It is technically more feasible on a small scale because jet (and turbine) engines will burn basically anything, with jet fuel being a mixture of kerosene like hydrocarbons.

But iirc both land vehicle and shipping outclass airplanes in total emissions.

Cars & Trucks can be (for much cheaper) replaced by proper mass transit like high speed rail.

And I'm surprised cargo ships still run mostly on novelty sized diesel engines. Would be interesting to throw a small ultra safe nuclear powered engine on one of those or even just enforcing better fuel use instead of spamming low grade MDO.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And I’m surprised cargo ships still run mostly on novelty sized diesel engines. Would be interesting to throw a small ultra safe nuclear powered engine on one of those or even just enforcing better fuel use instead of spamming low grade MDO.

It's a real shame that NS Savannah was designed as a weird half-passenger, half-cargo hybrid that made it uneconomical to operate. It's even more of a shame that protesting by hysterical anti-nuclear fearmongerers got it banned from ports and scared off anybody from building more traditional cargo ships with nuclear propulsion.

[–] MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

That's well before my time.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Before mine, too. I just read a lot. 🤷

[–] Skua@kbin.social 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Aviation is about a fortieth of the world's total emissions, so while there are certainly bigger sectors to look at it's still substantial enough that it'd be extremely helpful to fix it

[–] mihies@kbin.social 1 points 5 months ago

What not fix all?

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago

Research money may be a zero-sum deal. If so, do we want to waste time on essentially this decade's "vampire power"?