dowlingm
Senior Member
Ship from Sarnia to the Port via the lakes and barge it across? I'm a something of a hydrogen sceptic so I'll believe all this when I see it
lenaitch
Senior Member
Me too. Transport hydrogen in any quantity requires it to be liquified and held at about -250*C. I'm not sure how an aircraft plans to use this as a fuel but they might be considering fuel cells.Ship from Sarnia to the Port via the lakes and barge it across? I'm a something of a hydrogen sceptic so I'll believe all this when I see it
SubHuman
Active Member
I wouldn’t count on them getting off the ground any time soon, if at all. The U.S. D.o.T. has revoked their certificate.Seems like that might be just to "get it off the ground" as it were
Connect Airlines plots expansion with up to 100 hydrogen-powered ATR 72s
Proposed US start-up carrier Connect Airlines is ordering 75 converted ATR 72-600 turboprops, which will be fitted with hydrogen-fuelled powertrains. The firm agreement with Universal Hydrogen also covers an additional 25 converted aircraft. Universal Hydrogen was founded by former Airbus chief...www.flightglobal.com
https://www.flightglobal.com/strate...decision-to-revoke-certificate/155902.article
There doesn’t seem to be any existing airline that’s been interested in taking up the YTZ slots left empty by Porter.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
I wonder how much energy would be lost in the supply chain.
The whole path from sourcing the energy, to delivery of the energy, to the use of the energy needs to be clean and efficient. If you used diesel generators to charge batteries, shipped batteries across the country, and then had those batteries boil water to power a steam generator... you could talk about electricity being clean, you could talk about steam emissions not being bad, but miss the whole point on wasted energy potential and the unclean or inefficient parts of the delivery chain.
I can imagine hydrogen not being too great in the big scheme of things unless they produce it cleanly and on site.
The whole path from sourcing the energy, to delivery of the energy, to the use of the energy needs to be clean and efficient. If you used diesel generators to charge batteries, shipped batteries across the country, and then had those batteries boil water to power a steam generator... you could talk about electricity being clean, you could talk about steam emissions not being bad, but miss the whole point on wasted energy potential and the unclean or inefficient parts of the delivery chain.
I can imagine hydrogen not being too great in the big scheme of things unless they produce it cleanly and on site.
Last edited:
goreckm
Active Member
Maybe we just make it into a spaceport instead.
Seriously though, while I like the idea of getting rid of the airport and replacing it with a park or cultural institution in theory, in reality, if this were to happen, it would become Spa 2.0, a Casino, or some other kind of make-a-buck scheme. I don't think the city, and definitely not the province or feds, have the fortitude to fund something that is better than the airport that's already there.
nfitz
Superstar
I'm not convinced a park would make sense, given it's already surrounded by parks. I'd go for high-density residential with a good transit node. Maybe extend the Bathurst streetcar through a tunnel.
milkycontent
Active Member
Maybe we just make it into a spaceport instead.
Seriously though, while I like the idea of getting rid of the airport and replacing it with a park or cultural institution in theory, in reality, if this were to happen, it would become Spa 2.0, a Casino, or some other kind of make-a-buck scheme. I don't think the city, and definitely not the province or feds, have the fortitude to fund something that is better than the airport that's already there.
To be clear we're talking about 800,000 sq m --- 200 acres -- of land. That's bigger than the core of downtown (University to Yonge, Dundas to Front). The potential is not one spa or one casino or one cultural institution. The potential is there to build thousands if not hundreds of thousands of homes. A small city unto itself. That's the opportunity cost the airport must be measured against.
dowlingm
Senior Member
A lot of the people who advocate for the removal of YTZ are talking about parks, not homes. Where the money would come from to remediate and program a site that large without even partial development is unclear. Presumably some sort of hybrid like Downsview Park would be the eventual outcome.
dowlingm
Senior Member
The existence of the pedestrian tunnel (itself existing in part because there was no political path to an airport streetcar) might complicate the construction options available now...
Northern Light
Superstar
Wow this thread has got lost in outer space.
Lets dial back the wild speculation just a bit, shall we?
In the event that the airport were closed; irrespective of what one might want to imagine is possible; most of the ideas mooted are not, at least at practical cost.
The Islands are subject to erosion and flooding, many here may recall much of the Islands under water 2 summers running, and this resulting in the amusement park being closed, ferry service reduced and extensive sandbagging of Ward's Island. The flooding also effected the airport, though less severely than elsewhere.
The water table, is, needless to say very high here, and the Islands could not easily support mid or high rise development that required deep shoring and foundations w/o great expense and likely raising the elevation level of the entire land area as well.
Doing that, would effect the relationship of that land to remaining area of the Islands, and would impact their erosion rates and water flows.
That's not to say you couldn't build a community of some sort, but the obstacles are substantial and costly.
There is not sufficient servicing capacity on the Islands (sewer, water, electricity) to support intensive development.
There is no High School, the elementary school would have to be enlarged. There is no on-Island public transport, and private cars are currently prohibited.
Traffic volumes for any intensive use, including a major tourist attraction (be they pedestrian, ferry, or other means, are not currently accommodated) ; fixing that would be $$$
There's a slew of other issues.
Anything is possible, but many things are highly improbable. All are way out in front of the facts, for now.
Lets dial back the wild speculation just a bit, shall we?
In the event that the airport were closed; irrespective of what one might want to imagine is possible; most of the ideas mooted are not, at least at practical cost.
The Islands are subject to erosion and flooding, many here may recall much of the Islands under water 2 summers running, and this resulting in the amusement park being closed, ferry service reduced and extensive sandbagging of Ward's Island. The flooding also effected the airport, though less severely than elsewhere.
The water table, is, needless to say very high here, and the Islands could not easily support mid or high rise development that required deep shoring and foundations w/o great expense and likely raising the elevation level of the entire land area as well.
Doing that, would effect the relationship of that land to remaining area of the Islands, and would impact their erosion rates and water flows.
That's not to say you couldn't build a community of some sort, but the obstacles are substantial and costly.
There is not sufficient servicing capacity on the Islands (sewer, water, electricity) to support intensive development.
There is no High School, the elementary school would have to be enlarged. There is no on-Island public transport, and private cars are currently prohibited.
Traffic volumes for any intensive use, including a major tourist attraction (be they pedestrian, ferry, or other means, are not currently accommodated) ; fixing that would be $$$
There's a slew of other issues.
Anything is possible, but many things are highly improbable. All are way out in front of the facts, for now.
robmausser
Senior Member
Exactly, its not that the airport needs to compete with the advantages of putting condos on the Island, the idea of condos on the island needs to compete with the massive amount of land that is available for development in other, much cheaper and easier parts of Toronto.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm not a defender of the airport.
But if we choose to shutter it, we should understand why that trade makes sense (or not), in a realistic way.
What is the airport's ROI, to the public writ-large, in its current form? How many discrete people does it convenience, how many would be less convenienced if that service were shifted to Pearson or Hamilton?
How many would be more convienced if it were shifted?
Assuming the trade-off above were negative, how is that offset by any alternative use? Be that ecological, recreational, residential or tourist?
The honest answer is that we don't really know, we don't have a fulsome picture; we have leanings and preferences.
The facts likely turn on economics/conveniences or lack thereof on the air side.............and the benefits of some sort of park or park-like, passive use.
While alternatives are not implausible they aren't particularly likely either.
rdaner
Senior Member
I still don’t get why the runway can’t be extended west into the lake rather than east into the harbour? No one would care on the western side!
Northern Light
Superstar
The most recent study showed expansion in both directions:
That study looked at 168 Meter extensions on both sides:
Below, I have extracted an image from Google and shown what an added 168M looks like on the south-western side of the Airport. Note the distance to Ontario Place. Then consider that line being twice as long.
The study also notes that TC may amend the reference code for that airport, should it do so they may also trigger runway widening.
You should also note that though this is one continuous stretch of pavement, it is functionally 2 runways. This allows for take-off/approach from 2 different sides of the airport.
Extending only one side, extends only one runway.
And therefore reduces the airport's operating capacity significantly.
JamesKoole
Active Member
Boaters most certainly do care about the western end. With the marine exclusion zone that extends out even further, it significantly narrows the space at the western end of the western channel between the island and Ontario Place.