Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Hamburg, 06. Dezember 2001
CRYOPLANEFlugzeuge mit Wasserstoffantrieb
Dr. Reinhard FaaßAirbus Deutschland GmbH
Why Work on Hydrogen Fuelled Aircraft?
Short History
Technology - Status and Challenges
Safety Aspects
Environmental Aspects
The Path to the Transition
The Need to Act Now - Decisions Requested
Overview
Prepared HG Klug September 2001
Why Work on Hydrogen Fuelled Aircraft?
Prepared HG Klug September 2001
The vision is:
To achieve long term continuing growth of civil aviation until every man and woman on earth can fly as often and as far as they want, and when doing so, do no harm to other human beings , or to the environment.
The Vision
Prepared HG Klug September 2001
0
1000
2000
3000
1970 1990
4000
1980 2000 2010
+4,5% p.a.Predicted Growth
10 Revenue Passenger – km per annum9
Civil Aviation Growth
Without UdSSR/CIS
Source: EADS Airbus Dep. LSM Prepared HG Klug 2000
Passenger-km per capita
10 000
1000
100
10
100 $ 1000 $ 10 000 $ 100 000 $GNP per capita
1 India2 PR China3 Indonesia4 Sri Lanka5 Thailand6 Brazil7 Argentina8 Germany9 Denmark
10 Canada11 Great Britain12 USA13 New Zealand14 Iceland
14
1312
11
910
8
7
5
4
3
2
1
Air Traffic - Relationship to Economic Wealth
Prepared by DASA Airbus HK 23.12.1999
Status 1994
40%
30%
20%
10%
USA PR China + India
41% ofPassenger-km
Status: 1994
Air Traffic and Population
Prepared by DASA Airbus HK 26.11.199
4,6% ofWorld Population
3.4% ofPassenger-km
37% ofWorld Population
25 years Typical Life of Aircraft
300%
Market Volume - Seat Miles Aircraft, Number of Seats
Growth Rate 4.5 % p.a.200%
100%
200% for Growth
100% for Replacement
Growth and Replacement
Prepared by DASA Airbus HK 11.11.1999
1990 2010 2030 2100 long term
Air Traffic
Total Traffic
Total CO2Anthropogenic
Where we will go with“Business as Usual”
What we must do to avoid aglobal temperature increasegreater than 2.5° by CO2 alone
appr. 6.8 GtC/year
Total: + 2%/yearAir Traffic:+2,5%/year
appr. 3.5 Gt C/year
appr. 1.2 GtC/year
CO2 Emissions - Trends and Targets
Kyoto-Target:1990 -5.2%
2010 Prepared by DASA Airbus HK 1.11.1999
[ppmV]
100 Mill 1 Mill 10000 100 100 200 300today Years
Past Future
5000CO2-Content
4000
3000
2000
1000
100
200
300
400500
?
Saurians dying out appr. 65 Mill. years ago
Early man walking upright appr. 3 Mill. years ago
Early culture in Egyptappr. 5000 years ago
Age of industry beginningappr. 200 years ago
Source: GEO Prepared H.Klug 20.6.2000
CO2 – Content of Atmosphere - Past and Future
-2%pa
-2%pa
-2%pa expected
-2.6 to -3.5%pa theoretical potential
-2%pa
Liter per 100 seat-km
10
8
6
5
4
3
2
1
.8
1960 1980 2000 2020
Various Types [DLR]Airbus Family [DASA]DLH Fleet [DLH] 70% SLF assumed World Fleet [Momenthy] per pax-km
Progress in Fuel Efficiency
Prepared/Revised by DASA Airbus HK 7.2.2000
Results of DASA Study
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Kyoto-Target: 95% of Emission in 1990
Passenger-miles +4.5% per y
ear
CO2 Emission +2.5% per year
seat-miles per liter+2% per year
Air Traffic; CO2 Trend and Target
%
Specific Fuel Consumption liter/seat-mile: Improvement 2% per year
Transition to Hydrogen
Business as usual
Prepared HG Klug September 2001
Short History
1937 Dr. v. Ohain rig-tests He-S-2 experimental turbojet engine on hydrogen
1955 Report of NACA -Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory on the potential of hydrogen
1957 US Air Force B 57 bomber flight tests
1950ies Lockheed studies on Mach 2.5 recon-naisance airplane
1970ies Studies by NASA Ames; Institute of Gas Technology; Linde/Union Carbide Corporation, Lockheed, and others; civil transport aircraft, safety aspects
1988 First flight of Tupolev Tu 155 Laboratory aircraft; proves principal feasibility of transport aircaft flying on Liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Natural Gas, respectively (LNG is main interest of Russia)
1990 Daniel Brewer publishes “HydrogenAircraft Technology”
Hydrogen in Aviation - History
Prepared by Airbus Deutschland HK 28.8.2001
1990 German-Russian Cooperation (DASA,Tupolev, Kuznetsov and others) initiated
1990/93 German-Russian “Feasibility Study” -CRYOPLANE based on A310 defined
1992/96 EQHHPP Combustion Chamber Tests
1994/99 EU/INTAS Tank Tests(Tupolev, withDA and Air Liquide)
1994/99 APU Tests (FH Aachen, with DA andAllied Signal)
1995/98 German/Russian studies for Demonstrator Aircraft based on Do 328
1996/99 ISO/TC 197 WG4 “Airport HydrogenRefueling Facility”
1998 Daimler Benz DASA Top Managementorders Project Manager to initiate a European R&D Program„System Analysis“
European Efforts in the 1990ies
Prepared by Aibus Deutschland HK 28.8.2001
Project within 5th Framework Program of European Commission, targeted at “Sustainable Growth”.
Comprehensive Systems Analysis to providedecision basis for future technology development..
Covers Configuration, Systems & Components, Propulsion, Safety, Environmental Compati-bility, Fuel Sources & Infrastructure, Transition
35 Partners from Industry, Research and Academia, from 11 European Countries.
Total volume 4.5 Million EURO, total effort planned 550 Person-months.
Total project time 24 months.
Start of project: 1.April 2000Successful Midterm Review: 28./29.June 2001
See also: http://www.cryoplane.com
CRYOPLANE - System Analysis
Prepared by Airbus Deutschland HK 28.8.2001
Technology - Status and Challenges
Weight
Kerosene
LH2
4 : 1
Kerosene
LH2
1 : 2.8
Volume
Hydrogen production can be based upon every renewable energy used to produce electricity.
Hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis of water - basically everywhere.
Burning hydrogen produces water -the cycle is closed.
Hydrogen offers a high energy content per mass, hence promises payload or range increase for aircraft.
But
For aviation, hydrogen must be cooled down to the liquid state (LH2, -253°C) for reasons ofvolume and weight of tanks.
LH2 needs- 4 times greater volume than kerosene- Very good insulation of tanks, pipes ....- Tanks under some differential pressure- Spherical or cylindrical tanks- New aircraft configuration
What is so Special about Hydrogen?
Fuel masses of same energy content
Prepared by DASA Airbus HK 8.12.1999
SystemsFuel System: Tanks, Pipes, Valves, Pumps, Vents.... Fuel Control System : Sensors, Control Box....Fire Protection :Sensors, Ventilation, Control Box...
AirframeTank support, local strenghtening fuselage, fairingsFuselage stretch to accomodate increased payloadStrenghtening of wing structure
“Minimum Change” of Existing Aircraft
PowerplantHigh Pressure Pump, Heat Exchanger,Fuel Flow Control Valve, Combustion ChamberControl Box, Oil Cooler
Prepared by DASA Airbus HK 3.1.2000
Aircraft Configuration
First conclusions from “System Analysis”:
Practical configuration available for all categories of airliners
No “standard configuration” for all categories of airliners
Max TO Weight of long range aircraft some 15% smaller than for kerosene
Operating Weight Empty increased by some 20-25%
Specific energy consumption increased by 8-15% (more wetted area, higher mean flight weight)
Advantages of unconventional configurations not obvious
Source: TU Delft et. al. - “System Analysis” Prepared HG Klug September 2001
Safety Aspects
25m
50m
50m 100m 150m
25m
50m
0
0
Propane 13 500 m²
Methane 5000m²
Hydrogen 1000m²
Example: 3.3m³ Liquid Gas Spilled - 4m/sec Wind
Danger Zones of Spilled Liquid Gases
Source: BAM
Safety - General Aspects
Psychological problem primarily .
In free atmosphere, hydrogen rises quickly , hence small danger zone if hydrogen leaks out/ is spilled.
Hydrogen will burn at concentrations significantly below the limit for detonation.
No detonation in free atmosphere.
Will not form a fire carpet.
Fast burning, very low heat radiation.
Not toxic. Combustion products not toxic .
Practical Experience:
Large scale test over decades, involving millions oflaymen: Town Gas contained appr. 50% hydrogen.
“Worst case tests” for car tanks successful(BAM Berlin/ BMW)
Side-by-side tests at University of Miami prove clearsafety advantage of hydrogen vs. gasoline.
Excellent safety record for LH2 related tanks/tank trailers/test installations.Prepared by Airbus Deutschland HK 28.8.2001
Comparative Safety Tests
Source: M.R. Swain, University Miami, 2001
German Airship “Hindenburg” destroyed 06.5.1937 at Lakehurst, USA, during landing.
Airship contained about 200.000 m³= 18.000 kgof gaseous hydrogen.
According to latest research, static electricity set fire to highly flammable impregnation of fabric cover .
Airship floating at 60 m over ground when firestarted.
No explosion, but 1 minute of fire until airshipsettled on ground.
97 persons on board (crew plus passengers)
62 persons surviving!
Safety - A Historical “Demonstration”
Prepared by DASA Airbus HK 23.12.1999
Environmental Aspects
1 kg Kerosene *
0.36 kg Hydrogen *
3.16 kg CO2, 1.24 kg WaterCO, Soot, NOx, SO2, UHC
Air
Air
3.21 kg WaterNOx
Combustion Products - Kerosene vs. Hydrogen
* Fuel masses of identical energy content
Prepared by DASA Airbus HK 8.12.1999
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Control RangeHydrogen
°K Theoretical Flame Temperature
Primary Combustion Zone Equivalence Ratio Lean Rich Mixture
1
1
2
2
Combustion Process - Control Ranges
Prepared by DASA Airbus HK 8.12.1999
Kerosene
KeroseneLean Blowout
Hydrogen
1 = Idle (Taxi)2 = Full Load (Take-off)T(Inlet) = 800°Kp = 5 ATM
HydrogenLean Blowout
Control RangeHydrogen
Control RangeConventionalKeroseneCombustor
10
20
30
40
50
10 20 30 40 50
Trend Line 1. Generation
Modern Turbofans
Future Turbofans
Hydrogen
Cruise at 35000ft, M=0.8
Emission Indexg NOx / kg Kerosene equivalent
Engine Pressure Ratio
EQHHPP =Euro Quebec Hydro Hydrogen Pilot Project, sponsored by EC and the province of Quebec, Canada
Low Nox combustion technology 1992 - 1996
Participants: Pratt&Whitney Canada, United Technology Research Center, DLR, Allied Signal, Daimler Benz Aerospace, FH Aachen
Tests:Generic nozzle tests (steady state combustion)Nozzle array tests (steady state combustion)Transient combustor tests
Conclusions:Optimized High Swirl Nozzles offer very significant reduction in NOx compared to kerosene enginesPremixing offers extremely low NOx emissionsSafe operation feasible also for premix system
Low Nox Combustion - Results of EQHHPP
Source: Pratt & Whitney CanadaPreparedby DASA Airbus HK 9.2.2000
160
120
80
40
ppm NOx (mol)
100 200 300 kW
21
3
4
APU AlliedSignal GTCP 36-300
1 Kerosene, Original Combustion Chamber2 Hydrogene, Nozzles exchanged3 Hydrogen, Micro-Mix Chamber4 Hydrogen, improved Micro-Mix Chamber
Generator switched on
Micro-Mix Combustion Chamber, FH Aachen
Source: FH Aachen Prepared HG Klug September 2000
CO2 H2O
Kerosene Aircraft
H2O Hydrogen Aircraft
Kerosene Aircraft
Hydrogen Aircraft
Kerosene Aircraft
Hydrogen Aircraft
Kerosene Aircraft
Hydrogen Aircraft
12 km
11 km
10 kmFlight levelmost used
H2O
H2O
CO2
CO2
CO2
Comparison of Greenhouse Effects - Gaseous Emisions
Simplified Parametric Analysis based on GWP Concept.
Prepared by DASA Airbus HK 8.5.2000
9 km
NOx
NOx
NOx
NOx
NOx
NOx
NOx
NOx
Primixing Optimum NozzlesSource: Bakan/Gayler/Klug, EGS 1996
Contrails contribute to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.
Due to higher water content of exhaust gases from hydrogen engine, contrails will form and persist under more atmospheric conditions, compared to kerosene. Cloud cover due to contrails may be up to 50% higherfor hydrogen.
Optical density is predicted to be lower due to lack of condensation nuclei from engine (bigger but much fewer ice crystals), balancing higher rate of appearance.Confirmation by flight tests required!
Formation of contrails can be avoided by- „meteorological navigation“, i.e. by flying around critical air masses where
atmosphere is supersaturated over ice - flying below critical air masses (applicable in summer/tropics?) or above such
air masses (applicable in winter/arctics?)
Contrail Characteristics
Prepared HG Klug November 2001 on the basis of contributions by DLR to “System Analysis”
The Path to the Transition
100
200
300
400
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Total Fuel
Kerosene
LH2
Potential for LH2to be producedfrom waterpowerreserves of Quebec
World Aviation Fuel per Year( Mill t Kerosene Equivalent )
Data based upon DASA 1996 Market Analysis
World Fuel Requirements - “Soft Transition to Hydrogen”
Prepared by DASA Airbus HK 1998
During tests, demonstration and earlyoperation: LH2 can be dispensed fromconventional tank trailer (above).
Long term solution: Production andstoring of LH2 at airport, distribution by pipeline system (below).
Servicing/refuelling of aircraft at terminal. Refuelling within normal turn-around time(see experience with refuelling of cars!)
Current view: Aircraft designed for 12 hrson ground before spilling hydrogen. Thereafter: catalytic combustion orcollection/recooling/recirculation by ground vehicles/system.
LH2 production capacity in Europe today:19 t per day; USA: 170 t per day.Full intra-European air traffic would require some 30.000 t per day!
Long transition time to build upinfrastructure.
Infrastructure
Prepared by DASA Airbus HK 23.12.1999
