We need bigger planes to fight climate change, and more of them.

@josephpacchetti5997

Ай бұрын

Neysayers

@josephpacchetti5997

Ай бұрын

Below

@KeepingWatch95

Ай бұрын

@@josephpacchetti5997 Climate change is real. Even scientific theories say it's been changing since the very beginning of the whole earth becoming into it's very existence.

@patrioticz2858

Ай бұрын

It isn't much of a problem also funny how the biggest critics of Climate Change have private jets. Also more carbon in the air facilitates more plant life and growth. Also the Polar bears aren't dying off because of Climate change and drowning because they are literally made to float like how they have hollow hair to help with Buoyancy, the reason u see them super skinny is actually because of toon many polar bears and lack of food because of it, which is why you see gangs of polar bears in Norther Russian Villafes looking for more food

Or just do more nuclear power.

@DerekMusgrove

Ай бұрын

Exactly.

Australia is limiting wind turbines due to the cost of running transmission lines to where the turbines will be allowed to be built. Which is not near the population.

@the_real_bin_chicken

Ай бұрын

I think that, here in Australia, we are wasting a lot of time and resources with renewable energy that could be utilized on other forms of climate safe energy. We should looking seriously into nuclear power before we think about sticking renewables out in the middle of nowhere. Especially when you consider the other engineering challenges associated with the long-range, high voltage DC transmission of renewable energy. (Wind and solar farms take up way more resources to build and need more infrastructure than nuclear energy). There are several safe options available to us for nuclear power generation that don't require us to use the type of reactors that make the kind waste that could be used for weapons. We also have the mining infrastructure that delivers the best sources of natural uranium in the world and we have been exporting said materials to France, America, UK and Japan for over 4 decades. We already have a scientific reactor in Sydney that is used for science and for medical purposes (Lucas Hights), so we have the brains and the talent to do it already. Nuclear energy seems to have become a dirty word here in Australia and most people are mislead in terms of its safety and reliability, but these same people don't realise that it's usually stupid stuff that causes safety concerns and accidents/incidents. (think fukushima in japan were they stupidly built a reactor at sea level, on the coast, only to have a tsunami hit it - or chernobyl when a person running a test on a reactor ignored safety protocols, due to extreme political pressure, resulting in the infamous reactor meltdown.) However, If we are meticulous, pay extra attention to detail and plan strategically, we can do it safely and we would have cheap clean energy. The only real concern that we have is that no one can agree on how to safely store the used fuel and other associated waste, however that issue is one that almost all nations with nuclear programs share and a lot has been and is being done to resolve this issue in an acceptable way. But first the discussion needs to be started and the australian people need to be educated on the topic, because the political climate around nuclear energy and energy in general needs to change before we have any meaningful move towards climate change and energy production. I think: We are already going to become a nuclear power by getting nuclear subs, so why not extend that nuclear power plants?

Former Boeing... a purpose built aircraft can work if there are places big enough for it to take off and land. Also, blades would need to be transported from landing strips to building sites. Special haul trucks are used now. Sites on water use barges with large cranes to move blades and hoist into place. It will be interesting to see what develops.

Indeed. 👍

And... it's to small because wind turbines kept getting larger.

The idea looks great but if the only purpose is to airlift wind turbine blades to designated sites then it is a project that will miss the boat. Although initially built for the scrapped Buran Shuttle Project, the destroyed An 225 became a specialized carrier for bulk cargo that required urgent delivery.

@nightjarflying

Ай бұрын

It will not miss the boat - one new field will keep this plane busy for over a year.

I wouldn't worry, about making them more bigger for efficiency. How about, making them more reliable before worrying about going bigger.

Would 't the energy over a year be in watt-hours?

@DerekMusgrove

Ай бұрын

You are exactly correct and it's where renewable supporters try to disguise the facts. Wind has around a 30% capacity factor which means you only get the full rated out 2 days in every 5 days. So energy sources like wind that are intermittent need to be firmed up to meet a system demand which is 24/7 every day of every week in every year.

that thing isn't going to be built. Cost per unit would equal the GDP of a medium sized nation.

İklimcilere girsin bu uçak

This sounds like real wishful thinking. You're not going to have a long enough landing strip next to every site. If you do imagine the CO2 it would take to build a 1 time use runway

@nightjarflying

Ай бұрын

The location of new megaturbine fields is dependent on delivery of the components - plenty of places have poor road logistics or nearby towns/cities that can't accommodate road vehicle deliveries on this scale. A huge field of these things will easily absorb the cost of an airstrip compared to knocking down buildings, widening roads, removing bridges just to road deliver through an urban environment or along an inferior road system - road delivery has CO2 costs too! Probably the largest carbon cost will be the component manufacturing plus connection to the power grid - the airstrip carbon cost will be a rounding error by comparison.

@niagarawarrior9623

Ай бұрын

that's not a great argument. remote runways are relatively easy to build, but also not always needed as there are many large, maintained runways in remote areas all over the world. There are lots of airports adjacent to ports too. If they did have to build a runway, it's "one-time use" would probably be more like +100 uses in the form of equipment, crew and turbine blade delivery flights, which makes the runway CO2 footprint negligible.

@garreysellars5525

Ай бұрын

​@@niagarawarrior9623 You obviously have no clue about civil works from Earthmoving contractor

And they kill more birds.

@AtPeacePiece

Ай бұрын

I dont think we're running low on birds.

@BalticSailor

Ай бұрын

Buildings with glass facades kill the birds, wind turbines are much less of a danger for birds,

@garreysellars5525

Ай бұрын

Are carbon emissions actually a problem Can anyone tell me what is atmospheric CO2 percentage is

@garreysellars5525

Ай бұрын

Wind turbine efficiency Change the design of the blades Have you seen anyone push start an aeroplane

This seems counterproductive and counterintuitive... let's save the world from carbon emissions by building a bigger plane that uses "tried and true" technology that is one of the biggest contributors to carbon emissions.

Another example of destroying the environment for the sake of the environment. Put simply how much CO2 goes into making the blades in the first place and then how much CO2 is produced to transport them in these fossil fuel aircraft.

@rohitnautiyal7090

Ай бұрын

Look up what they do to blades when they are done with them

@niagarawarrior9623

Ай бұрын

Simply put, the amount of CO2 released during the production and transport of wind turbine blades is insignificant compared to the amount of CO2 released during continual oil exploration, piping, drilling, extraction, (especially) oil refinement. Not to mention the CO2 footprint to just transport the various refined fuels across entire continents to where the consumer is. now consider how a good quality wind turbine, with good quality turbine blades can last 20 years, sometimes longer, you probably could conclude on your own that the CO2 footprint is not even close.