Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–188 of 188 posts

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#181

Post by WalterBright »

DagAgren wrote: post #172
WalterBright wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is calling something "carbon neutral" if it is burning wood is equally unhelpful. Nothing is gained by burning a tree you just chopped down instead of burning a tree buried for a million years - the same amount of CO2 is released.

"Unhelpful"? We have a specific problem we are trying to solve. That problem is: Too much CO2, right now. The term is obviously useful in solving that problem. Nobody is worrying about CO2 on geological timescales. It is simply not relevant to any discussion anyone is having, or any problem anyone is trying to solve. This isn't complicated? How are you managing to miss the point with such vigour?

> How are you managing to miss the point with such vigour?

I could ask the same of you - how are you helping matters at all by chopping down a tree and burning it over digging up a tree and burning it? You're emitting the same amount of CO2.

Want to reduce global warming?

1. plant a tree

2. burn less

If you're wondering what to do with the tree after it grows, you can:

1. use it for lumber

2. bury it

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#182

Post by blacksmythe »

WalterBright wrote: post #155
philhippus wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it takes 100's of thousands of years for the planet to form fossil fuels such as coal. We can't wait that long.

Just stuff the tree into the furnace. It'll burn just fine. (The only reason the industrial revolution switched to coal was because the landscape was denuded of trees. The Jamestown colony in America was tasked with making glass, glass needs lots of fuel, and England ran out of trees. "Connections" by James Burke)

You have to convert the wood to charcoal to burn hot enough for a blacksmith forge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charcoal

I highly recommend a visit to Plimouth Plantation to anyone interested in 1700's era technology: https://www.plimoth.org/

Or Old Sturbridge Village for 1800's era technology: https://www.osv.org/

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#183

Post by [deleted] »

WalterBright wrote: post #179
_Microft wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, that's outright wrong (and from other replies you should have learned that by now, so why keep reiterating something false?). Anyways... The total amount of carbon in circulation is what matters because that part can end up in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide where it shows its heat capturing effects. Trees fix carbon while growing and emit it while decomposing but do not change the total amount of carbon in ci…

Which releases more CO2 into the atmosphere: 1. chopping down a tree and burning it 2. digging up a tree and burning it Both are the same. Calling (1) "green energy" is outright wrong. Want to be green? Burn less carbon. The source of the carbon you're burning is irrelevant.

[deleted]

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#184

Post by ppf »

eloff wrote: post #174
ppf wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but what is a sustainable level of tree harvesting to feed the world's energy needs?

That's not possible, our energy needs are too great for that now. But nobody would seriously suggest wood (or other biofuels) be our principal energy source anyway.

That's my point. Any scheme involving burning wood to create aviation fuel is an indicator that the wrong side of the energy usage balance is being addressed.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#185

Post by ben_w »

WalterBright wrote: post #180
mkl wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the tree you just chopped down got its carbon from the atmosphere just a few years ago. That's what makes it carbon neutral. The coal (/gas/oil/etc.) got its carbon from the atmosphere in the far distant past, so from our point of view it's new additional carbon that wasn't in the system before. It can only be considered carbon neutral over a time span of millions of years, which is pretty meaningless.

> That's what makes it carbon neutral. Nope. You're emitting exactly the same CO2. Want to be green? Burn less. Changing your point of view won't lessen CO2 emissions. Burning less carbon will.

The CO2 emissions are not themselves the point, the CO2 concentrations are. The concentration is neutral in time scales we care about from wood/alge/bioethanol/etc., but goes up from fossil fuels.

It’s also fine to burn fossil fuels if you can make long-term carbon sinks from other processes, hence people caring about making carbon-rich rocks or whether dead plankton floats our sinks.

It’s a question of being responsible for the consequences of actions, not outright banning those actions before the alternatives have been deployed at scale.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#186

Post by [deleted] »

leoedin wrote: post #164
mcsb4 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the potential energy requirement to lift up a certain amount of weight, and dividing by energy density and volume of current battery tech does not lead to a working jet any time soon. E=mgh E=(1kg * 9.81m/s^2 * 10.000m) / 3600s = 27.25Wh. Tesla currently is at around 260Wh/kg thus roughly ten times the amount of potential energy needed to get to 10.000m altitude. I'd assume that till 2030 we get to ~500Wh/kg by imp…

Potential energy is only one component of the power required by aircraft. If you want to actually go somewhere, you need speed, which means drag. Drag increases the square of the velocity. That means going at 500knots (as an airliner does) uses a lot more power than going at the 150knots this seaplane might fly at. You can calculate an approximate power requirement for the aircraft based on its glide ratio [1] or loo…

[deleted]

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#187

Post by seabrookmx »

ghostpepper wrote: post #35
seabrookmx wrote: post #11

I look at the Harbour Air planes out my office window! Super neat project, although I agree with other commenters that "fully-electric commercial flight" is misleading. If I walk down there and book a flight, I'm not going to be in an e-plane. It's still very much experimental.

If you can see the seaplane terminal in downtown Vancouver from your office then, IMHO, you have one of the best views in the city. Enjoy :-)

Victoria actually!

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#188

Post by DagAgren »

WalterBright wrote: post #181
DagAgren wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Unhelpful"? We have a specific problem we are trying to solve. That problem is: Too much CO2, right now. The term is obviously useful in solving that problem. Nobody is worrying about CO2 on geological timescales. It is simply not relevant to any discussion anyone is having, or any problem anyone is trying to solve. This isn't complicated? How are you managing to miss the point with such vigour?

> How are you managing to miss the point with such vigour? I could ask the same of you - how are you helping matters at all by chopping down a tree and burning it over digging up a tree and burning it? You're emitting the same amount of CO2. Want to reduce global warming? 1. plant a tree 2. burn less If you're wondering what to do with the tree after it grows, you can: 1. use it for lumber 2. bury it

One does not make the situation worse. The other makes it worse. That's pretty simple.

Neither makes the situation BETTER. But one makes it WORSE.

Post reply on HN