onlooker wrote:What Energy unlimited says is also akin to what Republican voters do, when they vote in politicians who minimize or downplay the AGW or other environmental concerns but rather harp on about how "It's the Economy stupid". Well, at some point those people will be forced to wake up and realize that all along the Economy is but a subset of the Environment and wholly dependent on it.
Suicide Mission?
KaiserJeep wrote:Many people are denying the obvious, that 7 or 9 or 15 billion humans are just too many for the planet to survive. It's not the political system, the economic system, the type of agriculture, climate change, or anything else. It is simply population overshoot, too many people and not enough stuff to feed them and keep them healthy.
Yet as conditions worsen, our reproduction rate will increase. That is how evolution has shaped us to handle adversity. As the population increases, the damage we do to the pitiful remnants of what resources mankind had before will also increase dramatically.
SeaGypsy wrote:There's still no replacement for kerosene jet fuel, which aside from getting a lot of us around from time to time, provides a heat shield which will also vanish.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada wrote:That is quite a stretch of a statement SG. For example roasting most types of coal gives you a few gallons per ton of 'coal oil' aka Kerosene during the coking process. In addition to that South Africa has been manufacturing Kerosene/Diesel#2/Gasoline for decades using the FT cracking process starting from raw coal, other companies like Shell have offered drop in Methane to Kerosene conversion plants to convert stranded natural gas or biogenic methane as feedstock to make liquid fuel. Failing all of the above jet engines can be 'tuned' to run on alternative fuels like Dimethyl Ether, Ammonia, or even liquified natural gas.
dohboi wrote:"I would feel extremely uneasy to board a plane carrying few tens of tons of liquid ammonia on it.
Minor leak could result in quite a horrible death of passengers."
Nice point!
On your last claim, is that based on any evidence, or are you just spreading groundless paranoia here?
You may (or may not?) be interested to know that some areas where one might not expect it, things are going in a different direction (and yes, I have evidence ):
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featu ... 09603.html
EnergyUnlimited wrote:Tanada wrote:That is quite a stretch of a statement SG. For example roasting most types of coal gives you a few gallons per ton of 'coal oil' aka Kerosene during the coking process. In addition to that South Africa has been manufacturing Kerosene/Diesel#2/Gasoline for decades using the FT cracking process starting from raw coal, other companies like Shell have offered drop in Methane to Kerosene conversion plants to convert stranded natural gas or biogenic methane as feedstock to make liquid fuel. Failing all of the above jet engines can be 'tuned' to run on alternative fuels like Dimethyl Ether, Ammonia, or even liquified natural gas.
Combination of GTL and FT would be perhaps the most efficient idea to produce synthetic kerosene.
All other fuels you have mentioned are fine, with the exception of liquid ammonia perhaps.
I would feel extremely uneasy to board a plane carrying few tens of tons of liquid ammonia on it.
Minor leak could result in quite a horrible death of passengers.
Also it reacts with aluminium alloys used in aviation as well as with copper wiring. Bad corrosion results. Too many possibilities for mishaps.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada wrote:First, its not like you are piping the fuel through the Passenger cabin on its way to the engines, in most passenger aircraft all the tanks are in the wing structure itself. Also if you are switching form jet A to Ammonia the aircraft will need significant modification, its not a drop in fuel manufactured synthetic kerosene or even dimethyl ether. For one thing it needs to be kept under a minor level of pressure to remain liquid, so you would have to replace all the tanks and fuel lines anyway, might as well do a full upgrade if you are going that far. Secondly because ammonia is a vapor at sea level pressure and even more so at high altitude any leaking tank or line will be releasing a rapidly vaporizing fluid that will blow away without leaving behind flammable residue. A Kerosene leak on the other hand puddles and saturates fibrous materials like cargo netting or sound proofing panels which creates a long duration fire hazard in the event of a mishap.
Newfie wrote:Or maybe we just conserve?
dissident wrote:What is needed is an industry to convert CO2 back to synthetic carbon fuels with desired volatility properties. Of course there is no free lunch and energy will need to be sunk into this process. But generating C8 type hydrocarbons using catalytic chemistry would be more intelligent than trying to use pressurized fuel tanks for H2, CH4 or NH3. It would also nullify any global warming effect of these fuels.
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 128 guests