Worth a listen. Not that it will change anything.
Found by Tim Yates.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#31, well then, from one self-important loser to another:
Prudent thinking is not setting crippling restrictions on the use of current technology with the hopes that something better will be invented before it matters.
#32 – Sea Lawyer
How many people would have laughed at you if you told them that they would have a computer on their desk back in 1950? And how many people would have thought you were nuts if you explained the Internet to them back in 1955? Or perhaps the USPTO is no longer necessary, because everything has already been invented?
#33, oh I’m sorry, was there some incremental reduction in the number of typewriters produced before the computer happened, because we all hoped something better would come along? Did we decide that we should start phasing out the telegraph early, because we just knew that the telephone would be invented any year now? Your points are about as dumb as you apparently are.
Your insistent goings on about “things never stay the same,” while quite obvious, isn’t even addressing the point brought up about why we would institute a forced reduction on fuel necessary for the economic viability of aviation as it exists with today’s technology, with nothing more than a hope and prayer that by the time it will start causing serious hardship, we will have invented a new way to power commercial aircraft.
#34 – Sea men
Because without any firm goals, the market will maintain the status quo. But you’re too fucking dumb to get that.
Jägermeister:
Yes, we have considered building aircraft that use hydrogen. It was called the Hindenburg.
There is no technology, current or even theorized, that will allow us to safely convert the world’s jet fleets to hydrogen. The aircraft would have to be completely scrapped. It would be cheaper to build an entire new fleet of aircraft (if the technology even existed, which it doesn’t).
But without giant leaps in technology or a repeal of the laws of physics to create a hydrogen jet aircraft fleet in time to meet the timeframe requirements of this cockamamie energy bill.
Maybe in fifty years, we might have a viable option for kerosene powered jet aircraft. The only even remotely viable option currently being pursued is biofuel, aka alcohol. And it is still in its infancy. Even so, we will be converting our food supply to fuel. Still, it will be more expense and corn prices with skyrocket.
I just wish the bureaucrats would listen to the engineers. The Dems think the laws of physics can be repealed with the stroke of a pen. Use the left side of your brain and be realistic.
But with the current timeline of reducing CO2 by 88% by 2020, it is impossible. You would have to cut flights by 88% (or tax them with carbon credits, which the the real gist of this legislation).
This bill is not about creating cleaner aircraft in 100 years time. It is about raising taxes over the next ten years.
#36 – Mark T. – Yes, we have considered building aircraft that use hydrogen. It was called the Hindenburg.
Did it use hydrogen for its engines? 😉
There is no technology, current or even theorized, that will allow us to safely convert the world’s jet fleets to hydrogen. The aircraft would have to be completely scrapped.
It’s a matter of phasing them out. Not replace them overnight.
But without giant leaps in technology or a repeal of the laws of physics to create a hydrogen jet aircraft fleet in time to meet the timeframe requirements…
The Dems think the laws of physics can be repealed with the stroke of a pen.
JFK held the “Man on the moon” speech on May 25, 1961. On July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 landed on the moon. You’d be surprised what we can do.
It is about raising taxes over the next ten years.
Would you rather borrow more money from China, like the previous administration? The “free” lunch wasn’t free.
Jägermeister:
“Did it use hydrogen for its engines?” – Nope, I know of no jet engine that runs on hydrogen. There are a couple of experimental prop planes that use hydrogen but, from what I can gather, they are basically powered gliders with speeds of less than 80 mph.
“It’s a matter of phasing them out. Not replace them overnight.” – Phase them out and replace them with what? There is no hydrogen jet technology. It takes Boeing five years to develop and certify new commercial aircraft and that is only with FAA approved and demonstrably proven technology. The 787 is already a couple of years late and all that it has that is really new is the carbon fiber fuselage construction. No “experimental” aircraft propulsion technology will be approved for commercial aircraft until after years of testing is performed. Only THEN can an aircraft be designed around the new “proven” propulsion system. It would take decades to get any new hydrogen powered aircraft into the commercial fleet.
“JFK held the “Man on the moon” speech on May 25, 1961. On July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 landed on the moon. You’d be surprised what we can do.” – Rocket technology is simple compared to what you are proposing. Rockets are about pure unadulterated power, not economy or emissions. Power is simple. Power with zero emissions is a much tougher nut to crack.
Besides, the Apollo program sent 21 men into space. Only twelve walked on the Moon. The American jet fleet serves hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of passengers every single day. We are talking about civilians, not fighter pilots here. This comparison does not hold water.
Besides, if we wanted to go to the Moon today with these new draconian pollution requirements, WE COULD NOT DO IT! We would have to invent anti-gravity or the world’s biggest slingshot.
From what I gather, this bill does not fund any research into alternate aircraft fuels. It simply taxes the output of the jet engines exhaust. Simple as that. There is not Kennedy-esque space-race with hundreds of thousands of engineers on the task. This is Cap and Trade, not the space-race. C&T is simply a tax.
“The “free” lunch wasn’t free.” – This bill doesn’t serve lunch or even a bag of peanuts. This is a pipe dream.
#38, Mark T,
Jägerbomb is an idiot, so I wouldn’t even bother. He obviously doesn’t see the difference between a space program which imposed no economic burden on existing industries, and this current bill which could artificially make commercial aviation as it currently exists economically unviable, without having any contingency for moving away from fossil fuels other than a dream that somebody will invent it in the future. He’s obviously correct, but it could be tomorrow, or it could be 30 years from now, who knows? But he insists that we have to impose the timetable now anyway, because that’s just how he rolls.
Forget the public, the people who voted for it didn’t even get 12 hours.
300 pages of bribes, err amendments, were added to the bill at 3AM before the vote. When asked where they could see the whole bill, the Dem leaders responded that the while bill doesn’t actually exist. The Repub leader staged a one-man filibuster by actually reading the amendments for about an hour. Wish he had kept going and just read the whole bill, or at least the approximation of it that they had on the floor, still being literally cut-and-pasted.
By the way, the bill as passed, have all these scientists with the models telling us the world will warm by 2-5C if this is not passed, have they told us how much the world will warm if this bill is passed?
The answer is approximately 2-5C
#38 – Mark T. – Nope, I know of no jet engine that runs on hydrogen. There are a couple of experimental prop planes that use hydrogen but, from what I can gather, they are basically powered gliders with speeds of less than 80 mph.
Read up on ramjet and scramjet.
Only twelve walked on the Moon.
But they did it, despite all the naysayers.
#38 – Mark T. – Nope, I know of no jet engine that runs on hydrogen. There are a couple of experimental prop planes that use hydrogen but, from what I can gather, they are basically powered gliders with speeds of less than 80 mph.
Read up on ramjet and scramjet.
Only twelve walked on the Moon.
But they did it, despite all the naysayers.
# 41 MikeN – ….have they told us how much the world will warm if this bill is passed?
The answer is approximately 2-5C
And I’m sure you got this from… a scientist, right?
Jägermeister:
Wow, you really are optimistic. Both the ramjet and scramjet are hypersonic engines. The ramjet uses the supersonic shockwave generated by supersonic flight speeds to compress the air for combustion thereby eliminating the turbine. Ramjets basically work between mach 3 and 5. You still need a conventional engine to get off the ground and up to ramjet operating speeds. In other words, you need a SR-71 just to get going fast enough so that you can START the ramjet.
The scramjet is even more exotic and has only been demonstrated (to my knowledge) by test engines mounted on the tips of ballistic missiles. Scramjets basically work in the mach 12 and higher realm. They are the best bet for designing an air breathing engine that can reach orbit.
Don’t get me wrong, I would love to see hypersonic mach 12 commercial aircraft. The only problem is that it will never happen (at least not in our lifetime). The dangers are too high. It is simply to radical for flying grandma to Pokipsee.
Face it. There will be no quantum leaps in commercial aircraft propulsion in the foreseeable future without something like nuclear propulsion or lightweight batteries that can store megawatts of power. Kerosene is SO much simpler.
Politicians are counting on giant tax revenue being generated from these carbon taxes. They know that there is no feasible alternative so WE WILL BE FORCED TO PAY THE TAX OR DO WITHOUT.
#45 – Mark T.
I won’t drag this discussion any further. Let’s just see in the coming 20 years… If dvorak.org/blog is still around, I’ll be able to say… Hey, I told you so… 😉 🙂