Hopes For Sustainable Jet Fuel Not Realistic, Report Finds (theguardian.com) 176
Hopes that replacement fuels for airplanes will slash carbon pollution are misguided and support for these alternatives could even worsen the climate crisis, a new report has warned. The Guardian: There is currently "no realistic or scalable alternative" to standard kerosene-based jet fuels, and touted "sustainable aviation fuels" are well off track to replace them in a timeframe needed to avert dangerous climate change, despite public subsidies, the report by the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive thinktank, found. "While there are kernels of possibility, we should bring a high level of skepticism to the claims that alternative fuels will be a timely substitute for kerosene-based jet fuels," the report said.
Chuck Collins, co-author of the report, said: "To bring these fuels to the scale needed would require massive subsidies, the trade-offs would be unacceptable and would take resources aware from more urgent decarbonization priorities. It's a huge greenwashing exercise by the aviation industry. It's magical thinking that they will be able to do this." In the US, Joe Biden's administration has set a goal for 3bn gallons of sustainable aviation fuel, which is made from non-petroleum sources such as food waste, woody biomass and other feedstocks, to be produced by 2030, which it said will cut aviation's planet-heating emissions by 20%.
Chuck Collins, co-author of the report, said: "To bring these fuels to the scale needed would require massive subsidies, the trade-offs would be unacceptable and would take resources aware from more urgent decarbonization priorities. It's a huge greenwashing exercise by the aviation industry. It's magical thinking that they will be able to do this." In the US, Joe Biden's administration has set a goal for 3bn gallons of sustainable aviation fuel, which is made from non-petroleum sources such as food waste, woody biomass and other feedstocks, to be produced by 2030, which it said will cut aviation's planet-heating emissions by 20%.
Who thought this was feasible? (Score:5, Funny)
From the moment I heard about it, there was strong smell of, well, not kerosene
Re:Who thought this was feasible? (Score:5, Insightful)
A lesson I learned in first aid class is that if a patient has arterial hemorrhaging and an ingrown toenail, you focus on the bleeding and leave the toenail until later.
62% of the world's electricity comes from fossil fuels, mostly coal. Dozens of coal plants are currently under construction and will burn coal for 60 years.
That is the arterial bleeding.
Aviation is the ingrown toenail. It's a minor problem that is difficult to fix. It isn't where we should be focusing our efforts.
Re:Who thought this was feasible? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we can only do one thing at a time.
The idea of you in a first aid class is amusing, though, or that they would discuss ingrown toenails.
Climate change isn't a result of arterial bleeding, it is a death by a thousand cuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Because some things are a dangerous distraction, promoted only to confuse and deceive you.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we can only do one thing at a time.
We can't spend the same money on two different things.
It is silly to spend billions on biofuels for jets when spending the same money on wind turbines will remove twenty times as much CO2.
And "just raise taxes so we can do it all" isn't the answer. That will result in Trump being our next president, and then we will do none of it.
Re:Who thought this was feasible? (Score:4, Informative)
You can't make things work by just building wind-turbines. (Or solar cells.) You need to add large investments in energy storage and voltage regulation, and the ability to pour power into the grid episodically from random locations. This *is* the right way to go, but don't oversimplify things.
The current grid is not designed to accept random amounts of input from random locations. It's designed to be driven by base-line loads, like hydro, nuclear, coal, or gas. That's what was available when it was being designed. When variable sources get to be around 40% it becomes less stable. (That's what the various huge batteries have been added to handle...but the problem gets worse when the base-line load becomes a smaller fraction.)
The grid is **In the process** of being redesigned. But the redesign is not near completion. This is only partially because of existing commercial interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Which grid is this? In the UK we are already at about 50% renewables, and our grid is extremely stable. Some days it is much higher than that.
It turns out that it's not all that difficult to integrate renewables. Beware of energy companies telling you otherwise as an excuse for their unstable grids, because many countries prove it is untrue.
Re: Who thought this was feasible? (Score:2)
Wind is cheap enough to overbuild to solve your capacity problems.
You do need to build more transmission lines, but you need those no matter what kind of generation you build, and no one wants any of it in their neighborhood so you always have to go long distances.
If you overbuild wind then you wind up with unused capacity, which provides incentive for new uses for intermittent power. It's not a problem at all because wind can be throttled down at will
Re: (Score:2)
You can't make things work by just building wind-turbines. (Or solar cells.)
You can overbuild wind and solar, but the world is nowhere near the point where that's a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we can only do one thing at a time.
We can't spend the same money on two different things.
It is silly to spend billions on biofuels for jets when spending the same money on wind turbines will remove twenty times as much CO2.
And "just raise taxes so we can do it all" isn't the answer. That will result in Trump being our next president, and then we will do none of it.
and the wind turbines would be the 1st to go if Tangerine Twitler wins again - which is still a coin toss at this point
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Many people work on this. There's no need to focus on one thing. We need to do all of it. Conservation? yes. New technology? yes. Aviation or coal plants? yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the people should be focused on replacing and coal power though, I think.
Priority 1: Coal Power ....
2. Decarbonize our cars
3. The rest of the hydrocarbon power plants (and it's a strong contender for #2)
4. Steel production.
X: Eliminate jet fuel
Y: Mining and remaining special uses.
Eliminating jet fuel should be mostly the domain of researchers. We know how to eliminate coal power - build nuclear, solar, wind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Conservation doesn't work; we've seen that already in the 1970s.
One of the very best ideas I've seen was to use specially-developed algae that are something like 30% lipid and grown by percolating CO2-rich warm air through bio-reactor tanks placed on the rooftops of power plants. CO2 + heat + sunlight -> diesel fuel + scrubbed powerplant emissions + fertilizer.
Re: (Score:2)
specially-developed algae that are something like 30% lipid
That's an idea that's been around since the 1960s.
Over the last 60 years, here's a list of all the progress we've made: { }.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So are you saying that banning plastic straws is a drop in the bucket vs, say, the massive amounts of fishing gear abandoned every year?
Re: (Score:2)
Aviation is the ingrown toenail
I know you think otherwise but there's more than one person in the world and not everyone works on the same singular problem. You go solve the power crisis, let other people work on other things, such as the 3% of global CO2 emissions which come from just burning jet fuel.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Sustainable Aviation Fuel, or SAF is what the aviation sector was counting on for reducing carbon emissions. While the affected travel really only consists of 0.1% of total CO2 emissions, they are probably the most visible part of the population - that is, private jets. (Aviation itself, including the commercial sector, accounts for 3-5% of total emissions).
So there's a lot of money behind it, because private jets are one of the most visible ways of declaring one's wealth, thus forming a very easy tar
Lighter than air (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But it's also entirely impractical, not to mention dangerous. It will always be bog slow. But the fatal flaw is that the ground handling will always be a disaster waiting to happen, it is inherent to the concept.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? In a fixed field where you can have arbitrary amounts of equipment, what's stopping you from simply attaching a "sufficient" number of cables to draw it down, similar to strutting in KSP?
Re: (Score:2)
It's an interesting notion, but...
Has anyone calculated how much helium we would need to replace the existing jet fleet with lighter-than-air vehicles? An FAQ on the Airlander website [hybridairvehicles.com] even has an entry for "Is there a helium shortage?"
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just use hot air? Sure, helium is more buoyant but as you point out it's also a limited resource. (Hydrogen is even more buoyant, and not as dangerous as people think, but has a terrible reputation)
Re: (Score:2)
Use hot air with a hydrogen fuel to keep it hot. (Batteries MIGHT work for that.)
OTOH, it would be slow. There's no way around that. It could be a good replacement for a luxury liner, I suppose. And it might be useful for freight that wasn't too heavy and didn't have an extremely urgent delivery requirement. That's a pretty niche market.
Re: (Score:2)
The best form of flying is a maglev train. 100% electric, zero emissions, as fast as current aircraft.
Obviously they can't replace every flight, particularly long haul, but a lot of domestic and trans continental ones could be maglev. Much more comfortable and spacious too.
Re: (Score:2)
The big problem is landing them. They do not cope well with wind, but even at the best of times you need a big open area at the very least.
Re: (Score:2)
and that is the most realistic option to really reduce pollution
There's nothing realistic about substituting a jet plane for a blimp. You think you're going to move 2.2 billion people a year at 1/10th of the speed with 1/1.5th of the passenger capacity, and 1/3rd of the payload (assuming Airlander's *big* ship). If so you're delusional.
Re: (Score:3)
Haha! If you're lucky. Get ready for 20mph flight zones.
Giving away the end game here (Score:5, Insightful)
It's becoming pretty obvious that for these "advocates", the answer is "common people can't fly anymore".
Important people on their private jets will be excluded from this new zealotry, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not new information, it has been clear for years, incliding the IPCC, that the entire "movement" is an economic revolution, not about the science.
Re:Giving away the end game here (Score:4, Informative)
Ehh, this is a lot of conflating the IPCC with other orgs in the UN or other NGOs.
The IPCC I believe has it in it's charter or rules that they really don't make policy prescriptions, they are just there to share their observations and try and stay "policy neutral" (whatever that means).
In fact there are people in the IPCC who specifically want to reverse this so they have some prescriptive ability.
We need power to prescribe climate policy, IPCC scientists say [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Can you point out where the IPCC has said that prescriptively or is that your assumption?
Nationalize the railroads (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
While rail will certainly work in some places going all in on rail for the entire country would be horrendously expensive. We would need the rail to run to every city center it went to or no one would use it and the cost of buying all that urban property and the endless lawsuits that would follow the very wide spread use of eminent domain that this would require makes this completely unworkable in any reasonable amount of time or for any reasonable amount of money. All that money would be far more productiv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Nationalize the railroads (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The airlines already discourage people from flying.
Have you been on a passenger plane in the last 20 years?
Miserable experience and getting worse over time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You've got the summary backwards. The airlines are advocating for alternative fuels so that they can pretend that what they're doing isn't harmful and more people will fly more. The author is the one saying, "No, this is bullshit. You really should just fly less."
Then I got it exactly right. I stated that the authors of the report were essentially anti-human activities, and demand that people fly less.
It's becoming pretty obvious that for these "advocates", the answer is "common people can't fly anymore".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you will not fly. Adapt.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, when I listen to them I hear them saying that maybe everyone should have one or two free flights a year, and then the tax increases. So ordinary people can go on holiday or visit relatives, but it gets expensive for the business travellers who take many flights a year.
Obviously it would need to be a personal allowance, companies would have to cover your mandatory work flights.
Thermodynamics (Score:2)
While it was never my best subject in school, it doesn't take much to understand the whole thermodynamic issue here.
Physics. In your face. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is exactly why we should make STEM education mandatory at schools in this day and age. So that basic physics and relation between mass, distance and energy required to move this mass from point A to B become common knowledge and so that everyone on this planet is capable of calling bullshit on claims like this before they get out of proportions.
Re: (Score:2)
What does this even mean, are you saying if they were knowledgeable about physics they would know that "sustainable" jet fuel is impossible? The Navy seems to think their 50-50 JP-5 / Camelina BioFuel counts as sustainable and Super Hornets seem to run just fine on the stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From the summary:
We could have sustainable aviation fuel any time we wanted, probably using solar and wind to make it; it's cheaper than nuclear and it would be a great use of excess capacity. BUT it would cost more than the pumped out of the ground variety, about twice as much currently, and would require a massive effort t
Re: Physics. In your face. (Score:2)
You would have to be an idiot to use nuclear for that when you can get more capacity for less money with other solutions. Since the resulting fuel is cheap and easy to store, intermittency of supply is a non-issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really a physics issue, it's where the alternative fuels come from. Biofuels are not good for the environment and not really carbon neutral.
Hydrogen is clean but you need to mass produce it and transport it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, biofuels CAN be carbon neutral. But it's more expensive to do it that way, so nobody does. Generally they're just greenwashing PR, so they don't try to make it actually work. Alternatively, they're a research project that gets written up as if it were a reasonable operational choice. (Or both, of course.)
This is more a problem with our decision making strategy than it is a technical problem, even though of course there are technical components. We are really poor at dealing with long term proble
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly why we should make STEM education mandatory at schools in this day and age. So that basic physics and relation between mass, distance and energy required to move this mass from point A to B become common knowledge and so that everyone on this planet is capable of calling bullshit on claims like this before they get out of proportions.
I don't know what you think you are saying but you're doing so from a position of insane ignorance. You seem to think the issue is somehow the storage of energy? There's already been 100% SAF transatlantic flights. SAF has the same energy density as kerosene. You should really go and do one of those STEM degrees you're advertising.
The problem is ultimately one of production and economics. SAF is hard to produce, doesn't have any meaningful scale at present, and doesn't have an upstream sourcing industry cap
Who funded this "study"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who funded this "study"? (Score:5, Insightful)
At this point the propaganda is so predictable and omnipresent I don't even bother to go and read the article. This has the stench of the fossil fuel lobby on it like smog on a day when you're supposed to stay indoors and only take shallow breaths.
Guess you missed this part:
the report by the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive thinktank
This isn't the oil companies. These are people that, at their core, basically want a lot of humans to go away, and the ones that are left, their lives will be severely restricted in the name of "the Earth".
Re: (Score:2)
These are people that, at their core, basically want a lot of humans to go away, and the ones that are left, their lives will be severely restricted in the name of "the Earth".
Um. ... So you're right that this isn't the fossil fuel industry, and the rest of this crap is just fanciful thinking on your part. But since you've more-or-less identified your ideas as the opposite of these things, let me ask you: what is up with all the baby-making rhetoric that I've been hearing lately? There are a bunch of right-wing pundits who have been pushing the notion that having more babies, an ever-increasing volume of bloated human biomass, is a good thing. A positive. Where does that idea tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The economic reasons I've heard is that with an aging population, a much smaller percentage of younger folk need to support a much larger proportion of the elderly.
I really think that this argument doesn't work in a world with improving AI and robots, but it's true currently, and has been true for the last century or so. (Probably really true only since antibiotics supplemented public sanitation, though.)
Re: (Score:2)
At this point the propaganda is so predictable and omnipresent I don't even bother to go and read the article. This has the stench of the fossil fuel lobby on it like smog on a day when you're supposed to stay indoors and only take shallow breaths.
Errr the fossil fuel lobby is all in on SAF production. That is the main solution they are pushing. Are you saying they are investing billions upon billions to scale up SAF all the while undermining their investments before they've even had a chance to reach breakeven ROI?
Your conspiracy theory makes no sense, your conspirators are conspiring against themselves.
Mandate synthetic fuel (Score:3)
Synthetic fuel costs more, because nature didn't put it in the ground pre-loaded with energy waiting to be released - you're going to need to add your own. If you use fossil fuels to do this you're making things worse. If you use green energy that could have gone elsewhere and someone else used fossil fuels instead, you're making things worse.
But the increased cost would probably reduce air travel and be a net reduction in carbon release, so there's always that to consider.
just tax them (Score:3)
I would love to start a campaign to tax airline fuel heavily, and twice as heavily for freight-only flights (to avoid the obvious workaround, tax the shit out of packages shipped on passenger flights).
The slogan: "Because it absolutely, positively, does NOT need to get there overnight."
Re: (Score:2)
The slogan: "Because it absolutely, positively, does NOT need to get there overnight."
The ironic thing about your rant is, given the cost of airfreighting something this form of transportation of goods is usually reserved for things which *DO* need to get there overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
The ironic thing about your rant is, given the cost of airfreighting something this form of transportation of goods is usually reserved for things which *DO* need to get there overnight.
Yeah, no. You've clearly never worked in manufacturing. And even without that, if something really has to be there the next day, it means a lot of screwups already happened.
FedEx isn't getting rich on the microscopic part of their overnite shipping that is a true need for the next day
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, "iAmWaySmarterThanYou" -- but still use camelcase --
If you were smarter than a rock, you'd be able to comprehend the part where I said all aircraft fuel should be taxed.
The dig at FedEx was there for the humor, something else I suppose you never learned about.
Re: (Score:2)
Your baseline of "I'm really smart, this internet guy is really dumb!" entirely misses the point.
I am dumber than rocks. But still way smarter than you. I chose the name not to say I am smart but to reveal all the dumbasses who think they are, but are obviously wrong. I''m a Dunning Kruger magnet. You got drawn in because you're my target audience.
That's the first time someone was so stupid they thought noting my use of camel case was a good dig. You get bonus DK points for that.
And lol at "I was just
Drop in the bucket (Score:3)
Until you shutdown the existing AND NEW coal plants in China.
Re: (Score:2)
AND India. (And probably elsewhere.)
Re: (Score:2)
Until you shutdown the existing AND NEW coal plants in China.
The existing ones are being shutdown. That's what the new ones are for. There's a reason China has built many new coal plants and has had no significant increase in coal consumption in over a decade now.
But hey, look over there, it's a China. We can't do anything until they fix their power plant. We just don't have the time to solve problems while also bitching about China (a country whose green investment far outpaces the west's in a per capita and total basis).
Well. better luck with the next planet then (Score:2)
Ok then build more bullet trains. (Score:2)
While we wait for sustainable jet fuels to become practical, we could decarbonize a LOT of travel by building bullet trains between highly trafficked city pairs, [reddit.com] or wherever the land is flat and empty and therefore cheap to build through. Even JetBlue thinks short haul flights don't make sense. [sfexaminer.com]
Aviation's share of GHG emissions ... (Score:5, Informative)
People always talk about how flying is a major contributor to global warming ... but its share is actually not that high compared to other emissions.
According to these data from 2020 [ourworldindata.org], aviation is 938 million tons.
That is significant, but is actually dwarfed by things like fugitive emissions (3.22 billion tons, more than 3.4 X).
And there are the big four sectors: (Electricity/Heat at 47.06 Bt, Transport at 7.29 Bt, Manufacturing/Construction at 6.22 Bt, Agriculture 5.87 Bt).
I am not saying we should totally ignore aviation, but that efforts should be focused more on the largest contributors, because they will have more impact when reduced.
But from what I see, there is little political will and leadership on GHG emissions, and there is little public buy-in that action is needed.
Even here in Canada, only two provinces have adopted carbon taxes intended to change behaviour and reduce emissions. The rest of the provinces are pushing back on the federal plan for this carbon tax.
Here is a McGill professor explaining how the carbon tax and rebate work [youtube.com]. And here is more on the carbon rebate [youtube.com].
The opposition conservatives, who are surging well ahead of the the ruling party, have made "axe the tax" their war cry for the next election, and have not said what they will replace it by.
So the trend of global warming and all of what it causes will be with us for some time unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
"People always talk about how flying is a major contributor to global warming ... but its share is actually not that high compared to other emissions."
The fraction of the emissions isn't the main issue. The point is that flying is a luxury no one had until 1903. We are entirely capable of living without it. And as a society we are not willing to give up even a totally unnecessary luxury for the alleged crisis of climate change.
Super Techno Neo Eco Ground Sludge (Score:2)
We Don't Need a Sustainable Jet Fuel (Score:4, Informative)
Climate change is the result of a portfolio of greenhouse gas emissions. Aviation makes up ~2% of the global GHG profile while energy use for buildings makes up ~18% and road transportation makes up ~12%. We could literally negate the entire GHG contribution of the aviation industry if we improved road-vehicle fuel efficiency by 17%.
It is a fallacy that every sub-industry needs to bend over backwards to solve every single issue regardless of the rationale fitness of the industry to do so. It holds us back from doing what we actually CAN do!
We CAN eliminate the legal loophole in America that allows manufacturers to ignore the CAFE (tailpipe emission) standards when building pickup trucks.
We CAN require that all new homes (multi-unit and single units) come built with full Level 2 EV charging functionality (not just capability, stubouts, or panel space).
And so on...
Re: (Score:3)
Improving road-vehicle fuel efficiency by 17% will make the aviation industry carbon-free?
No, that would be magic. We need to work on making both more carbon-efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
What am I saying? I will make it clear: tax aviation fuel at least as much as ground transport fuels. This will reduce usage and in the end also re
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds fine to me. Taking a 737 cross country uses about half as much fuel as driving my car; I can deal with the ticket being closer to what the gas would cost.
Re: We Don't Need a Sustainable Jet Fuel (Score:2)
And how often would you take that car to drive cross-country? You wouldn't.
So wth are you doing, moving so far out!?
Let's suppose Jet A1 were taxed like everything else tomorrow. Yoy know that currently governments worldwide are subsidizing your ability to fly all of us into disaster, right. And you do it just because you can.
AprÃs-nous, le déluge.
Re: (Score:2)
Who funded the report? (Score:2)
Follow the money...
BTW. Propeller airplanes are easier to electrify. Might be cheaper than a high speed train.
subsidies!? (Score:3)
"" To bring these fuels to the scale needed would require massive subsidies ""
Already jet A1 is tax exempt. If that isn't subsidies...
If tomorrow kerosene were taxed like car fuel, that'll be the end of your all-in trips to the sun, too. Only because nearly all of aviation is tax-exempt, has it grow to the killer scale it's got now.
How about we skip all subsidies to the petroleum industry for a start?
Re: (Score:2)
How about we skip all subsidies to the petroleum industry for a start?
"That's an excellent idea. We'll get right on i..."... "JOBS"... "Who said that? Oh right oh right, no no no can't do that, can you imagine if the fossil fuels industry loses jobs! Drill baby drill!"
Re:Obviously not! (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no universal solution. That's fundamentally the problem, people are looking for a panacea that covers all of the use-cases for flying and is low cost, and none exists nor do any appear visible on the horizon.
The solution is to whittle-away at the use of air travel where it's practical to do so, using technologies that can be powered through means that don't directly consume fossil fuels and may be powered indirectly through any number of means. For some places this means electrified railroads, even high-speed railroads if the nature of the corridors can justify them. For other places this means working to make electric automotive journeys more practical. But this requires a lot of work and cost.
For high-speed rail we've already seen studies that have identified the Boston/DC corridor and the Pacific corridor as potentially viable, and there have been mumblings about a Texas corridor. If the time required isn't massively different than flying due to the headaches of airports and if the passengers have more comfort and the ability to bring more luggage than they can when flying, then suddenly it can become attractive if the costs remain competitive. Which of course will mean understanding that it won't be a profit-maker at first, and possibly not ever. But if that subsidy is the price to pay to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels then so be it.
Re: (Score:2)
If your origin and destination are anywhere near the downtown areas, then NY/Boston can already be faster by rail than air for door-to-door travel time. The trip by train can be a lot less stressful, too.
Re: (Score:2)
For high-speed rail we've already seen studies that have identified the Boston/DC corridor and the Pacific corridor as potentially viable, and there have been mumblings about a Texas corridor. If the time required isn't massively different than flying due to the headaches of airports and if the passengers have more comfort and the ability to bring more luggage than they can when flying, then suddenly it can become attractive if the costs remain competitive.
I don't quite get the idea that high speed rail would be less of a headache. Most of the headaches in flying are tried to ground transportation and security theatre. If rail terminals were as heavily used as airports, wouldn't all of this follow? I guess you could argue that this is distributed among stations along the route but if you add stops, rail is no longer high speed.
Re: Obviously not! (Score:2)
We don't care as much about rail security because you can't hijack one and crash it into the Pentagon, and we always know where they are.
Re: (Score:2)
No, at most they will just have you put your luggage through the X-ray machine like they do in Spain or before going through the Chunnel.
Re: (Score:2)
Which, of course, is how you do things when you don't care about externalities, and you figure some other group of people will pay the bill. In the case of not reducing emissions, that pretty much means the classic case of privatizing profits and socializing losses.
Re: Obviously not! (Score:2)
Very nice. Jacking up the cost of X doesn't make Y any cheaper.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a problem with a well-known solution. You just make the HSR routes express, meaning that they only stop in major cities, and ignore the small towns in between. If you need to get to one of those smaller places, you go to the nearest city the express stops at and transfer to a local line.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is a more realistic choice. I.e. it's known to be possible, and CAN be generated from water and electricity.
There are lots of problems with it, but there are known plausible answers to those problems. (Except the ones about expense. This requires different engines on the airplanes.)
The easiest plausible answer is synthetic kerosene. This is doable, and requires feedstock of things like methane. It CAN be done in an approximately non-polluting manner. Expect this to be MORE expensive than the
Re: Obviously not! (Score:2)
You think batteries are too heavy, but ignore that hydrogen can't get good energy density without heavy storage solutions. Are you invested in hydrogen?
Re: (Score:2)
1. Battery energy density is currently at best two orders of magnitude lower than jet fuel
2. Batteries cant just be on par with jet fuel to be a replacement, because a lot of the efficiency of current aircraft comes from the fact that they get lighter over the trip length, and batteries dont. So batteries need to exceed jet fuel by a lot just to be a viable teplacement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean "not do all these things". And I agree,
Re: (Score:2)
Global mobility is the pathway to a better life for most of the planet.
Do you hate brown people? Why do you want them stuck at "home"? Maybe we can have a "whites only" airline for you so you don't have to share a row with "those people". Especially, Indians... Jfc, who let "them" fly so much? Crazy!
And Magellan! That rat bastard circumnavigating the globe, giving brown people all these ideas about going to white places! He should've been stopped, yo!
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing wrong with brown people. No problem sitting next to them. And by all means, come to my country. We need immigration because our population is relatively stagnant and low.
Don't assign me a viewpoint I have not expressed. Not looking to ban anybody. I'm saying we should all, globally, "Fly Less".
I could not have been more clear. The fact that you read all of that into my post is indicative of YOUR problems. Not mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah. That's exactly what I said. :)
Re: I'd be happy ... (Score:2)
House the homeless and they can cook on electric. It would be cheaper than what we are doing now, especially what with all the empty homes and office buildings. In fact not filling those empty homes is actually destroying value since unoccupied homes degrade even if not broken into and stripped for copper.