IRMacGuyver t1_j5bq9wj wrote
JeremiahBoogle t1_j5csmd8 wrote
You didn't reply to anyone?
Or do you mean the article? Because that doesn't say its zero carbon either, just that the fuel could be.
IRMacGuyver t1_j5nrpbp wrote
I replied to the person that shared a link to the article. Do you not know how reddit works?
JeremiahBoogle t1_j5o076i wrote
Neither the OP nor the article said it was zero carbon. Only that it could be.
IRMacGuyver t1_j5qhfk1 wrote
And it can't be. Hydrogen is produced by breaking down hydrocarbons. Getting hydrogen from seawater is a fantasy that's not practical in the real world due to the insanely high energy cost. Of course on top of that the energy used to break down sea water is 70% coal powered.
JeremiahBoogle t1_j5rfgqy wrote
Nice about, first you said the OP was saying it was zero, carbon and instead of just admitting you were incorrect, all of a sudden we're arguing about something else when this only came about because you criticised the OP and article for something they didn't say.
But you're missing the point, most of the electricity to power electric cars comes from fossil fuels as well, but it could be low or zero carbon.
The point of this fuel isn't to demonstrate that this aircraft is zero carbon, its to demonstrate alternative fuels that could potentially be low carbon.
Current battery tech isn't anywhere near the energy storage to weight that we need to power an aircraft that's going to carry a useful amount of people over a long distance.
>Getting hydrogen from seawater is a fantasy that's not practical in the real world due to the insanely high energy cost
Right now, yes. In the future, who knows.
IRMacGuyver t1_j60lt9i wrote
I'm not incorrect. It says zero carbon. You're trying to ignore that and misdirect the conversation.
In the future the robots will kill us all before we have a chance to switch over to a truly zero carbon power source. Because even making solar panels and wind turbines produces carbon emissions.
JeremiahBoogle t1_j61sp6o wrote
>Hydrogen has been identified as a promising fuel solution for planes because it produces no greenhouse gases when burned. However, unless the hydrogen is produced using renewable energy, the process for creating it relies on fossil fuels.
5th paragraph of the article. FFS, give it up, even the article itself states that it is NOT Zero Carbon.
>In the future the robots will kill us all before we have a chance to switch over to a truly zero carbon power source. Because even making solar panels and wind turbines produces carbon emissions.
Now WTF are you talking about? Killer robots? There's some next level subject changes going on here.
IRMacGuyver t1_j6h8h2w wrote
That's what I said it's not zero carbon so the OP shouldn't have said it could be.
JeremiahBoogle t1_j6kgu48 wrote
But it can be. It isn't right now.
I don't get how we're still arguing this.
Burning fossil fuel derived jet fuel can never be zero carbon.
Burning hydrogen derived from fossil fuel isn't zero carbon, BUT that fuel can be made from renewables, which would make it zero carbon for all intents and purposes.
Of course right now that's highly inefficient, but this may not always be the case.
IRMacGuyver t1_j6lq00x wrote
Except it can't be ever. There just isn't an efficient way to make and store hydrogen that can't be done better by regular batteries. The making of hydrogen will always produce more carbon emissions than battery technologies.
JeremiahBoogle t1_j6m1wwn wrote
Right but this is an article about jet fuel.
And batteries right now weigh around 50 times more for the same energy density as jet fuel. Even taking into account the efficiency differences between electrical powered props & a jet engine. Its still not even close.
On a car this is not an issue, it doesn't need to take off and it can always stop to recharge.
Right now battery tech isn't close to being able to replace aviation fuel. Which leaves either bio fuels, or an alternative like Hydrogen.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments