6 ms·
>Fossil fuel driven flight is not viable in a sustainable future. We need to understand this. But it's the reality. Electrification of individual ground transp
by aphextron 8y ago
>Fossil fuel driven flight is not viable in a sustainable future. We need to understand this.
But it's the reality. Electrification of individual ground transportation, and the phasing out of gasoline cars, is absolutely inevitable over the next 20 years. But jet fuel isn't going anywhere for a long, long time. It's just a matter of physics. It's foreseeable to have small scale electrified commuter aircraft shuttling people within 400 miles. But any type of long haul flight will be done with turbine engines burning kerosene. Even with a 10x increase in energy density for LiPo batteries, we still wouldn't be there.
- longerthoughts 8y agoI don't disagree with anything you've said, but not having a viable alternative to fossil fuel driven flight right now doesn't justify accelerating the damage it's doing by leaning further into it.
- ThomPete 8y agoBy that standard you shouldnt be using the internet. The “damage” is questionable to say the least. There is a whole group of poor people who need access to fossil fuels to survive, but are you going to stop them from getting it in the mame of climate change? Are you goin to stop buying computers and other products build and distributed using the internatioal supply change? If not why expect others to do what you dont?
- worldsayshi 8y agoI don't understand this logic. How does one action with unfortunate side effects excuse another? Sure perhaps we shouldn't be using the internet. Or perhaps we should do a lot more to make sure that the energy used for powering the internet is sustainable. But our deficiency in that area doesn't make this activity any better.
- ThomPete 8y agoWho are you to decide what is ok and what is not? How do you know that building a supersonic jet doesent open up for other technologies or methods that wil improve effectiveness of fuel consumtion? I dont understand with what logic you get to decide that your consumption is ok but other peoples use isnt.
- godelski 8y agoAviation is small fish though. REALLY small fish. This type of aviation even more so. It accounts for only 1-2% of anthropomorphic CO2eq production. Benefits outweigh the bad. I'm not aware of climate scientists actually caring about supersonic travel. I'm kinda surprised to see this kind of hostility. Same thing happens when nuclear is suggested even though the IPCC HIGHLY advocates its use. It is all about relative impact. Part of the problem with resolving climate change is that even the people who acknowledge it fight among themselves and don't push for both current technologies (which includes nuclear) and research for new technologies (fusion, batteries, and better solar/hydro/wind). We need to just listen to what the experts say, not what you read in some blog post or HN comment.
- idontpost 8y ago> I'm not aware of climate scientists actually caring about supersonic travel. Because there isn't any. None. Zero. Why would you be aware of people worrying about something that currently doesn't exist?
- godelski 8y ago> Why would you be aware of people worrying about something that currently doesn't exist? I'm not sure how to break this to you, but scientists are generally aware about up and coming technologies. And we do think about potential future impact. So let me rephrase >>I'm not aware of climate scientists actually caring about potential future implementations of supersonic travel.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y agoThat’s because they’re more aware of the history of commercial supersonic transport than the investors at Boom, and therefore have no reason to worry.
- jessaustin 8y agoHaters can't make up their minds...