Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

JoJoPizzaG t1_iy96eom wrote

Reply to comment by PDNYFL in Rolls-Royce successfully tests hydrogen-powered jet engine | Britain's Rolls-Royce said it has successfully run an aircraft engine on hydrogen, a world aviation first that marks a major step towards proving the gas could be key to decarbonising air travel. by yourSAS

Nuclear say hi.

3

GreenAdvance t1_iya7g60 wrote

Great for generating electricity. Not so great for planes.

6

JoJoPizzaG t1_iyaalbl wrote

Exactly what this should be for now. Who know what nuclear can do if allow to advance.

There is no replacement for gasoline in commercial flight. Even if such technology exist, it probably won't implemented due to the cost of building an aircraft ($10 to $20B).

No company will be taking such as risk. Politicians will do it, because it is not their money and a big payout for their buddies.

−3

brokendoorknob85 t1_iyad0e9 wrote

This is literally about replacing gasoline with hydrogen.

Maybe don't embarrass yourself.

4

ryan30z t1_iycf7bm wrote

  1. Aircraft don't run on gasoline

  2. You don't need to design a plane from scratch for a new engine. BROADLY speaking it's mainly the horizontal tail that needs to be redesigned to account for the pitching moment from the engines. The problem with hydrogen is its lower energy density than aircraft fuel. It's the reason why electric jets don't exist

  3. This would probably be for future aircraft not retrofits.

  4. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

2

Amberskin t1_iybazwq wrote

Unless they are forced to do it. Via legislation,

1

AMatofFact t1_iy9j0mq wrote

Hello. Where do you put your waste?

3

PlaugeofRage t1_iya6p4p wrote

Preferably it's recycled. Then the unusable waste is stored. Not to mention most waste is only dangerous for around 10-20 years. Nuclear energy is really the best stop gap we have to fight climate change.

12

[deleted] t1_iydh5e4 wrote

Let’s see: every single known nuclear reactor has leaked dangerous radiation/particles into its surrounding environment, there’s waste that is dangerous for much more that 10-20 years, there’s been major accidents across the globe (not limited to one or two nations), none have ever been “profitable” and all have needed to be subsidized by the nations they are in to make the energy affordable to the consumer, has to be along a major water source (which they’ve almost universally leaked into), and is growing exponentially more expensive than renewables which are rapidly growing less expensive. They do not allow for micro grids only large, centralized grids, and you can make nuclear weapons from them. Not to mention solar generation plants and windmills can’t have “meltdowns” (oh I know, that NEVER happens right? Except for a couple of times). With the money it would take to build new “modern” reactors you can build tons of windmills and solar farms.

This is such a spent and fictitious talking point I don’t know why people still say it. The fake “green nuclear” argument has always just been propaganda and it sucks people fall for it.

0