Re:Is killing the boom the key to supersonic air travel?
by erezyehuda on Friday July 20, 2018 @10:07AM
(#17575068)
Costs aside, wouldn't replacing carbon emissions with methane be drastically worse? Doing a casual search says that methane is 2000-3000% more potent as a GHG.
Re:Is killing the boom the key to supersonic air travel?
by ufo on Friday July 20, 2018 @10:11AM
(#17575105)
I assume the methane would be the fuel, not the byproduct.
Re:Is killing the boom the key to supersonic air travel?
by JamesBarney on Friday July 20, 2018 @11:29AM
(#17575773)
I imagine you won't combust 100% of the fuel. So wouldn't it be both.
Re:Is killing the boom the key to supersonic air travel?
by rlucas on Friday July 20, 2018 @04:19PM
(#17578573)
Pure methane is a bunch of molecules with just one carbon, which simplifies things a bit vs. a cracked and heterogeneous mix of longer chain (10+) molecules.
You can incompletely combust a 10-carbon molecule and wind up with other hydrocarbons but if you burn up CH4, you're definitely just getting one CO2.
But as with all radically new technology, there needs to be a strong industry, government and consumer push. The program that produced the Methane turbofan concept (SUGAR Freeze) has lost any political appeal.