• shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    OK. Tell me how to get the energy density needed to drive an airliner. Solar ain’t gonna fly (heh) and batteries weigh too much.

    FFS, the world ain’t going vegan tomorrow and this fat is mostly waste. Waste that, left to rot, will produce methane witch is FAR worse than CO2.

    Lemmy: “Not good enough!”

    • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just to be clear, ethical considerations aside, relying on fat from animals requires an extremely environmentally damaging industry (I.e. Livestock industry) to either sustain the current numbers or increase output, just to keep airplane fuel going.

      The immediate solution, at least for regional airtravel is electric planes. This is already doable, so more investments should be put into that.

      We can then look at solutions for international and long haul flight, even if that includes hybrid planes or fully electric, or a totally different (sustainable) fuel source.

      If you consider that whatever solutions we come up with need to work in the long-term, it makes sense to prioritize more realistic goals, rather than create an entirely different set of problems.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        What about Trains? We don’t need short-range aircraft, we need high speed trains. Trans-oceanic flights can still use fuel, it’s fine.

      • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In that case it would only take a couple of planes worth of stealing before you jad enough plutonium for at least a dirty bomb if not a nuclear weapon lol.

        Like wut? Thorium still needs plutonium to work and plutonium can be used for both cases just as uranium afaik.

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Absolutely true, but the consequences of a crash are too dire to ever let this be a thing.

        Plus, the ROI on a nuclear plane would be a joke. How you gonna pay for it? Maybe break even after 500,000 flights? :)

        And then there’s the maintenance and professionals and on and on.

    • themusicman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      How about accepting that passenger air travel is a luxury we simply can’t afford… (let the downvotes flood in)