The Uncertain Future of Jet Fuel
Переглядів 1,251,255
2 роки томуSign up to Nebula here: go.nebula.tv/realengineering
New streaming platform: watchnebula.com/
Links to everything I do:
beacons.ai/brianmcmanus
Get your Real Engineering shirts at: standard.tv/collections/real-...
Credits:
Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Editor: Dylan Hennessy (www.behance.net/dylanhennessy1)
Animator: Mike Ridolfi (www.moboxgraphics.com/)
Sound: Graham Haerther (haerther.net/)
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster / forgottentowel
References:
[1] www.carbonbrief.org/aviation-...
[2] www.ge.com/gas-power/products...
[3] www.ethanolproducer.com/articl....
[4] www.chevron.com/-/media/chevr...
[5] www.sciencedirect.com/topics/...
[6] nwfuel.ca/whats-deal-winter-d...
[7] www.history.navy.mil/research...
[8] www.engineeringtoolbox.com/et... &
pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/comp....
[9] www.engineering.iastate.edu/b... & neutrium.net/properties/speci...
[10] www.pnas.org/content/117/23/1...
[11] www.airbus.com/newsroom/press...
[12] www.nasa.gov/press-release/na...
[13] www.reuters.com/article/us-no...
[14] simpleflying.com/sas-2019-fin...
[15] news.stanford.edu/2019/03/18/...
[16] www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells...
[17] www.sciencedirect.com/science....
[18] www.sciencedirect.com/science...
[19] I can’t be arsed to find a reference for this one. I have a masters degree in aeronautical engineering, just trust me.
[20] www.airbus.com/innovation/zer...
Select imagery/video supplied by Getty Images
Thank you to AP Archive for access to their archival footage.
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creator
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Thomas Barth, Johnny MacDonald, Stephen Foland, Alfred Holzheu, Abdulrahman Abdulaziz Binghaith, Brent Higgins, Dexter Appleberry, Alex Pavek, Marko Hirsch, Mikkel Johansen, Hibiyi Mori. Viktor Józsa, Ron Hochsprung
@damightymage5049 2 роки тому
Former US Navy fuel systems engineer here. Well done, this is a fairly comprehensive look at jet fuel production, constraints, and alternatives. I would like to add that the Navy did evaluate a 100% biofuel version of JP-5 back in 2016. Performance-wise it was nearly identical to traditional JP-5, but as you observed, the problem with all biofuels is the cost of production. Edit based on some of the responses: The Navy's main motivation for investigating biofuels is more to do with diversity of fuel sources (i.e. less dependence on the Middle East) than it is to do with saving the planet. That would be a nice side-benefit, though.
@seanfitzpatrick7441 2 роки тому
I definitely care more about the planet than going on holiday so I am probably bias, but I think that a higher cost is worth it. There are other problems of course but I don't think cost should be the thing that stops us using it.
@Ghazzoul 2 роки тому
Interesting name for a former US navy fuel system engineer
@seanfitzpatrick7441 2 роки тому
@@AndenMowe-hh5qk Take a train. Its not that you can't travel around the world. I can walk 10 minutes to the train station and be in Paris today. Then all of Europe opens up. Also most people are not traveling around the world to learn everyone different culture and ways of thinking, that's just bullshit. People are going to sit at a resort at the beach and drink (usually on the same continent that they are already on).
@CARBONHAWK1 2 роки тому
@@seanfitzpatrick7441 yea let’s built a transatlantic train... I’m sure people will love the traveling taking a week more to get there,
@Hygix_ 2 роки тому
@@seanfitzpatrick7441 you do realize that Europe is not the entire world. .right?
@neeneko 2 роки тому
Unfortunately, I doubt we will ever see excess energy 'flood the market'. Every time we figure out how to produce more power, esp if it brings the price down, demand goes up. Multiple times over the last hundred years or so people proclaimed that soon power would be too cheap to meter and the market always re-scales to make it expensive again.
@cdvideodump 2 роки тому
So basically induced demand?
@HazeGreyAndUnderway 2 роки тому
Also price fixing
@JohnSmith-pn2vl 2 роки тому
what are you talking about, it is excessive and abundant availabe since a century at least.
@rubidot 2 роки тому
Right - and manufacturing fuels will be one of those things expanding demand as energy prices drop.
@zee9709 2 роки тому
Good old free market
@samschellhase8831 2 роки тому
"made by someone I actually like" LOL I think there was a recent Wendover video where he referred to you as "that Irish engineering guy"
@almostanengineer 2 роки тому
That wouldn’t surprise me, these two banter loads 😂
@DatPenguin97 2 роки тому
The thing about E-fuels as well is that it apparently works with existing ICEs in cars as well, there have been some tests here in Europe. It could be mixed with normal gasoline in that case as well, so I hope it will catch on in which case there might be more of a chance of it becoming cheaper (?)
@Skullair313 Рік тому
E-Fuels only make sense if there is an abundance of electricity available, that is cheap and not harmful to the environment. Renewables are often limited by the grid they operate on and fission nuclear plants are mostly used for base loads (and you are also dependant on imports of fissile materials depending on where you live). It is gonna be tough to justify their use.
@AlexanderPavel 9 місяців тому
E-fuels will be powering the next gen Formula 1 cars in 2026, so that should also allow car manufacturers to start experimenting with them soon. Porsche is currently making E-fuels in Chile using the abundance of wind power on the Chilean coast. As mentioned in the video though, scaling this for air travel will need way more excess renewable fuel than we currently have. It's going to take some time until it's feasible.
@user-pt1ow8hx5l 8 місяців тому
The swedes were at it for years. Their e85 and m85 fuel, containing 85% metanol or etanol 'suffers' from extra horsepower, not really needed in turboSAABS and Volvo's, due to higher octane content......
@AlexanderPavel 8 місяців тому
@@user-pt1ow8hx5l e85 and m85 are not e-fuels.
@ayushtieari385 2 місяці тому
@@user-pt1ow8hx5lWhat about seaweed biofuels
@awasaz 2 роки тому
On the freezing point of jet fuel: It's really cold at cruising altitude everywhere in the world. What matters more is the duration of the flight. The fuel takes some time to cool, simply because there is so much of it compared to the fuel tank surface area. Long flights require more careful management of fuel temperature.
@antoniohagopian213 2 роки тому
The engine oil goes through tubes that run inside the fuel tanks. Oil gets cooler while fuel gets hotter. So no it will not freeze.
@Yonatan24 2 роки тому
But if you're at the end of the flight and there isn't much fuel left, that might be a problem. It could cool down faster.
@andreirachko 2 роки тому
@@Yonatan24 I think it shouldn’t be a problem to redirect some of the turbines’ heat back to the fuel tanks, whether with oil or other means. I believe that even a primitive electric heating system could solve the issue.
@damstachizz 2 роки тому
Or you just go full SR-71 and fly so fast you need to use the fuel as a heat sink instead of worrying about it freezing
@Gary_Harlow 2 роки тому
@@andreirachko thats basically already being done. Although heating the fuel tanks is the least priority of that system. The primary uses (AFAIK) is to heat the leading edges of the wing and the ailerons and other aerodynamical devices to prevent ice growth, and then it also heats up the cabin, and then parts of the fuel system if at all
@ButtKickington 2 роки тому
25% sounds like a big number, but said differently: the other 75% is what used to account for 97%.
@remiweaver7668 2 роки тому
Exactly, that's what I was just coming to the comments to say. So for those that still don't see why this really isn't a huge impending issue that spells doom. If all the carbon being produced right now per year equals, (I'm going to use an imaginary unit of measurement to keep this really simple) let's say 100 Remi's. Then the aviation industry produces 2.5 Remi's every year. In about 30 years even if you were to forecast the amount of planes and passengers were to double. According to the video, the aviation industry is still only producing 5 Remi's in 2050. Remember this video is saying that will be 25% of all carbon produced in a year in 2050. So that means all the human activity on Earth would still have went from producing 100 Remi's in 2021 to 20 Remi's in about 30 years. That's an astonishing reduction if you take into account the massive population explosion that were about to see in the next 30 years. Unless they decide to artificially cull the herd with a man made cataclysm. Which lets all be reasonable for a moment. That's not that far fetched, at all. If you honestly believe that comment is insane. I would politely ask you to do some research into the exponential growth of the human population that's forecasted for the immediate future to say the next 50 to 100 years. Likewise, if you think the people and governments that hold the power in the world now wouldn't do that, then I would also suggest you should do some research into them. I would actually be (and am) much more concerned with the thought of that. Than I am about the aviation industry not being able to find an alternative fuel before the planet dies from global warming. Can anyone say global test run 2020? Or more accurately 2019 to today.
@Bananaman36969 2 роки тому
@@remiweaver7668 Humanity has already gone through an exponential growth in population since the Industrial revolution. As standards of living continue to rise Birth rates will go down. Japan currently has a negative birth rate as in They LOSE population every year. Germany and China are expected to follow along in about a decade and in 2 or more decades a good chunk of the world will have negative birth rates aswell. Most other countries will just have enough births to maintain status quo. Not to mention all kinds production will get more and more efficient. There is no Population Crisis anytime soon. The whole population doom thingy was something a nutjob german Economist said in the Early 20th century and is objectively false. Also while I do not think governments are angels by any means, I absolutely do not believe that the Modern Neoliberal Authorities would commit genocide because they can't handle overpopulation. 2020 was not a test run of any kind. People dying is not good for anybody. There is no Shadowy secret world order that would benefit from population culling. Why would they kill you if they can enslave you Instead ? Isn't that how capitalism works ? I generally disagree with your claims and belive that you have rather conspiratorial thinking. Have a nice day.
@LevitatingCups 2 роки тому
Biofuels needs to be produced when wind and solar is up, as a backup battery. The costs are just too much, one might just pay "a few bucks more" at the gaspump to use them, but everything moves on wheels, it cannot be more expensive.
@clarkgriswold-zr5sb 2 роки тому
The "global warming"/carbon dioxide topic is a complete and vicious scam. Plants use carbon dioxide and sunlight to grow. It's called PHOTOSYNTHESIS. There are no exceptions. No qualifications. **NO** implausible and contrived exceptions to the rule. More CO2 = more plants, taller plants, bigger plants. More plants means more food. Carbon dioxide stupidity.
@boxr_4214 2 роки тому
@@clarkgriswold-zr5sb plants use CO2 to grow, yes. concentration of CO2 alone is not the issue that causes global warming. even in cities, where CO2 concentration levels may be 5 times as high as those in rural areas, the CO2 itself is not harming anyone other than those with asthma. very little of the air we breathe is actually composed of CO2. the problem with CO2 and other greenhouse gasses is their heating effect on the planet. CO2, along with methane and nitrous oxide are effective insulators, and therefore prevent heat from escaping earth’s atmosphere. when we release more co2 and methane into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, the concentration of those gasses increases, resulting in less heat escaping earths atmosphere. this results in overall temperatures rising, which has had and will continue to have drastic effects on weather patterns. droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, and flooding are all natural disasters which will increase in their rate of occurrence as the global average temperature increases. rising sea levels are also a big part of climate change, resulting from melting icebergs at the poles of the earth. these increasing sea levels will wipe out the homes of hundreds of millions of people forcing mass migration. TLDR; this isn’t about plants. co2 is more than just a reactant in photosynthesis.
@MatthijsvanDuin 2 роки тому
14:40 Something went wrong here, the chart is showing cold hydrogen having a much _lower_ density than room-temperature hydrogen, which is obvious nonsense. Are the labels accidently swapped?
@machielluchtmeijer7796 2 роки тому
Think so
@jonathanvogt2 2 роки тому
Yeah, and he still seemingly read the wrong number off the chart. I'm confused.
@Mr.Nichan 2 роки тому
I remember noticing that, too. I commented this: "14:40 I think this graph is wrong. Why is hydrogen less dense when it's colder? Is the 19°C one actually Kerosene? I really doubt it if the number you gave immediately afterwards was right."
@user-hl8tq8uw2b 2 роки тому
Between 1950 and 2018 the efficiency per passenger grew from .4 to 8.2 (a 20+x improvement) RPK per Kg of CO2. The question is what RPK curve was used for the 2050 projection. While I appreciate all the work put into this video it would have even more impact if more time was spent reviewing the study assumption upfront.
@NazriB 10 місяців тому
Lies again? Serie A Leader Joma Fila
@maxsinn402 2 роки тому
"We will explore this kind if plane in more detail in a future video" I shall wait paciently for my favorite Video
@CMon_Jack 2 роки тому
Patiently
@tomatosoupwoo 2 роки тому
@A Z He/she just corrected someone and you are accusing him/her of not knowing anything
@NCOGNTO 2 роки тому
@@tomatosoupwoo how bout that ? Sometimes we just need a laugh , or at least a smile
@zioxei 2 роки тому
@A Z so what you're saying is we have to find the one multilingual person who has the right to correct people's mistakes because somehow Americans don't have that right... OP made a mistake and was fairly corrected with no hint of disrespect for the betterment of his spelling and everyone who reads it. You are the one who needs to move on.
@magnetospin 2 роки тому
@A Z When I learning English, some people were too polite to correct me even when I was wrong. As a result, it took much longer for me to learn English properly. They were doing me a disservice.
@SapereAude1490 2 роки тому
I love how you drew the different fuels with slightly larger atoms for C and H, indicating they are closer and farther away. Such a nice touch.
@carltonleboss 2 роки тому
Like the cows
@RammusTheArmordillo 2 роки тому
When in the video did he do that?
@tesicnr 2 роки тому
Nice, too bad he ignored the one with one carbon and 4 hydrogens
@callumbrown9806 2 роки тому
@@RammusTheArmordillo 3:14
@Henrix1998 2 роки тому
@@tesicnr methane
@SirNobleIZH Рік тому
Petition to get fast food restaurants to sell their used cooking oil to biofuel manufacturers: 1: cooking oil is already super common, and used en masse by fast food industries 2: most fast food restaurants currently just dispose of their cooking oil once used, so it's currently being wasted 3: as mentioned in the video, cooking oil is a great feedstock for biofuel production
@agoogleuser2369 2 роки тому
Yet another incredibly well produced documentary. Your channel keeps hitting these home runs and I forecast thousands of people bookmarking your UKposts channel. I've been sharing your most recent aviation videos with most of my pilot friends and the positive feedback has been significant. Keep up the good work buddy! Please look into the Embraer Praetor jet. I'm sure there's something interesting to cover in a video with that one. And your "but" is still my favorite on UKposts! Cheers!
@Isopropyl_Alcohol 2 роки тому
"...in this case, no." The way he says that made me chuckle. :P
@sevex9 2 роки тому
First take was. '...in this one single outlying example, a complete exception to the norm, an exceedingly rare break from insanity, no.'
@AxxLAfriku 2 роки тому
I am the cool kid from Germany making videos for the USA and the rest of the world. I will make your day so don't say nay to me today, dear rus
@gofergofrunio6281 2 роки тому
@@AxxLAfriku stop doing crack
@xvor_tex8577 2 роки тому
@@AxxLAfriku the world's most hated youtuber
@kgrant536 2 роки тому
That semi-disappointed "no".:)
@jonathanm9436 2 роки тому
Excellent!! " [19] I can’t be arsed to find a reference for this one. I have a masters degree in aeronautical engineering, just trust me. "
@agravemisunderstanding9668 2 роки тому
Would you recommend a university degree or apprenticeship when pursuing a career in aironautics
@PoeRacing 2 роки тому
@@agravemisunderstanding9668 A mechanical engineering degree goes a LONG way toward making you marketable in ANY industry. Tack on a 2 year master's in aeronautical engineering and you'll have companies beating down your door to hire you.
@kpp28 2 роки тому
@@agravemisunderstanding9668 are you getting your academics career advice from a youtube comment section? Lmao
@angeluscorpius 2 роки тому
@@kpp28 I don't see a downside. I get all my education from UKposts. Thinking of furthering my education. I think that means I need to subscribe to Curiosity Stream and Nebula. :-)
@nosnibor800 2 роки тому
@@agravemisunderstanding9668 Both. I was educated in the 1970's (UK) and did a "sandwich degree" which combined a degree with an EITB apprenticeship - REPEAT: 6 months at the Poly, six months in industry UNTIL 4 years done. Result, I could at age 22 sit down and design complex electronic systems with confidence. Of course this was all scrapped during the Thatcher dictatorship in the 1980's. A great pity and loss. Before then, from 1824 until 1979 the UK led the world and our engineers were in great demand all over the world, with a "brain drain".
@Tornvongeldern 2 роки тому
Another great video. I love that you look at the matter from different perspectives. Thank you so much for your videos.
@deebee1284 2 роки тому
Thanks for sharing these video. I learned d a lot of things about the various types of fuels in 24 mins. The technical terms were a little too much for me but your detailed explanation made me understand the basics. I didn't even have to pay. Thanks buddy.
@swxk19 2 роки тому
3:44 "Longer chain hydrocarbons liquify... thanks to their lower boiling point"? A lower boiling would mean that the substance is more likely to stay in gaseous form. Longer carbon chains should have higher boiling points no?
@nobilismaximus 2 роки тому
Yip 👍
@brandonbowden1262 2 роки тому
I didn’t understand anything you just said.
@Ebani 2 роки тому
@@brandonbowden1262 That's why you should stay in school.
@marcustandino103 2 роки тому
Longer chain hydrocarbons (have greater strength of IMF) have a high boiling point so are more likely to be liquid at room temperature. You are damn right, what he said is wrong. :D
@SopaDeLengua 2 роки тому
How dare you correctly correct an incorrection
@kalebbruwer 2 роки тому
What I like about your climate change related content is that it is well researched and carefully thought through. In this video for example you're carefully analyzing the feasibility of a renewable aviation industry, rather than just complaining that we should or shouldn't have it. There are people who make off climate change as a non-issue and there are others who drive up fear without making rational arguments or reasonable demands. You are neither of those and I like that.
@Dockhead 2 роки тому
he doesn't factor in anything to do with how we incinerate spent and toxic fuels and oils that get used in the shipping industry. getting rid of the mass co2 to increase toxic dioxins and toxic vapours and fumes into the atmosphere is considered better, perhaps better but absolutely and certainly not clean.
@oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368 2 роки тому
Real life is nuanced and gray. Children (and the internet) are all or nothing black and white.
@thibauthanson7670 2 роки тому
True! Since you're talking about fear, here's a question: If you want lower carbon emission, what do you think about nuclear power? (Sorry in advance, a pet peeve of mine, still I'm interested in the response)
@buddyclem7328 2 роки тому
@@thibauthanson7670 It's practical for large installations, but it's too heavy for aviation, or ground-based transportation, but that shouldn't stop us from using it responsibly for what we can use it for. Full disclosure, Three Mile Island melted down on my birthday, only a few years after I moved away from the area. It released radioactive fallout into the atmosphere before the accident was even reported.
@werrkowalski2985 2 роки тому
The anti aviation activists are just playing for the rich, if only they can air travel thats great for them.
@rararou 2 роки тому
21:28 Nice to have a video that's both enthusiastic towards technological solutions, yet acknowledges that some unsustainable practices should probably cost more. It's refreshing to see both approaches combined rather than opposed, kudos for that! And excellent video as usual.
@onetrickhorse 2 роки тому
Great video, thanks for posting. I should comment on the hydrogen element since I work in the field researching it, and there are a couple of points I might add. LH2 is volumetrically poor compared to the incumbent, no doubt about it. But what people often don't realise is the immense thermal opportunities it potentially offers, thermal management and advanced engine cycles in particular. Aircraft designs traditionally have been weight constrained, hence the emphasis on MTOW as a fundamental limitation, however with LH2, the challenge shifts as you've rightly identified to a volume constraint. That implies increased drag (larger fuselages to accommodate the fuel for example). What this means is that designs have to change in terms of priority, so blended wing designs, longer fuselages, and potentially drag reduction measures such as boundary layer ingestion become more interesting. Since weight isn't as concerning, engines can become more elaborate too, with the advantages gained being used to mitigate the drag impact.
@MadMadCommando 2 роки тому
Or since oxygen is made with the hydrogen in electrolysis we could propel our planes using LH2/LOX rocket engines. A guy can dream can’t he?
@625shapiro 2 роки тому
What about using Ammonia?
@MadMadCommando 2 роки тому
@@625shapiro the main problem with ammonia is that it’s extremely poisonous. Also, it requires hydrogen to make so you might as well use hydrogen for as many applications as possible for energy efficiency.
@MatthiasGorgens 2 роки тому
@@MadMadCommando Rockets are much, much less efficient than air breathing engines. Getting your oxygen for free from the atmosphere is just so much simpler and lighter than bringing your own LOX.
@MatthiasGorgens 2 роки тому
@@MadMadCommando Amonia is easier to store than hydrogen. Though you mind want to use methane, not amonia or hydrogen anyway. That's what they want to use in rockets now at SpaceX for example.
@grahamturner2640 2 роки тому
One of the big issues with the Blended Wing Body design is with safety. There would need to be a new way to escape the central sections of the airplane, so hopefully that will be addressed if you make a video on that design.
@Attaxalotl 2 роки тому
Put a hatch in the roof, and have it board like the disney world submarine.
@HalNordmann 2 роки тому
Or you could have the passengers near the leading edges by the emergency exits, and fill the central section with fuel tanks and luggage space.
@jackdeniston59 2 роки тому
plus the additional vomiting
@sirBrouwer 2 роки тому
@@Attaxalotl more like the container in Thunderbirds 2. Just drop the entire container where people are in. the only people left then are the flight deck crew.
@che3se1495 2 роки тому
Several hundred ejection seats is the clear and obvious answer. Shoot the passengers out like fireworks 🎆
@reklessbravo2129 2 роки тому
I'm hearing pam oil and I'm thinking pam spray and then he goes and shows pictures of palm trees and oh that makes more sense. Accents are fascinating
@RokeJulianLockhart.s13ouq 2 роки тому
The Irish have never liked ells.
@klobiforpresident2254 2 роки тому
Reminds me of the formula one video where he had to say "cars" and "KERS". Yeah.
@zachariahstovall1744 2 роки тому
Lolol that's hilarious
@bpcgos 2 роки тому
Palm oil
@RISCy27 2 роки тому
The visuals are incredible in this video on top of the (as always) great explanation of the topic.
@tracyhardyjohnson1315 Рік тому
I often just listen to the audio on these videos while I'm doing the dishes or other chores. It sounds like I'm going to have to block off some time to sit down and actually watch it as well.
@indepviewpt 2 роки тому
Your videos are completely enlightening. Thanks for them. I will look at your application to which you refer.
@ericdueck9405 2 роки тому
"hydrogen could be a future aviation fuel" Hindenburg 2: My time has come
@TheDarkSide11891 2 роки тому
It's not like jet fuel is much less flammable to be fair
@letsmakegadgets6899 2 роки тому
@@TheDarkSide11891 It is SIGNIFICANTLY less flammable.
@TheDarkSide11891 2 роки тому
@@letsmakegadgets6899 I meant within the context of using it as a fuel. Unlike in the Hindenburg, an aircraft fuel tank isn't gonna be pumped up with enormous quantities of pure hydrogen. Of course pure hydrogen in high concentration is going to be much more flammable.
@markthomasson5077 2 роки тому
Hindenburg was a disaster in that it ended hydrogen airships. They make a huge amount of sense. Think about it, why are you happy to travel on a big bag of highly inflammable kerosene, or a big bag of hydrogen, much safer. Hydrogen lifts itself into the air, kerosene has to use lots of fuel to do so.
@asifmsadik 2 роки тому
As someone that works with hydrogen, the Hindenburg's event was more to do with having flammable things entrapping hydrogen than hydrogen itself. Hydrogen is explosive with oxygen nearby, but due to how light it is, generally it'll escape right away. Hindenburg was designed to essentially trap the hydrogen and oxygen inside the balloon. And also the fabric was highly flammable to begin with. It also didn't help people were allowed to smoke near the hydrogen tanks also.
@gilbertxaviertansri9c853 2 роки тому
I love in the description if you scroll to the references you'll find this. "i can't be arse to find a reference. I have a master degree in aeuronautical engineering , just trust me"
@roshko321 2 роки тому
A man of details I see
@gilbertxaviertansri9c853 2 роки тому
@@roshko321 yes indeed
@senor135 2 роки тому
always love the references included. keep up the great work
@justincase6744 2 роки тому
So, after going around with all these new technologies we finally arrived back to the simplest and the best solution for the future planes - currently used jet fuel from the crude oil.
@mdoerkse 2 роки тому
Which won't last forever.
@peteradaniel 2 роки тому
The problem isn’t that it won’t last forever, the problem is the amount of environmental destruction it’s doing.
@arthurdurbin370 2 роки тому
@@mdoerkse there processes available now that we can make crude oil from algae which depending on the variety used can grow just about anywhere with some water be it sea water, fresh water, or. sewage waste water. process it using the fuel it makes or renewable energy and its carbon neutral and can make drop in fuels on demand.
@codeartha 2 роки тому
@@peteradaniel if we decarbonize every other parts of industry, the airplanes pollution will be something negligible for the planet. Even of its use tripple, it would still be a minor contribution. And current crude oil stock will last centuries
@peteradaniel 2 роки тому
@@codeartha it’s not even that. It’s the amount society decarbonises as well. If it’s affordable for oil companies to continue searching for crude oil fields the less importance it has in transportation across society. Also the cultural impact of individual decarbonisation will put immense financial pressure on those industries which still can’t, with governments to fines people’s environmental consciousness deciding to find alternative modes of transport. Edit: his 25% estimate at the beginning is important to how the aviation industry sells itself in the future.
@Charlie-js8rj 2 роки тому
Clearly, nuclear powered planes are the answer! How could you have missed this, it's got incredible energy density and volume. Oh wait.
@whatelseison8970 2 роки тому
Turns out that's a biological issue more than an engineering one. Humans just need to learn how to not be such wimps about radiation.
@mchmchminecraft1637 2 роки тому
Imagine all the nuke fly all over US
@willmungas8964 2 роки тому
@@whatelseison8970 well there’s also a problem if one ever gets hijacked o.O
@mindprobe3587 2 роки тому
@@whatelseison8970 yeah people are making things difficult for us engineers. Given that only 11% of people in the world use air travel, them getting infertile would only help control the world population. But we need not be sad about the deaths of mutated babies because an increase in mutation at birth may someday give us a super-powered human species capable of withstanding nuclear radiation !!!
@SapioiT 2 роки тому
Actually, land-based nuclear power plans could provide the kind of power needed to make those fuels clean, and the fuel industry could serve as balancing for the difference in demand for every hour of the day (google "duck curve" for energy production and energy consumption curves and when they overlay). In other words, while the humans need power, they use it, when the humans don't need power, it's used to create fuel, so the nuclear reactor can be kept running at optimal settings.
@Ikbeneengeit 2 роки тому
"The United States doesn't need to worry about low temperatures." Texas: 🥶
@RealEngineering 2 роки тому
As someone who lived through the snowpocalypse.......yes.
@CarFreeSegnitz 2 роки тому
On the flip-side…. Washington & Oregon June 2021: 🥵 Where I live in British Columbia, Canada, 115F is hellish.
@kadenengland45yearsago9 2 роки тому
@@RealEngineering No way you live in the freedom state. I thought you were Irish.
@highlanderjeff2720 2 роки тому
Yeah and all them wind farms that froze over too, didn't that leave people without power?
@101SassyJ 2 роки тому
I’m still waiting for the peer reviewed study that show’s human carbon production has any affect on mean Climate. Which has been cooling and warming at different rates for billions of years. Did you know that the amount of Carbon from one Volcanic eruption = the human production of Carbon for over a decade? It’s called thinking people. Use your thinker and stop being told what to think!
@SpiritmanProductions 2 роки тому
Just thinking out loud: If the on-going installation of wind and solar farms eventually results in significant over-supply of electricity, will there not be a way of using the surplus energy to turn plastic waste into fuel?
@MatthiasGorgens 2 роки тому
You can turn CO2 and water into fuel, if you have energy to spare. You can also just sequester CO2 from the atmosphere and put the carbon in the ground somewhere. It's not worth it at the moment, energy is too expensive.
@arturoeugster2377 2 роки тому
@@MatthiasGorgens Was meinst Du, wie die Länder, die in der Höhe Getreide anwachsen müssen, vom reduzierten cozwei Gehalt der Luft sehr leiden werden. Beispiel hier in Bolivien, wo die arme Bevölkerung auf den Altiplano leben muss, wegen geringer werdenden Lebensraum pro Bevölkerung. Gerade werden die Lebensmittel mit Lastwagen nach LaPaz und Umgebung eingeführt. Die Treibstoffkosten haben sich kürzlich fast verdoppelt, so dass eine lokale Lebens- mittelproduktion nun hier nötig wird. Dazu is die Menge vom Kohlendioxyd in der Luft zu wenig, weil sie ja mit der Luftdichte in der Höhe abnimmt, nicht die Konzentration(~0.04%), wohl verstanden. Sondern die Menge per cm³, die wesentlich ist für die Photosynthese! Was meinst Du ,bestimmt die Waldgrenze? Regen, nein, Temperatur, auch nicht, co2 absolute Menge ja! Co2 der Luft zu entnehmen ist das Schlimmste, dass die uns antun können, denk doch nach. Sequester Co2 is not just stupid but a crime towards the growing poor population living here, who cannot afford to pay for the growing fuel costs. A certain consequence of fossile fuel reduction.
@arturoeugster2377 2 роки тому
Besides co2 dissolved in deeper seawater is converted into hydromethane ice by bacteria in huge amounts along the coasts.
@silo3com Рік тому
Depends on logistics. If the power plant is located near a city. Alot are in remote areas.
@alexandriaj.1578 Рік тому
there are many companies who have or are in the process of turning trash into cleaner versions of gasoline and jet fuel. i was just watching a video on it actually. look up trash gasification and see what comes up for you
@RalfSiegesmund 2 роки тому
Very great and informative video. I learnt a lot and subscribed. I love the positive general demeanor.
@amnesio42 2 роки тому
"Something wierd is going on in this office. The clock is going out of control, people are acting wierdsaying it feel like the room is spinning .... I'm not sure what goes on here, but I don't like it" Am'i the only one worried by this note ? at 10:00
@isaackolman2861 2 роки тому
Woah, I didn't notice that in the first watch
@Nerd_of_Anarchy 2 роки тому
Exactly! WTF is going on there? And where is it, I don't wanna job there.
@hugocorminboeuf8007 2 роки тому
I think this is a joke related to "gas intoxication" where people get high on gasoline.
@rjfaber1991 2 роки тому
It must have taken weeks to create that scene anyway, even without editing it at the end, so to still find the time to add a few hidden messages; big up!
@yiming624 2 роки тому
He is talking about ethanol. The joke is they are drunk
@ObfuscateEmail 2 роки тому
Check out the writing on the page titled 'Ethanol Properties' at 10:00: "Something weird is going on in this office. The clock is going out of control. People are acting weird, saying it feels like the room is spinning... I'm not sure what goes on here, but I don't like it."
@GodwynDi 2 роки тому
I see that. Like something out of a horror/mystery novel
@rwall514 2 роки тому
Maybe it's a reference to another use of ethanol - in the bar.
@Sussurrus 2 роки тому
Would be great with a detailed video on biofuels and biodiesels. I know there is FAME, HVO, but its hard to get a sense of the differences between them all and would appreciate to get your view on these including their full life cycle impact.
@ForzaJersey 2 роки тому
Real Engineering already did a lazy, kindergarten level analysis on biofuels. He has no understanding of the industry or the biofuel alternatives.
@dadriel 2 роки тому
Nice overview here over the available alternatives in the future. And I think your conclusion is pretty much spot on. Just one minor detail that is misleading is your cost calculation for the biofuel. You compare the cost of a total switch to the airlines revenue and not their current operating cost. So it is impossible to tell how much the actual increase in costs for the airline is (and how much ticket prices would need to rise to cover that increase costs).
@NakedAnt 2 роки тому
"Something weird is going on in this office. The clock is going out of control. People are acting weird, saying the room feels like it's spinning... I'm not sure what goes on here, but I don't like it."
@Dryloch 2 роки тому
Sounds like a document I would find in my Control videogame.
@louisfoley6955 2 роки тому
How did it take me this long to find this youtube channel??? Its so dope! Reminds me why I chose to major in engineering
@grahammewburn 2 роки тому
We are in the end game of affordable oil Perhaps you can solve the problem No worries if you like walking
@tintedmetal2107 2 роки тому
Welcome to the club!
@miguelvids9531 2 роки тому
Welcome
@Magavynhigara 2 роки тому
Love his channel. Very clean explanations.
@chefnyc 2 роки тому
Because You Tube recommendations are getting crappier everday.
@erythuria 2 роки тому
Concrete, beef, and stainless steel have much larger impacts than aviation. Having said that, it's obviously a great idea to minimise the industry's environmental woes.
@RayleighCriterion 2 роки тому
Grass fed regenerative grazing for beef is carbon neutral.
@erythuria 2 роки тому
@@RayleighCriterion what percentage of beef farming does that represent?
@syncmonism Рік тому
@@erythuria Currently very, very small, no doubt.
@evil0sheep 2 роки тому
Great video, would be interested to hear your take on algae as a biofuel feedstock. Obviously doesn't solve all of the problems with biofuels but seems like a really promising solution to the feedstock problem.
@SoftTofu123 2 роки тому
going from 2% to 25% sounds really scary, but if the total amount goes down, obviously the ratio will shift significantly. What's the estimation of actual output in 2050, instead of ratio?
@Yaotzin86 2 роки тому
Triple, though that was pre-COVID. Who knows now. 2% underplays its impact though. Due to altitude, its impact on warming is 2-3 times more than the raw emissions. It's on a completely unsustainable trajectory, and ignoring it because it's not too big today will just land us in the same problem that ignoring global warming for the past 50 years has - it gets much harder to change an industry the bigger it is, and the less time you have to do it. Better to slowly shift aviation starting yesterday than wait for it to be huge problem before acting.
@Allan_son 2 роки тому
@@Yaotzin86 triple also assumes the pilot shortage gets reversed big time!
@TheLastCrankers 2 роки тому
"The plane industry is on a brink of a crisis" *again*
@SocratesAth 2 роки тому
My thoughts exactly. There's always a crisis in aviation.
@danyala.1659 2 роки тому
Has there every been a time when an aviation crisis wasn't looming?
@lardlover3730 2 роки тому
@@danyala.1659 well to be fair, aviation was never a great long-term idea. Planes either use too much fuel, emit too much pollution, uses too much materials to produce, and other such stuff.
@levyroth 2 роки тому
They deserve it.
@ChicanoOne760 2 роки тому
Taxpayers should bail them out
@JaySmith91 2 роки тому
This is an extreme technicality nit-pick, but the goal of jet fuel is not to "raise the temperature to raise the pressure". This is because as you know, the Brayton cycle operates with isobaric combustion.
@satmohabir7175 2 роки тому
So you have to understand that during the design phase of an engine, the jet fuel selected raises the isobaric pressure in the combustion chamber to a value that depends on the choice of fuel. Some type of fuel will give you a lower isobaric pressure and others will give you a higher value. But once the engine is designed and ready for flight, that fuel consideration has been settled.
@ASJC27 2 роки тому
@@satmohabir7175 Why do people feel the need to invent nonsense about things they have zero knowledge about? Not a single statement in this comment is correct. Combustion pressure in jets is determined by the compressor and the turbine alone. The type of fuel has no effect on this, just on how much fuel is needed to get to the desired temperature. Pressure does not increase as fuel is burned in a jet engine. It actually decrease slightly through the combustor (by 3-4%). I'm an aerospace engineer and was the TA in jet propulsion class in grad school, but if you want to check that for yourself any book on gas turbines will tell you the same.
@ntorix599 9 місяців тому
Metal hydrides could greatly increase the volumetric energy density of hydrogen and increase safety but there might be issues with releasing the hydrogen from its bond fast enough to keep up with the engines in traditional combustion turbojets.
@kallee7284 2 роки тому
Love the "realistic" animations/renders!
@e.sstudios1015 2 роки тому
Mustard channel
@leiivanjuarez5994 2 роки тому
Mustard channel
@DeadDolphinMan 2 роки тому
Mustard channel
@J4yT3a 2 роки тому
Mustard channel
@ipapify276 2 роки тому
Mustard channel
@Cris-xy2gi 2 роки тому
Real Engineering: "Yeah this fuel is great because energy density, flashpoint, freezepoint-" Me: "Oh cool. Then why haven't we-" Real Engineering: "*Buuuuut it destroys the space-time continuum when breathed on, making it unsuitable for jet fuel.*" Me: "...Oh."
@RealEngineering 2 роки тому
Pretty sure "but" is my most used word on this channel
@sonubhadana4501 2 роки тому
Relatable
@moeron9172 2 роки тому
@@RealEngineering heard 'but' more times than people searching for it in porn websites
@thomasmiller2016 2 роки тому
I was involved in the testing of 50% Biofuels in F-22's. It works, but it is expensive (and it smells bad). One other thing to consider is that to replace all of the power from Automotive/Truck Engines by 2050 with electricity we need to be adding 1 GW of Carbon Free power every 6 days!! Maybe we should bump that up to every 5 days to account for air travel?
@mako88sb 2 роки тому
Roger Pelke published an article back in Sept/2019 that showed for the world to reach net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 would require 3 nuclear power plants being brought online every 2 days. That would be starting the day after the article was published until 2050. Along with that, fossil fuelled power plants would have to be decommissioned at roughly the same pace. Or 1500 wind turbines every day until 2050. It’s interesting to see China leads the world by a substantial amount when it comes to renewable energy but on the other hand they also burn more coal than the rest of the world combined and will do so for quite some time.
@andrew_koala2974 2 роки тому
At 39,000 feet [11,900 metres] the temperature can range from range from -46° to -62° C There are other considerations such as the temperature at ground level Also the measurement methodology TAT: Total Air temperature is the actual temperature the aircraft is experiencing, due to the friction of the air. SAT: Static Air Temperature is the OAT (Outside Air Temperature) in static conditions. As a former Air-force pilot it is correct that the Military have different requirements to commercial aircraft, because of the type of aircraft, area of operations and altitude the aircraft is normally operating at. There are many hazards in handling any flammable liquid- Static Electricity is of particular danger, more so aboard Aircraft Carriers.
@homericstate216 2 роки тому
“Repeated pressure cycles can lead to rapid failure“ veery nicely said!
@entropicprinciple9276 2 роки тому
Yeah flying pressurised hidrogen What could go wrong?
@lesonen1 2 роки тому
@@entropicprinciple9276 i think he is referring to something else. lol
@ukaszRadomski 2 роки тому
He could just say fatigue :)
@sethjansson5652 2 роки тому
@@entropicprinciple9276 Hans looks like he's sweating...
@andreirachko 2 роки тому
Are you referring to Elon Musk’s “rapid unplanned disassembly” or to sex?
@juddotto3660 2 роки тому
Can we just give thanks there's no background music, so if some impatient person were to listen at 2x it didn't sound like a tweakers house party
@davidwarford3087 2 роки тому
But their literally is background music. I agree that their should be no background music.
@sugaristhenewwhite 2 роки тому
@@davidwarford3087 its quiet
@Gaaaaaame 2 роки тому
The music is quiet enough that listening at 2x speed is very pog (personal experience)
@NorroTaku 2 роки тому
it was so inoffensive I didn't even notice Thank you editors :D
@Gaaaaaame 2 роки тому
later ur a heretic. Only 1.5x, pathetic
@Jay-nk6dm 2 роки тому
3:45. Longer chain hydrocarbons have higher boiling points, not lower. Thats what causes them to liquefy sooner. A lower boiling point would mean they stay gaseous for longer as the temp cools down.
@alio2269 2 роки тому
Oh my god the quality of your videos has gone up so much. My mind was blown during that chalkboard segment.
@stuyfly 2 роки тому
Many of the images shown when discussing hydrogen, are actually liquid oxygen carts and tanks.
@Merthalophor 2 роки тому
Luckily, the gas was leaking absolutely everywhere.
@ignasanchezl 2 роки тому
I doubt he could had found better footage, and well liquid oxygen does behave somewhat similarly.
@branaden 2 роки тому
Came here to say that 👍
@oadka 2 роки тому
Great eye!
@muizzy 2 роки тому
"Converted to run on bioethanol" --> remembers last video mentioning the production of bioethanol to be an energy negative process
@666Tomato666 2 роки тому
_from corn_ is the core part of that
@TheReaper569 2 роки тому
This video did a bad job of clarifying or explaining.
@alexsiemers7898 2 роки тому
But unlike cars or electricity as a whole, aviation can’t truly go carbon neutral unless some major leaps in battery or hydrogen fuel tech are made. So bio-ethanol isn’t _as bad_ of an idea
@TJStellmach 2 роки тому
Sure, but that just means you have to view it as an energy storage technology, rather than an energy production one. The energy density of hydrocarbon fuels might still make it the best solution (or least-bad one) for aviation.
@braj6385 2 роки тому
THANK YOU
@brucec954 10 місяців тому
As a former Aerospace engineer, this is a surprisingly good video. It reminds me of my chemistry professor in the 1970's telling us that "We are dam fools for burning such a valuable non-renewable resource like oil and it should be reserved for aviation and feedstocks". We now have viable BEV's for much of ground transportation so should heed his words.
@tec4303 2 роки тому
I'm looking forward to the blended wing episode!
@adamlytle2615 2 роки тому
One thing I've heard about is mixing hydrogen with Ammonia - would love to see more about that on this channel.
@curium9622 2 роки тому
I think the only thing you would get is NH5 wich is unstable and would go back to just beeing NH3 and H2
@adamlytle2615 2 роки тому
@@curium9622 eh, I'm no chemist so I dunno. But give it a google. There are companies, including Japan's TDK, persuing this right now. So I think there's probably something there.
@curium9622 2 роки тому
@@adamlytle2615 i think its about using the hydrogen from the amonia instead of generating it by electolysis
@adamlytle2615 2 роки тому
@@curium9622 well, ammonia is already produced by combining hydrogen and nitrogen. The feedstock hydrogen still needs to be from renewable energy powered hydrolysis for it to matter. Anyway, in the aviation context, I think the idea is that they can modify existing jet engine designs to use ammonia as fuel, or even ammonia somehow blended with additional hydrogen and it wouldn't have carbon emissions. www.popularmechanics.com/flight/airlines/a33768744/ammonia-as-jet-fuel/
@iippo86 2 роки тому
@@adamlytle2615 Wärtsilä is testing ammonia as marine fuel. www.wartsila.com/media/news/30-06-2020-world-s-first-full-scale-ammonia-engine-test---an-important-step-towards-carbon-free-shipping-2737809
@zachmali4071 2 роки тому
Just a quick question is the 25% of carbon emissions a result of an increase of usage, or the decrease of other sources of carbon emissions?
@seanhubbard6033 2 роки тому
Both
@theprofessorfate6184 2 роки тому
It is predominately the result of playing statistical percentage games for the sake of false virtue. There will never be ZERO emissions, not as long as humans inhabit the planet. This video is the type of nonsense that got us to where we are today. There is nothing wrong with planes using Jet A or ships using fuel oil. The biggest problems are automobiles and power generation. You can't make anything without electrical power, including all the shit they claim represents renewable energy.
@hammerth1421 2 роки тому
Mostly a decrease of everything else. All other sectors have some clear ways of reducing or even completely eliminating their emissions, aviation does not.
@sebucwerd 2 роки тому
@@theprofessorfate6184 If you have a problem with automobiles, stop being a hypocrite and stop driving. Fossil Fuels are uniquely beneficial to human life and flourishing, which is more important than some random species bugs getting replaced by others.
@SpencerCallaghan 2 роки тому
Humans have been emitting carbon since we discovered fire. The goal is to reduce carbon emissions to a level the earth can reasonably manage without drastic changes to the climate. As such, throwing around percentages is not helpful. Aggregate numbers are what we need to track. If aviation makes up 25% of emissions, but emissions are 80% reduced overall, that’s a big win. Most energy usage by humanity can be decarbonized, some niche uses cases can’t. We need to understand if aviation can be one of those exceptions.
@lorim8070 Рік тому
This information helped me to appreciate my Dad a bit more. He used to be a Senior Aeronautical Engineer and designed every jet cockpit and fuselage made for the Air Force from 1954-1972. I never thought about just what the fuselage did. I thought it just held the gasoline but this showed it does a lot more. Thank you.
@JuliusUnique 2 роки тому
I appreciat that "bars" is being used for pressure in this video instead of those confusing units like pascal or psi
@FreddLe 2 роки тому
“Wake up babe, Real Engineering just uploaded”
@dannycv82 2 роки тому
There is no babe, is there? 🧐
@TanksInSpace_ 2 роки тому
Do you wake her up with a foot pump or do you still blow with your mouth?
@AbdulGoodLooks 2 роки тому
@@dannycv82 He's talking to the Tesla
@alexsiemers7898 2 роки тому
2:48 no matter how correct the terminology may be, i don’t like the idea of calling frozen jet fuel “wax”
@confusedwhale 2 роки тому
Wax is just a solid fuel.
@dino4812 2 роки тому
that thought just makes me feel queasy
@smallstudiodesign 2 роки тому
So? Just because you don’t like it isn’t enough to change the terminology.
@buddyclem7328 2 роки тому
I'd be pretty uneasy if solids were forming in my fuel tanks at altitude!
@Doombacon 2 роки тому
Candle wax is a solid fuel as well.
@cmilkau 2 роки тому
I wouldn't gloss over the difference between military and commercial regarding energy density so easily. Especially when you don't fill your tanks and fuel is a major cost driver, you want high energy per mass, not volume. Every bit of extra weight means extra fuel means even more extra weight. On top if that, this turns the argument upside down. Long carbon chains are compact, but carbon is heavy and burns less energetic. Short chains take more volume, but have higher hydrogen content, burning hotter with less mass.
@gotpuntedagain 2 роки тому
Brian, have you looked into superconductor applications in electrical propulsion aircraft? It definitely has some hurdles to get over, but looks promising
@El_Chompo 2 роки тому
Thanks for pointing out that palm oil is a direct result of deforestation. I feel like nobody knows this, and it's in almost all of the food you buy in the supermarket if you look at the labels. I even remember seeing it in all of the "natural earth friendly" soaps at the coop 10 years ago. It should be avoided like the plague but I know that won't happen because people will always buy what is cheapest and palm oil is the cheapest. Similarly how almost everything you buy these days is made in China and they have the worst polluting factories with no environmental regulations. And yet people can't stop buying stuff from them because it's so cheap!
@gunshipproduct2 2 роки тому
Its absolutely infuriating! You would think that some of these companies would pay attention to the bottom line of where these things are coming from. So many cases of alternative energy that ends up being less carbon neutral than other energy sources... I often bring up China's pollution as a reason to purchase American or European products wherever possible, regardless of political motives, its imperative that we start purchasing local products.
@Nathan-gj8ch 2 роки тому
IT is always like this to the point that most people can't even see it happening. 90% of all North American indigenous forests have been removed due to man and "zombie" like green areas have popped up in their place. We cut the largest trees ever known to man to build LA. These green areas that are logged and disturbed never look like or act like indigenous forests ever again missing many important species needed. My grandpa told stories of squirrels climbing from Cincinnati to Apalachicola on the tops of chestnut and ash trees and never touching the ground, now there are zero chestnut and ash trees. We clear cut all the forests down to dead dirt because it's much cheaper to build on empty ground than to integrate homes into wooded areas. But no it's ok these worry about 2-3% of all carbon burnt. What are we even trying to protect?
@madattaktube 2 роки тому
You've got to be careful though! It's not all about the type of oil, it's where and how it's grown. If we ditch palm but do nothing to address the economics of deforestation in poorer countries it'll just make the issue worse as even more forest will be cut down to compensate for lower yields.
@Croz89 2 роки тому
It's probably the least worst of the alternatives at the moment. Coconut oil has a lower yield, there isn't enough supply of cocoa or shea butter, and butter or lard is a problem for vegans. That said, it's probably best it's used only where it's needed, mainly as a saturated fat in foods.
@originalketchup7498 2 роки тому
Developed nations should be sanctioning CCP due to the genocide treaties we've signed anyway, its disgusting that our governments don't have more pride
@TECHN01200 2 роки тому
You seem to really like talking about biofuels and seem to take issue with how the feed stock is created. How about a video on vertical farming or hydroponics/aeroponics to explore those as alternatives for feed stock?
@elibullockpapa9012 2 роки тому
both of those are way, way more resource intensive
@boo3427 2 роки тому
That could be a solution but it comes down to the fact that we are literally burning our food supply in a future where food stability is not guaranteed. I don't think biofuels are the answer
@jeffhurtson5211 2 роки тому
@@boo3427 That not entirely true. Biofuels can be made out of wasted and unused waste like corn stocks weeds, the grass you cut, and cow shit.
@HYDRAdude 2 роки тому
Completely infeasible without fusion power. Even then you have to find a way to deal with all the heat, which is a huge problem in urbanized areas already.
@Yaotzin86 2 роки тому
Producing complex e-fuels is *incredibly* efficient compared to this idea. And producing complex e-fuels is incredibly inefficient!
@xenomorphbiologist-xx1214 16 днів тому
The funny thing is, Nuclear Power would probably boost like 90% of these proposed solutions into being possibly viable since it’s a huge source of energy that has no emissions and can run for decades. Hydrogen is complicated to work with, but using nuclear power for electricity would allow much more “excess” energy that could be used for all kinds of things, like desalinating water, etc
@BobJones20001 2 роки тому
Nebula and Curiosity stream is serious value. $15 for a year. Thanks Brian, some great stuff on there.
@bulasev 2 роки тому
This video went up 7 hours ago... 1.2k comments. I hardly ever seen so many comments in such a short time. This just shows how well the topic is being chosen. Amazing video... Again. Thanks
@siloton 2 роки тому
Why 1K comments in 7 hour makes any sense? Whoever is able to consume it entirely? Or at least to absorb overall mood of the discussion? Why there is not a vote meaning particular post is a Duplicate, and later duplicates can be hidden or better, users with duplicates that are able to write but cannot read, be penalted somehow so users will be aware not to flood media with posts far far less information density than hydrogen on 100 celsius?
@kewalvats2651 2 роки тому
I love how scrupulously you alluded the challenges with different fuels, like the splitting of water molecule wherein researchers are trying to figure out ways to incorporate solar energy and replicate photosynthesis, among others. So every consumer should take the responsibility of what they are giving off because engineers are in need of cooperation.
@entropicprinciple9276 2 роки тому
Or where does the energy required come from
@sadomor6179 2 роки тому
Id assume if he went into detail about every study beeing conducted about every fuel type discussed we would be sitting here for a few days
@prathameshnavghare6682 2 роки тому
@RealEngineering, please make a detailed video on "The Bouchain Power plant" - world’s most efficient combined-cycle power plant located in Bouchain, France. Also make a video on Thermal Power plants and how to increase their efficiency.
@nzcym 2 роки тому
High flash point, low vapor pressure, also with lower melting/freezing point on the same time ~= wider temperature range for liquid, hydrocarbon molecules with more branching structure or need to insert polar functional groups (e.g. amine, amide, alcohol, ether, ester ...) to the hydrocarbon backbone.
@raffaelepiccini3405 2 роки тому
I feel like for commercial planes, volumetric energy density is much less important than energy density by unit mass The only thing they care about is to have as little weight as possible, cause it makes the flight less cost effective, they wouldn't mind filling the tank more, if the weight did not increase The only possible way volumetric energy density is important to commercial flights is the maximum range, but that's often far less relevant
@lightnlies 2 роки тому
3:50 The longer chain hydrocarbons are distilled on the lower stage due to their higher boiling point, not lower..
@VanerTheogus 2 роки тому
Thanks for this. Comprehending that part, the logic made no sense.
@jasonwalker9471 2 роки тому
He obviously meant to say some variant of "lower condensation point". It threw me too though, for a moment.
@falconne 2 роки тому
Yeah, I had to pause the video and think hard to make sure I wasn't having a brain fault, which I would have been more likely than Sam making a mistake.
@alimtimm7355 Рік тому
I remember when I was like 10 I went to a city council meeting with my mom and they discussed how jet fuel, if released into the environment, can cause birth defects and autism in newborns due to the high lead content. Now, that was 2015, and it looks like we have improved every since then. Now, Gulf Stream just flew the g800 to Mach .96 (740 mph) using 100% sustainable fuel. That’s a big step for commercial aviation and I feel that we may use that even for fighter jets and other military aircraft.
@seanmorrison3744 2 роки тому
The big one you missed is ammonia. High temperature fuel cells like SOFCs can react ammonia directly, and are hot enough that the waste heat can be used as part of a hybrid gas turbine. Liquid ammonia is objectively the best carbon-free fuel (aside from hydrazine, which is too dangerous even for aviation) since it has the highest hydrogen percentage by volume of any storage method, and the methods for producing it at scale are well-proven. SOFCs can also reach high enough efficiencies that the drop in performance when switching over from carbon-based fuels isn't catastrophic, despite the hit in volumetric energy density. There are already projects underway to use direct ammonia fuel cells in shipping, and it's likely that this technology will eventually make its way to aviation.
@OmDahake 2 роки тому
can we get a video on the YF-23
@kyleknepper4016 2 роки тому
That would actually be so good. YF-23 was legendary
@shinchan-F-urmom 2 роки тому
Yf23 with thrust vectoring
@user-lq2nu6cn7y 2 роки тому
@@shinchan-F-urmom but would it need thrust vectoring at all? It was nearly as maneuverable as the f22, and adding thrust vectoring couldve changed its weight and flight characteristics in a negative manner.
@SniperSnake50BMG 2 роки тому
Oh yeah please!!!
@rxhawk75 2 роки тому
All I got from this is we are staying on kerosene for a very, very long time.
@Ushio01 2 роки тому
For the big airlines sure. Wendover did a video on how electric planes can work (ukposts.info/have/v-deo/mXhllmmqeKlezWw.html) in a way that as someone who lives in the UK never crossed my mind before. That airlines in large countries use very small aircraft to cover routes of just a couple of hundred miles or less. Not something we use in the UK but for the US, Canada, Australia etc is clearly more prevalent. Sure it looks like only a small change but I bet the environmental benefit is larger than you first think.
@MrTupi1000 2 роки тому
Just Have to Say ( Outstnding ) how good is to live in this time, Great Job .
@NobleMarcos 2 роки тому
I'm always amazed at your skill to not talk about nuclear at all
@LettuCe_0199 2 роки тому
Ooh yes I would love to see a video on the blended wing aircraft design!
@ZalyQQ 2 роки тому
Wait, this isn't Wendover?? Thought it would've been because of the planes hha
@gryph01 2 роки тому
Wendover peaks around the corner.... "Real Engineering, why didn't you call me?"
@mr88cet 2 роки тому
10:04 - “Something weird is going on in this office. The clock is going out of control. People are acting weird, saying it feels like the room is spinning… I’m not sure what is goes on here, but I don’t like it.” Nice touch, Brian!
@ristekostadinov2820 8 місяців тому
There are yeast bacterias that produces oil with fermentation, there are few companies that make cooking oil with fermentation. However we don't know how it will scale up, to produce 50 billion liters that is used in aviation on annual basis or where would we find the needed sugars to feed the yeast.
@heronimousbrapson863 2 роки тому
Perhaps we should bring back long distance passenger train travel.
@RealEngineering 2 роки тому
We should be yes, very under utilized, particularly in US.
@cornbreadfedkirkpatrick9647 2 роки тому
without government control Amtrak
@Ikbeneengeit 2 роки тому
Bring a universal carbon tax and this will happen automatically
@rishavmanmohan 2 роки тому
Hyperloop
@user-de4cq6uk6l 2 роки тому
Build High Speed Rail!
@streetwind. 2 роки тому
There's a project planned in Iceland, where they want to put a synthetic fuels factory on top of a volcanic vent that spews out concentrated CO2 all day, every day. That would let them skip the energy intensive process of drawing CO2 out of the atmosphere, thereby reducing the cost of the fuel noticeably. It also helps that volcanic areas are chock full of free geothermal energy, of course. Not a solution that's viable at a global scale, but I found it interesting and creative nevertheless.
@pvlkmrv 2 роки тому
I think the longer hydrocarbon chains liquefy lower in the tower thanks to their *higher* boiling point. There should be more heat lower in the fractional distillation column, but the longer chains condense sooner, because they condense at the boiling point, which is a higher temp, because longer chains mean more van der waals forces and more molecular cohesion.
@Mr.Scootini 2 роки тому
As a GA student pilot, and an avid aviation enthusiast. I know that electric planes exist, and that turbofan engines are actually far more efficient than a high bypass turbofan jet engines. And if I’m not mistaken, turboprops use 100LL fuel.
@zacksaunders7184 2 роки тому
Turboprops use kerosene not avgas
@RayleighCriterion 2 роки тому
100LL is only necessary because of legacy engines that cannot be replaced with newer engine designs because getting FAA certification for a new engine would cost multi millions of dollars.
@Hgdhgfdssxvbbnjoo Рік тому
Turboprops are jet fuel
@benweiss9872 2 роки тому
I work in the industry on the engineering side. My money is on efuels long term with biofuels and other blends as a bridge. Ultimately, we may be lucky enough too have a world with electricity "to cheap to meter." If we get there, efuels become the obvious choice with unparalleled energy density and,nine of the land use issues. From a governance perspective, it will take carbon pricing tax policy on airline tickets to incentivise the shift away from fossil derived kerosene.
@bencoad8492 2 роки тому
my money is on Molten Salt Reactors making the fuels(among other chemicals) from their high heat(800+) reactors unless SAFIRE takes over heh
@baronvonlimbourgh1716 2 роки тому
Just regulate it. Just like care fuels now need to be a percentage ethanol. Just increase the percentage yearly. And as cars move to electric, it already frees up a lot of biofuel capacity that would have gone into gasoline. You have to look at these things from a macro perspective and things look a lot more feasable.
@Drebin2293 2 роки тому
"... many of them are being converted to run on bio-ethanol." Stated in context like it's a good thing after just making another video about Biofuels and their dangers.
@andrejvasko9474 2 роки тому
u should differentiate between corn and sugarcane ethanol
@jeevesy36 2 роки тому
There are also waste generated biofuels
@MathematicsStudent 2 роки тому
In that video, I believe that a jet fuel replacement was mentioned as one of the few legitimate uses for biofuels.
@bimblinghill 2 роки тому
I'm guessing you stopped the video in a rage and didn't watch the rest, because it was addressed...
@Drebin2293 2 роки тому
@@bimblinghill Rage? No. Though when he said that line I'll admit I lost all interest, left a comment, and moved onto something else.
@lunchbox1341 Рік тому
I think instead of looking at ways of making planes greener, we should massively limit their use around the world. High speed trains can replace a lot of the shorter routes around the world, and most domestic flights should be replaced with them (especially in the us). It's the same thing over and over again, we are trying to invent new ways to fix a flawed system which will just never work out.
@KRW628 2 роки тому
The first 8 seconds of video. I used to fuel planes for United; maybe some of the very planes shown here. The 757 was the easiest to fuel. You could drive right under the wing, stop at the end of the engine cowling, and you're in position.
@jenshendriks9092 2 роки тому
when aviation becomes 25% of the total emission, that means humanity has decreased it's total emission by around 88% to 92%, considering it's only 2% to 3% currently. I say, we've done enough by that time haha
@ianhall557 2 роки тому
The issue with that is that humanity as a whole is already so far behind when it comes to becoming carbon neutral. We're feeling the warming effects of the past 50 years of carbon emissions and even if we completely stopped all carbon emissions today the planet would continue to warm for another 30 years without technology actively recapturing huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere.
@gasdive 2 роки тому
If we get to that point, we're about half way. "haha"
@robertmiller6444 2 роки тому
A problem people have is that they never gasp concepts of scope and scale. It's one thing to produce a biofuel in a lab. It is another thing entirely to scale that up to an industrial scale of a magnitude necessary to accomplish anything of any significance on an economic scale. And that scaling up is often more daunting and larger problem than just inventing something in a lab. This is true for so many things other than biofuels. Also, people have no concept of just how much of a problem it is to obtain hydrogen on an industrial scale and how much of a huge problem it is to handle hydrogen. Also, hydrogen isn't an energy source but a means of energy storage in that you still have to first obtain the energy from somewhere to produce (obtain) the hydrogen.
@SudaNIm103 2 роки тому
When discussing the economies of biofuels I think it’s important to keep in mind crude oils origins. Most of the energy content of crude oil came from the sun. Carbon dioxide and water catalyzed by sunlight via photosynthesis were reduced to form carbohydrates (plant biomass) and oxygen. Overtime many of these carbohydrates were short lived and would decompose back into CO2 and water while others accumulated in bogs and other anaerobic environments. It took hundreds of thousands of years, to ‘harvest’ and accumulate the biomass for one or two centuries of oil consumption. Most everyone knows this and happened hazard as this process maybe the timescales are daunting. The aim of biofuels is to improve upon this process to such extent that timescales of millennia are reduced to mere months.
@thanegrooms 2 роки тому
The volumetric density of information in this video is awesome!
@rbxless 2 роки тому
Higher than hydrogen :)
@fensoxx 2 роки тому
There is a certain amount of carbon that the worlds ecosystem can naturally absorb without adding to climate change right? If the other industries cut back we may get to a point where the air industry can continue to use fossil fuels for awhile because it’s all offset by nature?
@kindlin 2 роки тому
Theoretically anything added has some effect. Anything added will need to be offset elsewhere. It's possible the effects will become negligible at some level, but with how bad we already are, we need to hit net negative, not let planes do it because it's not that much.
@entropicprinciple9276 2 роки тому
Thank you! Also funnily enough if we get global warming under control after some time we will HAVE TO burn carbon to prevent the earth from freezing or atmospheric oxygen levels to get too high and make fires more frequent!( Like in the carboniferous era I think oxygen was like 30 percent)
@Kyle-gw6qp 2 роки тому
@@entropicprinciple9276 Not really. We just need to let nature do it's thing, and let forest fires burn themselves out.
@donaldhysa4836 2 роки тому
Cilmate is always changing even you put zero carbon in the atmosphere
@entropicprinciple9276 2 роки тому
@@Kyle-gw6qp Of course! Who doesn't like spontaneous catastrophic almost inextinguishable fires?
@andrew_koala2974 2 роки тому
04:00 the correct name is 'column' NOT 'tower' besides the distillation process there is also a purification process. Fundamentally your description is accurate enough for the average Man to understand
@alexanderstone9463 2 роки тому
I see several ways forward: 1. Prioritize the usage of biofuels for aviation, as opposed to sectors where they are not absolutely necessary. For instance, we do not need to run cars on ethanol when we can run them on electricity. 2. Expand high speed rail in order to lower the number of people flying short haul. 3. Prioritize the development of hybrid aircraft that won't need to use as much fuel. 4. Restrict private aviation that uses anything other than electricity or hydrogen. If properly enforced (admittedly an unlikely scenario), it might also increase the purchase of first class tickets on commercial airliners. 5. Increase clean Hydrogen production by embracing Methane pyrolysis. It's baffling to me how little we hear of this, and how mind-numbingly uncreative the comments and counterarguments are when the topic DOES come up. For those who don't know, methane pyrolysis is a way of producing Hydrogen and Solid Carbon from methane gas. It produces nothing apart from these two things. It's cheaper than electrolysis but more expensive than steam reforming. It would not be necessary to use the solid carbon for anything, and it may not even be desirable (since other uses may have it transformed into a greenhouse gas). Inevitably you hear the counterargument: "We can't just waste all that solid carbon by putting it in some deep hole in the ground!" To which I answer: "Why the hell not?!" Sure it might not be "cost effective" but neither is electrolysis! The only other problem is the issue of fugitive emissions, This can be mitigated with greater investment and reorganizing the Natural Gas industry so as to minimize the circumstances where leaks can occur (which would also need investment).
@dsdy1205 2 роки тому
7:47 Igniting the fuel doesn't actually raise the pressure at all, because the combustion process in jet engines is constant-pressure. The heat part is correct though.
Суспільне Вінниця
Переглядів 532 тис.
Hard Play
Переглядів 130 тис.
Hard Play
Переглядів 130 тис.