Jump to content

Ian

Members
  • Content Count

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About Ian

  • Rank
    Well-known member

Information

  • Aircraft
    Defiant
  • Location
    ACT
  • Country
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. While Hydrogen may play a part in low emission steel production, it's hard to see it being used as a transport fuel. As a storage medium its less efficient than using compressed air. Storage is hard, to get around this you have some people promoting ammonia as the solution however handling ammonia is difficult and it has a low energy density. There are also people promoting hydrogen saying that we can just substitute hydrogen for natural gas. However this is harder said than done, from the following link Energy during peak generation periods is likely to get very cheap
  2. The view that climate change is wrong is slowly being crushed by real science, because the issue appears to be real. Doing a little bit of "reading" rather than opining you might find that the IPCC was created by the US Government's lobbying to counter the impact of the unrestrained views and opinions of independent scientists allowing a political component to the views. Real science and research is slowly pushing the doubting Thomas' and vested interest groups into submission. The IPCC has no power it is simply a platform which is actually using aggregate research to provide a conse
  3. The IPCC document is one of the most heavily politicized documents on the planet and has upset numerous scientific contributors in relation to the watering down of their research and comments. Every single version has undergone significant watering down of the projections. Never once has it gone up. However slowly the message has been getting stronger. https://www.politico.eu/article/leaked-documents-show-major-polluters-try-to-water-down-un-climate-report-cop26-climate-change-co2-greenhouse/ Fundamentally this is because the message significantly impacts the bottom line of larg
  4. Hi All, Engines generate a lot of waste heat and was wondering if anyone was aware of using the areas of the wing that tend to ice up to remove this heat rather than a stand alone radiator. I think that one of the supermarine planes used this approach. The Mosquito used wing radiators however they were actual cavities. Would this stop icing and would it produce thrust/additional lift?
  5. It's not a growing question, and yes there will be consequences. It's pretty much that simple, the more you read the worse the story gets. I think that you're going down the same path that people went down in the late 1990s and understanding the difference between trends, and individual measurements. Anyone can cherry pick a few points on a graph and say see. However generally those same people don't change their mind when this is pointed out to them, people tend to believe what they want to believe. I don't want to believe in climate change however the weight of evidence forces me to do
  6. My baseline assumption is that that the price of fossil fuel will be the base cost plus the cost of extraction of that much CO2 from the air and convert it into a stable long term solid or liquid. Most transport will go the way of electric vehicles, those that can't will continue to use liquid fuels at a higher cost. At that price premium some other fuels that don't have to pay the extraction tax will start to look attractive. Hopefully there will be a degree of innovation which facilitates lower costs in this area. I don't know however it will put a floor under oil crops. You're rig
  7. I would like people to put some effort into their opinions rather than telling me about how on day a rock fell from the sky, hit them in the head and that it means the world is ending. The statement quoted below was simply incorrect. If you make a poorly thought out comment that is easily refutable then so be it. Agriculture is a business just like selling derivatives, you'll go broke not doing that bookreading stuff regardless of whether you're in agriculture, futures or building. There's always someone who's willing to work harder than you so to succeed you need to be a bit s
  8. Your conflating unrelated issues, farmer grow crops for money. If there's more money in fuel they'll grow fuel. Agricultural goods have been driven to very low prices historically and may rise. This is a good thing for agricultural producers and exporters and may lead to people not feeding grain to cattle. Currently about 36% of grain production goes to animal feed with only 55% used as human food. If you suspect it do some research using government sites, your suspicions are just plain wrong and yes they account for all the things you mention. The term that you're looking for is Net Ener
  9. Where do you get your "independent research" from? Facebook or independent researchers on the Internet? The science is absolutely blindingly clear and as a theory has been ascendant since the 1980s. When you look for factual advice look to scientific journals, even ones like new scientist or scientific american there is no debate, no lack of consensus and only the scientifically illiterate believe otherwise. The Murdock press has been consistently anti-scientific orthodoxy, giving every crank and their dog a forum from which to wax lyrical. The problem is not hydrocarbons it is simp
  10. It requires some fuel, the returns are far greater, it requires about 40-55L fuel per hectare to crop canola. The yield is 400-900L per hectare. On a 2000 hectare property that's quite a bit of oil. I'm not saying that other processes can't produce liquid fuels with net zero emissions however the agriculture route is a well understood one. Nobody will force farmers to grow crops at a loss, they'll only do it if it makes them money. There are also lot of people betting on ammonia as a fuel created from cheap solar and wind, that sounds an awful lot like the Haber process for fixing nitrog
  11. The emissions reduction index from the United States National Biodiesel Board showed that the combustion of biodiesel wholly as a transportation fuel decreased total hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, carbon, and sulfur emissions by 67%, 80%, 48%, and 100%, respectively. There's a slight increase in NOx however this is not across the board. NOx is just an equilibrium chemistry reaction, the hotter and hence more efficient your combustion process is the more NOx you produce. Cool the flame, inject water or add some exhaust gas and you force the reaction the other way. The other opt
  12. On the fuel note, does anyone know if an experimental diesel powered airplane has flown in Australia? I think that someone in Tasmania was looking to put a Subaru diesel in a plane and I'd be interested to know how far they've got or did it all become too hard. I think that the biodiesel route is probably simpler and cheaper than the other fuel pathways in the longer term.
  13. I'm happy to take a bet on this fantasy if you wish. In Norway 80% of vehicles are now electric, in Europe 20% of sales are now electric, Australia's stance is an outlier however we're being dragged into a carbon market. Now I own a petrol burning vehicle however I accept that at some point fossil fuels are going to be taxed like buggery and the tax breaks for electric will be pretty compelling, either that or biofuels.
  14. The pain is necessary, to believe otherwise is naive and change needs to occur on all fronts. Unless you're completely withered you're going to see a massive change in your lifetime, which will probably lead to significant conflict and human misery. Our own bushfires have just been the beginning, the barrier reefs will be a tragedy and mass ocean extinctions due to acidity combined with warming. However the key message is carbon neutral not the death of ICE, I would guess that for cars battery powered electric will end up being the cheaper option. However all this is off the topic of a
  15. The changes will take a long time if the change is dependent upon building new infrastructure. For example in the graph above look at the adoption time of change that required infrastructure with end to end connectivity. Cars required better roads and fuel distribution mechanisms, electricity required distribution networks and power generation stations. For example if you had a hydrogen refueling station, how do you get hydrogen to that station? Do you liquefy it, build a pipeline or manufacture it onsite from the electricity grid. Because where you make it isn't where people want to use
×
×
  • Create New...