Quote:
Originally Posted by LostCause
I was under the impression that boating was the most efficient form of transport available. While boats operate in a liquid (draggy) environment, they are the slowest and "densest" transporter of goods. What they lack in efficiency they make up in volume. This doesn't apply to the QM2, but goods shipping in general.
Ofcourse, the most efficient way to get to England would be sailing.  |
Ok, that's true
But if you want to get there FAST then you're better off driving or flying then boating, speed boats get crap mileage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostCause
In the 1950's, the Airforce flew a B36 Peacemaker with a reactor onboard. It didn't power the aircraft, but that was the eventual intent.
I'd be worried about the energy density of hydrogen, which is pretty low compared to gasoline. Unless some type of substrate method takes off that increases fuel density, planes will either be severely handicapped performance-wise or space-wise.
|
Yeah, I think that would be the problem. Also, just so we're clear, I don't mean putting a reactor on a plane, but using power generated on the ground to create hydrogen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostCause
I'd be more interested in the return of the Zeppelin. The ultimate marriage of hydrogen and aviation. 
- LostCause |
hehe, yeah that would be cool. It would really be an experience to take a cruise in a Zeppelin. If it we're affordable I'd love to sign up for that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RH77
For my job, I have to travel -- it's a given. I can either drive and get 25-34 MPG on the trip, or share a ride with 95 other people in a plane and get there quicker, and likely more efficiently (depending on the aircraft).
|
Oh, I love flying too. I've nothing against it, but under no circumstances is flying in any plane more environmentally friendly than driving a really fuel efficient car. The raw amount of GHGs released is greater, and they are released higher and so more damaging. Flying is safer and faster though