I mean it’s slightly better. The worst effect is still by cloud seeding at flight height. That doesn’t go away with hydrogen.
But to my understanding could even be turned into a beneficial effect otf you changed the flight height of planes, seeding clouds further down. But that makes them less efficient, which isn’t great for hydrogen.
So a better strategy might be to mandate lower flight height and e/bio fuels.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
I mean it’s slightly better. The worst effect is still by cloud seeding at flight height. That doesn’t go away with hydrogen.
But to my understanding could even be turned into a beneficial effect otf you changed the flight height of planes, seeding clouds further down. But that makes them less efficient, which isn’t great for hydrogen.
So a better strategy might be to mandate lower flight height and e/bio fuels.
This is a great point and something I don’t think many people are aware of. I believe I’ve heard a stat that states that only 50% the impact of planes on climate change is due to burning fossil fuels, whilst the other 50% is due to cloud seeding. (Source: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210525-how-aviation-is-reducing-its-climate-emissions).