ZeroAvia's Val Miftakhov makes a compelling case for hydrogen aviation

Larry Dighera wrote:

snip

That's because current fuel-cell automobiles use dirty gaseous H2 fuel
derived from petroleum. Liquid H2 liberated from water by hydrolysis
has the potential to power aircraft efficiently and cleanly either
burned in your (300-hp) Continental IO-520-K or (300-hp) Lycoming
IO-540-K1E5.

Hydrogen is hydrogen.

About 90% of hydrogen production comes from steam reforming of natural gas,
which involves the removal of hydrogen from hydrocarbons at very high
temperatures.

Burning hydrogen in an internal combustion engine produces huge
amounts of oxides of nitrogen, i.e. smog, far in execess of
anybodys pollution laws, assuming the engine can withstand
the much higher flame temperature of hydrogen.

snip

"Your analysis fails to consider liquid H2's ~3X better energy
density compared to gasoline. Further, cryo-coolers are able to
condense liquid H2 at atmospheric pressure with very modest power
requirements (~100W). Liquid H2 overcomes the high-pressure
storage requirement for H2 gas.

Most airports don't even offer MOGAS and you think they are going
to install huge solar arrays and cryo-coolers to produce liquid
hydrogen?


snip

6Li is used to store hydrogen safely and efficiently. It is also
one of the key components in making a thermal-nuclear weapon, but
by itself is not dangerous. Because of crony capitalism and
ignorant politicians, the US government has banned 6Li and the
buying and selling of it. However, the making of 6Li H yourself
with your own particle accelerator IS NOT!

Right, airports that won't sell MOGAS are going to install particle
accelerators to produce a key component for nuclear weapons?

Utter fantasy.

snip remaining

--
Jim Pennino