The Uncertain Future of Jet Fuel

[@damightymage5049]

Former US Navy fuel systems engineer here. Well done, this is a fairly comprehensive look at jet fuel production, constraints, and alternatives. I would like to add that the Navy did evaluate a 100% biofuel version of JP-5 back in 2016. Performance-wise it was nearly identical to traditional JP-5, but as you observed, the problem with all biofuels is the cost of production. Edit based on some of the responses: The Navy's main motivation for investigating biofuels is more to do with diversity of fuel sources (i.e. less dependence on the Middle East) than it is to do with saving the planet. That would be a nice side-benefit, though.

[@seanfitzpatrick7441]

I definitely care more about the planet than going on holiday so I am probably bias, but I think that a higher cost is worth it. There are other problems of course but I don't think cost should be the thing that stops us using it.

[@Ghazzoul]

Interesting name for a former US navy fuel system engineer

[@seanfitzpatrick7441]

@@AndenMowe-hh5qk Take a train. Its not that you can't travel around the world. I can walk 10 minutes to the train station and be in Paris today. Then all of Europe opens up. Also most people are not traveling around the world to learn everyone different culture and ways of thinking, that's just bullshit. People are going to sit at a resort at the beach and drink (usually on the same continent that they are already on).

[@CARBONHAWK1]

@@seanfitzpatrick7441 yea let’s built a transatlantic train... I’m sure people will love the traveling taking a week more to get there,

[@Hygix_]

@@seanfitzpatrick7441 you do realize that Europe is not the entire world. .right?

[@SapereAude1490]

I love how you drew the different fuels with slightly larger atoms for C and H, indicating they are closer and farther away. Such a nice touch.

[@carltonleboss]

Like the cows

[@RammusTheArmordillo]

When in the video did he do that?

[@tesicnr]

Nice, too bad he ignored the one with one carbon and 4 hydrogens

[@callumbrown9806]

@@RammusTheArmordillo 3:14

[@Henrix1998]

@@tesicnr methane

[@samschellhase8831]

"made by someone I actually like" LOL I think there was a recent Wendover video where he referred to you as "that Irish engineering guy"

[@almostanengineer]

That wouldn’t surprise me, these two banter loads 😂

[@awasaz]

On the freezing point of jet fuel: It's really cold at cruising altitude everywhere in the world. What matters more is the duration of the flight. The fuel takes some time to cool, simply because there is so much of it compared to the fuel tank surface area. Long flights require more careful management of fuel temperature.

[@antoniohagopian213]

The engine oil goes through tubes that run inside the fuel tanks. Oil gets cooler while fuel gets hotter. So no it will not freeze.

[@Yonatan24]

But if you're at the end of the flight and there isn't much fuel left, that might be a problem. It could cool down faster.

[@andreirachko]

@@Yonatan24 I think it shouldn’t be a problem to redirect some of the turbines’ heat back to the fuel tanks, whether with oil or other means. I believe that even a primitive electric heating system could solve the issue.

[@damstachizz]

Or you just go full SR-71 and fly so fast you need to use the fuel as a heat sink instead of worrying about it freezing

[@Gary_Harlow]

@@andreirachko thats basically already being done. Although heating the fuel tanks is the least priority of that system. The primary uses (AFAIK) is to heat the leading edges of the wing and the ailerons and other aerodynamical devices to prevent ice growth, and then it also heats up the cabin, and then parts of the fuel system if at all

[@jonathanm9436]

Excellent!! " [19] I can’t be arsed to find a reference for this one. I have a masters degree in aeronautical engineering, just trust me. "

[@agravemisunderstanding9668]

Would you recommend a university degree or apprenticeship when pursuing a career in aironautics

[@PoeRacing]

@@agravemisunderstanding9668 A mechanical engineering degree goes a LONG way toward making you marketable in ANY industry. Tack on a 2 year master's in aeronautical engineering and you'll have companies beating down your door to hire you.

[@kpp28]

@@agravemisunderstanding9668 are you getting your academics career advice from a youtube comment section? Lmao

[@angeluscorpius]

@@kpp28 I don't see a downside. I get all my education from KZbin. Thinking of furthering my education. I think that means I need to subscribe to Curiosity Stream and Nebula. :-)

[@nosnibor800]

@@agravemisunderstanding9668 Both. I was educated in the 1970's (UK) and did a "sandwich degree" which combined a degree with an EITB apprenticeship - REPEAT: 6 months at the Poly, six months in industry UNTIL 4 years done. Result, I could at age 22 sit down and design complex electronic systems with confidence. Of course this was all scrapped during the Thatcher dictatorship in the 1980's. A great pity and loss. Before then, from 1824 until 1979 the UK led the world and our engineers were in great demand all over the world, with a "brain drain".

[@MatthijsvanDuin]

14:40 Something went wrong here, the chart is showing cold hydrogen having a much _lower_ density than room-temperature hydrogen, which is obvious nonsense. Are the labels accidently swapped?

[@machielluchtmeijer7796]

Think so

[@jonathanvogt2]

Yeah, and he still seemingly read the wrong number off the chart. I'm confused.

[@Mr.Nichan]

I remember noticing that, too. I commented this: "14:40 I think this graph is wrong. Why is hydrogen less dense when it's colder? Is the 19°C one actually Kerosene? I really doubt it if the number you gave immediately afterwards was right."

[@maxsinn402]

"We will explore this kind if plane in more detail in a future video" I shall wait paciently for my favorite Video

[@CMon_Jack]

Patiently

[@tomatosoupwoo]

@A Z He/she just corrected someone and you are accusing him/her of not knowing anything

[@NCOGNTO]

@@tomatosoupwoo how bout that ? Sometimes we just need a laugh , or at least a smile

[@zioxei]

@A Z so what you're saying is we have to find the one multilingual person who has the right to correct people's mistakes because somehow Americans don't have that right... OP made a mistake and was fairly corrected with no hint of disrespect for the betterment of his spelling and everyone who reads it. You are the one who needs to move on.

[@magnetospin]

@A Z When I learning English, some people were too polite to correct me even when I was wrong. As a result, it took much longer for me to learn English properly. They were doing me a disservice.

[@neeneko]

Unfortunately, I doubt we will ever see excess energy 'flood the market'. Every time we figure out how to produce more power, esp if it brings the price down, demand goes up. Multiple times over the last hundred years or so people proclaimed that soon power would be too cheap to meter and the market always re-scales to make it expensive again.

[@cdvideodump]

So basically induced demand?

[@HazeGreyAndUnderway]

Also price fixing

[@JohnSmith-pn2vl]

what are you talking about, it is excessive and abundant availabe since a century at least.

[@rubidot]

Right - and manufacturing fuels will be one of those things expanding demand as energy prices drop.

[@zee9709]

Good old free market

[@rararou]

21:28 Nice to have a video that's both enthusiastic towards technological solutions, yet acknowledges that some unsustainable practices should probably cost more. It's refreshing to see both approaches combined rather than opposed, kudos for that! And excellent video as usual.

[@Isopropyl_Alcohol]

"...in this case, no." The way he says that made me chuckle. :P

[@sevex9]

First take was. '...in this one single outlying example, a complete exception to the norm, an exceedingly rare break from insanity, no.'

[@AxxLAfriku]

I am the cool kid from Germany making videos for the USA and the rest of the world. I will make your day so don't say nay to me today, dear rus

[@gofergofrunio6281]

@@AxxLAfriku stop doing crack

[@xvor_tex8577]

@@AxxLAfriku the world's most hated youtuber

[@string-bag]

That semi-disappointed "no".:)

[@grahamturner2640]

One of the big issues with the Blended Wing Body design is with safety. There would need to be a new way to escape the central sections of the airplane, so hopefully that will be addressed if you make a video on that design.

[@Attaxalotl]

Put a hatch in the roof, and have it board like the disney world submarine.

[@HalNordmann]

Or you could have the passengers near the leading edges by the emergency exits, and fill the central section with fuel tanks and luggage space.

[@jackdeniston59]

plus the additional vomiting

[@sirBrouwer]

@@Attaxalotl more like the container in Thunderbirds 2. Just drop the entire container where people are in. the only people left then are the flight deck crew.

[@che3se1495]

Several hundred ejection seats is the clear and obvious answer. Shoot the passengers out like fireworks 🎆

[@DatPenguin97]

The thing about E-fuels as well is that it apparently works with existing ICEs in cars as well, there have been some tests here in Europe. It could be mixed with normal gasoline in that case as well, so I hope it will catch on in which case there might be more of a chance of it becoming cheaper (?)

[@Skullair313]

E-Fuels only make sense if there is an abundance of electricity available, that is cheap and not harmful to the environment. Renewables are often limited by the grid they operate on and fission nuclear plants are mostly used for base loads (and you are also dependant on imports of fissile materials depending on where you live). It is gonna be tough to justify their use.

[@AlexanderPavel]

E-fuels will be powering the next gen Formula 1 cars in 2026, so that should also allow car manufacturers to start experimenting with them soon. Porsche is currently making E-fuels in Chile using the abundance of wind power on the Chilean coast. As mentioned in the video though, scaling this for air travel will need way more excess renewable fuel than we currently have. It's going to take some time until it's feasible.

[@user-pt1ow8hx5l]

The swedes were at it for years. Their e85 and m85 fuel, containing 85% metanol or etanol 'suffers' from extra horsepower, not really needed in turboSAABS and Volvo's, due to higher octane content......

[@AlexanderPavel]

@@user-pt1ow8hx5l e85 and m85 are not e-fuels.

[@ayushtieari385]

​@@user-pt1ow8hx5lWhat about seaweed biofuels

[@swxk19]

3:44 "Longer chain hydrocarbons liquify... thanks to their lower boiling point"? A lower boiling would mean that the substance is more likely to stay in gaseous form. Longer carbon chains should have higher boiling points no?

[@nobilismaximus]

Yip 👍

[@brandonbowden1262]

I didn’t understand anything you just said.

[@Ebani]

@@brandonbowden1262 That's why you should stay in school.

[@marcustandino103]

Longer chain hydrocarbons (have greater strength of IMF) have a high boiling point so are more likely to be liquid at room temperature. You are damn right, what he said is wrong. :D

[@SopaDeLengua]

How dare you correctly correct an incorrection

[@kalebbruwer]

What I like about your climate change related content is that it is well researched and carefully thought through. In this video for example you're carefully analyzing the feasibility of a renewable aviation industry, rather than just complaining that we should or shouldn't have it. There are people who make off climate change as a non-issue and there are others who drive up fear without making rational arguments or reasonable demands. You are neither of those and I like that.

[@Dockhead]

he doesn't factor in anything to do with how we incinerate spent and toxic fuels and oils that get used in the shipping industry. getting rid of the mass co2 to increase toxic dioxins and toxic vapours and fumes into the atmosphere is considered better, perhaps better but absolutely and certainly not clean.

[@oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368]

Real life is nuanced and gray. Children (and the internet) are all or nothing black and white.

[@thibauthanson7670]

True! Since you're talking about fear, here's a question: If you want lower carbon emission, what do you think about nuclear power? (Sorry in advance, a pet peeve of mine, still I'm interested in the response)

[@buddyclem7328]

@@thibauthanson7670 It's practical for large installations, but it's too heavy for aviation, or ground-based transportation, but that shouldn't stop us from using it responsibly for what we can use it for. Full disclosure, Three Mile Island melted down on my birthday, only a few years after I moved away from the area. It released radioactive fallout into the atmosphere before the accident was even reported.

[@werrkowalski2985]

The anti aviation activists are just playing for the rich, if only they can air travel thats great for them.

[@user-hl8tq8uw2b]

Between 1950 and 2018 the efficiency per passenger grew from .4 to 8.2 (a 20+x improvement) RPK per Kg of CO2. The question is what RPK curve was used for the 2050 projection. While I appreciate all the work put into this video it would have even more impact if more time was spent reviewing the study assumption upfront.

[@NazriB]

Lies again? Serie A Leader Joma Fila

[@gilbertxaviertansri9c853]

I love in the description if you scroll to the references you'll find this. "i can't be arse to find a reference. I have a master degree in aeuronautical engineering , just trust me"

[@roshko321]

A man of details I see

[@gilbertxaviertansri9c853]

@@roshko321 yes indeed

[@reklessbravo2129]

I'm hearing pam oil and I'm thinking pam spray and then he goes and shows pictures of palm trees and oh that makes more sense. Accents are fascinating

[@RokeJulianLockhart.s13ouq]

The Irish have never liked ells.

[@klobiforpresident2254]

Reminds me of the formula one video where he had to say "cars" and "KERS". Yeah.

[@zachariahstovall1744]

Lolol that's hilarious

[@bpcgos]

Palm oil

[@onetrickhorse]

Great video, thanks for posting. I should comment on the hydrogen element since I work in the field researching it, and there are a couple of points I might add. LH2 is volumetrically poor compared to the incumbent, no doubt about it. But what people often don't realise is the immense thermal opportunities it potentially offers, thermal management and advanced engine cycles in particular. Aircraft designs traditionally have been weight constrained, hence the emphasis on MTOW as a fundamental limitation, however with LH2, the challenge shifts as you've rightly identified to a volume constraint. That implies increased drag (larger fuselages to accommodate the fuel for example). What this means is that designs have to change in terms of priority, so blended wing designs, longer fuselages, and potentially drag reduction measures such as boundary layer ingestion become more interesting. Since weight isn't as concerning, engines can become more elaborate too, with the advantages gained being used to mitigate the drag impact.

[@MadMadCommando]

Or since oxygen is made with the hydrogen in electrolysis we could propel our planes using LH2/LOX rocket engines. A guy can dream can’t he?

[@625shapiro]

What about using Ammonia?

[@MadMadCommando]

@@625shapiro the main problem with ammonia is that it’s extremely poisonous. Also, it requires hydrogen to make so you might as well use hydrogen for as many applications as possible for energy efficiency.

@@MadMadCommando Rockets are much, much less efficient than air breathing engines. Getting your oxygen for free from the atmosphere is just so much simpler and lighter than bringing your own LOX.

@@MadMadCommando Amonia is easier to store than hydrogen. Though you mind want to use methane, not amonia or hydrogen anyway. That's what they want to use in rockets now at SpaceX for example.

[@kallee7284]

Love the "realistic" animations/renders!

[@e.sstudios1015]

Mustard channel

[@leiivanjuarez5994]

Mustard channel

[@DeadDolphinMan]

Mustard channel

[@J4yT3a]

Mustard channel

[@ipapify276]

Mustard channel

[@ericdueck9405]

"hydrogen could be a future aviation fuel" Hindenburg 2: My time has come

[@DarkPlaysThings]

It's not like jet fuel is much less flammable to be fair

[@illuminatus1]

@@DarkPlaysThings It is SIGNIFICANTLY less flammable.

[@DarkPlaysThings]

@@illuminatus1 I meant within the context of using it as a fuel. Unlike in the Hindenburg, an aircraft fuel tank isn't gonna be pumped up with enormous quantities of pure hydrogen. Of course pure hydrogen in high concentration is going to be much more flammable.

[@markthomasson5077]

Hindenburg was a disaster in that it ended hydrogen airships. They make a huge amount of sense. Think about it, why are you happy to travel on a big bag of highly inflammable kerosene, or a big bag of hydrogen, much safer. Hydrogen lifts itself into the air, kerosene has to use lots of fuel to do so.

[@asifmsadik]

As someone that works with hydrogen, the Hindenburg's event was more to do with having flammable things entrapping hydrogen than hydrogen itself. Hydrogen is explosive with oxygen nearby, but due to how light it is, generally it'll escape right away. Hindenburg was designed to essentially trap the hydrogen and oxygen inside the balloon. And also the fabric was highly flammable to begin with. It also didn't help people were allowed to smoke near the hydrogen tanks also.

[@SirNobleIZH]

Petition to get fast food restaurants to sell their used cooking oil to biofuel manufacturers: 1: cooking oil is already super common, and used en masse by fast food industries 2: most fast food restaurants currently just dispose of their cooking oil once used, so it's currently being wasted 3: as mentioned in the video, cooking oil is a great feedstock for biofuel production

[@louisfoley6955]

How did it take me this long to find this youtube channel??? Its so dope! Reminds me why I chose to major in engineering

[@grahammewburn]

We are in the end game of affordable oil Perhaps you can solve the problem No worries if you like walking

[@tintedmetal2107]

Welcome to the club!

[@miguelvids9531]

Welcome

[@Magavynhigara]

Love his channel. Very clean explanations.

[@chefnyc]

Because You Tube recommendations are getting crappier everday.

[@TheLastCrankers]

"The plane industry is on a brink of a crisis" *again*

[@SocratesAth]

My thoughts exactly. There's always a crisis in aviation.

[@danyala.1659]

Has there every been a time when an aviation crisis wasn't looming?

[@lardlover3730]

@@danyala.1659 well to be fair, aviation was never a great long-term idea. Planes either use too much fuel, emit too much pollution, uses too much materials to produce, and other such stuff.

[@levyroth]

They deserve it.

[@ChicanoOne760]

Taxpayers should bail them out

[@NobleMarcos]

I'm always amazed at your skill to not talk about nuclear at all

[@homericstate216]

“Repeated pressure cycles can lead to rapid failure“ veery nicely said!

[@entropicprinciple9276]

Yeah flying pressurised hidrogen What could go wrong?

[@lesonen1]

@@entropicprinciple9276 i think he is referring to something else. lol

[@ukaszRadomski]

He could just say fatigue :)

[@sethjansson5652]

@@entropicprinciple9276 Hans looks like he's sweating...

[@andreirachko]

Are you referring to Elon Musk’s “rapid unplanned disassembly” or to sex?

[@Charlie-js8rj]

Clearly, nuclear powered planes are the answer! How could you have missed this, it's got incredible energy density and volume. Oh wait.

[@whatelseison8970]

Turns out that's a biological issue more than an engineering one. Humans just need to learn how to not be such wimps about radiation.

[@mchmchminecraft1637]

Imagine all the nuke fly all over US

[@willmungas8964]

@@whatelseison8970 well there’s also a problem if one ever gets hijacked o.O

[@mindprobe3587]

@@whatelseison8970 yeah people are making things difficult for us engineers. Given that only 11% of people in the world use air travel, them getting infertile would only help control the world population. But we need not be sad about the deaths of mutated babies because an increase in mutation at birth may someday give us a super-powered human species capable of withstanding nuclear radiation !!!

[@SapioiT]

Actually, land-based nuclear power plans could provide the kind of power needed to make those fuels clean, and the fuel industry could serve as balancing for the difference in demand for every hour of the day (google "duck curve" for energy production and energy consumption curves and when they overlay). In other words, while the humans need power, they use it, when the humans don't need power, it's used to create fuel, so the nuclear reactor can be kept running at optimal settings.

[@SpiritmanProductions]

Just thinking out loud: If the on-going installation of wind and solar farms eventually results in significant over-supply of electricity, will there not be a way of using the surplus energy to turn plastic waste into fuel?

You can turn CO2 and water into fuel, if you have energy to spare. You can also just sequester CO2 from the atmosphere and put the carbon in the ground somewhere. It's not worth it at the moment, energy is too expensive.

[@arturoeugster2377]

@ Was meinst Du, wie die Länder, die in der Höhe Getreide anwachsen müssen, vom reduzierten cozwei Gehalt der Luft sehr leiden werden. Beispiel hier in Bolivien, wo die arme Bevölkerung auf den Altiplano leben muss, wegen geringer werdenden Lebensraum pro Bevölkerung. Gerade werden die Lebensmittel mit Lastwagen nach LaPaz und Umgebung eingeführt. Die Treibstoffkosten haben sich kürzlich fast verdoppelt, so dass eine lokale Lebens- mittelproduktion nun hier nötig wird. Dazu is die Menge vom Kohlendioxyd in der Luft zu wenig, weil sie ja mit der Luftdichte in der Höhe abnimmt, nicht die Konzentration(~0.04%), wohl verstanden. Sondern die Menge per cm³, die wesentlich ist für die Photosynthese! Was meinst Du ,bestimmt die Waldgrenze? Regen, nein, Temperatur, auch nicht, co2 absolute Menge ja! Co2 der Luft zu entnehmen ist das Schlimmste, dass die uns antun können, denk doch nach. Sequester Co2 is not just stupid but a crime towards the growing poor population living here, who cannot afford to pay for the growing fuel costs. A certain consequence of fossile fuel reduction.

[@arturoeugster2377]

Besides co2 dissolved in deeper seawater is converted into hydromethane ice by bacteria in huge amounts along the coasts.

[@silo3com]

Depends on logistics. If the power plant is located near a city. Alot are in remote areas.

[@alexandriaj.1578]

there are many companies who have or are in the process of turning trash into cleaner versions of gasoline and jet fuel. i was just watching a video on it actually. look up trash gasification and see what comes up for you

[@SoftTofu123]

going from 2% to 25% sounds really scary, but if the total amount goes down, obviously the ratio will shift significantly. What's the estimation of actual output in 2050, instead of ratio?

[@Yaotzin86]

Triple, though that was pre-COVID. Who knows now. 2% underplays its impact though. Due to altitude, its impact on warming is 2-3 times more than the raw emissions. It's on a completely unsustainable trajectory, and ignoring it because it's not too big today will just land us in the same problem that ignoring global warming for the past 50 years has - it gets much harder to change an industry the bigger it is, and the less time you have to do it. Better to slowly shift aviation starting yesterday than wait for it to be huge problem before acting.

[@HweolRidda]

@@Yaotzin86 triple also assumes the pilot shortage gets reversed big time!

[@amnesio42]

"Something wierd is going on in this office. The clock is going out of control, people are acting wierdsaying it feel like the room is spinning .... I'm not sure what goes on here, but I don't like it" Am'i the only one worried by this note ? at 10:00

[@isaackolman2861]

Woah, I didn't notice that in the first watch

[@Nerd_of_Anarchy]

Exactly! WTF is going on there? And where is it, I don't wanna job there.

[@hugocorminboeuf8007]

I think this is a joke related to "gas intoxication" where people get high on gasoline.

[@rjfaber1991]

It must have taken weeks to create that scene anyway, even without editing it at the end, so to still find the time to add a few hidden messages; big up!

[@yiming624]

He is talking about ethanol. The joke is they are drunk

[@justincase6744]

So, after going around with all these new technologies we finally arrived back to the simplest and the best solution for the future planes - currently used jet fuel from the crude oil.

[@mdoerkse]

Which won't last forever.

[@peteradaniel]

The problem isn’t that it won’t last forever, the problem is the amount of environmental destruction it’s doing.

[@arthurdurbin370]

@@mdoerkse there processes available now that we can make crude oil from algae which depending on the variety used can grow just about anywhere with some water be it sea water, fresh water, or. sewage waste water. process it using the fuel it makes or renewable energy and its carbon neutral and can make drop in fuels on demand.

[@codeartha]

@@peteradaniel if we decarbonize every other parts of industry, the airplanes pollution will be something negligible for the planet. Even of its use tripple, it would still be a minor contribution. And current crude oil stock will last centuries

[@peteradaniel]

@@codeartha it’s not even that. It’s the amount society decarbonises as well. If it’s affordable for oil companies to continue searching for crude oil fields the less importance it has in transportation across society. Also the cultural impact of individual decarbonisation will put immense financial pressure on those industries which still can’t, with governments to fines people’s environmental consciousness deciding to find alternative modes of transport. Edit: his 25% estimate at the beginning is important to how the aviation industry sells itself in the future.

[@Cris-xy2gi]

Real Engineering: "Yeah this fuel is great because energy density, flashpoint, freezepoint-" Me: "Oh cool. Then why haven't we-" Real Engineering: "*Buuuuut it destroys the space-time continuum when breathed on, making it unsuitable for jet fuel.*" Me: "...Oh."

[@RealEngineering]

Pretty sure "but" is my most used word on this channel

[@sonubhadana4501]

Relatable

[@moeron9172]

@@RealEngineering heard 'but' more times than people searching for it in porn websites

[@FreddLe]

“Wake up babe, Real Engineering just uploaded”

[@dannycv82]

There is no babe, is there? 🧐

[@AbdulGoodLooks]

@@dannycv82 He's talking to the Tesla

[@brucec954]

As a former Aerospace engineer, this is a surprisingly good video. It reminds me of my chemistry professor in the 1970's telling us that "We are dam fools for burning such a valuable non-renewable resource like oil and it should be reserved for aviation and feedstocks". We now have viable BEV's for much of ground transportation so should heed his words.

[@stuyfly]

Many of the images shown when discussing hydrogen, are actually liquid oxygen carts and tanks.

[@Merthalophor]

Luckily, the gas was leaking absolutely everywhere.

[@ignasanchezl]

I doubt he could had found better footage, and well liquid oxygen does behave somewhat similarly.

[@branaden]

Came here to say that 👍

[@oadka]

Great eye!

[@adamlytle2615]

One thing I've heard about is mixing hydrogen with Ammonia - would love to see more about that on this channel.

[@curium9622]

I think the only thing you would get is NH5 wich is unstable and would go back to just beeing NH3 and H2

[@adamlytle2615]

@@curium9622 eh, I'm no chemist so I dunno. But give it a google. There are companies, including Japan's TDK, persuing this right now. So I think there's probably something there.

[@curium9622]

@@adamlytle2615 i think its about using the hydrogen from the amonia instead of generating it by electolysis

[@adamlytle2615]

@@curium9622 well, ammonia is already produced by combining hydrogen and nitrogen. The feedstock hydrogen still needs to be from renewable energy powered hydrolysis for it to matter. Anyway, in the aviation context, I think the idea is that they can modify existing jet engine designs to use ammonia as fuel, or even ammonia somehow blended with additional hydrogen and it wouldn't have carbon emissions. www.popularmechanics.com/flight/airlines/a33768744/ammonia-as-jet-fuel/

[@iippo86]

@@adamlytle2615 Wärtsilä is testing ammonia as marine fuel. www.wartsila.com/media/news/30-06-2020-world-s-first-full-scale-ammonia-engine-test---an-important-step-towards-carbon-free-shipping-2737809

[@JayLikesLasers]

This is an extreme technicality nit-pick, but the goal of jet fuel is not to "raise the temperature to raise the pressure". This is because as you know, the Brayton cycle operates with isobaric combustion.

[@satmohabir7175]

So you have to understand that during the design phase of an engine, the jet fuel selected raises the isobaric pressure in the combustion chamber to a value that depends on the choice of fuel. Some type of fuel will give you a lower isobaric pressure and others will give you a higher value. But once the engine is designed and ready for flight, that fuel consideration has been settled.

[@ASJC27]

@@satmohabir7175 Why do people feel the need to invent nonsense about things they have zero knowledge about? Not a single statement in this comment is correct. Combustion pressure in jets is determined by the compressor and the turbine alone. The type of fuel has no effect on this, just on how much fuel is needed to get to the desired temperature. Pressure does not increase as fuel is burned in a jet engine. It actually decrease slightly through the combustor (by 3-4%). I'm an aerospace engineer and was the TA in jet propulsion class in grad school, but if you want to check that for yourself any book on gas turbines will tell you the same.

[@El_Chompo]

Thanks for pointing out that palm oil is a direct result of deforestation. I feel like nobody knows this, and it's in almost all of the food you buy in the supermarket if you look at the labels. I even remember seeing it in all of the "natural earth friendly" soaps at the coop 10 years ago. It should be avoided like the plague but I know that won't happen because people will always buy what is cheapest and palm oil is the cheapest. Similarly how almost everything you buy these days is made in China and they have the worst polluting factories with no environmental regulations. And yet people can't stop buying stuff from them because it's so cheap!

[@gunshipproduct2]

Its absolutely infuriating! You would think that some of these companies would pay attention to the bottom line of where these things are coming from. So many cases of alternative energy that ends up being less carbon neutral than other energy sources... I often bring up China's pollution as a reason to purchase American or European products wherever possible, regardless of political motives, its imperative that we start purchasing local products.

[@Nathan-gj8ch]

IT is always like this to the point that most people can't even see it happening. 90% of all North American indigenous forests have been removed due to man and "zombie" like green areas have popped up in their place. We cut the largest trees ever known to man to build LA. These green areas that are logged and disturbed never look like or act like indigenous forests ever again missing many important species needed. My grandpa told stories of squirrels climbing from Cincinnati to Apalachicola on the tops of chestnut and ash trees and never touching the ground, now there are zero chestnut and ash trees. We clear cut all the forests down to dead dirt because it's much cheaper to build on empty ground than to integrate homes into wooded areas. But no it's ok these worry about 2-3% of all carbon burnt. What are we even trying to protect?

[@madattaktube]

You've got to be careful though! It's not all about the type of oil, it's where and how it's grown. If we ditch palm but do nothing to address the economics of deforestation in poorer countries it'll just make the issue worse as even more forest will be cut down to compensate for lower yields.

[@Croz89]

It's probably the least worst of the alternatives at the moment. Coconut oil has a lower yield, there isn't enough supply of cocoa or shea butter, and butter or lard is a problem for vegans. That said, it's probably best it's used only where it's needed, mainly as a saturated fat in foods.

[@originalketchup7498]

Developed nations should be sanctioning CCP due to the genocide treaties we've signed anyway, its disgusting that our governments don't have more pride

[@NakedAnt]

"Something weird is going on in this office. The clock is going out of control. People are acting weird, saying the room feels like it's spinning... I'm not sure what goes on here, but I don't like it."

[@Dryloch]

Sounds like a document I would find in my Control videogame.

[@Jay-nk6dm]

3:45. Longer chain hydrocarbons have higher boiling points, not lower. Thats what causes them to liquefy sooner. A lower boiling point would mean they stay gaseous for longer as the temp cools down.

[@zachmali4071]

Just a quick question is the 25% of carbon emissions a result of an increase of usage, or the decrease of other sources of carbon emissions?

[@seanhubbard6033]

Both

[@theprofessorfate6184]

It is predominately the result of playing statistical percentage games for the sake of false virtue. There will never be ZERO emissions, not as long as humans inhabit the planet. This video is the type of nonsense that got us to where we are today. There is nothing wrong with planes using Jet A or ships using fuel oil. The biggest problems are automobiles and power generation. You can't make anything without electrical power, including all the shit they claim represents renewable energy.

[@hammerth1421]

Mostly a decrease of everything else. All other sectors have some clear ways of reducing or even completely eliminating their emissions, aviation does not.

[@sebucwerd]

@@theprofessorfate6184 If you have a problem with automobiles, stop being a hypocrite and stop driving. Fossil Fuels are uniquely beneficial to human life and flourishing, which is more important than some random species bugs getting replaced by others.

[@SpencerCallaghan]

Humans have been emitting carbon since we discovered fire. The goal is to reduce carbon emissions to a level the earth can reasonably manage without drastic changes to the climate. As such, throwing around percentages is not helpful. Aggregate numbers are what we need to track. If aviation makes up 25% of emissions, but emissions are 80% reduced overall, that’s a big win. Most energy usage by humanity can be decarbonized, some niche uses cases can’t. We need to understand if aviation can be one of those exceptions.

[@muizzy]

"Converted to run on bioethanol" --> remembers last video mentioning the production of bioethanol to be an energy negative process

[@666Tomato666]

_from corn_ is the core part of that

[@TheReaper569]

This video did a bad job of clarifying or explaining.

[@alexsiemers7898]

But unlike cars or electricity as a whole, aviation can’t truly go carbon neutral unless some major leaps in battery or hydrogen fuel tech are made. So bio-ethanol isn’t _as bad_ of an idea

[@TJStellmach]

Sure, but that just means you have to view it as an energy storage technology, rather than an energy production one. The energy density of hydrocarbon fuels might still make it the best solution (or least-bad one) for aviation.

[@braj6385]

THANK YOU

[@thomasmiller2016]

I was involved in the testing of 50% Biofuels in F-22's. It works, but it is expensive (and it smells bad). One other thing to consider is that to replace all of the power from Automotive/Truck Engines by 2050 with electricity we need to be adding 1 GW of Carbon Free power every 6 days!! Maybe we should bump that up to every 5 days to account for air travel?

[@mako88sb]

Roger Pelke published an article back in Sept/2019 that showed for the world to reach net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 would require 3 nuclear power plants being brought online every 2 days. That would be starting the day after the article was published until 2050. Along with that, fossil fuelled power plants would have to be decommissioned at roughly the same pace. Or 1500 wind turbines every day until 2050. It’s interesting to see China leads the world by a substantial amount when it comes to renewable energy but on the other hand they also burn more coal than the rest of the world combined and will do so for quite some time.

[@juddotto3660]

Can we just give thanks there's no background music, so if some impatient person were to listen at 2x it didn't sound like a tweakers house party

[@davidwarford3087]

But their literally is background music. I agree that their should be no background music.

[@sugaristhenewwhite]

@@davidwarford3087 its quiet

[@Gaaaaaame]

The music is quiet enough that listening at 2x speed is very pog (personal experience)

[@NorroTaku]

it was so inoffensive I didn't even notice Thank you editors :D

[@Gaaaaaame]

later ur a heretic. Only 1.5x, pathetic

[@rxhawk75]

All I got from this is we are staying on kerosene for a very, very long time.

[@Ushio01]

For the big airlines sure. Wendover did a video on how electric planes can work (kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3mXk2apdthgopo) in a way that as someone who lives in the UK never crossed my mind before. That airlines in large countries use very small aircraft to cover routes of just a couple of hundred miles or less. Not something we use in the UK but for the US, Canada, Australia etc is clearly more prevalent. Sure it looks like only a small change but I bet the environmental benefit is larger than you first think.

[@mr88cet]

10:04 - “Something weird is going on in this office. The clock is going out of control. People are acting weird, saying it feels like the room is spinning… I’m not sure what is goes on here, but I don’t like it.” Nice touch, Brian!

[@Azalynnnn]

Wait, this isn't Wendover?? Thought it would've been because of the planes hha

[@gryph01]

Wendover peaks around the corner.... "Real Engineering, why didn't you call me?"

[@TECHN01200]

You seem to really like talking about biofuels and seem to take issue with how the feed stock is created. How about a video on vertical farming or hydroponics/aeroponics to explore those as alternatives for feed stock?

[@elibullockpapa9012]

both of those are way, way more resource intensive

[@boo3427]

That could be a solution but it comes down to the fact that we are literally burning our food supply in a future where food stability is not guaranteed. I don't think biofuels are the answer

[@jeffhurtson5211]

@@boo3427 That not entirely true. Biofuels can be made out of wasted and unused waste like corn stocks weeds, the grass you cut, and cow shit.

[@HYDRAdude]

Completely infeasible without fusion power. Even then you have to find a way to deal with all the heat, which is a huge problem in urbanized areas already.

[@Yaotzin86]

Producing complex e-fuels is *incredibly* efficient compared to this idea. And producing complex e-fuels is incredibly inefficient!

[@erythuria]

Concrete, beef, and stainless steel have much larger impacts than aviation. Having said that, it's obviously a great idea to minimise the industry's environmental woes.

[@RayleighCriterion]

Grass fed regenerative grazing for beef is carbon neutral.

[@erythuria]

@@RayleighCriterion what percentage of beef farming does that represent?

[@syncmonism]

@@erythuria Currently very, very small, no doubt.

[@OmDahake]

can we get a video on the YF-23

[@kyleknepper4016]

That would actually be so good. YF-23 was legendary

[@shinchan-F-urmom]

Yf23 with thrust vectoring

[@user-lq2nu6cn7y]

@@shinchan-F-urmom but would it need thrust vectoring at all? It was nearly as maneuverable as the f22, and adding thrust vectoring couldve changed its weight and flight characteristics in a negative manner.

[@SniperSnake50BMG]

Oh yeah please!!!

[@lightnlies]

3:50 The longer chain hydrocarbons are distilled on the lower stage due to their higher boiling point, not lower..

[@VanerTheogus]

Thanks for this. Comprehending that part, the logic made no sense.

[@jasonwalker9471]

He obviously meant to say some variant of "lower condensation point". It threw me too though, for a moment.

[@falconne]

Yeah, I had to pause the video and think hard to make sure I wasn't having a brain fault, which I would have been more likely than Sam making a mistake.

[@RISCy27]

The visuals are incredible in this video on top of the (as always) great explanation of the topic.

[@tracyhardyjohnson1315]

I often just listen to the audio on these videos while I'm doing the dishes or other chores. It sounds like I'm going to have to block off some time to sit down and actually watch it as well.

[@montiro8999]

I guess it is time to build some high speed rail in the USA. That would remove quite a lot of unnecessary flights.

[@sferrin2]

When you build a 600 mph train let me know.

[@jamesw9223]

Lots of studies on the effects of drilling tunnels under the surface of the entire country.

[@montiro8999]

@@sferrin2 200 mph would be more than enough. Even though trains final speed overall is slower, the have a lot of time savings in comparison to airplains.

[@wi1h]

not when you consider that the country is 4000 km across

[@rajashashankgutta4334]

@@montiro8999 US is a much bigger country with it's population centres more separate from each other.

[@heronimousbrapson863]

Perhaps we should bring back long distance passenger train travel.

[@RealEngineering]

We should be yes, very under utilized, particularly in US.

[@cornbreadfedkirkpatrick9647]

without government control Amtrak

[@rishavmanmohan]

Hyperloop

[@user-de4cq6uk6l]

Build High Speed Rail!

[@firescuCosti]

@@rishavmanmohan :)))) Lol, good one!

[@agoogleuser2369]

Yet another incredibly well produced documentary. Your channel keeps hitting these home runs and I forecast thousands of people bookmarking your KZbin channel. I've been sharing your most recent aviation videos with most of my pilot friends and the positive feedback has been significant. Keep up the good work buddy! Please look into the Embraer Praetor jet. I'm sure there's something interesting to cover in a video with that one. And your "but" is still my favorite on KZbin! Cheers!

[@kewalvats2651]

I love how scrupulously you alluded the challenges with different fuels, like the splitting of water molecule wherein researchers are trying to figure out ways to incorporate solar energy and replicate photosynthesis, among others. So every consumer should take the responsibility of what they are giving off because engineers are in need of cooperation.

[@entropicprinciple9276]

Or where does the energy required come from

[@sadomor6179]

Id assume if he went into detail about every study beeing conducted about every fuel type discussed we would be sitting here for a few days

[@alexsiemers7898]

2:48 no matter how correct the terminology may be, i don’t like the idea of calling frozen jet fuel “wax”

[@confusedwhale]

Wax is just a solid fuel.

[@ThoseWhoKnowBalkan]

that thought just makes me feel queasy

[@smallstudiodesign]

So? Just because you don’t like it isn’t enough to change the terminology.

[@buddyclem7328]

I'd be pretty uneasy if solids were forming in my fuel tanks at altitude!

[@Doombacon]

Candle wax is a solid fuel as well.

[@Ryzawa]

Glad to know that if I can't afford flying now, I'll never be able to afford it.

[@natoraishido]

I wish the room would stop spinning.

[@Drebin2293]

"... many of them are being converted to run on bio-ethanol." Stated in context like it's a good thing after just making another video about Biofuels and their dangers.

[@andrejvasko9474]

u should differentiate between corn and sugarcane ethanol

[@jeevesy36]

There are also waste generated biofuels

[@MathematicsStudent]

In that video, I believe that a jet fuel replacement was mentioned as one of the few legitimate uses for biofuels.

[@bimblinghill]

I'm guessing you stopped the video in a rage and didn't watch the rest, because it was addressed...

[@Drebin2293]

@@bimblinghill Rage? No. Though when he said that line I'll admit I lost all interest, left a comment, and moved onto something else.

[@lorim8070]

This information helped me to appreciate my Dad a bit more. He used to be a Senior Aeronautical Engineer and designed every jet cockpit and fuselage made for the Air Force from 1954-1972. I never thought about just what the fuselage did. I thought it just held the gasoline but this showed it does a lot more. Thank you.

[@thanegrooms]

The volumetric density of information in this video is awesome!

[@rbxless]

Higher than hydrogen :)

[@fensoxx]

There is a certain amount of carbon that the worlds ecosystem can naturally absorb without adding to climate change right? If the other industries cut back we may get to a point where the air industry can continue to use fossil fuels for awhile because it’s all offset by nature?

[@kindlin]

Theoretically anything added has some effect. Anything added will need to be offset elsewhere. It's possible the effects will become negligible at some level, but with how bad we already are, we need to hit net negative, not let planes do it because it's not that much.

[@entropicprinciple9276]

Thank you! Also funnily enough if we get global warming under control after some time we will HAVE TO burn carbon to prevent the earth from freezing or atmospheric oxygen levels to get too high and make fires more frequent!( Like in the carboniferous era I think oxygen was like 30 percent)

[@Kyle-gw6qp]

@@entropicprinciple9276 Not really. We just need to let nature do it's thing, and let forest fires burn themselves out.

[@donaldhysa4836]

Cilmate is always changing even you put zero carbon in the atmosphere

[@entropicprinciple9276]

@@Kyle-gw6qp Of course! Who doesn't like spontaneous catastrophic almost inextinguishable fires?

[@Yurivw]

How bad would it be for the planet if aviation was one of the only sectors to not cut emissions?

[@medviation]

Trains could make a comeback. Especially high-speed ones.

[@strikereureka5081]

But what about international travel?

[@aristotelisentertainment279]

@@strikereureka5081 Time to bring back the ocean liners xd.

[@comment6864]

@@aristotelisentertainment279 WAY too long

[@streetwind.]

There's a project planned in Iceland, where they want to put a synthetic fuels factory on top of a volcanic vent that spews out concentrated CO2 all day, every day. That would let them skip the energy intensive process of drawing CO2 out of the atmosphere, thereby reducing the cost of the fuel noticeably. It also helps that volcanic areas are chock full of free geothermal energy, of course. Not a solution that's viable at a global scale, but I found it interesting and creative nevertheless.

[@tec4303]

I'm looking forward to the blended wing episode!

[@jonnekallu1627]

"World's carbon dioxide emissions" By that I assume you mean word's *transportation* carbon dioxide emissions and not the *total* carbon dioxide emissions?

[@aenorist2431]

No. Its just using extremely optimistic (that is, bullshit) estimates for all other industries going close to net 0. Obviously completely deluded, but it makes for a great headline figure.

[@planefan082]

@@aenorist2431 It's really not deluded to assume that most carbon intensive industries will have died or gone neutral by 2050. At this rate, as long as lobbyists don't siphon additional handouts to oil companies, that's quite a reasonable estimate.

[@ishanbaichoo7294]

@@planefan082 20% of the world's carbon emissions come from coal power plants. That's ~2TW. Replacing - and more, energy use continually goes up - 2TW of electricity production in 30 years by non-CO2 emitting solutions is the goal. Actually believing that this is what is going to happen, that's deluded. A typical nuclear power plant is 2 reactors of 1300MW each, so the best scenario is ~2600MW and a 5 year build time.

[@thorin1045]

The 2% of the current emission is true, transportation is the largest emission group, larger than electricity production, around 30% of the total emission is from transportation. Planes also go far and not really ideal as transportation to begin. Add that no option to limit its emission, it is 100% hydrocarbon based. Of course there is a tricky stuff related to mineral oil usage: since we use fractional distillation to produce different parts of the crude oil, we really not in the option to not use some part of it. This is why diesel will be used until we use oil, even if it is not a great fuel, but 20%-25% of the crude oil is diesel, so not using diesel would just mean more crude oil usage and the issue of dealing with the unused diesel.

[@dedecus7111]

@@planefan082 Handouts? Governments already tax the fuck out of fuels and push more and more regulation thus creating " an uncertain future" and your issue is with oil companies? Funny that.

[@tozrimondher4250]

Thank god that I have the minimum requirement knowledge that made me able to understand this

[@mrnoedahl]

The world is not moving to de-carbonization; it is moving towards Armageddon.

[@raffaelepiccini3405]

I feel like for commercial planes, volumetric energy density is much less important than energy density by unit mass The only thing they care about is to have as little weight as possible, cause it makes the flight less cost effective, they wouldn't mind filling the tank more, if the weight did not increase The only possible way volumetric energy density is important to commercial flights is the maximum range, but that's often far less relevant

[@854gabryel]

I think we should skip altogether hydrogen. Besides all of the disadvantages, I wouldn't fly with a 700bar tank near me.

[@ramentabetai1266]

Hydrogen can be stored on tape. A company called plasma kinetics invented the way to do it.

[@casewhite-954]

@@ramentabetai1266 dont make me laugh

[@JuliusUnique]

I appreciat that "bars" is being used for pressure in this video instead of those confusing units like pascal or psi

[@siddyjain]

Was hoping you'd talk about algal jet fuels since they're the biofuels with the best environmental footprint and actually have a chance of working someday

[@vitordelima]

And fuels from waste, electrofuels, ... there are many options. Most of the government and big corporations are part of the oil cartel that Schlumberger created and have no interest in having a viable alternative. And they have a big influence on the media and people's opinions.

[@miscbits6399]

I suspect these (or nuclear electricity derived efuels made from carbonised hydrogen) will be the way forward for high-density fuel requirements like aircraft. Hydrogen is just too dangerous for general transportation and battery aviation will always have severaly constrained range (that's not a problem for commuter flights but a big deal for regional/longer flights)

[@vitordelima]

@@miscbits6399 Like I said, what everyone is repeating barely makes sense compared to all the options that exist. Hydrogen has many ways to be carried safely, electrofuels can be produced by other viable electric sources such as high power renewable energy in microgrids or (micro)hydropower, there are other ways to power electric transportation besides low energy density batteries, second generation biofuels are viable, current engines can work with clean and/or renewable fuels...

[@miscbits6399]

@Vitor de Lima The only SAFE way to carry hydrogen is to tack carbon atoms onto the molecules (preferably extracted from the atmosphere). The question is how you go about that. The problem with oil as fuel isn't the oil. It's that we're putting CO2 into the atmosphere significantly faster than it can be scrubbed out again because we're burning fossil fuiels at around 120,000 times the rate they were originally created. The inevitable result of such action isn't sea level rise - that's just a minor side effect - it's an extinction level event on Permian scales when acidic rain kills off all the land vegetation and causes mass sea die offs, causing atmospheric oxygen levels to drop to around 10-12% for a few hundred thousand years

[@vitordelima]

@@miscbits6399 Keep repeating the same lies in a loop.

[@onepunchman1953]

Is "Flashpoint" American for ignition temperature?

[@derekbradshaw9040]

Yeah in America flash point refers to the temp something ignites at

[@onepunchman1953]

@@derekbradshaw9040 ok

[@whatelseison8970]

@@derekbradshaw9040 No.. that'd be autoignition temp. The flash point of a volatile material is the lowest temperature at which its vapors ignite if given an ignition source.

[@Ignisan_66]

Fusion powered airplanes would be a godsend.

[@TheOriginalSvT]

I will have to continue my pilot training with electric planes one day!

[@jean-claudevijt4695]

You will never go airborne because batteries are too heavy.

[@pennyforyourthots]

@@jean-claudevijt4695 I don't remember who did a video on it, but electric aircraft are actually totally feasible for short domestic flights, they're just not very good for international travel. Even if we just replace domestic flights with electric aircraft, that goes a long way.

[@heh2393]

It was this Wendover Productions video. kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3mXk2apdthgopo

[@NLnaLovesU86]

Solar ?

[@Justinhomii]

Electric planes leave a bigger foot print! Same with vehicles wake up

[@gowanlock]

Does this even matter. If we get it to a point it's the majority of a relatively tiny footprint, that's still fine. Translating 3% to 25% means total emissions are but an 8th of today, in 2050. That's an amazing success, not a doomsday notification

[@Gryffins90]

No it will not be an 8th of today because air traffic is increasing quickly and will be much larger in 2050.

[@TheWizardGamez]

@@Gryffins90 sure, planes will hold a higher percent, but they won’t be emitting as much as cars. Also planes like trains are a lot more carbon efficient. Like busses. You would agree that 1 bus is better than 20 cars

[@Yaotzin86]

@@TheWizardGamez Planes aren't better than cars per passenger kilometer, even if you drive solo. Flying is, of course, less energy efficient than rolling on wheels, and its emissions cause more warming due to their altitude.

[@gowanlock]

@@Gryffins90 so with that being the case and cars moving to electric, the grid being largely renewable, does that matter? Until we either make renewable planes or make a conscious decision to not fly, we can either worry about it or fix everything around it to make it a problem to remain to be solved. It's become fanatical to address everything at once. Maybe this one we just accept and the rest we can currently solve we do well instead.

[@lunchbox1341]

I think instead of looking at ways of making planes greener, we should massively limit their use around the world. High speed trains can replace a lot of the shorter routes around the world, and most domestic flights should be replaced with them (especially in the us). It's the same thing over and over again, we are trying to invent new ways to fix a flawed system which will just never work out.

[@MrTohawk]

The main problem with jet fuel is that it can't melt steel beams.

[@armyart3]

I bet "Q" has an answer for that.lol

[@waichungsham1578]

What about building 7 how did it fall down without anything hitting it.

[@HappyHarryHardon]

@@waichungsham1578 Happy accident?

[@michaelclark4876]

Which is why is a good thing to know that steel becomes soft and looses its load bearing ability a solid 1600°F below its melting point and that burning jet fuel is awesome at lighting other things on fire.

[@GURken]

13:11 _Hydrogen cannot be used in existing planes_ *Tu-155:* Am I a joke to you?

[@alio2269]

Oh my god the quality of your videos has gone up so much. My mind was blown during that chalkboard segment.

[@Tuppoo94]

10:37 "Neste", not "Nest". The E at the end is pronounced the same way as the first E. It's Finnish for "liquid".

[@pvic6959]

google's nest be like "dont bring us into this" LOL

[@리주민]

I read as the chocolate company Nestlé 😁

[@Ojisan642]

“Pam oil” Wut? Oh, palm oil. 😆

[@williamswenson5315]

This explains why there are so few "Pams"left in the world.

[@ethanr45]

lets just create more deforestation to farm more palm oil to make into jet fuel.... just f*cking frack it from the ground... The conversion from palm oil to usable fuel is sh*t anyways.

[@ZetaPyro]

I thought at first he was referring to PAM cooking oil that some people use to grease up pans

[@advancedprototype1081]

@@ethanr45 well there is alwez olive, soybean n also sunflower... I bet they don't do these 'deforestation' thing when the farms they were set up ain't it?

[@haha-ui3fp]

@@advancedprototype1081 Pretty much all bio fuels use more fossil fuels during their production then they substitute in the engines. Not to mention that one of the scarcest resources in the world after climate change is fresh drinkable water, which has far better uses than large scale mono culture farming regardless of the forest issues.

[@desironloic9721]

How do you see this combining with fuel shortages to come?

[@crimmeyd00d47]

Ahh, there is someone else out there that gets it.

[@fivetimesyo]

A green-first economy will always prevail. And by green I mean dollars.

[@adamb8317]

If climate change progresses the market will demand solutions regardless of public policy. Climate change would increase prices thereby driving innovation in low carbon energy. When you falsely restrict supply, however, prices rise artificially and reduce funding for R&D due to high operation cost and government red tape.

[@carlose6010]

Dollar, or economy? Because it seems dollars can just be created out of thin air.

[@vitordelima]

If there is no shady stuff involved, including money printing (which influences people to stop investing in real stuff), both are very compatible with each other.

[@adamb8317]

@@vitordelima the smartest thing you can do in inflation is invest in real estate and durable goods. But yes people don't realize this

[@sebucwerd]

People need cheap reliable energy. If you deny them that, people will die.

[@Duvstep910]

This stuff is still very interesting even though i'm not an engineer 😅

[@Falcrist]

People think engineering is boring, but our whole world is engineered. Think of all the engineers who needed to work for years to design each item in your house. Materials have to be specifically manufactured to purpose, then other engineers and designers use those materials to build things like microchips, batteries, etc that still OTHER engineers put into their products to sell to you. It makes you wonder how many people were at least indirectly involved in the design of things like a smartphone. All the little design features that had to be discovered over the past few centuries... from how electricity works, digital logic, the transistor, batteries and chemical properties of lithium, light emitting diodes, plastics, tempered/doped glass... hell even the aluminum in the frame wasn't discovered until 1825, and wasn't widely used until after the Hall-Héroult process was invented in 1886. The process of invention required for the things we take for granted today is... almost fractal in nature.

[@Zen_Power]

@@Falcrist what’s worrying is the number of people that prefer to follow the Kardashians or love island out number people that have an interest in educational content. Social influencers will inherit the earth.

[@TestingPyros]

Another thought on hydrogen that went through my mind as you showed a de-icing rig is that a cryogenic fuels tend to cause icing, a nightmare for planes!

[@Daniel-fv1ff]

If airplanes are currently 2-3% of carbon emissions, making everything else carbon neutral would mean a 98-97% drop in carbon emissions. I think we can all agree that would be a great outcome and so maybe we should focus on the lower hanging fruit first.

[@MetallicReg]

Yep it is mostly for completionism sake (you know - at this point even carbon neutral isn’t enough - carbon negative will be needed). But you can take on other industries much stronger so that you can still afford to use fast travel options.

[@ntorix599]

Metal hydrides could greatly increase the volumetric energy density of hydrogen and increase safety but there might be issues with releasing the hydrogen from its bond fast enough to keep up with the engines in traditional combustion turbojets.

[@Sussurrus]

Would be great with a detailed video on biofuels and biodiesels. I know there is FAME, HVO, but its hard to get a sense of the differences between them all and would appreciate to get your view on these including their full life cycle impact.

[@ForzaJersey]

Real Engineering already did a lazy, kindergarten level analysis on biofuels. He has no understanding of the industry or the biofuel alternatives.

[@Starmanstriker]

Planes are essential. They won’t be going anywhere.

[@zunaidparker]

LOVE the irony...I did a spit-take🤣

[@리주민]

There's always mountains and plateaus...

[@cnnpp4428]

Idea: Make a drain for cooking oil in every house Then pump it to the plant Make fuel Profit

[@benweiss9872]

I work in the industry on the engineering side. My money is on efuels long term with biofuels and other blends as a bridge. Ultimately, we may be lucky enough too have a world with electricity "to cheap to meter." If we get there, efuels become the obvious choice with unparalleled energy density and,nine of the land use issues. From a governance perspective, it will take carbon pricing tax policy on airline tickets to incentivise the shift away from fossil derived kerosene.

[@bencoad8492]

my money is on Molten Salt Reactors making the fuels(among other chemicals) from their high heat(800+) reactors unless SAFIRE takes over heh

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

Just regulate it. Just like care fuels now need to be a percentage ethanol. Just increase the percentage yearly. And as cars move to electric, it already frees up a lot of biofuel capacity that would have gone into gasoline. You have to look at these things from a macro perspective and things look a lot more feasable.

[@zyxlsy]

I do not oppose that volumetric energy density is important. However, if you are taking all your weight into the sky, specific energy density is even more important. That's why batteries can't send planes flying but hydrogen may.

[@sunspot42]

Batteries can power airplanes, but probably not jetliners as we’ve known them. The ultra low cost of electrical power compared to any hydrocarbons will make battery powered planes inevitable for short haul flights on smaller aircraft, in the 20-40 passenger range. Think Denver to Cheyenne, or Phoenix to Flagstaff. Without some pretty amazing breakthroughs in battery tech I don’t see them scaling up beyond small commuter planes, but in that market they’re likely to completely replace fossil fuel powered planes.

[@Merthalophor]

You're right, although volumetric density is important when talking about how planes that are already used today could be retrofitted to something else. It's not that important when talking about the general ability of fuels to be used to fly; I think the alternative plane design he'll discuss in a future episode is exactly an elaboration of this principle.

[@fenrir834]

Nah man, volume density is extremely important. batteries are worse in both mass and volumetric energy density than jet fuel. another reason batteries are not viable yes is because of the way turbofans and turbojets work. batteries are good for turboprops but turboprops are not good for high speeds. the low energy density(volume) means more space is needed and more space means larger planes and larger planes are bad as they are heavier and well, larger.

[@zyxlsy]

@@fenrir834 "batteries are good for turboprops", would you please elaborate? Is it due to preferred RPM range or power output range? Or, is it "batteries" or actually "electric motos" and why? Thanks

[@zyxlsy]

@@sunspot42 Batteries can power anything and they ARE powering everything right now. It's just that asking Mike Tyson to run 100 meters competing with actual Olympians is not the path on which we should put our hopes. Hope you get my idea, batteries will eat up too much weight allowance both in ground vehicles and airborne ones. Passenger planes need to leave extra in the tank as a safety guard and this just makes the range even less practical.

[@utmbunderground]

I feel like you live in a dream world -- Air Travel isn't going somewhere unless a competing transcontinental or transoceanic rapid form of transit pops up. The Airline industry will pay whatever the cost of Jet Fuel is and that price will be passed on to its Customers -- the airline gives zero fucks about it. If the cost gets too high -- the customers will complain to their governments and either the taxation on the airline industry will be lowered or the industry as a whole may even be subsidized to compensate. So, the airlines aren't in trouble - the customers are.

[@DomyTheMad420]

me 7m into the video "i am never driving a gasoline car again. DIESEL it is!" ".... just to lower chances of fuel fires? THAT is your motivator?!" ".... Yes."

[@kadenengland45yearsago9]

Did you see Mexico spicy water. I don't have the link, but look up hell on earth right now by memeology 101 on yt.

[@kadenengland45yearsago9]

You know that you don't have balls unless youre rollin coal man.

[@blake-green]

Battery electric fires are actually quite commonplace, they are extremely unpredictable (especially compared to Diesel), and people _have_ already died in fires despite relatively low numbers of EVs. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicle_fire_incidents As battery power density increases this problem will only become more frequent and/or more deadly. One thing about combustion fuels, they can't explode in a vacuum as they need Oxygen from the atmosphere to release their chemical energy. And there's only so much of that per unit volume of air. Batteries, like solid rocket fuel, has all the chemical components ready to release energy at a moment's notice... Whether electrical or by other, _drastically more explosive_ means.

[@blake-green]

​@@gasdive Certainly battery vehicles are no worse than Petrol cars, but they have their own troubles and the worst incidents are yet to come (power density). But the person you responded to specifically talked about _Diesel..._ Diesel- which doesn't ignite (flash) at room temperature, unlike petrol/highly refined fuels, and lithium batteries, which begin burning instantaneously upon their destruction. In a crash, diesel cannot just spontaneously combust if the fuel tank is punctured (unlike the aforementioned). You can make diesel ignite, but the occupants could be soaked in the fuel and still escape unscathed (assuming they could). So EVs are certainly not more safe in comparison to diesel powertrains, that is my main dispute regarding your perspective.

[@jenshendriks9092]

when aviation becomes 25% of the total emission, that means humanity has decreased it's total emission by around 88% to 92%, considering it's only 2% to 3% currently. I say, we've done enough by that time haha

[@ianhall557]

The issue with that is that humanity as a whole is already so far behind when it comes to becoming carbon neutral. We're feeling the warming effects of the past 50 years of carbon emissions and even if we completely stopped all carbon emissions today the planet would continue to warm for another 30 years without technology actively recapturing huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere.

[@rohankorde3367]

16:23 why this plane so sad

[@confusedwhale]

High speed rail is the answer to planes for most trips. Planes take a lot of energy to get off the ground. If you eliminate the need to fly, you can decrease energy consumption by 2/3.

[@Bizz55]

Yep. That seems the really sensible solution. If all flights within continents were replaced by high speed rail and the only flights were intercontinental, would that make a big impact on emissions ?

[@coolGhostVIRUS]

Yo that's so communist of you to propose such a thing!

[@cpob2013]

The real problems with rail in the us is our urban layout is more diffuse, once you leave the station you still need a car to get around and the paths for rail go through existing development especially in the northeast. Europe and Asia were reduced to rubble by ww2 so it wasn't a problem to build there.

[@AbdulGoodLooks]

*Laughs in Real Estate Prices*

[@Bizz55]

@@cpob2013 Yes but the same can be said of airports. Use electric cars for any journeys but high speed rail for very long distances if you are in a hurry instead of air travel.

[@kswan4235]

This is a non issue if planes only account for 3% of carbon emissions.

[@seanwhitehall4652]

What's a non issue? The future of Jet fuel?