Wingly and the existing high-density network of airfields, we can change the paradigm. France alone offers a network of more than 450 airfields but only 10% of these are connected by regular airlines. We will simply connect the remaining 90%.”
Targeting a first flying prototype before 2025, HES is in the process of building a technical and commercial consortium involving both the aviation and hydrogen eco-systems.
Swappable gas pods
AEROPAK series comes in 4 standard storage configurations: swappable pod, gaseous, liquid hydride and solid hydride. The specific energy of such systems ranges between 450 Wh/kg and 752 Wh/kg .
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Not sure if local CO2 might have some effect on a city’s microclimate, but I meant more the pollution angle from other associated emissions. Depends which fuel you’re burning and under which burn conditions.
Not sure if local CO2 might have some effect on a city’s microclimate but I meant more the pollution angle from other associated emissions. Depends which fuel you’re burning and under which burn conditions.
I don’t see how local CO2 production is an issue. CO2 is only concerning people at a global level, so banning fuel use in a small local area doesn’t help at all if the same amount of fuel is burned overall.
I don’t see how local CO2 production is an issue. CO2 is only concerning people at a global level so banning fuel use in a small local area doesn’t help at all if the same amount of fuel is burned overall.
Well, towing a another airplane as a fuel tank doesn’t work either… If the poor power density is true (which eluded me so far) then in conclusion there’s no point in even trying fuel cell airplanes. A BEV airplanes are not good for much.
Well towing a another airplane as a fuel tank doesn’t work either…If the poor power density is true (which eluded me so far) then in conclusion there’s no point in even trying fuel cell airplanes. A BEV airplanes are not good for much.
Not sure if local CO2 might have some effect on a city’s microclimate, but I meant more the pollution angle from other associated emissions. Depends which fuel you’re burning and under which burn conditions.
My bet it is on methanol as a decent-ish compromise. It can use the same fuel tanks and probably the same engines as standard jet fuel, or it can be fed into a fuel cell. And in principle it could be made carbon-neutral, though that’d be more expensive.
My bet it is on methanol as a decent-ish compromise. It can use the same fuel tanks and probably the same engines as standard jet fuel or it can be fed into a fuel cell. And in principle it could be made carbon-neutral though that’d be more expensive.
Issues with batteries are horrible specific power (kwhr/kg) and the inability to quickly recharge. H2 for all its problems has good specific power (around 1kwhr/kg) and ability to quickly refill but H2 production is not financially viable. We use aviation kerosene and jet engines for many reasons. Crazy high specific energy fuel with lightweight tanks coupled to high efficiency lightweight engine. This combination lets us fly halfway around the world without worries.
Issues with batteries are horrible specific power (kwhr/kg) and the inability to quickly recharge.H2 for all its problems has good specific power (around 1kwhr/kg) and ability to quickly refill but H2 production is not financially viable.We use aviation kerosene and jet engines for many reasons. Crazy high specific energy fuel with lightweight tanks coupled to high efficiency lightweight engine. This combination lets us fly halfway around the world without worries.
Ammonia doesn’t need a bulletproof 10,000 psi tank so it saves on weight savings. Still not viable.
Ammonia doesn’t need a bulletproof 10000 psi tank so it saves on weight savings.Still not viable.
As neat as it would be to reuse a fuel cell stack for something more modest (say a H2-elecctric Cessna) lets just all admit that it is economically dead on arrival. And airlines care first and foremost about economic viability.
As neat as it would be to reuse a fuel cell stack for something more modest (say a H2-elecctric Cessna) lets just all admit that it is economically dead on arrival.And airlines care first and foremost about economic viability.
Well as the NBF commenter who has talked about fuel cell-electric planes the most I can say that Solid Oxide Fuel Cells have absolutely horrible specific power. If you want to do some research google “bloom energy server es5-300 kw specifications” and note that the 300kW fuel cell has a weight of… wait for it… 15.4 tons. Yesiree 15.4 tons for 300kW of power. So state of the art commercial solid oxide fuel cells are totally unworkable for anything that flies. But do tell me more about how H2 fuel cells are nonviable. They give 1kwhr/kg which is on par with Al-air batteries.
Well as the NBF commenter who has talked about fuel cell-electric planes the most I can say that Solid Oxide Fuel Cells have absolutely horrible specific power.If you want to do some research google bloom energy server es5-300 kw specifications”” and note that the 300kW fuel cell has a weight of… wait for it…15.4 tons.Yesiree 15.4 tons for 300kW of power. So state of the art commercial solid oxide fuel cells are totally unworkable for anything that flies.But do tell me more about how H2 fuel cells are nonviable. They give 1kwhr/kg which is on par with Al-air batteries.”””
I don’t see how local CO2 production is an issue. CO2 is only concerning people at a global level, so banning fuel use in a small local area doesn’t help at all if the same amount of fuel is burned overall.
A non-viable H2 fuel cell system. SOFCs are for hydrocarbons. So you could high volumetric/gravimetry energy density fuels, which could be even better than in these measure than fuel burners. And definitely more efficient.
A non-viable H2 fuel cell system.SOFCs are for hydrocarbons. So you could high volumetric/gravimetry energy density fuels which could be even better than in these measure than fuel burners. And definitely more efficient.
(By “populated area” I mean densely populated. The nearby city that the airport is serving.)
(By populated area”” I mean densely populated. The nearby city that the airport is serving.)”””
Both reasons may make sense if they’re extended to the entire nearby populated area and some minimal altitude.
Both reasons may make sense if they’re extended to the entire nearby populated area and some minimal altitude.
Well, towing a another airplane as a fuel tank doesn’t work either…
If the poor power density is true (which eluded me so far) then in conclusion there’s no point in even trying fuel cell airplanes. A BEV airplanes are not good for much.
I don’t understand your objection. These guys ARE using fuel cells.
I don’t understand your objection. These guys ARE using fuel cells.
I agree with the series hybrid idea. The series hybrid with a turbine range extender also lets you do all electric takeoffs and landings. Which isn’t useful NOW, but if electric flight does take off (see what I did there) then a number of places are going to start demanding, (or at least giving financial incentives) a fuel-less operation at their airport. Both for noise reasons (which make sense) and maybe CO2 reasons (which don’t make sense, because you just recharge as soon as you are out their jurisdiction.)
I agree with the series hybrid idea.The series hybrid with a turbine range extender also lets you do all electric takeoffs and landings. Which isn’t useful NOW but if electric flight does take off (see what I did there) then a number of places are going to start demanding (or at least giving financial incentives) a fuel-less operation at their airport. Both for noise reasons (which make sense) and maybe CO2 reasons (which don’t make sense because you just recharge as soon as you are out their jurisdiction.)
My bet it is on methanol as a decent-ish compromise. It can use the same fuel tanks and probably the same engines as standard jet fuel, or it can be fed into a fuel cell. And in principle it could be made carbon-neutral, though that’d be more expensive.
Issues with batteries are horrible specific power (kwhr/kg) and the inability to quickly recharge.
H2 for all its problems has good specific power (around 1kwhr/kg) and ability to quickly refill but H2 production is not financially viable.
We use aviation kerosene and jet engines for many reasons. Crazy high specific energy fuel with lightweight tanks coupled to high efficiency lightweight engine. This combination lets us fly halfway around the world without worries.
Ammonia doesn’t need a bulletproof 10,000 psi tank so it saves on weight savings.
Still not viable.
As neat as it would be to reuse a fuel cell stack for something more modest (say a H2-elecctric Cessna) lets just all admit that it is economically dead on arrival.
And airlines care first and foremost about economic viability.
Well as the NBF commenter who has talked about fuel cell-electric planes the most I can say that Solid Oxide Fuel Cells have absolutely horrible specific power.
If you want to do some research google “bloom energy server es5-300 kw specifications” and note that the 300kW fuel cell has a weight of… wait for it…
15.4 tons.
Yesiree 15.4 tons for 300kW of power. So state of the art commercial solid oxide fuel cells are totally unworkable for anything that flies.
But do tell me more about how H2 fuel cells are nonviable. They give 1kwhr/kg which is on par with Al-air batteries.
A non-viable H2 fuel cell system.
SOFCs are for hydrocarbons. So you could high volumetric/gravimetry energy density fuels, which could be even better than in these measure than fuel burners. And definitely more efficient.
(By “populated area” I mean densely populated. The nearby city that the airport is serving.)
Both reasons may make sense if they’re extended to the entire nearby populated area and some minimal altitude.
So a giant plane for four people. Don’t be silly… Just use solid-oxide fuelcells.
So a giant plane for four people. Don’t be silly…Just use solid-oxide fuelcells.
I don’t understand your objection. These guys ARE using fuel cells.
I agree with the series hybrid idea.
The series hybrid with a turbine range extender also lets you do all electric takeoffs and landings. Which isn’t useful NOW, but if electric flight does take off (see what I did there) then a number of places are going to start demanding, (or at least giving financial incentives) a fuel-less operation at their airport. Both for noise reasons (which make sense) and maybe CO2 reasons (which don’t make sense, because you just recharge as soon as you are out their jurisdiction.)
So a giant plane for four people. Don’t be silly…
Just use solid-oxide fuelcells.
Electric/hydrogen planes might be a bit more practical if they were towed to altitude by a conventional engine plane/jet – in the same manner as a glider. If about 10% of energy is used to gain altitude – covering maybe 1/3rd the distance as when cruising at higher altitudes – this might give another 30% added to range, while still using maybe 1/10th as much fuel as a conventional craft on the same trip. Also, they should be able to cut back on the number of electric motors and fuel cells, reducing weight – which should give another solid boost to range. For larger craft, maybe a ‘limpet’ aircraft/drone attached directly to the main craft could provide the extra climbing power, then disconnect and land back at the starting airport. Essentially a first stage…
Electric/hydrogen planes might be a bit more practical if they were towed to altitude by a conventional engine plane/jet – in the same manner as a glider. If about 10{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of energy is used to gain altitude – covering maybe 1/3rd the distance as when cruising at higher altitudes – this might give another 30{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} added to range while still using maybe 1/10th as much fuel as a conventional craft on the same trip.Also they should be able to cut back on the number of electric motors and fuel cells reducing weight – which should give another solid boost to range.For larger craft maybe a ‘limpet’ aircraft/drone attached directly to the main craft could provide the extra climbing power then disconnect and land back at the starting airport. Essentially a first stage…
Electric/hydrogen planes might be a bit more practical if they were towed to altitude by a conventional engine plane/jet – in the same manner as a glider. If about 10% of energy is used to gain altitude – covering maybe 1/3rd the distance as when cruising at higher altitudes – this might give another 30% added to range, while still using maybe 1/10th as much fuel as a conventional craft on the same trip.
Also, they should be able to cut back on the number of electric motors and fuel cells, reducing weight – which should give another solid boost to range.
For larger craft, maybe a ‘limpet’ aircraft/drone attached directly to the main craft could provide the extra climbing power, then disconnect and land back at the starting airport. Essentially a first stage…
The best powertrain I’ve seen is a turbine -> generator -> battery system -> electric motors Dump the hydrogen fuel cells and get some high end turbines in there. (The turbine is the “range extender” / battery charger) The awesome thing is that in this type of system you can burn virtually any fuel based on pricing at the time.
The best powertrain I’ve seen is a turbine -> generator -> battery system -> electric motorsDump the hydrogen fuel cells and get some high end turbines in there.(The turbine is the range extender”” / battery charger)The awesome thing is that in this type of system you can burn virtually any fuel based on pricing at the time.”””
Technically a regional aircraft is anything *up to* 100 passengers. Lawyered
Technically a regional aircraft is anything *up to* 100 passengers.Lawyered
You can only fit so much hydrogen in the fuel tanks. For longer range you need higher volumetric energy density, like LNG (22 MJ/L) or methanol (15 MJ/L). Ammonia has also been proposed here before, but it’s just barely better than hydrogen (11 MJ/L for liquid ammonia vs 9 MJ/L for compressed hydrogen).
You can only fit so much hydrogen in the fuel tanks. For longer range you need higher volumetric energy density like LNG (22 MJ/L) or methanol (15 MJ/L). Ammonia has also been proposed here before but it’s just barely better than hydrogen (11 MJ/L for liquid ammonia vs 9 MJ/L for compressed hydrogen).
I’d say both mass and volumetric energy density are important for planes. The less volumetric energy, the less energy can fit in the fuel tanks, which invariably have a limited volume. In other words, a flight shorter range. I’m not sure how the mass energy density affects range and other performance parameters. Perhaps there’s tradeoff with some optimal sweetspot.
I’d say both mass and volumetric energy density are important for planes. The less volumetric energy the less energy can fit in the fuel tanks which invariably have a limited volume. In other words a flight shorter range.I’m not sure how the mass energy density affects range and other performance parameters. Perhaps there’s tradeoff with some optimal sweetspot.
I can see hydrogen for longer range travel, but the fuel is not inexpensive (inherently a several fold multiple of battery electric). Short range flights I think are likely to be eventually dominated by battery electric craft from a purely cost perspective. I wonder what electric aircraft will do for safety, as many of the designs seem to show highly redundant propulsion and fewer moving parts.
I can see hydrogen for longer range travel but the fuel is not inexpensive (inherently a several fold multiple of battery electric). Short range flights I think are likely to be eventually dominated by battery electric craft from a purely cost perspective. I wonder what electric aircraft will do for safety as many of the designs seem to show highly redundant propulsion and fewer moving parts.
To transport 4 people we need 14 fuel and fuel cell modules at each airport. If this is a 500km range shuttle service at (say) 250 km/hr those modules need to be refilled in 4 hours, or we need even more of them. What are the economics of this? And what area of solar panels do we need at each airport – allowing for cloudy days?
To transport 4 people we need 14 fuel and fuel cell modules at each airport. If this is a 500km range shuttle service at (say) 250 km/hr those modules need to be refilled in 4 hours or we need even more of them. What are the economics of this? And what area of solar panels do we need at each airport – allowing for cloudy days?
4 passenger is not a Regional aircraft
4 passenger is not a Regional aircraft
Yep. Air travel is sensitive to airborne mass. … “HES plans to associate on-site hydrogen generation with fuel cell powered unmanned aircraft across a network of hydrogen-ready airports, in preparation for larger-scale electric aircraft such as Element One.” In other words, there’s presently no infrastructure at the thousands of airports (the “90%”) that aren’t regularly serviced by commercial aircraft. Moreover, very few (if any) of the 10%, those airports that ARE commercial, have hydrogen refueling infrastructure, either. “Plans to associate” is corporate doublespeak for “well, if we keep talking it up, maybe we can attract angels to fund this great thing, someday”. “HES is discussing energy-efficient refueling systems using renewable solar or wind energy produced locally with commercial hydrogen producers.” In other words, they’re streaming … an environmentally progressive narrative … with producers of hydrogen that aren’t in the LEAST bit interested in using the NOT superabundant solar and wind power to electrolytically generate hydrogen: a process which is no less than 3× more costly than methane water-shift thermo-chemical reaction, from which most hydrogen is produced today. ________________________________________ The “future of hydrogen” advocacy seems — to this old goat — to be perpetually in a state of readiness … to start … sometime soon… That, and ray-tracing cool blue not-existing aircraft, and you’re on your way. Just saying, GoatGuy
Yep. Air travel is sensitive to airborne mass.… “HES plans to associate on-site hydrogen generation with fuel cell powered unmanned aircraft across a network of hydrogen-ready airports in preparation for larger-scale electric aircraft such as Element One.”In other words there’s presently no infrastructure at the thousands of airports (the 90{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}””) that aren’t regularly serviced by commercial aircraft. Moreover”” very few (if any) of the 10{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} those airports that ARE commercial have hydrogen refueling infrastructure either. “Plans to associate” is corporate doublespeak for “well if we keep talking it up maybe we can attract angels to fund this great thing someday”.“HES is discussing energy-efficient refueling systems using renewable solar or wind energy produced locally with commercial hydrogen producers.”In other words they’re streaming … an environmentally progressive narrative … with producers of hydrogen that aren’t in the LEAST bit interested in using the NOT superabundant solar and wind power to electrolytically generate hydrogen: a process which is no less than 3× more costly than methane water-shift thermo-chemical reaction from which most hydrogen is produced today. ________________________________________The “future of hydrogen” advocacy seems — to this old goat — to be perpetually in a state of readiness … to start … sometime soon… That and ray-tracing cool blue not-existing aircraft and you’re on your way. Just saying””GoatGuy”””””””
Seems like energy density by weight (i.e. specific energy) is more important for airplanes, but by volume is more important for cars. That would make hydrogen perfect for airplanes. By volume it’s less energy-dense than hydrocarbon fuels, but by weight it stores more energy: 142 MJ/kg, compared to 46.4 for gasoline and a bit less for jet fuel. And since there are fewer airports than gas stations, infrastructure isn’t quite so challenging as with cars.
Seems like energy density by weight (i.e. specific energy) is more important for airplanes but by volume is more important for cars.That would make hydrogen perfect for airplanes. By volume it’s less energy-dense than hydrocarbon fuels but by weight it stores more energy: 142 MJ/kg compared to 46.4 for gasoline and a bit less for jet fuel. And since there are fewer airports than gas stations infrastructure isn’t quite so challenging as with cars.
The best powertrain I’ve seen is a turbine -> generator -> battery system -> electric motors
Dump the hydrogen fuel cells and get some high end turbines in there.
(The turbine is the “range extender” / battery charger)
The awesome thing is that in this type of system you can burn virtually any fuel based on pricing at the time.
Technically a regional aircraft is anything *up to* 100 passengers.
Lawyered
You can only fit so much hydrogen in the fuel tanks. For longer range you need higher volumetric energy density, like LNG (22 MJ/L) or methanol (15 MJ/L). Ammonia has also been proposed here before, but it’s just barely better than hydrogen (11 MJ/L for liquid ammonia vs 9 MJ/L for compressed hydrogen).
I’d say both mass and volumetric energy density are important for planes. The less volumetric energy, the less energy can fit in the fuel tanks, which invariably have a limited volume. In other words, a flight shorter range.
I’m not sure how the mass energy density affects range and other performance parameters. Perhaps there’s tradeoff with some optimal sweetspot.
I can see hydrogen for longer range travel, but the fuel is not inexpensive (inherently a several fold multiple of battery electric). Short range flights I think are likely to be eventually dominated by battery electric craft from a purely cost perspective. I wonder what electric aircraft will do for safety, as many of the designs seem to show highly redundant propulsion and fewer moving parts.
To transport 4 people we need 14 fuel and fuel cell modules at each airport. If this is a 500km range shuttle service at (say) 250 km/hr those modules need to be refilled in 4 hours, or we need even more of them. What are the economics of this? And what area of solar panels do we need at each airport – allowing for cloudy days?
4 passenger is not a Regional aircraft
Yep. Air travel is sensitive to airborne mass.
… “HES plans to associate on-site hydrogen generation with fuel cell powered unmanned aircraft across a network of hydrogen-ready airports, in preparation for larger-scale electric aircraft such as Element One.”
In other words, there’s presently no infrastructure at the thousands of airports (the “90%”) that aren’t regularly serviced by commercial aircraft. Moreover, very few (if any) of the 10%, those airports that ARE commercial, have hydrogen refueling infrastructure, either. “Plans to associate” is corporate doublespeak for “well, if we keep talking it up, maybe we can attract angels to fund this great thing, someday”.
“HES is discussing energy-efficient refueling systems using renewable solar or wind energy produced locally with commercial hydrogen producers.”
In other words, they’re streaming … an environmentally progressive narrative … with producers of hydrogen that aren’t in the LEAST bit interested in using the NOT superabundant solar and wind power to electrolytically generate hydrogen: a process which is no less than 3× more costly than methane water-shift thermo-chemical reaction, from which most hydrogen is produced today.
________________________________________
The “future of hydrogen” advocacy seems — to this old goat — to be perpetually in a state of readiness … to start … sometime soon…
That, and ray-tracing cool blue not-existing aircraft, and you’re on your way.
Just saying,
GoatGuy
Seems like energy density by weight (i.e. specific energy) is more important for airplanes, but by volume is more important for cars.
That would make hydrogen perfect for airplanes. By volume it’s less energy-dense than hydrocarbon fuels, but by weight it stores more energy: 142 MJ/kg, compared to 46.4 for gasoline and a bit less for jet fuel.
And since there are fewer airports than gas stations, infrastructure isn’t quite so challenging as with cars.
Not sure if local CO2 might have some effect on a city’s microclimate, but I meant more the pollution angle from other associated emissions. Depends which fuel you’re burning and under which burn conditions.
Not sure if local CO2 might have some effect on a city’s microclimate but I meant more the pollution angle from other associated emissions. Depends which fuel you’re burning and under which burn conditions.
I don’t see how local CO2 production is an issue. CO2 is only concerning people at a global level, so banning fuel use in a small local area doesn’t help at all if the same amount of fuel is burned overall.
I don’t see how local CO2 production is an issue. CO2 is only concerning people at a global level so banning fuel use in a small local area doesn’t help at all if the same amount of fuel is burned overall.
Well, towing a another airplane as a fuel tank doesn’t work either… If the poor power density is true (which eluded me so far) then in conclusion there’s no point in even trying fuel cell airplanes. A BEV airplanes are not good for much.
Well towing a another airplane as a fuel tank doesn’t work either…If the poor power density is true (which eluded me so far) then in conclusion there’s no point in even trying fuel cell airplanes. A BEV airplanes are not good for much.