A Review of Hydrogen-powered Aircraft
FENGE LI
Aviation Maintenance Department,
Shanghai Civil Aviation College,
Longhua Rd West 1, Shanghai 200232,
CHINA
Abstract: - Hydrogen energy is one of the critical clean energy sources. The status of arts of hydrogen energy
applications in the aviation industry is reviewed, including two solutions of hydrogen-powered aircraft (direct
combustion in internal combustion engines and fuel cell power generation), hydrogen production (fossil fuels
and electrolyzed water), hydrogen storage (gaseous, liquid, and solid), multiple fuels assessment (mass &
volume, well-to-wheel emissions, and cost). Specifically, the combustion emissions using hydrogen as fuel, two
layouts of hydrogen tanks (the top tank layout and the dual tank layout), and two fuel cell solutions, proton
exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFC) and solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC), are introduced in details. Finally,
the trends of hydrogen-powered aircraft are pointed out.
Key-Words: - Hydrogen, fuel cell, aviation, hydrogen production, hydrogen storage, well-to-wheel emissions,
fuel costs.
Received: April 27, 2024. Revised: October 29, 2024. Accepted: December 3, 2024. Published: December 31, 2024.
1 Introduction
In 2019, the global aviation industry (commercial,
private, and military) emitted approximately 920
million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) throughout the
year, accounting for approximately 2.5% of the total
human-induced CO2 emissions (37 billion tons) and
approximately 12% of the emissions from the
transportation industry, [1], [2], [3]. Therefore, the
aviation industry plays an important role in the
global effort to achieve carbon neutrality goals, [4].
Multi-electric technology [1], [5], [6], hydrogen
energy technology [7], and flight path optimization
technology [8], among others, are important means
for carbon reduction. This article will provide a
detailed introduction to the current application of
hydrogen energy in the aviation industry, including
two schemes of hydrogen-powered aircraft (direct
combustion by internal combustion engines and fuel
cell power generation), hydrogen production,
hydrogen storage, and performance comparison of
multiple fuels.
There are two forms of hydrogen utilization in
commercial flights: direct combustion of hydrogen
(liquid or gaseous) by internal combustion engines,
and fuel cell power generation [9], [10], Figure 1.
The former is more similar to current jet
airliners, while the latter's fuel cells work as
batteries to provide electricity for fully electric or
hybrid electric propulsion systems, [11], [12]. When
comparing these two solutions in terms of social,
economic, environmental, and technological
aspects, although fuel cell solutions rank higher, the
difference between them is not significant, [9].
(a)
(b)
Fig. 1: Two schemes for hydrogen-powered aircraft
[9], (a) Hydrogen fuel combustion power chain (b)
Fuel cell power chain
The calorific value of hydrogen is 39.5 kWh/kg,
which is four times that of aviation kerosene which
has a calorific value of 11.7 kWh/kg, [13]. The
volumetric energy density of cryogenic hydrogen is
2.80 kWh/L, slightly less than one-third of the 9.13
kWh/L of aviation kerosene, [3], [14], [15], [16].
Therefore, with the same fuel volume, the range of
cryogenic hydrogen aircraft is less than one-third of
that of aviation kerosene aircraft.
In order to maintain the same range and load
capacity as traditional aviation kerosene solutions,
both hydrogen power solutions require significant
changes to the aircraft structure, especially the
layout of hydrogen tanks, whether using compressed
hydrogen or cryogenic hydrogen, [9].
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on SYSTEMS
DOI: 10.37394/23202.2024.23.43
Fenge Li
E-ISSN: 2224-2678
409
Volume 23, 2024
2 Direct Combustion of Hydrogen as
Aircraft Fuel
2.1 Combustion of Hydrogen
The combustion using hydrogen as fuel significantly
reduces the emissions of pollutants compared to
aviation kerosene. The combustion of hydrogen
mainly releases water vapor, without CO2, SOx, and
smoke emissions, resulting in a reduction of over
70% in NO emissions. When using fuel cells for
power generation, the emissions of pollutants are
zero [9], [14].
Although water vapor is a powerful greenhouse
gas with a warming potential two to three times that
of carbon dioxide, the interference of aircraft
emissions of water vapor on the entire natural water
cycle is limited because, at an altitude of 11
kilometers, the lifespan of water vapor is only about
four to five months, while carbon dioxide can
remain in the atmosphere for more than 100 years.
Therefore, compared to other fuels, hydrogen has
significant improvements in global warming
potential, ozone depletion, environmental and social
costs, and so on. However, if not handled properly,
water vapor may form airplane contrails, blocking
some of the heat radiating from the Earth's surface
and exacerbating global warming. In addition,
hydrogen and high concentrations of water vapor
have adverse effects on many commonly used
aircraft materials [9], especially metals such as
hydrogen embrittlement and corrosion.
2.2 Layout of Hydrogen Tanks
Usually, using hydrogen as fuel requires modifying
the design of aircraft and engines.
Cryogenic hydrogen must be kept at -253℃
when used in hydrogen-powered aircraft and can
only be stored in highly insulated storage tanks. The
volumetric energy density of cryogenic hydrogen is
less than one-third of that of aviation kerosene. In
order to maintain the same range, the volume of
cryogenic hydrogen tanks is larger, the volume of
the aircraft is also larger, and the fuselage is heavier.
The wing space is limited and cannot guarantee the
normal insulation of cryogenic hydrogen. Therefore,
the cryogenic hydrogen tank cannot be located in
the wing, and the fuselage is the optimal location for
placing the cryogenic hydrogen tank, Figure 2.
For medium and short-range aircraft, cryogenic
hydrogen tanks can be placed above the cabin. For
long-range aircraft, cryogenic hydrogen is stored in
two large storage tanks, one of them is located
directly behind the cockpit, and the second is placed
at the rear of the cabin, [14].
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 2: Fuel tank layout of aircraft [14], (a)
Traditional aircraft (b) Medium range hydrogen-
powered aircraft (c) Long range hydrogen-powered
aircraft
The layout of cryogenic hydrogen tanks has a
significant impact on energy efficiency. For the top
tank layout of medium and short-range aircraft, due
to the larger weight of this type of storage tank,
energy consumption increases by 6-19%. For the
dual tank layout of long-range aircraft, there is a
12% increase in energy consumption, [14].
Therefore, hydrogen fuel is more suitable for long-
range aircraft.
Due to the fact that the fuselage of a hydrogen-
powered aircraft is used to store hydrogen tanks, its
volume is larger and its weight is almost 6% larger
than that of a regular aircraft. In addition, since the
wings of hydrogen-powered aircraft are no longer
used for fuel storage, the area and span of the wings
can be designed to be smaller. However, when using
hydrogen, the weight of the wings should increase
to enhance their structural integrity, improve their
bending resistance, and reduce aerodynamic
vibrations. The smaller wings and larger fuselage of
hydrogen-powered aircraft may have a negative
impact on aerodynamic efficiency.
The combustion characteristics of hydrogen are
different from aviation kerosene, and the engines of
hydrogen-powered aircraft also need to change
accordingly. The engine of a hydrogen-powered
aircraft can be smaller.
When using hydrogen, changes in aircraft and
engine design will result in a maximum 25%
increase in production and maintenance costs, [14].
The EU Cryoplane project studied the impact of
hydrogen tanks on aircraft energy consumption. The
project showed that large hydrogen tanks can lead to
an increase in aerodynamic resistance and structural
weight of aircraft. Compared with traditional
aircraft, hydrogen-powered aircraft will experience
an increase in energy consumption of about 10%.
The work at the University of Sydney in Australia
shows that for small short-range hydrogen-powered
aircraft, energy consumption is similar to that of the
Cryoplane project (with a 5-18% increase).
However, for long-range hydrogen-powered aircraft,
unlike the Cryoplane project, the author believes
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on SYSTEMS
DOI: 10.37394/23202.2024.23.43
Fenge Li
E-ISSN: 2224-2678
410
Volume 23, 2024
that energy consumption will be reduced by 12%,
[9].
3 Aviation Applications of Hydrogen
Fuel Cells
A hydrogen fuel cell is an electrochemical device
that generates electricity and water through the
electrochemical reaction of hydrogen and oxygen.
Fuel cells are silent, produce almost no vibration,
and do not produce any NOx emissions. Among
various types of fuel cell equipment, proton
exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFC) and solid
oxide fuel cells (SOFC) are the most commonly
used in aviation [14], [17]. SOFC operates at high
temperatures of 500-1000 ℃ and uses a dense
ceramic layer as the electrolyte, while PEMFC
operates at low temperatures of 80 ℃ and uses a
proton conducting membrane as the electrolyte,
[18].
At present, the maximum single-stack power of
fuel cells in China is 300kW. Therefore, fuel cells
are currently mainly used for small and medium-
sized aviation loads.
An important application of fuel cells is APU
(Auxiliary Power Unit), [14]. The emissions of APUs
driven by traditional gas turbines account for about
20% of the total emissions of aircraft. Fuel cells can
replace gas turbines to directly drive APUs, or
combine with gas turbines to form hybrid APUs.
Both SOFC and PEMFC can be used in APU
systems. SOFC is more suitable for APU
applications. SOFC operates at higher temperatures
and supports hydrogen production from aviation
kerosene reforming, with less strict requirements for
fuel impurities. The disadvantage of SOFC-driven
APU is that it is heavier than PEMFC or traditional
APU because it requires auxiliary devices such as
reformers, compressors, and pumps. If PEMFC
drives APU, it is required that the aircraft must carry
hydrogen gas.
Airbus and Boeing are currently conducting
research projects with the goal of using fuel cells to
generate electricity for all nonpropulsion systems on
the aircraft. Boeing reported that the SOFC-powered
APU can reduce aircraft fuel consumption by 75%
when on the ground. The EU Cryoplane project
estimates that SOFC-driven APUs can reduce 80%
of nitrogen oxide emissions from aircraft on the
ground, [14].
Another important application of fuel cells is
ground equipment in airports, such as air starters,
forklifts, luggage trailers, and air conditioning
trucks. Fuel cell forklifts have been tested at
Pearson Airport in Toronto and Munich Airport.
The fuel cell luggage car has been used at Danish
airports. Fuel cell passenger shuttle buses have also
been used at Tokyo Airport in Japan and Hawaii
Airport in the United States, [14].
4 Production of Hydrogen
Usually, hydrogen produced by electrolysis of water
using renewable energy sources such as wind power
and hydropower is called green hydrogen; The
hydrogen produced by coal gasification is called
brown hydrogen; The hydrogen produced from
fossil fuels (such as natural gas) is called gray
hydrogen; The hydrogen produced by methane and
captured carbon dioxide is called blue hydrogen,
[19], [20].
Currently, approximately 120 million tons of
grey hydrogen are produced and consumed globally
each year, mainly used in the refining industry and
ammonia production. 96% of global hydrogen is
produced from fossil fuels (natural gas 48%, oil
30%, coal 18%), and the remaining 4% comes from
electrolyzed water, [19].
China is the world's largest producer of
hydrogen, with a hydrogen production of
approximately 25 million tons in 2019. Among
them, green hydrogen accounts for 4%, coal-based
hydrogen accounts for 62%, natural gas-based
hydrogen accounts for 19%, and alcohol-based
hydrogen accounts for 15%, as shown in Figure 3.
Fig. 3: Hydrogen productions in China
The cost of hydrogen production in China is
shown in Table 1 (Appendix). Coal-based hydrogen
production is the most economical at 0.869 Yuan·m-
3, followed by natural gas-based hydrogen
production at 1.14 Yuan·m-3, and methanol-based
hydrogen production at 2.14 yuan·m-3. The most
expensive is hydrogen production through
electrolysis of water, which costs 4.31 yuan·m-3.
With the rapid development of renewable energy
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on SYSTEMS
DOI: 10.37394/23202.2024.23.43
Fenge Li
E-ISSN: 2224-2678
411
Volume 23, 2024
such as wind power in China, it is expected that the
cost of green hydrogen produced through wind
power will be 0.875-1.81 yuan·m-3 by 2030, which
can compete then with gray hydrogen.
Biomass hydrogen production is also a
promising method to produce hydrogen, with
common biomass including corn, corn stalk,
sugarcane, edible oil, etc.
5 Storage of Hydrogen
At present, there are three main ways to store
hydrogen: gaseous hydrogen storage, liquid
hydrogen storage (cryogenic, organic liquid), [14],
[21], [22], and solid hydrogen storage. High-
pressure gaseous hydrogen storage technology is the
most mature and commonly used hydrogen storage
method, with a low cost. However, pressure-
resistant containers are heavy and prone to leakage,
and are mostly used in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
Cryogenic hydrogen technology has a high
hydrogen storage density, complex low-temperature
container structure, and a daily evaporation loss of
3% [14], which is expensive and commonly used in
the aerospace industry. In the 1980s, Russian
manufacturer Tupolev modified a commercial jet
airliner Tu155, adding 18 cubic meters of cryogenic
hydrogen tanks, [9].
Organic liquid hydrogen storage technology has
a high hydrogen storage density and is easy to
transport at room temperature, but the catalyst cost
is high. The solid hydrogen storage method has low
cost, but low hydrogen storage density, [21], [23].
The comparison of different hydrogen storage
technologies is shown in Table 2 (Appendix), [21].
The prominent advantage of cryogenic
hydrogen compared to gaseous hydrogen storage is
its high density. The density of cryogenic hydrogen
is 70.8 kg/m3, which is 3 and 1.8 times that of high-
pressure hydrogen at 35 and 70 MPa, respectively,
[14].
Table 3 (Appendix) presents the performance
characteristics of common organic liquid hydrogen
storage carriers [23], all of which have high
hydrogen storage capacity and are expected to be
applied in commercial flights. MCH (Methyl
Cyclohexane) is liquid at room temperature, while
decahydronaphthalene is a solid at room
temperature. In terms of cost, MCH has the lowest
price, naphthalene has the highest price, and
carbazole and aromatic hydrocarbons have lower
prices.
The organic liquid used for hydrogen storage is
called "hydrogen oil", [23]. Hydrogen oil can be
inherited perfectly from China's well-established
petroleum storage and transportation system, such
as achieving long-distance pipeline transportation
like oil, and gas stations can easily be transformed
into hydrogen refueling stations, thereby reducing
the storage and transportation costs of hydrogen
energy utilization on a large scale. There are already
over 7km of methanol and dimethyl ether
transmission pipelines both domestically and
internationally, some of which are newly built,
while others have been retrofitted from crude oil
pipelines, [23].
6 Performance Comparison of
Different Fuels
Common aviation fuels are mainly divided into
three categories: fossil fuels, biofuels, and electric
fuels. Hydrogen gas is generated through
electrolysis of water, and then stores the hydrogen
energy in the form of chemical bonds in liquid fuel,
and this liquid fuel is called electric fuel. Compared
to cryogenic hydrogen or compressed hydrogen,
electric fuel has a higher bulk density and lighter
weight, [3], [15]. Electric fuel is also known as
synthetic fuel, power fuel, or power-to-liquid fuel,
[3].
6.1 Mass and Volume of Fuels
According to Table 4 (Appendix) [24], for an 11000
km long-range aircraft, aviation kerosene accounts
for 20% of the maximum takeoff weight and has a
volume of 141 m³. The mass-energy density and
volume energy density of HVO (hydrogenated
vegetable oil), FT (Fisher-Tropsch) synthetic oil,
and methane to gasoline are similar to aviation
kerosene, therefore the fuel quality and volume are
similar to aviation kerosene. The volume of
methanol is 2.3 times that of aviation kerosene, the
mass is 2.2 times that of aviation kerosene, and the
fuel mass accounts for 43.8% of the maximum
takeoff volume. The volume of cryogenic hydrogen
is 4.0 times that of aviation kerosene, and the fuel
mass accounts for 71.3% of the maximum takeoff
weight. The volume of 70MPa compressed
hydrogen is 7.1 times that of aviation kerosene, and
the fuel mass accounts for 119% of the maximum
takeoff weight. The volume of lithium batteries is
5.3 times that of aviation kerosene, and the fuel
mass accounts for 377% of the maximum takeoff
weight.
For 1000 km medium and short-range aircraft,
aviation kerosene accounts for 9.1% of the
maximum takeoff weight and has a volume of 9 m³.
The maximum takeoff ratio of HVO, FT synthetic
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on SYSTEMS
DOI: 10.37394/23202.2024.23.43
Fenge Li
E-ISSN: 2224-2678
412
Volume 23, 2024
oil, and methane to gasoline is similar to that of
aviation kerosene. Methanol accounts for 19.8% of
the maximum takeoff volume. Cryogenic hydrogen
accounts for 32.4% of the maximum takeoff weight.
70MPa compressed hydrogen accounts for 53.9% of
the maximum takeoff weight. Lithium batteries
account for 171% of the maximum takeoff weight.
It can be seen that when ambient temperature
liquid fuels (aviation kerosene, biofuels, methanol,
etc.) are used in aircraft, the fuel volume is
relatively small and the fuel mass is relatively small,
especially prominent in long flight distances.
6.2 Emissions of Fuels
The full lifecycle emissions of fuels include
production emissions and usage emissions. The
emission of aviation kerosene is 87.4 gCO2e/MJ,
and compared to aviation kerosene, compressed
natural gas can reduce emissions by 22%, as shown
in Table 5 (Appendix), [24]. Biofuels and biofuels
have no usage emissions, mainly production
emissions. The minimum production emissions of
biofuels are in double digits, ranging from 12-36
gCO2e/MJ. The minimum production emissions for
electric fuel are in the single digits, with 2-3 (2.59)
gCO2e/MJ for wind power fuel and 6-9 (6.67)
gCO2e/MJ for solar power fuel.
Compared to traditional aviation kerosene,
using corn stalk as the raw material, the greenhouse
gas emission reduction of renewable aviation
kerosene after hydrolysis treatment is 41% to 63%,
after pyrolysis treatment is 68% to 76%, and after
FT synthesis is 89%, [9].
6.3 Cost of Fuels
According to Table 6 (Appendix) [24], the cost of
aviation kerosene is 45 euros/MWh. The cost of
biofuels is 75-365 euros/MWh, which is 1.7-8.1
times that of aviation kerosene, and the cost of
electric fuel is 155-605 euros/MWh, which is 3.4-14
times that of aviation kerosene.
The current price of fossil aviation fuel is 600
euros/ton, and the price of bio aviation fuel
produced from cooked edible oil is between 950
euros/ton and 1015 euros/ton, [9].
7 Conclusions
Compared with aviation kerosene, the lower volume
energy density of hydrogen and the insulation
requirements of cryogenic hydrogen make the
layout of hydrogen tanks different from traditional
fuel tank layouts, which can affect the aircraft's
volume, engine, etc. The top tank layout is
suggested for medium and short-range aircraft,
while the dual tank layout is for long-range aircraft,
due to the larger weight of the storage tank, energy
consumption increases by 6-19% compared with
traditional kerosene aircraft.
Among various types of fuel cell equipment,
PEMFC and SOFC are the most commonly used in
aviation. At present, the power level of fuel cell
technology is 300kW, mainly used for APU, ground
auxiliary equipment, etc. Both SOFC and PEMFC
can be used in APU systems. SOFC is more suitable
for APU applications. SOFC operates at higher
temperatures and supports hydrogen production
from aviation kerosene reforming, with less strict
requirements for fuel impurities. The disadvantage
of SOFC-driven APU is that it is heavier than
PEMFC because it requires auxiliary devices such
as reformers, compressors, and pumps.
96% of hydrogen production comes from fossil
fuels, and green electrolysis of water for hydrogen
production needs further development.
Methanol-based organic liquid hydrogen storage
technology has good commercial prospects
compared with gaseous hydrogen storage, cryogenic
hydrogen storage, and solid hydrogen storage.
From the perspective of volumetric mass,
emissions, and economy, biofuels are the mid-term
solution for commercial aviation carbon dioxide
reduction [25], while hydrogen fuel (electric fuel) is
the long-term solution for commercial aviation
carbon dioxide reduction.
References:
[1] M. C. Cameretti, A. Del Pizzo, L. P. Di Noia,
M. Ferrara, and C. Pascarella, "Modeling
and Investigation of a Turboprop Hybrid
Electric Propulsion System," Aerospace, vol.
5, no. 4, 2018, doi:
doi.org/10.3390/aerospace5040123.
[2] W. Liao, Y. Fan, C. Wang, and Z. Wang,
"Emissions from intercity aviation: An
international comparison," Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, vol. 95, p. 102818, 2021,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102818.
[3] P. Su-ungkavatin, L. Tiruta-Barna, and L.
Hamelin, "Biofuels, electrofuels, electric or
hydrogen?: A review of current and
emerging sustainable aviation systems,"
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science,
vol. 96, p. 42, 2023, Art. no. 101073, doi:
doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2023.101073.
[4] O. Balli, A. Dalkıran, and T. H. Karakoç,
"Energetic, exergetic, exergoeconomic,
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on SYSTEMS
DOI: 10.37394/23202.2024.23.43
Fenge Li
E-ISSN: 2224-2678
413
Volume 23, 2024
environmental (4E) and sustainability
performances of an unmanned aerial vehicle
micro turbojet engine," Aircraft Engineering
and Aerospace Technology, vol. 93, no. 7,
pp. 1254-1275, 2021, doi:
doi.org/10.1108/AEAT-03-2021-0088.
[5] S. Sahoo, X. Zhao, and K. Kyprianidis, "A
Review of Concepts, Benefits, and
Challenges for Future Electrical Propulsion-
Based Aircraft," Aerospace, vol. 7, no. 4,
2020, doi:
doi.org/10.3390/aerospace7040044.
[6] O. Zaporozhets, V. Isaienko, and K. Synylo,
"Trends on current and forecasted aircraft
hybrid electric architectures and their
impact on environment," Energy, vol. 211, p.
118814, 2020,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.11881
4.
[7] R. Qiu, S. Hou, and Z. Meng, "Low carbon
air transport development trends and policy
implications based on a scientometrics-
based data analysis system," Transport
Policy, vol. 107, pp. 1-10, 2021,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.04.01
3.
[8] M. Pawlak, "Effect of Energy Consumption
Reduction on the Decrease of CO2
Emissions during the Aircraft’s Flight,"
Energies, vol. 14, no. 9, 2021, doi:
doi.org/10.3390/en14092638.
[9] F. Afonso, M. Sohst, C. M. A. Diogo, S. S.
Rodrigues, A. Ferreira, I. Ribeiro, R.
Marques, F. F. C. Rego, A. Sohouli, J.
Portugal-Pereira, H. Policarpo, B. Soares, B.
Ferreira, E. C. Fernandes, F. Lau, and A.
Suleman, "Strategies towards a more
sustainable aviation: A systematic review,"
Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 137, p.
55, 2023, Art. no. 100878, doi:
doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2022.100878.
[10] A. Y. Arabul, E. Kurt, F. Keskin Arabul, İ.
Senol, M. Schrötter, R. Bréda, and D.
Megyesi, "Perspectives and Development of
Electrical Systems in More Electric
Aircraft," International Journal of
Aerospace Engineering, vol. 2021, p.
5519842, 2021, doi:
doi.org/10.1155/2021/5519842.
[11] A. Prapotnik Brdnik, R. Kamnik, M.
Marksel, and S. Božičnik, "Market and
Technological Perspectives for the New
Generation of Regional Passenger Aircraft,"
Energies, vol. 12, no. 10, 2019, doi:
doi.org/10.3390/en12101864.
[12] J. Ribeiro, F. Afonso, I. Ribeiro, B. Ferreira,
H. Policarpo, P. Peças, and F. Lau,
"Environmental assessment of hybrid-
electric propulsion in conceptual aircraft
design," Journal of Cleaner Production, vol.
247, p. 119477, 2020,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.11947
7.
[13] J. Rohacs and D. Rohacs, "Energy
coefficients for comparison of aircraft
supported by different propulsion systems,"
Energy, vol. 191, p. 116391, 2020,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.11639
1.
[14] A. Baroutaji, T. Wilberforce, M. Ramadan,
and A. G. Olabi, "Comprehensive
investigation on hydrogen and fuel cell
technology in the aviation and aerospace
sectors," Renewable & Sustainable Energy
Reviews, vol. 106, pp. 31-40, 2019, doi:
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.022.
[15] A. G. Olabi, C. Onumaegbu, T. Wilberforce,
M. Ramadan, M. A. Abdelkareem, and A. H.
Al-Alami, "Critical review of energy
storage systems," Energy, vol. 214, p. 22,
2021, Art. no. 118987, doi:
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118987.
[16] C. Goldberg, D. Nalianda, V. Sethi, P.
Pilidis, R. Singh, and K. Kyprianidis,
"Assessment of an energy-efficient aircraft
concept from a techno-economic
perspective," Applied Energy, vol. 221, pp.
229-238, 2018,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.1
63.
[17] E. Özbek, G. Yalin, S. Ekici, and T. H.
Karakoc, "Evaluation of design
methodology, limitations, and iterations of a
hydrogen fuelled hybrid fuel cell mini
UAV," Energy, vol. 213, p. 118757, 2020,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.11875
7.
[18] M. C. Massaro, R. Biga, A. Kolisnichenko,
P. Marocco, A. H. A. Monteverde, and M.
Santarelli, "Potential and technical
challenges of on-board hydrogen storage
technologies coupled with fuel cell systems
for aircraft electrification," Journal of
Power Sources, vol. 555, p. 14, 2023, Art.
no. 232397, doi:
doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2022.232397.
[19] T. Capurso, M. Stefanizzi, M. Torresi, and S.
M. Camporeale, "Perspective of the role of
hydrogen in the 21st century energy
transition," Energy Conversion and
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on SYSTEMS
DOI: 10.37394/23202.2024.23.43
Fenge Li
E-ISSN: 2224-2678
414
Volume 23, 2024
Management, vol. 251, p. 17, 2022, Art. no.
114898, doi:
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114898.
[20] T. Yusaf, L. Fernandes, A. Abu Talib, Y. S.
M. Altarazi, W. Alrefae, K. Kadirgama, D.
Ramasamy, A. Jayasuriya, G. Brown, R.
Mamat, H. Al Dhahad, F. Benedict, and M.
Laimon, "Sustainable Aviation-Hydrogen Is
the Future," Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 1, p.
17, 2022, Art. no. 548, doi:
doi.org/10.3390/su14010548.
[21] P. Yu, J. Wang, J. Zheng, L. Zhang, and H.
Wang, "Review on hydrogen energy
utilization and development," Automotive
Applied Technology, no. 24, pp. 22-25, 2019,
doi: doi.org/10.16638/j.cnki.1671-
7988.2019.24.008.
[22] B. C. Tashie-Lewis and S. G. Nnabuife,
"Hydrogen Production, Distribution,
Storage and Power Conversion in a
Hydrogen Economy - A Technology
Review," Chemical Engineering Journal
Advances, vol. 8, p. 100172, 2021,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceja.2021.100172.
[23] H. Zhang, L. Tian, Y. Sun, W. Yang, S. Peng,
C. Liu, L. Ai, and Y. Li, "Progress of
research on hydrogen storage in organic
liquid and thinking about pipeline
transportation," Oil & Gas Storage and
Transportation, vol. 42, no. 04, pp. 375-390,
2023.
[24] N. Gray, S. McDonagh, R. O'Shea, B.
Smyth, and J. D. Murphy, "Decarbonising
ships, planes and trucks: An analysis of
suitable low-carbon fuels for the maritime,
aviation and haulage sectors," Advances in
Applied Energy, vol. 1, p. 100008, 2021,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adapen.2021.10000
8.
[25] S. E. Puliafito, "Civil aviation emissions in
Argentina," Science of The Total
Environment, vol. 869, p. 161675, 2023,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161
675.
Contribution of Individual Authors to the
Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting
Policy)
Fenge Li wrote this paper.
Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a
Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself
No funding was received for conducting this study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
_US
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on SYSTEMS
DOI: 10.37394/23202.2024.23.43
Fenge Li
E-ISSN: 2224-2678
415
Volume 23, 2024
APPENDIX
Table 1. Hydrogen production costs in China
Hydrogen production method
Unit hydrogen production cost/(yuan·m-3)
Coal-based hydrogen production
0.869
Natural gas hydrogen production
1.14
Methanol cracking for hydrogen production
2.14
Electrolysis of water
4.31
Electrolysis of water (wind power)
0.875-1.81(predicted at 2030)
Table 2. Comparison of different hydrogen storage methods, [21]
Hydrogen
storage
methods
Operation
principles
Hydrogen
storage
materials
Unit mass
hydrogen
storage
density
Advantages
Disadvantages
Gaseous
hydrogen
storage
Compressing
hydrogen
under high-
pressure
conditions
High-pressure
resistant
materials
1.0%-5.7%
Low cost; low
energy
consumption;
fast hydrogen
charging &
discharging
speed; simple
container
structure
Small reserves; limited
pressure for the storage
tank material;
dangerous
transportation
Liquid
hydrogen
storage
Reversible
reaction
between
hydrocarbon
agents and
hydrogen
gas
Cyclohexane;
Decahydro
-naphthalene,
etc
5.0%-7.2%
High
hydrogen
storage
density and
efficiency;
high storage
and
transportation
safety
High reaction
temperature; low
dehydrogenation
efficiency; high catalyst
cost & susceptibility to
poisoning by
intermediate products
Cool
hydrogen
gas to -
253℃ for
liquefaction
Special
materials that
can withstand
ultra-low
temperatures
4.7%-10%
High
hydrogen
storage
density; large
hydrogen
storage
capacity
High liquefaction cost;
high liquefaction energy
consumption;
evaporation loss;
dangerous
transportation
Solid
hydrogen
storage
Hydrogen
and its
storage
materials
undergo
physical or
chemical
changes to
transform
into solid or
hydrides
Metal-organic
framework;
nanostructured
carbon
materials
1.0%-4.5%
High
hydrogen
storage
density;
Suitable
hydrogen
charging &
discharging
speed; good
reversibility;
high safety;
low cost and
good cycle
life of
hydrogen
storage
materials
Low mass hydrogen
storage rate; high
hydrogen charging and
discharging
temperatures for
lightweight hydrogen
storage materials; poor
cycling performance
Metal
hydrides;
Complex
hydrides;
Organic
hydrides
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on SYSTEMS
DOI: 10.37394/23202.2024.23.43
Fenge Li
E-ISSN: 2224-2678
416
Volume 23, 2024
Table 3. Common organic liquid hydrogen storage carriers and their properties, [23]
Organic liquid
material
Melting point /
℃
Boiling point /
℃
Mass hydrogen
storage rate
Hydrogen
storage capacity
/kg·m-3
Dehydrogenation
temperature /℃
cyclohexane
6.5
80.74
7.2％
55.9
300~320
MCH
-127
100.90
6.2％
47.4
300~350
12H-NEC
-84.5
-
5.8％
-
- 170~200
Decahydro
naphthalene
-30.4
185.50
7.3％
65.4
320~340
Formic acid
8.4
100.80
4.4％
53.0
-
methanol
-97.8
64.80
12.5％
-
-
Table 4. Fuel mass and volume comparison of medium/short/long range flight, [24]
Note: The mass calculation of compressed hydrogen and Cryogenic hydrogen includes the mass of hydrogen storage equipment.
Table 5. full lifecycle emissions of fuels, [24]
Fuel type
Fuel subtype
Well to tank
gCO2e/MJ
Tank to wheel
gCO2e/MJ
Well to wheel
gCO2e/MJ
Fossil fuels
Jet fuel
15.0
72.4
87.4
Diesel
17.4
72.1
89.5
HFO
15.0
79.1
94.1
CNG
10.9
56.7
67.6
LNG
19.6
56.9
76.5
Biofuels
Biomethane
12.8-17.2
0
12.8-17.2
Methanol
36-46
0
36-46
HVO
30.1-698
0
30.1-698
FT diesel
17-109
0
17-109
Electrofuels（
Wind electricity
）
Hydrogen
2.59-20.74
0
2.59-20.74
methane
3.37-26.94
0
3.37-26.94
methanol
3.28-26.25
0
3.28-26.25
FT diesel
3.55-28.41
0
3.55-28.41
Methanol-to-gasoline
3.81-30.5
0
3.81-30.5
Electrofuels（
Solar PV
electricity）
Hydrogen
6.67-66.67
0
6.67-66.67
methane
8.66-86.58
0
8.66-86.58
methanol
8.44-84.39
0
8.44-84.39
FT diesel
9.13-91.32
0
9.13-91.32
Fuel type
Fuel subtype
1000km medium/short range flight
11000km long-range flight
Fuel
mass(T)
Percent
of
MTOM
Fuel
mass(T)
Fuel
volume(m3)
Percent of
MTOM
Fossil fuel
aviation
kerosene
7.20
9.1%
112
141
20.1%
Biofuel
methanol
15.7
19.8%
245
325
43.8%
HVO
7.49
9.5%
117
150
20.9%
FT fuel
7.22
9.1%
113
143
20.1%
Methane to
gasoline
6.82
8.6%
106
144
19.0%
Electric fuel
compressed
H2 70MPa
42.6
53.9%
666
998
119%
Cryogenic
H2
25.6
32.4%
399
561
71.3%
batteries
Lithium-ion
batteries
135
171%
2111
751
377%
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on SYSTEMS
DOI: 10.37394/23202.2024.23.43
Fenge Li
E-ISSN: 2224-2678
417
Volume 23, 2024
Methanol-to-gasoline
9.80-98.04
0
9.80-98.04
Table 6 Fuel cost, [24]
Fuel type
Fuel subtype
Fuel cost (€/MWh)
Average fuel cost (€/MWh)
Fossil fuels
Jet fuel
45
45
Diesel
109
109
HFO
36
36
Natural gas
38.2
38.2
Biofuels
Biomethane
60-90
75
Methanol
75-144
110
HVO
140-195
168
FT diesel
100-630
365
Electrofuels
Hydrogen
110-200
155
Methane
120-650
385
Methanol
120-680
400
FT diesel
130-770
450
Methanol-to-gasoline
160-1050
605
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on SYSTEMS
DOI: 10.37394/23202.2024.23.43
Fenge Li
E-ISSN: 2224-2678
418
Volume 23, 2024