Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Deeps thoughts about electric airliners

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Did you know that nuclear powered aircraft were once actually a thing? Definitely not a good thing.
    I am talking about nuclear power to generate electricity to charge batteries, capture carbon, and make synthetic fuel, among other stuff. So the plane would be "indirectly nuclear".

    I am thinking of fission as a "temporary stop gap" because it is obvious that we will eventually have enough solar, wind, geothermal, hydro (including ocean currents) and tidal (and perhaps[ps fusion), among others, to feed all our needs. But I fear that that will not be soon enough to avoid a severe environmental disaster that will affect millions of humans and many times more individual of other species. It is true that fission generates radioactive waste, but it is very little (compared to the energy generated). Fossil coal also has radioactive isotopes of different elements and I read that we release more radioactivity to the environment by bringing coal and burning it than by producing an equivalent amount of nuclear energy.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

      I am talking about nuclear power to generate electricity to charge batteries, capture carbon, and make synthetic fuel, among other stuff. So the plane would be "indirectly nuclear".
      I got that. It's the half-life of fission products that makes it very problematic. But, yes, continuing to burn carbon fuel will be more directly devastating. Fusion will come to our rescue eventually, but maybe not soon enough.

      Behold, the nuclear aircraft engine:

      Click image for larger version

Name:	HTRE-3.jpg
Views:	78
Size:	405.1 KB
ID:	1123008



      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        Behold, the nuclear aircraft engine:
        Where are the water tanks? Was it a closed water circuit or an open one? (that could make a huge difference in the quantity, and hence weight, of water needed)

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

          Where are the water tanks? Was it a closed water circuit or an open one? (that could make a huge difference in the quantity, and hence weight, of water needed)
          I've had this image from way back, so I don't remember the exact details, but I think it used liquid sodium along with helium and possibly some added closed-circuit water cooling. It heated air and sent it to the turbines and used return air for cooling as well. It was a retrofit for the B-52 or the B-36. It definitely left some radiation in its wake.

          Comment


          • #20
            fluff. they dont discuss the causes of the gas powered vehicles. let's be honest, how many SPONTANEOUS gas powered vehicle fires are you personally aware of?

            Comment


            • #21
              three words: molten salts reactors. not new and not perfected. but when they are.........

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by TeeVee View Post

                fluff. they dont discuss the causes of the gas powered vehicles. let's be honest, how many SPONTANEOUS gas powered vehicle fires are you personally aware of?
                Yes, gas cars has a much bigger probability of catching fire in a crash. Electric cars have a much lower probability to catch fire in any case included in a crash and when they do catch fire there tends to nobody aboard. So?

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

                  Yes, gas cars has a much bigger probability of catching fire in a crash. Electric cars have a much lower probability to catch fire in any case included in a crash and when they do catch fire there tends to nobody aboard. So?
                  They also don't catch on fire explosively in any case. On the downside, once they catch on fire, they are very difficult to extinguish. This is one of my major concerns with placing large lithium batteries on airplanes.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    i spent 15 years as a paramedic in NYC. i responded to 100's if not more, vehicle crashes. not a single vehicle on fire. i can tell you that i also responded to many vehicle fires, but they were all insurance fraud. vehicle parked in a deserted area, no people, no crash, just an otherwise perfectly good vehicle burning.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                      Oh Dear Christ!
                      Corn-ethanol for the 172s, Bonanzae and Ciri…

                      Soybean oil for the turbines…
                      (Diesel 172s fit here, also.)

                      You’re welcome.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by TeeVee View Post

                        fluff. they dont discuss the causes of the gas powered vehicles. let's be honest, how many SPONTANEOUS gas powered vehicle fires are you personally aware of?
                        TeeVee:

                        Don’t know where you’re going here. Two fatality crashes in the last year within 1 mile of my house on a rinky dink 45 MPH road with major fire. I’ve seen lots of crashes and fires in my lifetime and on the news. Would you like to see my awesome redneck utility trailer…F-250 had a fuel pump problem…So, you never saw a fire in your time as a paramedic…so maybe fires aren’t as frequent as we think, but bull crap if you are implying that they are rare. (And your word ‘spontaneous’ is a diversion…nothing ‘spontaneous’ in a crash…those have good ignition sources AND some likely vaporization).

                        Footnote: The ARTICLE may be BS, but your “never saw a crash fire” is anecdotal and weak.
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                          TeeVee:

                          Don’t know where you’re going here. Two fatality crashes in the last year within 1 mile of my house on a rinky dink 45 MPH road with major fire. I’ve seen lots of crashes and fires in my lifetime and on the news. Would you like to see my awesome redneck utility trailer…F-250 had a fuel pump problem…So, you never saw a fire in your time as a paramedic…so maybe fires aren’t as frequent as we think, but bull crap if you are implying that they are rare. (And your word ‘spontaneous’ is a diversion…nothing ‘spontaneous’ in a crash…those have good ignition sources AND some likely vaporization).

                          Footnote: The ARTICLE may be BS, but your “never saw a crash fire” is anecdotal and weak.
                          ok, 3BS, you win!

                          seriously though, you have better analytical skills. lemme give you a place to start: how many gasoline powered vehicles are currently on the road in the US? CA alone has like 37,000,00 registered vehicles, the VAST majority of which are gasoline powered.

                          i let you mull the rest of the equation...

                          the spontaneity is a required term, since there have been a number of truly spontaneous (as in parked) electric vehicles that burst into flames.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            ***truly spontaneous*** (as in parked.
                            You mean SEEMINGLY spontaneous- pretty sure the exploding batteries happen because of a fault, not truly spontaneous- similar to your paramedic experience, I’ve never seen a battery spontaneously (or seemingly spontaneously) catch fire.

                            Plus, I think I’m more scared of something else causing the fire- a short circuit, a goose whacks the batteries…indeed these things didn’t act so great on 787s- and now we want 100,000? X storage and wattage.
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              2 weeks ago, a man in Algeria put the last gallon of leaded gas in a car. Finally leaded gas is in history forever and now gas in unleaded in all the world (except, you know, in piston airplanes). Seems we know who is going to put the last gallon of gas in a car before the whole world be EVs.

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                                2 weeks ago, a man in Algeria put the last gallon of leaded gas in a car. Finally leaded gas is in history forever and now gas in unleaded in all the world (except, you know, in piston airplanes). Seems we know who is going to put the last gallon of gas in a car before the whole world be EVs.
                                Fun fact: the inventor who first advocated for adding lead to gasoline was so sure of it being harmless that he ingested lead to prove it. After some time he became so crippled that he devised a system of ropes and pullies to help him get out of bed, which he then because caught in and it strangled him.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X