“Joby took a pre-production prototype of one of its battery-electric aircraft and outfitted it with a liquid hydrogen fuel tank and fuel system. The modified, hydrogen-powered VTOL was able to complete a 523 mile flight above Marina, California…”
“Joby took a pre-production prototype of one of its battery-electric aircraft and outfitted it with a liquid hydrogen fuel tank and fuel system. The modified, hydrogen-powered VTOL was able to complete a 523 mile flight above Marina, California…”
Hurry! Let’s build up an industry around this useless luxury and then be confused as to why emissions keep rising even though everyone is frolicing around in zero-emission hover taxies.
It’s the third world who is to blame. Damn developing countries. Stop supplying our demands!
Well, it’s a demonstration of hydrogen utilization. And if it spares ice vehicle trips, it’s just fine.
It’s an investment opportunity. A futuristic green washed technology with fantastical data that sounds like a great idea to ignorant optimist.
“Personal flight is better that fossil fuels”. Nonsense! I guarantee that it is less harmful to drive around in a tractor than to fly around in a “zero-emission” taxi-plane.
This will never take off.
Please do explain how is less harmful to drive in a diesel tractor around.
You kinda should like nothing I say will persuade you, but here it goes.
A tractor is bought and paid for, so to say. It’ll only emit as much as you put into it. Where as with a hover-cab, before you get to theoreticaly use zoro-emission fuel, you first have to make it. I.e. digging up and smelting rare metals, shipping parts all over the world and churning them out in coal-burning factories.
You’ll be dead before your tractor catches up the starting costs.
This sounds almost like tractors are born in a shed, not made in a factory.
Not so much and less with newer battery types
Again, see first comment. Out of curiosity, what are coal-burning factories anyway?
While tractors are relatively cheap, you fail to see all the disadvantages with them it seems. Like fuel grows in a fuel pump stations and I’m sure they are very beneficial to air you breath, not counting co2 emissions and many other negative aspects. Let’s do a test. I’ll lie down next to e-vehicle exhaust and you’ll do the same next to a tractor exhaust or any other ICE vehicle of your choice. Let’s do that for 5 minutes while engines are running.
Yea. I called it.
Your drinking the coolaid, man.
Anyone who tells you that the answer is to buy their product is lying to you. The answer is to consume less not more.
And how are we doing with consuming less? Oh, wait, I know - consumption of oil and coal is at all time high.
I see what you did there.
Nah, not very fine. I wonder if it could be less eco-friendly to run something like this over an ICE car simply due to the massive energy demands of such a vehicle and the losses on energy to hydrogen to energy conversion.
Flying transportation is only reasonable at a large scale and high speeds, which is not a characteristic of an air taxi.
Also, better use hydrogen-powered car then.
While hydrogen is expensive to produce, it can be produced from reusable sources or surplus energy which makes it way cheaper and way cleaner. Also solves energy storage. A side note: ICE is around 20% efficient. I’m also sure that flying in choppers and private jets is not that clean and efficient. And yes, cars would be better, but both can coexist.
True, but that would require building expensive infrastructure that would sit idle for most of the time while we wait for the surplus - assuming we talk intermittent renewables.
Sure enough, hydrogen fuel cell is cleaner than ICE, my objection was to the form of transportation that might require so much power an ICE car would be a better alternative (but not an ICE air taxi, to be clear)
From an ecological perspective, they can not, and that’s what this “invention” pretends to be about. Also, cars too are far from perfect, but at least better than this monstrosity