Everything I share — writing, short curated lists, and links. You can also find me on Threads.
Hydrogen fuel cells offer a zero-emission power source solution for future sustainable aircraft and are a competitive technology for eVTOL, CS-23 and CS-25 class aircraft, (potentially up to 100 seats), as well as for APUs within future wide body aircraft. Aircraft manufacturing primes Airbus and Embraer have launched their own hydrogen fuel cell aircraft development programmes, ZEROe and Energia respectively, in order to leverage the benefits of hydrogen.
An additional headwind was the nearing U.S. election. “If [Donald] Trump were to win, investors saw a significant risk that the massive green hydrogen subsidy enacted as part of the Biden Inflation Reduction Act would disappear,” Eremenko wrote.
For commercial long-rage airplanes, however, employing fuel cells will be limited due to the replacement of the axillary power unit (APU) in the foreseeable future. Using fuel cells to propel such large airplanes would necessitate redesigning the airplane structure to accommodate the required hydrogen tanks, which could take a bit more time.
When I asked, “What are you working on?” the first words out of his mouth was his fund raising progress. Sigh… What I should have been hearing is the search for the business model, specifically the progress on product/market fit, but I hear the fund raising story first at least 90% of the time. It never makes me happy.
When no is not an option, you gaslight yourself into saying yes and convincing yourself that this yes is authentic.
The most counterintuitive secret about startups is that it’s often easier to succeed with a hard startup than an easy one. A hard startup requires a lot more money, time, coordination, or technological development than most startups. A good hard startup is one that will be valuable if it works (not all hard problems are worth solving!).
According to the report, the hydrogen aircraft market was valued at $27.7 billion in 2030, and is estimated to reach $489 billion by 2050, growing at a CAGR of 15.4% from 2030 to 2050.
We are not taught as kids to feel okay in the wide expanse between what we want to happen and what happens because the bigger that gap, the bigger the failure.
Yet the truth is that, while it’s important to stay on schedule if you want to get to kickboxing on time, what’s *not* remotely important is getting to kickboxing on time. It just doesn’t really matter.
There is a gap, too, between the tools that exist and the future we’re being sold. The innovation curve, we’re told, will be exponential. The paradigm, we’re cautioned, is about to shift. Regular people, we’re to believe, have little choice in the matter, especially as the computers scale up and become more powerful: We can only experience a low-grade disorientation as we shadowbox with the notion of this promised future. Meanwhile, the ChatGPTs of the world are here, foisted upon us by tech companies who insist that these tools should be useful in some way.