roguetrick

To think that two feminist icons would be named Margaret Hamilton

Dibs on oddjob.

What do you mean? I favor synthetic aviation fuel derived from hydrolysis which is very lossy on energy and would largely kill most current air routes in favor of trains. I think a 40x price increase on fuel is likely, but the actual implementation is proven since it's essentially plug and play with existing infrastructure. I think the best way to make up for the subsequent loss of profitable air routes is electrified rail. This tech isn't for getting off oil though, it's for reducing use at best and if it actually does improve efficiency it would be used along with synthetic fuel.

I haven't really seen proposals for planes that are full electric beyond just toys for rich people to do short hops but you might be right that battery planes might make sense with future battery tech. I just don't see anything justifying it right now.

On the subject of energy efficiency though, you're absolutely right. Synthetic aviation fuel is an order of magnitude more expensive than batteries.

I said I understood why it could potentially be useful in my original post for take off and landing. I'm curious why we keep retreading this after I've repeated it in every post I've made so far. I'm doubtful the extra weight is worth that one use case compared to just using extra fuel. I think we need to seriously invest in synthetic aviation fuel and price things fairly. Then how this sort of efficiency shakes out will likely be important with that new cost structure incorporated.

You want to know why I don't believe we'll get batteries with enough energy density for sustained long haul flight? I was responding to their last sentence. Ya know, acknowledging that batteries more dense than hydrocarbons isn't really on the radar so for that aspect of things synthetic aviation fuel is pretty much what you gotta accept to go for zero carbon. I had already agreed with them that it's potentially more efficient in takeoff in my initial post. They just expanded on why. I frankly am perplexed at what you think I'm dismissing since we largely agree.

I don't think you'll ever get there for flight personally. Just need to accept synthetic aviation fuel as the only real option for energy density (both volume and weight) and accept certain modalities being absolutely priced out of air transport.

I guess my main issue is you're now flying around with those takeoff batteries and extra engine components. Is that really ever going to be worth it for anything but those short hop flights this is designed for? And if not why are we even investing in this because those short hop flights frankly need to be eliminated for trains anyway.

I can understand a hybrid train because of certain sections of track electrification issues and the fact that diesel electric is how even trains that run entirely on diesel operate so you're essentially just toting around a generator to operate your already electric engine. I understand hybrid cars with regenerative braking and range extension. I don't really understand hybrid planes.

Like I can imagine electric is more efficient for takeoff because electric engines produce more initial power generally than what fossil can match per engine size(a big part of both hybrid trains and cars both using batteries for initial acceleration) and then you cruise with jet fuel. I'm just having a hard time imagining it is worth it from a defossil fuel perspective or from a straight efficiency perspective.

One funhole. Also I don't really know why people are downvoting your comment.

Yeah you view social action as transactional, we get it.

I personally am not looking to join a shitting party and I thought popes only shit in the woods @popekingjoe@lemmy.world

Donut.