What will happen to airliners when kerosene becomes too expensive?

Yes.

algal biofuel development

>>979057
No.

>>978975
We will have a worldwide network of vacuum tube trains, which will be cheaper and more sustainable than planes.

>>979085
>unironically supports hyperloop

Dude go suck Elon off somewhere else

>>978975
We will have blimp train

>>979065
This. Commercial airliners have already flown using algal biofuel. The production just isn't scaled to the point where it's cost-competitive yet.

>>979291

Blimp train is love

things like hydrogen is a mess, you have to put more energy into it then what you can get back from it

>>979521
Just like anything else

>>979535
no, you don't get it do you, it costs more to create it then what it delivers. Oil for instance does not, sure it costs energy to get it out but inside the oil is more energy then what it took to get it out

>>979603
Just because the planet did it for you doesn't mean if took no energy to do it.

>>978975
Zeppelins are fucking awesome, so I hope so.

>>979085
Go away, Mr Putin

>>979644

You can claim that the energy required also should include all the energy it took for the evolution of a micro organism into a human because that played a factor too.

But you don't see all of that on your bill now do you?

>>978975
implying there are only 2 options.

Distributed electric propulsion
biofuels
synthetic fuels
not to mention that fossil fuels will only incrementally increase in cost for the next 50-100 years.

>>980081
The point is that fuel is an energy storage. It doesn't matter how energy efficient the process to make it is if you have a lot of time and a constant input of cheap energy. Producing hydrogen is like charging a battery. Just trickle it overnight and blow it out over a trip.

>>978975
what >>979065 and >>979403 said. Biofuel-powered planes are the future. There's a potentially phenomenal investment there, now's just not the time.

>>981206
wait fuck this isn't /biz/

>>979521
Hydrogen would be hard because you would need quite a lot of hydrogen. To store it you would need to pressurize large canisters of hydrogen, which will add much weight to the plane. Because it is pressurized, it will require thick sturdy tanks which will be very heavy. also the plane would need to burn it in some combustion engine as opposed to using a fuel cell, because fuel cells can also be heavy. A hydrogen converted plane may be too heavy to get off the ground.

>>979603
That violates the laws of thermodynamics.

>>981218
It does indeed. Creating hydrogen by splitting water costs more energy than that what comes free by burning hydrogen, so using hydrogen as a fuel source for burning is never usuable.

File: Thunderbird-Fireflash.jpg (40KB, 403x292px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 403x292px

>Will we be able to use small nuclear fusion reactors?
>Atomic Jet

Sounds like the Fireflash from Thunderbirds.
And a quick search of Google produces this: http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1964

>>981541
He explicitly claimed that oil (whatever its ultimate usable form may be) produces more energy than it takes to extract, refine, and move it. That's blatantly false.

>>981541
> so using hydrogen as a fuel source for burning is never usuable
That's not even close to true. Stop talking about things you have no understanding of.

>>981541
As a means of having transportable, transferable power it obviously does you gigantic retard. The electricity you're using, do you think there are no losses in producing it and getting it to your home either?
>hurrdurr electricity is useless

>>981560
If it did not, extracting it would not be possible and there would be no profit
>he doesn't even read 101

>>981562
It is, why first split the water with eletricity, so that then you can burn the h2 again? Why not just use the electricity to propell in the first place?
>learn to thermodynamics and laws of energy

>>981996
>Why charge batteries from the grid when you can be tethered to the grid at all times?

Like it was mentioned earlier, what you don't understand is that fuels are an energy storage, not an energy source.

Do you run your zeppelins tethered to a train connected to the electric grid?

You split water into hydrogen where the infrastructure allows, and over a long time. Then you blow it up really fast when you need it.

>>981996
My goodness you're a special kind of stupid, aren't you? How much energy per unit of weight/volume in storage can you get from hydrogen? And how much do batteries cost again? And how much juice per second can you get out of a battery vs a gas burner? Which cost less? How long does it take to charge a battery, vs refilling a hydrogen tank? How much stored energy is lost in transporting a tank of hydrogen vs losses in a powergrid if you're to be directly connected over large distances?
Energy is about making it transferable and accessible. There are various ways to do this. Hydrogen is one very good one. You're ignorant beyond belief.

>>978975

it looks like he's about to ground loop it at the end there

needs +5 agility to reach the rudder pedals sooner

>>981994
You don't know how to read.

>>981996
You dumb fucking nigger, you literally said you can't burn hydrogen as a fuel source. That is blatantly fucking false. I mean, if you don't understand that hydrogen can be and is used as a fuel source, then you just need to kill yourself.

>>982031
You are an idiot aren't you. Never had a chemistry class? The energy it takes to split a water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen is MORE then the energy that is released by burning hydrogen (aka creating water by merging hydrogen and oxygen.)
Why not just use the electric energy you used to split the water to propel the vehicle in the first place?

>>982072
You can't read. Ofcourse you can burn hydrogen, it's just not economically feasible because you first have to create hydrogen which takes more energy that the energy that is released by burning it. Now if we found large hydrogen gas pockets in the earth, then we are talking differently, but there aren't.

It's like retarded leftists saying hey, wind turbines are good for the environment, meanwhile it costs more energy to create the wind turbines than what they'll deliver. It's not economically feasible and therefore it needs subsidy to survive, and environmentally it is even worse.

>>980081
I'm talking theory here, if it costs more energy to get the oil out of the earth then what is stored into the oil itself it would not be economically feasible and one day we will enter that point when the oil pockets are to deep and too spread out. Maybe new technology will make it feasible again then, not sure. But we will never ''run out of oil'' it might just one day be expensive to get out of the earth

Separating Oxygen from Hydrogen is extremely simple.

2 flasks of water, 12 volt battery in a low pressure environment (water will boil more easily at lower pressure)

Positive makes Hydrogen negative makes oxygen. wait or was it the other way around since Hydrogen has more positive charge then oxygen... whatever, its simple and requires little energy generated compared to potential energy produced.

>>983748
Completely FALSE
That is against the LAWS OF PRESERVATION OF ENERGY.

BLATANT LIE! SNAKE OIl!

If the efficiency was 100%, then the amount of electric energy needed to split the the water molecules in hydrogen and oxygen is EXACTLY the same amount of energy that comes free when you burn hydrogen (the reverse process.)

But since effiency is not 100%, it costs more energy to produce the hydrogen that that comes free when you burn it, thus, you might as well not create the hydrogen in the first place and instead use the electric energy in the battery for propelling your vehicle.

fucking idiots, have you guys never had a chemistry or phsyics class?

>>983748
Fucking retards ITT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

>>983780
There's the problem of batteries requiring lots of raw materials.
Though Hydrogen also has a problem with tanks because it goes through every tiny of tiniest hole.

Compressed air would be the greatest if the enormous majority of energy was green/nuclear and there's more energy available than being used.
But it's a lot less efficient than combustion engines and much less efficient than electric so it requires clean energy.
Very simple though and doesn't require rare materials.

Also may have a problem with cold climates.

>>983806
For cars*

And didn't mean to reply because now it makes it seem like I'm disagreeing with you.

>>983744
You're the Fucking idiot. Nobody's saying it costs less energy to make hydrogen from electrolysis. Economic feasibility is not all about a positive energy balance. Like I said it's not a method of energy generation, it's a method of energy storage and energy transportation which has a value of its own. Fucking dense kid that just made it out of high school and thinks he knows it all you are.

Batteries don't give back as much energy as it takes to charge it but nobody said the battery business was not economically feasible. Fucking idiot.

>>983809
blablabla! nonsense

>>984560
>he completely BTFOd my argument
>better call it nonsense so I don't look like an idiot
It doesn't matter if making hydrogen from water takes more energy than we can get back from it. That energy can be centrally produced in a something like a nuclear power plant. What matters is that now we have an easily transportable source of energy. Alternative to creating hydrogen is to store the electricity produced directly in batteries. However something that can be filled up fast is easier for transportation than having batteries that take time to recharge. And while electric vehicles are developing at a nice speed I can see widespread use of hydrogen as a fuel in future.

>>983744
>Why not just use the electric energy you used to split the water to propel the vehicle in the first place?
Because you can't safely fit a nuclear powerplant in a car. Seriously, all these people explaining very basic things for you in simple language, and you still don't get it, do you. There are no 'energy sources'. There is only transforming (at a loss) energy into forms we can transport and easily tap into.
Do you think charging a battery is without losses too? Is electricity useless now? You daft little gradeschooler.

>>984580
>>984566
idiots, idiots everywhere

>>984560

wow

>>979085
Hyberloob :DDDDDD

>>983780

It's not about energy economy. It's about application. We can create as much of Y-type energy (electricity) as we want, up to a certain level, but for our application we need X-type energy (chemical/potential), because it's substantially more energy-dense for a given volume and mass and these are two metrics we want to minimise in our model. So we accept a certain amount of inefficiency in the conversion of Y to X, because we still pay a lot less for the amount of Y we use to create X than it would cost to generate alternative X-equivalent Z.

>>986906
>what is laws of thermodynamics

>>981206
Im working on microbial alkane production for my thesis. Mainly the large chain ones, so kerosene and diesel. Nowhere near feasible yet and its unknown if it ever will be, but it could end up to be the alternative for current fossil fuel derived fuels, mainly because it has the same chemical structure so does not require big changes in infrastructure/engines. We would use the same vehicles as we are now, just without using up fossil fuels.

>>986898
>>980045
>>979284
Whats wrong with hyper loops? If you hate musk that's one thing but maglev trains are the future and maglev trains in vacuums are the horizon.

>>987149

They're irrelevant, is what they are

Bumping for an interesting thread, conversation mightbe spent but still, this sort of stuff >>987189
is pretty fascinating

>>987239
Any benefits provided by le Hyperloop are immediately outweighed by all the different ways there are to kill everyone inside.

Also building thousands of miles of vacuum tubes through the deserts is expensive as fuck