World’s first crewed liquid hydrogen plane takes off::undefined

  • Revanee@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The point is that, unlike kerosene, hydrogen can be made using clean energy

    • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The point is that, until electrolysis is cheaper than using natural gas, it will continue to be made with natural gas.

      • iturnedintoanewt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, but now the onus is moved away from finding a non polluting engine, which needs to be on the moving vehicle, to a non polluting fuel, which can be produced anywhere. And can technically and with proper regulation be produced with no pollution. Which is a lot more than the current state of affairs.

        • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s really lucky for fossil fuel companies who will be making bank on hydrogen, and stalling any research or innovation in green hydrogen. You act like there are no major players making tons of money from hydrogen already, who don’t want electrolysis to gain any ground against the status quo which is making them filthy rich

          • iturnedintoanewt@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            Again, this can be achieved through regulation. Regulating the source of hydrogen manufacturing process, for once. If a government wants, it can do it and enforce it.

            • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Have you heard of regulatory capture? What makes you think we’ll regulate hydrogen, when we’re not regulating fossil fuels, which is why we’re in this mess in the first place? The first thing these companies are going to do is say that we need to be deregulated to fight climate change.

              • xodoh74984@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You are a person arguing to do nothing to attempt to solve the problem of CO2 emissions from airplanes, which account for a very large proportion of global emissions. You are arguing incessantly about why progress shouldn’t be made. Cut it out. The energy density of liquid hydrogen makes it the only viable fuel source for air travel that isn’t a petrochemical. That’s why this is important. Fuck your whining about boogymen in the fossil fuel industry as a backdrop to this. It’s irrelevant. What matters is progress, because zero carbon air travel is probably the most difficult challenge we face in cutting fossil fuels out of modern society.

                • jet@hackertalks.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Very well said. 100% agreed. We can’t let perfection be the enemy of good progress. This is absolutely necessary work and a good demonstration that hydrogen fuel is viable.

                • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  bogymen in the fossil fuel industry? You absolute fucking moron, THEY ARE THE BAD GUYS. the fuck are you talkin about bogeymen? Is the fossil fuel industry not culpable then? Fuck off, you’re not serious.

                  • xodoh74984@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Your fears are making you advocate to impede progress. The government supercedes the fossil fuel industry. That is my point. Yes, there are many barriers to us seeing any meaningful action, including regulatory capture and general corruption by the interests of the fossil fuel industry, but that is absolutely not a reason to give up on addressing the issue of carbon emissions in air travel. The fossil fuel industry advocates are boogeymen. At the end of the day they have no power over the government, and you are acting like they’re “too scary” to be confronted.

                    Moreover, that is not the point when it comes to technological advancements to make modern society carbon neutral. We should celebrate every advancement that gets us closer to that goal. And yes, I am fully aware that we are very late and millions of innocent lives will likely be lost to the affects of climate change before we get there. But that is all the more reason to work harder.

      • pedroapero
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        So what, we keep burning coal because it is cheaper ?

        • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          nice false equivalency. And I’m not prescribing anything, I’m describing what is currently happening, and that it will continue to happen until electrolysis is more profitable than natural gas.

    • KSP Atlas@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It can be, but it takes a huge amount of power to do it, and the biggest hydrogen production method (reforming) produces GHGs itself

      • where_am_i@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So what? Build solar plants in Africa, pump out hydrogen, keep flying as often as you want emissions free. It is a solution and as such a hydrogen plane is a massive advancement towards a sustainable future for the aviation. Whether it will turn oit this way is a different question.

        • Pottsunami@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Make it with nuclear power. Turn water to hydrogen and oxygen. Release the oxygen. Package the hydrogen. Burn the hydrogen and it mixes with the oxygen. Maybe eject the spent radioactive fuel into space some day?

          • jayandp@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Disposing of radioactive material via space is not a great idea. Not to mention the cost inefficiencies, the risk of something going wrong with the rocket and spreading nuclear material all over the place is non-zero.

            • anlumo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nothing has zero risk attached. We’re pumping radioactive material into the atmosphere all the time in coal power plants, and nobody bats an eye. This isn’t even a failure condition, this is just normal.