I wonder can battery technology be applied -
I wonder can battery technology be applied - i.e. the problem with electricity generation is that it must meet peak demand, but you cannot stop and start it with the flick of a switch (ironically enough). So as the generation continues through the night when low demand, could Amazon be charging its batteries?, and use them for the rest of the day or at least for peak 6-9pm? If so then while it'd consume a lot it might not necessarily require much more generation of electricity.
Trouble with these is that they are serving global customers, so peak demand on the data centre does not necessarily equate with peak demand on the National Grid.
The average CO2 emission per passenger mile for aircrafts is actually about 50% lower than for cars. Source
Greta Thornburg left the US a week ago, she is in the middle of the Atlantic somewhere on a yacht, there is a lot of wind power in the Atlantic an awful lot still it will take a couple of weeks at best for her to get across, that more than anything shows you the extreme limitations of wind. Yet an aircraft will fly across it in 6 hours using petroleum and expending an awful lot of energy stored in that petroleum, that shows you more than anything the limitations of renewable energy and why we have yet to find a replacement for petroleum.
Stop showing off.I will now drive to work in an aircraft if they are so fuel efficient. Sorted.
Sure, but cycling or public transport can replace many commutes. Flying is the only real option when it comes to long distance travel.Thats the thing about statistics they are misleading, if you drive a big diesel car 30 miles alone then yes for those 30 miles you have used more carbon than a passenger in an aircraft. However by taking a flight you would be travelling many miles possibly 1000s in a few hours therefore a huge carbon output. It would be many weeks before you would have driven enough to emit that same amount of carbon as that 2 hour flight.
Therefore there is no getting away from it ,flying is the worst thing in terms of carbon output, it has to be by simple logic, to put an aircraft weighing a 100 tons a km into the air and sending it a couple of thousand kms requires enormous amounts of energy. It needs brute force and only petroleum does that
We aren't going to stop flying so the solution is electric passenger planes.
I can't see the battery and engine/motor weight being heavier than the engine and fuel weight on a jet plane, even relative to power output. I'd say we are still 10-15 years away from the engineering capability and 20 years at least away from the regulatory approval and commercialisation of electric powered planes replacing jets but they are coming. In the meantime it is worth remembering that modern aircraft are 80% more fuel efficient than those from the 1960's and new innovations such as the Double Bubble D8 design should see a further reduction of over 60% from current levels in the next 20 years.I have my doubts on whether the battery weight and getting all that grunt up in the air would make them viable
Malthuse has been shown to be wrong (many rich countries have declining populations if you exclude immigration) and the world population is forecasted to peek at around 11 billion in the early 22nd century.Another key factor in this debate (and a controversial one at that!) concerns the growth in population. There are twice as many people living today across the world compared to 1970. Not to get too Malthusian about it, but surely there's just too many of us?
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#growthrate
Malthuse has been shown to be wrong (many rich countries have declining populations if you exclude immigration) and the world population is forecasted to peek at around 11 billion in the early 22nd century.
Yes but maybe he will be proven right in this era of globalisation and mass communication, the speed of population growth in the developing world is far higher than the decline in the western world. So far advancements in technology result in increased use of resources. If advancement in technology was resulting in reduced resource exploitation then I would be in agreement. We in Ireland today use far more resources per capita than we did in the 1980s, nobody then was flying to Europe for stag and hen parties, drinking bottled water and buying disposable coffee. the cars today, even if they are electric are far more resource intensive than the cars of the 1980s, they are bigger , heavier, with far more plastic, metals and rare earth metals.Malthuse has been shown to be wrong (many rich countries have declining populations if you exclude immigration) and the world population is forecasted to peek at around 11 billion in the early 22nd century.
1. Do you believe climate change is happening?
2. If so, what do you think are the causes?
3. Do you think it is necessary to do something about it?
4. What are your solutions?
There's already 7.7 billion of us so we are just passed that stage.That's 50% more people going their thang than today though!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?