Will flying ever be sustainable? | BBC News
2024 ж. 26 Сәу.
29 550 Рет қаралды
Aeroplanes have become bigger and faster but their impact on the climate has also increased.
Jet engines burn kerosene which releases carbon dioxide - one of the main greenhouse gases causing climate change.
So, could hydrogen powered planes be the solution?
This video is from BBC Click, the BBC’s flagship technology programme.
Subscribe here: bit.ly/1rbfUog
For more news, analysis and features visit: www.bbc.com/news
#ClimateChange #Aviation #BBCNews
Dunno, ask the billionaires who want to ban people flying in their hundreds, while they sit alone on a jet.
It's cheaper to fly to Spain, than to get the train to Newquay...so wether its sustainable or not, people will use it
I will. I don't care about the environment
@@RogerMellie-yk3gw and yet you’re the type of person to be the first to complain about climate change effecting your life
@@TC-dy4zr effecting my life? Lol. I've already been born. You mean affecting. Effecting means bringing about somethings existence. And no, I won't, the weather is the same as when I was a kid. Maybe a bit cooler. I couldn't care less
@@RogerMellie-yk3gw your level of ignorance is astounding. Typo I meant affecting so I don't need you to be a keyboard warrior thinking you're superior because I made a spelling mistake.
@@TC-dy4zr And I don't need a self-righteous bigot trying to force their ignorant climate views on me. What goes around comes around.
Whats the carbon footprint of RAF, USAF and all the other airforces? What about private jets etc?
they pay more also, it is very expensive
Solar electric blimps
Am I the only one that would dearly love to see big spacious airships reintroduced, where one can mover around, instead of having to stay seated in a tiny seat. I'd happily have the journey take 2 or 3 times as long, rather than be sat between two obese people, overflowing onto my seat, for several hours. Airships could be both sustainable and comfortable.
yes, it would be great to have all that space.... seven million cubic feet of all that lovely, highly flammable hydrogen just sitting above you. 🤣
Me too. That's why I avoid air travel
Yes, check out the company Hybrid Air Vehicles!
If it would take that long then why wouldn't you just take a ship instead to cross oceans which are still available
@@dreamthedream8929 Airships are a lot faster than ships.
As the world is today. Nothing is sustainable.
We need sustainable energy; energy production that can be sustained- when the sun goes down, the wind stops blowing, and the subsidies dry up.
@@user-jb2om7cm8m The wind never stops in the north sea and it is the cheapest way to create energy, including disregarding subsidies.
It wasn't the Wright brothers either to blame bbc. It was the world wars. Passenger airliners didn't exist before the first world war. Then they converted the very first ones out of bi plane bombers. After the second they were largely military designs converted to take passengers. They even converted Lancasters.
@@Charlie-gf4mv magnets move on their own without wind….?
@@user-jb2om7cm8mI’ll take what is bot script for 500 Alex?
Nothing wrong to dream bigger & faster, when engineering is all about turning a theory into reality. But if you really want to travel one country to the next, invest in trains. Planes will always use more energy than trains.
in the meantime it is a highly taxable activity
No ! Energy wise far to costly. Rail is still quite efficient.
Yet costs five times more. Square that circle
The problem with trains is that they make them stupidly expensive. It's cheaper for me to take a train to Gatwick and then fly to Scotland than it is to take a train.
Hydrogen is a terrible fuel from an energy-density and price perspective. To be fair, this was kind of acknowledged in the video but nobody should be holding their breath right now while waiting for this to happen. Good old fossil fuel will be the airline industry's only option for at least another decade or two.
To add to this, for the scale required for commercial aviation, they only economic source of hydrogen is from processing fossil fuels. The idea that hydrogen is sustainable only applies to its use, not its manufacturing into fluid fuel.
Isn’t hydrogen actually very energy dense? It’s like 3 times as dense as gasoline. Also it doesn’t lose efficiency/capacity compared to lithium ion batteries for example. Almost every professor in chemistry I’ve spoken to at my uni says that hydrogen is the future especially for larger vehicles.
@@CaesarNeptuneStudios If you're measuring the energy density by mass/weight then yes, hydrogen has a high energy density but the problem is that hydrogen is *extremely* light so whereas you only need about a liter and a bit to make a Kg of jet fuel, you need many, many, many litres of hydrogen to make a Kg -- even if it's chilled and/or pressurised to the point where it become a liquid. This then means you've got to add the weight of the heavy high-pressure containment vessels needed to hold it at those pressures and/or a cryogenic system to keep it cold enough. Once you add all that up, jet fuel wins by a country mile -- and it's cheaper per unit of energy by another country mile.
@@xjet Right, the tank size. But jet fuel lets out a lot of harmful emissions so I still wonder if we can produce H2 gas using renewables/sustainably, that would be excellent in principle at least to use fuel cells instead. I agree otherwise with your point that it will take decades before it’s feasible and regular jet fuel+sustainable aviation fuel is probably a better short-mid term solution.
Typical having someone complaining about the emissions involved in constructing the technology, without actually challenging that and asking how many emissions are used to construct conventional aircraft. Also emissions to construct the technology will be coming down. Electric mining trucks are starting to be rolled out, the transportation of minerals that have just been mined would normally be trains which can be electrified as well as ships and the shipping industry has it's own plans for going zero carbon. Then there are smelting works to process the metal and hydrogen power smelting works are coming on line with one currently already fully operational in Sweden, and then there other transportation emissions where trucks are already going electric as well as factories relying on the power grid which is going more and more green as the years go on. So the emissions for constructing the aircraft will be involving less and less CO2 as different parts of different sectors have their own advancements, until in the distant future constructing the aircraft will have zero CO2 emissions.
Electric mining trucks? Lol nonsense. Guarantee none of that shit works.
@@curiositycloset2359 the trucks don't drive between cities, they drive in the same small area (mine, pit) :) think of them more as trams, instead of being biased on the internet :)
@@wga4139 Yes, I know what a mining truck is.
@@curiositycloset2359 great :) the electric car was invented over 100 years ago and vas very simple. Yet, we have electric cars rolling on the roads with the Tesla model Y, for example, being one of the most popular cars in the US. Today's dumpers have an insane fuel consumption, and I would argue that switching the powertrain to electric would benefit in the long term :)
No. Next question.
Nah..just use fusion innit!
NEIN!
Of course it will. If humanity lives long enough, everything will be sustainable. Air flight will be easy in terms of many others..
Dirigibles! Dirigibles!
The 70,000 who flew to COP28 in Dubai say, “Yes”, but only for them.
It is hope, an alternative to fossil fuels, indeed it will be less emissions a cleaner planet 🌏
I think it will take a generation or more before we see commercial hydrogen aeroplanes & I cannot see it will work for Emirates alike
Helium Blimp.
LED ZEPPELIN 🎈 rocks
I don't know much but wording nucléaire be and option like submarines ? Elimited power for ever. Don't even know if it something posible 😂
Flying never harms the environment when Greta Thunberg or Emma Thompson does it.
The great thing about aviation is that what cuts emissions also cuts costs for airlines, so they have an great inscentive to become more sustainable, and hey, aviation is one of the fastest improving fields when it comes to emmissions.
airplane transport is ridiculously cheap and all the damage it causes is not factored into the price. this needs to change globally. carbon emissions (and certainly the more harmful emissions like methane and ozone) need to get factored into the price of things. people need to feel the damage it causes - in their wallet. then suddenly, all these fairy tale dreams of clean transport become true. we have the tech, we just have to apply it properly
Yeah, tell tjat to the billionaires. When they stop, I'll stop. Simple as
Honeslty I don’t want to hear about normal flights not being sustainable until private jets are banned 🤦♀️
But how is the king meant to get to Balmoral??
Bill Gates says that flying bans will not affect him because his work is important. 😆
Exactly, if they show contrition. Then people might believe a word they say. Until then, non
@@OurPoisonedWorld oh yeah. He used his echolocation to cause Diana's car to crash. No wonder his ears are so big.
How many airmiles has Attenborough and his 50 strong team of monkey photographers got under their belt?
Aviation is 2-3% of the emissions, maybe start with the low hanging fruit? Like no use of natural gas for heating and cooking.
OK Rabbi....
They just want to control you...none of this is about emission my man. You've been fooled.
Outlaw Bitcoin!
@@kddidit08 Fascist freak
Yeah, great to get rid of gas for heating and cooking. Then everyone has to use electric. Then they have to build gas powered power stations to supply the extra load. Work of genius.
wow
🦅🦅 let's fly
It is amazing how so many people mistakenly think that the Wright brothers were the first to fly when a simple Google search would let them know that it was a guy called Santos Dumont in France.
Well, at least they invented the light bulb.
OT: Benny Hill considered funnier than Monty Python by two TV stations --WOR and WLVI!
編劇有沒有去＜榮升刻印店＞問鳳鳴高圓印章前一手的故事？？2013-08-12深夜下毒暗殺我剛好是鬼月七夕情人節欸！！！編劇們沒問看準不準？？
Nice thumbnail that image has been cycling through w the other auto-prompts on my echo device for a few weeks now right alongside suggested quinoa recipes & surveys asking if I prefer my eggs scrambled or fried 💀💀💀
Fyi I like'm scrambled
The BBC gaslighting their viewers as usual. How about telling people that shoplifting is up a whopping 91% in London and knife crime up 54% under Khan, who then has the audacity to say everythings fine. Report real news.
Thanks for pointing this out. I thought the news was a bit repetitive, now I know why!
Hydrogen combustion?
Anything that is artifical is inevatibly unsustainable and coincidently causes waste that is not bio-degradible.
making babies is inevatibly unsustainable and coincidently causes waste that is not bio-degradible.
Stupid question until matter transporter technology comes online we’re stuck with flying
I think I have a much better answer. Let me explain: 1. Back in the 1960's and early 70's Thorium molten salt nuclear reactors were explored in the USA by the same guy who invented the light water reactor. This was his 'real' reactor while he considered light water an easy to accomplish "proof of concept". He never meant for light water to be what we actually used. However, politics got in the way of him realizing his dream. Now countries like China are building demonstration Thorium molten salt reactors and even India, with the largest Thorium reserves in the world are looking into a form of Thorium reactors. There is also a big push in this arena for mass produced in factories small modular reactors that can be shipped pre-built and installed on site. You can go anywhere from one small reactor to a large array and do it cheaply. Especially with Thorium molten salt reactors, these are inherently safe reactors that can produce a lot of power in a compact space. They are also very efficient, using 1/35th the fuel of a light water reactor for a given amount of energy production. The main fuel is plentiful enough to power all of civilization for billions of years. I could go on and on, but overall these are worlds apart and orders of magnitude better in every way that counts than the traditional light water reactor. You build a bunch of these reactors, rolling them off of the assembly line in high volume and get your fuel reprocessing and such in order and you have cheap, round the clock, abundant power that can be placed anywhere you need it. Just say you need at least 250 MW of power somewhere and you have it. Even if you need say 20 GWs of power, just install a bunch of them at a facility and monitor from a central control room. 2. Now that you have the cheap and abundant power, it turns out we can do more with electricity than just make hydrogen, we can make methane (natural gas). Making methane, we can pull CO2 out of the atmosphere or out of any number of places we have CO2 spewing out of in high concentrations now. So when you burn the methane later, you just put what you effectively took out of the atmosphere and put it back in a circular cycle. We use massive amounts of methane today, so this is a very good thing to be able to produce. 3. Now that you can make methane on the cheap with these nuclear reactors in #1, it turns out we can make propane out of methane. We use propane everywhere already. Want to BBQ outside? Look no further than that propane fueled BBQ you have on your back porch or patio. Go to a nice restaurant with outdoor seating? Well that heater keeping you warm is propane powered. Want to drive a forklift around inside and around a warehouse? Well that forklift is probably propane powered. Even say getting a backup generator for your home and / or camping / RV / trailer, it turns out it is super easy to modify a gasoline engine to run on propane, so they just sell dual fuel generators everywhere. 4. Now here is the thing, propane gravimetrically is more energy dense than jet fuel. This is as in 43 MJ/kg for jet fuel versus 50 MJ/kg for propane. It is also more voluminous, but it is easy enough to compress it into a liquid and store in a reasonably compact and light tank for aircraft use. Maybe for an existing large long haul airliner, you use some of that attic space above the passengers for your propane tanks instead of using the center fuel tank. It is easy enough to retrofit the plane to have the engines burn propane. So maybe you make existing planes dual fuel where it does a combination of jet fuel and SAF in the wing tanks and propane in the fuselage in attic tanks. A future plane may have struts and focus more on larger tanks in the fuselage for all of its fuel. 5. Moving on to shipping, which is another major emitter, you throw a 250 MW reactor into a giant ship, that ship can speed over the oceans and deliver lots of cargo a lot faster than other ships. The ship just runs off of the nuclear reactor directly. Hot salt makes steam, and steam runs steam turbines which turn the main propeller. Job done. You could also have a gas turbine turning a generator for main ship power. As for safety, the main problems safety wise are in and around the Middle East, so you just rapidly sail around Africa and don't think twice about it because these ships are so fast.
Nah. I'm sure the experts would've already done all that if it were viable.
@@RogerMellie-yk3gw What I am saying is the experts were and are working on it. Look up the Oak Ridge reactor. Look up Solar 2 for questions answered that come up out of that reading. When I went through it all last, all I could find where political issues ultimately stopping it, not technological ones. All of the technological issues are solve-able and key ones have already been solved since the 1960's. Get the politicians to put their heads on straight and educate people about what you are actually trying to do and why it is important to do this over other means and cut out the fear mongering, and I think it could go really far. As for the chemical fuel side, these are solved problems. They are just expensive because renewable energy to do it is expensive and these chemical reactions with electricity are not all that efficient. So you try to do it with already expensive and intermittent renewables and it it is hellishly expensive. I don't think this can be solved. Renewables is just too diffuse and problematic to ever be cheap enough. However, have a compact, efficient, always on, cheaply mass produced nuclear reactor as your power source and all of these 'green' fuels made with the help of electricity suddenly become viable. I am pretty sure of it. Go through all of the literature and tell me different if you can prove it. I have done a lot of homework on this and this is what the homework settles on for near term solutions that seem to be most achievable.
You're missing the point. They could have built standard nuclear power plants. But they didn't want to. What they want are subsidies for ridiculous "green tech", that way they can syphon of the doe, all while saying they have done something.
🤔Will flying ever be sustainable? Uhm, yeah, #Birds do it all the time. 🤨
The BBC should stop sending thousands of journalists and their crews to the far flung corners of the globe for a picture of a Panda. They themselves must be largely responsible for the state of the planet, them and that Attenborough geezer.
respect the elderly at least :D
It has been sustainable and profitable for many, many years. Has it been slowly poisoning the air and ground? Yup.
In india Pulwama attack FBI investigation is necessary through the UNO please to give justice to the brave and innocent soldiers in india
The answer is short: No.
Global aviation accounts for 2-5-4% global gases emissions. Animal agriculture contributes to more than 15%. The emissions themselves (from planes) are not the problem. The altitude they travel in is however. If governments didn't heavily divest in train infrastructure we wouldn't be in this big of a mess. Also, China and India...why should the rest of the world care, when these two alone make all the (negative) difference with no care whatsoever.
You see only the tip of the iceberg LOL You only see aviation emissions but not oil production or aluminum production for jet engines. It's like a corporate audit. ''Animal agriculture contributes to more than 15% gases emissions'' But today, farms are completely automated and supported by AI. They have their own wind turbines and BIO power plants. So who is more eco-friendly ?
I'm sure no one's talking about fish. Fish farts must be a massive contributing factor. Not to mention plankton
In india in karnataka state Jails and prisons No intimation to incoming and out going inmates to their Families and No postal service No phone and No case details and supari murders and Rape committed on women prisoners and Drugs dealing violates the article 21of the constitution of india FBI investigation is necessary through the UNO please protect the peoples in karnataka state
…still produces h2o the most potent (sticky) greenhouse✈️
the real question is will making babies ever be sustainable. the answer is no, so who cares about other less significant ideas
Back to the Hindenburg technology again - Oh wait didn’t it blow up?
there is one potential solution your absolutely right 🪓
Oh my god, who is she Flying a plane Across the sea
Or perhaps a kite 🪁 on a Windy day
When things become sustainable, activists may find themselves without a job. Therefore, the short answer is NO.
nothing will ever be sustainable , its going to end someday
It is already sustainable.
Flying is amazing - stop trying to make people feel guilty for living their lives.
Here we go, the push for limiting us to fly anywhere, and place us in 15 min cities.
The English 🏴 White man 👨🏻 should always be given 1st 🥇 class seats 💺
And you live in a cave?
@@HarHahyes an English 🏴 cave
It is sustainable now, otherwise planes would crash, seriously 🙄🙄🙄 🇬🇧🇺🇦🌈🙏
Sustainable means environmental friendly, not safety. Flying is NOT sustainable AT ALL at this moment.
@@constantinosbouwho cares? Live your life and stop worrying.
@@Bungle-UK who cares? Here in Greece every summer gets hotter and hotter. People die from this temperature and it's only the beginning. You think it doesn't affect you, but in ten years you might LITERALLY lose someone because of global warming. Are people THAT stupid nowadays?
🪓 I find that if you have one of these things get done
Nope because you are using tons of resources to build em and they CANT BE REBUILT.
No, end all flying everywhere. I’m a climate change activist.
You stop flying if you want, but don’t tell me what to do.
@muckraker7942 You've been through the same brainwashing process as those who said we'd be in a man made ice age by the 80s then....
Life is too short to worry about things. Just enjoy it while it lasts, don't give two hoots about what others have to say. Life is easier when you don't live in constant fear of stuff.
LoL right
Fascist freak
This is false video ! . Not new fuels. Would you trust boeing with this energy? Oh thanks for you tube deleting my msgs !
UAPs, Tik tacs, Suaucers….camon guys🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸🛸💪🏾👽‼️👽🌌 GET REAL
🪓 do you know what that is