Thats easy to say, but realistically, everything that comes in contact with the nuclear waste becomes waste. Currently they dilute it and pour it into concrete blocks or try glassification. This just makes a bigger volume of diluted waste. Whatever containers you place it in become waste. If only it were that easy.
Agreed, I imagine all the times I've traveled to Europe or South America and realize that 100 years ago I would have spent my life on a boat or train.
Hydrogen may have a lot of energy per kg, but it does not have the highest energy density which is the critical metric in transportation. That is one of the reasons why it is so difficult find a good substitute for hydrocarbons. The amount of energy packed per cubic cm is rivaled only by exotic fuels or nuclear energy which is my opinion is not an option.
I think the world needs to use a porfolio strategy when it comes to energy. Increasing the contribution of windp power dramatically would be a start. It is the most cost effective of the "alternatives" but at the same time we need to pour more research into solar, geothermal, wave etc... That and impeach Bush and the entire neo-conservative core that is ruining the United States and the rest of the world. Well maybe I'm a bit off topic...
I think you're right, by comparison to other forms of mass transit airplanes are poor. But is that why we are taking a plane? I don't think anyone takes the plane because they are trying to rideshare, more because they want to cover a distance fast. - Anyway you are right, airplanes need to be designed to use less fuel!
I think they will have to move towards hydrogen powered turbines for jets and fuel cell powered electrics for shorter distance/ lower speed aircraft. One statement that confused me in the orginal economust article was:
"Another way of addressing the problem of CO2 emissions is through hydrogen-powered aircraft (assuming the hydrogen is generated in a green fashion). Researchers are developing craft where hydrogen is used as the fuel for jet engines and gas turbines. The potential flaw in this plan is that burning hydrogen will generate water. "Bucket loads" of it, says David Lee, an atmospheric scientist at Manchester Metropolitan University. The atmospheric science is unresolved, so it is not known whether hydrogen-powered aircraft would generate more vapour trails than existing planes. But the clouds that can result from these trails are currently one of aviation's largest contributions to climate change."
So does puting water in the atmosphere have a significant impact of climate change? Surely the daily evaporation of water from the ocean is a much bigger source of water. There are two sources of water in a contrail. 1. Condensation on the wing (Probably the majority) and part of the reaction of burning kerosene which produces CO2+H2O.
You're right, airplanes need to be more ecologicaly friendly. However, your statment that the energy cost for travel by flight is higher than for other transpor methods is not true.
A Cesna airlpane can get between 15 and 30 miles to the gallon. A jet when you devide the the fuel consumption by the number of people being carried isn't bad either. They are similar in efficiency to the cars we drive.
As for making hydrogen by nuclear means, why do people always bring up nuclear power. There is no safe way to dispose of the waste yet and this is unlikely to come anytime soon. Until then, it's just a time bomb until there are serious environmental issues from radioactive waste that leaks into our water supply.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats easy to say, but realistically, everything that comes in contact with the nuclear waste becomes waste. Currently they dilute it and pour it into concrete blocks or try glassification. This just makes a bigger volume of diluted waste. Whatever containers you place it in become waste. If only it were that easy.
Hydrogen may have a lot of energy per kg, but it does not have the highest energy density which is the critical metric in transportation. That is one of the reasons why it is so difficult find a good substitute for hydrocarbons. The amount of energy packed per cubic cm is rivaled only by exotic fuels or nuclear energy which is my opinion is not an option.
I think the world needs to use a porfolio strategy when it comes to energy. Increasing the contribution of windp power dramatically would be a start. It is the most cost effective of the "alternatives" but at the same time we need to pour more research into solar, geothermal, wave etc... That and impeach Bush and the entire neo-conservative core that is ruining the United States and the rest of the world. Well maybe I'm a bit off topic...
I think they will have to move towards hydrogen powered turbines for jets and fuel cell powered electrics for shorter distance/ lower speed aircraft. One statement that confused me in the orginal economust article was:
"Another way of addressing the problem of CO2 emissions is through hydrogen-powered aircraft (assuming the hydrogen is generated in a green fashion). Researchers are developing craft where hydrogen is used as the fuel for jet engines and gas turbines. The potential flaw in this plan is that burning hydrogen will generate water. "Bucket loads" of it, says David Lee, an atmospheric scientist at Manchester Metropolitan University. The atmospheric science is unresolved, so it is not known whether hydrogen-powered aircraft would generate more vapour trails than existing planes. But the clouds that can result from these trails are currently one of aviation's largest contributions to climate change."
So does puting water in the atmosphere have a significant impact of climate change? Surely the daily evaporation of water from the ocean is a much bigger source of water. There are two sources of water in a contrail. 1. Condensation on the wing (Probably the majority) and part of the reaction of burning kerosene which produces CO2+H2O.
You're right, airplanes need to be more ecologicaly friendly. However, your statment that the energy cost for travel by flight is higher than for other transpor methods is not true. A Cesna airlpane can get between 15 and 30 miles to the gallon. A jet when you devide the the fuel consumption by the number of people being carried isn't bad either. They are similar in efficiency to the cars we drive. As for making hydrogen by nuclear means, why do people always bring up nuclear power. There is no safe way to dispose of the waste yet and this is unlikely to come anytime soon. Until then, it's just a time bomb until there are serious environmental issues from radioactive waste that leaks into our water supply.