> Electric scooter companies by definition can never be profitable
Lost me right at the start by being proud(?) of this wrong understanding.
Electric Propulsion's Dirty Secret: Why Lithium Can't Fly (Or Float) Profitably
31–40 of 205 posts
Re: Electric Propulsion's Dirty Secret: Why Lithium Can't Fly (Or Float) Profitably
#32this post is a fake argument with no one? the typical internet outrage pattern of using overly dramatized language like "dirty secret" to describe something thats... common knowledge? not a secret at all? openly talked about at any and every relevant industries conferences and trade shows? everybody who isn't just reading clickbait and comments sections is well aware that the wh/kg for li-ion will never cross the atl…
NASA has quietly admitted that aliens have not been found on other planets.
One fact fusion engineers don't want you to know: there's no commercial fusion plant
Babies' "dirty secret": they pee without asking
It's just the usual clickbait crap. I'm with you. Blocking this domain for myself.
Re: Electric Propulsion's Dirty Secret: Why Lithium Can't Fly (Or Float) Profitably
#33Flight is a luxury of the current times that will likely not last another 100 years except for the very rich.
I believe that by 2050 synthetic hydrocarbons made from carbon dioxide and clean electricity will be deliverable at a real (inflation adjusted) cost less than than 3x current oil prices, on an equivalent-energy-content basis. That could more than double the costs of a transatlantic flight, but still wouldn't price it out of reach of the upper middle class.
Synthetic methanol made with renewable energy has already been commercialized on a modest scale:
https://carbonrecycling.com/technology
Methanol can be reformed to kerosene as a drop-in replacement for oil derived jet fuel:
"Fischer-Tropsch & Methanol-based Kerosene"
https://aireg.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/airegWebinar_FT_...
Re: Electric Propulsion's Dirty Secret: Why Lithium Can't Fly (Or Float) Profitably
#34this post is a fake argument with no one? the typical internet outrage pattern of using overly dramatized language like "dirty secret" to describe something thats... common knowledge? not a secret at all? openly talked about at any and every relevant industries conferences and trade shows? everybody who isn't just reading clickbait and comments sections is well aware that the wh/kg for li-ion will never cross the atl…
Numbers are thrown around without making sure like is compared with like. The central argument is energy density and is supported by handwaving and a broken link to https://www.technologyreview.com/energy which does not exist and likly moved to https://www.technologyreview.com/topic/climate-change/ but that is not even an article but just a section there.
Re: Electric Propulsion's Dirty Secret: Why Lithium Can't Fly (Or Float) Profitably
#35If you used floating wind/solar farms as recharging points across the ocean, how much space would they take up?
Re: Electric Propulsion's Dirty Secret: Why Lithium Can't Fly (Or Float) Profitably
#36You don’t need to rant when it’s enough to show that a few dozen airliners consume a day’s worth of a nuclear reactor power production (for some size of an airplane and a nuclear reactor; we should be accurate within an order of magnitude). Imagine every single airport needing its own huge ass power plant and you get your point across in an HN comment.
Not sure what’s the point in attacking physicists, either. They should be the first ones pointing this out and I can’t imagine one not nodding in agreement.
Re: Electric Propulsion's Dirty Secret: Why Lithium Can't Fly (Or Float) Profitably
#37Flight is a luxury of the current times that will likely not last another 100 years except for the very rich.
How dare you stand in the way of regular people burning hundreds of kilograms of fossil fuel in order to spend a couple days at the beach? /s
People drive to work anyway. A vacation or two every year is probably not even a double digit percent of a person’s total fossil fuel usage, and gives them a lot of happiness and reason to work and do things that are good for society.
Also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft
Re: Electric Propulsion's Dirty Secret: Why Lithium Can't Fly (Or Float) Profitably
#38I suspect that there's niches where battery electric boats and maybe planes do make sense.
My state's ferry system is investing in electrifying, because they project it reduce operating costs. The 'easy' part is moving towards hybrid systems that can move with diesel or battery; this is projected to save fuel even without shore charging. The hard part will be making shore charging work. Our grid is mostly hydro, so switching from diesel to electric should be better for emissions and the operating budget.
If the routes were longer, shore charging wouldn't be very relevant, but they're short enough that many routes could work without diesel most of the time.
Re: Electric Propulsion's Dirty Secret: Why Lithium Can't Fly (Or Float) Profitably
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
How dare you stand in the way of regular people burning hundreds of kilograms of fossil fuel in order to spend a couple days at the beach? /s
People drive to work anyway. A vacation or two every year is probably not even a double digit percent of a person’s total fossil fuel usage, and gives them a lot of happiness and reason to work and do things that are good for society. Also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft
It is pollution and it harms people. So in order to do things that are good we must harm others first (or after)?
Re: Electric Propulsion's Dirty Secret: Why Lithium Can't Fly (Or Float) Profitably
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
People drive to work anyway. A vacation or two every year is probably not even a double digit percent of a person’s total fossil fuel usage, and gives them a lot of happiness and reason to work and do things that are good for society. Also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft
It is pollution and it harms people. So in order to do things that are good we must harm others first (or after)?
Why is there a segment of the population that wants to live in poverty and squalor?
How much pollution is okay? Why not argue for efficiency standards rather than bans?
Everything could be said to “harm people”. Banning travel could make some people depressed and who knows what that could lead to? Or it might lead to a less connected world and less familiarity with people in other places, and maybe makes wars more likely?