Air travel produces around 2.5% of all global CO2 emissions, and despite decades of effort in developing alternative fuels or more efficient aircraft designs, that number hasn’t budged much. However, NASA, also the US’s Aeronautics administration, has kept plugging away at trying to build a more sustainable future for air travel. Recently, they supported another step in that direction by providing an Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) grant to Phillip Ansell of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign to develop a hybrid hydrogen-based aircraft engine.
The grant focuses on developing the Hydrogen Hybrid Power for Aviation Sustainable Systems (Hy2PASS) engine, a hybrid engine that uses a fuel cell and a gas turbine to power an aircraft. Hybrid systems have been tried before, but Hy2PASS’s secret sauce is its use of air handling.
In hybrid aircraft systems, there’s typically a fuel cell and a gas turbine. The fuel cell takes hydrogen as an input and creates electrical energy as output. In a typical hybrid system, this electrical energy would power a compressor, whose output was directly coupled to turning the turbine. However, in Hy2PASS, the compressor itself is decoupled from the turbine, though it still supplies oxygen to it. It then also supplies oxygen to the fuel cell’s cathode, allowing for its continued operation.
AI generated video on the Hy2PASS system.This method has a few advantages, but the most significant one is the dramatic increase in efficiency it allows. The waste heat created at that mechanical connection is eliminated by uncoupling the compressor directly from the turbine. Also, it allows the compressor to be run at different pressures, allowing an algorithm to optimize its speed while ignoring the necessary speed of the turbine.
Additionally, the emissions from the entire system are essentially just water. So, this hybrid system effectively eliminates the emissions created by this kind of hybrid engine altogether. So, in theory, at least, this type of propulsion system would be the holy grail that NASA and the rest of the aviation industry have been seeking for years.
There’s still a long way to go to make this system a reality. The Phase I NIAC grant will focus on proving the system’s concept. Importantly, it will also require an understanding of another aircraft system and “mission trajectory optimization” to minimize the energy requirements of any future use case for the system. That sounds like there would be some limitations for how the system might be used in practice, though fleshing that out as part of Phase I seems a reasonable use case.
Interview with Dr. Ansell, the PI on the Hy2PASS project.If the project is successful, and given Dr. Ansell’s track record of consistently meeting NASA design objectives, that seems a good bet. It is possible that someday soon, a hydrogen-powered aircraft could be in the air again. And this time, it will be a key player in eliminating emissions from one of the most important industries in the world.
Learn More:
NASA – Hydrogen Hybrid Power for Aviation Sustainable Systems (Hy2PASS)
UT – Multimode Propulsion Could Revolutionize How We Launch Things to Space
UT – Reaction Engines Goes Into Bankruptcy, Taking the Hypersonic SABRE Engine With it
UT – NASA is Working on Electric Airplanes
Lead Image:
Artist’s concept of the Hy2PASS engine
Credit – NASA / Phillip Ansell
The post A Hybrid Hydrogen Drive Train Could Eliminate Aircraft Emissions appeared first on Universe Today.
Jon Lovett is identified by Wikipedia as
. . . . an American podcaster, comedian, journalist, and former speechwriter. Lovett is a co-founder of Crooked Media, along with Jon Favreau and Tommy Vietor. All three formerly worked together as White House staffers during the Obama administration. Lovett is a regular host of the Crooked Media podcasts Pod Save America and Lovett or Leave It. As a speechwriter, he worked for both President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when she was a United States senator and a 2008 presidential candidate.
And of course you know who Bill Maher is. In the ten-minute talk argument below, Lovett and Maher discuss issues of kids with gender dysphoria, including these questions:
a.) Can schools hide a child’s desire to transition sex roles from the parents?
b.) Are there social influences that can promote children to want to change gender roles beyond “feeling like you’re in the wrong body.”
c.) Can the government be allowed to ban “gender-affirming care”?
d) Are children dying (presumably by suicide) because they aren’t allowed to transition?
Lovett actually comes off worse here, mainly because he’s spouting Biden-era dogma about sex and making statements that are scientifically dubious. However, I have to call out Maher near the beginning when he says “Obviously sex is more complicated than just two sexes.” Yes, sex is complicated, but there are just two sexes. This is the mistake I discussed the other day.
Maher also conflates gender dysphoria with sexual attraction. But in the main, Maher makes some good points, and above all emphasizes that these are questions to be debated, not quashed by “progressives” who slander everyone trying to discuss them as “transphob” or “bigots”.
Maher calls the social conditioning of gender-dysphoric kids “entrapment”, which he defines as “suggesting that people do something that they are not going to do,” or “Putting an idea in someone’s head that wouldn’t be there otherwise.” (In this case, the idea is that the child/adolescent is trapped in the wrong body.)
Lovett, in contrast denies the prevalence of social influence on transitioning, while Maher takes Abigail Shrier’s view that many (but not all) children who decide they are in the wrong body are pushed to transition by peers, doctors, and teachers. As he says, premature transitioning is medically dangerous and perhaps superfluous, not to mention an issue that can hurt Democrats who support it out of virtue signaling. Maher: “To take that risk at that age, before you know shit about anything. . . ”
Lovett makes the familiar but incorrect argument that without gender-affirming care, many kids would die. He draws an analogy with cardiology, in which heart surgeons sometimes screw up during surgery and their patients die. But that’s a bogus argument because heart surgeons operate (and patients consent) if the consequences of not having surgery are dire. The difference is that we have enough experience to know the risks and benefits of heart surgery.
But this is not the case for gender dysphoria. Withholding hormones and surgery from kids who are dysphoric does not as often touted, leead to depression and death. (“Do you want a dead son or a live daughter?, some say.) Yet studies show that about 80% of gender-dysphoric children who are not driven to take hormones and surgery resolve as gay (no medical dangers there!) or even cis. That is a strong argument against the kind of “gender-affirming care” that puts dysphoric kids on a one-way escalator leading first to puberty blockers and then to hormone treatment and/or surgery.
Maher also seems to know more about the recent science than does Lovett, mentioning the ten-year Olson-Kennedy study showing that puberty blockers, touted by ideologues like Lovett as essential to saving lives, do not in fact improve the well being of gender-dysphoric childrene. From the NYT:
The doctor, Johanna Olson-Kennedy, began the study in 2015 as part of a broader, multimillion-dollar federal project on transgender youth. She and colleagues recruited 95 children from across the country and gave them puberty blockers, which stave off the permanent physical changes — like breasts or a deepening voice — that could exacerbate their gender distress, known as dysphoria.
The researchers followed the children for two years to see if the treatments improved their mental health. An older Dutch study had found that puberty blockers improved well-being, results that inspired clinics around the world to regularly prescribe the medications as part of what is now called gender-affirming care.
But the American trial did not find a similar trend, Dr. Olson-Kennedy said in a wide-ranging interview. Puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements, she said, most likely because the children were already doing well when the study began.
“They’re in really good shape when they come in, and they’re in really good shape after two years,” said Dr. Olson-Kennedy, who runs the country’s largest youth gender clinic at the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles.
Although we the American taxpayers funded this study through the NIH, the results have not yet been released. Why? Because they don’t support the dogma that puberty blockers save lives. Also from the NYT:
In the nine years since the study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and as medical care for this small group of adolescents became a searing issue in American politics, Dr. Olson-Kennedy’s team has not published the data. Asked why, she said the findings might fuel the kind of political attacks that have led to bans of the youth gender treatments in more than 20 states, one of which will soon be considered by the Supreme Court.
“I do not want our work to be weaponized,” she said. “It has to be exactly on point, clear and concise. And that takes time.”
This is shameful. To suppress important data because they “might fuel political attacks” or go against “progressive” ideology is totally unethical. Maher knows about that study, as do many of us; but apparently Lovett either does not or deliberately ignores it.
Maher also makes the point that insistence on possibly harmful medical intervention without knowing its long-term effects is a stand that can—and probably has—harmed Democrats. (Yes, some Republicans take this stand because they really don’t want trans people around, but you can take that stand for the right reasons, too.)
Maher’s point, with which I agree completely, is that you don’t go ahead with possibly harmful medical treatment until you know what the harms actually are.
Without further ado, here is the debate, which is mildly acrimonious: