Kinda like nuclear is one of the most clean power sources we have, until you put the raw waste into nothing but iron barrels and store them in a salt mine, and then wonder why the underground is becoming radioactive.
Planes can be clean, it’s just a question of using synthesized fuel (edit: as in artificially created fuels, hydrogen-mixes, kerosene replacements, the stuff they use for rocket propellant, that kind of fuels), and not refined fuel (edit: from oil). Of course there are some other problems associated with jet planes, but fuel shouldn’t necessarily be one.
Do you have any kind of source for your claim that synthesised aviation fuel doesn’t pollute? That’s certainly a new one on me, especially considering the companies that sell it don’t even make that claim themselves.
My claim is that fuel can be done right (read “clean”, more on that later), just how nuclear power can be done right. Will it be done right? Probably not.
Also, clean does not mean no pollution, at least not in our world. Solar cells pollute, windmills pollute. Green energy in general pollutes quite a lot when compared to “no pollution at all”.
No pollution seems unrealistic with current technologies and politics, so best we can do is attempt and limit our pollution to technologies which pollute less, or at least have the possibility of polluting less.
Also, how did natural gas become a clean, green source of energy? (that’s a rethoric question, I know why, i just think it’s stupid.)
Synt fuel is still loads of co2 in the atmosphere, and just because you bought a forest it doesn’t remove it from the atmosphere. Would you talk about hydrogen planes then I’d agree with you, but synth fuel? That’s the biggest bullshit of the air industry.
As far as I understand, the idea behind synthesized fuel is to bind CO2 to create the fuel, which theoretically should make it net neutral, if one ignores power consumption and chemical usage, as well as the CO2 probably not being sourced from the atmosphere.
In other words, the technology should be sound enough, but it will most likely not be used for good, as per my first post.
Then we come to the other issues I mentioned. The fuel should theoretically be CO2 neutral, but the plane does not fly where the factory is located. It flies some ~10km above surface, which means that we are pumping CO2 into the middle layers of the troposphere, which probably is bad idea.
Edit: i realize that I formulated myself in a rather unlucky way in the first comment, whelp.
With the climate change we need more than net neutral. Net neutral is plain bullshit, greenwashing for those who don’t want to see the reality of the problem. We need to fully stop ejecting co2 in the atmosphere, full stop.
Hydrogen engines are much more promising. They could be ready by 2035.
Do you have any sources on that? I’d love to know the per-passenger, per-distance exhaust output of the various airplane classes. A packed trans-Atlantic flight is probably not as damaging as the same voyage on a ship that burns the worst dogshit-grade bunker oil, but I seriously doubt that regional flights, regardless of fuel, could reach anywhere hear the exhaust- and fuel-efficiency of high speed trains.
If done wrong? Then yes.
Kinda like nuclear is one of the most clean power sources we have, until you put the raw waste into nothing but iron barrels and store them in a salt mine, and then wonder why the underground is becoming radioactive.
Planes can be clean, it’s just a question of using synthesized fuel (edit: as in artificially created fuels, hydrogen-mixes, kerosene replacements, the stuff they use for rocket propellant, that kind of fuels), and not refined fuel (edit: from oil). Of course there are some other problems associated with jet planes, but fuel shouldn’t necessarily be one.
Do you have any kind of source for your claim that synthesised aviation fuel doesn’t pollute? That’s certainly a new one on me, especially considering the companies that sell it don’t even make that claim themselves.
Less polluting /= not polluting.
My claim is that fuel can be done right (read “clean”, more on that later), just how nuclear power can be done right. Will it be done right? Probably not.
Also, clean does not mean no pollution, at least not in our world. Solar cells pollute, windmills pollute. Green energy in general pollutes quite a lot when compared to “no pollution at all”.
No pollution seems unrealistic with current technologies and politics, so best we can do is attempt and limit our pollution to technologies which pollute less, or at least have the possibility of polluting less.
Also, how did natural gas become a clean, green source of energy? (that’s a rethoric question, I know why, i just think it’s stupid.)
Synt fuel is still loads of co2 in the atmosphere, and just because you bought a forest it doesn’t remove it from the atmosphere. Would you talk about hydrogen planes then I’d agree with you, but synth fuel? That’s the biggest bullshit of the air industry.
As far as I understand, the idea behind synthesized fuel is to bind CO2 to create the fuel, which theoretically should make it net neutral, if one ignores power consumption and chemical usage, as well as the CO2 probably not being sourced from the atmosphere.
In other words, the technology should be sound enough, but it will most likely not be used for good, as per my first post.
Then we come to the other issues I mentioned. The fuel should theoretically be CO2 neutral, but the plane does not fly where the factory is located. It flies some ~10km above surface, which means that we are pumping CO2 into the middle layers of the troposphere, which probably is bad idea.
Edit: i realize that I formulated myself in a rather unlucky way in the first comment, whelp.
With the climate change we need more than net neutral. Net neutral is plain bullshit, greenwashing for those who don’t want to see the reality of the problem. We need to fully stop ejecting co2 in the atmosphere, full stop.
Hydrogen engines are much more promising. They could be ready by 2035.
Do you have any sources on that? I’d love to know the per-passenger, per-distance exhaust output of the various airplane classes. A packed trans-Atlantic flight is probably not as damaging as the same voyage on a ship that burns the worst dogshit-grade bunker oil, but I seriously doubt that regional flights, regardless of fuel, could reach anywhere hear the exhaust- and fuel-efficiency of high speed trains.
If you packed that ship too, it would easily beat the flight. A ship can just pack on orders of magnitude more passengers.
Except that’s not how its actually dealt with and we can actually reduce the waste by 90+% if we use fast reactors.
I don’t think the underground is becoming radioactive in any meaningful way.