Is There A Better Way To Power Airplanes?
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 05. 2020
- This video was made in partnership with Bill Gates. To learn more about his work on clean energy, visit gatesnot.es/2WDTJ1L
It’s hard to replace jet fuel because the alternatives aren’t energetic enough, are too dangerous, or aren’t yet being made at scale.
Thanks also to our Patreon patrons / minuteearth and our CZcams members.
___________________________________________
To learn more, start your googling with these keywords:
Jet fuel - a liquid petroleum fuel with high specific energy and energy density, used in airplane jet engines, made of kerosene with a few additives
Specific Energy - how much energy something contains per unit mass
Energy Density - how much energy something contains per unit volume
Synthetic jet fuel - a jet fuel replacement, typically aiming to have lower life cycle environmental impacts than jet fuel (AKA: sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), alternative jet fuel, renewable aviation fuel, renewable jet fuel, biojet fuel, sustainable alternative fuel)
Kerosene - a petroleum product that is the main component of jet fuel (and old fashioned lanterns)
___________________________________________
If you liked this week’s video, you might also like:
What you get from a barrel of oil - www.eia.gov/energyexplained/o...
Real Engineering: Are Electric Planes Possible? - • Are Electric Planes Po...
_________________________________________
Subscribe to MinuteEarth on CZcams: goo.gl/EpIDGd
Support us on Patreon: goo.gl/ZVgLQZ
And visit our website: www.minuteearth.com/
Say hello on Facebook: goo.gl/FpAvo6
And Twitter: goo.gl/Y1aWVC
And download our videos on itunes: goo.gl/sfwS6n
___________________________________________
Credits (and Twitter handles):
Script Writer and Narrator: Alex Reich (@alexhreich)
Video Illustrators: Ever Salazar and Sarah Berman
Video Director: Ever Salazar (@eversalazar)
With Contributions From: Henry Reich, Kate Yoshida, Peter Reich, David Goldenberg, Julián Gómez, Arcadi Garcia Rius
Music by: Nathaniel Schroeder: / drschroeder
___________________________________________
References:
ATAG. Nov 2017. Beginner’s Guide to Sustainable Aviation Fuel, Edition 3. bit.ly/2AcJLLW Accessed Jan 2020.
ATAG. “Producing sustainable aviation fuel” bit.ly/3gncnmh Accessed Jan 2020
Burton, Freya. Personal communication, Feb 2020
Caldeira, K. Personal communication, Feb 2020
Cey, E., et al. 2019. Energy Education. “Oil formation.” bit.ly/3ej8r3Y Accessed Jan 2020
Chuck, C. (Ed.). 2016. Biofuels for aviation: feedstocks, technology and implementation. Academic Press
Goldmann, A., et al. 2018. A study on electrofuels in aviation. Energies, 11(2), 392. bit.ly/2AfRUis
Hileman, J. I., & Stratton, R. W. 2014. Alternative jet fuel feasibility. Transport Policy, 34, 52-62. bit.ly/2X8832H
IATA. May 2019. “Sustainable Aviation Fuels Fact sheet.” bit.ly/2ZO2BDX Accessed Jan 2020
IATA. December 2019. "Fuel Fact Sheet." bit.ly/3dcJ0Ry Accessed March 2020
Le Feuvre, P. 18 March 2019. Are aviation biofuels ready for take off? bit.ly/2XA5R2T
Lehtveer, M., Brynolf, S., & Grahn, M. 2019. What Future for Electrofuels in Transport? Analysis of Cost Competitiveness in Global Climate Mitigation. Environmental science & technology, 53(3), 1690-1697. bit.ly/3d96QgX
McKinsey. Energy Resources. bit.ly/2M7pYzW Accessed December 2019.
Monroe Aerospace. 29 April 2019. Why Airplanes Use Kerosene Rather Than Plain Gasoline for Fuel. bit.ly/3d8FpnD
Searle, S. 15 Nov 2018. Decarbonizing aviation through low-carbon fuels will be beyond difficult. bit.ly/2zAN1kc
Shaw, R.J. 12 June 2014. "How does a jet engine work?" go.nasa.gov/2XOwG3F Accessed Jan 2020
Sindreu, J. 10 Jan 2020. The Promise of Sustainable Aviation Fuel Isn’t for Today. on.wsj.com/3gthykv
Wikipedia. "Nuclear Powered Aircraft” bit.ly/2ZGECGw Accessed Jan 2020.
Thanks also to Steve Thorne and Erik Pieh.
References for calculations
bit.ly/3c9Lvmc
bit.ly/2yC04kS
bit.ly/2X5OAPV
bit.ly/2zDqoLT
bit.ly/3gw1L4n
bit.ly/2TLZQPo
bit.ly/2TGOV9B
bit.ly/2TLG86r
bit.ly/2ZHdZkN
www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...
www.toyota.com/corolla/featur...
www.worldatlas.com/articles/h...
theicct.org/sites/default/fil...
www.transtats.bts.gov/Distanc...
physics.info/energy-chemical/
www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells...
neutrium.net/properties/speci... - Věda a technologie
MinuteEarth is fueled by viewer support! Want to become our Patreon or member on CZcams? Just visit www.patreon.com/MinuteEarth or click "JOIN". Thanks!
MinuteEarth first reply
Hol Up you said that 23 Hours ago but this video just got uploaded a few mins ago
@@Schmirptheburp They probably commented that before it went public, but I don't know because i never uploaded a video
@@tigeronfire9876 that's correct
Have a mascot
one of my favorite facts about this is that jet liners and geese have about the same maximum range without refueling (or in the case of geese, spending a season getting fat again,) because both of them start their journey as about the same fraction by weight of oily hydrocarbon fuel with about the same energy density, which they burn to move the remaining payload fraction a similar distance.
kinda like the fact that the early airliner originated for military use ,
and geese are evil by nature ...
i think thats just coincidence, because there are many more factors to calculate in. we cant just scale things up. they fly with different speeds, different heights, different flying techniques etc.. a geese is not a plane after all.
@@2406ab yeah , it's just a funny coincidence ,
kinda like how every country that has ever howned alsace and lorreine has lost the major conflict with the country that didn't have those two provinces ...
We using geese to power planes
blcs you’re absolutely wrong. A goose IS a plane
I swear yall write the puns first and reverse-engineer the rest of the episode from there
Well, thats exPLANE it
YES THANK YOU I WAS THINKING THAT THIS WHOLE TIME
@@vinceartvillas8553 get out
@@aidenconway9087 but I was just AIDen ya for a better conWAY to knowledge😏
@SirNUB but SIR the NUB of my comment is to make puns while I can😌
MinuteEarth: “At takeoff, up to 45% of its weight is jet fuel”
???: “Amateurs”
MinuteEarth: “What?”
Rockets: “Amateurs”
99% fuel
KSP Players: Amateurs
@@dat1pengu1n jet fuel: amateurs
@@electricheisenberg5723 docking ports: amateurs
@@dat1pengu1n willy wonka's spaceship: amatuers
I have a solution.
Trebuchets.
What are trebuchets and why would it work?
Joren Garre They are superior to catapults, that’s why
@@jorengarre3071 I think Trebuchets are things that launch rocks very far distances and would throw the passengers at incredible speeds to reach their destination.
Yes I would love to have my flesh burn off because of force. Nah I'm joking it's a great idea
The Ash Tray makes sense thx!
The best part is that thumbnail isn't even an exaggeration
Uhh..
Narpas it used to be a giant battery
RIP battery thumbnail 😢
Ikr
Rainbows fuel airplanes? Ok I guess.
When I saw the thumbnail I just chuckled and thought, “ huh, gay powered planes”
Oh hi, i'd love to be fuel (?
The thumbnail was different when this video first came out
Just use gay juice. The Homophobes can’t complain because it powers their flight😜
Any freddie mercury song
THE PLANES FUMES ARE TURNING THE FROGS GAY
0:26 "We might wanna replace jet fuel with something else-" **shows a picture of wood** "-but that's really hard!" well played Alex XD
I was here when thumbnail was a battery!
I thought I was losing my mind tbh when I saw the different thumbnail
I liked the old thumbnail, idk why they changed it
Same
me too
Same
I swear to god the thumbnail was an airplane carrying a battery
Yeah, they changed it. Dunno why though. Maybe it resembled Duracell way too much?
They changed the thumbnail ??
I think the rainbow thing is made to look like "any mysterious fuel" and so they felt it made more sense than thumbnail implying a battery could be the solution.
@@thomasi.4981: A battery can be a solution for some flights. There are electric planes already, though not in widespread use yet. It's a viable solution only for short flights, however. For longer flights, the weight of batteries would make it an unviable solution.
@@seneca983 I know. The main problem seems to be that large amounts of battery mass aren't dumped over time through the course of a flight, unlike fuel.
Legends know they changed the thumbnail...
Initially it was a big battery strapped on the plane
now its a big gay battery.
69th like
@@benjaminnewlon7865 that's exactly what she said
@@thepubgchicken1925 nice
*straps battery to plane to make it fly further*
enjineer
These idiots don't even know that you can plug an extension cord to itself and get free energy. "Scientists" my ass.
@@Krypto137 what if we just connected the planes to the wall with a cable? Then we wouldn't need the heavy fuel
@@terner1234 why not hook it up directly to a generator?
AndyHappyGuy that defeats the purpose
at that point just use the normal engines
2:30 “Planely speaking”
I see what you did there!
That's kinda their thing
everyone saw what they did there, that was the point
@@fogfestival I thought the point was at the front of the plane.
if we managed to make a nuclear plane fail-prof it could be amazing, we could make a plane that can stay flying for days without landing. but we only ever did a few experiments in the 80's and never went ahead with it.
Part of that is because you'd need an impractical amount of shielding to make the airborne reactor as safe as grounded reactors (which don't care about their weight because they don't need to fly). And of course that shielding is almost useless if the plane crashes. While I'm at it, the physics of nuclear reactors make them more efficient the larger they are.
With nuclear energy, bigger is better-for shielding, efficiency, and more. With airplanes, you need to use the lightest components possible. This isn't an easy contradiction to solve.
@@timothymclean On the contrary, friend, I believe it's very easy to solve this contradiction: GIGANTIC PLANES. Just scale it all up until the point where a nuclear reactor makes more sense mass-wise than liquid fuel. Problem solved!
@@andershusmo5235 and how do you build wings big and strong enough to lift that monstrosity you just proposed? XD
Danilo Oliveira I agree with you. The amount of nuclear is minuscule to run a plane, so shielding isn’t an issue. These guys don’t understand the newer technology for nuclear developed. A mini, almost portable, reactor could be designed for a plane. With all the emergency shut offs, it’s much safer than people realize. Chemical coolants which are 1000x colder than ice are used rather than water. It could be done. However, the idea of developing a rocket transport system, which could jet people above the atmosphere, then down again at their destination is also a good idea. But, that’s real work, because absolutely every aspect of the technology would need to be redeveloped.
@@andershusmo5235 you can't scale up physical qualities of the materials, and that's unfortunately a big deal
Yet another great video but here's my opinion on one of the notes you had: I think it should have been bigger or more visible, the note being the one that says planes rarely take off with full fuel load and that they almost never (or never) use it all.
Edit: wait a second, why is the thumbnail all rainbow and stuff now?
because
It has become common practice for CZcamsrs to change their video thumbnails and titles after a certain amount of time. It increases engagement because a percentage of viewers will click again, not realizing they've already seen the video.
this video is a fucking ad for bill gates' tax-free investments
@@Pikminiman
It's mainly about testing which thumbnail performs better. People who accidentally click twice will usually stop watching almost immediately, meaning they don't benefit the channel's metrics
I'd assume they worried people would call bull on the efficiency of battery powered flight at that scale with our current technology projections, and the nebulous rainbow thing more adequately represents the overarching question of whether *anything* could replace jet fuel, whatever it is.
Thanks for this. Ever since I knew about hydrogen cars and that batteries were too heavy to allow electric airplanes, I've been wondering why while it's not as practical for cars, hydrogen powered airplanes couldn't be a thing.
The Soviet Union made a hydrogen powered plane so it’s feasible but it’s not as efficient, yet
Hydrogen powered planes are working just fine actually, it's incredibly easy to burn hydrogen in a jet engine. The pressurized tanks are heavy but not more than full tanks of jet fuel, really it's manufacturing hydrogen that's the biggest issue. It runs into the same cost problems as synthetic fuel
so we replace jet fuel, with jet fuel..
i see.
that makes perfect sense.
Imagine your just hearing a bunch of people shoveling wood into the plane
Thank god someone posted a video about airplanes so I can get my weekly fix.
Wendover Productions didn't post a new video about airplanes in a week.
You are breathing Lol
Imagine if this video after couple days will be named "✈️✈️✈️"
Fun fact, Lightning constantly hit airplanes during storms but we don't feel it
No, Lightning hit is a major incident, while survivable, the plane will going to have many inspection and maybe repairs.
And just flying close to stroms is bad enough because the turbulence, wind share, ice and hail....
@@umi3017 wind shear* not wind share, also lightning hit is pretty common, but mostly just passes through without any concern, usually just a visual inspection before it can get airborne
Jet fuel is essentially kerosene, so the only other option for producing it is by hunting whales, which I think we can all agree would be a bad idea
How about FARMING whales?
Yeah, I saw this documentary about how bad that can get. While a good source of power, it comes with the side effects like corrupt governments, plagues, and possibly magic powers.
@@garrettallen7427 I don't think we know how to do that
Joshua Tran *not yet
@@Icewind007 The worst part is when some floating ponce pops out of nowhere and tells me about my destiny or some toss.
0:22 *not to scale, the resulting gas volume is waaaaay more
well it all depends on the pressure and temp
Liquefied gas
ah yes my favorite way to power airplanes, the power of gay
solution: Use a really long plug like a vacuum cleaner that connects to the airport
woww, i love the new thumbnail!
Minute Earth: We need a better way to power our jets!
WWII Germany: First time?
V2?
@@ernestbr9786 Germany had insufficient oil fields and synthesized gasoline for military planes from coal
And Germany partly lost the war due to resource shortages. Not even top notch scientist and Germany's total mobilization during a life and death struggle was enough to pull that country off oil dependency.
Germany tried everything. Making oil from coal. Making oil from geranium oil from sunflowers. Trying to run Tiger tanks on wood gas. They took inspiration from Japan that produced aviation fuel from pine tree roots. They built airplanes to fly on C-stoff due to the fuel shortages. And they tried to build airplanes out of magnesium since it was a more plentiful material than aluminium, and also both lighter and stronger - the only disadvantage was as you probably already guessed that it burns pretty well. And Germany tried to replace metal with wood - like on the cabins on their military trucks.
But despite all efforts was Germany hampered by bottlenecks of vital material throughout the entire war.
The best part of COVID has been the pause of all those planes
But most importantly: Can the alternative to jet fuel melt steel beams?
Nope, but like the original it can waeken the steel so it bends when it has to support much weight.
Flying fuel tanks with seats? Sounds like a bomb if you ask me
A certain terrorist group had the same idea 20 years ago
Imagine carrying an entire fusion reactor in a plane.
That’s exactly what I was wondering! Thanks for telling me!
At 2:20 it is mentioned that we need to make artificial jet fuel cheaper.
However, a better solution would be to tax jet fuel by the same amount that it costs to undo the negative environmental effects of burning jet fuel
And then airlines all around the world go bankrupt and commercial flying becomes too expensive for the average human? Excellent
@@TheCanadianWifier exactly
That’s the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard. Do people not realize carbon taxes just displace the problem elsewhere? It’s just a unnecessary tax that won’t do shit. If it’s not profitable to protect the environment, then corporations won’t do a thing. This is just going to kill airline industry jobs for nothing.
So aircraft make sure to fill up at their end destination where there isn't a tax and they end up burning more fuel as a result.
And while it is all good for upper middle-class people to say we should pay more for flying they never seem to remember the working poor who because of cheap flights can travel long distances for the first time in history.
Frick it. It's time for nuclear planes!
let's go and ask Bethesda about those fallout nuclear planesss
There were nuclear power planes designed by the military in the 1960s that were capable of flying and getting off the ground the only problem was the efficient solution for those were thorium based reactors and the government didn't like those because those were harder to make of nuclear bombs with.
And here is the only time you can use that knowledge nobody asked for lol
A next video about synthetic fuels? I'm interested!
I wish more information was provided about the making of the synthetic fuel
Informative entertainment, these videos are so satisfying.
Nuclear powered airplane actually sounds really good. Imagine an airplane that you almost don't have to refill at all. You could fly that around for weeks and it will be still fine
SMRs (small modular reactor) might just cut it
But if the plane crashes you have a Chernobyl
@@Quacking-duck But then most of the time plane crash in the sea or in the wild not in heavily populated area
Yes, the big heavy storage tanks would wipe out the benefit of flying lighter, however, I think hydrogen might still be a better fuel:
1: Higher specific energy means you need less, which makes it cheaper, unless the prices are higher, but...
2: Hydrogen is abundant. Idk if petroleum is more abundant, but it also formed for free, and it's IN THE AIR AND WATER. Although the extraction process might make it so the prices are higher, idk how it's extracted or how much extraction costs.
3: Might be carbon neutral. Idk if it is carbon neutral, but it might be.
Hydrogen is 100% carbon neutral!
Traditional fossil fuels aren't "carbon neutral" because their carbon content combines with oxygen in the air and forms carbon dioxide.
Hydrogen fuel cells, on the other hand, works by separating hydrogen into protons and electrons in a diode, and passing the protons through a special membrane that doesn't let electrons through into a cathode at the other side of the membrane. They, instead, are funneled through a circuit into the cathode by pumping oxygen to attract them, and that flow of electrons generates electricity!
Then at the cathode, the oxygen combines with two electrons and two protons to form water, which is the only byproduct of the process. There's no carbon involved so the process of generating energy through hydrogen is 100% carbon neutral! :D
I heard that Airbus is designing hydrogen planes. Both hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen jet planes.
Wait, couple hours ago, thought the thumbnail was a plane descending with a gray battery.
the ad is evolving based on criticism
Hello there
Imagine if one day we can use saltwater to use as fuel
How would that even work? Unless there's some technology I'm not aware of, you can't extract chemical energy out of slatwater, or at least not anywhere close to enough energy for a plane.
I think that’s called a boat. And aren’t batteries way more energy dense than salt water?
Where did your mustache go?
@@Sir_Budginton Fucking magnets.
Maybe deuterium or something like that BS.
You mean by burning hydrogen, which takes more electricity to break the water molecules than we get out of it; using hydrogen fuel cells, which also take more energy in the same way; it nuclear fusion, which takes more energy to heat up the plasma than can be extracted?
Is this also a possible solution for other combustion engines e.g. cars, boats, etc.?
I love that thumbnail tbh :)
I've been watching Minute Earth for years. I liked their videos. That is why I decided to create my own sci-fi/futurist Channel. 👍🙂
I've just checked it out now and I kinda like it. Its pretty nice!
synfuel from nuclear power.
My problem with biofuels/synthetic fuels is that in order to create them cleanly, there needs to be a decarbonized grid (through nuclear and renewables) to create the energy to make them.
The thumbnail makes it seem like we can power planes with pride
What sound did the 777 airplane make when it started bouncing up and down?
Boeing boeing boeing
What sound did the 737 max make? boom
When I saw the thumbnail, I just thought “Hm, gay power does seem like a good option 🤔🏳️🌈”
2:35 is the plane flying in an expnential way flying more up as it progresses forward like how a new better fuel sources graph for amount of sales? I'm probably overthinking it
I can also use a blimp to lift me and my car over the Sierras to Route 395 on the eastern side of the Sierras (Mono lake, Lee Vining , Bishop) where I can go cross country ski on flat land instead of the steep Sierra slopes..no chain controls!
Use an airplane to carry them, I have great ideas as you can see.
OMAHGAD your so right!!! Your like the smartest person after Einstein 😝😝😝
So according to the thumbnail, synthetic jet fuel is another term for GAY jet fuel. YAAASSSSS!!!!
So, happy jet fuel?
why are you saying yas? isnt being gay a bad thing? :)
@@thegame5126 no
@BulletTraj millions of people hate you, gay "people" dont find other gay "people" so easily, so they're fucking desperate for whoever they can find, and alot of schools wont accept you depending if you're still going to school and where you live so, it is bad being gay huh?
@@thegame5126 people discriminate against people who are different :/
You know what they say: if you can't find a solution, make one yourself.
We need fusion reactors small enough to put on a plane
Check minute physic's video on muon fusion
After just finishing the Netflix She-Ra and seeing this thumbnail, I was very excited to see the answer be "yes, with pure gay energy"
I mean if it can singlehandedly save Etheria, surely it can yeet a plane around the world
A man of true culture
Imagine if we could run an airplane off of air XD
Maybe we could burn the air 🧐
We already kinda do, seeing as 2/3 of the reaction mass (aka the oxygen) comes from the air already.
@@Sir_Budginton more like 80 %
Air is nitrogen and oxygen. While oxygen is oxygen.
Love your videos
I mean, liquid methane could do the job and is easier to sythesize than synthetic jet fuel but requires alot of infrastruture changes. A better middle ground between retrofit and sythesis difficulty might be diethyl ether which can be produced in a high temperature environment in the presence of a catalyst, from air. This is one of the proposed applications of molten salt thorium reactors since they can easily acceive the requisite temperatures with the help of a heat pump system and because their high energy output makes it scalable.
methane is a gas at room temp and the pressure would have to be maintained for it to even work.
thorium is nuclear so that's off the table
@@DMSrunit For thorium, We're talking a fuel manufacturing facility, not in the vehicle. Incidentally with the help of heat pumps it doesn't have to be nuclear, nuclear is just better suited to the task since the molten salt is already close to the needed 900°C. You could also generate this using the electricity from peak production solar power, currently offloaded at negative price to neigboring states during california's summer for example.
@@DMSrunit Not necessarily. Liquid methane does not have to be stored at its room temperature vapor pressure. It is allowed to boil off at a reduced rate by containment in a dewar vessel that prevents nearly all conductive and radiative heat transfer and can be kept at a moderate positive annular pressure to further reduce the rate of boiloff. The boiloff is combusted or catalytically reacted to prevent methane release into the atmosphere. So shorter term storage than jet fuel but at present cheaper per therm if you just wanted to start with a lower impact fossil fuel before ramping up synthesis.
When i looked at the thumbnail, i just thought “what? They are gonna replace jet fuel with the blood of gays?”
When I saw the thumbnail art I was thinking “I’m flying on a rainbow!” Also reminds me of the gummy bear rocket from myth busters
thorium mini reactors
Another point against batteries is that you have to carry tour depleted batteries with you the rest of the way. Then you have to charge them.
Fuel is great from an efficiency standpoint as well, you burn it, extracting useful work from it. By burning it you also lighten your load, meaning that the next kilogram of fuel burned needs to push that much less mass through the air.
In fact, a fair number of larger airliners are actually designed with a maximum takeoff weight that is higher than the maximum landing weight, simply because they'll burn off that excess by the time you need to land. In case of emergency they can circle and vent the excess fuel to get to the max landing weight.
Hi I am a graduate at NMSU, my professor has working on making biofuels and other fun stuff from algae that works in waste water reactors. It's extremely high yield and but it does have some problems but it would make algae the cheapest source of biofuel.
Radioactivity is much better. you forgot to account about how much you would need. It would be around a centimeter of fuel.
At the beginning of the video you say that airplane are big pollutants, I kinda agree but not entirely, studies have compared big pollutants and compared to cars, airplanes are not as pollutant as we think they are, because they are transporting multiple people at the same time and that drastically reduces its pollution levels
For short distances, cars have lower emissions per passenger kilometer than planes and vice versa for longer distances. But in many cases (for longer distances) that's not a very meaningful comparison because a) you wouldn't drive across oceans with a car anyway and b) for longer distances almost any method of travel (except maybe electric trains) is going to be a big polluter even if some other method would be even more so.
Correction: A lot of those gases can be stored as liquids, and with big enough tanks there certainly are weight savings.
Coal liquification, or the droplet method,is a way to produce oil from coal.
But its inefficient and expencive.
Unless you have the infrastructure present already.
And because South Aftrica had been banned/blockaded from importing oil for a while, but has massive coal reserves, they invested heavily into that technology, and are today the only country who can economiccally produce (not extract from the ground. PRODUCE) oil.
I'm assuming that the majority of energy needed is to get the plane going fast enough for take off. After all, maintaining momentum at low air pressure shouldn't be as difficult as propelling a heavy metal bird on the ground.
Does that mean we could create an electro-magnetic rail that propels the plane to such speeds using electricity on the ground so that the plane does not have to carry the fuel needed for take off?
A bullet-train-style slingshot if you will. Ignoring the cost of implementing such a system on the runway, would the idea be feasible?
I don't think it it the take-off, it is the climb. Getting a 200 ton aircraft to 200 mph is nothing compared to lugging it to 30,000 feet up.
Let's build huge steam catapults like on aircraft carriers and kick those 200 ton birds into the air.
What if we had a series of ground based lasers that tracked the planes they were powering, which had some kind of receptor / converter to use the energy for flight? Ignoring the logistical issues for a minute and just considering the problem discussed here-providing sufficient energy to the plane to fly without adding too much weight or bulk-would this work?
interesting but cloud cover would be bad for business
@@DMSrunitI think infrared and/or microwave lasers can penetrate clouds
What about kerosene, I know it's not environmentally friendly but why didn't you include it like gasoline and diesel?
what about ethanol? It could be used for shorter flights I think
1:47 why? Wouldn't synthetic jet fuel produce exactly the same exhaust fumes as conventional jet fuel?
It's carbon-neutral, so it would be produced from carbon that is either directly or indirectly captured from the atmosphere (plants, carbon capture, etc.)
Ben_ well we pretend that wood is carbon neutral as well, but when I walk around town in winter and everyone has their fires on the.. Ugh... Ugh... I don't find it very pleasant to walk in that carbon neutral smoke filled... Ugh... air.
One day solar panels might be good enough to power an electric plane.
It's always sunny above the clouds, except at night.
Flywheel is definitely the best storage mechanism to fly. Then you can just charge up on the ground from any source, and it doesn't require any of those complicated and messy "chemical reactions"
Way to little energy content. If I had a ring with diameter of 10 m and mass of 100 t making 6000 RPM, this gives as much energy as 10 t of jet fuel.
@@kwzieleniewski Yes, I wasn’t being very serious. While it is technically possible, it’s not very practical.
you could possibly use thorium considering that its radioactivity is easy to contain and it isn't very bad for the environment.
We just need all the passengers to put their hands out the sides and flap REALLY hard
Fools, all you need are some slime blocks, pistons, and redstone
I am wondering about liquid hydrogen as an alternative.
Its main disadvantage is its limited "shelf life" as it evaporates slowly. In a plane this shouldn't be a problem as they tend to fuel up mere minutes or maybe hours before takeoff and then proceed to burn the fuel within a few hours. Evaporation shouldn't be a problem there and liquid hydrogen doesn't require heavy tanks. You could probably use just regular fuel tanks and live the evaporative losses (or directly use the vapors in the engines).
Hydrogen is yet to be mass-produced with low co2 emissions, but with renewables on the rise we will have times of excess power generation which could be used to generate hydrogen.
I'm waiting for someone to bring up MIT's shoddy attempt at ion propulsion so I can spam them with laughy emojis. 🤣
These animated videos are awesome 😎!
Interesting. Have a blessed day
Zeppelins are the future! (not really, but I'd love it)
maybe hot air balloons if we run out of oil
How come the battery thumbnail’s gone? Seems a bit more accurate
You *can* use powered coke + mentos boosters...
Wendover’s type of content. MinuteEarth believe they can fly, they believe they can touch the sky.
It's nice to know what we can create synthetic fuels, though. There are so many apocalyptic predictions about fuel scarcity becoming the cause of world wars. So it's comforting that we shouldn't have to worry about world war 3- Worst case scenario, fuel becomes more expensive as we are forced to use expensive synthetics.
The pun, it burns...
Hey, maybe we can fuel our jets with that!
Neclear seems very likely to take over too but we just need to make little reactors first
Maybe we could compress the gazes to liquid form or something to make them take less volume? That would require less space and smaller container🤷🏻♀️
Then when we use it, we could put a system to transform the liquids back to their gaz forms?
Let’s take notes from a game called Autocraft. In that game propellers are powered with electricity and we can use it for a VERY long time if we have solar panels on the plane.
what about sun power and litium batteries?
There have been attempts to build planes powered by solar panels, but AFAIK the only category that has worked for this so far are ultralight gliders. For anything bigger/heavier, the surface you can cover with solar cells is way too small for the energy needed to propel it. And the battery part was already covered by the video, they have a way too bad energy/weight ratio.
"litium batteries"
There are electric planes but they're only viable for shorter flights. For longer flights the batteries would be too heavy.
We only need adamantium/vibranium/carbon-nanotubes/wood reinforced high compression gas fuel tanks, easy.
Maybe we could purify the gas formed from combustion right....? And as for the expenses, we might be able to make a hybrid fuel source out of the best fuel sources right....?
I always thought it would be amazing if one would have hydrogen-based planes for short and mid range flights. E.g. intra-contentinal.
What if we compress the gases .....🤔
Not as good as turning the gas into liquid
Liquefied gas is a viable solution too. The energy per liter is typically lower, and the cryogenics a pain, but they're much easier to produce.
Also, hefty taxes on fossil fuels could make synthetic fuel a viable option quite quickly.
0:06
America: *Breathes Heavily*
Not even mentioning the "Power to X" system that a lot of companies are working on, as a "jet fuel" alternative? :)
consider making a video on it