this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2025
0 points (50.0% liked)

Technology

69098 readers
3105 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
0
Airbus previews next-gen airliner with bird-inspired wings (newatlas.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by JustZ@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Wait aren't all airplane wings bid inspired?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Airbus explained that it ran the numbers and found that, while it could build a successful hydrogen airliner, the plane would be successful in the same way that Concorde was successful. In other words, a technological triumph, but a commercial failure.

Just like any other hydrogen powered... Anything.

[–] Nighed@feddit.uk 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

....then there should be regulatory actions to help make them viable

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Subsidising an inherently flawed technology isn't the way to go.

[–] Nighed@feddit.uk 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What are the other 0 carbon flight options? They are all flawed.

We can engineer our way through flaws with enough effort though.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago

Yes, but hydrogen has significantly more flaws than most other options. It's been around for 50 years, has never been a commercial success, and just inherently kinda sucks.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It's because hydrogen is a terrible fuel. In theory it could work, but there were so many practical problems with compressing the hydrogen into storage tanks and then keeping it in those storage tanks but the amount of effort you have to go through to make it work completely negates any performance benefits.

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

also most hydrogen now is not green at all, the production of it uses methane and releases CO2. only a small percent of hydrogen is truly green, and very expensive.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

But its only exhaust is PuRe wATeR!! /s

It still makes me LOL to see people tout this, when battery EVs don’t exhaust anything.

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Alas, battery EV passenger jets are a long way off.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

It’s true, but so is retooling aviation around hydrogen. This is just a prediction but I think before that ever happens, EITHER we’ll have light batteries that are safer and more effective that Lithium OR we’ll have carbon-neutral ways to produce hydrocarbon fuels that can be used with conventional aircraft.

Hydrogen has struck out on personal electronics and ground transportation. Now it’s angling for aviation where its energy density may matter more. But it hasn’t been losing because of energy density.