@@naimr.4301 there's a problem with wendover? I was just making fun of how he makes a lot of videos about the economics of planes
@kiranjackson7412
3 жыл бұрын
@@flyingchic3n we love wendover
@rulydihoti
3 жыл бұрын
Lol can't agree more
@markhemsworth2670
3 жыл бұрын
So tiring. It will take 2 decades...and we knew this 2 decades ago and did nothing because if was so far in the future.
@grendel_1678
3 жыл бұрын
we know with no certainty how long it will take. We don't know what new innovation could be uncovered in another industry in say 8 years that could have application to how hydrogen is used as an energy source for aviation. The important thing is that more capital starts flowing into renewable areas and thankfully it appears post Covid that is a fundamental shift occurring.
@KRYMauL
3 жыл бұрын
We’ve known it for 5 decades, but the oil and gas companies got greedy
@jimj2683
2 жыл бұрын
Why do you say "we"? You did nothing.
@sdflipper743
2 жыл бұрын
Actually the US did do it in 1996 and again 2002; big oil/the Saudi's killed the electric car; even california stole all of them and destroyed them and paid for it. We need to let innovators do their own thing and let it come naturally, it's the most safest and cheapest. Remember, govt funded research while great demand payback, free labor (blood sweat and tears) are safer and cheaper.
@skunklover5725
Жыл бұрын
@@KRYMauL - VERY VERY TRUE, but those companies will be out of buisness in 30 years, because according to a study by M.A.H.B. the earth will be totally out of Oil by 2052, Natural Gas by 2060 & all the Coal will be gone by 2090.
@wilvaro1979h
3 жыл бұрын
Expect to hear a lot of the word “ Sustainability in the future .
@opalfruits8596
3 жыл бұрын
All TV adverts have been 'sustainable' for the last 9 months!
@sararichardson737
3 жыл бұрын
Make a change from unprecedented.
@geopoliticallycurious
3 жыл бұрын
You don't make the World Green by cutting the Economy. You make the World Green by making the Economy Green.
@chung729chung
3 жыл бұрын
It does when we have a population shrink This is the brute force from the lefts
@olbradley
3 жыл бұрын
Answer: Eventually, yes.
@CarFreeSegnitz
3 жыл бұрын
Green aviation will always be 20 years in the future, now and in 20 years. Like fusion.
@georgepickles2702
3 жыл бұрын
The woman talking sounds like the voiceover on bbc come fly with me 🤣
@languist
3 жыл бұрын
Airbus E-Thrust seems like the most promising concept yet
@I999-g2s
3 жыл бұрын
“The problem for the aviation industry is that green technologies cost a lot of money, but there isn’t much to go around”. How much did the airlines blow on stock-buy-backs this past decade, during their absolute bumper profits run? I love the way the Economist just ignore the corporate hegemony that causes most of its readers/subscribers to suffer in various ways.
@Munchausenification
3 жыл бұрын
Isnt that just how the industry inherently is at the moment? The barrier to entry as a new competitor is very high, so airline companies had the freedom to do as you said, stock-buy-backs.
@I999-g2s
3 жыл бұрын
Tax evasion is “just how the industry is” at the moment, doesn’t it make it fair or right. Airline CEO’s didn’t have to buy back their stock, but they chose to do so (instead of investing the profits in a greener future) because it reduces the number of shares in the market, and pushes up the price of the remaining shares up, thereby increasing their stock-based compensation. And the Economist evidently doesn’t mind turning a blind eye/supporting this scam. These so called leaders have a responsibility to take our hard earned money (in the form of their company profits) and streamline their business to be less environmentally devastating, but they choose additional millions for their own pockets instead.
@phamnuwen9442
3 жыл бұрын
Stock buybacks is a way to compensate investors for their investment. If investors aren't paid, they won't exist and nobody will finance businesses so nothing will be produced. Now, is stock buybacks a way to avoid taxes? Maybe so. If it is, awesome! That means less capital wasted by governments and more left in the hands of either businesses or investors that can be used to invest in more cool products and services that make people's lives better.
@catrandle9439
3 жыл бұрын
We don't have 2 decades
@cedricfranzen8558
3 жыл бұрын
Then e-fuels will have to be subsidized by the governments. Right now any airline that switches over will go bankrupt within a very short time frame. Fuel can be up to 70% of the cost of flight. So if e-fuels are even only 20% more expensive (which they are not right now, they are at like 300% the price) that would mean the airline would have to significantly increase ticket prices and lose many customers to competition who is still burning fossil fuel and can thus sell cheaper tickets. Basically the government would have to guarantee that the e-fuel price is exactly the same as the fossil one and then cough up the difference.
@atyshlmes4360
3 жыл бұрын
@@cedricfranzen8558 then maybe we need Degrowth... please look it up and give it a thought.
@atyshlmes4360
3 жыл бұрын
@@cedricfranzen8558 also, aren't governments already helping out the rich enough? air travel is a (mostly) wealthy-exclusive mode of transportation.
@cedricfranzen8558
3 жыл бұрын
@@atyshlmes4360 as someone working in the Airline industry you will forgive me for having a different opinion about that... degrowth would most likely lead to me losing my job and one of my biggest passions in my life. Also with today’s fares the flights are often cheaper than a taxi to the airport, at least in Western Europe.
@leonmorel789
3 жыл бұрын
@@atyshlmes4360 wow this is the first time i'm seeing an english comment about degrowth! It seems to me that comment sections are just pro infinite growth without actually looking at the physics behind it
@pabloborgesdeamorim7615
3 жыл бұрын
Funny enough is that the first hydrogen fuel cell was invented in 1932! It is never too late.
@BeaverChainsaw
3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, the sad part was that storing it proven to be too expensive even though it's way more efficient than petroleum.
@danurkresnamurti3598
3 жыл бұрын
interesting. the question is here. what kind of water they used? i mean it can use saltwater? or it only use freshwater?? if the plane is only using freshwater. it will add a scarcity of freshwater and i reject that plane
@TheStubertos
3 жыл бұрын
I'm telling you man, invest in water now and you'll be a millionaire in 20 years time
@danurkresnamurti3598
3 жыл бұрын
@@TheStubertos agree my friend. same like oxygen.
@TheStubertos
3 жыл бұрын
@josh I think to get Hydrogen in the first place you use electrolysis on water to separate the hydrogen. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
@xlol2429
6 ай бұрын
@@TheStubertoslol I tell my friends this all the time I’m in highschool and they laugh at me but ur totally right man I hope ur invested im trying to get invested too I swear we’ll be millionaires lol and the funny thing is it’s not hard to see it coming with water scarcity look at Mexico City right now oof it’s tough out there and mexicos a pretty developed country it ain’t no third world lol it’s a first world with a Fake Gucci bag like America 😂
@edricklawrenceong7776
3 жыл бұрын
To be fair, modern aircraft like the 787 Dreamliner and A220 are WAY more efficient and emit significantly less CO2 than say: a 707 or DC-9 from the 60s, and there are some who claim that the manufacturing of biofuels actually releases more greenhouse gases than the refining of regular jet fuel. So it's arguable that we should skip biofuels altogether, continue making current aircraft more fuel-efficient, and just throw all the R&D money at developing a hydrogen infrastructure network.
@jimj2683
2 жыл бұрын
Even better: Compensate the use of fossil fuels by capturing and storing CO2 from the atmosphere in a place with cheap renewable electricity (Sahara etc).
@wellingtonaviationchannel634
2 жыл бұрын
The 787 is only better for the environment in an isolate sense. In the larger picture, more efficient aircraft are cheaper to operate, and therefore result a greater total number of passengers, so total emissions are greater
@AhGorgonzola
3 жыл бұрын
It's true that the technology they outline does work in theory (and in practice in some cases) BUT the challenge they didn't properly cover is how we decide what we want to trade to achieve it at scale. Aviation requires huge amounts of energy. If we want a net-zero society then energy will be limited and we'll have to decide what we want to stop doing instead (heating or air-conditioning, for instance). If we still want to eat, biofuel is only great if we have a spare planet and hydrogen will take very large amounts of electricity to create. The mention of increased cost is also nice to hear but sadly is hugely optimistic. Given the constraints we'll have in future a 10% price increase sounds like a laughable projection.
@RealEngineering
3 жыл бұрын
"because hydrogen can pack more energy into a smaller space".....that's actually the exact opposite of the truth. Hydrogens greatest weakness is its low volumetric density. Edit: Oh and your interviewee contradicts (with the correct information) your narrator half way into the video, weird. Feel free to reach out for some writing advice Economist 😂
@Blahblablahbob
3 жыл бұрын
More energy into a small space than electric batteries, they go onto say. Pretty sure that's correct. Was looking out for it, but not sure what the contradiction is either?
@SamMadrid1
3 жыл бұрын
Sustainablity is desirable but it is going to require a lot of governmental policy changes in order for the technologies that are needed and exist today and new generations of technologies to be widely implemented. That to me is the real test of just how serious governments and corporations are about sustainability, circular economies and all of the current buzzwords that we hear 24 hours a day from every corner of the political and corporate realms. The consumer cannot be the only payor of sustainability, it will not happen if it is left to the consumer or if it does it will be slower than needed and will have negative effects in other parts of the consumer chain.
@hbarudi
3 жыл бұрын
It does not hurt to try to make flying on alternative energy possible, but research on lowering the cost of new technologies such as hydrogen electrolysis and fuel cells is necessary.
@rebekahengal7281
3 жыл бұрын
Increasing the price of plane tickets puts the responsibility of financing this transition on the individual consumers. While each person has the power to vote through flying with greener airlines, should this transition really hinge upon the depth of the passangers' pockets? Thoughts?
@BeaverChainsaw
3 жыл бұрын
Well airplane companies have to make money to innovate somehow. Also it depends on how expensive they make it. If it's absurdly higher, then I wouldn't be willing to shoulder the cost, but if it's reasonable, then sure why not. I personally think the government should just put more federal research into hydrogen planes which will make sense considering biden wants a stronger stance on environment
@heraldshalomvallente2336
3 жыл бұрын
If the first plane goes mass production, in a bigger model, not only we travel great distances, but we are also kinda cloud seeding instead of poluting.
@pjclutterbuck230473
3 жыл бұрын
Hydrogen is a very poor energy carrier, with considerably less energy out compared with energy in. The way forward is nuclear fusion, which is completely safe (unlike the nuclear fission that most of us are more familiar with) and which can go on producing energy for as long as needed. The US Navy patented a portable fusion reactor in 2019 that would be suitable for powering ships, aircraft, trains and almost anything else. Unlike fission, which works by splitting atoms, fusion works by joining atoms together. It's the same process used by the Sun and stars for the last 20 billion years.
@user-qh3wh5vp1e
2 жыл бұрын
I saw a documentary about nuclear fusion (maybe) in 2011. it was cool, and scientists said it will be commonly used by 2020... it looks too far away
@timberbenjamin
3 жыл бұрын
This is only about fuel. Manufacture of planes and design of airports also needs a rethink.
@kiliandervaux6675
3 жыл бұрын
It just need to be specified that most biofuel are not that ecological. In the end the fuel still has to be burned, even if it is called "bio". Only the production process is cleaner and emits less co2
@ashutoshkumarjha41
3 жыл бұрын
Bringing fuels composed of hydrogen and biofuels will definitely make our planet earth more safer and cooler due to which species can dwell more happily. Excellent and innovative idea! Charming and inspiring.
@danm1930
3 жыл бұрын
Interesting video and largely correct. Although there has been a recent push for hydrogen in the UK with smaller hydrogen powered aircraft (20 seaters) predicted to enter service within the next ten years. Agree with the points that government funding is essential and even with that unfortunately air travel will end up costing more
@ramonsmediablog
3 жыл бұрын
Back in the past boat planes were the thing, people back then thought that was the future. That would be a great design.
@magusd123
2 жыл бұрын
boat planes are the worst of both world. they are heavy cumbersome aircraft and terrible draggy barely controllable boats.also they can only work on smooth water
@InterdimensionalWiz
Ай бұрын
energy? get a 340 litre wheely bin, put a gas tap in the lid, fill with kitchen waste,weeds,water and a cow pat,silicone the lid down, a methane bio digester! it will provide 50-100kw hours per month of methane natural gas for cooking,heating, it will run any engine with a spark plug, generator,car etc. after digestion what is left is called 'blackjack' the best bio fertiliser for 10x veg growing. gas storage, use a tractor inner tube , lilo,dingy,air bed,more pressure,put a brick on it. get everyone off grid!
@அவானிஉயர்ந்தது
3 жыл бұрын
What percentage are the wars responsible for the planet’s emission? I believe the problem would be solved if we could only to stop all the wars around the planet ones and for all.
@manurr10
3 жыл бұрын
They will never stop. West keeps its hegemony by embroiling the world in conflict.
@atyshlmes4360
3 жыл бұрын
please learn more about geopolitics and read quickly through the IPCC report for decision-makers. you're not wrong but there is so much more to greenhouse gas emissions.
@donovandelaney3171
2 жыл бұрын
That should be electric.
@user-qh3wh5vp1e
2 жыл бұрын
I believe the way looking at travel needs to change. Travel is expensive, consumptuous by itself and Climate change, mountains of plastic are so real.
@robwyyi
3 жыл бұрын
What is not mentioned though experimental, that hydrogen fuel plane is stripped down. Weight if not the factor in a/c design one of the central factor of design.
@sky_professor3051
3 жыл бұрын
We start with, biofuels, then hybrid electric, and then work from their.
@charlietsai1177
3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, I do believe biofuel is something that can be done right now. A lot of wasted oil can be recycled and the carbon footprint of the industry will reduce greatly without a huge increase on ticket price.
@sky_professor3051
3 жыл бұрын
@@charlietsai1177 I agree
@johnwang9914
3 жыл бұрын
Sandia Labs showed that the very means they developed to more efficiently separate hydrogen from water can be used to separate carbon monoxide from CO₂ and it is a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas (syngas) which is used to synthesize linear hydrocarbons suitable as direct replacements to jet fuel, diesel or gasoline through the Fischer Tropsch synthesis process commonly in use in our refineries. Hence if you are to attempt the hydrogen approach, you might as well just do the fuel synthesis approach and just keep existing vehicles and fuel delivery infrastructure.
@Avengerie
3 жыл бұрын
Thumbnail is POV: you are a fish in the Southern Indian Ocean.
@Umu_Eri
3 жыл бұрын
Lol
@zeebradoom4774
3 жыл бұрын
I legit went to check and I am here to confirm. I am a fish
@fl00fydragon
3 жыл бұрын
Or you could reduce divideds, all of the problems listed here are a procduct that companies can't use a large amount of the money they bamek becuase they are stuck with primitive economics that relies on infintie growth, where a business having a steady profit to investors or even a slightly lower payoff for a period to change a production method results in it being deemed a failure and it's collapse. The private corporate model is not compatible with demands of a rapidly advancing technological civilization and the challenges this brings.
@iwannabeapilot930
3 жыл бұрын
5:56 you think i didnt see what u did there editor? lol the old windows screensaver
@mtmadigan82
3 жыл бұрын
might as well title this "how southwest tickets came to cost a grand"
@ramonsmediablog
3 жыл бұрын
I don’t believe so! I highly doubt electricity could power a big huge plane. Maybe for a small Cessna but not a huge jet line.
@S2Tubes
3 жыл бұрын
Synthetic fuels, created with green energy, have the same energy density as fossil fuels. So it is possible, just expensive to set up the infrastructure required to produce it.
@carljaekle
3 жыл бұрын
Problem is not that electric motors can't be made powerful enough it's creating or storing enough electricity onboard to power the motors. Would take a lot of fuel cells to make the electricity fast enough to power a large plane. Bio fuel or burning the hydrogen in modified engines is a near term answer.
@Schroinx
3 жыл бұрын
How sustainable is biofuel really in terms of co2 emissions?
@Gogalen789
3 жыл бұрын
Jet fuel is one of the cleanest field imagineable, not like diesel fuel.
@robwyyi
3 жыл бұрын
You know jet fuel is closure to Kerosene so by that it’s similar to diesel fuel
@Gogalen789
3 жыл бұрын
@@robwyyi - Then they should use diesel fuel for jets ?
@robwyyi
3 жыл бұрын
Jet fuel is a inefficient fuel much like diesel. Like diesel it’s exhaust pollution is the worse. They are all fossil fuel so in general both pollutes the question is which one is the least. Much like coal and natural gas generators.
@Gogalen789
3 жыл бұрын
@@robwyyi Okay rocket scientist. I'll write that in my diary for today ;)
@mantabletin935
3 жыл бұрын
@@Gogalen789 they do. Plane bio-fuel is basicaly bio-diesel
@brynphillips9957
3 жыл бұрын
I find it funny that one of the reasons people argue Airships are a dead technology is that Hydrogen is the most economical gas to fill them with and it is highly flammable and now we are filling planes with big tanks of the same stuff. :P
@friederkumpf8158
3 жыл бұрын
I think liquid and gas is a difference not to be underestimated.
@brynphillips9957
3 жыл бұрын
@@friederkumpf8158 Well yes and no. Depends how the Hydrogen is stored in a liquid form since Hydrogen only exists by itself in a liquid at either high pressure or very low temperature. Regardless, I just found it funny in a tongue in cheek way.
@KarlSnarks
2 жыл бұрын
Didn't we stop flying airships for the same reason nuclear energy fell out of favor? A few horrible accidents delegitimized the whole industry in the eyes of the public?
@alanhansmannkurtcobain8811
Жыл бұрын
Very interesting alternative.
@Gogalen789
3 жыл бұрын
If a green alternative to jet fuel is developed will it be safe and reliable at 35,000 ft altitude and will it be necessary to have a jet fuel engine as a safety backup ?
@boburzod
3 жыл бұрын
Hope that nothing will be just late in 2-3 decades 🙁
@timgerber5563
3 жыл бұрын
It is not only the air travel industry that needs to change. But also alternative forms of transport need to be competitively affordable. For example, in Germany it is often a cheaper option to fly from Hamburg to Dusseldorf than to take the train. Thus, I believe airlines should be obliged to reach a certain fleet co2 consumption (e.g. via eco fuels) just like car manufacturers and car fleet operators are. Hopefully this will drive prices up, so that for national travel within an EU country it is cheaper to take the train than to fly. This should cut co2 emissions indirectly since trains can be directly operated by green electricity without energy leeks in a converting process to hydrogen or other e-gases for the time while we don‘t have a renewable energy surplus.
@Munchausenification
3 жыл бұрын
I think it comes down to low innovation in the train industry. Here in Denmark we still havent switched our trains away from diesel to electricity. Most of the trains companies use right now is less comfortable than the trains beforehand, they look worse on the inside and outside (of course thats my opinion) and the reliability on train travel (in Denmark) is a big reason for people to prefer other forms of transportation.
@thomasaquinas5262
3 жыл бұрын
A green sky requires an electric sky, and that is impossible for commercial level aircraft. Even if they make the proverbial advanced light-weight nano-scale carbon battery, the chances of electrical failure is such that no one will gamble the fate of 250 passengers to a charged battery to run 4 turbo-fans. So, we have to continue to find economies in fueled air flight and limit travel somehow...
@thunder852za
3 жыл бұрын
I think its a bit disingenuous not to mention that hydrogen is more energy-dense per kg. So, in fact, there is a large weight saving to be made by switching to hydrogen.
@tns226
3 жыл бұрын
But you need pressurised vessels to store, which weigh more, so the volume problem + storage challenge with current and horizon tech would still lead to larger planes or lower range with existing planes.
@phamnuwen9442
3 жыл бұрын
@@tns226 Exactly. I think the extra volume required by hydrogen is potentially more problematic than the weight savings, if those are actually a thing (probably not).
@JudiahSC2
3 жыл бұрын
So our plane ticket prices will be going up up UP. ^^^
@sandorsomorjai9745
3 жыл бұрын
Exactly.
@petermalkin2701
3 жыл бұрын
Your conclusions on SAF as a short-term solution are incorrect for two reasons. Firstly the public will not accept that the same planes putting out the same emissions into the upper atmosphere are acceptable because they may be running on a synthetic fuel. Secondly you have not understood the technology on the Hydrogen Electric issues- as well as problems there are also new solutions. Airbus are not following the SAF route they are planning to bring in these aircraft within 10 years. Talk to say GKN Aerospace who are leading this effort in the UK!
@agoogleaccount2861
3 жыл бұрын
Perhaps for cargo and buisness flights. But generally aircraft travel went out of style and out of vogue with the rise of excessive if not outright bizarre boarding restrictions for a variety of reasons .. From pandemic to logistics to society itself
@jaccoloos6612
3 жыл бұрын
Maybe the aviation industry could start by offering 'green tickets'. These would cost more, but they could be 0 carbon flights utilizing new fuel technologies such as hydrogen. Of course normal flight tickets could still be bought, but it might prove as a valueable kick-off point for green aviation technologies.
@Prodigious1One
2 жыл бұрын
I think that some airlines do this where the passenger can buy the carbon offsets.
@patpat5135
Жыл бұрын
May be airlines should remove business class seats and replace them by a "Green class" with basic seats and leaner on board service and !!!! at a higher price .
@pawfootage
3 жыл бұрын
Or we could build underwater high-speed railways to other continents.
@pascalsteiner9926
3 жыл бұрын
Way to expensive
@europeanunionball1198
3 жыл бұрын
The tectonic plates impedes us from doing that.
@taeyoungyou705
3 жыл бұрын
Great video and explanation!
@thanititthisukanant1444
3 жыл бұрын
Super informative 👍
@luisgustavo8727
3 жыл бұрын
The elitization of transport... so sad
@lac2275
3 жыл бұрын
@1:59 what!? water vapor is the major greenhouse gas.
@sebastianflynn1746
3 жыл бұрын
Only if sent into the upper atmosphere. Planes don't fly high enough and already produce lots of water vapour
@douglasengle2704
2 ай бұрын
Jet aircraft are huge air polluters, but It's not considered long term health detrimental. It's impossible for greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming. Global warming was officially stated at 1.1°C in 1991 and 1.06°C in 2022. There is no mechanism that would allow greenhouse gas behavior to cause global warming. The back of the United Nation's IPCC science report states it took its greenhouse gas samples at 20,000 meters altitude where it is common high school level knowledge there is no greenhouse radiant energy. This is typical practice for deceptive marketing to state legal data transparency protecting the perpetrators from fraud prosecution. Earth's greenhouse effect is frequently used as a primary example to high school students of a system always in saturation from the strong greenhouse gas water vapor absorbing all the greenhouse radiant energy from the earth with greenhouse gases within 20 meters of the surface that is all around us everyday and can't have its overall effect changed. There is no further greenhouse radiant energy to interact with greenhouse gases. At 1% average tropospheric water vapor over 99% of earth’s greenhouse effect is from water vapor. Water vapor would hold earth's greenhouse effect in saturation if it were the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Arctic warming is taking place with the proving mechanism being warm Atlantic Ocean waters migrating deeper and more frequently into the Arctic Ocean warming it and the region. That warmer water is causing a few weeks less of reflective snow and ice coverage resulting in more solar heat gain to the Arctic region surface. Atmospheric CO2 levels of 1200 ppm about three times what they are today would greatly invigorate C3 plants the majority of plant life on earth greatly greening the planet. 0.4% of the atmosphere is CO2 and on average 1% is H20 water vapor. (1% H20)/(0.4% CO2) = 25. Water vapor is 25 times more present in the atmosphere on average than CO2. Water vapor has an CO2e of 18, 18 X 25 = 450 CO2e total for water vapor to 1 CO2e for CO2. The Earth’s oceans have 3-1/2 million sea floor volcanic vents warming the water and changing it’s chemistry that have not been systematically accounted for.
@Charvak-Atheist
7 ай бұрын
Green Methanol is the answer for, Airplane, Ship 🚢, and even heavy Trucks.
@madk5864
2 жыл бұрын
Plane tickets are expensive enough. I couldn't care less about a green flight so don't put the prices up !!!
@kylemcconnaughey4611
3 жыл бұрын
Hydrogen won’t work on a large scale, batteries are the only hope. Enough water being dropped out it will fall and then it could just be a sun and then you feel water droplets, look up and see a plane
@ethansaviation2672
3 жыл бұрын
Batteries are far from hope, they can't even last a short haul flight let alone long haul.
@kylemcconnaughey4611
3 жыл бұрын
@@ethansaviation2672 yes we cannot use them currently as lithium we need them to be more dense, but they are getting there and there already are electric planes going into fleets. Hydrogen blows up and is power intensive to make
just use a kerosene electricity generator to produce electricity for the plane. easy.
@rusitoexplorador
3 жыл бұрын
Awesome information!
@cryptogeniuscanada3120
3 жыл бұрын
relax take it easy! let's have some variety! let's rollout the green initiative!
@mosesImmanuel-sc6zy
3 жыл бұрын
Aviation market only takes up 3% carbon emission that is nothing compared to others aviation is way more efficient than cars
@SHINOBI-ALX
3 жыл бұрын
Increase the tickets purchase now , due to air company will get a budget after 2 decades along with prevent or stop more carbon emission until that period of time
@marlonmoncrieffe0728
3 жыл бұрын
✈ I would LOVE to see airships (or blimps) NOT replace airplanes but definitely share the skies with them.
@Tubes12AX7k
3 жыл бұрын
As much as I would like to see them again, as well, it probably won't happen again. There is a shortage on helium now. The medical industry needs helium for test equipment which requires inert gases as a carrier gas and for other purposes.
@marlonmoncrieffe0728
3 жыл бұрын
@@Tubes12AX7k What about hydrogen gas?
@Tubes12AX7k
3 жыл бұрын
@@marlonmoncrieffe0728 Hydrogen-filled zeppelins or did you mean in the lab? Several inert gases are used in the laboratory for different purposes (helium, nitrogen, and argon) but they must be inert gases that will not react with samples you are testing. But helium and argon are expensive and rare.
@marlonmoncrieffe0728
3 жыл бұрын
@@Tubes12AX7k Sorry, I meant for airships. Hydrogen for airships.
@vascoamaralgrilo
3 жыл бұрын
Thanks!
@ranadeep7462
3 жыл бұрын
3:38
@russho4099
3 жыл бұрын
Perhaps hydrogen could be made at airports with solar no need for pipeline infostructure ect.
@rottensoul440
3 жыл бұрын
Hydrogen powered aircraft: what a brilliant idea! I'm sure a crash during takeoff won't puncture the tanks and create a terrifying explosion
@bobbaconofficial7462
3 жыл бұрын
How is this different from oil?
@phamnuwen9442
3 жыл бұрын
@@bobbaconofficial7462 Hydrogen is a lot more explosive and flammable than kerosene, and it also leaks very easily out of the smallest hole (it even leaks out in between metal molecules in the pipes and other types of plumbing, eventually weakening these parts).
@rottensoul440
3 жыл бұрын
@@bobbaconofficial7462 The moment a tank full of hydrogen breaks, it explodes, mixing the hydrogen with air and creating an explosive mixture that were to be ignited would be as powerful as tens of kilos of tnt. Kerosene doesn't even catch fire at room temperature
@rodneymarkestrella6639
3 жыл бұрын
What happened to oil dependent countries?
@totoroben
3 жыл бұрын
No
@CGB.SPENDER
3 жыл бұрын
The age of airplanes is over. Train is the future.
@Leffe123
3 жыл бұрын
You can run a turbine on biodiesel, the technology is already here, byt it will be more expensive obviously. Aeroplanes are become less polutive all the time by small incremental changes to aerodynamics and fuel efficincy
@kimlibera663
Жыл бұрын
I'd could see if they lose 100 passengers & go with more foot room this would be worth it.
@OmarAhmed-fw9uw
3 жыл бұрын
Will military aircraft be green in the future or is it only for civilian pourposes
@rohandaniel311
3 жыл бұрын
I haven't even watched the video and my answer is yes. We have carbon material, paper thin solar tech all sorts of energy recycling tech no way we can't make every vehicle 100% green.
@bilalkarkach5061
3 жыл бұрын
There is a difference between making a green plane and transform the aviation industry
@PeterBuvik
3 жыл бұрын
With batteries no hydrogen yes
@nataliaszmydt3074
3 жыл бұрын
finally solid info on the topic!
@matthewrennie1110
Жыл бұрын
Is there a way to make a plane that can run off biofuel and be net carbon zero?
@louis8935
3 жыл бұрын
Pardon.. How do u produce hydrogen ???
@sebastianflynn1746
3 жыл бұрын
By-product in refining natural gas
@louis8935
3 жыл бұрын
@@sebastianflynn1746 refining using electricity from burning coal
@sebastianflynn1746
3 жыл бұрын
@@louis8935 isn't done because the catalysts don't last long enough and are very expensive.
@louis8935
3 жыл бұрын
@@sebastianflynn1746 my point is the hydrogen being produced is made using things that depend on electricity which is made using coal
@sebastianflynn1746
3 жыл бұрын
@@louis8935 I mean that completely depends on where you live, France it would be nuclear, if the power was made solely in california its very unlikely to be coal.
@NazhanMahmud
7 ай бұрын
All Flight Grounded And Cancelled
@shihanpan969
3 жыл бұрын
Are we gonna talk about how hydrogen is unstable and thus prone to explosion or nah
@UmbraHand
3 жыл бұрын
It is prone to explosion if left in a gaseous or liquid form. There are multiple ways of storing it under development that don’t requiere that
@DonesdeMotivacion
3 жыл бұрын
If you are a believer in the USA or Germany, invest in Sun Hydrogen company ticker symbol HYSR.
@interstellar9030
3 жыл бұрын
If Airbus is taking all the efforts, what Boeing is doing.. It's not the fifties
@stevenabbott7508
3 жыл бұрын
"Live with less, eat bugs, be happy."
@radiantguy
3 жыл бұрын
Doesn't water vapour makes the atmosphere hotter eventually? I've been in a greenhouse before...so? Recycling waste would be great.
@HSFY2012
3 жыл бұрын
Greenhouses aren't hot because they are humid, they are humid because they are hot. The heat through the glass/plastic panels causes the water to evaporate out of the plants and the soil, and it can't escape and so remains in the vapour phase. Potentially it may help to cool down the Earth, in the same way that cloudy/overcast weather reduces sunlight on the ground, and less heat is absorbed by the surface.
@acharyavivek51
3 жыл бұрын
Truly amazing times ahead....
@falconeaterf15
3 жыл бұрын
If you call climate catastrophe amazing.
@diegopoveda8908
3 жыл бұрын
"Harmless water vapor" Let us remind that water vapor is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect even more so than carbon dioxide. Water vapor is not harmless, and if used in fuel cell technologies at an industrial scale society will face the same problem as it is facing right now with carbon dioxide
@spongebobroundpants9290
3 жыл бұрын
I have no clue if your telling the truth I just gotta like it just in case.
@jamesnichols5163
3 жыл бұрын
If the hydrogen is produced from water which has been condensed from the atmosphere then this effect is mostly eliminated, although I agree that more research needs to be done into the effect releasing water vapour at different altitudes has
@elizabethhenning778
3 жыл бұрын
Oh look, that guy is here. Water vapor is the largest contributor in absolute terms because there is so much of it, about 100 times as much as CO2. You've probably also heard of something called "rain" which regularly eliminates water vapor from the atmosphere. I swear the anti-green-energy crowd will believe absolutely anything.
@JetPro11
3 жыл бұрын
Water vapour is not just the most common greenhouse gas by volume but it is also the most powerful too as it acts across a larger electromagnetic spectrum.
@GLee-lk3rf
3 жыл бұрын
gliding intensifies
@markgreen6229
3 жыл бұрын
Please explain how that aircraft was built sustainable from locally available raw materials?
@alexanderagurto1529
3 жыл бұрын
Hopefully the transition to sostenible aviation will be much faster , still really nice to see that very smart people are working on it .
@rogue8533
3 жыл бұрын
Short answser : no, it can't
@lamaripiazza5226
3 жыл бұрын
Yes
@turbofanlover
3 жыл бұрын
I sure hope not.
@4623620
3 жыл бұрын
How flight can go green ? Cut off the engines, cut off the wings, cut off the wheels, make it electric !
@rogue8533
3 жыл бұрын
Electric is not clean either, humans cannot fly, let's forget about it !
@ethansaviation2672
3 жыл бұрын
@@rogue8533 well in that case we shouldn't drive, sail or even have factories.
@sevi4088
3 жыл бұрын
Let's go back to sailing ships! They only need wind to move between oceans!
@ethansaviation2672
3 жыл бұрын
Yep and take days instead of hours😎
@BrizAU
3 жыл бұрын
Just make solar powered planes! Just don't fly at night or under overcast skies. Either that or don't fly at all. Next, Inverters and fly screens in submarines.
@ethansaviation2672
3 жыл бұрын
Yeah.... no😂
@atanasiusmagnus4629
3 жыл бұрын
Any one can help with my curiosity...can they use any kind of water?
@bilalkarkach5061
3 жыл бұрын
Any kind of water ?
@brynphillips9957
3 жыл бұрын
Effectively. However the process needs to be modified and has differing costs depending on the type of water you use. For example, if your using Sea water, you would have a lot of salt that would need to be dealt with in the process which can effect the cost of processing.
@atanasiusmagnus4629
3 жыл бұрын
@@brynphillips9957 i see thank you mate, really helpful
@abhigyanbg5764
3 жыл бұрын
They should give a few to the UN just for publicity.
@roberthutton5937
3 жыл бұрын
I'm saying go greenfly go green flyer.
@srikrishnasbhat9668
3 жыл бұрын
Just paint it green, why do u wanna grow plant all over them?
@Diaming787
3 жыл бұрын
I would happily spend extra money for these air travel ran by green energy. My act would stimulate demand that would eventually be sustainable.
@phamnuwen9442
3 жыл бұрын
I would not, since "green" is a synonym for "scam". I'm not at all interested in funding the next yacht for some "greentech" snake oil salesman.
Пікірлер: 343