Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Fly without fuel?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Fly without fuel?

Old 14th May 2021, 06:22
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 1,262
Received 173 Likes on 102 Posts
Originally Posted by flyingorthopod
Absolutely spot on.

And anything which makes the military more fuel efficient and military aviation less dependent on imported hydrocarbons has strategic and tactic advantages.
agreed. A lot of people also seem to equate a push towards lower emissions with lower performance. Absolutely doesn't have to be the case. There's so much low hanging fruit it's untrue. Anyone who's been around an airfield has seen how much crap the fire engines push out - their worst case use has to be "drive 5 miles and run a pump for ten minutes". After which the airfield is black anyway so feel free to plug them in!

Solar is a known quantity in terms of payback time and the MOD isn't short of roof space, so push for that. All of this before you go anywhere near controversial stuff like biofuels (definite pros and cons there) and potentially reduced performance for the warfighter.
pba_target is online now  
Old 14th May 2021, 07:09
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
I was once talking with a certain UK MP at an EASA aviation safety conference in Rome. He said that he had some domestic enrgy system at home (not sure whether it was a windmill, soloar panels or both) and that he could monitor the output on his phone app. I asked him how it was doing; he went to the app and his face fell - it wasn't producing enough to power a 60w light bulb!

A couple of points to annoy Ms G Thunderbox and her warmist cronies:

Keigwin's 1996 study of radiocarbon-dated box core data from marine sediments in the Sargasso Sea found that its sea surface temperature was approximately 1 °C (1.8 °F) cooler approximately 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago and approximately 1 °C warmer 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period).
Centennial-scale variability in productivity, temperature, and trajectory of water masses, associated with the most recent climatic shifts: the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, are also revealed by diatom abundance and assemblage composition in high-sedimentation rate cores from the NW and NE Atlantic margins. At present, the North Atlantic Oscillation is believed to dictate climate variability across most of the Northern Hemisphere, especially during wintertime.
Today I feel the need to enjoy 354 bhp of AMG and to heck with Gore, Thunderbox and the rest of the weeny greenies!
BEagle is offline  
Old 14th May 2021, 07:47
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 32 Likes on 12 Posts
Originally Posted by typerated
So for the hard of thinking: The "Warmists" have reflected on this things - quite thoroughly!

The medieval ice age was just a northern hemisphere event - it does not appear in the overall averaged world dataset.

The new ice age was overdue - in fact the Holocene (stable climate over the last 12,000 years since we came out of last ice age) had been going longer than any other interglacial.
The Milankovitch cycle (wobble in the earths tilt, axis and orbit) was due to take us slowly back to an ice age - but looking at LJ's chart you can see there is a certain amount of variation within this so we were on borrowed time.
Now here is the thing - rather than going back into an ice age as per the natural cycle - we have put lots of C02 into the atmosphere - and looking at LJ's chart you can see C02 causes the temperature to follow - we have artificially averted the next ice age - at least for a while!

As this is probably the most pressing issue facing mankind can I suggest you stop being a numptie - treat it with some respect - and perhaps read up on the science of what is really happening - not some Ted Cruz/ oil company sponsored denialist propaganda.

Actually you might find the real science is fascinating .

Also you might find that US and UK military(amongst others) fully understand that climate change is real and will be the primary driver of conflict as we head deeper into the century
BEagle your ignorance and flippancy should make you ashamed.
I hope you take the time to learn the science before you die.

If you average world temperature you get the graph on LJ's chart - this is not difficult !!
All government and major science agencies agree on this - it is unanimous amongst those whose profession it is.
FFS even the oil companies are now admitting it is real.









typerated is offline  
Old 14th May 2021, 07:56
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,060
Received 64 Likes on 39 Posts
Climate change might be real but man made not. This what it is about.
Assuming mankind is able to affect climate change in any way, will reinventing the wheel, building new battery cars for everybody, global new electrical power grids and charging stations, new nuclear plants to generate all the electricity needed and lithium mines everywhere, spoiling desperately needed drinking water in the process, change things for the better or be "green" in any way? Burning oil like there is no tomorrow is not right. Doing the same in a less efficient way with battery power now is no improvement. Just some bad interim technology.

It would make the world greener to better insulate houses and not waste electrical power for air condition and heating to start with. Or to harvest natural energy like thermal plants or tides. Still some way to go it seems.

Last edited by Less Hair; 14th May 2021 at 08:07.
Less Hair is online now  
Old 14th May 2021, 08:04
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 32 Likes on 12 Posts
Originally Posted by Less Hair
Climate change might be real but man made not. This what it is about.
Assuming mankind is able to affect climate change in any way, will reinventing the wheel, building new battery cars for everybody, global new electrical power grids and charging stations, new nuclear plants to generate all the electricity needed and lithium mines everywhere change things for the better or be "green" in any way?

The last bastion of stupidity denialism.

Look at the graph from LJ - see the connection between C02 and temperature.
Note the increase in C02 in the last century -
Note that it will cause warming.

and wonder where the extra C02 might have come from

Job done - Stupidity overcome!
typerated is offline  
Old 14th May 2021, 08:09
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,060
Received 64 Likes on 39 Posts
Assertive tone doesn't make you sound more convincing.
Less Hair is online now  
Old 14th May 2021, 15:41
  #67 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: florida
Age: 81
Posts: 1,609
Received 52 Likes on 15 Posts
Salute!

Somehow I am having a hard time finding the chart showing the evil trace gas increases and the temperature follows, rather than the well-accepted Vostok plot showing temp follows the gas. Why? Well, maybe a climate scientist could study this versus screaming we are all gonna die if we do not revert to stone age civilization this very moment!

I also note some studies reflecting very high C02 for many centuries after the temp peaked out at the end of an interglacial glacial period (Vostok plot shows this for a few glacial onsets). Where the hell did all the stuff come from?

Unless we revert to sailing ships, we have to power the immense transportation system on the seas that make current civilization and quality of life in most countries what it is now compared to 1860 or whenever humans began to produce terratons of the evil gas that is necessary to grow crops to feed us and is exhaled every breath we take. Then ground and air transport also need power. So we build immense solar fields and new, super-sized cables to bring the volts to the thousands of new charging stations or your tiny apartment in a ten floor building? The ships will still need to use sails because the nearest charging station in 1,000 friggin' miles away, and I can't afford a hundred tons of batteries at the expense of the cargo I have to deliver in three days.

Most greenies are denialists of actual science related to energy. " I have my EV, and the Earth will be saved." But where did that electricity come from? And the funniest/saddest thing is they resist any mention of using nuclear power to generate the volts and amps. More people died this year in one day from a virus than in all the nuclear accidents/mishaps in history. Even Hiroshima and Nagasaki had less deaths and lingering health problems than the Covid virus inflicted on India in a week.

Fuel for transportation is the real elephant in the room, face it. We cannot build a nuke light and small enuf to power our airplanes, tho that is not outta the realm of practical engineering for the big cargo ships, maybe even trains. Until we can reduce the domestic and industrial consumption of electricity produced by the evil fossil fuels, we have a problem, right? But the solution is not reverting to the society we had in 1860 or so, even what we had a hundred years ago after WW1.

The warmistas must cease their ignorant mantra that we lowly humans can change the course of our climate by a simplistic cessation of using fossil fuels. They also must look at preparation as well as questionable "prevention".

I yield the floor.....

Gums sends...



Last edited by gums; 16th May 2021 at 13:49. Reason: typo, corrections
gums is offline  
Old 14th May 2021, 16:55
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Squalor
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 12 Posts
There have been 4 major glaciations in the last million years. We are due for a 5th one soon, on averages. If burning a few hydrocarbons delays the onset, then jolly good.

A proper climatologist wouldn't get out of bed for less than a 1000 years.

Water vapour is the most prevalent greenhouse gas, by a country mile.

Mankind doesn't need polar bears, or pandas.

...or Haslet.

Permafrost, which has never melted, is releasing methane as the trapped vegetation rots...... ?

Wets
​​​​​​
​​


If it gets too hot,we can release the nuclear winter
Wetstart Dryrun is offline  
Old 14th May 2021, 17:27
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,471
Received 2,595 Likes on 1,098 Posts
What gets me about we must reduce our fossil fuel consumption is it just means it will last longer, you will still eventually use it all, just at a lower rate.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 14th May 2021, 19:01
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The diminishing influence of increasing Carbon Dioxide on temperature. This is not well publicised and not acknowledged in the IPCC. It has a rapid logarithmic diminution effect and is well understood within the climate science community. CO2 at 400 ppm has already reached about ~87+% of its potential warming effect in the atmosphere. A doubling of CO2 to 800 ppm will raise the climate temperature by 0.2 - 1.9C degree depending on information source. Assume 1C for an average. For 1C degree more, CO2 will need to increase to 1600 ppm according to the logarithmic diminution effect.

CO2 appears to be increasing at 2.5 ppm per annum. 400 ppm / 2.5 ppm per annum = 160 years So 160 years for the climate to increase by 1C degree.

Claims of a jump of 2.5C degrees and a climate crisis the near future appear a bit exaggerated.

Who is it that defines what the average temperature of Earth is supposed to be? What is that temperature?

An illustration to give an idea of how little CO2 is in the atmosphere use a 1 meter length = 1000mm. CO2 is 0.4mm of that, equivalent to less that the thickness of your thumb nail against 1000mm.

Meanwhile the increase in CO2 is contributing an increase of food production by better plant growth and drought resistance. There are CO2 generators available for industrial green house food growers to increase the amount of CO2 to 1000 - 1200 ppm in the air to improve growth by approx. 30%. Machines run on propane or other fossil fuels to help feed us.
Rocchi is offline  
Old 14th May 2021, 21:36
  #71 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: florida
Age: 81
Posts: 1,609
Received 52 Likes on 15 Posts
Salute!

Do not confuse the warmists with atmospheric science facts and processes. After all, the C02 thermostat knob will save the planet.

Right now I am more worried about powering the trains, planes and automobiles in 20 years if we go to some arbitrary carbon neutral mandate.

Of course, we could have an overpowering global government that simply shuts off your home electricity or lacks the infrastructure to generate " renewable" electricity and the means to get it to your apartment or home or... Yeah, that's it, we could ration home use until we complete our zillion sq miles of PV panels and produce terra tons of batteries that can meet the demand we had back in the 1960's or so. No big deal, huh?

I am more concerned about our defense than advertising some PC baloney to make a niche group of ignorant greenies happy.

Gums sends...
gums is offline  
Old 16th May 2021, 08:03
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 379
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Regardless of one's views on climate change, running an air force by relying on refined fuel derived from black sticky gloop pumped out of the ground is not sustainable. There will, one day, be no crude oil left.

So there is a long term strategic benefit in finding a militarily viable alternative. There is also a short term strategic benefit, as one then doesn't end up relying on certain parts of the world with a propensity for instability. There is an even strong strategic benefit if it can be more or less entirely domestically produced. One is then pretty much proof against market manipulation, embargo, sanctions, blockade.

There are some things that tick this box. A hydrogen fueled economy can either lead to using H2 directly as a fuel in aircraft, or as part of a fuel synthesis industry. Such an economy might be powered by fission, fusion, and / or renewables.

Other things that might get there; the US once played with fission rockets, which was a pretty big failure. However, a fission reactor rocket using Americium makes a lot more sense - it'd be smaller, lighter, more robust, far less likely to emit radioactive contamination out the exhaust pipe.

As has been widely reported the Russians are toying with a nuclear powered hyper-sonic cruise missile. If they perfect that power plant, I shudder to think what else they might bolt it into.

I don't suppose the Chinese are sitting still either. Any student of warfare in the Pacific west knows that dependence on imported oil is not likely to result in prevailing in a military conflict.
msbbarratt is offline  
Old 16th May 2021, 14:14
  #73 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: florida
Age: 81
Posts: 1,609
Received 52 Likes on 15 Posts
Salute!

Good points , MSB.

My concern is about the military use of the fossil fuels to satisfy the greenies, and although I agree there could be a finite limit to supply, I can see a few hundred years depending on how much the non-military uses. There are some processes for making methane ( GASP! another evil greenhouse gas) if we had the non-C02 nukes online. Space X and Blue Origin are already flying rocket engines powered by the stuff, and they chose it cause they can make it on Mars using the evil C02 and a source of electrical power from? ....nukes or PV panels or even windmills.

Hydrogen for fuel seems the cleanest approach so far, tho it has many distribution and servicing aspects the warmists have not considered. The hydrogen fuel cell approach also seems great for surface applications, and has less safety problems. But, as with pure H2, you still need another form of energy to produce the compound and then develop distribution infrastructure and so forth. The greenies still do not unnerstan that their EV polutes less but still has to get the electricity from someplace, and unless they relent on the nukes, it is being produced by a coal or gas plant 50 miles away. The PV fields we have in the U.S. are huge, but still not reliable in poor weather and do not produce a single volt at night. The greenies/dreamers have still not tackled the air transport or the ships. How are they gonna have their Starbucks? /rant

I had a co-worker that worked on NERVA back in late 60's. The nuke motor worked, but all it did was take away payload and the need for an oxidizer tank and plumbing. My proposal is nukes for the ships like the Navy does. The companies won't do it now because too many nations do not want a nuke-powered thing in their harbor. Oh well.

Hope the RAF can make their goal.

Gums sends...

P.S. breaking news...
https://www.maritime-executive.com/e...ime-propulsion

Last edited by gums; 17th May 2021 at 12:28. Reason: added link and found typos
gums is offline  
Old 16th May 2021, 16:54
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,060
Received 64 Likes on 39 Posts
I am not convinced that burning oil is the best way to go for all time. But there are way bigger world oil reserves available than had been assumed for a long time. We are far away from "peak oil". It is not just that more places with oil are found to exist, there are new technologies available to harvest oil fields that had not been considered for exploitation in earlier days.
We should continue to look for better non fossil fuel energy. Not sure if going nuclear instead would be best. How about thermal heat or tidal energy for non transport uses like heating and cooling?
Less Hair is online now  
Old 16th May 2021, 19:16
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Scotland
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LH. Agree about thermal heat. Storage systems ramping up from Siemens gamesa ETES. Long term thermal energy storage and reuse for excess production from wind turbines and PV's. Maybe a better and cheaper option to mega batteries.

https://www.siemensgamesa.com/produc...rage-with-etes


gums.
Agree with small modular reactors (SMR's) and molten salt reactors (MSR's) whether thorium breeder reactors or uranium burner reactors. This is future tech, however MSR's when sorted and in production with run at 700C degrees and and after producing electricity will have excess heat for processes for desalination, district heating and synthetic liquid fuel production. Ref. content of post 39 above.

Fusion.
I first heard about this wonderful thing back in the early 1970's. I used to be quite young back then. It was said that this would be a thing in the near future, 15 -20 years. About 10 years ago I started taking an interest in a thing called the ITER, International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. Billions are being spent for an experimental reactor that will sustain a reaction for five minutes at a time. When completed this will be fire up in "2025 with first plasma soon after and deuterium-tritium operations planned for 2035" (Wikip...). ITER is the precursor to DEMO a prototype fusion reactor which in turn has to be built and run experimentally for perhaps years prior to a final production design which will come in 2050 - 2060. So now I am old and fusion power is even longer into the future than my reasonable life span. So fusion power is for future generations to enjoy.




Last edited by Rocchi; 16th May 2021 at 20:46.
Rocchi is offline  
Old 16th May 2021, 22:12
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 379
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Less Hair
I am not convinced that burning oil is the best way to go for all time. But there are way bigger world oil reserves available than had been assumed for a long time. We are far away from "peak oil". It is not just that more places with oil are found to exist, there are new technologies available to harvest oil fields that had not been considered for exploitation in earlier days.
We should continue to look for better non fossil fuel energy. Not sure if going nuclear instead would be best. How about thermal heat or tidal energy for non transport uses like heating and cooling?
We may well be far away from peak oil, but that may become an irrelevance so far as powering a military machine is concerned. All extractive industries rely on there being a critical mass of customers to make the cost of extraction financially viable. If large swathes of energy production across the globe become non-fossil fuel based, extracting gas / oil for only the military starts being non-viable, whether we like it or not. There will of course be a long tail - extant in-production oil fields will likely have customers for a very long time to come.

There's other industrial domains where military applications already play second-fiddle to a wider civilian market. Look at microelectronics - CPUs. It now costs about $6-10billion to set up a competitive fab and develop the masks for the CPUs that will be made in it. The chips produced are ever so carefully engineered to give satisfactory lifetimes in servers in a normal data-centre environment. If you want a military-industrial spec version of such a chip, you can't get it. This is because even all the worlds' military procurement combined won't be buying the >$10billion's worth of CPUs that would be required to make it worthwhile setting up the plant. There are exceptions of course - some FPGAs for example. If the industrial demand for large CPUs goes away, military applications are going to have to manage without...

There's all sorts of other things that the wider market drives in directions not helpful for military applications. For example, ADA really is a good choice for several types of military system, but no one else wants it so it's impossible to find ADA programmers (and so military systems generally avoid it nowadays). Now it's getting worse; lots of GUI software is now web-based, or uses web-technology; these really aren't suitable for, say, flight control displays, but it's getting harder to find programmers who are willing and prepared to code for an embedded platform's graphic's library. If it's not mainstream that immediately cuts out a large fraction of the labour pool.

I'm not sure that there's many round here who would welcome their flight control displays being run in Google Chrome...
msbbarratt is offline  
Old 17th May 2021, 07:07
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,060
Received 64 Likes on 39 Posts
So you land your electric Chinook on a mountain top in Afghanistan with "empty tanks" looking for a charger and then?
Less Hair is online now  
Old 17th May 2021, 08:19
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 1,262
Received 173 Likes on 102 Posts
Originally Posted by Less Hair
So you land your electric Chinook on a mountain top in Afghanistan with "empty tanks" looking for a charger and then?
So you land your gas turbine Chinook on a mountain top in Afghanistan with empty tanks looking for a bowser and then?
pba_target is online now  
Old 17th May 2021, 10:40
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Sydney
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pba_target
So you land your gas turbine Chinook on a mountain top in Afghanistan with empty tanks looking for a bowser and then?
You chuck in enough jerry cans of whatever fossil fuel is available and get airborne again.
Thats pretty much the point isn’t it ?
TukwillaFlyboy is offline  
Old 17th May 2021, 12:51
  #80 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: florida
Age: 81
Posts: 1,609
Received 52 Likes on 15 Posts
Salute!

Back to the start, if we may.

I looked back at my original impetus from the most viewed Climate Change blog on the 'net and found this pearl from the news article that stimulated me to post here due to the huge number of folks interested in the RAF


This what I mean about greenies not understanding chemical reactions or thermodynamics or even biology. Not sure if the Secretary is a true greenie, and perhaps is just being PC. If talking about "renewable" versus emissions, use of biofuels is not "carbon neutral" best I can determine, huh?

In any case, the used vegetable oil will emit the evil gas, C02. And so will the other fuels the Secretary mentions. Even electric jets will need to get the amps from someplace, and I have a hard time seeing Britain covered in PV panels and thousands of windmills on the coast.

Perhaps the "net zero" is an economic ploy - buy carbon offsets?

Gums sends...



gums is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.