So tiring. It will take 2 decades...and we knew this 2 decades ago and did nothing because if was so far in the future.

@grendel_1678

3 жыл бұрын

we know with no certainty how long it will take. We don't know what new innovation could be uncovered in another industry in say 8 years that could have application to how hydrogen is used as an energy source for aviation. The important thing is that more capital starts flowing into renewable areas and thankfully it appears post Covid that is a fundamental shift occurring.

@KRYMauL

3 жыл бұрын

We’ve known it for 5 decades, but the oil and gas companies got greedy

@jimj2683

2 жыл бұрын

Why do you say "we"? You did nothing.

@sdflipper743

2 жыл бұрын

Actually the US did do it in 1996 and again 2002; big oil/the Saudi's killed the electric car; even california stole all of them and destroyed them and paid for it. We need to let innovators do their own thing and let it come naturally, it's the most safest and cheapest. Remember, govt funded research while great demand payback, free labor (blood sweat and tears) are safer and cheaper.

@skunklover5725

Жыл бұрын

@@KRYMauL - VERY VERY TRUE, but those companies will be out of buisness in 30 years, because according to a study by M.A.H.B. the earth will be totally out of Oil by 2052, Natural Gas by 2060 & all the Coal will be gone by 2090.

oh, this isnt wendover

@naimr.4301

3 жыл бұрын

Can people explain their problem with wendover

@flyingchic3n

3 жыл бұрын

@@naimr.4301 there's a problem with wendover? I was just making fun of how he makes a lot of videos about the economics of planes

@kiranjackson7412

3 жыл бұрын

@@flyingchic3n we love wendover

@rulydihoti

3 жыл бұрын

Lol can't agree more

Expect to hear a lot of the word “ Sustainability in the future .

@opalfruits8596

3 жыл бұрын

All TV adverts have been 'sustainable' for the last 9 months!

@sararichardson737

3 жыл бұрын

Make a change from unprecedented.

You don't make the World Green by cutting the Economy. You make the World Green by making the Economy Green.

@chung729chung

2 жыл бұрын

It does when we have a population shrink This is the brute force from the lefts

Answer: Eventually, yes.

@CarFreeSegnitz

3 жыл бұрын

Green aviation will always be 20 years in the future, now and in 20 years. Like fusion.

The woman talking sounds like the voiceover on bbc come fly with me 🤣

I remember watching something like that 10-15 years ago and thinking this is the future.

Airbus E-Thrust seems like the most promising concept yet

It's true that the technology they outline does work in theory (and in practice in some cases) BUT the challenge they didn't properly cover is how we decide what we want to trade to achieve it at scale. Aviation requires huge amounts of energy. If we want a net-zero society then energy will be limited and we'll have to decide what we want to stop doing instead (heating or air-conditioning, for instance). If we still want to eat, biofuel is only great if we have a spare planet and hydrogen will take very large amounts of electricity to create. The mention of increased cost is also nice to hear but sadly is hugely optimistic. Given the constraints we'll have in future a 10% price increase sounds like a laughable projection.

impressive information and I really like that you finally added subtitles. It makes it much easier for non-native speakers to follow.

About those complaining that plane tickets will go up... Maybe polluting everyone’s Earth should have a price tag anyway. Maybe governments could choose to tax less on behaviors that pollute less and tax a lot more those that pollute more. You know, like a carbon tax. I think it’s about time!

Funny enough is that the first hydrogen fuel cell was invented in 1932! It is never too late.

@BeaverChainsaw

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, the sad part was that storing it proven to be too expensive even though it's way more efficient than petroleum.

If the first plane goes mass production, in a bigger model, not only we travel great distances, but we are also kinda cloud seeding instead of poluting.

Water vapor is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Biofuels to some extent are better but there's not enough to meet the global aviation demand. If electric planes were able to go long-haul distances that would be *absolutely revolutionary* , but for now they only do short-haul distances. Honestly, I think electric planes could meet the short-haul flight demand in places like America, Australia, Europe, East/Southeast Asia, but long-haul flights would either have to be reduced via. public campaigns or use more efficient alternatives. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

“The problem for the aviation industry is that green technologies cost a lot of money, but there isn’t much to go around”. How much did the airlines blow on stock-buy-backs this past decade, during their absolute bumper profits run? I love the way the Economist just ignore the corporate hegemony that causes most of its readers/subscribers to suffer in various ways.

@Munchausenification

3 жыл бұрын

Isnt that just how the industry inherently is at the moment? The barrier to entry as a new competitor is very high, so airline companies had the freedom to do as you said, stock-buy-backs.

@user-qn6yt3zx3w

3 жыл бұрын

Tax evasion is “just how the industry is” at the moment, doesn’t it make it fair or right. Airline CEO’s didn’t have to buy back their stock, but they chose to do so (instead of investing the profits in a greener future) because it reduces the number of shares in the market, and pushes up the price of the remaining shares up, thereby increasing their stock-based compensation. And the Economist evidently doesn’t mind turning a blind eye/supporting this scam. These so called leaders have a responsibility to take our hard earned money (in the form of their company profits) and streamline their business to be less environmentally devastating, but they choose additional millions for their own pockets instead.

@phamnuwen9442

3 жыл бұрын

Stock buybacks is a way to compensate investors for their investment. If investors aren't paid, they won't exist and nobody will finance businesses so nothing will be produced. Now, is stock buybacks a way to avoid taxes? Maybe so. If it is, awesome! That means less capital wasted by governments and more left in the hands of either businesses or investors that can be used to invest in more cool products and services that make people's lives better.

interesting. the question is here. what kind of water they used? i mean it can use saltwater? or it only use freshwater?? if the plane is only using freshwater. it will add a scarcity of freshwater and i reject that plane

@TheStubertos

3 жыл бұрын

I'm telling you man, invest in water now and you'll be a millionaire in 20 years time

@danurkresnamurti3598

3 жыл бұрын

@@TheStubertos agree my friend. same like oxygen.

@TheStubertos

3 жыл бұрын

@josh I think to get Hydrogen in the first place you use electrolysis on water to separate the hydrogen. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

@xlol2429

2 ай бұрын

@@TheStubertoslol I tell my friends this all the time I’m in highschool and they laugh at me but ur totally right man I hope ur invested im trying to get invested too I swear we’ll be millionaires lol and the funny thing is it’s not hard to see it coming with water scarcity look at Mexico City right now oof it’s tough out there and mexicos a pretty developed country it ain’t no third world lol it’s a first world with a Fake Gucci bag like America 😂

We don't have 2 decades

@cedricfranzen8558

3 жыл бұрын

Then e-fuels will have to be subsidized by the governments. Right now any airline that switches over will go bankrupt within a very short time frame. Fuel can be up to 70% of the cost of flight. So if e-fuels are even only 20% more expensive (which they are not right now, they are at like 300% the price) that would mean the airline would have to significantly increase ticket prices and lose many customers to competition who is still burning fossil fuel and can thus sell cheaper tickets. Basically the government would have to guarantee that the e-fuel price is exactly the same as the fossil one and then cough up the difference.

@atyshlmes4360

3 жыл бұрын

@@cedricfranzen8558 then maybe we need Degrowth... please look it up and give it a thought.

@atyshlmes4360

3 жыл бұрын

@@cedricfranzen8558 also, aren't governments already helping out the rich enough? air travel is a (mostly) wealthy-exclusive mode of transportation.

@cedricfranzen8558

3 жыл бұрын

@@atyshlmes4360 as someone working in the Airline industry you will forgive me for having a different opinion about that... degrowth would most likely lead to me losing my job and one of my biggest passions in my life. Also with today’s fares the flights are often cheaper than a taxi to the airport, at least in Western Europe.

@leonmorel789

3 жыл бұрын

@@atyshlmes4360 wow this is the first time i'm seeing an english comment about degrowth! It seems to me that comment sections are just pro infinite growth without actually looking at the physics behind it

To be fair, modern aircraft like the 787 Dreamliner and A220 are WAY more efficient and emit significantly less CO2 than say: a 707 or DC-9 from the 60s, and there are some who claim that the manufacturing of biofuels actually releases more greenhouse gases than the refining of regular jet fuel. So it's arguable that we should skip biofuels altogether, continue making current aircraft more fuel-efficient, and just throw all the R&D money at developing a hydrogen infrastructure network.

@jimj2683

2 жыл бұрын

Even better: Compensate the use of fossil fuels by capturing and storing CO2 from the atmosphere in a place with cheap renewable electricity (Sahara etc).

@wellingtonaviationchannel634

Жыл бұрын

The 787 is only better for the environment in an isolate sense. In the larger picture, more efficient aircraft are cheaper to operate, and therefore result a greater total number of passengers, so total emissions are greater

It does not hurt to try to make flying on alternative energy possible, but research on lowering the cost of new technologies such as hydrogen electrolysis and fuel cells is necessary.

5:56 you think i didnt see what u did there editor? lol the old windows screensaver

I hope that works on jumbo jets, cargo planes and military jet fighters, too. 🛫

It just need to be specified that most biofuel are not that ecological. In the end the fuel still has to be burned, even if it is called "bio". Only the production process is cleaner and emits less co2

What is not mentioned though experimental, that hydrogen fuel plane is stripped down. Weight if not the factor in a/c design one of the central factor of design.

Awesome information!

Back in the past boat planes were the thing, people back then thought that was the future. That would be a great design.

@magusd123

Жыл бұрын

boat planes are the worst of both world. they are heavy cumbersome aircraft and terrible draggy barely controllable boats.also they can only work on smooth water

This is only about fuel. Manufacture of planes and design of airports also needs a rethink.

Sustainablity is desirable but it is going to require a lot of governmental policy changes in order for the technologies that are needed and exist today and new generations of technologies to be widely implemented. That to me is the real test of just how serious governments and corporations are about sustainability, circular economies and all of the current buzzwords that we hear 24 hours a day from every corner of the political and corporate realms. The consumer cannot be the only payor of sustainability, it will not happen if it is left to the consumer or if it does it will be slower than needed and will have negative effects in other parts of the consumer chain.

Interesting video and largely correct. Although there has been a recent push for hydrogen in the UK with smaller hydrogen powered aircraft (20 seaters) predicted to enter service within the next ten years. Agree with the points that government funding is essential and even with that unfortunately air travel will end up costing more

Water vapour is also greenhouse gas and absorbs infrared radiation in a higher rate. Hope they don’t just throw away vapour during the flight. That would be for nothing.

Thanks!

Super informative 👍

Great video and explanation!

I don't understand, first they say hydrogen is denser than kerosene then they say that they need a bigger tank! Then the airplane companies say they want less tax on fuel but they already don't pay tax on fuel since 1944...

@BeaverChainsaw

3 жыл бұрын

Hydrogen is more powerful but STORING it is more expensive

@carljaekle

3 жыл бұрын

Liquid hydrogen is very energy dense, gaseous hydrogen is not. So you have to have insulated tanks for liquid, or bigger tanks for hydrogen in gas form.

Sandia Labs showed that the very means they developed to more efficiently separate hydrogen from water can be used to separate carbon monoxide from CO₂ and it is a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas (syngas) which is used to synthesize linear hydrocarbons suitable as direct replacements to jet fuel, diesel or gasoline through the Fischer Tropsch synthesis process commonly in use in our refineries. Hence if you are to attempt the hydrogen approach, you might as well just do the fuel synthesis approach and just keep existing vehicles and fuel delivery infrastructure.

Over all great idea 💡. 🙌

Bringing fuels composed of hydrogen and biofuels will definitely make our planet earth more safer and cooler due to which species can dwell more happily. Excellent and innovative idea! Charming and inspiring.

Increasing the price of plane tickets puts the responsibility of financing this transition on the individual consumers. While each person has the power to vote through flying with greener airlines, should this transition really hinge upon the depth of the passangers' pockets? Thoughts?

@BeaverChainsaw

3 жыл бұрын

Well airplane companies have to make money to innovate somehow. Also it depends on how expensive they make it. If it's absurdly higher, then I wouldn't be willing to shoulder the cost, but if it's reasonable, then sure why not. I personally think the government should just put more federal research into hydrogen planes which will make sense considering biden wants a stronger stance on environment

Make the flights more expensive now!

How sustainable is biofuel really in terms of co2 emissions?

If a green alternative to jet fuel is developed will it be safe and reliable at 35,000 ft altitude and will it be necessary to have a jet fuel engine as a safety backup ?

Hydrogen is a very poor energy carrier, with considerably less energy out compared with energy in. The way forward is nuclear fusion, which is completely safe (unlike the nuclear fission that most of us are more familiar with) and which can go on producing energy for as long as needed. The US Navy patented a portable fusion reactor in 2019 that would be suitable for powering ships, aircraft, trains and almost anything else. Unlike fission, which works by splitting atoms, fusion works by joining atoms together. It's the same process used by the Sun and stars for the last 20 billion years.

@user-qh3wh5vp1e

Жыл бұрын

I saw a documentary about nuclear fusion (maybe) in 2011. it was cool, and scientists said it will be commonly used by 2020... it looks too far away

Just use biofuels that are not made from food crops, they work in already existing jet engines. Case Closed.

Not just flight but total global energy needs for 12 billion people, all vehicles, buildings, etc, moving towards leveraging hydrogen on demand to be the primary source as the end goal, let's do it, by 2050

Question I have? how important and necessary is it for these people to be traveling?

We start with, biofuels, then hybrid electric, and then work from their.

@charlietsai1177

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I do believe biofuel is something that can be done right now. A lot of wasted oil can be recycled and the carbon footprint of the industry will reduce greatly without a huge increase on ticket price.

@brotherjim3051

3 жыл бұрын

@@charlietsai1177 I agree

Very interesting alternative.

Perhaps for cargo and buisness flights. But generally aircraft travel went out of style and out of vogue with the rise of excessive if not outright bizarre boarding restrictions for a variety of reasons .. From pandemic to logistics to society itself

might as well title this "how southwest tickets came to cost a grand"

@1:59 what!? water vapor is the major greenhouse gas.

@sebastianflynn1746

3 жыл бұрын

Only if sent into the upper atmosphere. Planes don't fly high enough and already produce lots of water vapour

I believe the way looking at travel needs to change. Travel is expensive, consumptuous by itself and Climate change, mountains of plastic are so real.

gliding intensifies

Nice video.

You can run a turbine on biodiesel, the technology is already here, byt it will be more expensive obviously. Aeroplanes are become less polutive all the time by small incremental changes to aerodynamics and fuel efficincy

What happened to oil dependent countries?

I don’t believe so! I highly doubt electricity could power a big huge plane. Maybe for a small Cessna but not a huge jet line.

@S2Tubes

3 жыл бұрын

Synthetic fuels, created with green energy, have the same energy density as fossil fuels. So it is possible, just expensive to set up the infrastructure required to produce it.

@carljaekle

3 жыл бұрын

Problem is not that electric motors can't be made powerful enough it's creating or storing enough electricity onboard to power the motors. Would take a lot of fuel cells to make the electricity fast enough to power a large plane. Bio fuel or burning the hydrogen in modified engines is a near term answer.

3:38

Thumbnail is POV: you are a fish in the Southern Indian Ocean.

@umueri1877

3 жыл бұрын

Lol

@zeebradoom4774

3 жыл бұрын

I legit went to check and I am here to confirm. I am a fish

What percentage are the wars responsible for the planet’s emission? I believe the problem would be solved if we could only to stop all the wars around the planet ones and for all.

@manurr10

3 жыл бұрын

They will never stop. West keeps its hegemony by embroiling the world in conflict.

@atyshlmes4360

3 жыл бұрын

please learn more about geopolitics and read quickly through the IPCC report for decision-makers. you're not wrong but there is so much more to greenhouse gas emissions.

Hope that nothing will be just late in 2-3 decades 🙁

Great

Propeller driven airlines can fly without fuel or recharge stations. Edison generators and dynamos power plants to power electric motors and propellers. This means a c130 cargo plane can fly unlimited range without fuel or pollution. This true of all helicopters airplanes and ships. We are still grossly misinformed about power generation and power use.

Any one can help with my curiosity...can they use any kind of water?

@bilalkarkach5061

3 жыл бұрын

Any kind of water ?

@brynphillips9957

3 жыл бұрын

Effectively. However the process needs to be modified and has differing costs depending on the type of water you use. For example, if your using Sea water, you would have a lot of salt that would need to be dealt with in the process which can effect the cost of processing.

@atanasiusmagnus4629

3 жыл бұрын

@@brynphillips9957 i see thank you mate, really helpful

Or you could reduce divideds, all of the problems listed here are a procduct that companies can't use a large amount of the money they bamek becuase they are stuck with primitive economics that relies on infintie growth, where a business having a steady profit to investors or even a slightly lower payoff for a period to change a production method results in it being deemed a failure and it's collapse. The private corporate model is not compatible with demands of a rapidly advancing technological civilization and the challenges this brings.

Increase the tickets purchase now , due to air company will get a budget after 2 decades along with prevent or stop more carbon emission until that period of time

I find it funny that one of the reasons people argue Airships are a dead technology is that Hydrogen is the most economical gas to fill them with and it is highly flammable and now we are filling planes with big tanks of the same stuff. :P

@friederkumpf8158

3 жыл бұрын

I think liquid and gas is a difference not to be underestimated.

@brynphillips9957

3 жыл бұрын

@@friederkumpf8158 Well yes and no. Depends how the Hydrogen is stored in a liquid form since Hydrogen only exists by itself in a liquid at either high pressure or very low temperature. Regardless, I just found it funny in a tongue in cheek way.

@KarlSnarks

2 жыл бұрын

Didn't we stop flying airships for the same reason nuclear energy fell out of favor? A few horrible accidents delegitimized the whole industry in the eyes of the public?

Will military aircraft be green in the future or is it only for civilian pourposes

Wow

✈ I would LOVE to see airships (or blimps) NOT replace airplanes but definitely share the skies with them.

@Tubes12AX7k

3 жыл бұрын

As much as I would like to see them again, as well, it probably won't happen again. There is a shortage on helium now. The medical industry needs helium for test equipment which requires inert gases as a carrier gas and for other purposes.

@marlonmoncrieffe0728

3 жыл бұрын

@@Tubes12AX7k What about hydrogen gas?

@Tubes12AX7k

3 жыл бұрын

@@marlonmoncrieffe0728 Hydrogen-filled zeppelins or did you mean in the lab? Several inert gases are used in the laboratory for different purposes (helium, nitrogen, and argon) but they must be inert gases that will not react with samples you are testing. But helium and argon are expensive and rare.

@marlonmoncrieffe0728

3 жыл бұрын

@@Tubes12AX7k Sorry, I meant for airships. Hydrogen for airships.

I have no problems with government support of airlines or any company. I do have a problem when the support is all one way. If for profit companies want assistance, it must be as loans or equity swaps. Corporations haven't been getting free lunches up to now, because we've been paying for their gluttony.

@johnsamuel1999

3 жыл бұрын

most of the covid bailouts were given in the form of loans and in some countries equity swaps have happened

This is all pie-in-the-sky, literally and figuratively. First, as the video points out hydrogen has nowhere near the energy density of jet fuel. Next, to even gets close to that density it has too be liquified by cooling (which requires energy) and storing it in pressure vessels that can withstand high pressures and cold temperatures. Those are heavy. Next, how is the hydrogen created? Natural gas through a chemical process, electrolysis which requires electricity which wind and solar could never provide in sufficient quantities. Dreaming is fun but these scheme tries to defy physics.

Compared to the cruise industry this is nothing

Can we also have the opinion of anti plane groups ? There is only a small range of pro plane people being interviewed here. What about flying quotas as a means to reduce this sector's carbon emissions? As it happens, 1% of those who can fly are responsible for 50% of air travel emissions.

@Lucian86

3 жыл бұрын

So only rich people should travel

@phamnuwen9442

3 жыл бұрын

Hard pass. Feel free to stop flying if you want to sacrifice your opportunity to travel for Gaia or whatever but don't tell other people what to do with their lives and money.

@KarlSnarks

2 жыл бұрын

@@Lucian86 For shorter distances (i.e. within the EU, or between closely located countries/states) well coordinated, subsidized high-speed railways could be a more sustainable option, and would allow poor people to travel. To be fair though we should find ways to reduce economic inequalities in general, that way poor people can afford more (including flights) and wealthy people less.

@Lucian86

2 жыл бұрын

Sure, a more sustanaible but more expensive option (even if subsidized, it doesn't change the equation). This will hurt poor people regardless. Let's call it for how it is. Rising living standards across all social classes is the main cause for pollution. Unless you come up with a big technological revolution, less pollution means less affordability of some goods/services for poor people. The idea that only rich people pollute is laughable. Rich people means normal people in the developed world and some uprising social classe in the developing world. Take away all their private jets and restrict their travelling and it will change diddly squat. The point is. You want less pollution generated by the flying industry ? poor people should stop flying. Period. Rich people will pay the bill too but they'll fly anyway

@laMoria

2 жыл бұрын

@@Lucian86 flying quotas means what it means : you can only fly up to a set amount of times per year. It doesn't mean only the rich will fly, on the contrary, it will make rich people fly less. And anyway, poor people don't fly. They can't afford a holiday away from home.

A green sky requires an electric sky, and that is impossible for commercial level aircraft. Even if they make the proverbial advanced light-weight nano-scale carbon battery, the chances of electrical failure is such that no one will gamble the fate of 250 passengers to a charged battery to run 4 turbo-fans. So, we have to continue to find economies in fueled air flight and limit travel somehow...

If the technology was so great etc, how come the private sector doesn't completely fund the technology???

@theinternationalist7390

3 жыл бұрын

In short: profit (they literally explained it in the video)

finally solid info on the topic!

There could be electrical charging ports for aeroplanes (the electricity coming from renewable energy sources) - no worry about inefficiency due to the weight of kerosene (or any other liquid fuel) Hydrogen-fuel can be very dangerous (explosive) and cost much more money to introduce than the above suggestion (from what I know; words from my science teachers, this video)

@KarlSnarks

2 жыл бұрын

lithium batteries needed for flying would be just as heavy if not more so than liquid fuels. That's why they're rooting for hydrogen. And while hydrogen is flammable, it has been used safely already in cars/trucks etc.

2:14 aviation can be 22% of planet emission, by 2050 hydrogen could reduce 75% of carbon emissions. plan: produce hydrogen in ocean with solar panels, ship out though boat shipping containers

Or we could build underwater high-speed railways to other continents.

@pascalsteiner9926

3 жыл бұрын

Way to expensive

@europeanunionball1198

3 жыл бұрын

The tectonic plates impedes us from doing that.

Maybe the aviation industry could start by offering 'green tickets'. These would cost more, but they could be 0 carbon flights utilizing new fuel technologies such as hydrogen. Of course normal flight tickets could still be bought, but it might prove as a valueable kick-off point for green aviation technologies.

@Prodigious1One

Жыл бұрын

I think that some airlines do this where the passenger can buy the carbon offsets.

@patpat5135

10 ай бұрын

May be airlines should remove business class seats and replace them by a "Green class" with basic seats and leaner on board service and !!!! at a higher price .

Powerpaste is the solution for packing more energy density in a smaller volume.

Jet fuel is one of the cleanest field imagineable, not like diesel fuel.

@robwyyi

3 жыл бұрын

You know jet fuel is closure to Kerosene so by that it’s similar to diesel fuel

@Gogalen789

3 жыл бұрын

@@robwyyi - Then they should use diesel fuel for jets ?

@robwyyi

3 жыл бұрын

Jet fuel is a inefficient fuel much like diesel. Like diesel it’s exhaust pollution is the worse. They are all fossil fuel so in general both pollutes the question is which one is the least. Much like coal and natural gas generators.

@Gogalen789

3 жыл бұрын

@@robwyyi Okay rocket scientist. I'll write that in my diary for today ;)

@mantabletin935

3 жыл бұрын

@@Gogalen789 they do. Plane bio-fuel is basicaly bio-diesel

what about hyperloop?

@machidaman

3 жыл бұрын

Really? Unworkable on even small scales currently and, even were you able to expand to real world scale, it would be prohibitively expensive. Anyway, they are not even anywhere near proof of concept for this. Musk will put men on mars long before hyperloop is viable.

@Milfhunter_404

3 жыл бұрын

@@machidaman okay I see thank you for the information

@MrMakabar

3 жыл бұрын

You need to build the tubes, which are more expensive then rail and high speed rail is already at 574kph in experimental vehicles and 350kph in normal operation. Then you have maglev, which Japan currently builds a line with speeds over 500kph for commercial service. Basicly hyperloop is maglev with vacuum tubes, which will cost more. So you have to be signifcantly faster, which right to me knowledge nobody has done today. Also you can not cross large bodies of water with hyperloops, so you need planes anyway and they are as fast as a hyperloop without the tubes.

@machidaman

3 жыл бұрын

@@Milfhunter_404 you are more than welcome. Always a pleasure to open the eyes of one blinded by their musk fandom.

@edwardbarnett6571

3 жыл бұрын

@@MrMakabar At present people will travel in a pressure reduced enviorenment in a plane but would not in a tunnel. If Australia buys 20 hardrock Chinese TBM to drive Sydney/Canberra in 5 years and puts a proven Japanese Maglev in it then, as it is a single straight tunnel, when people become more adventurous it can be pressure reduced from the ten launch shafts allowing 1,000 km/h.

I think its a bit disingenuous not to mention that hydrogen is more energy-dense per kg. So, in fact, there is a large weight saving to be made by switching to hydrogen.

@tns226

3 жыл бұрын

But you need pressurised vessels to store, which weigh more, so the volume problem + storage challenge with current and horizon tech would still lead to larger planes or lower range with existing planes.

@phamnuwen9442

3 жыл бұрын

@@tns226 Exactly. I think the extra volume required by hydrogen is potentially more problematic than the weight savings, if those are actually a thing (probably not).

Green Methanol is the answer for, Airplane, Ship 🚢, and even heavy Trucks.

just use a kerosene electricity generator to produce electricity for the plane. easy.

Pardon.. How do u produce hydrogen ???

@sebastianflynn1746

3 жыл бұрын

By-product in refining natural gas

@louis8935

3 жыл бұрын

@@sebastianflynn1746 refining using electricity from burning coal

@sebastianflynn1746

3 жыл бұрын

@@louis8935 isn't done because the catalysts don't last long enough and are very expensive.

@louis8935

3 жыл бұрын

@@sebastianflynn1746 my point is the hydrogen being produced is made using things that depend on electricity which is made using coal

@sebastianflynn1746

3 жыл бұрын

@@louis8935 I mean that completely depends on where you live, France it would be nuclear, if the power was made solely in california its very unlikely to be coal.

That should be electric.

relax take it easy! let's have some variety! let's rollout the green initiative!

With batteries no hydrogen yes

Your conclusions on SAF as a short-term solution are incorrect for two reasons. Firstly the public will not accept that the same planes putting out the same emissions into the upper atmosphere are acceptable because they may be running on a synthetic fuel. Secondly you have not understood the technology on the Hydrogen Electric issues- as well as problems there are also new solutions. Airbus are not following the SAF route they are planning to bring in these aircraft within 10 years. Talk to say GKN Aerospace who are leading this effort in the UK!

Truly amazing times ahead....

@falconeaterf15

3 жыл бұрын

If you call climate catastrophe amazing.

No

green tax on tickets and bio fuel is best way to reduce co2 emission in short run. In long run h2 will replace bio fuel

@BeaverChainsaw

3 жыл бұрын

I think we should just put a carbon tax on businesses.

The elitization of transport... so sad

Hopefully the transition to sostenible aviation will be much faster , still really nice to see that very smart people are working on it .

Plane tickets are expensive enough. I couldn't care less about a green flight so don't put the prices up !!!

you just use rubber bands

Perhaps hydrogen could be made at airports with solar no need for pipeline infostructure ect.

Bueno señores de economist,sigan con su plan

@juanpablolumbrera4392

3 жыл бұрын

Bien ahí por ustedes, saludos de mi parte

I'd could see if they lose 100 passengers & go with more foot room this would be worth it.