international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 13631369

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Greenhouse gas emissions assessment of hydrogen and kerosene-fueled aircraft propulsion

H. Nojoumi, I. Dincer*, G.F. Naterer
Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, 2000 Simcoe Street North, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada L1H 7K4

article info
Article history: Received 24 September 2008 Received in revised form 10 November 2008 Accepted 10 November 2008 Available online 24 December 2008 Keywords: Hydrogen Fuel Aircraft Kerosene Performance Greenhouse gas

abstract
The paper highlights the importance of hydrogen as a promising alternative for future aircraft fuel, with respect to reduced environmental impact, increased sustainability, high energy content and favorable combustion kinetics, since the rapid growth and dependence of aircraft propulsion on fossil fuels are unsustainable. This paper compares the environmental impact of hydrogen and kerosene-fueled aircraft, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and other emission comparisons. Sample ights from Toronto to Montreal, and Calgary to London are examined. Emissions from a conventional aircraft are estimated and compared with the LH2 (liquid hydrogen) aircraft. The environmental benets and drawbacks of these systems are presented from safety and storage perspectives. Radiative forcing factors that compare conventional aircraft and LH2 aircraft are included. It is shown that the amount of NOx, HC and CO emissions for the trips with conventional aircraft for Calgary is 171.4, 41.9 and 32.2 kg, while Montreal is 56.17, 2.43 and 21.9 kg, and London is 251.7, 5.1 and 39.2 kg, respectively. These results are compared against hydrogen propulsion to show the promising capabilities of hydrogen as an aircraft fuel. 2008 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

Human activities associated with usage of fossil fuels have led to increased concentrations of various greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and global warming. The commercial aviation industry is generating a rising proportion of these worldwide greenhouse gas emissions [1,2]. Technology improvements have not been sufcient to stabilize this growth. Fuel consumption is increasing and so carbon dioxide emissions are growing by about 23% annually, in contrast to the requirements of the Kyoto protocol. Various pollutants from burning fossil fuels are contributing to air pollution, with examples like acidication, ozone layer breakdown and so forth. The main objective of this paper is to examine liquid hydrogen as a sustainable alternative fuel for aircraft

propulsion, provided it is produced from a non-emitting source. LH2 as an aircraft fuel promises low or zero emissions, as the only waste product of burning hydrogen is water vapor, with also a small amount of NOx. Several options of using hydrogen as a fuel have been mentioned and discussed [3]. Life cycle assessments of the environmental impacts and economics of the overall production and utilization of hydrogen cover a cradle-to-grave analysis, including the construction and operation stages of the technology [4]. An airplane causes visible changes in the atmosphere by forming contrails (condensation trails) that represent articially induced cirrus clouds. The distinctive properties of cirrus and contrails originate from the physics of ice formation. Ice particle nucleation occurs either through homogeneous or heterogeneous nucleation, when freezing of the

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: hassann@shimifrez.com (H. Nojoumi), ibrahim.dincer@uoit.ca (I. Dincer), greg.naterer@uoit.ca (G.F. Naterer). 0360-3199/$ see front matter 2008 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.11.017

1364

international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 13631369

Nomenclature: A/C Cc CC CO CO2 ECo2 Ei EI GWP HC IEA JP LH2 LTO M-C-L NOx O3 ppb ppm PMC RF SEC SFC TIM VLLR s Aircraft Carbon concentration Cirrus cloud Carbon monoxide Carbon dioxide Total emissions of CO2 in (kg) Emissions of species i in (kg) Emission index Global warming potential Hydrocarbon International Energy Agency Jet propellant Liquid hydrogen Landing and take off Montreal-Calgary-London Nitrous oxide Ozone Parts per billion Parts per million Polymer cryogenic tank Radiative forcing Specic energy consumption Specic fuel consumption Time in mode Very long range aircraft Life time of the species i

liquid is triggered by a solid particle or surface in contact with liquid. Both processes depend strongly on temperature and relative humidity [5]. Past studies [610] have examined nucleation from ground level emissions and ying modes of the aircraft, during a landing and takeoff cycle (LTO). An LTO cycle begins as the aircraft descends from cruising altitude and lands at the airport. The second step in the landing portion of the cycle is the taxi to the gate and subsequent idle period. The three operating modes in the takeoff portion of the cycle are taxi-out/idle, takeoff and climb-out. The LTO cycle operating modes are dened by the existence of standard power settings for a given aircraft, so the modes represent an appropriate basis for estimating the overall emissions. Table 1 shows the thrust settings and TIM (time in mode) for a typical aircraft. The LTO cycle can be classied as follows. 1) Approach measured from the moment the aircraft enters the pollutant mixing zone to when it lands. 2) Taxi/idle-in the time spent after landing until the aircraft is parked at the gate and engines

are turned off. 3) Taxi/idle-out the period from engine startup to takeoff. 4) Takeoff is characterized primarily by full-throttle operation that lasts until the aircraft reaches 5001000 feet (152305 m). 5) Climb-out is the period following takeoff that concludes when the aircraft passes out of the mixing zone. From the estimation of TIM, the verication of mixing height to be used to dene an LTO cycle, and the estimation of the total emissions, will be determined in this paper. Various congurations and tank positions in aircraft designs of the fuselage have been developed [11]. The tank congurations of proposed hydrogen aircraft can be categorized as follows: above the payload, above and aft of the payload, or fore and aft of the payload section. The fore and aft arrangements are longer and wider in diameter than conventional fueled aircrafts, with the forward tank between the cockpit and forward passenger compartment bulkhead, and the aft tank is located between the aft passenger compartment bulkhead and tail area. The tanks can either be integral or non-integral parts of the fuselage structure. In a structurally integral tank, the inner walls of the tank have a dual role of containing the liquid-hydrogen fuel and acting as the main fuselage structure. Tank maintenance is readily performed by removing the outer insulation panels covering the outside of the tank. A non-structurally integral tank rests within the outer structural fuselage skin. The non-integral tank design is heavier and harder to access for maintenance, but easier to design and manufacture [11,12]. LH2 has a specic energy of 120 MJ/kg, which is almost 2.8 times higher than conventional fuel. But storing LH2 instead of kerosene by volume has a ratio of 4:1. Therefore, more space is needed for the tanks and storage. This paper aims to compare these design issues and greenhouse gas emissions of conventional aircraft fuels with liquid hydrogen, in order to analyze the potential of hydrogen as a future aviation fuel.

2.

Types of aircraft fuels

Consider the airbus A320 series [24], which resides in the family of short range to medium range commercial aircraft using two wing mounted turbofan engines. The typical life of

Table 1 Standard landing and takeoff. Operating mode

Take-off Climb-out Approach Landing Taxi/ground idle Source: [5].

Thrust setting (%)

100% 85% 30% 7%

Time in mode (min)

0.7 2.2 4.0 26.0

Fig. 1 Growth in domestic aviation GHGs in Canada (data from Ref. [9]).

international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 13631369

1365

Mt emissions

CO2 Nitrous oxide Methane 0% 50%

95.9% 3.7% 0.3% 100% Total GHG Aviation GHG

Fig. 2 Canadian GHGs by type of trace gas.

the plane is 25 years. There are currently two main grades of engine fuel: Jet A-1 and Jet A, which are both kerosene type fuels. This plane has a seating capacity of 150 passengers. Fig. 1 shows the growth of GHGs due to aviation in Canada. Fig. 2 shows the detailed percentages per trace gas and destination. A combustion process typically releases CO2, H2O, O2, and N2. There is another grade of jet fuel, Jet B, which is a wide cut kerosene (a mix of gasoline and kerosene), but it is rarely used, except in very cold climates. Jet A is a kerosene based type of fuel, produced to an ASTM specication and normally only available in North America. It has the same ash point as Jet A1, but a higher freeze point maximum (40  C) [4]. Jet A is sometimes called Synjet. Jet B is a distillate covering the naphtha and kerosene fractions. It can be used as an alternative to Jet A-1. Because it is more difcult to handle (higher ammability), there is only signicant demand in very cold climates, where its better cold weather performance becomes important. For converting a conventional aircraft to burn LH2, an additional heat exchanger is needed to heat the liquid hydrogen to a temperature that is suitable for injection into the combustion chamber. Different design principles have been developed by various aircraft manufacturers. Hydrogen has the highest heat of combustion and highest specic consumption, in comparison to other conventional aviation fuel (Table 2). Aircraft emissions are dependent on the type of fuel, engine type and engine load. Most aircraft operate on kerosene as the fuel. Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns according to the following chemical reactions: Cx Hy aO2 3:76N2 2 xCO2 0:5y H2 O 3:76aN2 other by products 1

C12 H23 17:75O2 66:77N2 O2 2 12CO2 11:5H2 O 66:77N2 (2)

For complete stoichiometric combustion of 1 kg of kerosene, 3.4 kg of oxygen is needed, producing 3.16 kg of CO2, 1.24 kg of water vapor, 1 g of NOx and between 1 and 2.5 g of CO. The quality of kerosene as a burning fuel is related to its combustion characteristics, and dependant on factors such as viscosity, caloric value, sulfur content volatility, and composition. A comparison of kerosene in terms of the mass spectral Z-series can be found from ASTM D-2425 and ASTM D-2789 standards. Z in the empirical formula of CnH2nZ is a measure of the efciency of the compound [9]. For the same fuel mass of identical energy content with 0.36 kg of LH2, the combustion product is 3.24 kg of water vapor and only a small amount of NOx. In this study, Montreal, Calgary and London are selected for the calculation of total fuel consumption [14]. For a trip from Toronto to Calgary, a fuel consumption of 13,937.3 kg is needed for a distance of 2716 km. An estimated amount of 171.4, 4.19 and 32.2 kilograms of NOx, HC and CO emissions is produced, respectively. Table 3 shows details of CO2 emissions for various aircraft types. Table 4 depicts a detailed analysis of the total ight and total LTO emissions for an A320 and selected destinations. The selected consumption per kilometer was calculated to be 7.29, 5.13 and 5.5 kg/km for Montreal, Calgary and London. The greenhouse gas emissions of CO2 are calculated to be 22.34, 15.71 and 19.85, respectively (Fig. 3). The next value calculated was the emission index number for each destination. For example, the NOx emission for Montreal is 15.7 g emitted per kilogram of fuel, in overall modes and the LTO of the aircraft (see Fig. 4). For hydrogen, cryogenic fuels are cooled down to their boiling point and stored as low temperature liquids. Hydrogen has a boiling point of 253 C and a density of 0.071 g/cc. The SFC of LH2 is about 65% less than kerosene and 2.85% less SEC during takeoff and 0.81% less during cruise [15]. However, hydrogen engines maneuver under a slightly lower turbine temperature with a longer engine life. Past research has shown that a lighter fuel load is required for LH2. The gross

Table 2 Different available fuel comparisons. Fuel

Jet A Liquid hydrogen Liquid methane Methanol Bio diesel Source: [13,18].

Specic energy MJ/kg

43.2 120 50 19.9 38.9

Density @15  C
0.808 0.071 0.424 0.796 0.87

Energy density MJ/L

34.9 8.4 21.2 15.9 33.9

Table 3 Fuel and emissions for selected aircraft. Aircraft

B707 B737 B747 Concorde DC8

CO2
5880 2750 1,01,145 20,290 5890

CH4
9.8 0.5 4.8 10.7 5.8

N2O
0.2 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.2

NOx
10.8 6.7 49.2 35.2 14.8

SO2
1.9 0.9 3.2 6.4 1.9

CO
92.4 16 115 385 65.2

Source: [22,23].

1366

international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 13631369

Table 4 Projected A320 total emissions. City

Distance (km) Distance (nm) Fuel (kg) Climb/Cruise/Descent NOx (kg) total Climb/Cruise/Descent HC (kg) total Climb/Cruise/Descent CO (kg) Total Climb/Cruise/Descent

Montreal
504 919.8 3677.3 2875 56.17 45.29 2.43 0.5 21.9 3.1

Calgary
2716 4956.7 13937.3 13751.4 171.4 171.5 4.19 2.30 32.2 10.25

London
3454 6303.5 19005 17553.7 251.7 214.0 5.10 3.03 39.2 12.74

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 504 2716

EINOx EIHC EICO

1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

(g/kg fuel)

(g/kg fuel)

3454

Distance (km)
Fig. 4 Emissions index according to distance traveled (g/kg fuel).

weight to y a given distance will be less than kerosene-fueled aircraft. Also, LH2 aircraft will have quieter operation due to a smaller engine. For example, in conventional high performance engines, the engine is cooled with air bled from the compressor. But in LH2 aircraft, hydrogen can be used through a secondary heat exchanger to cool the engine. Additional performance characteristics of hydrogen propulsion have been discussed by Brewer [15]. The engine life is increased by about 25% and maintenance requirements are also reduced. The main problem for LH2 is low temperature storage, with high insulation requirements, due to permeability of hydrogen [20]. Therefore, additional weight is onboard the aircraft, which requires redesign of the fuselage structure. Our analysis has shown the consumption of hydrogen to Montreal, Calgary and London from Toronto requires almost 50% less fuel utilization (Tables 5 and 6). Fig. 6 shows that the energy consumption changes as per aircraft usage in engine emission index values.

3. Radiative forcing (RF) and greenhouse gases

The RF is a key factor that determines how much climate change occurs in response to human disturbances in the earths energy balance, with regards to changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases and solar input [19,25]. Calculations of radiative forcing need the radiative absorption characteristics of every trace gas emitted, and the initial gas concentration in the atmosphere. Typical values from IPCC (1999) are shown in Table 7.
HC 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
15 0 75 0 00 00 0 50 25 54 15 34

The effect of CO2 emissions on climate depends on the concentration. A value of 107108 ppm of CO2 is estimated for a one-way trip and three trips in one day. The quantity of CO2 emitted is unavoidable with kerosene-fueled aircraft, but in LH2 aircraft there is zero CO2 emitted and therefore no RF effect from using hydrogen propulsion (excluding the emissions from the process of generating hydrogen). CO has an indirect radiative forcing effect by elevating the concentrations of CH4 and tropospheric ozone through chemical reactions with other atmospheric constituents (e.g., the hydroxyl radical, OH) that would otherwise assist in destroying CH4 and tropospheric ozone. Carbon monoxide is created when carbon containing fuels are burned incompletely. Through natural processes in the atmosphere, it is eventually oxidized to CO2. Carbon monoxide concentrations are both short-lived in the atmosphere and spatially variable [16,17,22]. NO and NO2, like NOx, have a number of ways of oxidization of NOx (combustion and lightning) [9]. Aircraft NOx emissions tend to increase the ozone amount depending on their altitude or season emitted. For supersonic aircraft at high altitudes above 18 km, ozone is depleted [15]. An increase in the concentration of ozone in the upper troposphere is more effective in increasing RF than lower altitude. Therefore, LH2 aircraft should be used at low altitudes below 12 km. Most vapor emissions are emitted in the troposphere where they are typically removed by precipitation within 10 15 days. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but the effects are less harmful than CO2 and NOx emissions at lower attitudes.

CO NOx

300 250

4.
emissions(kg)

Effects on cloud formation

emissions(kg)

200 150 100 50 0

Condensation trails, or contrails, produced from high-altitude aircraft exhaust may affect climate because they can persist

Table 5 The values of engine emission index (g/kg fuel). City

EINOx EIHC EICO

Montreal
15.7 0.16 1.08

Calgary
12.42 0.17 0.73

London
11.9 0.17 0.69

Distance
Fig. 3 Projected emissions for A320 vs. distance traveled.

international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 13631369

1367

Table 6 Consumption comparison by distance traveled of selected fuel. City

Montreal Calgary London

Water vapor life time(yr)

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.75 0.65 0.55 0.45 0.36 0.25 0. 11 0.068 0.058 0.054 0.05 0.046 0.044 0.042 0.041 0.04

Kerosene (L/km)
9 6.32 6.78

LH2 (L/km)
4.4 4.35 4.04

for many hours, depending on their condition and local weather patterns. Like their natural counterparts, these anthropogenic cirrus clouds reect solar radiation and absorb and emit thermal infrared radiation, causing radiative forcing. Aviation in general has the potential to change cirrus clouds in a number of ways. Contrails do not always evaporate after a short time. If the local atmosphere is supersaturated with respect to ice, the clouds will form into larger cirrus clouds called contrail cirrus, which cannot be distinguished from contrails, if the concentration is unknown. A/C directly emits soot and particulates. These particles eventually are transformed into clouds which may trigger a longer lasting CC. It is projected that the concentration of aerosols will remain relatively low until at least 2050. But their inuence on cloud formation can help enhance the cloud structure and change the radiative forcing. The global warming potential, GWP, can be determined as follows (e.g., [16,19,26]): GWPi Ei T ECO2 T RN GWP R 0 N
0

(3)

fi tCi dt fc tCc dt   t Ai exp si

(4)

Cc t A0

n X i1

(5)

(Table 8). Past emissions have a contribution of about three quarters of the current RF. The initial concentration of a greenhouse gas strongly affects the magnitude of radiative forcing. The radiative forcing is largest when the additional concentration is very low. Equation (3) and Fig. 7 show that the initial concentration of CO2 remains in the air for several thousands of years As shown in the comparison in Fig. 5, the maximum lifetime of water vapor is about 9 months. For 160.3 Mt of fuel burned, It can be shown that 1 ppm of CO2 is added into the atmosphere [23]. Fig. 8 illustrates the fuel consumption vs. distance travelled in the case study. (see radiative forcing associated with various components in Fig. 9). Through the formula DF 6:3 lnC=Co , the radiative forcing for the destination of Montreal, with CO2 emissions of 1.1 109 kg, is about 34 W/m2. The value is relatively high because the initial gas concentration is low and each new molecule added to the atmosphere will absorb the maximum amount of energy, so the RF increases in proportion to the number of molecules.

Ei

Z
0

RFi set=s RFi s 1 eT=s

(6)

5.

Altitude(km)

Fig. 5 Water vapor lifetime as function of altitude.

Storage and safety issues

The concept of radiative forcing as the radiative imbalance (Wm2) is caused by the addition of greenhouse gases. The drivers of RF include the direct solar radiation aerosols and the earths surface temperature changes. RF represents a stratospherically adjusted radiative ux change evaluated at the tropopause. Positive RF leads to global mean surface warming and negative RF leads to surface cooling. They are calculated differently from changes in emissions, or changes in concentrations. The global mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in 2005 was 377 ppm, leading to an RF of 1.66 [0.17] W/m2

The storage space needed for LH2 is about 4 times larger than kerosene-fueled aircraft. Three types of tank layouts have been proposed for hydrogen aircraft [20,26]. For a small regional aircraft and business aircraft, the location of the tanks is arranged aft of the aft pressure bulkhead only. For regional aircraft up to 100 seats and medium range aircraft, the tanks are arranged behind the aft pressure bulkhead and on top of the fuselage. For VLLR, they are proposed aft of the rear pressure bulkhead and between the cabin and cockpit.
Business jet A/C 32% Small aircraft A/C 34% Regional propeller A/C Regional jet A/C Medium Range A/C 9% 10% 18% 14% 14% Long range A/C Very large, long range

Table 7 Radiative forcing results (in units of mW/m2). Year

1992

CO2
18

CH4
14

H2O
1.5

O3
23

Contrails
20

Sulphate
3.0

Source: [12].

Fig. 6 Change of energy consumption for LH2-fueled aircraft (data from Ref. [17]).

1368

international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 13631369

Table 8 Global atmospheric concentration from available data.

Gas Atmospheric concentration Rate of concentration change Atmospheric lifetime GWP CH4 1847/1730a (ppb) 0.007 N 2O 0.314 (ppb) 0.0008 CO2 377.3 (ppm) 1.5 O3 34 N/A

Fuel consumption(L/km)
10 8 6 4 2 0 504 2716 3454 Kerosene LH2

812 23

110150 296

100 1

Hours/ days N/A

Distance
Fig. 8 Fuel consumption comparison by distance traveled.

a The rst number is mid-latitude northern hemisphere, and the second number is mid-latitude southern hemisphere [11].

Hydrogen molecules are prone to permeating through the tank wall. The permeation by hydrogen is perhaps the most critical issue in the tank design. Metallic tanks are a solution to this problem, as hydrogen permeates through metals at a much slower rate than through nonmetallic materials. However, the metallic tank mass may limit its payload capacity and ight duration. A PMC tank using a thin metallic liner would also address the permeability problem, but the weight is still an issue. Furthermore, the coefcient of thermal expansion mismatch between the composite tank wall and the metallic liner will cause them to contract differently, possibly inducing stresses in the material that may result in separation of the liner from the tank, and/or fracture of the liner, thus making such a design undesirable [21]. Hydrogen has a tendency to rise in the free atmosphere, which reduces the danger of accidental leakage. The hazards associated with the use of liquid hydrogen are primarily physiological, such as frostbite, asphyxiation, physical aspects such as phase change, component failures, embrittlement and chemical processes like ignition. The primary hazard associated with any form of hydrogen is inadvertently producing a ammable or detonable mixture, leading to re or detonation. According to past airbus research, for 3.3 m3 of LH2 and a wind speed of 4 m/s in case of a crash, an area of about 1000 m2 of re carpet would arise, in comparison to 13,500 m2 for propane. In this respect, LH2 is a safer aviation fuel than kerosene. Although hydrogen is considered to be a clean fuel, it is important to recognize that its method of production has a signicant role in the overall level of environmental impact. The use of renewable energy sources has the advantage of

environmentally friendly production of hydrogen. Among all aviation fuel systems, the kerosene life cycle results in the greatest environmental impact. Acidication and winter smog emissions are particularly high, due to the extraction and rening processes of crude oil. Kerosene combustion contributes further to the environmental impact. Eutrophication emissions are also very high in comparison with hydrogen systems. High SO2 emissions during the rening process and also high emissions of NOx and SO2 during kerosene combustion are important contributors to the overall environmental impact. Despite the promising potential of LH2 aircraft, further research is needed to realize its commercial use in aviation. According to some estimates, the earliest implementation of this technology is still at least 1520 years away. From an operating cost point of view, hydrogen still remains relatively unattractive in todays marketplace, since kerosene is cheaper and hydrogen fueling infrastructure is generally unavailable. Nevertheless, assessments based on conservative calculations and todays understanding have conrmed that the use of hydrogen would signicantly reduce aircraft emissions. However, further conrmation is needed to show that the water emission of hydrogen-fueled aircraft has as low impact on the atmosphere as predicted. In addition to the technical challenges in building hydrogen aircraft, there are also systematic challenges from a policy perspective. These policies will become increasingly important as a technology moves from research and development to market acceptance. A wide variety of hydrogen scenarios could emerge from policy incentives, which need to be better understood in order to develop a clean energy cycle based on hydrogen.

Aerosols sulfate Contrails H2O CH4 O3 CO2

High Low NASA

-0.5

-0.3

-0.1

0.1

0.3

0.5

Fig. 7 Concentration depletion of CO2 over 5000 years.

Fig. 9 Radiation forcing comparison in WmL2.

international journal of hydrogen energy 34 (2009) 13631369

1369

6.

Conclusions
[9]

In this paper we have investigated the potential role of hydrogen as a sustainable fuel, in place of kerosene as a conventional aviation fuel, for signicant reductions of GHG emissions. In this regard, hydrogen and kerosene-fueled aircrafts were compared in terms of environmental impact, radiative forcing, storage, and safety perspectives. The ammability of kerosene and liquid hydrogen, and NOx emissions, were studied, assuming that each reaction occurs at chemical equilibrium. It was shown that the amount of NOx, HC and CO emissions for trips with conventional aircraft for Calgary is 171.4, 41.9 and 32.2 kg, while Montreal is 56.17, 2.43 and 21.9 kg, and London is 251.7, 5.1 and 39.2 kg, respectively. The results were compared against hydrogen propulsion to show the promising capabilities of hydrogen as an aircraft fuel.

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13] [14]

Acknowledgements
The nancial support of an Ontario Premiers Research Excellence Award, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada is gratefully acknowledged.

[15] [16] [17]

references

[18]

[1] Westenberger A. Hydrogen fueled aircraft. Airbus Deutchland; July 2003. [2] Koroneos C, Dompros A, Roumbas G, Moussiopoulos N, et al. Advantages of using hydrogen as compared to kerosene. Journal of Resources Conservation and Recycling 2005;44: 99113. [3] Dincer I. Technical environmental and exergetic aspect of hydrogen energy systems. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2002;27:26585. [4] Granovskii M, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Greenhouse gas emissions reduction of wind and solar energies for hydrogen and electricity production: economic factors. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2007;32:92731. [5] UNEP. Aviation and global atmosphere, chapter 3: aviationproduced aerosols and cloudiness. Available from: http:// www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src/climate/ ipcc/aviation/035.htm; 2008. [6] CSG Network. Computer networks for aviation converters. Available from: http://www.csgnetwork.com; 2008. [7] Romano D, Gaudioso D, de Lauretis R. Aircraft emissions: a comparison methodologies based on different data availability. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 1999;56:5174. [8] Svensson F, Hasselrot A, Moldanova J. Reduced environmental impact by lowered cruise altitude for liquid

[19] [20] [21]

[22]

[23]

[24] [25] [26]

hydrogen-fuelled aircraft. Aerospace Science and Technology 2004;8:30720. Canadian aviation greenhouse gasses, executive summary. Ottawa, Canada: Jacobs Consultancy Canadian Inc; October 26, 2007. EIA. Data on CO2 gases released by aeroplanes, energy information administration US ofcial statistics. Available from: http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/05/08/mathhow-much-co2-released-by-aeroplane/; 2008. Manciaci DC. Operational performance prediction of hydrogen-fueled commercial transport. Department of Aerospace Engineering, Pennsylvania State University; 2008. Ponater M, Pechtl S, Sausen R, Schumann U, Huttig G. Potential cryoplane technology to reduce aircraft climate impact: a state of art assessment. Atmospheric Environment 2006;40:692844. Speight JG. Handbook of petroleum product analysis. New York: Wiley; 2001. Emission inventory guidebook, AIR TRAFFIC om080501 activities 080501 080504. Available from: http://reports.eea. europa.eu/EMEPCORINAIR5/en/B851vs2.4.pdf; December 2006. Brewer D. Hydrogen aircraft technology. Florida: CRC Press; 1991. UNEP. Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. New York: Climate Change Program; 2007. CDIAC. Carbon dioxide Information Analysis Centre: recent carbon dioxide gas concentration. E-journal Available from: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html; 2008. Koroneos C, Dompros A, Roumbas G, Moussiopoulos N. Life cycle assessment of kerosene used in aviation. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2005;10: 41724. Harvey LDD. Global warming. New York: Pearson-Prentice Hall; 2007. Clozza AJ. Hydrogen storage for aircraft applications overview. NASA; September 2002. Review of current state of the art and key design issues with potential solutions for liquid hydrogen cryogenic storage tank structures for aircraft applications. Florida: NASA; October 2006. Sausen R, Robert Sauseni, Ivar Isaksen, Volker Grewei, Didier Hauglustaine, David S. Leeiv, Gunnar Myhreii, Marcus O. Kohlerv, Giovanni Pitariv, Ulrich Schumann, Frode Stordal and Christos Zerefosv., et al. Aviation radiative forcing in 2000: an update on IPCC 1999, Metrologissche Zeitchrift. Available from: www.myclimate.org/download/ 2005_IPCC_ update.pdf. UNEP. Aviation and the global atmosphere, IPCC special report. Available from: www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/ spm/av-en.pdf; 1999. Airbus Deutschland GmbH. Technical data, http://www. airbus.com/en/worldwide/airbus_in_germany.html; 2008. Rypdal K. Aircraft emissions, http://randd.defra.gov.uk/ Document.aspx?DocumentAQ01503_2481_FRP.doc; 2001. Faab R. Cryoplane. Available from:. Airbus Deutschland GmbH http://www.hawhamburg.de/pers/Scholz/dglr/hh/ text_2001_12_06_Cryoplane.pdf; 2001.