lightsaber wrote:

The dirgebles were hard to set on fire, until they weren't. Hydrogen is the smallest molecule. The handling costs are very high in cryogenic or gas form

I use hydrogen to "cheat" and start any fire as no explosives permit required and it has the broadest flamability range.

One advantage, super easy lean burn combustors.

Range will plummet. I hope for fuel cells powering on wing ducted propellers ( faster cruise, less noise). I think methane fuel cells and then hydrogen.

15 years in the future us industry talk for maybe never. 15 years away means big problems to be solved by someone else.

If we started today, we could have one regional fuel distribution network in 12 years.

As a combustion Engineer, it scares me how blase people are on hydrogen safety. When we buy in quantity, the same protocols as moving really dangerous stuff must be followed.

Do they allow trucking cryogenic hydrogen? We always get it by rail for safety as the required safety cage weighs over 80,000 pounds (the maximum weight for a truck)!

Lightsaber

keesje wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

keesje wrote:

If you build / integrate a windmill, you have to include all the energy required, to create / form / transport the steel, create the basements in the sea, the cabling, power stations and required infrastructure to manage power variations when there is no / too much wind. And after 20 years thye energy required to dismantle / remove process everything back in an environmentally friendly way. Add everything up and distract that from the electricity generated by the mindmill over those 20 years. Nobody wants to know, we want to take action & see progress, for our grandchildren. So we start counting just production.

https://www.clepair.net/Udo201303payback.html

Damm, your Source is a 7 year old article . The prices of windmills have been going down rapidly, same with solar. And the trend is Probably to continue which will cause wind and solar to be the cheapest Source of electricity.

I you think so, check your sources, are they really independent? Check our national CBS. Distract 65% for biomassa from sustainable (another xx Billion sheepish farce we all want to forget asap) https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2020/22 ... t-gegroeid, and inhale what the real contributions is of sun & wind, despite all the windmill & solar panels we bought. https://www.clo.nl/indicatoren/nl0054-e ... giedrager-.

IMO the lack of basic knowledge & understanding of the electorate is astonishing IMO. And sun and wind industry clusters are are pumping in marketing millions to keep it that way. Most think everything hefty subsidized is cheap. I foresee a national parliamentary investigation into this in the Netherlands. How come we spend xx Billions on sustainable energy & still are nowhere? Moments of truth.

IMO hydro energy (dams) are maybe indeed the best renewable source, because you can store excess energy from elsewhere into them too. But we don't have the mountains e.g. our NZ & Alps friends have..

dobilan wrote:

At least they are not saying they'll fly on batteries. Maybe some desperate PR measure to stir some public interest. Maybe even keep the shares afloat a bit more.
Speaking of technological breakthroughs from planemakers, any news from the fusion reactor of Skunk Works?

cirrusdragoon wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Where will all this hydrogen needed come from? From "clean" nuclear energy?

We can produce hydrogen directly by simply splitting water, in a process known as electrolysis, but it’s been prohibitively expensive in large part because it requires a lot of electricity. As the price of solar and wind power continues to rapidly decline, however, it will begin to look far more feasible.

electricity itself makes up a huge share of the cost—upwards of 60% or more—and, again, the costs of renewables are falling fast. Meanwhile, the costs of electrolyzers themselves are projected to decline steeply as manufacturers scale up production, and various research groups develop advanced versions of the technology.

A Nature Energy paper early last year found that if market trends continue, green hydrogen could be economically competitive on an industrial scale within a decade. Similarly, the International Energy Agency projects that the cost of clean hydrogen will fall 30% by 2030.

Green hydrogen may already be nearly affordable in some places where periods of excess renewable generation drive down the costs of electricity to nearly zero. In a research note last month, Morgan Stanley analysts wrote that locating green hydrogen facilities next to major wind farms in the US Midwest and Texas could make the fuel cost competitive within two years.

A June study from the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory found it may be closer to the middle of the century before hydrogen is the most affordable technology for long duration storage on the grid. But as fluctuating renewables like solar and wind become the dominant source of electricity, utilities will need to store up enough energy to keep the grid reliably working not just for a few hours, but for days and even weeks during certain months when those resources flag. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/0 ... enewables/

JonesNL wrote:

keesje wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Damm, your Source is a 7 year old article . The prices of windmills have been going down rapidly, same with solar. And the trend is Probably to continue which will cause wind and solar to be the cheapest Source of electricity.

I you think so, check your sources, are they really independent? Check our national CBS. Distract 65% for biomassa from sustainable (another xx Billion sheepish farce we all want to forget asap) https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2020/22 ... t-gegroeid, and inhale what the real contributions is of sun & wind, despite all the windmill & solar panels we bought. https://www.clo.nl/indicatoren/nl0054-e ... giedrager-.

IMO the lack of basic knowledge & understanding of the electorate is astonishing IMO. And sun and wind industry clusters are are pumping in marketing millions to keep it that way. Most think everything hefty subsidized is cheap. I foresee a national parliamentary investigation into this in the Netherlands. How come we spend xx Billions on sustainable energy & still are nowhere? Moments of truth.

IMO hydro energy (dams) are maybe indeed the best renewable source, because you can store excess energy from elsewhere into them too. But we don't have the mountains e.g. our NZ & Alps friends have..

If you think that nuclear, oil or coal is not subsidized I have a bridge to sell you...

You should know that wind is already cheaper than fossil fuels, even in Texas they stopped investing in other sources and just invest in wind. Just follow the money:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08 ... tural-gas/
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/pl ... g-cheaper/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_e ... _by_source
https://www.altenergymag.com/article/20 ... ergy/33009
https://nawindpower.com/doe-report-conf ... -time-lows
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2019/08/26/r ... nd-energy/

But keep saying that we are fed lies, despite all market data and investment funds dropping fossil fuel driven energy stocks. You probably also despise the common people for believing the earth is a globe...

ikramerica wrote:

Because there is so much excess water in West Texas and high solar energy places like Arizona and the Middle East?

frmrCapCadet wrote:

How much will it cost to do the macro encapsulation of Chernobyl? I am guessing by the time Fukushima is finally cleaned up - upwards of $1 trillion (estimate now is 200-300 billion).

Puerto Rico's wind towers blew over in Hurricane Marie. cleanup - trivial.

Electrical grid infrastructure is good for upwards of 100 years, and even then the most expensive part is the right of way, which is about eternal.

Current estimates are that a moderately large national grid powered by wind and solar can provide 80% of electrical demand. And of course that Tesla that is now charging on coal electricity will suddenly become entirely green. Africa as a whole never developed national grids for telephones - and they never will, nor need to. This seems to be happening in rural areas with solar/wind power.

Nay sayers never will be convinced. Their Bayesian starting point is green bad/hydrocarbon good. Any subsequent evidence is accepted or not accepted in so far as it confirms their starting facts.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Nay sayers never will be convinced. Their Bayesian starting point is green bad/hydrocarbon good. Any subsequent evidence is accepted or not accepted in so far as it confirms their starting facts.

keesje wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Nay sayers never will be convinced. Their Bayesian starting point is green bad/hydrocarbon good. Any subsequent evidence is accepted or not accepted in so far as it confirms their starting facts.

What an utter non-sense. Who likes pollution? But that doesn't automatically make solar / wind power feasible or a good idea. For aircraft: forget technological breakthroughs solving everything, we haven't seen them over the last 60 years, despite 100's of billions in R&D.

We have to give up blindly believing solar, wind, biomass and hydrogen "solutions", for earth, our grandchildren and other emotional drivers, that we constantly exposed too by media and institution getting rich. Brains, technology and painful compromises are needed to find real solutions. Not violin music, beautiful young people and emotions.This is for real.
|

keesje wrote:

Sokes wrote:

keesje wrote:

To build a windmill, put it in a sea, connect it & make sure we have power when there is no wind, remove it after 20-25 years, clean up, costs about the same amount of energy it takes to create / operate.

I don't understand what you mean. Can you expand?
Your graph suggests that nuclear has no future.
But it's true that we are only at the beginning of the energy transition. That's not surprising. Crucial technologies like H2 or High Voltage Direct Current are still in development.

If you build / integrate a windmill, you have to include all the energy required, to create / form / transport the steel, create the basements in the sea, the cabling, power stations and required infrastructure to manage power variations when there is no / too much wind. And after 20 years thye energy required to dismantle / remove process everything back in an environmentally friendly way. Add everything up and distract that from the electricity generated by the mindmill over those 20 years. Nobody wants to know, we want to take action & see progress, for our grandchildren. So we start counting just production.

https://www.clepair.net/Udo201303payback.html

The article pointed out that the International Energy Agency estimated that EVs displaced almost 600,000 barrels of oil products per day in 2019. This number is expected to grow to 2.5 million barrels daily by 2030, and that’s based on fairly conservative forecasts.

Aceskywalker wrote:

keesje wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Nay sayers never will be convinced. Their Bayesian starting point is green bad/hydrocarbon good. Any subsequent evidence is accepted or not accepted in so far as it confirms their starting facts.

What an utter non-sense. Who likes pollution? But that doesn't automatically make solar / wind power feasible or a good idea. For aircraft: forget technological breakthroughs solving everything, we haven't seen them over the last 60 years, despite 100's of billions in R&D.

We have to give up blindly believing solar, wind, biomass and hydrogen "solutions", for earth, our grandchildren and other emotional drivers, that we constantly exposed too by media and institution getting rich. Brains, technology and painful compromises are needed to find real solutions. Not violin music, beautiful young people and emotions.This is for real.
|

Out of curiosity, what do you propose we do? Define "painful compromises".

keesje wrote:

Aceskywalker wrote:

keesje wrote:

What an utter non-sense. Who likes pollution? But that doesn't automatically make solar / wind power feasible or a good idea. For aircraft: forget technological breakthroughs solving everything, we haven't seen them over the last 60 years, despite 100's of billions in R&D.

We have to give up blindly believing solar, wind, biomass and hydrogen "solutions", for earth, our grandchildren and other emotional drivers, that we constantly exposed too by media and institution getting rich. Brains, technology and painful compromises are needed to find real solutions. Not violin music, beautiful young people and emotions.This is for real.
|

Out of curiosity, what do you propose we do? Define "painful compromises".

- accept nuclear plants & waste
- keep gas plants as long as we have coal plants
- limit the masses exploring great places globally
- limit car power to e.g 120 shp/ a exhaust maximum
- serious car exhaust filters, eg changed every 5000nm
- fly slower, make more tech stops
- limit harbor access for polluting ships
- limit consumption of meat
- limit flying in cheap goods from China within a week

Stuff we don't like, hurt the economy, limit freedom

SR380 wrote:

It still amuses me how people are sure that "this is impossible" and "it will never change". This reminds me when I was still studying mechanics. I was the only one believing that EV would take over, and sooner or later all major car companies would embrace that energy. Fortunately for all the Nah sayer I was damn wrong ! Anyway, on a lighter note, some pictures have licked already:

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-zero-em ... source=pop

prebennorholm wrote:

"Hybrid hydrogen turbofan engines", they write without any hint what the word "hybrid" means here.

"tanks located behind the rear pressure bulkhead", and no hint how it affects CG as fuel is consumed.

Those and other such simplifications tell me that this whole thing is eye candy and nothing else.

It doesn't matter. It will never happen. Not because it is too hard to produce the hydrogen powered planes, that will be the easy stuff. When it is realized what it means to make an airport size liquid hydrogen storage facility and tanking infrastructure, then such things will be allowed by the public only out in the desert 300 miles away from nearest inhabited area. Not exactly where airports are most needed.

People will rather be surrounded by a dozen Fukushima-quality nuke plants than be neighbor to a liquid hydrogen airport.

Airbus didn't tell us anything new. They showed us a few pretty pictures, and provided some simplified text which doesn't really cover the major challenges of the subject - reduced CO2 emission.

keesje wrote:

If you build / integrate a windmill, you have to include all the energy required, to create / form / transport the steel, create the basements in the sea, the cabling, power stations and required infrastructure to manage power variations when there is no / too much wind. And after 20 years thye energy required to dismantle / remove process everything back in an environmentally friendly way. Add everything up and distract that from the electricity generated by the mindmill over those 20 years. Nobody wants to know, we want to take action & see progress, for our grandchildren. So we start counting just production.

https://www.clepair.net/Udo201303payback.html

kalvado wrote:

Forcing workers to live right above the production/office floor and limiting hot showers to once a week are two more major things to consider.

keesje wrote:

Aceskywalker wrote:

keesje wrote:

What an utter non-sense. Who likes pollution? But that doesn't automatically make solar / wind power feasible or a good idea. For aircraft: forget technological breakthroughs solving everything, we haven't seen them over the last 60 years, despite 100's of billions in R&D.

We have to give up blindly believing solar, wind, biomass and hydrogen "solutions", for earth, our grandchildren and other emotional drivers, that we constantly exposed too by media and institution getting rich. Brains, technology and painful compromises are needed to find real solutions. Not violin music, beautiful young people and emotions.This is for real.
|

Out of curiosity, what do you propose we do? Define "painful compromises".

- accept nuclear plants & waste
- keep gas plants as long as we have coal plants
- limit the masses exploring great places globally
- limit car power to e.g 120 shp/ a exhaust maximum
- serious car exhaust filters, eg changed every 5000nm
- fly slower, make more tech stops
- limit harbor access for polluting ships
- limit consumption of meat
- limit flying in cheap goods from China within a week

Stuff we don't like, hurt the economy, limit freedom

Theseus wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Forcing workers to live right above the production/office floor and limiting hot showers to once a week are two more major things to consider.

For the first point (forcing workers to live right above the production/office floor), it has been in serious consideration this year in the most places, except it is more the opposite, just get the workers turn their own bedroom into their office. (yes, I know, it applies only to people who can work remotely).

Faro wrote:

And what do you do with a hard, a very hard landing like BA38...with the landing gear struts going straight through the fuel tanks?...


Faro

keesje wrote:

Aceskywalker wrote:

keesje wrote:

What an utter non-sense. Who likes pollution? But that doesn't automatically make solar / wind power feasible or a good idea. For aircraft: forget technological breakthroughs solving everything, we haven't seen them over the last 60 years, despite 100's of billions in R&D.

We have to give up blindly believing solar, wind, biomass and hydrogen "solutions", for earth, our grandchildren and other emotional drivers, that we constantly exposed too by media and institution getting rich. Brains, technology and painful compromises are needed to find real solutions. Not violin music, beautiful young people and emotions.This is for real.
|

Out of curiosity, what do you propose we do? Define "painful compromises".

- accept nuclear plants & waste
- keep gas plants as long as we have coal plants
- limit the masses exploring great places globally
- limit car power to e.g 120 shp/ a exhaust maximum
- serious car exhaust filters, eg changed every 5000nm
- fly slower, make more tech stops
- limit harbor access for polluting ships
- limit consumption of meat
- limit flying in cheap goods from China within a week

Stuff we don't like, hurt the economy, limit freedom

JonesNL wrote:

keesje wrote:

Aceskywalker wrote:

Out of curiosity, what do you propose we do? Define "painful compromises".

- accept nuclear plants & waste
- keep gas plants as long as we have coal plants
- limit the masses exploring great places globally
- limit car power to e.g 120 shp/ a exhaust maximum
- serious car exhaust filters, eg changed every 5000nm
- fly slower, make more tech stops
- limit harbor access for polluting ships
- limit consumption of meat
- limit flying in cheap goods from China within a week

Stuff we don't like, hurt the economy, limit freedom

You suggest that investing in solar and wind is blind and this is the list of solutions you come up with .

kalvado wrote:

keesje wrote:

Aceskywalker wrote:

Out of curiosity, what do you propose we do? Define "painful compromises".

- accept nuclear plants & waste
- keep gas plants as long as we have coal plants
- limit the masses exploring great places globally
- limit car power to e.g 120 shp/ a exhaust maximum
- serious car exhaust filters, eg changed every 5000nm
- fly slower, make more tech stops
- limit harbor access for polluting ships
- limit consumption of meat
- limit flying in cheap goods from China within a week

Stuff we don't like, hurt the economy, limit freedom

Car ehxaust filters are, probably, not a real thing on the list.
Forcing workers to live right above the production/office floor and limiting hot showers to once a week are two more major things to consider.

kalvado wrote:

Faro wrote:

And what do you do with a hard, a very hard landing like BA38...with the landing gear struts going straight through the fuel tanks?...


Faro

Fairly simple answer - no more wing tanks as both pressure vessels and cryogenic vessels are not suitable for wing install. Back of the fuselage is windowless on at least one drawing- guess why?
If wings can be used for luggage, or will morph into super-aerodynamic thin profiles is a different story

WayexTDI wrote:

kalvado wrote:

keesje wrote:

- accept nuclear plants & waste
- keep gas plants as long as we have coal plants
- limit the masses exploring great places globally
- limit car power to e.g 120 shp/ a exhaust maximum
- serious car exhaust filters, eg changed every 5000nm
- fly slower, make more tech stops
- limit harbor access for polluting ships
- limit consumption of meat
- limit flying in cheap goods from China within a week

Stuff we don't like, hurt the economy, limit freedom

Car ehxaust filters are, probably, not a real thing on the list.
Forcing workers to live right above the production/office floor and limiting hot showers to once a week are two more major things to consider.

Car exhaust filters are a real thing, today. Particulate filters are mandated on Diesel engines, and are making their ways on Gasoline direct-injected engines (since they generate a lot of particles, due the direct injection).

morrisond wrote:

Actually - Hydrogen could be the one thing that saves at least the A380 cross section - Put tanks up top (solving COG problems) and passengers on the main deck.

Of course appropriately sized new carbon wing and gear.

Kiwirob wrote:

The peak was just over 84% in 1980, it's been going backwards ever since, it's mostly due to environmental resistance to any new dams. Although this would change if the Lake Onslow pumped hydo storage scheme is approved, the capacity will be approx 5000 GW.

mxaxai wrote:

You have to use resources where you find them. There's no point in trying to grow bananas in Maine but it's a profitable business in Brazil.

keesje wrote:

The looks are more a human problem, a price we would have to pay, if wind energy was a real good idea.

Sokes wrote:

The question is how big the lower lake is and if there is settlement on its shore. The people there may not like it if their lake just becomes a basin which is empty or half empty most of the time.

keesje wrote:

Aceskywalker wrote:

keesje wrote:

What an utter non-sense. Who likes pollution? But that doesn't automatically make solar / wind power feasible or a good idea. For aircraft: forget technological breakthroughs solving everything, we haven't seen them over the last 60 years, despite 100's of billions in R&D.

We have to give up blindly believing solar, wind, biomass and hydrogen "solutions", for earth, our grandchildren and other emotional drivers, that we constantly exposed too by media and institution getting rich. Brains, technology and painful compromises are needed to find real solutions. Not violin music, beautiful young people and emotions.This is for real.
|

Out of curiosity, what do you propose we do? Define "painful compromises".

- accept nuclear plants & waste
- keep gas plants as long as we have coal plants
- limit the masses exploring great places globally
- limit car power to e.g 120 shp/ a exhaust maximum
- serious car exhaust filters, eg changed every 5000nm
- fly slower, make more tech stops
- limit harbor access for polluting ships
- limit consumption of meat
- limit flying in cheap goods from China within a week

Stuff we don't like, hurt the economy, limit freedom

lightsaber wrote:

I've worked a career on more environmentally friendly aircraft. Anything 15 years out is for PR. Technology I worked on in 1998 entered the fleet in 2016 and it was less radical.

I'm very proud of getting technology into aircraft, from 1950s Whittle patents! In late 1990s to now.

Lightsaber

PS, my absolute favorite Whittle patent, is still 15 years out... Technology I started working in 1996... CMCs are a required enabling technology.

marcelh wrote:

You forgot one: birth control. IMHO the main problem is that there are too many “resource users”.

mxaxai wrote:

marcelh wrote:

You forgot one: birth control. IMHO the main problem is that there are too many “resource users”.

Nah, more babies means more passengers and is better for business. The A380 was too large for 7 billion people but once we pass 10 billion it mights become attractive again.