No Oil= No Aircraft?

[Khandro]

With an estimated 50 years only of the world's oil left (BP stat.), though I can see maybe a form of alternative ground transport may be found; electric cars for example.
Nothing can surely produce the power required to fly any sort of viable aircraft and yet we seem to behave as if flight will continue forever, as we consider building and extending airports.
How could this form of transport possibly prevail?

[jomifl]

/How do they think this will work ?/
They don't think.. and it will work because when the time comes people won't be so paranoid about nucear power ( I think it is a 'ban the bomb' legacy). I recently had an electricity billl which states that my electricity supply was as follows;
82.2% nuclear
13.6% renewable

as a by the way...
http://www.the9billion.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/TNB_logo_v2-01.png
7.9% hydro
1.6% coal
1.3% gas
1% oil

[jomifl]

^ a bizarre rearrangement of my post by AB but the essentials are there..,

[Old_Geezer]

I think things like Windscale, Three Mile Island, Fukushima and Chernobyl has some affect too jom.

[jomifl]

How many thousands killed? O_G As I said.. Paranoia

[Khandro]

How do you think that nuclear energy (which will be the only game in town re. contemporary knowledge) could possibly give the power needed to lift a Jumbo jet and take it to altitude? Batteries?
As for space exploration -- forget it. To launch the space shuttle requires 500,000kg of solid propellant cake for the first 124 seconds of lift off.

[Khandro]

http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/2491/how-much-fuel-was-used-for-a-space-shuttle-launc

[retrocop]

Perhaps we should all learn to slow down a bit more and take things easy. Go back to dirigibles with solar powered motors driving the propellers.
Daesh will get some breathing space but no oil to finance their regime. :-)

[jomifl]

Nuclear power can be used to produce electricity, electricity can be used to produce hydrogen, hydrogen can either be used a a fuel itself or to produce hydrocarbons (petrol) by reacting it with carbon dioxide.

[Khandro]

jomifl; Do you think it would be viable in the quantities we are using presently?
and it would require a massive increase in nuclear reactors *. There is enough uranium for longer than oil, and it can be collected from seawater I believe. then there are breeder reactors producing more than they use almost.
But where would the waste go? Sounds like a radio- active planet for the future.
* Don't you live near one?

[Mosaic]

Dirigibles.

Seriously.

[Khandro]

Mosaic; A round trip to Australia to watch the ashes make take a while though :0)

[jomifl]

Khandro, Yes I do live near one, also I have worked on and around nuclear power stations since I was twenty years old. Compared with oil and coal fired power stations they are much cleaner produce far less waste and are in the long term more benign. The waste really isn't a problem, if you aren't going to process it to produce nuclear weapons it can be stored securely on site, it isn't a large volume. I am surprised how people expect to have everything yet will make no concessions. The idea of going to Australia to see a cricket match is to me a bit unreal but some people expect it. The furthest I have gone to see a sports event is 300 miles which in retrospect was a bit daft.

[EDDIE51]

Giant airships could be am answer. The lift coming from the Helium so no power needed for take off only for flight. Not as fast as a conventional aircraft at around 150 > 200 mph but MUCH cheaper and with the possibility of being able to land much nearer city centres due to not needing a runway.

[EDDIE51]

Some interesting ideas here , with no need for fuel hungry engines for lift, the airship could be solar powered.
http://www.ecofriend.com/20-sustainable-airships-promising-a-clean-future-of-transportation-and-surveillance.html

[retrocop]

EDDIE
See my 2312 post yesterday.

[Khandro]

Eddie; Interesting, thanks. Only one mentions the passengers; "it can comfortably accommodate 25 passengers". So probably not much luggage beyond a toothbrush.
jomifl; We are indeed profligate, though once jumbo jets are airborne, having used up such a collossal amount of fuel, the distance isn't so critical. Such a massive amount of Earth resources being burnt up for liesure and transporting mange-tout peas around the world.

[retrocop]

Khandro
Question Author
Mosaic; A round trip to Australia to watch the ashes make take a while though :0)

Cricket is hardly the fastest game on earth. Paint dries quicker!

[Khandro]

Hey, watch it! say what you like about politicians but be careful what you say about cricket.

[jomifl]

Khandro, a point that seems to have escaped you is that the huge investment of energy getting a jumbo jet up to 35,000 ft is not wasted as when the plane descends to land, that latent energy is converted into forward motion thus considerably reducing fuel consumption for the descent part of the flight.

[jomifl]

In terms of gallons per person mile many passenger aircraft are more efficient than a family car with only 2 passengers.