aircraft in the 1930's.......also seems like it didn't end well for some of them.
I hate to put on the Internet Professor hat, but.. Hindenberg wasn't propelled by hydrogen, it was used for it's lighter than air qualities and was propelled by diesel engines.
The problems it had were probably a combination of multiple elements of its construction, not just the hydrogen. Kinda different situations.
I get that you're trying to make a joke but.. funny things are based in truth, hilarious things are true.
Woops. I somehow thought khallow's post and arisvega's post were from the same person.
Sorry guys.
Arisvega - energy density is important for aircraft because it needs to weigh as little as possible. Batteries have about the worst energy/weight ratios you can find.
Khallow - AeroVironment doing diesel is about as likely as the NRA lobbying to ban guns.
Because hydrogen as a fuel does not inherently pollute nor is it inherently carbon positive. It has a lower potential energy than most forms of petroleum so the fact that they were able to make a plane that flies 4 hours on a tank of fuel is important.
The only problem with that statement is there is no such thing as "hydrogen fuel".
I said "hydrogen as a fuel" and not "hydrogen fuel" to avoid silly hecklers like you, but it really doesn't matter because "hydrogen fuel" is an accurate statement anyway. Here's the definition of "fuel" since you seem to be confused: Fuel is any material that stores energy that can later be extracted to perform mechanical work in a controlled manner.
Hydrogen is non-polluting only if you ignore all the processing that goes into producing the hydrogen. It's like using a 2-stroke gasoline generator to charge up your electric car, and then declaring it a non-polluting vehicle. The hydrogen has to come from somewhere...and it's not just buried in the ground like petroleum, it has to be produced...and that process is at a net energy loss.
Which is why I used the word "inherently" specifically twice. As you noted later, how much pollution is introduced depends entirely on the method used to creat
aircraft in the 1930's.... ...also seems like it didn't end well for some of them.
I hate to put on the Internet Professor hat, but.. Hindenberg wasn't propelled by hydrogen, it was used for it's lighter than air qualities and was propelled by diesel engines.
The problems it had were probably a combination of multiple elements of its construction, not just the hydrogen. Kinda different situations.
I get that you're trying to make a joke but.. funny things are based in truth, hilarious things are true.
Woops. I somehow thought khallow's post and arisvega's post were from the same person.
Sorry guys.
Arisvega - energy density is important for aircraft because it needs to weigh as little as possible. Batteries have about the worst energy/weight ratios you can find.
Khallow - AeroVironment doing diesel is about as likely as the NRA lobbying to ban guns.
Because hydrogen as a fuel does not inherently pollute nor is it inherently carbon positive. It has a lower potential energy than most forms of petroleum so the fact that they were able to make a plane that flies 4 hours on a tank of fuel is important.
The only problem with that statement is there is no such thing as "hydrogen fuel".
I said "hydrogen as a fuel" and not "hydrogen fuel" to avoid silly hecklers like you, but it really doesn't matter because "hydrogen fuel" is an accurate statement anyway. Here's the definition of "fuel" since you seem to be confused: Fuel is any material that stores energy that can later be extracted to perform mechanical work in a controlled manner.
Hydrogen is non-polluting only if you ignore all the processing that goes into producing the hydrogen. It's like using a 2-stroke gasoline generator to charge up your electric car, and then declaring it a non-polluting vehicle. The hydrogen has to come from somewhere...and it's not just buried in the ground like petroleum, it has to be produced...and that process is at a net energy loss.
Which is why I used the word "inherently" specifically twice. As you noted later, how much pollution is introduced depends entirely on the method used to creat