Global Warming: Electric/Hydrogen airplanes feasable?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australandnewzealandland
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
call me a cynic...
but i believe that the leaders of the green movement are simply looking out for themselves. The more support they get for their loony, baseless arguments the more they get paid. simple.
They pay scientists to come up with this bullsht, which is almost always a best guess. If i was them, i would be disappointed in the fact they (the scientists) havnt managed to come up with a king-hit.
excellent lets hear it...
thats a shame
oh and again
you see... theyre not worth keeping or quoting because theyre the sort of typical vague inconclusive (when you come down to the nitty gritty) green-a**-licking crap you would find in
magazines
unless of course youre quoting from a short history of nearly everything which has really got to be the last straw.
The thing i find really amusing about the green movement is how short-sighted it is. as the writer above me mentioned, they decide to go after the 2% polluter because they are an easy, high-profile target who are probably not much liked by potential green supporters anyway but neglect the 25% used by the average western household. the acronym
NIMBY
comes to mind. can you imagine how much support the green party would get if they advocated cold showers after a certain hour of the day, a limit to the number of kilometers you can drive with only one person in your car or a limit on the number of lights you can have switched on in your house at one time? noone would buy it, membership would decline, representation in parliment and the big salaries would reduce. these people arent volunteers remember.
FURTHER - The oil consumption/alternative paradox
Researching and developing alternatives to fossil fuel costs money. If one could say that the rate of oil consumption increase is about equal to economic growth, wouldnt it make sense to use oil as quickly and efficiently as possible? money makes money and the more we have, the more can be used in R&D when the crunch actually arrives.
then again, i think the green party, like any other political party, only really looks as far ahead as the next election. and the 'peak oil' tosh is another baseless pariah useing high prices to scare idiots into thinking were gonna run out or have already passed the peak.
They pay scientists to come up with this bullsht, which is almost always a best guess. If i was them, i would be disappointed in the fact they (the scientists) havnt managed to come up with a king-hit.
I knew you would ask for proof!
unfortunately, I cant put my hand on the document right now
discard the articles so I can't quote anything directly
you see... theyre not worth keeping or quoting because theyre the sort of typical vague inconclusive (when you come down to the nitty gritty) green-a**-licking crap you would find in
popular but less "hard" science
unless of course youre quoting from a short history of nearly everything which has really got to be the last straw.
The thing i find really amusing about the green movement is how short-sighted it is. as the writer above me mentioned, they decide to go after the 2% polluter because they are an easy, high-profile target who are probably not much liked by potential green supporters anyway but neglect the 25% used by the average western household. the acronym
NIMBY
comes to mind. can you imagine how much support the green party would get if they advocated cold showers after a certain hour of the day, a limit to the number of kilometers you can drive with only one person in your car or a limit on the number of lights you can have switched on in your house at one time? noone would buy it, membership would decline, representation in parliment and the big salaries would reduce. these people arent volunteers remember.
FURTHER - The oil consumption/alternative paradox
Researching and developing alternatives to fossil fuel costs money. If one could say that the rate of oil consumption increase is about equal to economic growth, wouldnt it make sense to use oil as quickly and efficiently as possible? money makes money and the more we have, the more can be used in R&D when the crunch actually arrives.
then again, i think the green party, like any other political party, only really looks as far ahead as the next election. and the 'peak oil' tosh is another baseless pariah useing high prices to scare idiots into thinking were gonna run out or have already passed the peak.
Last edited by dudduddud; 2nd Oct 2006 at 06:30. Reason: added more rants
Lockheed did a lot of work on this in the 1970s with designs for a hydrogen-fuelled Tristar. I don't know whether they came up with insoluble technical issues or whether they just felt there was no commercial demand for it.
I recall a prototype was certainly going to be routed well away from any populated areas.
I recall a prototype was certainly going to be routed well away from any populated areas.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: dorset
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dudduddud
i'm in aviation, not a member in any way whatsoever of any 'green party' but through studying to degree level have had to accept that the evidence for global warming is beyond doubt. From U.N. publications, through government scientific studies, E.U. studies and endless other scientific studies ( as well as the more popular programmes such as horizon etc) the published evidence is overwhelming, Yes, green parties have been known to pick the most extreme predictions and damage their own credibility by doing so but are you saying that organisations like the u.k. met office, for example,are making it all up too? The greenhouse effect is real,the science is not difficult, the average temperature of the planet is increasing(the correlation between fossil fuel burning and co2 in the atmosphere over the last 150 years is too close to be coincidence), given that, it is hardly 'bull###' to call for reductions in co2 emissions. Aviation happens to be the fastest growing contributer at the moment so it's hardly surprising it's attracting attention,problem for aviation is that there is no alternative fuel at the moment.Tinkering with a few percent reduction is laughable,emissions need to drop by 60+%!
As for the oil supply, stating that we should consume oil as quickly and efficiently as possible is as extreme an argument as stating the world is about to end. Oil is a FINITE resource,you can argue over how much is left, 20 years, maybe 40 years supply but the hard ,cold fact is it will run out and before that it will run down.
When oil production starts to fall below demand then you have passed 'peak oil' point, not difficult to grasp. As demand outstrips supply then you have inflation of the price, look back at the various peak prices, they all match supply shortage or supply 'scares'.
Apart from anything else, we use oil for so much of our modern 'stuff' that frankly we'd be like lost children without it,look around your house, plastic window frames,plastic keys on your laptop, packaging,some medicines,paints,etc etc etc.all of these things will either have to be changed or done without.
Given that we could use hydrogen as a fuel,at least for all ground/sea transport and we can create it using solar photovoltaic cells then encouraging movement in that direction is eminently sensible. So, how does aviation move in the same direction? Or is it immune? Waiting for 'the crunch' to arrive is insane,if you had a problem with your aircraft would you wait until that happened or sort a known problem out?
i'm in aviation, not a member in any way whatsoever of any 'green party' but through studying to degree level have had to accept that the evidence for global warming is beyond doubt. From U.N. publications, through government scientific studies, E.U. studies and endless other scientific studies ( as well as the more popular programmes such as horizon etc) the published evidence is overwhelming, Yes, green parties have been known to pick the most extreme predictions and damage their own credibility by doing so but are you saying that organisations like the u.k. met office, for example,are making it all up too? The greenhouse effect is real,the science is not difficult, the average temperature of the planet is increasing(the correlation between fossil fuel burning and co2 in the atmosphere over the last 150 years is too close to be coincidence), given that, it is hardly 'bull###' to call for reductions in co2 emissions. Aviation happens to be the fastest growing contributer at the moment so it's hardly surprising it's attracting attention,problem for aviation is that there is no alternative fuel at the moment.Tinkering with a few percent reduction is laughable,emissions need to drop by 60+%!
As for the oil supply, stating that we should consume oil as quickly and efficiently as possible is as extreme an argument as stating the world is about to end. Oil is a FINITE resource,you can argue over how much is left, 20 years, maybe 40 years supply but the hard ,cold fact is it will run out and before that it will run down.
When oil production starts to fall below demand then you have passed 'peak oil' point, not difficult to grasp. As demand outstrips supply then you have inflation of the price, look back at the various peak prices, they all match supply shortage or supply 'scares'.
Apart from anything else, we use oil for so much of our modern 'stuff' that frankly we'd be like lost children without it,look around your house, plastic window frames,plastic keys on your laptop, packaging,some medicines,paints,etc etc etc.all of these things will either have to be changed or done without.
Given that we could use hydrogen as a fuel,at least for all ground/sea transport and we can create it using solar photovoltaic cells then encouraging movement in that direction is eminently sensible. So, how does aviation move in the same direction? Or is it immune? Waiting for 'the crunch' to arrive is insane,if you had a problem with your aircraft would you wait until that happened or sort a known problem out?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Up North where its cold like!
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Great ranting! Yea, its true that I couldn't put my hands on anything particularly good (and I can't today since I didn't give it another thought!)
One thing about scientists though (a little bias here - I am one when I'm not flying; only my area of expertise is medical which is why I don't save the "other" journals!) is that the work they do is well researched and peer reviewed by other experts. It is very difficult to fake work for one's own ends which is why there aren't many rich scientists (contrary to popular belief!)- Most of us are too boring for that
I agree about the NIMBYism - my local village is full of it as they're trying to place windfarms all around the locality (something which I support). I wonder, how much of a difference could be made if solar panels were compulsory, hybrid cars were the norm (I know they're not much better but they ARE better) and people were prepared to accept less packaging on their groceries. All little changes that gradually add up - just like aviation. I'm under no illusions about the amount of damage it causes relative to other activities (which are far more destructive) but if we could come up with something, then it is one less problem to worry about. Cars must be the worst polluter and I hope that the car manufacturers can get it sorted fast. Imagine all of the cars that are probably sitting at traffic lights with their engines ticking over for several minutes. Now imagine that, all over the country at every junction. Multiply that across the world and there is a lot of pollution going on..
p.s. I'm not a NIMBY
. I take the train to work everyday (I could use my car), recycle, and turn off lights (and my engine at traffic lights!). We all have to do our bit - however small...
Great ranting! Yea, its true that I couldn't put my hands on anything particularly good (and I can't today since I didn't give it another thought!)
One thing about scientists though (a little bias here - I am one when I'm not flying; only my area of expertise is medical which is why I don't save the "other" journals!) is that the work they do is well researched and peer reviewed by other experts. It is very difficult to fake work for one's own ends which is why there aren't many rich scientists (contrary to popular belief!)- Most of us are too boring for that
I agree about the NIMBYism - my local village is full of it as they're trying to place windfarms all around the locality (something which I support). I wonder, how much of a difference could be made if solar panels were compulsory, hybrid cars were the norm (I know they're not much better but they ARE better) and people were prepared to accept less packaging on their groceries. All little changes that gradually add up - just like aviation. I'm under no illusions about the amount of damage it causes relative to other activities (which are far more destructive) but if we could come up with something, then it is one less problem to worry about. Cars must be the worst polluter and I hope that the car manufacturers can get it sorted fast. Imagine all of the cars that are probably sitting at traffic lights with their engines ticking over for several minutes. Now imagine that, all over the country at every junction. Multiply that across the world and there is a lot of pollution going on..
p.s. I'm not a NIMBY
. I take the train to work everyday (I could use my car), recycle, and turn off lights (and my engine at traffic lights!). We all have to do our bit - however small...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the early 1970s there was a study group called the "H2indenburg Society" - I believe I may still have a lapel button from them.
Two online references:
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/dspace...9.0001.001.txt
http://www.kentlaw.edu/classes/fboss...resentations/1
Two online references:
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/dspace...9.0001.001.txt
http://www.kentlaw.edu/classes/fboss...resentations/1
