Aerospace engineer here, with a PhD on sustainability. I have been watching this video with a professional interest. As to be expected from this channel, the content is excellent (and funny). The key addition I would make is that the engineering challenges (sorry, problems) in any of these alternatives are daunting. As in: really, really difficult. Some things can be solved, but it will take a VERY long time. Which we don't have. Second addition: virtually the entire air travel industry is greenwashing like crazy. And regularly exposed for doing so. They fully deserve to be called out for it Misinformation will not help us at all. Anyway. Time for "engineering without the gobbledygook" ?
Can you go into some detail about the biggest, eh, challenges, that will take long to solve and, more interestingly, how you are certain they will take long to solve?
@@kensho123456 did you ever notice, swipe input gets this wrong all the time? (those letters are quite close together, after all. or did you really believe, someone mastered a reputable degree but lacks on* [lol] such basic grammar?)
Since you're claiming to be an expert, what do you think of my ideas to make planes green(er)? As most kerosene is used during the start, there are several things they could do: 1) Plane runways could be built on high skyscrapers or next to mountain cliffs and have a slight slope. This would reduce fuel consumption because the plane can start rolling with its own potential energy and then fall down for 100-200m until it has enough speed to lift off. 2) Detachable batteries with a parachute could be used to provide enough energy for the start. As soon as the plane has reached some altitude, the batteries are released and softly fall down again near the airport and can be recharged for the next plane. 3) Airports could use catapults like aircraft carriers. This also works for big planes as surveillance planes show that are located on aircraft carriers. Look up the Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, it has a starting weight of 23 tons and can fly 3000km.
@@andyk2181 I particularly liked your second paragraph, lol. despite all the hype in media, the pandemic clearly showed us, that in person meeting can't be replaced with anything else. virtual, it's just not the same. humans aren't made (or ready yet) for online conferences.
I simply LOVE Sabine’s videos, and I especially love her deadpan humor (I literally burst out laughing - and got a lot of funny looks from fellow Starbucks customers - when she explained that “challenges” is American-speak for “problems”). I look forward to her every video, and I always seem to get a new perspective on things. She never disappoints! Keep up the great work Sabine!! ❤
Ya we call those problems" job killers" in 'merica because change is hard, I mean it takes effort which we're big manly people unless we see a different person play some imaginary character then we meltdown, but thinking beyond an ideology or some make believe fables is really hard. Sarcasm of course
@@SabineHossenfelder You have found the key to education and enlightenment by making teaching funny, entertaining and informative. I find myself listening to things of science that in everyday life would not interest me. You create an interest for me and I remember information because you make important points humorous. For some reason you have make things so interesting that I discuss what you have said to the world with others and often get the response "I did not know that, where did you find this, send me a link". You are a bright star in the darkness of the universe. I say thank you but that just does not seem to be equivalent to what you have given to everyone who listens to your views on science and humanity. Good fortune to you, whatever that mean be for you.
he deadpan delivery sells its so well. can you imagine this from almost anyone else? "or the weight of two average germans" *jump cut - zoom in* record scratch "i didnt just say that did i ?"
From a pilot's perspective, I enjoyed this immensely. There are huge obstacles to making any of these safe (as in the amount of spare fuel you can carry) for legitimate use, but we should make the effort. Thanks for the great content, Sabine! Dave J
As a swede, I thought this video was hilarous while still extremely helpful and logical. Great video, I am surprised you could tell so many jokes in one video with such a straight face. Wonderful.
EUreka UR a genius - we shd firmly attach the turkeys to the wings. It's about time those birds paid their way in this world! No more free flights or Xmas dinners ;-)
*Background on the topic* 0:00 ✈️ Emissions 0:48 3rd biggest contributor to global carbon dioxide emissions [2.5% or 1 billion tons] 1:33 Everyone is emitting more CO2, however Planes are more energy efficient, keeping the 2.5% level. 2:17 1. Electric Planes 🔋 🪫 ⚡️ 2:32 - Slower, Smaller, Heavier planes 5:03 Hope for 90 passanger plane + More efficient than kerosine 6:10 Make a lighter battery 2. Hydrogen 6:32 - requires cooling - requires heavy tanks + high energy density 1950s airbus tech roots -> 2020 airplane studies today 7:59 A-300-80, A-300-50 3. Biofuel 9:05 • recently deceased plant fuel 🌱 - Too heavy - fuel freezes 10:16 Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosine - 100 MILLION DOLLARS 4. Synthetic Fuel 13:00 + High energy density + Already in use - Costly 8 Billion Gallons with Gov subsidy by 2030 15:45 Replacing 5% of Jet Fuel Then moving onto Meat 🥩 Shaming 15:53 “It Isn’t Going To Save The Planet.” 🌎 🌍 🌏
_0:48__ 3rd biggest contributor to global carbon dioxide emissions [2.5% or 1 billion tons]_ According to the most recent report from the EU's EDGAR database, international aviation accounted for 1.03% of global CO2 emissions in 2021, which would put it at #17 in the world. China is still #1, accounting for 32.93% of total global CO2 emissions, or some 32 times more CO2.
I could watch Sabine for 80000 hours - and yes, I've got a PhD in physicist too. She's a great science communicator, because she chooses topics that are important to be well understood for ethical reasons.
You really got me with the "Emotional Support Turkeys", delivered "dead-pan"! I must have laughed for 30 seconds or so, and am still smiling pretty hard! :D
In all these discussions about how we could fuel the mobility we have, i miss the option where we highly reduce our mobility. In times of zoom calls and alike it really rareley is neccessary to go somewhere in person.
Two points. First, I believe (as in I don't have data to confirm it) that big part of what you call "mobility" comes from production of all type. Transportation of materials, products, parts etc etc is a huge chunk of "mobility". And I can think of a lot of examples when even just passengers have to fly to destinations as part of all kinds of production cycles. What I'm trying to say is that there's hardly a big percentage of people who use planes just for pure tourism. Second point, even if there is, you can't just lock up the people in their homes with Zoom. That would cause a number of problems we can't even imagine. Human being has a need to explore, that's how we got here in the first place. I myself believe in creationism, but even with that in mind I understand that all that humanity accomplished so far is just thanks to this existential need for exploring. So, though I can understand your point, I just can't imagine my life without traveling. And I don't travel all that much, but the fact that I'm here, watching this video and am able to express myself with a lot of fluency in a language that is not native to me, all of that is thanks to the experience that I had living in different parts of the world, seeing different cultures etc.
what was missing on the electric plane section is that planes take only as much fuel as they need and use it up over the fight distance. so the plane gets lighter during the flight and lands with minimal weight. Batteries have a constant weight, regardless if the plane is used for a flight from boston to New YorkCity or from Boston to Los Angeles (unless you have removable batteries or specific planes for each distance). And batteries have constant weight during the entire flight. This weight disadvantage is substantial. In addition it's unlikely you can charge the huge battery in the short time a plane is on the ground between flights.
As an impartial observer, it seems to me that lifting all that mass up to 30K ft. with luggage, drinks, and hors d'oeurvres would be more efficiently transported on or under the ground by solar provided electric.
I am from Northern Norway, and for a lot of places air travel is the only convenient way to travel domestically. We're looking at 15+ hour bus trips, 9+ hour car trips or day+ long sea trips on cruise ships along the cost. Or you could take a plane that might get you where you want to go in an hour or less, or maybe 2-3 if you use a circular route plane that visit a lot of small air ports.
@Russ Bell I am not sure you understand, it's not just distance, it's terrain. Norway's coastline is broken up by countless Fjords, interspersed with Mountains, and in the area I am describing it gets as cold as -40 degrees because it's in the Arctic.
@@Ranked_Journey Whatever the reasons, the point is clear: air travel is the way to go. You can drive from NYC to LA in 5 days, take 3 days on a train or you can just take a 5.5-hour plane ride.
@@Eli-pj8xm You missed my point entirely. There is no train option in Northern Norway, and driving there is a mess with multiple mountain passes can be closed due to avalanches, etc. and where even short distances (stuff that should only take you a few hours by car) takes 9+ hours due to changes in elevation and having to drive around mountains and fjords. Now if you're going to travel from NYC to LA you ACTUALLY have a reasonable train option. Although, as I hear it American public transport infrastructure is terrible. That is something that could be solved though. Also, in this case you're traveling across a continent, of course it's going to take a while.
@@Ranked_JourneyYou might not like it but there's always the option to live elsewhere. It's something that will happen a lot with climate change anyways (though mostly from south to north)
A very important point that is NEVER mentioned regarding fossil-fuel vs. electric powered airliners is the fact that as the jet burns through it’s fossil fuel the gross weight of the aircraft is reduced substantially. Not so with batteries; they weigh what the weight from takeoff to landing. This should be factored into any efficiency comparison.
That algae stuff sounds promising. Would be interesting to compare the sunlight catching area requirements of algae + refining vs. photovoltaics + power-to-kerosene.
Algae have one great advantage. We can find a way to simply grow them directly in the ocean. Which would be required as the surface area needs will be HUGE and the no. 1 reason for the mass extinction happening right now (which is yet another crazily big challenge) is agriculture.
Photovoltaics are much more efficient in capturing energy from the sun than plants, an order of magnitude at least compared to fuel crops, and algae require lots of moving parts, cleaning and permanent attention compared to fuel crops, that's why they play no significant role in energy production.
@Evi1 M4chine True but also we have a food and energy crisis on the horizon. Does waiting to wise up mean letting millions die? Ecocide is happening already but you know besides that too.
I'm old enough to remember when people said horses were more cost-efficient than the Model T. If Sabine was alive in the early 1900s, we might never have cars today.
Sabine. I've been following you at a distance for about 2 years now. I have a theory: Poetry does not need to be understood as the poet intended - rather it's enough that the reader derives his or her own pleasure and some degree of enlightenment from the poem, be it through words, structure or acquired emotion. I've tested this theory on myself thousands of times and have yet to prove it false. You are a poet. Having failed sciences at school over half a century ago, I find that half the time I've no idea what you're talking about but you give me immense joy in trying to follow, and to learn. Thank you.
One "easy" way to reduce the impact of flights is to fly slower. We accept 12 hours flights when we fly Frankfurt to San Francisco for example. If flying Frankfurt to New York is now 12 hours, speed is divided by 2 so fuel needed is divided by four, as energy to fight drag grows as V squared ( with an aircraft aerodynamically optimized for lower flight speeds obviously). In fact, the benefit would be significantly more than that because the mass of the fuel being lower, the structure would be lighter so less fuel...virtuous cycle. Lighter also means smaller wings (less weight again ) and/or flying at a lower lift coefficient ( less drag so less fuel ). There are of course "side effects" like you need more or less twice the number of airplanes or crew. But a back of the enveloppe calculation shows that the the overall cost would still be a little lower. So the bottom line is that if we accept to fly slower and pay the same price, we can at least halve the fuel consumption and create jobs!! It would obviously be a major change, with lots of "challenges" but it seems to me that it is far less crazy than electric flight...
Sabine! I love your videos so much. Thank you for presenting accurate information in such an accessible and easy to consume way. You and your team are amazing.
It's also worth mentioning that a great way to decarbonize planes, much like decarbonize cars, is to get rid of them. High speed rail would be a suitable substitute for many flights and would be cheaper if done right.
Hi Sabine. Love your content. Thank you for teaching and covering the earthly physics too! On another note. The sponsor link is missing, in case you'd like to have it included. I was going to click on it. Thanks!
Another fine video from Sabine! As for the challenging "problem" debate: Corporate Mission Statements are full of inspiring words about turning problems into challenges (so much so, my phone auto suggested 'challenges' before I could tap the C key!). I can't say that is a bad thing, but my distrust of CorporateSpeak leaves me very wary. Your videos on climate/carbon issues are informative and well presented. No gobbledegook and clever, timely takedowns of the new PM Truss. What is not to like. You are one of the great scientific communicators!
Flight-shaming would be entirely appropriate if it was directed at the grossly higher per capita emissions of private flights. Especially because ultimately, the only reason CEOs and politicos "can't" travel with the rest of us is really just snooty personal preference.
To be honest I haven't really looked into the numbers myself, and I can't speak to the quality of the study, but this seems sourced and believable at a quick skim - transportenvironment org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/202209_private_jets_FINAL_with_addendum.pdf
except that many of the mega-rich are already using bio-fuels & synthetic fuels in their aircraft. Bill Gates has spoken about it several times & names other users.
@@alanhat5252 That's a good thing, if true as taken at face value. But: 1) How impactful is the switchover in a handful of billionaires' jets as compared to a large corporation as e.g. Walmart, with dozens+ of VPs taking private flights on a frequent basis? 2) With biofuels we can't in good conscience ignore the political and moral realities of using agricultural output for fossil fuel use reduction in a world tragically full of malnutrition and facing an impending economic contraction and food security crisis 3) We must also consider the related outputs of biofuel production. I don't have an answer to this so it's not a strong point for me, but do we end up saving CO2 emissions from jets and cars by just trading them for increased fertilizer runoff, pesticide use, and nitrogen pollution? 4) While 'leading the charge' on greening their private flights would be admirable, it doesn't change that commercial airlines are also switching to the same ostensibly greener technologies. There's no reason to assume an interminable 'greenness gap', unless these billionaires are developing new green fuels and building new aircraft to use them... then hoarding such developments all to themselves instead of making them available on the open market. Of course this is absurd. So whether it is mitigated partly right now or not, eventually the same issue of 'billionaire flying a private jet 80-100 times a year with an average of 3-4 fellow passengers' per capita emissions as compared to us sky cattle
wouldnt interstate rail lines reduce US internal flights and therefore reduce emissions? there are a lot of ways of reducing emissions that when combined, make a significant impact. In my opinion, it only makes sense to flight shame regular people AND rich dudes.
Three years ago I answered the Quora question, "Is zero emission air travel possible". I found something that might be better: air travel that emits smoke that *cleans the upper atmosphere as it falls*. Check it out. It is true that kerosene might be synthesized electrically, but that wastes primary energy in the synthesis in order to waste more energy in the aircraft's heat engines. In Japan there is a High Temperature Engineering Test Reactor which has been used experimentally to process water through several chemical steps, driven by the high heat, into hydrogen and oxygen. (You can't do this in a single step. The temperature would have to be much higher than a nuclear reactor can give, and the hydrogen and oxygen, both being gases, would simply recombine when you cooled them. But if, in one of the places in the setup, hydrogen comes off by itself, and in another, oxygen does, bob's your uncle, and you are his happy niece or nephew.) The hydrogen, you would react with CO2 to make nuclear kerosene plus water.
I have always been amazed at the extraordinary amount of energy used by passenger planes. Cambridge physicist David MacKay (author of “Without Hot Air”) has calculated that a single Atlantic flight ONE WAY uses about 4800 kilowatt hours of energy per person (630,000 kilowatt hours to fly that one plane one way across the ocean). To put this crazy amount of energy in terms that are easily understood he equates it to a hot shower: a 30 litre hot shower typically uses 1.4 kilowatt hours of electricity so a single return airplane flight uses as much energy as 6858 showers for every person on board. It’s like everyone on the plane taking a shower every day for almost 20 years - equivalent to 900,000 showers for the entire plane! (McKay actually estimates this higher as 12,000 kwh per person on his webpage - this figure is from an earlier version of his book - 12,000 kwh is the same as 17,000 showers a person on a return trip. He states, “Let’s make clear what this means. Flying once per year has an energy cost slightly bigger than leaving a 1 kW electric fire on, non-stop, 24 hours a day, all year.”
Let's say a couple is on that plane. 24,000kWh. My Hyundai Kona electric car gets about 15kWh/100km on the highway (better at lower speeds). For that one Atlantic flight, my wife and I could drive 24,000kWh/(15kWh/100km)=160,000km. We could have a lot of holiday travel covering 160,000km by car. We could go even further by train. Cars and trains are easily electrified now to run on renewable generation.
As an astronomer, i would like to see planes using batteries. Last i heard about 6 months back, a battery powered aircraft can manage about an hour of flight. Not burning fuel at high altitude will produce far fewer jet trails - the bane of the amateur astronomer. After the Icelandic event in 2011 and during the pandemic lockdowns i've never seen so many clear skies.
Thank you for outlining this. So many people think throwing batteries and money at everything will magically make them work, completely ignoring what's physically impossible or viable.
"So many people ..." -- my version: so many people who live off public stipends think throwing batteries and money at a thing that won't work will magically make it work, greatly reducing the fossil fuel tax revenue component of those stipends, and oh dear, when the thing doesn't work, there they are, still stuck with the money".
As an American ex-pat who has lived in Europe for the past 30 years, I like your observation about "challenges". It is interesting to see new phrases and uses of words pop up that have developed since I left the US. A question: could you please do a video (unless you have already and I've missed it) on travelling by train vs. plane? If Americans could use the train like Europeans do, that would put a dent in their CO2 emissions, I believe.
_Well There's Your Problem Podcast_ had a long video about issues with US trains - namely a lack of rail electrification.. and shortsighted attitude towards infrastructure investment (its called capitalism, and it has its issues).
As a repatriated ex-pat: America has a phenomenal train system. It just moves freight, because Americans make stuff, and if we need to get some where, we do it at 550 knots. Europeans put people on trains so they can take 6 weeks of vacation from their 35 hour work weeks.
Sabine, you are amazing. You know how to clearly explain your subject and I love your humor. Sometimes I have to play parts again because I need to laugh first. So watching your video's in one go is ..... a challenge🤣😛
My dad who is a straight ticket conservative went with me to see a lecture by David Suzuki. After many wondrous and disconcerting things and a plea for greener living by Dr. Suzuki, I asked Dad what he thought. I can't remember exactly what he said but he thought Suzuki was a hypocrite because he had flown there and flies all over the world delivering lectures about Green living.
I think we should continue to develop these electric vehicles because as we do over the years they keep getting better and better but they will only have their place. I believe airplanes must use what's in place and develope more efficient motors and increase the efficiency to what we can. There are instances when we can use electric versus fossil fuels. It's the same with energy production...we keep developing ways to turn water to steam but we really haven't advanced much after the steam is made in the turbine thats efficiency causes it to be the Achilles heal for any energy production. Turbines may still be the most efficient option but without focusing on it as much as the sources, that efficiency will grow very slowly. We need to simply increase the amount of area that carbon can be stored on land...like trees.
@Evi1 M4chine Well like most that take office they inherit what the previous person and team did before them so she was basically saying the aircraft and her flight would represent the office of the PM and that the emergency exits that are located in the rear is her option of escaping what she inherited basically is how I took it.
@Evi1 M4chine She's caused a major accidental devaluation of the pound and government bonds within weeks of taking office by pushing an un-costed fiscal policy of more cash for those who don't need it.. Made a great deal worse by silencing the organisation whose job it is to model the likely outcomes of such a policy. Basically flying blind.
With current developed technology(no "challenges" allowed), synthetic methane is our best solution for rockets and air travel. Synthetic methane is easier and cheaper to produce than synthetic kerosene. The Mass Specific Energy of methane is also 20% higher than kerosene and has none of the storage "challenges" of hydrogen. Methane burns cleaner with CO2 and H2O as its only product, while kerosene produces carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and other gases.
@@b43xoit Not worse in all regards, but it fails a very important property, the Mass Specific Energy, methyl alcohol only has half (50%) the Mass Specific Energy of kerosene.
I appreciate the detailed analysis of this potential new technology. Too often, we get very simplistic or incomplete analyses from the media or from activists. (Fusion Energy, for example)
My favorite idea for electric aircraft is to use the same idea SpaceEx uses for rockets: detach and return spent batteries to the airport. A lot of the energy needed by aircraft is climbing to altitude. Detachable batteries with remotely-guided parafoils could just glide back to the airport for recharging so the aircraft didn't need to carry dead weight during cruise.
@@Oznz-m5c You only detach spent batteries, not charged ones. Large battery packs for vehicles are already segmented for safety reasons, so it makes sense they would do that on aircraft as well.
"A lot of the energy needed by aircraft" ~10%? In theory you can drop used batteries whole flight and have them glide to collection points on the route... just it would be simpler to use any other option.
The Swedish. All aircraft designers have to consider the new Koenigsegg lightweight who calls the engine the Tiny Friendly Giant, or TFG for short, and it's an apt name. The TFG is a 2.0-liter twin-turbo three-cylinder that makes 600 horsepower. At 300 horsepower per liter, the TFG's specific output is far higher than anything ever seen in a road car. For charge.
Sabine, you forgot to mention that 96% of hydrogen is made from natural gas. The vast majority of supposedly "clean" hydrogen for e.g. cars is just disguised natural gas. Making hydrogen using electrolysis is super expensive, way more than just using natural gas as the input resource.
Of course it is expensive now, because it is not done at scale yet and the electricity production is what it is. That's not relevant, the relevant question is how "cheap" it can be, if everything is done to drive the price down. Same as was with electric cars only 15 years ago. Batteries were super expensive compared to today, because they weren't produced at scale, the production and scale was nonexistent. Important question regarding hydrogen production by electrolysis ( and other methods ) is, how do we produce the electricity. For example, is it scalable, can it be scaled to the levels required, is it efficient enough, etc. Aside electrolysis, hydrogen can also be produced with things like heat from nuclear power.
The major issue with hydrogen isn't its need for heavy, voluminous tanks and very low temperature freezing equipment. It is leaks: hydrogen's molecules being tiny, it leaks through whatever kind of pipe junction, valve, etc., no matter what. The space industry uses hydrogen, but admits some leakage, a few percent. However, it must always watch for those leaks, and whenever the limit is reached or surpassed (see recent SLS flight scrubbed for this reason early last month), repairs and adjustments in temperature or pressure must be performed. Risk of explosion is high. Bad for passage and crews.
Hello Sabine, as always very interesting your articles. I would like if you can make a comparison of the energy efficiency between airplanes and bullet trains.
As most kerosene is used during the start, there are several things they could do: 1) Plane runways could be built on high skyscrapers or next to mountain cliffs and have a slight slope. This would reduce fuel consumption because the plane can start rolling with its own potential energy and then fall down for 100-200m until it has enough speed to lift off. 2) Detachable batteries with a parachute could be used to provide enough energy for the start. As soon as the plane has reached some altitude, the batteries are released and softly fall down again near the airport and can be recharged for the next plane. 3) Airports could use catapults like aircraft carriers. This also works for big planes as surveillance planes show that are located on aircraft carriers. Look up the Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, it has a starting weight of 23 tons and can fly 3000km. Problem solved. Do I get a reward now?
I guess your points (1) and (3) prevent (2) from getting the necessary attention. That would not be done with a parachute. Regular planes can land autonomously so why should that be a problem with a "flying object" that can be optimized for this? This would not help mich with long-distance flights but should be very attractive for short distances.
to climb higher airplane still uses its own power even with those nuclear powered aircraft carrier catapult. Lets say a glider run down a hill of 200m high, it still only has enough Kinetic Energy to climb back to 200m, no further. If it drop large battery to shed weight during take-off then it still need to continue to have additional batteries to keep climbing. It need to continuously expend energy during climbing.
@@HaukeLaging A very short range electric plane carrying a conventional long range plane on its back, perhaps? Or like in paragliding, where one plane drags the other? There's all sorts of possibilities to get this done.
The main issue comes from the instability of the air due to waves. The choppier the water, the more you have additional problems for maintaining ideal height, water hitting the vehicle, that kind of thing. It's possible to traverse an ocean with one, but really you'd want ideal conditions. It's why mostly pursuits focus on lakes or small seas.
One addition though : Breaking the elephant challenge in smaller pieces might make it easier to solve, and shorten the air revolution timespan : - intra-city and short distance intercity travel might be achievable with batteries in coming years (would already help to some road traffic decongestion). I mean, the global one-for-all solution will take decades. But an approach by category (use-case) might be more efficient, and solve part of issues (challenges) faster. Love your work This being said, your analysis per type of energy is (off-course) 100% accurate.
Sabine, when is your next trip to the U.S. that will include any presentations/public talks from you? Have been admiring your work since you began this channel, and would enjoy the opportunity to hear you speak in person. Also, as usual, this video is a great example of your unmatched combination of insights, information, and humor. Many thanks for your many videos over the last few years.
The problem with biofuel food prices to increase and take out precious farmland. This will also lead more forests to be cut down and converted into farmland
What you mentioned 'France has already done this in part' is kinda also the issue. This requires a lot of coordination between countries, because while an internal high-speed rail network is already a great step ahead (and a good reason to ban intranational flights), we also need a lot of collaboration between the various countries in the EU to create a unified high-speed rail network.
Rail rips up land, isolates wildlife. Watch the video of a swedish train trying to stop for like a mile, wiping out half a herd. In Canada, elk get plastered because they come to the tracks for spilt grain. Save the countryside, fly over it.
For a start, it's a lot easier to destroy a high speed train as an act of terrorism. It is also easier to divert an aircraft in the event of say an earthquake. Finally, the permanent infrastructure costs for high speed rail is massive, much more than an aircraft.
The "challenge" one was great 👍 but you pushed it a bit too often. Once again a great video, thanks Sabine! Also just read your article in the guardian. Very nice 🙂
Sabine, one of your best. Easily understandable and beautifully presented with great content and tears of laughs throughout....It was a 'challenge' to not wake the neighbors with 'more than the cdc recommends for inflight entertainment' or '19 Swede's equal to about 2 Germans'. Bravo!
And what about the stars themselves. Wasteful or WHAT. Maybe they travel fast, but unlike our fast movers, do not have to load up with 1/2 V^2 kinetic-energy-per-unit-mass to do so. From "They Shall Have Stars": "... It moves in its own continuum, not the general frame." "You're kidding," Helmuth said. "Am I, now? This ship came to Ganymede directly from Earth. It did it in a little under two hours, counting maneuvring time. That means that most of the way we made about 55,000 miles per second-with the spindizzy drawing less than five watts of power out of three ordinary No. 6 dry cells."
I used to live along a flight path to LAX (Los Angeles). In the 70's we could HEAR those airplanes on the ground. That's how loud they were. Today you can't them at all. That noise was a loss of energy, reducing the efficiency. And we don't see the smoke trails anymore too. They used to litter the sky with their contrails. I rarely see contrails anymore.
If we say that Airlines should do this or that... it is just a "Challenge" transfer situation. The Airline companies don't make airplanes, they buy or rent available airplanes, and they transfer all flight costs to the Passengers, and the highest cost of an average flight is FUEL, followed by airport infrastructure and attendances costs and highly-demanded maintenance costs.
Would Airplane Makers responsible for this "Challenge"? Not necessarily. Most of them are NOT Turbine Makers. This industry is not like car industry. With few exceptions most of the Civilian airplanes are powered by turbine (or turbo-propeller) engines made by: - General Electric (USA); - Rolls Royce (UK); - United Technologies (USA - incorporating Pratt-Whitney, Elliott, etc.); - Volvo/SAAB (Sweden); - and few others around the world; These are the companies that should have a commitment for a high-efficiency low-emission airplane engines that could solve this "challenge".
Turbines are engines with highest power/weight rate known so far make them ideal for airplanes, however they demand extensive technology on high-temperature materials metallurgy and ceramics and system controls, such technologies are NOT royalty-free and they are very bonded to Defense & Military market, this is not a small "challenge" to breakthrough.
Twenty years ago an average aero-derivative turbine had 30% to 35% efficiency (power x fuel), I am not sure about the current numbers but this efficiency maybe got 40% to 45% today - and ALL fossil fueled turbines have NOx emission, some more some less depending on the fuel.
IN THE LAND: the NOx emission "challenge" is usually solved by spraying water steam in addition to the exhaust gases - and the efficiency of an average fossil-fueled turbine can be increased even higher than Diesel motors if they are in combined-cycle taking the advantage of high temperature exhaust to produce water steam to power a secondary steam turbine - like the ones in nuclear power plants. For airplanes such solutions would demand a huge tank of water... it is not feasible.
Few words about the numbers of this video: despite most of airplanes are not made to rescue Prime-Ministers what makes International Flights huge responsible to the "challenge" is Europe. If European Union were considered as one-country the Domestic Flights would be the highest contributor by far: Europe (international), USA (domestic) and China (domestic) in this order have the most intense Civilian air activity in the world. AND the Defense & Military of these entities have also responsibility on this situation: do NOT believe the Civilian airplanes fly in straight route lines, no matter who believes if the Earth is rounded or plane: except when a flight is crossing oceans or international waters, in cases of emergency (including rescuing Prime-Ministers) or some airline have an special permission, ALL straight air routes are for Military use, the Civilian flights shall take a longer path to connect two airports.
there are two quiet severe "challenges" in all of this. not sabines fault, tho. brilliant presentation, as always. firstly, all of these "solutions" reek not only of greenwashing, but of innovation fallacy, meaning that if we just tweek our habits and standarts of living a tiny bit and wish upon a star for some kind of miracle invention that will absolutely solve all our climate "challenges", we can just have business as usual and nothing drastic needs to change. which is just factually untrue. no empirical scientist, oeconomist or sociologist worth their salt support this claim, yet poiticians, and large parts of the population in developed countries, choose this excuse to close their eyes and ears before the impending catastrophe. secondly, while shaming folks for their habits is neither very nice nor very productive (see "siege mentallity"), there is nothing wrong with asking people to at least think about less wasteful ways of traveling, if they are available.
2:34 carbon neutral source of energy doesn't exist if we are to be pedantic. Perhaps it would be beneficial to get into more details on which energy source is least carbon neutral.
Aerospace engineer here, with a PhD on sustainability. I have been watching this video with a professional interest. As to be expected from this channel, the content is excellent (and funny).
The key addition I would make is that the engineering challenges (sorry, problems) in any of these alternatives are daunting. As in: really, really difficult. Some things can be solved, but it will take a VERY long time. Which we don't have. Second addition: virtually the entire air travel industry is greenwashing like crazy. And regularly exposed for doing so. They fully deserve to be called out for it Misinformation will not help us at all.
Anyway. Time for "engineering without the gobbledygook" ?
The US need HSR but the way lobbying works, the aviation industry can greedily thwart progress by throwing money at legislators.
Can you go into some detail about the biggest, eh, challenges, that will take long to solve and, more interestingly, how you are certain they will take long to solve?
@@kensho123456 did you ever notice, swipe input gets this wrong all the time? (those letters are quite close together, after all. or did you really believe, someone mastered a reputable degree but lacks on* [lol] such basic grammar?)
Since you're claiming to be an expert, what do you think of my ideas to make planes green(er)?
As most kerosene is used during the start, there are several things they could do:
1) Plane runways could be built on high skyscrapers or next to mountain cliffs and have a slight slope. This would reduce fuel consumption because the plane can start rolling with its own potential energy and then fall down for 100-200m until it has enough speed to lift off.
2) Detachable batteries with a parachute could be used to provide enough energy for the start. As soon as the plane has reached some altitude, the batteries are released and softly fall down again near the airport and can be recharged for the next plane.
3) Airports could use catapults like aircraft carriers. This also works for big planes as surveillance planes show that are located on aircraft carriers. Look up the Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, it has a starting weight of 23 tons and can fly 3000km.
@@andyk2181 I particularly liked your second paragraph, lol. despite all the hype in media, the pandemic clearly showed us, that in person meeting can't be replaced with anything else. virtual, it's just not the same. humans aren't made (or ready yet) for online conferences.
I simply LOVE Sabine’s videos, and I especially love her deadpan humor (I literally burst out laughing - and got a lot of funny looks from fellow Starbucks customers - when she explained that “challenges” is American-speak for “problems”). I look forward to her every video, and I always seem to get a new perspective on things. She never disappoints! Keep up the great work Sabine!! ❤
Her humor is good.
Ya we call those problems" job killers" in 'merica because change is hard, I mean it takes effort which we're big manly people unless we see a different person play some imaginary character then we meltdown, but thinking beyond an ideology or some make believe fables is really hard. Sarcasm of course
Maybe you got funny looks at Starbucks, but at least you didn’t lose a mouthful of coffee through unexpected nasal discharge. 😉
Sabine, You are #1 in the Stand-up Physicist-Comic genre. Thank you for the education and the humor you provide.
Not an honor I've ever aspired to, but I'll take it 😅
@@SabineHossenfelder You have found the key to education and enlightenment by making teaching funny, entertaining and informative. I find myself listening to things of science that in everyday life would not interest me. You create an interest for me and I remember information because you make important points humorous. For some reason you have make things so interesting that I discuss what you have said to the world with others and often get the response "I did not know that, where did you find this, send me a link". You are a bright star in the darkness of the universe. I say thank you but that just does not seem to be equivalent to what you have given to everyone who listens to your views on science and humanity.
Good fortune to you, whatever that mean be for you.
@@maximumentropy1863 Well-said, Max!
It's 100% the micro-agression for me. This is hilarious.
he deadpan delivery sells its so well. can you imagine this from almost anyone else? "or the weight of two average germans" *jump cut - zoom in* record scratch "i didnt just say that did i ?"
From a pilot's perspective, I enjoyed this immensely. There are huge obstacles to making any of these safe (as in the amount of spare fuel you can carry) for legitimate use, but we should make the effort. Thanks for the great content, Sabine! Dave J
As a swede, I thought this video was hilarous while still extremely helpful and logical. Great video, I am surprised you could tell so many jokes in one video with such a straight face. Wonderful.
Hej från Göteborg!
Emotional support turkey! * rotfl*
@@niclaskarlin Tjena
EUreka UR a genius - we shd firmly attach the turkeys to the wings.
It's about time those birds paid their way in this world!
No more free flights or Xmas dinners ;-)
I don’t think she has ever produced a video without dropping at least one little gem 💎 in there. I love ❤️ them too.
Germans only tell jokes with a straight face. If you hear a German tell a joke and they make a face? Spy...
I absolutely love your dry sense of humor and irony, Sabine, you made my day. 12 Swedes = 2 Germans....
. . . which I imagine is half an American.
@@logicalfundy That hurt cause it's sadly true.
Heh.. ntjats NOT funny... Greetings from Hamburg
*Background on the topic*
0:00 ✈️ Emissions
0:48 3rd biggest contributor to global carbon dioxide emissions [2.5% or 1 billion tons]
1:33 Everyone is emitting more CO2, however Planes are more energy efficient, keeping the 2.5% level.
2:17
1. Electric Planes 🔋 🪫 ⚡️ 2:32
- Slower, Smaller, Heavier planes
5:03 Hope for 90 passanger plane
+ More efficient than kerosine
6:10 Make a lighter battery
2. Hydrogen 6:32
- requires cooling
- requires heavy tanks
+ high energy density
1950s airbus tech roots -> 2020 airplane studies today
7:59 A-300-80, A-300-50
3. Biofuel 9:05
• recently deceased plant fuel 🌱
- Too heavy
- fuel freezes
10:16 Synthetic Paraffinic Kerosine
- 100 MILLION DOLLARS
4. Synthetic Fuel 13:00
+ High energy density
+ Already in use
- Costly
8 Billion Gallons with Gov subsidy by 2030
15:45 Replacing 5% of Jet Fuel
Then moving onto Meat 🥩 Shaming
15:53 “It Isn’t Going To Save The Planet.” 🌎 🌍 🌏
Wow, simply wow ☆
Great human!
_0:48__ 3rd biggest contributor to global carbon dioxide emissions [2.5% or 1 billion tons]_
According to the most recent report from the EU's EDGAR database, international aviation accounted for 1.03% of global CO2 emissions in 2021, which would put it at #17 in the world.
China is still #1, accounting for 32.93% of total global CO2 emissions, or some 32 times more CO2.
@@primmakinsofis614 This also doesn't count for methane emission which is crazy high in animal industry.
@@primmakinsofis614 what is the world's emissions in 2021?
I could watch Sabine for 80000 hours - and yes, I've got a PhD in physicist too. She's a great science communicator, because she chooses topics that are important to be well understood for ethical reasons.
"and yes, I've got a PhD in physicist too", it shows..., anyway...
Fully agree about dr Sabine, but... please, don't store your PhDs in physicists - they're not designed for that. Physicists, I mean.
Don't brag about degrees unless you produce something. Or else STFU...
I love your deadpan humour ! And the knowledge, of course !
You really got me with the "Emotional Support Turkeys", delivered "dead-pan"! I must have laughed for 30 seconds or so, and am still smiling pretty hard! :D
Clearly we should develop green-powered super strong catapults and put wingsuits on everyone. More fun, more green, more more.
Thanks!
In all these discussions about how we could fuel the mobility we have, i miss the option where we highly reduce our mobility. In times of zoom calls and alike it really rareley is neccessary to go somewhere in person.
Two points. First, I believe (as in I don't have data to confirm it) that big part of what you call "mobility" comes from production of all type. Transportation of materials, products, parts etc etc is a huge chunk of "mobility". And I can think of a lot of examples when even just passengers have to fly to destinations as part of all kinds of production cycles. What I'm trying to say is that there's hardly a big percentage of people who use planes just for pure tourism.
Second point, even if there is, you can't just lock up the people in their homes with Zoom. That would cause a number of problems we can't even imagine. Human being has a need to explore, that's how we got here in the first place. I myself believe in creationism, but even with that in mind I understand that all that humanity accomplished so far is just thanks to this existential need for exploring.
So, though I can understand your point, I just can't imagine my life without traveling. And I don't travel all that much, but the fact that I'm here, watching this video and am able to express myself with a lot of fluency in a language that is not native to me, all of that is thanks to the experience that I had living in different parts of the world, seeing different cultures etc.
Don't leave your cave.
what was missing on the electric plane section is that planes take only as much fuel as they need and use it up over the fight distance. so the plane gets lighter during the flight and lands with minimal weight. Batteries have a constant weight, regardless if the plane is used for a flight from boston to New YorkCity or from Boston to Los Angeles (unless you have removable batteries or specific planes for each distance). And batteries have constant weight during the entire flight. This weight disadvantage is substantial. In addition it's unlikely you can charge the huge battery in the short time a plane is on the ground between flights.
As an impartial observer, it seems to me that lifting all that mass up to 30K ft. with luggage, drinks, and hors d'oeurvres would be more efficiently transported on or under the ground by solar provided electric.
Love the delivery Sabine :-)
"...closest emergency exit may be behind you..."
Genius! True genius!
I am from Northern Norway, and for a lot of places air travel is the only convenient way to travel domestically. We're looking at 15+ hour bus trips, 9+ hour car trips or day+ long sea trips on cruise ships along the cost. Or you could take a plane that might get you where you want to go in an hour or less, or maybe 2-3 if you use a circular route plane that visit a lot of small air ports.
@Russ Bell I am not sure you understand, it's not just distance, it's terrain. Norway's coastline is broken up by countless Fjords, interspersed with Mountains, and in the area I am describing it gets as cold as -40 degrees because it's in the Arctic.
@@Ranked_Journey Whatever the reasons, the point is clear: air travel is the way to go. You can drive from NYC to LA in 5 days, take 3 days on a train or you can just take a 5.5-hour plane ride.
@@Eli-pj8xm You missed my point entirely. There is no train option in Northern Norway, and driving there is a mess with multiple mountain passes can be closed due to avalanches, etc. and where even short distances (stuff that should only take you a few hours by car) takes 9+ hours due to changes in elevation and having to drive around mountains and fjords.
Now if you're going to travel from NYC to LA you ACTUALLY have a reasonable train option. Although, as I hear it American public transport infrastructure is terrible. That is something that could be solved though. Also, in this case you're traveling across a continent, of course it's going to take a while.
@@Ranked_Journey Gee so you are special and you are the only ones who are allowed to travel on planes, got it.
@@Ranked_JourneyYou might not like it but there's always the option to live elsewhere. It's something that will happen a lot with climate change anyways (though mostly from south to north)
A very important point that is NEVER mentioned regarding fossil-fuel vs. electric powered airliners is the fact that as the jet burns through it’s fossil fuel the gross weight of the aircraft is reduced substantially. Not so with batteries; they weigh what the weight from takeoff to landing. This should be factored into any efficiency comparison.
That algae stuff sounds promising. Would be interesting to compare the sunlight catching area requirements of algae + refining vs. photovoltaics + power-to-kerosene.
Algae have one great advantage. We can find a way to simply grow them directly in the ocean. Which would be required as the surface area needs will be HUGE and the no. 1 reason for the mass extinction happening right now (which is yet another crazily big challenge) is agriculture.
@@nothingisreal6345 those nutrient-rich dead zones we’ve been creating could use some algae farms. Grow fuel while cleaning up a bit of our mess
Photovoltaics are much more efficient in capturing energy from the sun than plants, an order of magnitude at least compared to fuel crops, and algae require lots of moving parts, cleaning and permanent attention compared to fuel crops, that's why they play no significant role in energy production.
@Evi1 M4chine True but also we have a food and energy crisis on the horizon. Does waiting to wise up mean letting millions die? Ecocide is happening already but you know besides that too.
@Evi1 M4chine So basically you are done getting usefulness out of those basic elements you borrowed from the earth ?
The information density of this presentation allows it to take off. The humor density keeps it in the air. The educational quotient is boundless.
Love your subtle humor. You've got a great style for stand up and great info.
We love you, Sabine
I'm old enough to remember when people said horses were more cost-efficient than the Model T.
If Sabine was alive in the early 1900s, we might never have cars today.
Sabine. I've been following you at a distance for about 2 years now. I have a theory: Poetry does not need to be understood as the poet intended - rather it's enough that the reader derives his or her own pleasure and some degree of enlightenment from the poem, be it through words, structure or acquired emotion. I've tested this theory on myself thousands of times and have yet to prove it false. You are a poet. Having failed sciences at school over half a century ago, I find that half the time I've no idea what you're talking about but you give me immense joy in trying to follow, and to learn. Thank you.
Thanks for sharing knowledge for those of us who are not scientists. And thank you for your sense of humour - I love it
One "easy" way to reduce the impact of flights is to fly slower. We accept 12 hours flights when we fly Frankfurt to San Francisco for example. If flying Frankfurt to New York is now 12 hours, speed is divided by 2 so fuel needed is divided by four, as energy to fight drag grows as V squared ( with an aircraft aerodynamically optimized for lower flight speeds obviously). In fact, the benefit would be significantly more than that because the mass of the fuel being lower, the structure would be lighter so less fuel...virtuous cycle. Lighter also means smaller wings (less weight again ) and/or flying at a lower lift coefficient ( less drag so less fuel ). There are of course "side effects" like you need more or less twice the number of airplanes or crew. But a back of the enveloppe calculation shows that the the overall cost would still be a little lower. So the bottom line is that if we accept to fly slower and pay the same price, we can at least halve the fuel consumption and create jobs!! It would obviously be a major change, with lots of "challenges" but it seems to me that it is far less crazy than electric flight...
Sabine! I love your videos so much. Thank you for presenting accurate information in such an accessible and easy to consume way. You and your team are amazing.
It's also worth mentioning that a great way to decarbonize planes, much like decarbonize cars, is to get rid of them.
High speed rail would be a suitable substitute for many flights and would be cheaper if done right.
Hi Sabine. Love your content. Thank you for teaching and covering the earthly physics too!
On another note. The sponsor link is missing, in case you'd like to have it included. I was going to click on it. Thanks!
The link is here 80000hours.org/sabine
Another fine video from Sabine! As for the challenging "problem" debate: Corporate Mission Statements are full of inspiring words about turning problems into challenges (so much so, my phone auto suggested 'challenges' before I could tap the C key!). I can't say that is a bad thing, but my distrust of CorporateSpeak leaves me very wary.
Your videos on climate/carbon issues are informative and well presented. No gobbledegook and clever, timely takedowns of the new PM Truss. What is not to like. You are one of the great scientific communicators!
Flight-shaming would be entirely appropriate if it was directed at the grossly higher per capita emissions of private flights. Especially because ultimately, the only reason CEOs and politicos "can't" travel with the rest of us is really just snooty personal preference.
To be honest I haven't really looked into the numbers myself, and I can't speak to the quality of the study, but this seems sourced and believable at a quick skim - transportenvironment org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/202209_private_jets_FINAL_with_addendum.pdf
except that many of the mega-rich are already using bio-fuels & synthetic fuels in their aircraft. Bill Gates has spoken about it several times & names other users.
@@alanhat5252 That's a good thing, if true as taken at face value. But:
1) How impactful is the switchover in a handful of billionaires' jets as compared to a large corporation as e.g. Walmart, with dozens+ of VPs taking private flights on a frequent basis?
2) With biofuels we can't in good conscience ignore the political and moral realities of using agricultural output for fossil fuel use reduction in a world tragically full of malnutrition and facing an impending economic contraction and food security crisis
3) We must also consider the related outputs of biofuel production. I don't have an answer to this so it's not a strong point for me, but do we end up saving CO2 emissions from jets and cars by just trading them for increased fertilizer runoff, pesticide use, and nitrogen pollution?
4) While 'leading the charge' on greening their private flights would be admirable, it doesn't change that commercial airlines are also switching to the same ostensibly greener technologies. There's no reason to assume an interminable 'greenness gap', unless these billionaires are developing new green fuels and building new aircraft to use them... then hoarding such developments all to themselves instead of making them available on the open market. Of course this is absurd. So whether it is mitigated partly right now or not, eventually the same issue of 'billionaire flying a private jet 80-100 times a year with an average of 3-4 fellow passengers' per capita emissions as compared to us sky cattle
wouldnt interstate rail lines reduce US internal flights and therefore reduce emissions?
there are a lot of ways of reducing emissions that when combined, make a significant impact.
In my opinion, it only makes sense to flight shame regular people AND rich dudes.
@@alanhat5252 then why don't they incorporate these for all flights
Three years ago I answered the Quora question, "Is zero emission air travel possible". I found something that might be better: air travel that emits smoke that *cleans the upper atmosphere as it falls*. Check it out.
It is true that kerosene might be synthesized electrically, but that wastes primary energy in the synthesis in order to waste more energy in the aircraft's heat engines. In Japan there is a High Temperature Engineering Test Reactor which has been used experimentally to process water through several chemical steps, driven by the high heat, into hydrogen and oxygen. (You can't do this in a single step. The temperature would have to be much higher than a nuclear reactor can give, and the hydrogen and oxygen, both being gases, would simply recombine when you cooled them. But if, in one of the places in the setup, hydrogen comes off by itself, and in another, oxygen does, bob's your uncle, and you are his happy niece or nephew.)
The hydrogen, you would react with CO2 to make nuclear kerosene plus water.
I have always been amazed at the extraordinary amount of energy used by passenger planes. Cambridge physicist David MacKay (author of “Without Hot Air”) has calculated that a single Atlantic flight ONE WAY uses about 4800 kilowatt hours of energy per person (630,000 kilowatt hours to fly that one plane one way across the ocean). To put this crazy amount of energy in terms that are easily understood he equates it to a hot shower: a 30 litre hot shower typically uses 1.4 kilowatt hours of electricity so a single return airplane flight uses as much energy as 6858 showers for every person on board. It’s like everyone on the plane taking a shower every day for almost 20 years - equivalent to 900,000 showers for the entire plane! (McKay actually estimates this higher as 12,000 kwh per person on his webpage - this figure is from an earlier version of his book - 12,000 kwh is the same as 17,000 showers a person on a return trip. He states, “Let’s make clear what this means. Flying once per year has an energy cost slightly bigger than leaving a 1 kW electric fire on, non-stop, 24 hours
a day, all year.”
Wow, that really puts it into perspective
Let's say a couple is on that plane. 24,000kWh. My Hyundai Kona electric car gets about 15kWh/100km on the highway (better at lower speeds). For that one Atlantic flight, my wife and I could drive 24,000kWh/(15kWh/100km)=160,000km. We could have a lot of holiday travel covering 160,000km by car. We could go even further by train. Cars and trains are easily electrified now to run on renewable generation.
@@PeterEVcharade 😊
As an astronomer, i would like to see planes using batteries. Last i heard about 6 months back, a battery powered aircraft can manage about an hour of flight. Not burning fuel at high altitude will produce far fewer jet trails - the bane of the amateur astronomer.
After the Icelandic event in 2011 and during the pandemic lockdowns i've never seen so many clear skies.
Thank you for outlining this. So many people think throwing batteries and money at everything will magically make them work, completely ignoring what's physically impossible or viable.
"So many people ..." -- my version: so many people who live off public stipends think throwing batteries and money at a thing that won't work will magically make it work, greatly reducing the fossil fuel tax revenue component of those stipends, and oh dear, when the thing doesn't work, there they are, still stuck with the money".
I love Sabine's sense of humour and dry delivery!
Your videos are always enjoyable, informative and witty 👍
And misinformative
@@jamesgraham8655 Different views spice up life.
The thing with alternatives is that meanwhile we keep burning oil with total abandon, hoping that some future miracle will save us.
I love how cost keeps coming up as a barrier. Cost won't matter if there are no flights at all because civilization collapsed.
It's going to be ok... Really.
@@le13579 I assume we are supposed to trust you on this? You apparently disagree with notable scientists, you know?
Sabine laying into Lizz Truss is precisely the thing I needed while drunk-eating at 00:46 😂😂
As an American ex-pat who has lived in Europe for the past 30 years, I like your observation about "challenges". It is interesting to see new phrases and uses of words pop up that have developed since I left the US.
A question: could you please do a video (unless you have already and I've missed it) on travelling by train vs. plane? If Americans could use the train like Europeans do, that would put a dent in their CO2 emissions, I believe.
Thanks for the suggestion, I will keep that in mind.
_Well There's Your Problem Podcast_ had a long video about issues with US trains - namely a lack of rail electrification.. and shortsighted attitude towards infrastructure investment (its called capitalism, and it has its issues).
@@nescius2 really? I don't see a hi speed train from London to Moscow and that is a shorter distance from SF to DC and less elevation changes.
As a repatriated ex-pat: America has a phenomenal train system. It just moves freight, because Americans make stuff, and if we need to get some where, we do it at 550 knots. Europeans put people on trains so they can take 6 weeks of vacation from their 35 hour work weeks.
I just love this dry humour performed with an absolute serious facial expression! 🤣
Thanks again for another important, interesting, informative, and funny video. I look forward to Saturdays to view your content!
Sabine, you are amazing. You know how to clearly explain your subject and I love your humor.
Sometimes I have to play parts again because I need to laugh first.
So watching your video's in one go is ..... a challenge🤣😛
My dad who is a straight ticket conservative went with me to see a lecture by David Suzuki. After many wondrous and disconcerting things and a plea for greener living by Dr. Suzuki, I asked Dad what he thought. I can't remember exactly what he said but he thought Suzuki was a hypocrite because he had flown there and flies all over the world delivering lectures about Green living.
Great post Sabine. I appreciate everything you share here. I Always enjoy tuning into your newest posting. Big Hugs to you 🤗 💛
Sabine...mam you made me laugh so hard when you said the bit about the emergency exits behind the new PM for the UK. I lost it 🤣
I think we should continue to develop these electric vehicles because as we do over the years they keep getting better and better but they will only have their place. I believe airplanes must use what's in place and develope more efficient motors and increase the efficiency to what we can. There are instances when we can use electric versus fossil fuels. It's the same with energy production...we keep developing ways to turn water to steam but we really haven't advanced much after the steam is made in the turbine thats efficiency causes it to be the Achilles heal for any energy production. Turbines may still be the most efficient option but without focusing on it as much as the sources, that efficiency will grow very slowly. We need to simply increase the amount of area that carbon can be stored on land...like trees.
@Evi1 M4chine Well like most that take office they inherit what the previous person and team did before them so she was basically saying the aircraft and her flight would represent the office of the PM and that the emergency exits that are located in the rear is her option of escaping what she inherited basically is how I took it.
@Evi1 M4chine She's caused a major accidental devaluation of the pound and government bonds within weeks of taking office by pushing an un-costed fiscal policy of more cash for those who don't need it.. Made a great deal worse by silencing the organisation whose job it is to model the likely outcomes of such a policy. Basically flying blind.
whats that B-52's tune? Roam if you want to, Roam around the world, Roam if you want to, Without wings, without wheels...
Science and and standup in one smart package. It doesn't get better.
Speaking of flying, sales of your new book are taking off! Congratulations!
"why 80,000 hours? Because after then you're not gonna live much longer" genuinely was the way I thought that was gonna go
Not only informative but the sense of humour is just brilliant.
With current developed technology(no "challenges" allowed), synthetic methane is our best solution for rockets and air travel. Synthetic methane is easier and cheaper to produce than synthetic kerosene. The Mass Specific Energy of methane is also 20% higher than kerosene and has none of the storage "challenges" of hydrogen. Methane burns cleaner with CO2 and H2O as its only product, while kerosene produces carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and other gases.
What about methyl alcohol as an alternative? Worse than methane in all regards?
@@b43xoit Not worse in all regards, but it fails a very important property, the Mass Specific Energy, methyl alcohol only has half (50%) the Mass Specific Energy of kerosene.
My kids sitting nearby got annoyed at my sudden bursts of laughter while I watched this over earbuds. Loved the humor. Danke!
How can you be scary and funny at the same time? No challenge, just ask Sabine.
Thank you this answered a lot of my questions. You packed a lot into a short video. Wonderful.
I appreciate the detailed analysis of this potential new technology. Too often, we get very simplistic or incomplete analyses from the media or from activists. (Fusion Energy, for example)
Biofuel also raises food costs by diverting farmland from food production.
My favorite idea for electric aircraft is to use the same idea SpaceEx uses for rockets: detach and return spent batteries to the airport. A lot of the energy needed by aircraft is climbing to altitude. Detachable batteries with remotely-guided parafoils could just glide back to the airport for recharging so the aircraft didn't need to carry dead weight during cruise.
I don't have twitter so somebody @ Elon with this.
and during cruise the passengers flap their arms?
@@Oznz-m5c You only detach spent batteries, not charged ones. Large battery packs for vehicles are already segmented for safety reasons, so it makes sense they would do that on aircraft as well.
"A lot of the energy needed by aircraft" ~10%?
In theory you can drop used batteries whole flight and have them glide to collection points on the route... just it would be simpler to use any other option.
The Swedish. All aircraft designers have to consider the new Koenigsegg lightweight who calls the engine the Tiny Friendly Giant, or TFG for short, and it's an apt name. The TFG is a 2.0-liter twin-turbo three-cylinder that makes 600 horsepower. At 300 horsepower per liter, the TFG's specific output is far higher than anything ever seen in a road car. For charge.
Sabine, you forgot to mention that 96% of hydrogen is made from natural gas. The vast majority of supposedly "clean" hydrogen for e.g. cars is just disguised natural gas. Making hydrogen using electrolysis is super expensive, way more than just using natural gas as the input resource.
Of course it is expensive now, because it is not done at scale yet and the electricity production is what it is. That's not relevant, the relevant question is how "cheap" it can be, if everything is done to drive the price down. Same as was with electric cars only 15 years ago. Batteries were super expensive compared to today, because they weren't produced at scale, the production and scale was nonexistent. Important question regarding hydrogen production by electrolysis ( and other methods ) is, how do we produce the electricity. For example, is it scalable, can it be scaled to the levels required, is it efficient enough, etc. Aside electrolysis, hydrogen can also be produced with things like heat from nuclear power.
The major issue with hydrogen isn't its need for heavy, voluminous tanks and very low temperature freezing equipment. It is leaks: hydrogen's molecules being tiny, it leaks through whatever kind of pipe junction, valve, etc., no matter what. The space industry uses hydrogen, but admits some leakage, a few percent. However, it must always watch for those leaks, and whenever the limit is reached or surpassed (see recent SLS flight scrubbed for this reason early last month), repairs and adjustments in temperature or pressure must be performed. Risk of explosion is high. Bad for passage and crews.
Additionally, even a slight accident could make hydrogen explode easily, with fatal consequences.
The cancelled SLS launches are a good example of that
Hello Sabine, as always very interesting your articles. I would like if you can make a comparison of the energy efficiency between airplanes and bullet trains.
A problem is un unwanted situation with a unknown cause. A challenge is un unwanted situation with a known cause.
As most kerosene is used during the start, there are several things they could do:
1) Plane runways could be built on high skyscrapers or next to mountain cliffs and have a slight slope. This would reduce fuel consumption because the plane can start rolling with its own potential energy and then fall down for 100-200m until it has enough speed to lift off.
2) Detachable batteries with a parachute could be used to provide enough energy for the start. As soon as the plane has reached some altitude, the batteries are released and softly fall down again near the airport and can be recharged for the next plane.
3) Airports could use catapults like aircraft carriers. This also works for big planes as surveillance planes show that are located on aircraft carriers. Look up the Grumman E-2 Hawkeye, it has a starting weight of 23 tons and can fly 3000km.
Problem solved. Do I get a reward now?
Yeah, you get as many washing machines as you can carry!
@@wbaumschlager Why?
I guess your points (1) and (3) prevent (2) from getting the necessary attention.
That would not be done with a parachute. Regular planes can land autonomously so why should that be a problem with a "flying object" that can be optimized for this? This would not help mich with long-distance flights but should be very attractive for short distances.
to climb higher airplane still uses its own power even with those nuclear powered aircraft carrier catapult. Lets say a glider run down a hill of 200m high, it still only has enough Kinetic Energy to climb back to 200m, no further. If it drop large battery to shed weight during take-off then it still need to continue to have additional batteries to keep climbing. It need to continuously expend energy during climbing.
@@HaukeLaging A very short range electric plane carrying a conventional long range plane on its back, perhaps? Or like in paragliding, where one plane drags the other? There's all sorts of possibilities to get this done.
MIlankovitch cycles can be used to treat green washing.
The question is, why don't ground effect planes not work for high seas?
Or would it be possible, to fly with such a thing over the atlantic? 🤔
The main issue comes from the instability of the air due to waves. The choppier the water, the more you have additional problems for maintaining ideal height, water hitting the vehicle, that kind of thing. It's possible to traverse an ocean with one, but really you'd want ideal conditions. It's why mostly pursuits focus on lakes or small seas.
that english PM joke was SAVAGE and artfully crafted.
Green is the new Black 😎🌲😊
Congratulations Dr Sabine. Spot On, high quality, as always.
One addition though : Breaking the elephant challenge in smaller pieces might make it easier to solve, and shorten the air revolution timespan :
- intra-city and short distance intercity travel might be achievable with batteries in coming years (would already help to some road traffic decongestion).
I mean, the global one-for-all solution will take decades.
But an approach by category (use-case) might be more efficient, and solve part of issues (challenges) faster.
Love your work
This being said, your analysis per type of energy is (off-course) 100% accurate.
Sabine's humor is reaching new heights
I loved the use of the work "challenge". Simply brilliant!
Sabine, when is your next trip to the U.S. that will include any presentations/public talks from you? Have been admiring your work since you began this channel, and would enjoy the opportunity to hear you speak in person. Also, as usual, this video is a great example of your unmatched combination of insights, information, and humor. Many thanks for your many videos over the last few years.
The problem with biofuel food prices to increase and take out precious farmland. This will also lead more forests to be cut down and converted into farmland
Hell no we cant or maybe someday when fusion becomes a financial reality. Lets see what Sabine says.
You are by far one of the funniest youtubers I’ve ever seem
why not just build more high-speed rail for over land transportation and relegate airlines to overseas travel? France has already done this in part.
What you mentioned 'France has already done this in part' is kinda also the issue. This requires a lot of coordination between countries, because while an internal high-speed rail network is already a great step ahead (and a good reason to ban intranational flights), we also need a lot of collaboration between the various countries in the EU to create a unified high-speed rail network.
Rail rips up land, isolates wildlife. Watch the video of a swedish train trying to stop for like a mile, wiping out half a herd. In Canada, elk get plastered because they come to the tracks for spilt grain. Save the countryside, fly over it.
For a start, it's a lot easier to destroy a high speed train as an act of terrorism. It is also easier to divert an aircraft in the event of say an earthquake. Finally, the permanent infrastructure costs for high speed rail is massive, much more than an aircraft.
the EU is attempting this
Totally agree... Train tickets are too high ...
I knew of british deadpan humor but this takes it to another whole level. It really shows that german humor is no laughing matter!
Could Sabine's sense of humor be used power a warp drive?
The "challenge" one was great 👍 but you pushed it a bit too often. Once again a great video, thanks Sabine! Also just read your article in the guardian. Very nice 🙂
I'm confused how so many people find themselves needing to be on a different continent all the time
This is a sort of mass hysteria, related to the fear of missing out and the impending sense that the carousel ride is coming to an end.
Sabine, one of your best. Easily understandable and beautifully presented with great content and tears of laughs throughout....It was a 'challenge' to not wake the neighbors with 'more than the cdc recommends for inflight entertainment' or '19 Swede's equal to about 2 Germans'. Bravo!
Hear me out: Massive trebuchets!
What about electric Laminar flow airplane for regional flight, I think that would be a good start.
I think that Oreos goes well will soy milk
Darling, I usually have biscuits with freshly squeezed coconut milk and then some tea 🥛🍪 I hope and pray that cows have less squeezing.
Man, Sabine really turned the comedy to 11 on this one. Muchly appreciated, since the subject matter itself can very easily get rather depressing.
now i want an emotional support Turkey 😂
great video, with excellent and unexpected bonus trolling of liz truss 😆
How is someone who has traveled 100 million billion miles going to shame someone who traveled 10 thousand miles?
what does this even mean
0:20
And what about the stars themselves. Wasteful or WHAT.
Maybe they travel fast, but unlike our fast movers, do not have to load up with 1/2 V^2 kinetic-energy-per-unit-mass to do so. From "They Shall Have Stars":
"... It moves in its own continuum, not the general frame."
"You're kidding," Helmuth said.
"Am I, now? This ship came to Ganymede directly from Earth. It did it in a little under two hours, counting maneuvring time. That means that most of the way we made about 55,000 miles per second-with the spindizzy drawing less than five watts of power out of three ordinary No. 6 dry cells."
Government will save humanity
I used to live along a flight path to LAX (Los Angeles). In the 70's we could HEAR those airplanes on the ground. That's how loud they were. Today you can't them at all. That noise was a loss of energy, reducing the efficiency.
And we don't see the smoke trails anymore too. They used to litter the sky with their contrails. I rarely see contrails anymore.
I believe that once the graphene revolution takes off, airplanes will be made much lighter. Also, look into graphene aluminium batteries.
graphene & carbon fibre is the same material, except graphene is only 1 atom thick. There's airplane made of carbon fibre; "composite aircraft".
If we say that Airlines should do this or that... it is just a "Challenge" transfer situation. The Airline companies don't make airplanes, they buy or rent available airplanes, and they transfer all flight costs to the Passengers, and the highest cost of an average flight is FUEL, followed by airport infrastructure and attendances costs and highly-demanded maintenance costs.
Would Airplane Makers responsible for this "Challenge"? Not necessarily. Most of them are NOT Turbine Makers. This industry is not like car industry. With few exceptions most of the Civilian airplanes are powered by turbine (or turbo-propeller) engines made by:
- General Electric (USA);
- Rolls Royce (UK);
- United Technologies (USA - incorporating Pratt-Whitney, Elliott, etc.);
- Volvo/SAAB (Sweden);
- and few others around the world;
These are the companies that should have a commitment for a high-efficiency low-emission airplane engines that could solve this "challenge".
Turbines are engines with highest power/weight rate known so far make them ideal for airplanes, however they demand extensive technology on high-temperature materials metallurgy and ceramics and system controls, such technologies are NOT royalty-free and they are very bonded to Defense & Military market, this is not a small "challenge" to breakthrough.
Twenty years ago an average aero-derivative turbine had 30% to 35% efficiency (power x fuel), I am not sure about the current numbers but this efficiency maybe got 40% to 45% today - and ALL fossil fueled turbines have NOx emission, some more some less depending on the fuel.
IN THE LAND: the NOx emission "challenge" is usually solved by spraying water steam in addition to the exhaust gases - and the efficiency of an average fossil-fueled turbine can be increased even higher than Diesel motors if they are in combined-cycle taking the advantage of high temperature exhaust to produce water steam to power a secondary steam turbine - like the ones in nuclear power plants. For airplanes such solutions would demand a huge tank of water... it is not feasible.
Few words about the numbers of this video: despite most of airplanes are not made to rescue Prime-Ministers what makes International Flights huge responsible to the "challenge" is Europe. If European Union were considered as one-country the Domestic Flights would be the highest contributor by far: Europe (international), USA (domestic) and China (domestic) in this order have the most intense Civilian air activity in the world. AND the Defense & Military of these entities have also responsibility on this situation: do NOT believe the Civilian airplanes fly in straight route lines, no matter who believes if the Earth is rounded or plane: except when a flight is crossing oceans or international waters, in cases of emergency (including rescuing Prime-Ministers) or some airline have an special permission, ALL straight air routes are for Military use, the Civilian flights shall take a longer path to connect two airports.
there are two quiet severe "challenges" in all of this. not sabines fault, tho. brilliant presentation, as always.
firstly, all of these "solutions" reek not only of greenwashing, but of innovation fallacy, meaning that if we just tweek our habits and standarts of living a tiny bit and wish upon a star for some kind of miracle invention that will absolutely solve all our climate "challenges", we can just have business as usual and nothing drastic needs to change. which is just factually untrue. no empirical scientist, oeconomist or sociologist worth their salt support this claim, yet poiticians, and large parts of the population in developed countries, choose this excuse to close their eyes and ears before the impending catastrophe.
secondly, while shaming folks for their habits is neither very nice nor very productive (see "siege mentallity"), there is nothing wrong with asking people to at least think about less wasteful ways of traveling, if they are available.
Great summary about the state of the art and avoiding the ideologic bias at the same time
Love your channel Sabine. Always great content and superbly insightful. You deserve every success... 🇬🇧
Sabine, your humor is improving. I hope you're doing your own writing. Many thanks for de-gobbledegooking so much science.
Wow, highly informative and very humurous video. 2 michelin stars right there. Thank you so much Sabine and Team!
Cheeky. Love it. Keep it up Sabine. A podcast of more of the same would be excellent.
2:34 carbon neutral source of energy doesn't exist if we are to be pedantic. Perhaps it would be beneficial to get into more details on which energy source is least carbon neutral.