Katoomba Monthly Temp average set to be SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

The combustion vehicles will be obsolete and with no fuel available. Everybody will be faced with purchasing a new vehicle.

---

A question that I raised some time ago (but possibly during the white noise phase) was "At what point will a fossil fuel vehicle become impossible to sell, and therefore worthless?"

It could be sooner than we think.

It's not hard to see EVs evolving quite quickly now, so getting the infrastructure in for recharging away from home will begin to become critical. The increased development speed of EVs will probably mean that more research money will go into batteries as they strive for lighter weights, higher capacities and quicker recharge times, and with that EVs will probably surge strongly.

Often you have to be in a situation to think of the consequences, but one thing that I have wondered about is people with EVs who have to park on the street (no garage). In the inner cities this is extremely common. Here I can at least park in the front yard, so no extension lead wandering across the footpath (for others to nick a recharge from....) but there are certainly some security and logistical concerns to address.

Another thing to consider is the battery cavity/storage in vehicles with current tech batteries - when new batteries come on stream they will need too be able to be easily retro-fitted to current vehicles.



Which tech will win for vehicles? Hydrogen or Batteries? I can't see room for both. The torque, acceleration, quietness, relative simplicity of motor, lack of gearbox would sure seem to favour EVs, as would it being much easier to ramp up public area recharging rather than a whole new hydrogen refill industry.

Brett

Pretty much agree with all you have said and I had not really considered the extension cord out of a ninth floor apartment, but it may be that some people have to charge their vehicles at a charging station: Not unlike going to a fuel station today, although the charging time might be longer than a tank top up. Once more charging stations abound and charging times reduce (may not be possible with lithium ion batteries as that is what cause their problems) this inconvenience will probably be minimised and absorbed into a new culture.

But... what about ships and planes? I was going to say I can't see a super tanker running on 24V Li, but maybe there will not be a need for super tankers. So make that luxury cruise liners. Will a 747 become so heavy with batteries that it can only carry a few passengers? They carry up to 239,000L of fuel which is probably a little over 220,000Kg. Is that enough battery or will they have to occasionally ditch over the ocean? In other words would electricity be viable for these two forms of transport or do we have to think again?

Regards
Paul

Just a thought but rather than waiting on charging batteries in a public place, I could see a Swap and Go type scenario emerging at service stations so you don’t own the batteries just hire
That would only work if it could be modulised

The other brainwave I had was what if our roads could be made from a solar absorbing medium, I know there has been some experimenting with the concept in the past but haven’t heard much more

A few thoughts here to many points above:

-- "Petrol" will never run out. It can be synthesised. Interestingly from coal and any other source of CO2. My car (an ancient 2001 HSV VX V8 with a 6L engine) can easily use ethanol. In fact, I used to get BPs super-sexy 105 RON which was a high mix of this and the car performance was absolutely phenomenal. The computer accommodated the different mixtures dynamically and without any updating of the engine maps or tune. This is an OLD car!

-- On Petrol 2... I invested in a few startups that does exactly this. One uses algae that produces incredibly pure ethanol using nothing but sunlight and the CO2 from the air. The other has a tech that uses solar panels (photovoltaics for energy) to such CO2 from the atmosphere using a platinum catalyst. Both are promising. I believe this so much, my super is split three ways (coal (!!!), platinum and solar companies).

-- "What of petrol cars".... I believe there will be a healthy market for engine swapouts to EV-your-car. Lightning Rods are an excellent, but extreme, example of this. 95% of people only need a city bumble-wagon and 150km ranges. Engine swaps will become a thing. I follow a few dudes in the USA who do this to VW Bettles now. They go like slingshots.

-- On street parking.... I live in a new area. The local shops and some underground parking areas have ultrachargers and the Tesla quick chargers. I'd say the future city areas might have the equivalent of parking meters that also dispense juice (the ultimate in paid parking!)

-- On street parking 2... why not combine hydrogen and batteries? I know of a comapny that selles, now, a hydrogen catalyst cell that one puts H into one end and it pumps out electrons. Use this to recharge "in emergency". Have a (small?) tank of H that one fills at a regular "Gas Station" (Ha! The yanks get one back at us!) and it uses it in emergency.

-- On Home Charging... I enquired with our buildings body corporate about putting in a charging point in our carspot. They were OK with that, but wanted to ensure it was metered and not sucking the public juice. Fair enough. No kick back from them about it, so retrofitting for units seems like it might be OK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

But... what about ships and planes?

---

I dare say they'll end up being Hydrogen powered, but the solution for cruise ships is dead simple - torpedoes. :D

The introduction of Graphene into lithium batteries seems to take care of the rapid charging problem. The current experimental ones charge in about 1/6th the time, IIRC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beardy

Just a thought but rather than waiting on charging batteries in a public place, I could see a Swap and Go type scenario emerging at service stations so you don’t own the batteries just hire
That would only work if it could be modulised

---

Swapping the batteries is likely to take longer than recharging them, even if they do reduce the size of them substantially. Currently they are pretty much the whole bottom of the car, or something like that.

Bushmiller, I've been giving things a bit of thought.

With your old creaking bunnings-hammer maintained CO2 belching smog generator (hehhe :D ) how much longer, if you absolutely had to, could it be made to run?

Is it possible to shut down each of the generating plants one at a time, use them for parts and keep 5 going, then 4.... 3, 2, 1....

I've been thinking. Everyone says the whole plant must be turned off fully on some random Tuesday, like a switch. Why? Why can't we keep 1 of the 6 grinding away Just In Case?

Why does everyone talk of it as an all or nothing affair?



Is it possible to turn it off for a while and fire it back up with a weeks notice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

What happens with ships and planes? What will they be burning?

---

You have raised some interesting challenges there, Paul.

The challenge with air travel will be the technology, but I expect the issue with shipping will be more one of governance.

Yes, bunker oil (No 6) used in shipping is one nasty one that will have to go (just behind black coal and diesel on CO₂ emissions).

Attachment 469334

But, the use of Flag of Convenience countries will be the biggest obstacle to making progress there. What incentive would a FOC country like the Marshall Islands (with pop. of just 50,000 and a fleet of over 3,000 registered ships) have to reduce its emissions!

Shipping line owners are getting the messages from populations around ports that they don't want their pollution, particularity tourist destinations, so at least the cruise line part of the industry will probably tidy up their act.

At only about 2-3% of global greenhouse emissions, shipping is probably not the highest priority to solve, although a much easier technical problem than aviation. At least the weight and size of the 'engine' and fuel load is not a major factor with boats.

Are electric vessels the wave of the future in shipping? | Environment| All topics from climate change to conservation | DW | 20.03.2018

Commercial aviation makes a similar contribution to greenhouse emissions to shipping, so still a lower order problem to solve, IMO. According to some, bio-fuel seems like the most likely contender to reduce aviation emissions in the near term.

Qantas has today announced its Los Angeles based aircraft will be powered by biofuel from 2020

Airbus Partners With SAS To Deliver Green Aircraft - Simple Flying

I delude myself that buying carbon offsets when I fly is helping. It is hard to know if I am getting what I pay for there. Some refer to them as the new indulgences with about the same level of guarantee of arriving with a 'clean' green conscience.

However, outside electricity generation and heating, road transport is still the big one to solve.

Transport is responsible for nearly 30% of the EU’s total CO2 emissions, of which 72% comes from road transportation. Quote from CO2 emissions from cars: facts and figures (infographics)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

A question that I raised some time ago (but possibly during the white noise phase) was "At what point will a fossil fuel vehicle become impossible to sell, and therefore worthless?"

---

I dunno FF, but I reckon at the rate that I turn over my cars I will have bought my last petrol model. If I last long enough to replace my recently purchased car (replacing my 26yr old Magna) it will definitely be a hydro or electric model. And, if I don't go the distance and that car outlasts me then my kids are going to know the answer to your question...:U

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

-- On street parking.... I live in a new area. The local shops and some underground parking areas have ultrachargers and the Tesla quick chargers. I'd say the future city areas might have the equivalent of parking meters that also dispense juice (the ultimate in paid parking!)

---

Dedicated on street parking for electric vehicles that also provide charging points are already common in many areas in Europe.

This one is in the very heart of Paris.

Attachment 469335

This one in the small remote town of
Mosjøen just below the Arctic Circle in Norway.

Attachment 469336

They are also here outside where I have coffee with some of my mates once a week. Not that I see many e-cars there, but that will happen.

I bought my last (and only) new car in 1980. $16K is the most I have ever paid, always buying second hand vehicles. I paid $12k for the last vehicle a couple of years ago. A 2005 Lexus ES300 with 27,000km on the clock. When we go electric I am not sure if there will be sufficient vehicles on the second hand market for my purposes. However, they may not allow me to drive by that time. Maybe I could take up horse riding again. (Millmerran to Blue Mountains about 40 days out in the wilderness).

Regards
Paul

Edit: Brett has requested pix. Not quite sure exactly what the pix would be of or if he clicked the wrong button (I have done that before). I have also managed to delete the first part of this post so apologies if it no longer making sense :shrug:. Well, even less sense.

However, not being one who wishes to disappoint.

This is the famed car. The previous owner reached 95 (years old, not mph) and decided it was time to hand in his licence:

Attachment 469362

Maybe it was for the mighty Mazdas. Can't bring myself to throw them away as the motors are still excellent. The rear wheel steering on the white one worried me when it started to go in the wrong direction travelling down the hills coming into Gloucester. Quite alarming really.

Attachment 469363

But most likely Brett was after the 'orse. Being something of a Steptoe I had to 'ave an 'orse didn' I? What was 'Arold's 'orse called? 'Ercules? Anyhow, here he is all ready to go: Just has to be broken in.

Attachment 469364

Millmerran to the Blue Mountains: 40 days: Easy. Some methane production so not entirely pollutant free.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

What happens with ships and planes? What will they be burning?

---

Hydrogen!

Attachment 469347

Serious though, the Yanks have some new Super Heavy Lifters theyve been playing with for years. The tonnage of these things are incredible: Monster Machines: The Aluminium Airship Of The Future Has Finally Flown | Gizmodo Australia

These can be fitted with computer smarts, GPS and remote guidance. No humans. Simply have fleets of these ferrying things around.

Perhaps, without planes, we can find a more civilised and elegant way to travel port-to-port?

Attachment 469349

I seem to have skipped a few posts somehow so I will return to them.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

Bushmiller, I've been giving things a bit of thought.

With your old creaking bunnings-hammer maintained CO2 belching smog generator (hehhe :D ) how much longer, if you absolutely had to, could it be made to run?

Is it possible to shut down each of the generating plants one at a time, use them for parts and keep 5 going, then 4.... 3, 2, 1....

I've been thinking. Everyone says the whole plant must be turned off fully on some random Tuesday, like a switch. Why? Why can't we keep 1 of the 6 grinding away Just In Case?

Why does everyone talk of it as an all or nothing affair?



Is it possible to turn it off for a while and fire it back up with a weeks notice?

---

WP

For a brief moment I thought you were talking about our new car (2005), which is actually the same age as the old ute (you guessed it... 2005). But I hadn't yet posted that detail when you asked this question.

Some parts in power stations would be interchangeable from station to station but not many: A bit like the tyres on my car might be interchangeable with those on yours, but just as likely not. That would be the case with Millmerran compared the other supercritical plants in QLD (Callide C, Tarong North and Kogan Creek). Those units are all different. Different turbines and different boilers.

In NSW, as I mentioned in post #697, there are twelve fundamentally similar units at four locations. They could arguably be progressively shut down and in some cases "spares" supplied to the remaining units to keep them generating. However, much of the components that wear out have to be replaced with new items. For example, the boiler tubes wear thin from erosion of the particles in the gas flow (coal and ash) and have to be completely replaced. The turbine blades may suffer damage and also have to be replaced with new components. NSW is the best placed system to undertake a progressive shut down. The sort of scenario that would see this happen is something like a transformer blowing up. It may well be that the transformer from a shut down station could be rescued. The only slight barrier to all this is that nowadays these stations that were owned by the Electricity Commission of NSW are now privately owned.

If I can draw an automotive analogy, our previous sedan was a 1995 Mazda 929. Quite a nice car but not many produced and few after market parts were made: Pretty much limited to tyres and windscreen wipers. So I bought a second vehicle to keep in reserve for when the first wore out intending to keep one running from the two cars. Big mistake. It was the rear wheel steering that was the primary concern as that I knew was very expensive to replace. It messed up on my main car and I looked into swapping them out. Before I did that I had a check done and the control arms and other wheel components were worn: On both vehicles! In other words the same components break down and there is no mileage in swapping them out. They have both been pensioned off.

Same story with the power stations. In fact Millmerran has a 50% interest in Callide C but the units are different.

As to shutting down some units in the same station, this could happen naturally if a major fault develops and it is too expensive to repair. It would then indeed become a spares store for minor parts such as instrumentation, valves, controls etc. I don't think a station would deliberately do this as it costs as much to run one unit as it does two units, apart from chopping a few jobs. All the fixed overheads remain the same.

Age of individual units and the commercial viability will mainly dictate which units shut down first.

Can units be shut down for a while and restarted? Yes, they can. We do it every year deliberately for outage maintenance: Normally a maximum of nine days. However, every five years we have a major outage for upgrades and these could go for up to six or eight weeks. We only undertake these because we have to. It is expensive to restart a coal fired power station as they have to burn oil (diesel usually, but not always) to start up and do this for some while preheating the boiler and then warming the turbine before synchronising and actually making some MWs. If a unit is "mothballed" for a longer period, the time taken and money spent to get it running again is even more protracted and expensive. Added to that, some precautions have to be taken to keep the boiler and turbine in good order while it is "parked." Not a situation to be undertaken lightly. They are certainly not available for use at a moments notice.

Regards
Paul



Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

Hydrogen!

Attachment 469347

Serious though, the Yanks have some new Super Heavy Lifters theyve been playing with for years. The tonnage of these things are incredible: Monster Machines: The Aluminium Airship Of The Future Has Finally Flown | Gizmodo Australia

These can be fitted with computer smarts, GPS and remote guidance. No humans. Simply have fleets of these ferrying things around.

Perhaps, without planes, we can find a more civilised and elegant way to travel port-to-port?

Attachment 469349

---

WP

Quite a few years back the prospect of Airships was raised and seemed to gain some traction for a while. When people talk about hydrogen cars I immediately think back to the Hindenburg (no I wasn't there :rolleyes:) and wonder how Joe public would go with the safety aspect. As I have said before, we use hydrogen to cool our generators and we are most careful with it. No naked flames, no smoking, no mobile phones, no radios.

However, modern versions advocated using helium, which is inert. I think the two main problems were that helium is expensive and nobody wanted to be limited to 100Km/hr. I have just read your link and it appears that the aluminium airship uses helium, but is a half size prototype. The production models are still to be built.

I heard that Greta Thunberg was criticised for using the sailing boat to travel from Europe to the US as it cost more than a flight would have done and consumed more energy than was consumed in the flight. That may have been true if the yacht was single use only, but I assume it was not single use.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Biofuel is a little controversial as it is still a polluter.

---

Yes, Paul, but I would think a slightly lesser evil than pure avgas.

And, yes, there are other controversies around biofuels, not least being the displacement of food growing land where they compete for arable land.

Biofuels, from ethanol to biodiesel, facts and information

A young friend drove around for awhile on used fish and chip oil. It did take him a little time to get it warmed up on a cold morning and you could smell him coming a block away!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilS

Yes, Paul, but I would think a slightly lesser evil than pure avgas.

And, yes, there are other controversies around biofuels, not least being the displacement of food growing land where they compete for arable land.

Biofuels, from ethanol to biodiesel, facts and information

A young friend drove around for awhile on used fish and chip oil. It did take him a little time to get it warmed up on a cold morning and you could smell him coming a block away!

---

Neil

I smiled at smelling your friend coming. I suppose I was thinking in terms of that more than the specifically grown crops as I do have a problem with ethanol. It uses more fuel then the pure petrol equivalent, but more of an issue is the use of land for fuel instead of food production. As the world population increases, and the need for more agricultural land arises, it will become more of an issue and will only put off the evil moment. It is still a fossil fuel and as you say, just not quite so evil.

It is a slightly different scenario if the waste components (non-edible) are utilised to produce ethanol. Having said all that, why wouldn't hemp be considered? I think the oil companies were successful in shutting down that opportunity back in the 1920s.

Regards
Paul

The E85 I was talking about is made from waste product.

Race Blend E85 - United Petroleum and About Dalby Bio-Refinery - United Petroleum

They have a thing on the site showing the process.

I believe they use Sorghum, or the product part that isn't used for food. I could be very wrong.

I like the fact that its derived from plants, so the CO2 I generate is neutral. I would, even though poor, buy a neutral product even if it costs more. I may be different to other peasants (ahem, "low cost consumers") as I believe the price of buying cheap is often, ultimately, higher (may favourite saying: "The poor man pays twice")

There's a conversation starting on this aviation thread about electric aircraft. Some discussion on hydrogen too.

I’ve been dipping in out of this excellent thread.
But just saw this in the news.


Air pollution levels plummet as coronavirus lockdown sees China's factories fall silent
Coronavirus lockdown in China has air pollution levels tumbling, NASA satellites reveal - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Cheers Matt.

Ian

The second post in that thread raised an instant problem. Modern aircraft rely on having used a good proportion of their fuel during the flight so landing weight is reduced. If a fault occurs immediately after take of they may have to jettison fuel to reduce weight. A battery will still have the same mass on landing as at take off.

As hydrogen is used the explosive limit is rapidly approached. How do we cope with this in the power station? If we have to degas the generator, the hydrogen is forced out with CO2 and then the CO2 is purged with air. The reverse procedure is followed for gassing up. We do not want an an air/H2 mix under any circumstances.:no:

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

If a fault occurs immediately after take of they may have to jettison fuel to reduce weight. A battery will still have the same mass on landing as at take off.

---

Yebbut I thought they jettisoned fuel to mitigate the chances of explosion during emergency landing?

no. Well maybe that as well, but the big thing they are doing is reducing weight because that reduces forces on the plane when it is at it's most vulnerable, moving downward into the immovable land.

:whs:

More weight requires a higher approach speed and consequently more runway to pull up. Undercarriages, especially tyres, are designed to withstand heavy landings but not necessarily involving a maximum all up weight. It all comes down to design criteria.

You can buy an electric self-launching glider or one which has an altitude sustaining motor today. I wouldn't fly in one without a parachute because there's been a number of in-flight fires caused by gel batteries over the past few years.

mick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Yebbut I thought they jettisoned fuel to mitigate the chances of explosion during emergency landing?

---

Brett

Not absolutely sure on this one, but to my mind a partially empty tank of fuel is more explosive than a full tank. Once the tank ruptures of course there is now more fuel to continue a fire/explosion if the tank was full in the first place.

I think the maximum take-off weights are higher than the maximum landing weights, but there is a qualification here: The aircraft can land at the maximum take-off weight, but I should insert the word "safely." The aircraft can land but then has to be taken out of service for checks to the landing gear to ensure it has not been overstressed. Most times the plane will fly around for a while to burn off fuel or if needed and possible fuel will be dumped. We could be talking fifty tons plus. I don't think it would be practical to take the plane out of service every time it flew so a reduced payload would be order of the day.

So in practical terms the landing weight is less than take-off weight. All that assumes that the plane was fully loaded with cargo or passengers (ie. at it's maximum take off weight).

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Not absolutely sure on this one, but to my mind a partially empty tank of fuel is more explosive than a full tank.

---

Yes, as the air increases the explosive mixture point approaches (which I think is where there is enough oxygen to burn all of the remaining fuel). That was an experiment we saw at High School (with natural gas in a can).


Well I suppose all that just means that the undercarriage would have to be completely redesigned for an electric plane and the whole plane would no doubt be redesigned anyway. Hard to see them being viable for large aircraft though because of the sheer weight of batteries required to move such a heavy object for the distances required at the speeds required - not to mention incredible recharging times at the various stopovers. Sounds like more of a job for Hydrogen.

This Wiki article has an interesting explanation of Hydrogen vs Kerosene (that link will go straight to the relevant paragraph).

It's not about explosion, it's about fire and its fuel. There have been a few instances when aircraft have run out of fuel and landed safely. No fire = no explosion.

In the case of takeoff, you're dealing a with a steady weight on the undercart which reduces gradually as the wings develop lift, the aircraft rotates and liftoff occurs. All very gentle. The process of landing involves a vertical deceleration over the few seconds when the wheels touch the runway and the various elements designed to spoil lift and/or increase drag kick in.

The maximum all up weight of an A380 is about 570 tonnes.

mick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Well I suppose all that just means that the undercarriage would have to be completely redesigned for an electric plane

---

Also the wings in a current plane store significant fuel, and they flex considerably. The additional force in a heavy landing exerted on wingtips is not insignificant, and that'd be a significant new stressor for an E-Plane if there was any battery weight in wings.

In that Wiki link they mention that Hydrogen can't be stored in the wings either, which changes the dynamics of things.

A large (fast) aircraft would surely have to be using jet engines, and I can't think how electricity can be utilised for that (anyone?). Supersonic jets can't be propeller driven either can they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bushmiller

millmerran to the blue mountains: 40 days: Easy. Some methane production so not entirely pollutant free.

---

........... : ~)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Yes, as the air increases the explosive mixture point approaches (which I think is where there is enough oxygen to burn all of the remaining fuel). That was an experiment we saw at High School (with natural gas in a can).

---

Probably as simple as the LEL and UEL (lower and upper explosive limits) Oxygen comes into that. H2 lower limit is 4%, upper limit is 75%. Petrol hardly has a lower limit! A 44gal drum that once contained petrol although empty will still keep vapours in the seams. Petrol is a bastard when it comes to explosions. If cutting or welding a 44gal drum it is recommended to rinse it three times with water before cutting or welding.

I noted in your Wiki link to Hydrogen fueled planes that the Hydrogen can't be stored in the wings, but is considerably lighter than the equivalent conventional fuel of the same energy so maybe it balances out or close.

Perhaps a point we should remember is that an alternative may not exactly replicate the conditions of fossil fuels. There may well be small downsides; Even sacrifices. This has happened before. We went from leaded petrol to unleaded petrol.

Regards
Paul

I have been referring to commercial aircraft using petrol. that is untrue as they use a kerosene blend which has a much lower volatility. Something I did not mention about Hydrogen is that it does not necessarily need an ignition source to inite at least no in the conventional sense. It can ignite from friction as in the gas escaping through a slit.

It is not as forgiving as the current fuels so considerable attention would be required to make it safe. We also have to make it more cheaply than at present. This may come with technology and increased demand.

Regards
Paul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilS

Commercial aviation makes a similar contribution to greenhouse emissions to shipping, so still a lower order problem to solve, IMO.

---

As fascinating as it is to solve the greenhouse gas emissions from aviation, it is not, IMO, a first order problem to solve.

The global aviation industry produces around 2% of all human-induced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Aviation is responsible for 12% of CO2 emissions from all transports sources, compared to 74% from road transport. Facts & figures

Road transport is now the US' largest contributor to emissions. I expect it will be similar here.

In 2017, greenhouse gas emissions from transportation accounted for about 28.9 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, making it the largest contributor of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Sep 13, 201 www.epa.gov

Electricity generation and road transport are the Mr and Mrs elephants in the room for us here in Australia.

The second order problem to solve is manufacturing, but not here in Australia as we have outsourced almost all of that to China. As the world's factory, China is emitting greenhouse gases on our behalf.

CO2 Emissions | Global Carbon Atlas

But, per capita, Australia emits more than twice the amount of CO2 compared to China.

CO₂ emissions per capita - Our World in Data

For an analysis of CO2 transfers.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-w...ters-exporters

We need to find a way of making countries that import manufactured goods to be responsible for the CO2 emissions associated with those goods. But, if we haven't found a way of locally taxing the Googles and Facebooks of this world, I'm not sure if and how we might do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Yebbut I thought they jettisoned fuel to mitigate the chances of explosion during emergency landing?

---

fuel is jettisoned to reduce weight

sourced from Boeing and Airbus

B747
Maximum Take Off Weight -- 447.5 Tonnes
Maximum Landing weight -- 344.28 tonnes
Fuel capacity -- around 190 tonnes

A380
Maximum Take Off Weight -- 575 Tonnes
Maximum Landing weight -- 386 tonnes
Fuel capacity -- around 254 tonnes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poundy

no. Well maybe that as well, but the big thing they are doing is reducing weight because that reduces forces on the plane when it is at it's most vulnerable, moving downward into the immovable land.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glider

:whs:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

So in practical terms the landing weight is less than take-off weight.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian

fuel is jettisoned to reduce weight

---

Ok, reasonably clear on that now. :crutch:

On Jets, not just for landing weight and safety, I would have thought it would be for efficiency too.

Of what point is hauling an extra 200 tons of fuel to the destination? Surely it would be best to land literally on vapours, as the overall "cost" of fuel used for the trip would be less - plus lighter is faster (think F1 cars).

Multiply this by 1 million flights and that's a very big number.


I suspect this is driven more by accountants than lawyers/safety Nazis.

Designing a plane to land with a full fuel load doesn't strike me as a big deal. It all reeks of cost/benefit analysis with total weight (of the Needed Extra Beefiness) vs fuel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeilS

.....
However, outside electricity generation and heating, road transport is still the big one to solve.

Transport is responsible for nearly 30% of the EU’s total CO2 emissions, of which 72% comes from road transportation. Quote from CO2 emissions from cars: facts and figures (infographics)

....

---

How times change. One hundred years ago when the T-model Ford was replacing horses, people lauded the new fangled horseless carriages as being so much less polluting than poor old Dobbin.

According to ABS, there were 14.5 million passenger vehicles in Australia on 31 January 2019. Let us consider a scenario where each car is replaced by one horse - 14,500,000 horses and most of them in the cities because that is where we live. Sure would generate a lot of manure. Happy times for gardeners!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodPixel

Of what point is hauling an extra 200 tons of fuel to the destination? Surely it would be best to land literally on vapours

---

And when you arrive at your intended destination you are informed that the runway is closed and you have to divert to another one. :o

Very good article from NASA sent to me overnight.

Why Milankovitch Cycles Can't Explain Earth's Current Warming – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Key points:

• Milankovitch cycles operate on long time scales, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years
  
• Earth’s current warming has taken place over time scales of decades to centuries
  
• NASA satellite observations show that over the last 40 years, solar radiation has actually decreased somewhat
  
• Since the beginning of the Industrial Age, the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has increased 48 percent
  
• In just the past 20 years alone, carbon dioxide is up 11 percent
  
• the warming effects of carbon dioxide on our planet are 34 times higher than any warming due to the Sun
  
• Earth is currently in an interglacial period - the Milankovitch cycles predict our planet should be cooling, not warming, continuing a long-term cooling trend that began 6,000 years ago

So that all backs up the argument that CC has always been happening, and always will.

The unfortunate part of relying on that argument for anthropogenic CC denial is that the current natural CC would actually be cooling the planet, not warming it at unprecedented rates. :;

Potassium metal battery emerges as a rival to lithium-ion technology

Nice :)

Some of the science being done right now is super good.

Capillary-driven desalination in a synthetic mangrove | Science Advances