[woodandsteel]

One gigantic advantage for synfuel kerosene that is carbon-neutral because it is produced with renewable energy, is you can continue to use the present airliner fleet. With hydrogen you have to spend many trillions of dollars replacing it.

Furthermore, replacing all the planes would take many decades, while synfuel kerosene might go into production much sooner.

Do the hydrogen airliner boosters take all that into account?

[avmich]

> Do the hydrogen airliner boosters take all that into account?

Sure, and other things too, like combustion benefits and hazards. But regarding your money worries - they don't need to happen overnight, just like electric cars don't replace gasoline ones suddenly.

Hydrogen fundamentally more potent fuel than kerosene - both by energy density and heat characteristics. Like with other commercial technologies, to be accepted it has to change traditions somewhat, which isn't easy. Safety is another important matter - it remains to be seen if hydrogen can be safely brought onboard to regular commercial liners, though advancements demonstrated by Toyota Mirai remind that progress doesn't stand still.

[woodandsteel]

It may well be that hydrogen is the fuel of the future for airlines. The problem is that with the rate global climate change is happening, we can't wait decades for a solution. We need something as soon as possible, and as far as I can tell, synfuel kerosene could replace fossil fuel kerosene decades sooner than hydrogen could. Do the hydrogen boosters address this concern?

[p_l]

carbon-neutral Jet A1 would be very nice, but so far the only case of it being used is the newest USN supercarrier, which can throw efficiency to the trash and has immense amounts of "extra power" from reactors that it can throw at it.

I wouldn't mind a future where we use syntin-based fuels or similar for aviation and push for max renewables and nuclear for power elsewhere.