Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

vivanetx t1_iy3pgnu wrote

In this thread: lots of hate on batteries for some reason?

−1

Tarcye t1_iy42zs1 wrote

Batteries are nonviable for Aircraft. Weight is serious issue with Aircraft.

Even Current Aircraft have problems with weight. A big part of the reason why Aircraft have to dump fuel before they land is becuese they are too heavy.

And for batteries to be able to power a commercial Aircraft they would need to be much denser. Which contributes to problem #1.

Might be solved decades into the future but for right now nothing is going to be changing when it comes to Aircraft since no viable alternatives are even close to being viable.

Including this Achievement the article is talking about. Since hydrogen has powered aircraft before.

12

gramathy t1_iy4jzcj wrote

I would love a nuclear powered aircraft but lets be honest crashing a plane...would be bad.

2

Tarcye t1_iy4ks64 wrote

Yeah 0/10 would not recommend.

5

vivanetx t1_iy454mo wrote

I get that. I just found the apparent hate for batteries strange.

−2

shiroboi t1_iy3spl5 wrote

Batteries are really heavy. Might power a short range plane but just doesn’t have enough juice for a commercial airliner to fly long distances

4

chmilz t1_iy4cn85 wrote

And the immediate response is that batteries are not viable in their current state. As is hydrogen. And that response goes on to talk about how theoretical future hydrogen technology will make it viable, while ignoring the same theoretical battery technology.

With one major caveat: hydrogen is a known quantity - the energy density cannot change, it will never get better than what it is now. We're increasing battery storage density while reducing weight and other challenges constantly. Over time, I see no scenario where hydrogen beats battery. We currently have no theoretical limit to what we can achieve with batteries. We can't extract more energy out of liquid hydrogen than we do now.

3

Spudgunhimself t1_iy51i17 wrote

You absolutely have a limit on what you can store with batteries. That limit is 1 electron per lithium atom. Even if you used pure lithium metal as your electrode, that is still three times as heavy as hydrogen per electron.

2

chmilz t1_iy52jss wrote

We're limited to lithium?

1

FalconX88 t1_iy556ch wrote

I mean beryllium would be slightly better, but everything is worse than hydrogen. Hydrogen has the highest (useable) electron to weight ratio.

2

Spudgunhimself t1_iy5sg4c wrote

Well the only lighter reactive element than lithium is hydrogen, so at that point you'd just be making a hydrogen fuel cell 😂

1

Thaflash_la t1_iy4td8e wrote

All of these threads rely on hardheaded rejection of any non-fossil fuel advancements for engagement.

2

[deleted] t1_iy3q9dv wrote

[deleted]

1

[deleted] t1_iy3r6ge wrote

[deleted]

1

XonikzD t1_iy3sdh5 wrote

Mods dumped many of the comments from app viewers

2

vivanetx t1_iy3vdd8 wrote

I’m on mobile and can see them. They’re just downvoted to hell, as they should be.

1