London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
They are touting nuclear as clean energy.......??? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster.
In the age of a growing fanatical terrorist threat we don't want to multiply vulnerable targets. H2 can do the job better and safer. Govt will no doubt back nuclear......
Built on production lines and delivered by trucks I think
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-8417289/Rolls-Royce-triggers-250bn-nuclear-mini-reactor-race.html
Land based, not driven around on a truck ;-)
Re nuclear and road trains. All that part is basically military division (which is fine and dandy), its the civils side which is battening down the hatches. Also not sure about how mini reactors cruising around the roads and worlds oceans would go down, or have I missed something.
They will not let it go bust, but they also expect management to spend to survive and invest to make money. I'm not aware that the gov wants to buy land-based mini nuclear plants (I doubt Boris even understands the situation) but Osborne understood it and decided not to fund it. The number of countries queuing up to invest in Nuclear is pretty small so I would not jump into that as a bet.
I've worked with RR a fair bit over the years and also on major infrastructure engineering projects and they will be battening down the hatches to survive and keep the very best people/technology. They will be decimating the sub-contract aerospace companies of the north as we speak leading to more problems for Boris.
Sunak is a bright boy and Cummings is a closet green. I see VAT coming down and cycle lanes going up. I was in a meeting three days ago where all the spade-ready projects were being hurled at the Treasury so don't expect anything new like that popping into the process, but what is proposed might be shocking.
I see the labour party desperate to get some unknown "special" manufacturing industry to be given shed loads of cash, but of course, they don't know of one, except for the idea that "we are all dependant on the state" so whatever Sunak comes up with will be rejected by the fools, but "green" will be shouted without any real meaning. NB we have basically left Airbus so cannot direct that into making greener aircraft (unlike Macron who is doing just that).
I was just trying to imagine what the world would be like if Boris announced that all aircraft landing in the UK above a certain size had to be hydrogen driven after 2050. Now if it were Merkel it might be taken seriously.
"on a medium to long haul flight the speed will be much higher and thus the flight time much less,"
oh dear, comparing the cost of rockets designed to launch people into space and jet engines to New York is tricky, but basically the former is way more expensive. If you are still flying (the only real commercial opportunity) then you have to still obey the basic laws of lift, friction and engine power. Once again there is no reason to think a hydrogen jet engine should fly faster than a kerosene engine if fitter to a similar sized aircraft. I don't know what you are reading on t'internet but engineering is engineering and you still have to battle Newton's laws.
Hi Bilbo thanks for the reply.But all the same group and appreciate the cash flow crisis.Has government backing tho and they wont wont let it go bust.Something called project birch.
A different part of RR also makes mini nuclear power plants for UK subs, they have yet to be paid to develop mini land-based ones but have concept drawings on their website RR is a complicated business, they also design and make engines and marinise them but right now are in a cash flow crisis as they seldom sell them only lease based on mileage flown.
Hi N leeroy your friend not talk about Rolls Royce moving into mini nuclear power plants
if flying aircraft were just about the engines... note the change in volume for similar distance journeys means significant increases in wetted surface area (friction). Kerosene is about 13 times better at storing energy compared to high-pressure Hydrogen adding to volume, liquid hydrogen needs additional cooling equipment that adds to mass and volume. Hence aircraft have to be a different shape. Hence the interest in flying wing type aircraft.
So really you have to solve a different problem, how to store high-density hydrogen at close to atmospheric pressure without much additional weight from special technologies. This may be where nano-technologies step in, but they are not just 6 months away.
Jet engines technology can be fixed but storage, as above, is the question.
Yes NLleroy. Rather depessingly inevitable. Any long term development will need massive government investment which wont be forthcoming now we are in survival mode. Lets hope trains and truck ( and possibly boats) do get some backing for hydrogen.
A good point about liquid oxygen however. Why not use that for greater efficiency having produced it from electrolysis? . Well Ok extra tank space I guess, but at high altitude this could help. tally ho into space!
A friend who is a contractor at rolls royce, their R&D is not going to be doing much for the foreseeable as at the moment its all about survival. Their business model (which I'm not sure if common knowledge) is to lease the engine to airlines and plane manufacturers and all its maintenance etc. Its a bit like the lease car approach engines are leased according to how many miles etc. then upgrades to new etc. are bolt ons. No one foresaw no one flying for 6months. Consequently their revenues are massively down and its a high cash burn business. The civil side is in a lot of trouble.
Back to ITM I'm looking to top up, Do people think positions will be built over the coming week to take advantage of the potential bounce from Rishi's speech on the 8th. My concern is it won't be bold enough and more green wash looking to preserve the fossil fuel companies status quo whilst trying to look like they are looking to do something else. Expect massive road building programmes over hydrogen trains and transport economy.
I didn't say present jet engines could be used . I am only going by what i have read here. I was certainly amazed when I read it. I would like to hear from anyone working in the jet engine (not gas engine) area what they think. Even if as you say, the overall efficiency will be less, on a medium to long haul flight the speed will be much higher and thus the flight time much less, a rather more important commercial consideration.
I'm not convinced by buring hydrogen in jet engines, most of the units ready to burn hydrogen are for power generation and so extremely heavy unlike aerospace engines, the energy density is not really there unless you are building a rocket ship with liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen to get into space. Plus the efficiencies are even worse than fuel cells.
The same type of plane has been flying commercial flights in the back and beyond of Canada this winter and the operator is finding maintenance costs have reduced considerably
Actually Toneman , The aerospace article did say that the full hydrogen kit was included for the Cranfield test flight ,so I assume it was powered by hydrogen.
Don't lets get carried away with this yet . This 10-20 seat aircraft is fine for the very short haul island hopping needed in Scotland and maybe to the Isle of Man and channel islands but a much bigger aircraft is needed for the short haul European flight market that they envisage "by the end of the decade" 2030. I still think the real game changer will be jet engins powered by liquid hydrogen. This can be achieved with very little re engineering apparently Which have had postings here. What is Rolls Royce doing about that? A good first step anyway. Tally ho!
...although, to be fair, looks like this flight wasn't hydrogen yet. Just their battery-electric stepping stone on the development path. Hopefully the hydrogen version isn't too far behind.
Brilliant. I recently listened to the "Everything about Hydrogen" podcast interviewing ZeroAvia. Great to see them still managing to stay on track despite recent covid events.
Agree - some great news.
Starting to get some of the lift that only hydrogen can produce !!
Fantastic news
Lots of positive news out there today especially the Hyundai videos.
The SP is reacting well today that is for sure.
Exciting development! Did not expect it so soon - great potential.