does anyone care about aircraft safety?
What's safer, a fuel that is incredibly hard to combust even with a bic lighter, or a fuel that is so unstable that it can't even be left alone an uncompressed state without very real fears that it might ignite with the slightest introduction of energy? The skin of an aircraft is a very energetic place thanks to our friend and bane of PC enthusiasts everywhere Mr. static electricity. ...and some of you want to put hydrogen gas in that kind of environment knowing full well that it could ignite so easily rendering the aircraft into a meteor. This is why i bring up the Hindenberg, because that is the exact same scenario that brought it down.
A fuel leak of JP-1 has an incredibly low chance of spontaneous ignition compared to Hydrogen gas. It does not require compression to be stored, is ubiquitous the world over, has very high energy density, and is comparatively inexpensive.
You make hydrogen gas as a fuel source, no one would be able to afford to fly except the ultra rich who have a death wish.
So hydrogen fuel cells are out. what about other forms of electricity? Electric turbine? RTG? (that would be a really bad idea) Solar?
well, a big question in my mind is how much thrust is required to take a fully loaded passenger aircraft into the air?
the short answer is A LOT. While an aircraft uses very little power from the engines during cruise, it has to get there first, which requires close to full power in most applications. A 747-200 according to NASA produces 55,000 lb of thrust at Mach .9 @ 40,000 feet which is about a quarter of their rated static thrust. If conversion calculations are to be trusted, that's over 87,000 HP. So to get to Mach .9 at 40,000 ft, full power will be in the 348,000 HP range.
That's the number you should have in order to have a viable alternative to JP-1 fueled turbofan equipped passenger aircraft. Oh i neglected to mention... it has to last 5000 nm.
So you have two problems. one is power requirement, two is fuel storage. Three really... that being safety.
Pound for pound, a chemical battery cannot match the potential energy of liquid fuel. So you're forced to either increase aircraft size and wingspan, or decrease cabin capacity to accommodate the storage requirements of electric energy. With liquid fuel energy, as you expend it, the weight decreases. This is important to understand that while an aircraft can lift 735,000 pounds, it cannot necessarily LAND 735,000 lbs. The landing gear strut cannot take that kind of punishment, which is why they dump fuel on aborted take offs to reduce the aircraft's weight. It would crush the strut like a soda can. You can't really do that with batteries since they are as heavy depleted as they were fully charged unless you jettison them... which could be a really big problem should you need to jettison those very heavy batteries over a populated area. You'd basically be carpet bombing a very wide area. Depending on what they were made out of, that could very well be an ecological nightmare to clean up, not to mention the very obvious side effects of one of them landing on you, your car, or your house.
not safe. not practical. not cost effective.
oh, but it preserves the climate. so, damn all that.