All planes are flammable death traps. They can create an explosion that takes off the wing.
actually planes are pretty safe, about the safest way to travel infact.
Except with hydrogen that’s even worse.
Hydrogen doesn’t remain at the site of the crash.
Source?
“The doctor says I have 6 months to live if I don’t change my lifestyle, but I’ve heard they’re targeting 2-10 years from now for developing a panacea that can allow me to keep doing exactly what I’m doing, so I’m just gonna ignore the doctor.”
That’s what people sound like to me when they put faith in distant climate change action goals that are way too late for the projections scientists are providing, while the status quo continues to wreck the ecosystem more. People need to internalize the reality that the environment is already being impacted by it and there’s no magic “sci-fi will get us through” solution coming down the pike that is going to keep the mechanisms of mass ecological destruction moving while not destroying the ecosystem; it’s those mechanisms that need dismantling first and foremost. There is so so much waste and destruction that isn’t even necessary to sustain the degree of consumption in actual quantity. Like all the stuff that gets thrown out by the buyer because planned obsolescence or thrown out by the seller when it’s brand new and functional because they produced excess and heaven forbid somebody who needs it gets it and brings down the sale value of the product a single cent. And that’s not even getting into the climate impact from stuff like dropping tons and tons of bombs.
a plane using hydrogen wouldn’t make it any less safe if anything it could be safer in general since hydrogen is less toxic and less hazardous than jet fuel, Hydrogen plane would be a good thing, not like THE solution to climate change but good.
also air travel is basically the only thing in the capitalist world that has adequate regulation, unsafe passenger planes would not make it to a runway.
At this point I’m thinking that if people use “First World People” like this, it’s just a white supremacist dogwhistle.
Hydrogen isn’t necessarily more dangerous than gasoline. It is more difficult to detect a leak and the flame is invisible. But it’s less combustible and disperses quickly into the air. Plus it’s not toxic to spill it in liquid form.
You both sound stupid. For the first person, we have two years to mitigate the worst effects of climate change and switch to renewables. Those goals are just empty promises, while China (a non- “first world” country) is ahead of schedule.
We certainly need fewer cars, but that on its own is hardly a policy. Nuclear ain’t shit. It takes forever to build and works much worse than solar. https://srslywrong.com/podcast/308-the-case-for-100-wind-water-solar-to-combat-climate-change-w-mark-z-jacobson-2/
Nuclear ain’t shit. It takes forever to build and works much worse than solar.
Please elaborate on what you mean by “works much worse than solar”
they mean that they bought the fossil fuel propaganda about nuclear.
Nice to see someone else who’s pro nuclear power
Most people here are.
Bro. I’m not even one of those guys. Listen to the podcast. My problem is we don’t have the time when nuclear reactors take 20 years to build and solar is cheap and could/should be done tomorrow.
I linked the podcast for a reason.
Nuclear plants have previously been slow to build: Averaging 6 - 9 years. Solar projects take 1-3 years to build. Risk factors are higher for nuclear than solar. It’s very expensive to clean up in the event of an accident and the impact is far greater. Nuclear needs access to water. Solar doesn’t.
If you are in a sunny geography, solar is way cheaper, faster, less dangerous. And the costs keep going down.
The big disadvantage is you need storage. It doesn’t work when the sun is down. In every other aspect it’s so cheap right now. In Australia, we are at the point of excess solar energy. The price of electricity can become negative during the sunny days.
Ty for the explanation. I initially thought you meant that A nuclear power plant produces less power than solar panels
The initial comment was by QueerCommie. I was butting in with my 2cents.
The cost per KWh to build nuclear reactors is 4-6 times more than solar projects. You have to weigh that along with the greater time to complete the project.
Two years isn’t enough. We need to completely overhaul our architecture in preparation for increased heat.
Obviously we need to keep doing stuff after then, but the point is to save humanity we need to get off fossil fuels ASAP. Why did you choose that part of my comment to answer?
