Words_Are_Hrad t1_j582az8 wrote
Reply to comment by fapalicius in Successful test flight of Hydrogen-Electric Airplane could be key to zero-carbon flying. Aim for commercial 700 mile flight with 40-80 seater aircraft by 2027. by DisasterousGiraffe
Lmao maybe because road travel accounts for 74% of transportation GHG emissions while panes account for 12%... Real hard to figure out the math on that one huh??
Zephyr104 t1_j5855sv wrote
Overall when compared to all sources of GHG's, it's a whopping 1%. Emissions from producing food and deforestation account for far more.
fapalicius t1_j58m2hh wrote
You can not tell me that a vehicle burning 1 gallon fuel per second is justified to be used in times of global warming considering that about 100 000 flights occur every day. And please proceed to push your condescending ways up your butt!
fapalicius t1_j58oggk wrote
Im not saying don't ban fuel inefficient cars, but generally banning "burners" is a mistake imo. Especially considering the progress being made, for example in japan they developed a diesel engine that uses hydrogen as a second fuel that needs less than one quarter of of a gallon diesel per 100 miles. Planes (with combustion engines) on the other hand are pretty much as efficient as it's possible at the moment. We should consider not baning but innovating is all.
Words_Are_Hrad t1_j5atz3w wrote
>Ban flying i say
>
>We should consider not baning but innovating is all
..............................................
fapalicius t1_j64de5k wrote
Yeah, what's questionable? I said before I would ban cars i'd ban flying. And the second statement was also related to cars.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments