423
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 51 points 1 year ago
[-] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 34 points 1 year ago
[-] marcos@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

When planes and distances get larger, hydrogen starts to make more and more sense. But I guess we won't get that far and planes will stay with biofuel and synfuel.

[-] jarfil@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Hydrogen is not particularly good for aviation: it either requires a lot of cooling, or a really high pressure, and/or leaks through solid containers, or has really poor energy density.

It's a decent intermediary high energy density storage on the ground, where excess renevables can run through a fuel cell and produce hydrogen that can be stored at high pressures and low temperatures in bunker-like containers. Those don't tend to fly very well though, at most swim somewhat decently to deliver the hydrogen wherever its needed.

Hydrogen can be used in rockets though, because of the great oxyhydrogen reaction's efficiency, but you'll notice they tend to leak like crazy... which, once more, is highly undesirable for aviation.

[-] marcos@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

but you’ll notice they tend to leak like crazy

OGM. No, the thing you can see is condensation from the atmosphere. You can't see an hydrogen leak in any reasonable environment.

Guess what? Leaking is a long term problem, and not very relevant if you refuel just before your trip. Its balance for airplanes is all dictated by the needs of a high-pressure storage against the unbeatable energy density. Up to now, hydrogen has always lost, and will probably keep losing for most airplanes, but commercial aviation is constantly pushing over factors that change the equilibrium towards it.

[-] jarfil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Condensation is one thing, hydrogen leaking straight through the metal is another.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement

It isn't a problem if you fill up a container with liquid hydrogen right before your trip, the trip lasts less than an hour, then you discard the container and let it burn up on reentry.

It is a problem though, if you intend to fill up the same container multiple times, keep hydrogen in it for hundreds of hours, and subject it to vibrations.

Another problem is that even in its liquid state, while the energy density to weight ratio is great, its energy density per volume is pitiful:

Meaning, a plane could carry the same energy in 3 times less weight of fuel, which is great, but still need 8 times larger deposits to do it, which would mess up the aerodynamics... and would still have a high chance of springing a leak.

It's no coincidence that SpaceX is using liquid methane for its reusable rockets.

[-] Jaydeep@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Electric airplanes are highly inefficient and not really good enough for commercial use.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago
[-] scratchee@feddit.uk 12 points 1 year ago

That’s unlikely to change for long distance flights.

For short flights small electric planes are becoming viable already, and they will continue towards medium flights over time.

But theres no serious concepts for a battery that could compete for long flights.

That’s not to say that planes are doomed to be fossil dependent forever. But the likely solution will be a renewable high density fuel, possibly hydrogen or something easier to carry.

It’ll be less efficient than batteries on a energy in to work out basis, but once the cost of carrying the weight is considered, that will always swing way in the favour of high density fuels regardless of battery efficiency (for long distance).

[-] Fosheze@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Three words, nuclear powered aircraft. I see no way that could go wrong.

[-] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I prefer whale oil fueled aircraft

[-] scratchee@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago

A little radiation never hurt anyone who maintains their Mach 2 velocity. Just never land and you’re fine.

[-] XPost3000@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Honestly I wanna see the crazy logistics of using rocket fule, since it's just liquid oxygen and hydrogen with a water byproduct

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Personally I doubt electric flight will ever be viable, but that’s because we should be using trains for short flights …. Says me from an urban area

Me who grew up rural near a small city says ….. what about connections from small city to an airport where I can go places?

Me from when I worked at an investment management company and saw people with more money than they knew what to do with says ….. I just need a quick hop down the Cape to my beach house (never mind that I was never one of those people)

[-] scratchee@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

There will always be people like that. There will also always be places where trains are impractical.

this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
423 points (96.3% liked)

Confidently Incorrect

3965 readers
1 users here now

When people are way too smug about their wrong answer.

Posting guidelines.

All posts in this community have come from elsewhere, it is not original content, the poster in this community is not OP. The person who posts in this community isn’t necessarily endorsing whatever the post is talking about and they are not looking to argue with you about the content in the post.

You are welcome to discuss and debate any topic but arguments are not welcome here. I consider debate/discussions to be civil; people with different opinions participating in respectful conversations. It becomes an argument as soon as someone becomes aggressive, nasty, insulting or just plain unpleasant. Report argumentative comments, then ignore them.

There is currently no rule about how recent a post needs to be because the community is about the comeback part, not the topic.

Rules:

• Be civil and remember the human.

• No trolling, insults or name calling. Swearing in general is fine, but not to insult someone.

• No bigotry of any kind, including homophobia, transphobia, sexism and racism.

• You are welcome to discuss and debate any topic but arguments are not welcome here. I consider debate/discussions to be civil; people with different opinions participating in respectful conversations. It becomes an argument as soon as someone becomes aggressive, nasty, insulting or just plain unpleasant. Report argumentative comments, then ignore them.

• Try not to get too political. A lot of these posts will involve politics, but this isn’t the place for political arguments.

• Participate in good faith - don’t be aggressive and don’t argue for arguements sake.

• Mark NSFW posts if they contain nudity.

• Satire is allowed but please start the post title with [satire] so other users can filter it out if they’d like.

Please report comments that break site or community rules to the mods. If you break the rules you’ll receive one warning before being banned from this community.

This community follows the rules of the lemmy.world instance and the lemmy.org code of conduct. I’ve summarised them here:

  1. Be civil, remember the human.
  2. No insulting or harassing other members. That includes name calling.
  3. Respect differences of opinion. Civil discussion/debate is fine, arguing is not. Criticise ideas, not people.
  4. Keep unrequested/unstructured critique to a minimum.
  5. Remember we have all chosen to be here voluntarily. Respect the spent time and effort people have spent creating posts in order to share something they find amusing with you.
  6. Swearing in general is fine, swearing to insult another commenter isn’t.
  7. No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia or any other type of bigotry.
  8. No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS