A 15% decrease in fuel usage is huge.

I'd love to be wrong.

But even with less demand for gas and diesel for ground transport, we'll still need petrochemicals for air transport and plastic production (neither of which are going away any time soon).
Ultimately, they are a finite resource and even ignoring the effects of climate change we are going to run out eventually (especially if there's continued exponential growth).

The only good news is that IF we can produce enough EVs and enough renewable electricity to run them, that cost won't hurt most people (at least not in transport terms).

But even then, it will (optimistically) be a decade or two before EVs outnumber ICEs.

So yeah, IMO, fuel is going to go up.

Get used to it. Fuel prices are going to increase drastically in the next few decades.

As far as I know you are pretty much spot on. The 919 was run in the LMP1 class with 8 megajoules of hybrid power and a turbo 4 cylinder petrol engine.

This evolution of the 919 has increased the power of both systems, by removing the fuel flow restrictions and increasing the output of the electric motors. The boost graphic is probably showing the deployment of the stored power from the lithium batteries, but it wasn't 100% clear to me (usually they will indicate when it is charging or discharging, and this didn't).

I didn't find a really good reference, but there is a bit on wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_919_Hybrid

Before the space shuttle would launch, the main engine would ignite first. After six seconds the two solid rocket boosters would ignite and the shuttle would launch.

The six second delay was necessary because the main engine ignition would rock the "stack" or the entire assembly of the shuttle, fuel tank and boosters forward. It took 6 seconds for the stack to return to the upright position.

This 6 second period of sway was referred to as "twang."

Figured I'd pass that little bit of info on to you in case you're ever asked about twang on a radio quiz show.

Again,

the pool is surrounded by adults not capable of telling her to stop or contact management to tell her not to.

It's better to film her and laugh at her on the internet, to fuel our pleasure in consuming this as entertainment on her behalf.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by notarobot.

How the American Media Fuels A Cycle of Violence has been added as a related post - related requested by notarobot.

7 years, 7 mass shootings, 7 distraught speeches has been added as a related post - related requested by notarobot.

This video has been removed from all channels (Kids, Politics, War on Terror, Talks, Equality) due to invalid channel assignment - nochannel invoked by notarobot. Please review the FAQ to learn about appropriate channel assignments.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by notarobot.

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Fear, News, Politics, Talks) - requested by notarobot.

I've always found it annoying when people refer to hydrogen as a new "fuel", especially when they're referring to hydrogen produced by electrolysis. Using electrolysis means that the theoretical limits are that you can get as much energy -out- of burning hydrogen as you put into splitting the water. The traditional meaning of fuel is the exact opposite, that you can get more energy out of combustion than you have to put into creating the fuel.

TLDR - Hydrogen is an energy storage technology, not a fuel. It competes against batteries, not against carbon fuels.

yay, nightmare fuel. *fear *promote

To be fair, what I thought is new is the cheaper motor running on regular unleaded gas more efficiently. Airplane fuel is insanely expensive compared to gas, and harder to get in remote places.
Ground effects plane/boats have been around for quite some time, but not in a commercially useful configuration. This seems like a big step up from small ferries or tour boats (faster and smoother rides) and far cheaper than small planes to buy and operate.

Yeah, the biggest ecranoplan was enormous, with immense lifting capacity but little evasive capacity, so they were awful in practice as military vehicles except as transports well behind the front. I can't find any instances of them being used in conflicts.

Haven't viewed the video yet, but just common sense tells me no propulsion system is 100% efficient, so the losses over time will be larger, and less efficient in overall fuel use.

It's like the most efficient way to drive a hybrid is to floor the accelerator to get to speed, then try to go as fast as possible, using as little accelerator pedal as possible.

Conversely, the rocket would just be wasting fuel trying to slow down before it had to full burn to stop in time.

I'm just impressed they keep the terminal velocity down enough they don't need to use drogue chute(s).

*motorsports *fire and *fail ...a winning combination!
*promote the insanity of top fuel dragster fails

Your video, Armadillo Cargo Bike With Hydrogen Fuel Cell, 300 km range, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

In terms of exploding or burning, probably not nearly as dangerous as gasoline. The biggest problem with it is that, since the molecules are so tiny, it's very hard to store and transport without it leaking away. Also, the standard procedure for getting hydrogen from water (electrolysis) requires considerably more energy than you get out of the hydrogen, so that's a problem. Still all that aside, if you use power from a nuclear reactor to crack the water to make the hydrogen, you have a nearly unlimited supply of a portable, energy-dense, very clean fuel. Researching and refining its use as a fuel is a Good Thing.

I thought we learned our lesson with Hydrogen?

Does any know what the dangers are ,when compared with regular gasoline? (or other fuels).

( I admit I'm uninformed and judge all Hydrogen vehicles by the fate of the Hindenburg.)