Submitted by yourSAS t3_z7t0sf in technology
Hydrogen is key for commercial/industrial applications if we are committing to climate change. We just need to source it cleanly.
Isn't hydrogen very scarce?
*Pretty sure I'm thinking about helium. Thanks everyone!
>hydrogen
It's the most abundant chemical element. It's just expensive (energy wise) to extract.
Helium is somewhat but hydrogen is everywhere.
Like Water
Nope, just run an electric current through water and it will separate it into oxygen and hydrogen. Super easy to generate if you have enough electricity.
It's the most abundant element in the entire universe.
[removed]
That's the same with any fuel.
Nuclear say hi.
Great for generating electricity. Not so great for planes.
Exactly what this should be for now. Who know what nuclear can do if allow to advance.
There is no replacement for gasoline in commercial flight. Even if such technology exist, it probably won't implemented due to the cost of building an aircraft ($10 to $20B).
No company will be taking such as risk. Politicians will do it, because it is not their money and a big payout for their buddies.
This is literally about replacing gasoline with hydrogen.
Maybe don't embarrass yourself.
Aircraft don't run on gasoline
You don't need to design a plane from scratch for a new engine. BROADLY speaking it's mainly the horizontal tail that needs to be redesigned to account for the pitching moment from the engines. The problem with hydrogen is its lower energy density than aircraft fuel. It's the reason why electric jets don't exist
This would probably be for future aircraft not retrofits.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Unless they are forced to do it. Via legislation,
Hello. Where do you put your waste?
Preferably it's recycled. Then the unusable waste is stored. Not to mention most waste is only dangerous for around 10-20 years. Nuclear energy is really the best stop gap we have to fight climate change.
Let’s see: every single known nuclear reactor has leaked dangerous radiation/particles into its surrounding environment, there’s waste that is dangerous for much more that 10-20 years, there’s been major accidents across the globe (not limited to one or two nations), none have ever been “profitable” and all have needed to be subsidized by the nations they are in to make the energy affordable to the consumer, has to be along a major water source (which they’ve almost universally leaked into), and is growing exponentially more expensive than renewables which are rapidly growing less expensive. They do not allow for micro grids only large, centralized grids, and you can make nuclear weapons from them. Not to mention solar generation plants and windmills can’t have “meltdowns” (oh I know, that NEVER happens right? Except for a couple of times). With the money it would take to build new “modern” reactors you can build tons of windmills and solar farms.
This is such a spent and fictitious talking point I don’t know why people still say it. The fake “green nuclear” argument has always just been propaganda and it sucks people fall for it.
[removed]
Why would we want to commit to climate change? Isn't climate change bad?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments