Can flying go green?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 фев 2021
- Covid-19 has caused the worst crisis in aviation's history. Is this the industry's moment for a green reset-and which technologies offer the best hope? Film supported by Mishcon de Reya
Read The Economist’s special report on business and climate change: econ.st/3bbckJZ
Sign up to The Economist’s fortnightly climate change newsletter: econ.st/3b8FQ3c
Find our most recent climate change coverage: econ.st/3pQLYkq
Can the aviation industry fully recover from the effects of the pandemic? econ.st/3baDqAQ
How air travel’s sudden collapse will reshape a trillion dollar industry: econ.st/3pRjirH
Why aren’t all commercial flights powered by sustainable fuel? econ.st/3b7MBC7
After many false starts, hydrogen power could now be widely used: econ.st/38gTNdo
Could hydrogen fuel offer a greener way to fly? Listen to our Babbage podcast: econ.st/35a66GD
How aircraft can save fuel by copying the way geese fly: econ.st/2KTg5sZ
Is the era of electric flight upon us? econ.st/3rWBe5V
How microbes in panda’s guts can help in biofuel production: econ.st/3pUyyEn
Find our most recent science and technology coverage: econ.st/2LnEJBC
oh, this isnt wendover
Can people explain their problem with wendover
@@naimr.4301 there's a problem with wendover? I was just making fun of how he makes a lot of videos about the economics of planes
@@flyingchic3n we love wendover
Lol can't agree more
So tiring. It will take 2 decades...and we knew this 2 decades ago and did nothing because if was so far in the future.
we know with no certainty how long it will take. We don't know what new innovation could be uncovered in another industry in say 8 years that could have application to how hydrogen is used as an energy source for aviation. The important thing is that more capital starts flowing into renewable areas and thankfully it appears post Covid that is a fundamental shift occurring.
We’ve known it for 5 decades, but the oil and gas companies got greedy
Why do you say "we"? You did nothing.
Actually the US did do it in 1996 and again 2002; big oil/the Saudi's killed the electric car; even california stole all of them and destroyed them and paid for it. We need to let innovators do their own thing and let it come naturally, it's the most safest and cheapest. Remember, govt funded research while great demand payback, free labor (blood sweat and tears) are safer and cheaper.
@@KRYMauL - VERY VERY TRUE, but those companies will be out of buisness in 30 years, because according to a study by M.A.H.B. the earth will be totally out of Oil by 2052, Natural Gas by 2060 & all the Coal will be gone by 2090.
Expect to hear a lot of the word “ Sustainability in the future .
All TV adverts have been 'sustainable' for the last 9 months!
Make a change from unprecedented.
You don't make the World Green by cutting the Economy. You make the World Green by making the Economy Green.
It does when we have a population shrink
This is the brute force from the lefts
Answer: Eventually, yes.
Green aviation will always be 20 years in the future, now and in 20 years. Like fusion.
The woman talking sounds like the voiceover on bbc come fly with me 🤣
impressive information and I really like that you finally added subtitles. It makes it much easier for non-native speakers to follow.
About those complaining that plane tickets will go up... Maybe polluting everyone’s Earth should have a price tag anyway. Maybe governments could choose to tax less on behaviors that pollute less and tax a lot more those that pollute more. You know, like a carbon tax. I think it’s about time!
It's true that the technology they outline does work in theory (and in practice in some cases) BUT the challenge they didn't properly cover is how we decide what we want to trade to achieve it at scale. Aviation requires huge amounts of energy. If we want a net-zero society then energy will be limited and we'll have to decide what we want to stop doing instead (heating or air-conditioning, for instance). If we still want to eat, biofuel is only great if we have a spare planet and hydrogen will take very large amounts of electricity to create.
The mention of increased cost is also nice to hear but sadly is hugely optimistic. Given the constraints we'll have in future a 10% price increase sounds like a laughable projection.
Airbus E-Thrust seems like the most promising concept yet
I remember watching something like that 10-15 years ago and thinking this is the future.
Water vapor is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Biofuels to some extent are better but there's not enough to meet the global aviation demand. If electric planes were able to go long-haul distances that would be *absolutely revolutionary* , but for now they only do short-haul distances.
Honestly, I think electric planes could meet the short-haul flight demand in places like America, Australia, Europe, East/Southeast Asia, but long-haul flights would either have to be reduced via. public campaigns or use more efficient alternatives. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
interesting. the question is here. what kind of water they used?
i mean it can use saltwater? or it only use freshwater??
if the plane is only using freshwater. it will add a scarcity of freshwater and i reject that plane
I'm telling you man, invest in water now and you'll be a millionaire in 20 years time
@@TheStubertos agree my friend. same like oxygen.
@josh I think to get Hydrogen in the first place you use electrolysis on water to separate the hydrogen. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.
@@TheStubertoslol I tell my friends this all the time I’m in highschool and they laugh at me but ur totally right man I hope ur invested im trying to get invested too I swear we’ll be millionaires lol and the funny thing is it’s not hard to see it coming with water scarcity look at Mexico City right now oof it’s tough out there and mexicos a pretty developed country it ain’t no third world lol it’s a first world with a Fake Gucci bag like America 😂
If the first plane goes mass production, in a bigger model, not only we travel great distances, but we are also kinda cloud seeding instead of poluting.
To be fair, modern aircraft like the 787 Dreamliner and A220 are WAY more efficient and emit significantly less CO2 than say: a 707 or DC-9 from the 60s, and there are some who claim that the manufacturing of biofuels actually releases more greenhouse gases than the refining of regular jet fuel. So it's arguable that we should skip biofuels altogether, continue making current aircraft more fuel-efficient, and just throw all the R&D money at developing a hydrogen infrastructure network.
Even better: Compensate the use of fossil fuels by capturing and storing CO2 from the atmosphere in a place with cheap renewable electricity (Sahara etc).
The 787 is only better for the environment in an isolate sense. In the larger picture, more efficient aircraft are cheaper to operate, and therefore result a greater total number of passengers, so total emissions are greater
What is not mentioned though experimental,
that hydrogen fuel plane is stripped down. Weight if not the factor in a/c design one of the central factor of design.
It does not hurt to try to make flying on alternative energy possible, but research on lowering the cost of new technologies such as hydrogen electrolysis and fuel cells is necessary.
“The problem for the aviation industry is that green technologies cost a lot of money, but there isn’t much to go around”.
How much did the airlines blow on stock-buy-backs this past decade, during their absolute bumper profits run?
I love the way the Economist just ignore the corporate hegemony that causes most of its readers/subscribers to suffer in various ways.
Isnt that just how the industry inherently is at the moment? The barrier to entry as a new competitor is very high, so airline companies had the freedom to do as you said, stock-buy-backs.
Tax evasion is “just how the industry is” at the moment, doesn’t it make it fair or right.
Airline CEO’s didn’t have to buy back their stock, but they chose to do so (instead of investing the profits in a greener future) because it reduces the number of shares in the market, and pushes up the price of the remaining shares up, thereby increasing their stock-based compensation.
And the Economist evidently doesn’t mind turning a blind eye/supporting this scam. These so called leaders have a responsibility to take our hard earned money (in the form of their company profits) and streamline their business to be less environmentally devastating, but they choose additional millions for their own pockets instead.
Stock buybacks is a way to compensate investors for their investment. If investors aren't paid, they won't exist and nobody will finance businesses so nothing will be produced.
Now, is stock buybacks a way to avoid taxes? Maybe so. If it is, awesome! That means less capital wasted by governments and more left in the hands of either businesses or investors that can be used to invest in more cool products and services that make people's lives better.
Interesting video and largely correct. Although there has been a recent push for hydrogen in the UK with smaller hydrogen powered aircraft (20 seaters) predicted to enter service within the next ten years.
Agree with the points that government funding is essential and even with that unfortunately air travel will end up costing more
We don't have 2 decades
Then e-fuels will have to be subsidized by the governments. Right now any airline that switches over will go bankrupt within a very short time frame. Fuel can be up to 70% of the cost of flight. So if e-fuels are even only 20% more expensive (which they are not right now, they are at like 300% the price) that would mean the airline would have to significantly increase ticket prices and lose many customers to competition who is still burning fossil fuel and can thus sell cheaper tickets. Basically the government would have to guarantee that the e-fuel price is exactly the same as the fossil one and then cough up the difference.
@@cedricfranzen8558 then maybe we need Degrowth... please look it up and give it a thought.
@@cedricfranzen8558 also, aren't governments already helping out the rich enough? air travel is a (mostly) wealthy-exclusive mode of transportation.
@@atyshlmes4360 as someone working in the Airline industry you will forgive me for having a different opinion about that... degrowth would most likely lead to me losing my job and one of my biggest passions in my life. Also with today’s fares the flights are often cheaper than a taxi to the airport, at least in Western Europe.
@@atyshlmes4360 wow this is the first time i'm seeing an english comment about degrowth! It seems to me that comment sections are just pro infinite growth without actually looking at the physics behind it
Funny enough is that the first hydrogen fuel cell was invented in 1932! It is never too late.
Yeah, the sad part was that storing it proven to be too expensive even though it's way more efficient than petroleum.
Sandia Labs showed that the very means they developed to more efficiently separate hydrogen from water can be used to separate carbon monoxide from CO₂ and it is a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas (syngas) which is used to synthesize linear hydrocarbons suitable as direct replacements to jet fuel, diesel or gasoline through the Fischer Tropsch synthesis process commonly in use in our refineries. Hence if you are to attempt the hydrogen approach, you might as well just do the fuel synthesis approach and just keep existing vehicles and fuel delivery infrastructure.
Sustainablity is desirable but it is going to require a lot of governmental policy changes in order for the technologies that are needed and exist today and new generations of technologies to be widely implemented. That to me is the real test of just how serious governments and corporations are about sustainability, circular economies and all of the current buzzwords that we hear 24 hours a day from every corner of the political and corporate realms. The consumer cannot be the only payor of sustainability, it will not happen if it is left to the consumer or if it does it will be slower than needed and will have negative effects in other parts of the consumer chain.
5:56 you think i didnt see what u did there editor? lol the old windows screensaver
I hope that works on jumbo jets, cargo planes and military jet fighters, too. 🛫
If a green alternative to jet fuel is developed will it be safe and reliable at 35,000 ft altitude and will it be necessary to have a jet fuel engine as a safety backup ?
Increasing the price of plane tickets puts the responsibility of financing this transition on the individual consumers. While each person has the power to vote through flying with greener airlines, should this transition really hinge upon the depth of the passangers' pockets? Thoughts?
Well airplane companies have to make money to innovate somehow. Also it depends on how expensive they make it. If it's absurdly higher, then I wouldn't be willing to shoulder the cost, but if it's reasonable, then sure why not. I personally think the government should just put more federal research into hydrogen planes which will make sense considering biden wants a stronger stance on environment
Back in the past boat planes were the thing, people back then thought that was the future. That would be a great design.
boat planes are the worst of both world. they are heavy cumbersome aircraft and terrible draggy barely controllable boats.also they can only work on smooth water
It just need to be specified that most biofuel are not that ecological. In the end the fuel still has to be burned, even if it is called "bio". Only the production process is cleaner and emits less co2
Hydrogen is a very poor energy carrier, with considerably less energy out compared with energy in. The way forward is nuclear fusion, which is completely safe (unlike the nuclear fission that most of us are more familiar with) and which can go on producing energy for as long as needed. The US Navy patented a portable fusion reactor in 2019 that would be suitable for powering ships, aircraft, trains and almost anything else.
Unlike fission, which works by splitting atoms, fusion works by joining atoms together. It's the same process used by the Sun and stars for the last 20 billion years.
I saw a documentary about nuclear fusion (maybe) in 2011. it was cool, and scientists said it will be commonly used by 2020... it looks too far away
Perhaps for cargo and buisness flights. But generally aircraft travel went out of style and out of vogue with the rise of excessive if not outright bizarre boarding restrictions for a variety of reasons .. From pandemic to logistics to society itself
Water vapour is also greenhouse gas and absorbs infrared radiation in a higher rate. Hope they don’t just throw away vapour during the flight. That would be for nothing.
How sustainable is biofuel really in terms of co2 emissions?
Awesome information!
Thanks!
Bringing fuels composed of hydrogen and biofuels will definitely make our planet earth more safer and cooler due to which species can dwell more happily. Excellent and innovative idea! Charming and inspiring.
You can run a turbine on biodiesel, the technology is already here, byt it will be more expensive obviously. Aeroplanes are become less polutive all the time by small incremental changes to aerodynamics and fuel efficincy
Over all great idea 💡. 🙌
Not just flight but total global energy needs for 12 billion people, all vehicles, buildings, etc, moving towards leveraging hydrogen on demand to be the primary source as the end goal, let's do it, by 2050
Great video and explanation!
Question I have? how important and necessary is it for these people to be traveling?
Super informative 👍
This is only about fuel. Manufacture of planes and design of airports also needs a rethink.
Or you could reduce divideds, all of the problems listed here are a procduct that companies can't use a large amount of the money they bamek becuase they are stuck with primitive economics that relies on infintie growth, where a business having a steady profit to investors or even a slightly lower payoff for a period to change a production method results in it being deemed a failure and it's collapse.
The private corporate model is not compatible with demands of a rapidly advancing technological civilization and the challenges this brings.
Make the flights more expensive now!
Increase the tickets purchase now , due to air company will get a budget after 2 decades along with prevent or stop more carbon emission until that period of time
I don't understand, first they say hydrogen is denser than kerosene then they say that they need a bigger tank!
Then the airplane companies say they want less tax on fuel but they already don't pay tax on fuel since 1944...
Hydrogen is more powerful but STORING it is more expensive
Liquid hydrogen is very energy dense, gaseous hydrogen is not. So you have to have insulated tanks for liquid, or bigger tanks for hydrogen in gas form.
@1:59 what!? water vapor is the major greenhouse gas.
Only if sent into the upper atmosphere. Planes don't fly high enough and already produce lots of water vapour
Just use biofuels that are not made from food crops, they work in already existing jet engines. Case Closed.
We start with, biofuels, then hybrid electric, and then work from their.
Yeah, I do believe biofuel is something that can be done right now. A lot of wasted oil can be recycled and the carbon footprint of the industry will reduce greatly without a huge increase on ticket price.
@@charlietsai1177 I agree
Hope that nothing will be just late in 2-3 decades 🙁
There could be electrical charging ports for aeroplanes (the electricity coming from renewable energy sources) - no worry about inefficiency due to the weight of kerosene (or any other liquid fuel)
Hydrogen-fuel can be very dangerous (explosive) and cost much more money to introduce than the above suggestion (from what I know; words from my science teachers, this video)
lithium batteries needed for flying would be just as heavy if not more so than liquid fuels. That's why they're rooting for hydrogen. And while hydrogen is flammable, it has been used safely already in cars/trucks etc.
A green sky requires an electric sky, and that is impossible for commercial level aircraft. Even if they make the proverbial advanced light-weight nano-scale carbon battery, the chances of electrical failure is such that no one will gamble the fate of 250 passengers to a charged battery to run 4 turbo-fans. So, we have to continue to find economies in fueled air flight and limit travel somehow...
I find it funny that one of the reasons people argue Airships are a dead technology is that Hydrogen is the most economical gas to fill them with and it is highly flammable and now we are filling planes with big tanks of the same stuff. :P
I think liquid and gas is a difference not to be underestimated.
@@friederkumpf8158 Well yes and no. Depends how the Hydrogen is stored in a liquid form since Hydrogen only exists by itself in a liquid at either high pressure or very low temperature. Regardless, I just found it funny in a tongue in cheek way.
Didn't we stop flying airships for the same reason nuclear energy fell out of favor? A few horrible accidents delegitimized the whole industry in the eyes of the public?
Will military aircraft be green in the future or is it only for civilian pourposes
I don’t believe so! I highly doubt electricity could power a big huge plane. Maybe for a small Cessna but not a huge jet line.
Synthetic fuels, created with green energy, have the same energy density as fossil fuels. So it is possible, just expensive to set up the infrastructure required to produce it.
Problem is not that electric motors can't be made powerful enough it's creating or storing enough electricity onboard to power the motors. Would take a lot of fuel cells to make the electricity fast enough to power a large plane. Bio fuel or burning the hydrogen in modified engines is a near term answer.
might as well title this "how southwest tickets came to cost a grand"
This is all pie-in-the-sky, literally and figuratively.
First, as the video points out hydrogen has nowhere near the energy density of jet fuel. Next, to even gets close to that density it has too be liquified by cooling (which requires energy) and storing it in pressure vessels that can withstand high pressures and cold temperatures. Those are heavy.
Next, how is the hydrogen created? Natural gas through a chemical process, electrolysis which requires electricity which wind and solar could never provide in sufficient quantities.
Dreaming is fun but these scheme tries to defy physics.
Plane tickets are expensive enough. I couldn't care less about a green flight so don't put the prices up !!!
What percentage are the wars responsible for the planet’s emission? I believe the problem would be solved if we could only to stop all the wars around the planet ones and for all.
They will never stop. West keeps its hegemony by embroiling the world in conflict.
please learn more about geopolitics and read quickly through the IPCC report for decision-makers. you're not wrong but there is so much more to greenhouse gas emissions.
I believe the way looking at travel needs to change. Travel is expensive, consumptuous by itself and Climate change, mountains of plastic are so real.
Nice video.
Propeller driven airlines can fly without fuel or recharge stations. Edison generators and dynamos power plants to power electric motors and propellers. This means a c130 cargo plane can fly unlimited range without fuel or pollution. This true of all helicopters airplanes and ships. We are still grossly misinformed about power generation and power use.
Can we also have the opinion of anti plane groups ? There is only a small range of pro plane people being interviewed here. What about flying quotas as a means to reduce this sector's carbon emissions? As it happens, 1% of those who can fly are responsible for 50% of air travel emissions.
So only rich people should travel
Hard pass. Feel free to stop flying if you want to sacrifice your opportunity to travel for Gaia or whatever but don't tell other people what to do with their lives and money.
@@Lucian86 For shorter distances (i.e. within the EU, or between closely located countries/states) well coordinated, subsidized high-speed railways could be a more sustainable option, and would allow poor people to travel. To be fair though we should find ways to reduce economic inequalities in general, that way poor people can afford more (including flights) and wealthy people less.
Sure, a more sustanaible but more expensive option (even if subsidized, it doesn't change the equation). This will hurt poor people regardless. Let's call it for how it is. Rising living standards across all social classes is the main cause for pollution. Unless you come up with a big technological revolution, less pollution means less affordability of some goods/services for poor people.
The idea that only rich people pollute is laughable. Rich people means normal people in the developed world and some uprising social classe in the developing world. Take away all their private jets and restrict their travelling and it will change diddly squat.
The point is. You want less pollution generated by the flying industry ? poor people should stop flying. Period.
Rich people will pay the bill too but they'll fly anyway
@@Lucian86 flying quotas means what it means : you can only fly up to a set amount of times per year. It doesn't mean only the rich will fly, on the contrary, it will make rich people fly less. And anyway, poor people don't fly. They can't afford a holiday away from home.
I have no problems with government support of airlines or any company. I do have a problem when the support is all one way. If for profit companies want assistance, it must be as loans or equity swaps. Corporations haven't been getting free lunches up to now, because we've been paying for their gluttony.
most of the covid bailouts were given in the form of loans and in some countries equity swaps have happened
Maybe the aviation industry could start by offering 'green tickets'. These would cost more, but they could be 0 carbon flights utilizing new fuel technologies such as hydrogen. Of course normal flight tickets could still be bought, but it might prove as a valueable kick-off point for green aviation technologies.
I think that some airlines do this where the passenger can buy the carbon offsets.
May be airlines should remove business class seats and replace them by a "Green class" with basic seats and leaner on board service and !!!! at a higher price .
Thumbnail is POV: you are a fish in the Southern Indian Ocean.
Lol
I legit went to check and I am here to confirm. I am a fish
finally solid info on the topic!
Your conclusions on SAF as a short-term solution are incorrect for two reasons. Firstly the public will not accept that the same planes putting out the same emissions into the upper atmosphere are acceptable because they may be running on a synthetic fuel. Secondly you have not understood the technology on the Hydrogen Electric issues- as well as problems there are also new solutions. Airbus are not following the SAF route they are planning to bring in these aircraft within 10 years.
Talk to say GKN Aerospace who are leading this effort in the UK!
green tax on tickets and bio fuel is best way to reduce co2 emission in short run. In long run h2 will replace bio fuel
I think we should just put a carbon tax on businesses.
Very interesting alternative.
2:14 aviation can be 22% of planet emission, by 2050 hydrogen could reduce 75% of carbon emissions. plan: produce hydrogen in ocean with solar panels, ship out though boat shipping containers
Great
What happened to oil dependent countries?
✈ I would LOVE to see airships (or blimps) NOT replace airplanes but definitely share the skies with them.
As much as I would like to see them again, as well, it probably won't happen again. There is a shortage on helium now. The medical industry needs helium for test equipment which requires inert gases as a carrier gas and for other purposes.
@@Tubes12AX7k What about hydrogen gas?
@@marlonmoncrieffe0728 Hydrogen-filled zeppelins or did you mean in the lab? Several inert gases are used in the laboratory for different purposes (helium, nitrogen, and argon) but they must be inert gases that will not react with samples you are testing. But helium and argon are expensive and rare.
@@Tubes12AX7k Sorry, I meant for airships. Hydrogen for airships.
That should be electric.
The elitization of transport... so sad
3:38
Any one can help with my curiosity...can they use any kind of water?
Any kind of water ?
Effectively. However the process needs to be modified and has differing costs depending on the type of water you use. For example, if your using Sea water, you would have a lot of salt that would need to be dealt with in the process which can effect the cost of processing.
@@brynphillips9957 i see thank you mate, really helpful
Perhaps hydrogen could be made at airports with solar no need for pipeline infostructure ect.
gliding intensifies
Truly amazing times ahead....
If you call climate catastrophe amazing.
I think its a bit disingenuous not to mention that hydrogen is more energy-dense per kg. So, in fact, there is a large weight saving to be made by switching to hydrogen.
But you need pressurised vessels to store, which weigh more, so the volume problem + storage challenge with current and horizon tech would still lead to larger planes or lower range with existing planes.
@@tns226 Exactly. I think the extra volume required by hydrogen is potentially more problematic than the weight savings, if those are actually a thing (probably not).
Jet fuel is one of the cleanest field imagineable, not like diesel fuel.
You know jet fuel is closure to Kerosene so by that it’s similar to diesel fuel
@@robwyyi - Then they should use diesel fuel for jets ?
Jet fuel is a inefficient fuel much like diesel. Like diesel it’s exhaust pollution is the worse.
They are all fossil fuel so in general both pollutes the question is which one is the least.
Much like coal and natural gas generators.
@@robwyyi Okay rocket scientist. I'll write that in my diary for today ;)
@@Gogalen789 they do. Plane bio-fuel is basicaly bio-diesel
It is not only the air travel industry that needs to change. But also alternative forms of transport need to be competitively affordable. For example, in Germany it is often a cheaper option to fly from Hamburg to Dusseldorf than to take the train. Thus, I believe airlines should be obliged to reach a certain fleet co2 consumption (e.g. via eco fuels) just like car manufacturers and car fleet operators are. Hopefully this will drive prices up, so that for national travel within an EU country it is cheaper to take the train than to fly. This should cut co2 emissions indirectly since trains can be directly operated by green electricity without energy leeks in a converting process to hydrogen or other e-gases for the time while we don‘t have a renewable energy surplus.
I think it comes down to low innovation in the train industry. Here in Denmark we still havent switched our trains away from diesel to electricity. Most of the trains companies use right now is less comfortable than the trains beforehand, they look worse on the inside and outside (of course thats my opinion) and the reliability on train travel (in Denmark) is a big reason for people to prefer other forms of transportation.
Powerpaste is the solution for packing more energy density in a smaller volume.
Hopefully the transition to sostenible aviation will be much faster , still really nice to see that very smart people are working on it .
Compared to the cruise industry this is nothing
If the technology was so great etc, how come the private sector doesn't completely fund the technology???
In short: profit (they literally explained it in the video)
"because hydrogen can pack more energy into a smaller space".....that's actually the exact opposite of the truth. Hydrogens greatest weakness is its low volumetric density.
Edit: Oh and your interviewee contradicts (with the correct information) your narrator half way into the video, weird. Feel free to reach out for some writing advice Economist 😂
More energy into a small space than electric batteries, they go onto say. Pretty sure that's correct. Was looking out for it, but not sure what the contradiction is either?
Green Methanol is the answer for, Airplane, Ship 🚢, and even heavy Trucks.
relax take it easy! let's have some variety! let's rollout the green initiative!
just use a kerosene electricity generator to produce electricity for the plane. easy.
Wow
No
With batteries no hydrogen yes
Or we could build underwater high-speed railways to other continents.
Way to expensive
The tectonic plates impedes us from doing that.
Pardon.. How do u produce hydrogen ???
By-product in refining natural gas
@@sebastianflynn1746 refining using electricity from burning coal
@@louis8935 isn't done because the catalysts don't last long enough and are very expensive.
@@sebastianflynn1746 my point is the hydrogen being produced is made using things that depend on electricity which is made using coal
@@louis8935 I mean that completely depends on where you live, France it would be nuclear, if the power was made solely in california its very unlikely to be coal.
Ofcourse if flight run over amazon & Kenya!!
what about hyperloop?
Really? Unworkable on even small scales currently and, even were you able to expand to real world scale, it would be prohibitively expensive. Anyway, they are not even anywhere near proof of concept for this. Musk will put men on mars long before hyperloop is viable.
@@machidaman okay I see thank you for the information
You need to build the tubes, which are more expensive then rail and high speed rail is already at 574kph in experimental vehicles and 350kph in normal operation. Then you have maglev, which Japan currently builds a line with speeds over 500kph for commercial service. Basicly hyperloop is maglev with vacuum tubes, which will cost more. So you have to be signifcantly faster, which right to me knowledge nobody has done today. Also you can not cross large bodies of water with hyperloops, so you need planes anyway and they are as fast as a hyperloop without the tubes.
@@Milfhunter_404 you are more than welcome. Always a pleasure to open the eyes of one blinded by their musk fandom.
@@MrMakabar At present people will travel in a pressure reduced enviorenment in a plane but would not in a tunnel.
If Australia buys 20 hardrock Chinese TBM to drive Sydney/Canberra in 5 years and puts a proven Japanese Maglev in it then, as it is a single straight tunnel, when people become more adventurous it can be pressure reduced from the ten launch shafts allowing 1,000 km/h.