• @Mojojojo1993
    link
    English
    31 year ago

    Why not just go hydrogen at that point? Isn’t it easier ?

    • @[email protected]OPM
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      Several reasons:

      • it’s cheaper to do a PR exercise than to actually change (Hydrogen requires all new aircraft)
      • The lithium-air batteries coming to market in the next couple years are likely to make short-hop commercial electric air travel viable
      • air travel isn’t the worst use of limited biofuels
      • it lets them use existing aircraft instead of new ones
      • @Mojojojo1993
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        Are you made. Lithium air. The holy Grail of battery tech. I want want your huffing. Think you are dreaming of you think we will get air travel with electricity in the next decade. Let alone few years.

        It is no I agree but also why not skip middle man and go hydrogen. Cuts out a lot of issues with biofuel. Adds a bunch with hydrogen production, storage transportation, safety.

        Also true.

        I was under the impression they were retrofitting them to take hydrogen. I know a family member on the areospace field and they are currently testing hydrogen as a new system. Obviously electric would be better but it’s decades away.

        • @Mojojojo1993
          link
          English
          21 year ago

          Yeah bad thought process. I wouldn’t say as bad as Trump though. I’ve not been racist sexist or claiming wind mills cause cancer. I get a few positive nys for that.

          • @Mojojojo1993
            link
            English
            11 year ago

            Short haul flights. Yes. Because I know they have them. Currently testing. But nothing substantial. Battery isn’t ready just yet. Won’t be ready for several years. Then plants need to test for 10+ years for safety. Then production and getting them to customers. It’s a long way away.

            Small planes that can fly for a few hours then recharge are viable.