The Solar Plane – a Perfect Metaphor for What is Wrong With Renewables

Solar impulse at Brussels Airport, author Brussels Airport, Wikimedia share license
Solar impulse at Brussels Airport, author Brussels Airport, Wikimedia share license

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Solar Impulse 2 has finally completed completed the latest leg of its round the world flight. In engineering terms, a round the world flight using solar power is a remarkable achievement. But the difficulty of achieving this feat showcases why solar energy will never be a viable replacement for fossil fuels.

An experimental plane flying around the world without a single drop of fuel landed in California after a two-and-a-half day flight across the Pacific.

Piloted by Swiss explorer and psychiatrist Bertrand Piccard, Solar Impulse 2 touched down in Mountain View just before midnight (3 a.m. ET).

“It’s a new era. It’s not science fiction. It’s today,” Piccard told CNN from California after his successful voyage. “It exists and clean technologies can do the impossible.”

Images of the elegant solar aircraft, which has the wingspan of a Boeing 747 but only weighs about as much as an SUV, flying over the Golden Gate Bridge into San Francisco Bay mark a significant achievement. The team has seen the project beset with problems and setbacks during its pioneering airborne circumnavigation.

“I’m very happy that everything works extremely well and the airplane is functioning as it should,” Piccard’s business partner and the plane’s other pilot, Swiss engineer Andre Borschberg, told CNN by phone from California just ahead of the successful, on-schedule landing.

“It’s a demonstration that the tech is reliable.”

The plane took off from Hawaii on Thursday, resuming a journey that had stalled on the island of Oahu for almost 10 months.

Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/24/travel/solar-impulse-2-plane-california/

Solar planes can’t carry meaningful amounts of cargo. They can barely carry passengers.

I am not disrespecting the talent of the engineers who achieved this feat. Flying a solar plane around the world is a remarkable achievement. But this achievement does not demonstrate the technology is viable. What it demonstrates is that solar is a ridiculously poor source of power. A solar collector the size of a 747 just managed to collect enough electricity, to keep an incredibly lightweight plane aloft.

Just like solar panels, solar planes might find some niche uses, such as long life high altitude robotic observation platforms, or even as mobile telephone repeater stations – solar planes are not restricted by fuel payload, and can reach very high altitudes, because they don’t depend on burning fuel with oxygen for their power.

Solar planes will never replace fossil fuel powered planes, for ferrying people and high value cargoes across vast distances.

Update (EW): h/t etudiant – the flight is not yet complete…

0 0 votes
Article Rating
333 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Marcus
April 25, 2016 6:18 pm

..Holy Flag Post Batman..errrr, I mean Anthony..Is this a record number of great posts in one day ??

Reply to  Marcus
April 28, 2016 2:20 pm

My earlier take on Solar Impulse:
Stranded monster lands at Oahu
Now and then giant ocean creatures wash up on beaches in a horrible mess.
At Kalaeloa Airport on Oahu (Hawaii) a similar but aerial creature has washed up in an airport hangar. It’s the Solar Impulse 2, a solar-powered plane with a wingspan nearly as long as an Airbus A380’s. But it weighs rather less than a Toyota Land Cruiser and has so far cost its sponsors about $US250m.
It was meant to fly around the world – without using a drop of fossil fuel – from March to August this year (2015). Cheering it on were bigwigs Prince Albert 11 of Monaco, ex-UN czar Kofi Annan, Virgin’s Richard Branson, the ubiquitous Mikhail Gorbachev and the IPCC’s figurehead Christiana Figueres. Among the plane’s partners are champagne people MoetHennessy, who supplied refreshments at each stop “to promote their common values” with “beautiful occasions”.
Departing Abu Dhabi, Solar Impulse 2 got half-way in 200 days, but it’s going nowhere until next April (2016). That’s because its solar batteries overheated during a wrong flight pattern and have to be replaced.
The fuel-free plane was meant to show the delicious potential of clean solar energy, “therapy for the planet” and a climate-change stopper, as its founders balloonist Bertrand Piccard and ex-Swiss air force man Andre Borschberg see it. The solar plane’s actually demonstrated the superiority of a few drums of avgas.
Its 17,200 solar cells generate 17 horsepower for each of the four props – less than half the grunt of my four-cylinder Camry. It can lift only one person – the pilot. (Freight? Zero, not counting all the “messages” and “positive emotions”). The pilot can last about five days and nights in the air, taking catnaps and using his seat as a potty-chair. Strangely, the Wright Flyer 111 in 1908 carried a passenger.
The solar plane is at the mercy of sun and breezes. It was held up at Nagoya for a month waiting for favorable winds, much like a 17th century galleon.
But there’s more. To keep this gossamer confection airborne, an Ilyushin 76 strategic airlifter flies ahead with a blow-up hangar and all the high-tech servicing gear. Aviation buffs call the four-engined airlifter a ‘bad-ass’, not just because of its ugly nose and droopy jets, but because its takeoffs are real Russian screamers. Once aloft, it burns eight tons of CO2-spewing avgas per hour.
This behemoth is accompanied by a twin-turboprop ATR72 which can carry a support crew of up to 60, apart from the dozens left at Monaco mission control. The ATR burns a more modest ton of fuel per 90 minutes.
With these two little helpers, the solar plane flies (half) round the world “without using a drop of fuel”. Piccard says, “What we have here is the future.”
Well maybe. This futuristic plane cruises at about the top speed of a postie’s bike, but can sometimes accelerate away to 90km/h.
Charitably assuming the plane does make it round the world in 18 months, that compares with other round-the-worlders such as
# The Graf Zeppelin in 21 days in 1929.
# Wiley Post in his Winnie Mae, in nine days in 1933
# The Rutan Voyager, non-stop non-refuelled in nine days in 1986
# Bertrand Piccard and Brian Jones by balloon in 20 days in 1999.
# Solo yachter Francis Joyon, in 58 days in 2008, using that other clean fuel, wind.
# Someone could walk the plane’s route (somehow) in two years, not much longer than the flight time.
Piccard, who partakes of green delusionism, has summed up the venture: “Protecting the environment should not be perceived as expensive… Fighting climate change is opening-up new industrial markets and offering an opportunity for economic development, job creation and profit.”
I can picture a fourth-world peasant looking up from his hoe and saying, “Kids, that’s a quarter-billion investment whirring along up there using clean energy. And it’s worth it!”

Reply to  tonythomas061
May 3, 2016 8:21 pm

Garbage! Literally garbage can do better than this $250-million solar plane. Piccard just lacks imagination. He can build an airplane that’s ten times faster (900 kph) powered by household garbage using World War II technologies. The Germans built a jet plane in 1942 and made synthetic diesel from coal via pyrolysis and the Fischer-Tropsch process. Piccard can just replace coal with household garbage and use the same processes to produce fuel for a jet plane.

David Ball
April 25, 2016 6:22 pm

I love this line;
The plane took off from Hawaii on Thursday, resuming a journey that had stalled on the island of Oahu for almost 10 months.

Mjw
Reply to  David Ball
April 26, 2016 1:20 am

If my memory serves right the plane left Japan after a 4 month delay because the original flight from China to Hawaii was blown off course.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Mjw
April 26, 2016 6:24 am

flight from China to Hawaii was blown off course
Only a minor detail when #SavingThePlanet™, comrade.

Reply to  David Ball
April 26, 2016 3:06 am

Not much emphasis on that stupendous failure to achieve its original highly-promoted objective!

Don K
Reply to  David Ball
April 26, 2016 5:01 am

Around the World in 80 years?
Not a promising technology
OTOH, I’m old enough to remember a world without jet aircraft and it didn’t work all that badly. And when you get down to it, modern air travel is an incredibly unpleasant experience. Lots of stress. Interminable hours stuffed in a tiny seat. Preposterous (and mostly theatrical) “security”. And not all that reliable if the weather doesn’t cooperate. I quit flying years ago, and it amazes me that the rest of you tolerate that crap. Are you daft?
I think that eventually rigid, solar powered, lighter than air craft might someday work OK for a lot of people a lot of the time. After all, the Graf Zepplein made a round the world flight 85 years ago carrying a substantial crew and a few passengers. More like a fast ship that could travel over both land and sea than a fixed wing aircraft. The trip took about 9 days of flying time. (I’d guess we could do a bit better today). But you could get up and walk around, eat decent meals, and sleep in a bed.
And do keep in mind that the current period of cheap oil isn’t the result of (cheap) oil being abundant. It’s the result of most economies worldwide sucking. You’ll most likely see $100 a barrel and more crude again in not all that many years. Your grandkids will likely live to see a world that uses a lot of alternative, non-fossil, based technologies because fossil fuels cost too damn much.

Patrick B
Reply to  Don K
April 26, 2016 5:59 am

” Your grandkids will likely live to see a world that uses a lot of alternative, non-fossil, based technologies because fossil fuels cost too damn much.”
This statement sounds a lot like the stupid statements in the 70’s about how the world would be out of oil by 2000. I imagine it has the same validity. By the time our grandkids are grown, global warming will have been definitively disproved as a significant threat and the US will be joining China and other countries that never stopped mining coal, and fracking will be used worldwide. The only difference will be the relative poverty of the US economy as compared to China, India and other countries who will have never stopped using fossil fuels.

MarkW
Reply to  Don K
April 26, 2016 6:54 am

I’ll let my great-grandkids, using technology that isn’t even invented yet, worry about that problem.

Catcracking
Reply to  Don K
April 26, 2016 7:18 am

“… because fossil fuels cost too damn much.”
That’s because they pay too much taxes and are not subsidized like the unreliable and expensive to produce green energy. In the US gasoline costs about $2/GALLON even with over 25% of that state and Federal tax. Then add in the income tax, royalty,and lease costs that the government extorts which all go into that price. I am surprised it is that cheap. Revenue from oil companies income tax is the second largest source of income to the US Treasury
Where will the government replace all that huge stream of income to the US Treasury when they put the fossil fuel companies out of business.
The Pentagon was forced by government policy to purchase fuel for the Navy at $25/ GALLON and in some cases even 10 times that amount to prop up a subsidized biofuel manufacturer who is a bundler for the President. Meanwhile there is not enough funding to maintain the aircraft and ships we need to protect us.
In the UK the tax on motor fuel is much worse, I know I lived there.
Who is “daft”?

Don K
Reply to  Don K
April 26, 2016 7:23 am

You think it’s stupid because you haven’t looked at the data. You can do look into it, or you can wait a few decades and see if I’m correct. Waiting’s OK BTW, there’s not much you can do about the situation individually other than thinking twice before buying a huge house assuming that heating it will be cheap.
Some things you might want to consider:
. The future energy demands of about 5 or 6 billion people in China, India and 100+ other countries who are living in various degrees of poverty and have every intention of fixing that situation.
. The places where oil companies are looking for new oil and the probable cost of the oil produced.
. The fact that the highly touted US shale oil revolution is largely (not entirely, but largely) based on a failure to understand how hydrocarbon production is reported. A very large part of what folks assume to be oil is Natural Gas Liquids. NGLs aren’t liquids at room temperature and pressure and aren’t especially easy to convert to liquids. (It can be done, but it’s not cheap — think $7 a gallon diesel before taxes.)
. The fact that the production from fracked oil wells falls off rather quickly. Which means that new wells have to be drilled continuously. Which won’t happen if the oil can’t be sold for enough money to pay for the drilling and fracking. Might want to check the Baker-Hughes rig counts to see the impending problem there.
BTW, I’m not asserting that we’re going to run out of hydrocarbons any time soon. Nor do I think that the developing world is going to pay much attention to the developed world’s exaggerated beliefs about climate change. (They may worry about pollution from hydrocarbons when it gets to be as severe as in China’s air quality problems). Humanity won’t run out of hydrocarbons for a century or three.
I’m just telling you that those hydrocarbons almost certainly won’t be as cheap as you think.

MarkW
Reply to  Don K
April 26, 2016 8:03 am

DonK, it never ceases to amaze me how some people will ignore everything that contradicts their peculiar religion.
I have spent years studying the data, not just glancing at carefully preselected fact, most of which are wrong to begin with, and I have reached the opposite conclusion.

Don K
Reply to  Don K
April 26, 2016 9:08 am

> I have spent years studying the data, not just glancing at carefully preselected fact, most of which are wrong to begin with, and I have reached the opposite conclusion.
In that case, you should certainly borrow against all your assets and make a huge leveraged bet on eternally cheap hydrocarbons.

MarkW
Reply to  Don K
April 26, 2016 9:46 am

You know that you are dealing with either an idiot or a liar, when you counter someone’s claim that fossil fuels are about to run out, and he responds that you believe they will last forever.

Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  Don K
April 26, 2016 9:58 am

Flying didn’t use to be stressful. It used to be incredible fun! I remember looking forward to flights. People dressed nice, stewardesses were always friendly, friends and family could accompany you on board to see you off. You could visit the cockpit to see all the marvelous gauges and controls. I loved the old DC-6, and was so excited about flying the Caravel when it entered service with United. Lots of room, and you were truly ‘free to move about the cabin”.
Then came DB Cooper, and a few others wanting to go to Cuba. Friends and family could no longer accompany you on board. Still, it wasn’t that bad. You could really wow a girlfriend by flying her from San Diego to Los Angeles and back for dinner – on a college student budget. Not every weekend, but often enough to start a trend. Ah, I loved PSA!
Then seats started shrinking in both width and pitch. People started wearing ‘comfortable’ clothes on board, and since they were ‘comfortable’, they didn’t have to be civil. Of course, I realize a lot of that had to do with deregulation, but could easily have been fixed with a simple law (for minimum width and pitch). Instead, there is no protection for the regular-sized person who has to sit next to a 400-pound, sweaty guy in economy class, who requires two seat belt extenders to get belted in, despite the fact his belly is in firm contact with the seat ahead of him.
Years later, we endured 9/11. Suddenly, passengers were all suspected terrorists (unless you looked like one). TSA stuck their hands down the front of your pants to make sure you weren’t smuggling nukes, and pawed through all your luggage. Lines that stretched for a mile. Five hours before you got to your plane. Non-travelers not allowed near the gate area, let alone the airplane. You realized you left your phone on the plane, but you couldn’t go back and check, even though you hadn’t left the gate yet. Some of that has been fixed with imaging machines that effectively render you naked for inspection, and x-ray machines for your luggage. Somehow, I still don’t feel human – more of a chunk of meat to be transported. Except I’m a suspected criminal to boot.
So now when we consider flying, we realize we have to surrender our humanity, and face hours of misery, unless we’re willing to pay for Business or First Class. Fine if you’re an executive, or wealthy. The rest of us just suffer. But now you know why I love Amtrak, despite those early memories.
Now comes Solar Impulse 2, with the ‘hope’ of a future where that two-hour will be a 10+ hour flight, in a space so cramped even the pilot is in pain. Ah, I love progress.

Jay Hope
Reply to  Don K
April 26, 2016 1:30 pm

‘around the world in 80 years’. Love it!

Editor
Reply to  Don K
April 26, 2016 3:52 pm

Thinking there is plenty of oil left is a reasonable position.
Thinking it is “about to run out” is the silly bit.
Even IF Hubbard’s Peak is real AND we are on the peak now (both not facts in evidence), then the bell shaped production curve has us producing oil for about as long into the future as the past, so about 150 years, (yes, at decreasing rates. so what. Folks in 2106 A.D. can worry about that as they drive their fusion car to the antique car meet…)
That fact caused The Green Blob to dream up a sudden catastrophic cliff fantasy called EROEI Energy Return On Energy Invested. The notion that as soon as it takes a kW to lift oil with a kW of fuel energy, you stop. That is daft as the FORM of energy matters. We have effectively infinite nuclear power available to lift oil for fuels (THE dominant use is motor fuel due to the liquid form being near ideal…)
Hypothetical? Nope. Not at all. Nuke power from Palo Verde flows to California where we have electric driven oil wells. That oil gets refined to fuels. EVERY refinery is a Negative EROEI operation. So why do we do it? The form of the fuel matters. A Lot.
Oh, and a cat reformer to turn propane and other nat gas liquids into gasoline is fairly cheap. That $7 claim is quite bogus. You can make Diesel from coal via a similar and more expensive process for about $4 / gallon. and Shell along with several others has GTL Gas To Liquids plants putting gas as gasoline in tanks now in several parts of the world.
Oil is a worry in maybe 1/4 century. Maybe. But then shales, tar sands, clathrates, etc. become economical and there’s about 10x as much of those, so the worry becomes a problem about 2275 A.D., maybe… or maybe we use high temp gas cooled reactors to turn kerogen and coal and garbage to gasoline and Diesel for another 400 years. We already can do it. A VW study from the 1970s showed economical at about $4/gallon in current dollars (my napkin math convert of 50 ¢ gallon metanol in 1975 to current dollars. Methanol to gasoline is one step more with zeolite catalyst in the Mobile process from the same era.). So maybe it will be 2700 A.D. before it really is a problem.
Then again, by then, I think they will be using better technology than from the 1970s…
BTW, I started study of all this in great depth due to The Arab Oil Embargo of the ’70s, that lead to all those other paths to motor fuels…. that drove oil prices back down…

George Tetley
Reply to  Don K
April 27, 2016 12:02 am

I can remember buying gasoline in a “Scott Gas ” station in Delaware for 0.98 cents a gallon used to fill my straight eight Pontiac 2 times a week, TODAY?

Gregory J Suhr
Reply to  Don K
April 27, 2016 7:50 am

I like lighter than air aircraft….but…..what gas are you going to use to lift them? Helium is a “fossil gas” and is in limited supply and hydrogen brings up images of the Hindenburg….in flames.
Also…when you are lighter than air, that moving air…wind…becomes a huge factor. If you want to go in the direction the wind is blowing, great, if not….well you either need a lot of power or a lot of time. Landing is an issue in any case..
Finally,,,,the Hindenburg round trip ticket cost $700 in 1937, the equivalent of roughly $1200 today. I’m flying round trip to Europe in August….for roughly 1/10th that amount. I’m willing to spend some cramped hours with poor food to save enough to spand a week cruising down the Rhine in comfort.

george e. smith
Reply to  David Ball
April 26, 2016 10:01 am

Um er ! Please sir, it is against the law to collect solar energy in California around midnight. That’s when all solar collectors are supposed to be asleep.
Also it only takes 24 hours for the sun to go all the way round the earth, so why did this plane not just keep up with the sun, and do the whole trip in sunlight all the way ?
I don’t think this mode of transportation will ever catch on. Pretty bad when you have to wait on the ground in Oahu, until the solar flying season comes around again.
g

george e. smith
Reply to  David Ball
April 26, 2016 2:58 pm

I seem to recall that two people actually flew a fossil fuelled aircraft completely around the world, without ever setting down on the ground, so they did it all on one tank of gas.
That in my view is a real accomplishment. This latest is just an example of how much money you can spend chasing rainbows.
Nothing useful, will ever come of this.
Now the guy that rode his bicycle through the air across the English channel; that is a real accomplishment, but also not practical. He at least did it under his own head of steam.
G

Lou
Reply to  David Ball
April 26, 2016 7:54 pm

How about this. “We had stopped at Oahu to build another leg of the transpacific undersea railroad.”

astonerii
April 25, 2016 6:23 pm

Stalled on the island for 10 months! Imagine taking an extra 10 months to get somewhere.
Add in the fact that this thing probably cost tens of millions of dollars to make.

StarkNakedTruth
Reply to  astonerii
April 25, 2016 7:11 pm

Imagine abandoning the use of fossil fuels altogether? And then imagine that the only way to travel around the world is by ship with sails or people using oars. Don’t scoff at the ideology–there are actually people who think this is a good idea. Welcome back to the 2nd century.

phil cartier
Reply to  StarkNakedTruth
April 25, 2016 7:32 pm

I think that anyone who ascribes global warming to CO2 must prove it by adhering to their beliefs and not use any fossil fuel sourced energy- only wind for travel hydropower for electricity and solar only for passive heating, and beeswax candles for lighting. Solar panels are a no-no. They can’t produce enough electricity to reproduce themselves, neither can wind mills.

Leo Smith
Reply to  StarkNakedTruth
April 26, 2016 2:13 am

well I did try imagining it.
You can read what I came up with as just within the bounds of possibility, here:
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/Beyond_Fossil_Fuels.pdf

Patrick B
Reply to  StarkNakedTruth
April 26, 2016 6:01 am

It’s not that those people think this is a good idea, they think it is a good idea for others. For themselves, well, the importance of their activities justifies continued use of private jets.

Catcracking
Reply to  StarkNakedTruth
April 26, 2016 7:50 am

Phil, I agree. I have said many times make the elite who govern us live be the first to live by the rules they establish for 5 years to see “how that works out”. Somehow they wrangled their way out of Obamacare although the law said they were required to use it. We know the person who admits to the largest carbon footprint in the world wants us to live in energy poverty.

Don K
Reply to  StarkNakedTruth
April 26, 2016 11:23 am

Leo Smith, I read through your Beyond Fossil Fuels paper. Not surprisingly, I have a lot of quibbles, but mostly I agree with it. A couple of my more substantial quibbles.
1. It’s somewhat GB-centric. An analysis for Hawaii, Quebec, or Australia might be substantially different in some respects.
2. Nuclear does seem to be a major part of the solution worldwide although there are a few areas where the combination of favorable non-fossil fuel resources (geothermal, hydro, or even wind/solar plus pumped storage) and favorable population dynamics might make non-nuclear alternatives practical. No reason not to use them if they are available and cost effective.
3. We don’t currently have a nuclear design that mismanagement can’t “blow up”. We really such a design before mankind builds maybe 20000 nuclear reactors (Pebble beds maybe …)
4. By the time humanity actually runs desperately short of fossil fuels, the technology for synthesizing them will probably be greatly improved and the need for them much reduced — long distance air travel, emergency equipment (You want to depend on a battery powered ambulance or fire engine with grid access down?), access to remote areas, perhaps some mining activities and some agriculture.
5. You don’t seem to care for personal transport. And perhaps that’s reasonable in England. But let me tell you that Americans and Canadians (outside of NYC) aren’t going to give up their cars without a fight. And, in fact battery powered cars with a small supplemental generator for an occasional holiday can probably meet most of their perceived needs.
6. In theory, sunshine plus efficient storage can satisfy humanity’s energy needs. It’d involve more solar panels than anyone will want to see and a lot of storage. At the moment that pretty much means pumped storage The US has something over 20GW of pumped storage in place and a lot of it is actually used. Are there enough sites (and enough water) to meet humanity’s needs? No clue.
But overall — well-done!!!

Jay Hope
Reply to  StarkNakedTruth
April 26, 2016 1:32 pm

2nd Century? More like the 19th!

Steve Fraser
Reply to  astonerii
April 25, 2016 7:25 pm

Jules Verne would not have been impressed with the timing…

Reply to  Steve Fraser
April 26, 2016 12:02 am

He was only off by an order of magnitude – 800 days rather than 80 days.

R. Shearer
Reply to  astonerii
April 25, 2016 8:14 pm

Hawaii was better than say Newark or Philly.

Bryan A
Reply to  astonerii
April 25, 2016 11:01 pm

17,000 special solar panels mounted on the surface of a wing longer than a 747 and fuselage of a 5000lb aircraft to fly 1 person from Hawaii to San Francisco in 62 hours at 28 mph … highly impractical!!!

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Bryan A
April 26, 2016 1:31 am

In addition: It’s simply a blatant deception to claim that this round-the-world trip does need no fossil fuel ! Just see here for the real facts:
http://notrickszone.com/2015/03/15/solar-impulse-2-flight-around-the-world-without-a-drop-of-fuel-in-fact-will-burn-tens-of-thousands-of-liters/#sthash.xjB4yLTz.dpbs

graphicconception
Reply to  Bryan A
April 26, 2016 5:53 am

If the support planes had tow ropes they would not even need to use solar energy!

David Smith
Reply to  astonerii
April 26, 2016 4:45 am

Snail Mail is now a high speed courier.

CaligulaJones
Reply to  astonerii
April 26, 2016 6:23 am

“Stalled on the island for 10 months! Imagine taking an extra 10 months to get somewhere.”
Well, I’ve been to Maui twice, for a total of a month. I wouldn’t be trying to hard to “unstall” myself if I had the choice…

Rhee
Reply to  CaligulaJones
April 26, 2016 9:16 am

I guess I won’t complain nearly as much the next time I’m stuck on a plane at the far end of O’Hare (ORD) for 3 hours waiting out a summer thunderstorm… I hope Bertie brought some extra granola bars to snack on while waiting 10 months for departure 😉

Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  astonerii
April 26, 2016 10:10 am

According to http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/stranded-monster/ they have spent 250 million USD. That’s right, one quarter of a BILLION dollars on this thing. And the original plan was to circumnavigate the globe in just five to six months – MONTHS! compare that to the Graf Zeppelin that did in in 21 days in 1929. The Graf did it without a four-engine Illushin 76 carrying supporting equipment for the trip, and a twin-turboprop ATR72 for the support crew.

April 25, 2016 6:25 pm

Australian TV had the gall to announce this as “the future of aviation”! God help us if we have to build a 747 size rig to get one family across the planet in over a year of travel. My parents came to Australia as assisted migrants in 1949 in 10 weeks by ship.

Reply to  Ron House
April 25, 2016 6:46 pm

The future of aviation if they build solar planes the size of San Diego to carry 100 people and use all of the CA Mojave and half of the Austrian outback for landing strips. Mine more environmentally friendly lead and atomic radionucleotide rare earths to make more batteries. More. More. And you flight time to California is one week. This is just rich boys screwing off. Generally, most aviation is not keen on moving back to balsa wood for aircraft structures.

Peterg
Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 25, 2016 6:53 pm

My definition of outback is anywhere you would need the flying doctor to take you to hospital. Maybe some of Austria qualifies.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 25, 2016 7:15 pm

Don’t sneer at balsa wood airplanes. The Mosquito used a lot of it.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 25, 2016 8:51 pm

Buy stock in Testor’s Glue!

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 25, 2016 9:06 pm

You sure mean Austria?
Peterg on April 25, 2016 at 6:53 pm
My definition of outback is anywhere you would need the flying doctor to take you to hospital. Maybe some of Austria qualifies.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 25, 2016 9:15 pm

Peterg on April 25, 2016 at 6:53 pm
My definition of outback is anywhere you would need the flying doctor to take you to hospital. Maybe some of Austria qualifies.
In Austria we have the problem of sporting every 100 miles a hospital, to many of them for a small country furnished with alps and rivers between the mountains so leaving small space in the living room.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 26, 2016 1:52 am

Balsa wood is classed as a hardwood. And as noted above, used in WW2 aircraft as they were invisible to radar.

ralfellis
Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 26, 2016 10:34 am

>>invisible to radar.
Actually, they chose wood because aluminium was getting very scarce and expensive, and skilled fabricators were just as rare. Meanwhile, we had plenty of wood and plenty of woodworkers, and everyone from cabinet makers to piano makers found themselves glueing bits of the De Havilland Mosquito together.
And very effective it was too. When empty it could outrun a Spitfire – on one engine. And when full it could carry 2/3 of a B-17 load over similar distances (1.8t vs 2.8t). (It was so fast – 100mph faster – it did not need five defensive gun positions, and all the men to crew them.)
R

george e. smith
Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 26, 2016 3:10 pm

Are you sure about that ??
Balsa wood would have had to come from South America in war time. I don’t think so.
Balsa is too soft to use for light weight highly stressed structures.
Yes it was built out of wood. I actually got to play around in the fuselage of one of them in a guy’s back yard, along with the RR merlin engines parts rotting in his yard (he had six mosquitos).
But the framing was much more structurally sound, like Ash for example, and very thin multi-ply skin.
The general idea was to use the furniture industry that was spread all over the country to build something with those skills.
But not so much balsa I believe. You might be able to use balsa to make the innards of a honeycomb structure, which doesn’t require a lot of strength for the honeycomb.
But not much honeycomb structures in the Mosquito; or the follow on De Havilland Hornet; son of Mosquito.
G

george e. smith
Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 26, 2016 3:23 pm

A Rolls Royce Merlin engine, is not invisible to radar, nor are two of them.
Speed was the name of the game not stealth.
G

george e. smith
Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 26, 2016 3:32 pm

Well ralfellis, you somewhat exaggerate the performance of the Mosquito. It was more than capable of making its own reputation, without making one up.
And the BofB Spitfire, which was actually a Hawker Hurricane, was not a speed match. But you get into a Mark XIV Spitfire, and you better hope your Mossie is running on two healthy engines.
But the Spitfire was built for home defense, not for a chase plane.
Both were good matches for the tasks allotted to them; no need to blow it all out of proportion.
G

ralfellis
Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 27, 2016 8:42 am

George.
Not making anything up, George. Top speed of the Mosquito 380 mph, top speed of the standard Spitfire 370 mph. The difference being that the Spit was stressed and built for manoeuvrability, not top speed.
R

Bryan A
Reply to  Ron House
April 25, 2016 11:03 pm

Actually it would take 4 – 747 sized aircraft to fly a family of 4 to Hawaii in 3 days. Each plane only has seating for 1

Taz1999
Reply to  Bryan A
April 26, 2016 5:14 am

As I understand the one person has to be the pilot so each of the 4 would have to train to be really good pilots

Hugs
Reply to  Ron House
April 26, 2016 1:55 am

Australian TV had the gall to announce this as “the future of aviation”!

🙂 🙂 This makes my day, thanks. If there is one thing which is certain, it is that carbon-based fuels are efficient and economical and solar panel is both expensive and inefficient.

Sunderlandsteve
Reply to  Ron House
April 26, 2016 4:40 am

Probably quicker to walk!

Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  Sunderlandsteve
April 26, 2016 10:14 am

Not sure. I calculate it would take 24 months to walk, assuming 10 hours off each day. However, if you ride a horse at just a trot – its most efficient gait, you should be able to make the trip in 8 months, although I’m not sure how you’re going to manage the oceans in either case!

rife
Reply to  Ron House
April 26, 2016 10:56 am

So why didn’t your parents fly?

April 25, 2016 6:27 pm

The solar plane has 4 17hp engines, compared to a 747 which has 4 15,000hp engines.
If batteries increase capacity significantly, I could see an electric plane becoming a possibility, but the amount of energy extracted from the solar panels on the wings would be a drop in the bucket compared to the energy needed for an intercontinental passenger flight.

simple-touriste
Reply to  Kevin Roberts
April 25, 2016 6:48 pm

Batteries don’t just have a capacity issue, they have reliable issues and shock resistance issues.
A tank of oil or even methane contains potential chemical energy but without an oxidizer it won’t do anything (well, the pressurized gas also has mechanical energy). OTOH, batteries come with the oxidizer.

Latitude
Reply to  Kevin Roberts
April 25, 2016 7:02 pm

..weight

Reply to  Latitude
April 26, 2016 5:48 am

And temperature at altitude. Batteries are generally unhappy at lower temperatures.

Moose from the EU
Reply to  Kevin Roberts
April 25, 2016 11:30 pm

Yes, but the 747 weighs 300 tons +, flies at 12 km with 900 km/h, carries around 500 passengers…
“If batteries increase capacity significantly”
Thats what I always hear from the greenies, day dreaming.

Hugs
Reply to  Moose from the EU
April 26, 2016 1:56 am

It is very hard to get the J/kg value high enough in a battery. Really, really, hard.

Toneb
Reply to  Moose from the EU
April 26, 2016 2:54 am

At the moment.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Moose from the EU
April 26, 2016 4:20 am

So what is the comparative cost per passenger mile?

MarkW
Reply to  Moose from the EU
April 26, 2016 7:00 am

Toneb: They have been working to improve batteries for over 100 years. Just when is this breakthrough you are expecting going to arrive?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Kevin Roberts
April 26, 2016 2:07 am

And consider many carriers are planning non-stop flights from Sydney, Australia, to London, UK, carrying more people and weight that a Boeing “Longreach” 747. This can be achieved only by improvements in air frame and engine performance. The turbo-fan jets on an Airbus A380 are at the leading edge in engine performance.

Philip
Reply to  Patrick MJD
April 26, 2016 7:56 am

This was done a LONG time ago, with a (then) new 747/400 with extra fuel tanks.
It was not at all popular with the passengers. 24+ hours in the air was just too much. That was in the days where economy seats actually gave you a bit of space.
With super/hypersonic aircraft, maybe. With current sub sonics, no.

dmacleo
Reply to  Patrick MJD
April 26, 2016 9:25 am

newer 747-800 / 787 GEnx turbofan are probably more cutting edge now

Leo Smith
Reply to  Kevin Roberts
April 26, 2016 2:19 am

Electric aeroplanes already exist and, within limits, perform well.
how far those limits may be pushed, economically, is the real question.
As with cars, range is the problem.
I have designed and built many electric model aircraft. Today you can get as good a power to weight factor as with a tuned IC engine.. for about a minutes flight …:-)

Hasbeen
Reply to  Leo Smith
April 26, 2016 3:43 am

Of course they do. I’ve got 14 of them. They range from 400mm wingspan to 2.54 metres, & even my pre teen grand son can fly them, remote control offcourse.
The batteries are a nightmare, rarely lasting 12 months, even with extreme care.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Kevin Roberts
April 26, 2016 5:51 am

Why go with batteries at all? Why not use a small nuclear cell as used on deep-space craft? Encase the radioactive material in a steel, thick walled, rounded case so it is unlikely to break in a worst-case accident and have at it. Scale it up as needed for power production.
(I know the “N” word scares people to death. Why, just the thought of radioactive material flying over their heads would make certain people die just thinking about it!)

Paul Westhaver
April 25, 2016 6:33 pm

Show me a plane that flies forever in the dark while carrying it’s own weight in cargo. Now THAT would be a technical marvel.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
April 25, 2016 8:54 pm

Cosmic ray panels?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
April 26, 2016 2:10 am

No, just thought. It was demonstrated on Star Trek: TNG, and that’s real çoz it’s in colour!

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
April 26, 2016 2:27 am
etudiant
April 25, 2016 6:33 pm

This just begs for the ‘what use is a baby’ comment. We should be sufficiently generous of spirit to applaud a substantial technical achievement, even if it is not immediately economic or practical.
Also it is not correct to say the plane has completed its round the world tour, it still has to cross the Atlantic and Europe to do that.
NASA in the 1980s did useful work on solar powered airplane concepts. One was based on a solar power satellite beaming power to the airplane. That circumvented the problem of low energy density provided by direct sunlight.

Reply to  etudiant
April 25, 2016 6:43 pm

Be great for CIA drone strikes. Other than that, the technology is not in its infancy, it is worthless.

Duster
Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 25, 2016 7:24 pm

A drone, especially one that conducts “strikes” requires the ability to carry a real payload. Besides, though many don’t seem to consider this, fossil fuels ARE solar energy – concentrated into chemical bonds that permit the accessibility of the the energy at all times and in a much more stable and lighter form than a battery.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 25, 2016 9:33 pm

This is for Duster below. Fossil fuels are coal. Gas and oil are from the planet’s core and NOT fossil fuel and therefore not solar-derived energy. This is why we find gas and oil anywhere we drill deep enough.

Neo
Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 25, 2016 10:44 pm

AGM-114 Hellfire weight … 100–108 lb (45.4–49 kg)

Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 25, 2016 11:55 pm

Highley, I didn’t know we found oil and gas anywhere if we drill deep enough. Where did you get that idea? I just wrote a Peak Oil 101 post and I sure hate to have got it wrong.

chris moffatt
Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 26, 2016 4:39 am

“Gas and oil are from the planet’s core and NOT fossil fuel and therefore not solar-derived energy…”
Oh dear! Is that what they’re teaching in Geology class these days? Back to school everybody – We’ve had it all wrong up to now. The good news is we won’t run out of oil and gas for a really long time.

David Ball
Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 26, 2016 10:30 am

Fernando, i’ve seen your posts on the oil sands and you get a LOT wrong. You have zero credibility, imho.
chris moffat: are you speaking from knowledge, or are you just parroting what you have read. There are a lot of questions surrounding this subject. The science is definitiely NOT settled.

billw1984
Reply to  etudiant
April 25, 2016 6:43 pm

If that is true, that it has not actually completed its around the world flight, then it is yet another example of the hype and false narratives that surrounds almost every aspect of the entire climate change and renewable energy monologue.

Javert Chip
Reply to  billw1984
April 25, 2016 8:23 pm

Sounds like trying to go to the moon by climbing a big tree: no matter how good a start you get, it ain’t gonna work.

Hugs
Reply to  billw1984
April 26, 2016 1:58 am

Sounds like trying to go to the moon by climbing a big tree:

Spot on!

jon
Reply to  etudiant
April 25, 2016 6:59 pm

“The Solar Impulse 2 was originally supposed to land in Abu Dhabi, where it started its journey in March 2015, by the end of last summer.”
from http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/24/travel/solar-impulse-2-plane-california/

Hats off...
Reply to  jon
April 25, 2016 8:02 pm

Well, if I was going to break down anywhere in the world for 10 months, there are places worse than Hawaii to do so.

Reply to  jon
April 26, 2016 11:09 am

I wonder if they are going to finish the trip or if they plan to just go quiet and hope everyone THINKS they’ve finished the trip. I thought at first they had finished, I guess because it took so long to get this far.

BoyfromTottenham
Reply to  etudiant
April 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Hi from Oz. Hmm – ‘a solar power satellite beaming power to the airplane’. Sooo, the solar power collected by the satellite converts the DC power (ignoring the obvious storage issues for any significant amount of power) to say microwave energy (at maybe 50% efficiency), and then it is transmitted maybe hundreds of kilometres to the airplane (at maybe 0.00000000001% efficiency – see here: https://www.pasternack.com/t-calculator-fspl.aspx. Enter 500 km, 2GHz, Tx antenna gain 20dB, Rx antenna gain 20dB, result -112dB path loss), where it is converted back to DC to power (at say a generous 90% efficiency) the airplane’s electric motors. Yeah, I used to read sci-fi comics when I was a kid, too, but even then I didn’t take them seriously because I was a radio amateur who understood about free space path loss! And BTW this hare-brained (or should I say “Heath Robinson” (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Heath_Robinson – hint, he was a cartoonist, not an inventor) ‘solution’ does not ‘circumvent the problem of low energy density provided by direct sunlight’, it only makes it a gazillion times worse by trying to transmit useful amounts of energy via radio waves.

Tom Yoke
Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
April 25, 2016 11:06 pm

The link referred to in your post doesn’t work, but the very small efficiency you name must presume an omnidirectional radiating antenna. When space transmission of microwave energy is referenced it is always presumed that a MASER is being used.

Tom Yoke
Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
April 25, 2016 11:14 pm

The poor path efficiency of an omnidirectional antenna is the problem that un-did Nikolai Tesla. He wanted to deliver electrical power sent as radio waves from a central transmitter, and there are those wonderful pictures of light bulbs glowing in the dark with no wires or batteries connected. The problem, as you’ve pointed out, is that the efficiency declines as 1/(4 pi r^2). That is a disastrous decline and I’ve never quite understood why someone as smart as Tesla did not see that that simple fact made his idea impossible.

Brooke
Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
April 25, 2016 11:46 pm

The solution is simple really. We just use exactly the same technology used to “Beam me up Scotty”. No need for old technology stuff like planes trains and automobiles.
(… Now beam up my clothes Scotty)

Udar
Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
April 26, 2016 7:19 am

Tom Yoke says:
very small efficiency you name must presume an omnidirectional radiating antenna

That is incorrect – he presumes 20db gains for both Rx and Tx – which is 10x from omnidirectional.
It doesn’t matter whether you use maser or laser for power transfer – the path loss is always proportional of square of distance. It’s just with laser you can get very, very high antenna gains. But your very high antenna gain comes with extremely high directionality – and that means 2 things:
1. You need individual transmitter and antenna for every receiver and that transmitting antenna has to track receiver extremely well, as both beaming satellite and receiver move around.
2. You need receiver that has to track transmitter very precisely.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  etudiant
April 26, 2016 1:51 am

1st year étudiant ?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  etudiant
April 26, 2016 4:23 am

etudiant April 25, 2016 at 6:33 pm
“NASA in the 1980s did useful work on solar powered airplane concepts. One was based on a solar power satellite beaming power to the airplane. That circumvented the problem of low energy density provided by direct sunlight.”
I’ll bet the satellite didn’t get in orbit by solar power.

MarkW
Reply to  etudiant
April 26, 2016 7:08 am

Batteries have been around for over 100 years. They aren’t in their infancy.
Solar power has been around for decades, it isn’t in it’s infancy.
Any technology that after 50 years is still stuck in the crib, is not likely to ever be useful.

Marcus
April 25, 2016 6:36 pm

..The delusions of the left wing “Greenies” is astounding..Solar Power has it’s uses in certain places at certain times…just like the batteries in my flashlight ! I wouldn’t want to try to use those batteries to keep me warm during the long cold Canadian winter nights !
P.S. I’m still waiting for Spring in London,Ontario !! 50 miles from the U.S. border !

jon
Reply to  Marcus
April 25, 2016 7:00 pm

Only Shania Twain can keep you warm on those long cold lonely nights 🙂

Marcus
Reply to  jon
April 25, 2016 7:12 pm

…OMG..Don’t tease ! LOL..Her voice could keep me warm in the middle of the Antarctic… naked !!

April 25, 2016 6:40 pm

You not in a hurry, got a year to go from Hawaii to San Francisco, solar aircraft is the technology for you. You can even do some victory flights over the Golden Gate bridge to celebrate arriving alive.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 25, 2016 8:07 pm

Donald Kasper April 25, 2016 at 6:40 pm
“You can even do some victory flights over the Golden Gate bridge to celebrate arriving alive.”
Not sure about that victory roll. To keep the weight down they had to make sacrifices. I got a feeling structural integrity was one of them. for example the weight for the shuttle carrying 747 was 488,000 pounds. (link below) An SUV which they compare the solar plane to is 4,000- 6,000 pounds. Try to do a barrel roll or an other acrobatics and the aircraft may come apart do to air frame stresses. Gravity,G-force, and all that other fun stuff.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/17/us/shuttle-discovery-weight/
michael

simple-touriste
April 25, 2016 6:41 pm

Was that really a pro-solar PV PR stunt?
Or a secret pro-oil stunt? (sort of false flag attack, without the attack)

Barbara Skolaut
Reply to  simple-touriste
April 25, 2016 6:52 pm

+1

April 25, 2016 6:50 pm

“I’m very happy that everything works extremely well and the airplane is functioning as it should,” Piccard’s business partner and the plane’s other pilot, Swiss engineer Andre Borschberg, told CNN by phone from California just ahead of the successful, on-schedule landing. “It’s a demonstration that the tech is reliable.”
*
Reliable? How long did this trip take, all up? A year or so? It’s “functioning as it should”??? Excuse me? A cargo plane flew with it every step of the way. Powered by fuel. Is this how it’s supposed to function, accompanied by a regular plane? That reminds me of so-called renewables running with full fossil fuel back-up. Try pulling the plug and see what happens.
As for the plane – No passengers, no cargo, it got delayed for ten months, it needed an escort and a hot air balloon can do it faster.
I’m so happy that “everything works extremely well and the airplane is functioning as it should”. I should hate to see how it goes if anything went wrong.
/sarc.

simple-touriste
Reply to  A.D. Everard
April 25, 2016 7:08 pm

“A cargo plane flew with it every step of the way.”
Great startup costs don’t make a technology unworkable: it could be argued that when the solar plane is generalized, every airport will have its own landing bicycles and landing bicycle technicians will be on site. (The plane doesn’t have it’s own lateral gears and relies on bicycles.)
So the cargo plane crew is an artifact. The crew will be on site. The replacement parts too.
You can’t blame the coal pollution of the energy necessary to break, purify, transform rocks into yellow cake and then enrich uranium on the fission technology. In the end, fission energy can provide all the energy needed to enrich its own uranium. The coal pollution is just a startup cost. More fission means less coal burning pollution (sulfur, particulates, mercury, thorium, uranium…).

Reply to  simple-touriste
April 25, 2016 7:19 pm

I don’t see “coal pollution” anywhere. Coal and oil and very clean energy sources now.
When aviation got going, planes went out on their own. If this one had gone out on it’s own, it’d still be stranded somewhere.
Why would they “generalize” solar planes? So far it hasn’t been able to carry anything except a light-weight pilot. Hot air balloons do it better and more comfortably and can carry more.
On it’s own this is merely an interesting toy – it is not the future and doesn’t promise a future until can actually function as something. It has to be able to work, meaning it has to be able to provide some kind of service.

Reply to  simple-touriste
April 25, 2016 8:05 pm

You can’t blame the coal pollution of the energy necessary to break, purify, transform rocks into yellow cake and then enrich uranium on the fission technology.
No. But you have an end goal where the net return justifies the input. The cheer leaders for this technology seem to think that if we just invest time and resources, the technology will somehow advance to the point of being practical. Sorry, but even if the solar panels were 100% efficient AND weighed nothing AND were free, you STILL couldn’t build a plane that could carry people and cargo at a rate of travel that would be cost effective or practical.

Retired Kit P
Reply to  simple-touriste
April 26, 2016 11:19 am

France uses one nuke plant for enriching uranium.

simple-touriste
Reply to  Retired Kit P
April 26, 2016 2:47 pm

Historically, France used only gaseous diffusion, an energy consuming approach: 3 nuclear reactors were needed to power the process! The new Georges-Besse II plant uses the much more efficient centrifugation separation process.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  simple-touriste
April 26, 2016 11:59 am

“A cargo plane flew with it every step of the way.”
Not quite true. Actually TWO (!) fossil fuel powered planes flew with it every step of the way (see in the link of my first post above).
That is to say, they needed a big cargo plane for all necessary technical assistance material and one smaller passenger plane for the rather big ground crew and their luggage, and – last but not least – the luggage of the pilot! Not even the latter could be transported by this absurd green propaganda toy itself…

chris moffatt
Reply to  A.D. Everard
April 26, 2016 4:58 am

We already knew that solar panels work in sunshine, that electric motors work when correct voltage is applied, that aircraft propellers work when they spin, that a big enough wing generates needed lift, that wheels work great for landing gear, that aircraft controls (ailerons, rudders, elevators, flaps) work to control an aircraft in flight. These things are proved every day. So what precisely is it that these folks have proved that we didn’t already know?

MarkW
Reply to  chris moffatt
April 26, 2016 7:11 am

How silly some people are?

3¢worth
April 25, 2016 6:52 pm

Would adding a very big wound up elastic band to the aircraft help?

Reply to  3¢worth
April 25, 2016 7:20 pm

Funny, I thought of that after I’d posted (above), only I was more thinking a giant ground-fixed catapult. Maybe the two ideas combined would actually help. 🙂

Sunderlandsteve
Reply to  A.D. Everard
April 26, 2016 4:58 am

I fear the acceleration caused by a catapult might cause the lightly stressed wings to part company from the fuselage 😁

Reply to  3¢worth
April 25, 2016 11:59 pm

The obvious solution is a hydrogen filled Zeppelin with solar panels used to drive flapping wings.

MCourtney
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
April 26, 2016 1:16 am

That’s what I was going to say.
The Japanese got balloons to hit the US mainland back in WW2 using only the wind.
It would have been cheaper and more effective to use cutting edge renewable technology from 70 years ago than this solar folly.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
April 26, 2016 1:54 am

It would have been cheaper and more effective to use cutting edge renewable technology from 70 years ago than this solar folly.
Like 400 yr old windmill technology ?

Owen in GA
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
April 26, 2016 6:08 am

Fill the Zeppelin with Helium, cover the top with solar panels to power the propellers and you might actually be able to travel wherever the wind blows you. Go against the wind, Captain? Sorry we haven’t the thrust.
Maybe if the passengers and crew all had those bicycle generator things and were forced to peddle in 8 hour shifts it would help?
Ooooh, I know, maybe an onboard nuclear reactor to power sufficiently large motors – that would do the trick.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
April 26, 2016 6:09 am

or even pedal in 8 hour shifts – I hate homophones.

MarkW
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
April 26, 2016 7:13 am

” peddle in 8 hour shifts”
They are going to sell stuff to each other?

seapea
April 25, 2016 6:55 pm

I was more interested in the pilot reporting seeing a plastic flotilla the size of continent.
What’s up with that?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  seapea
April 26, 2016 5:12 am

I saw that. But what he actually said was that he flew over it, not that he actually saw it. In other words, he “knew” it was there. Just like Warmists “just know” manmade warming is there, and dangerous.
Belief is now reality, and “science”.

Reply to  seapea
April 26, 2016 11:17 am

As I understood it that “plastic flotilla the size of a continent” was actually garbage in some bay somewhere after a storm. An exaggeration in other words (or an outright lie).

Reply to  seapea
April 26, 2016 2:42 pm

Anthony brought us a really good essay/post/article on the floating plastic weeks ago. It simply does not exist. Like the “climate change” hoax it is a fund-raising idea by the watermelons. Plastic returns to CO2 in sunlight and air. Slowly in some cases, perhaps undesirably in some cases, but it just gets recycled by nature. Energy in and out and carbon bonds formed and broken is how the Earth system works in the main.
Like this solar airplane they love any story, particularly fiction, that demonstrates the “evil” of personal freedom and market freedom.

April 25, 2016 6:58 pm

Does anybody know if this thing traveled west during the day and east during the night to maximize daylight travel?

Reply to  garymount
April 25, 2016 7:21 pm

My guess would be that it’s too slow to take that advantage.

Al
April 25, 2016 7:00 pm

I remember reading somewhere that some knowledgeable folks thought that railroad steam engines would blow up if they went 60 mph…. An there is that thing about Dick Tracy and his wrist radio….

MarkW
Reply to  Al
April 26, 2016 7:17 am

Leading experts thought that if a train travelled more than 30mph that the passengers would all suffocate.
I believe it had something to do with the maximum velocity at which people could move air with their lungs.

April 25, 2016 7:05 pm

And how much fuel and support was used to supply the plane on it’s trip?
I think it probably cost more in “fossil fuels” than a Charles Lindbergh used in his flight across the ATLANTIC.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
April 25, 2016 7:08 pm

I’m just saying that there was a huge support team…for this “solar” flight.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
April 25, 2016 7:22 pm

Exactly right. They just won’t mention that bit.

simple-touriste
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
April 25, 2016 8:06 pm

And they will just say it’s a first, and the cost of a first of a kind aren’t meaningful (including energy cost).
The problem is that unlike nuclear fission, costs will not go down after the first of kind.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
April 25, 2016 9:18 pm

My VW gets very good mileage drafting behind a large truck. Was the solar-powered plane drafting behind its fossil-fueled support plane?

RockyRoad
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
April 25, 2016 9:55 pm

I want to know if that contraption can fly in the other direction–without benefit of prevailing winds, or is “solar travel of the future” going to always be towards the rising sun in the N. hemisphere?

MarkW
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
April 26, 2016 7:18 am

noaaprogrammer, I doubt the plane is strong enough to take the turbulence behind the support plane.

beng135
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
April 26, 2016 8:09 am

noaaprogrammer, I always draft behind a truck when possible (not usually practical in mountainous areas tho unless you can tolerate 50 mph up the grade). The increase in mpg is significant — at least a couple mpg.

BoyfromTottenham
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
April 25, 2016 8:15 pm

Ha – it needs 100% fossil fuel backup, just like a wind turbine!

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
April 26, 2016 12:12 pm

So this statement is essentially false: “An experimental plane flying around the world without a single drop of fuel landed in California after a two-and-a-half day flight across the Pacific.”
How much fuel did the 2 support planes use? You have to count that in, or this plane would have gone nowhere, other than the first leg with the first pilot.

April 25, 2016 7:10 pm

Solar planes will never replace fossil fuel powered planes
===================
how big a solar panel is required to generate the 115,000 lbs of thrust developed by each engine in a 777?
but of course the sunlight is free.

Russell Chapman
April 25, 2016 7:11 pm

I haven’t seen a thing on the MSM about the enormous backup fleet following this thing around the world. They make it sound like he is doing a Kingsford-Smith or Lindbergh jumping into a plane and flying into the unknown.

tgmccoy
April 25, 2016 7:19 pm

A well rigged clipper ship would’ve done it far,far faster and carried people and cargo…
and without a “D” sail…

Gary Hladik
Reply to  tgmccoy
April 26, 2016 1:34 am

And of course sailboats are also 100% “solar”. In other words, it’s been done.

Anto
Reply to  tgmccoy
April 26, 2016 3:49 am

In 2012, a yacht circumnavigated the globe in 45 days 13 hours 42 minutes 53 seconds.

April 25, 2016 7:20 pm

PV is not ready for prime time 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 26, 2016 7:19 am

Isn’t prime time after dark for most of the year?

bill johnston
April 25, 2016 7:21 pm

Solar planes can fly to very high altitudes because they don’t need to burn oxygen with fuel for power. But they still need a certain density of air to support them. Not found at “very high altitudes”.

Reply to  bill johnston
April 25, 2016 7:24 pm

What about oxygen for the pilot? He can’t go too high because he can’t carry a tank.

Moose from the EU
Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 25, 2016 11:34 pm

But it crashed….

Hats off...
Reply to  bill johnston
April 25, 2016 8:09 pm

And they require propellers for thrust. And the speed of sound reduces with altitude. At some point, assuming the propellers can still push enough air to remain at altitude, the propeller tip speed hits critical mach number.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Hats off...
April 26, 2016 6:14 am

True, but we solved the supersonic propeller problem several years ago. The design just calls for a certain twist in the shape of the blades. Of course the shockwaves against the fuselage structures do tend to cause stress fractures and failures after a while.

Keith Minto
Reply to  bill johnston
April 26, 2016 12:05 am

Exactly, it is a function of aircraft mass, drag, airspeed and air density.
“…airplanes have a flight ceiling, an altitude above which it cannot fly. As an airplane ascends, a point is eventually reached where there just isn’t enough air mass to generate enough lift to overcome the airplane’s weight. ” from https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/density.html
A high drag solar propellor powered craft with a low airspeed would have a low ceiling.

Lance Wallace
April 25, 2016 7:26 pm

400 days and counting. Didn’t Phineas Fogg beat that record with 310 days to spare about a century ago?

Gary Hladik
Reply to  Lance Wallace
April 26, 2016 1:38 am
April 25, 2016 7:30 pm

I think that the wings should be less upswept, and have winglets. I think that would produce more lift with less drag. I base this just on the photo, I haven’t done any calculations, but it doesn’t look like that effecant of an airfoil to me.

Sleepalot
Reply to  Tom Trevor
April 26, 2016 2:30 am

It should’ve had 4 wings, not two: it would’ve been stronger, lighter, and easier to fly.

Steve Fraser
April 25, 2016 7:32 pm

The handler bikes are on the wrong sides. The ‘red’ Penney belongs on the port wing, and the green one on the starboard.

Gary Pearse
April 25, 2016 7:45 pm

This tells me that a nuclear plane is eminently feasible, and I am going to predict after they have decided to add lithium to the world’s drinking water to cure the brain lesion pandemic that has gripped the world, that in 50yrs we will have nuclear airplanes. we could have them in 30, but I added on 20yrs to be sure the hyper crowd has peacefully moved on because I just know they are looking into wind turbines for the next generation of flight technology. Solar added might be fine for on board LED lights and beer coolers.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 25, 2016 9:22 pm

Were they using lead?

Owen in GA
Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 26, 2016 6:20 am

Of course, there are other reactor designs that wouldn’t need as much shielding. Both the US and Russia were using the rather conventional military reactors (it was the 1940s-1950s after all). Seems pretty dangerous to me. Some of the reactor designs used on the deep-space probes, scaled up somewhat would seem to be more promising in this sort of endeavor.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 26, 2016 9:11 am

Need to have the reactor “outside” somehow. Still, the wind turbine powered aircraft has even greater problems!!

April 25, 2016 7:47 pm

each engine in a 777?
================
GE90 is 50 megawatts, or about 67,000 horsepower. Approximate unit price is $24 million
so, for 50 megawatts of power, with each solar panel putting out about 200 watts, you would need about 250,000 solar panels. 25+ million dollars worth of panels.
So, the solar panel is actually price competitive, the problem is the weight of 250,000 solar panels. The GE90 is something like 4hp/lb. Solar panels maybe 0.025 hp/lb. All the power is required to carry the panels.

David Chappell
Reply to  ferdberple
April 25, 2016 8:19 pm

Not to mention the area required for the solar panels.

betapug
April 25, 2016 7:50 pm

Reliable? They fried the batteries on the Japan/Hawaii leg and had to raise $25million to replace them. It is really not even the same plane that started out $170mil ago. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/27/solar-impulse-round-the-world-flight-raise-20-million-euros

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  betapug
April 25, 2016 8:38 pm

betapug April 25, 2016 at 7:50 pm
Hi thank you for the link I took this away from it.
“Two months’ delay meant the end of the circumnavigation for this flying season – the second Pacific leg cannot be safely flown after mid-August.”
So that is the real reason for the delay, can’t fly after August. Reliable??
michael

nc
Reply to  betapug
April 25, 2016 8:53 pm

Notice the pilots clothing, no heater I guess that would use up energy.

Titus
April 25, 2016 8:03 pm

A friend of mine did a circumnavigation crossing the oceans in a rowing boat. His Pacific crossing was a bit faster than this flying machine.
http://www.around-n-over.org/projects.htm
Maybe we could provide everybody with an oar to generate power for travel.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Titus
April 25, 2016 8:33 pm

Would that be an ‘exclusive OR’?

AndyG55
Reply to  Steve Fraser
April 25, 2016 9:21 pm

Did you know that if you take 3 oars and link them at the tips…
.. you get an E-oar. !

KevinK
April 25, 2016 8:05 pm

Well… There was a time when the US Air Force was thinking about designing a “Nucklar” powered intercontinental bomber…
That plane never did get off the ground…
This Solar plane did get off the ground, so we have to give them some credit for that….
But a year to go around the Earth ??? Really…… This is not a credible airplane with any real uses…
Like I’ve heard; “A Fool and His Money Are Soon Parted”, or something like that…
Cheers, KevinK

Gary Pearse
Reply to  KevinK
April 26, 2016 9:14 am

They’d be afraid to shoot that one down!

dmacleo
Reply to  KevinK
April 26, 2016 9:39 am

NB-36H had a few flights (40 something iirc) but it used the normal 6 turning 4 burning method of propulsion. pretty much only tested shielding on the reactor.

Reply to  KevinK
April 26, 2016 11:24 am

They didn’t even get around the Earth.

Kaiser Derden
April 25, 2016 8:36 pm

besides the bragging rights why did they risk the lives of the 2 pilots when the plane could easily have been piloted remotely …?

evcricket
April 25, 2016 8:46 pm

Yeah the first James Watt engine was pretty useless too.
The depth of self-deluded thinking here is quite impressive. If you can’t see potential in this either you’re willfully ignorant or just lack imagination.

Titus
Reply to  evcricket
April 25, 2016 9:08 pm

And the first electric motor (1830 first electric car) was pretty useless too.
However, putting the two together have developed into diesel electric. Now there’s a mobile power house if ever I’ve seen one.
There’s a whole area of being ‘fit for purpose’. This is a fun project and has no avenue for future development.

MarkW
Reply to  Titus
April 26, 2016 11:05 am

180 years later, the electric car is still pretty much useless.

seapea
Reply to  evcricket
April 25, 2016 9:19 pm

Who told you Watts first engine was useless??

David A
Reply to  evcricket
April 25, 2016 9:19 pm

evcricket, explain the potential for those here. Other then perhaps long duration remote surveillance, what do you see Do you see commercial flight capacity?

kenwd0elq
Reply to  evcricket
April 25, 2016 10:01 pm

Actually, James Watt’s first steam engines worked pretty darned well. Of course, Watt’s engine was merely an enhancement of Thomas Newcomen’s steam engine, which had a number of drawbacks, among them losing power when the boiler cooled off too much. Watt’s external condenser solved that issue, among others.
But the Watt/Newcomen engines (and the generations of earlier designs) weren’t limited by some absolutely fixed maximum power, while solar powered airplanes ARE. Solar cells are nowhere near 100% efficient, but even if they approach that efficiency, they’re limited by the area of solar panels that can be deployed, and by the WEIGHT of the solar panels to be carried. And the weight of the batteries needed to keep aloft at night.
Perhaps someday, in some science-fiction future where solar power satellites can beam power via MASER to rectennas on the wings, it may be possible to construct “solar powered” aircraft capable of carrying some payload or passengers. But this is a stunt. A glorious stunt, but a stunt.

Reply to  kenwd0elq
April 25, 2016 11:25 pm

kenwd….your post is the second in this thread discussing beaming energy to the plane from space. Why not go all the way use a nuclear satellite and shoot the damn thing down with a proton beam weapon? More bang for the buck and truly at the frontiers of applied technology!

kenwd0elq
Reply to  kenwd0elq
April 25, 2016 11:56 pm

Precise beam control and collimation will enable to transfer enough power to make it fly, without transferring so much power to destroy it. Destruction is easy, especially if you have a MASER in GEO with sufficient power and skill to aim it. I want to provide more delicate power, CONTROLLED power.

MarkW
Reply to  evcricket
April 26, 2016 7:43 am

Please tell oh omniscient one, what is the potential that the rest of us ignoramuses are missing?
Or are you just being offensive for the heck of it?

Reply to  evcricket
April 26, 2016 8:06 am

If you can’t see the limitations in this you’re willfully ignorant or just lack some understanding of basic energy density limitations and power to weight limits. These are not going away with just “imagination.” Solar is inherently a high weight, low energy density power source. Trying to make it work in applications that make no sense is not a breakthrough, it is just silly.
I recall the Mythbusters making planes out of concrete for their tv show. They worked about as well as this plane and not one person looked at that episode and “saw potential” in concrete as an aviation material! Why? Because as this solar plane shows, making aircraft out of heavy things is poor engineering.

nc
April 25, 2016 8:48 pm

Guiding a landing U2 would be more fun than a bicycle. High performance mustang used with the U2, raw dino powered horsepower.

kenwd0elq
April 25, 2016 9:04 pm

“The plane took off from Hawaii on Thursday, resuming a journey that had stalled on the island of Oahu for almost 10 months.”
The flight had not “stalled” for ten months. It took that long to rebuild the airplane because it almost didn’t make it from Japan to Hawaii. It’s taken nearly a YEAR to get HALF WAY AROUND THE WORLD. Captain Cook could have done it that quickly, and a clipper ship could bring tea from China to London in only a couple of months.

charles nelson
April 25, 2016 9:07 pm

You know if they’d called it a solar-power-assisted Glider, and pointed out that it was travelling with prevailing winds etc, I could have applauded their mad-cap achievement. But to present it as ‘powered flight’ is insulting to the intelligence.
If it looks like a glider, and averages 40 mph over a long trip…it’s a ‘glider’.

Earthling
Reply to  charles nelson
April 25, 2016 11:42 pm

FYI, gliders don’t have propellers.

Reply to  Earthling
April 26, 2016 12:08 am

Earthling, stop being a smug know-it-all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_glider

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Earthling
April 26, 2016 12:47 am

indefatigablefrog April 26, 2016 at 12:08 am
Earthling, stop being a smug know-it-all.
Ha! your “Flak” caught me too.
Thanks for the link, good information. Now I know better.
michael

charles nelson
Reply to  Earthling
April 26, 2016 7:30 am

Huh?

Earthling
Reply to  Earthling
April 26, 2016 12:33 pm

Nice, friendly response from indefatigablefrog.

Rob
April 25, 2016 10:33 pm

I guess they have not yet harnessed theBarsoomian Eighth Ray.

Neo
April 25, 2016 10:47 pm

The plane took off from Hawaii on Thursday, resuming a journey that had stalled on the island of Oahu for almost 10 months.
You’d need a pile of meal vouchers on any commercial flight with a layover that long.

T Howell III
April 25, 2016 10:48 pm

Be cool to fly solar, soon as I get my wife past the fact she has to pee pee through a hole in the seat.

Robber
April 25, 2016 11:35 pm

I assume that no coal was burnt in the fabrication of the plane, and that no fossil lubricating oils were consumed, and that the support team did not fly on commercial airlines but used wind-powered yachts.

Earthling
April 25, 2016 11:39 pm

Before mocking any innovation, look back to see what was done previously.
In 1916, a few years after Bleriot flew across the English Channel in a single seater monoplane, a war was being fought that included biplanes and triplanes made mostly from wood and canvas using rotary engines.
Maybe solar powered flight will be the accepted form of transport in 2116, who knows?
For the record, I have my doubts, but in 1920, some people were wondering where all the horses would be stabled in the year 2000. Ö¿Ö

Reply to  Earthling
April 26, 2016 12:05 am

“Maybe solar powered flight will be the accepted form of transport in 2116, who knows?”
Isn’t this called argument from ignorance?
Actually, we do know that it won’t. Because whilst engine power could be scaled rapidly to suit the needs of propelling heavier and heavier aircraft across the sky on longer and longer journeys – we know that we can not increase the power of the sunlight falling on the upper surface of an aircraft in the same manner.
We can increase the efficiency of the panels towards over time. But never beyond unity.
So the fundamental physical limit will always exist.
Perhaps we can make these vehicles bigger and bigger and eventually carry a small crew and a handful of passengers on novelty flights – at extreme danger to all involved.
In which case we can look to history and see that the technology would be more akin to the development of the giant airships of the early 1900’s.
Only, more stupid and costly and probably less effective.

Udar
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
April 26, 2016 7:37 am

We can always add a really large lens to the plane :)))
Alternatively, we can use gravity generator to create gravity lens to focus light from much larger area.
Or we can use teleported at the sun to beam energy directly into the plane. Now that would really be solar powered!
And one mustn’t forget magic. There is always magic spell or to get sun to shine brighter on your plane.

Reply to  Udar
April 26, 2016 11:48 am

Yes, these are extremely practical suggestions.
In fact, in the early years of the development of airplanes, it was common to use both the principles of engineering and magical incantations in order to successfully transport people through the sky.
Hence the expression “on a wing and a prayer”.
Of course, the political left are no longer interested in transforming the world via praying.
They will simply mandate that commercial solar planes must fly by passing a law to that effect.
The laws of physics must be conformed to the laws of man.

Earthling
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
April 26, 2016 12:35 pm

Who’s a smug know-it-all?

Reply to  Earthling
April 26, 2016 1:35 pm

Well, it takes one to know one!!!
As long as everyone is having fun.
This is only a silly internet blog thread, after all. Nobody gets fined or assassinated!!

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
April 27, 2016 7:13 am

Flying from direct sunlight will never be suitable as that can’t provide enough power even not with 100% efficiency of the solar panels for any commercial flights. The only probable alternative is with batteries loaded with solar/wind/hydro/geo on the ground – if you like to fly “renewable” – or nuclear or fossil if it doesn’t make a difference for you…
The main problem then is the very poor ratio between stored energy and weight / volume, both important for long distance flights. It will cost a lot of research to get that substantially better. Only then such flights may have merit, as good as for 100% electric cars…

MarkW
Reply to  Earthling
April 26, 2016 7:46 am

There are some who’s mind’s are so open, that their brains have fallen out.
All of the technologies being used here are quite mature. Where is the improvement going to come from to take this from a toy to a useful product?

Reply to  MarkW
April 26, 2016 8:09 am

“There are some who’s mind’s are so open, that their brains have fallen out.”
ha! great line!

April 25, 2016 11:40 pm

Those props on shafts, those shafts would not be lubricated by OIL, would they, destroying the Utopian nobility of ‘no fossil fuel’? Maybe they have plastic bushes, but if so, no doubt the plastic was not made from natural gas or other fossil fuels.
It’s an expensive joke. No points for credible effort.

Matt Bergin
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
April 29, 2016 10:34 pm

No need for fossil oil. They could have been lubricated with whale oil but somehow I can’t seem to picture the WWF or Greenpeace killing a whale and rendering the oil to use in their plane. 🙂

John in Oz
April 26, 2016 12:00 am
John in Oz
Reply to  John in Oz
April 26, 2016 12:04 am

Sorry, should have left a comment with the above link.
Good spoof of electric cars (or anything else that is large, heavy and needed to move more than a grain of rice.
Is this a case of ‘First they make fun of us’ etc, etc “Then we win”? Probably not.

4TimesAYear
Reply to  John in Oz
April 26, 2016 12:37 am

Hilarious!

Stephen Richards
Reply to  John in Oz
April 26, 2016 2:02 am

I just bought an SUV. I looked at the Mitsubishi PHEV. 50kms, if you are lucky, on batteries 1.9litres / 100kms. 30mpg on diesel. HTF is that saving the planet. My nearest town, of sorts, is 50kms. So I would have to drive to town, stay the day, come back before dark with a battery not fully charged if it was battery only car.
It’s a useless technology. Yes some time in the very distant future someone might come up with a battery solution for power but, hey, the energy density would need to be similar to FFs and charge time about 5 mins.

Matt Bergin
Reply to  Stephen Richards
April 29, 2016 10:55 pm

Stephen if they ever get a battery up to the power density of fossil fuels I would not want to be anywhere near it let alone sit on top of it inside a car. Batteries are very dangerous because they cannot be shut off. I maintain inverter power supplies at work and it is scary to work on large banks of batteries. Storage batteries have a very low internal resistance and will supply a huge current into anything that shorts out the terminals and this can lead to the battery exploding. I can not imagine how big the explosion would be from a shorted “fossil fuel” power density level battery bank. I think I will pass.

Reply to  John in Oz
April 26, 2016 10:24 am

It’s good to see some of this stuff getting parodied in popular culture. It’s a welcome change from the ra ra hype of the late night comedians.

commieBob
April 26, 2016 12:11 am

The crucial question about new technology is whether a breakthrough is required to make it work. If a breakthrough is required, all the money in the world might not be enough to bring about the technology. Our fearless leaders don’t understand that.
With current technology, electric airlinerss are impractical. We need a breakthrough in energy storage. I wouldn’t bet on it happening any time soon.
There is a book that everyone planning technology needs to read and understand:

In Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned, Stanley and Lehman begin with a surprising scientific discovery in artificial intelligence that leads ultimately to the conclusion that the objective obsession has gone too far. They make the case that great achievement can’t be bottled up into mechanical metrics; that innovation is not driven by narrowly focused heroic effort; and that we would be wiser (and the outcomes better) if instead we wholeheartedly embraced serendipitous discovery and playful creativity. link

In other words, breakthroughs happen when we stumble over them. They can’t be forced into existence.
Anyone who thinks this solar powered airplane presages solar powered airliners is living in cloud cuckoo land.
What will presage electric airliners will be the mother of all breakthroughs in energy storage.

commieBob
Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 26, 2016 8:08 am

In Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned, Stanley and Lehman …

🙂
Three books would provide an innoculation against charlitains:
Why Greatness Cannot Be Planned by Stanley and Lehman
Expert Political Judgment by Tetlock
The Master and his Emissary by McGilchrist
Nobody should be able to get out of university without reading these three books. It would prevent so many stupid mistakes.

April 26, 2016 12:18 am

“It’s a new era. It’s not science fiction. It’s today, It exists.” Piccard told CNN from California after his successful voyage.
And that was actually what he said when, upon landing, he was informed that former male athlete Caitlyn Jenner had won Glamour Woman of the Year.

pb
April 26, 2016 12:27 am

The sheer industrial brilliance and generations of scientific might that have enabled solar tech to fly – awesome. Can you imagine how shocked solar worshippers would be if you lifted the sheet on the industrial might and public coin holding the whole edifice up.

April 26, 2016 12:32 am

We’ll probably end up with renewable powered planes at some point in the next few decades due to this obsession. We’ll probably end up using hydro, wind, solar and biomass to generate energy to create a fuel, which we will then load into jet engines.
Or maybe we will power some planes exclusively from bio-fuels.
And everyone will say – “see, they said it couldn’t be done. A “solar” plane.”
Boringly, this will almost inevitably happen in the current political climate.
Meanwhile, we will be ignoring that vast quantities of perfectly suitable fuel lie beneath our feet.
Or maybe in the future socialist utopia, only members of the U.N. will be allowed to use planes.
So that they can attend urgent conferences on “saving the planet”.

4TimesAYear
April 26, 2016 12:35 am

Could have gotten a clue from solar powered cars. I don’t think they’re very practical either. Everything that’s supposedly renewable sure seems to take up a lot of space. Wind turbines, solar, ethanol….we will have no place left to grow food.

April 26, 2016 12:38 am

Just as they had to re-invent the windmill and rename it “wind turbine” in order to try to pretend it was something new and any better than the old windmills that were rejected so long ago, so if you want “renewable” transport, then the obvious answer is the good old sailing boat … with the obvious draw back that its a lot slower, more expensive, prone to piracy, requires many more people and basically much more dangerous.
That is why they constantly try to replace the sail with some kind of “hi tech” device that is basically a sail, but gives the impression it is something new and will break the laws of physics and make wind viable.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
April 26, 2016 2:50 am

I believe some of the America’s cup sail boats use a “fixed” type sail which is more like a wing from an aircraft and much more efficient than a typical sail.

BoyfromTottenham
April 26, 2016 1:22 am

Hi from Oz.. Thanks for your insightful post Scottish Sceptic. That triggered another thought – I wonder if the (real) mech and elec engineers that they must use to design stuff like electric cars and wind turbines have moments of ‘cognitive dissonance’ where they realise the intrinsic futility of their work, or are they such green ‘true believers’ that they can ignore reality indefinitely? Or maybe they are just doing it for the money…

Owen in GA
Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
April 26, 2016 6:39 am

I think most of the engineers go into the projects knowing that the product is a political ploy, but have the integrity to try to make the vehicles as useful as the technology will allow.
Every real-world engineering decision is a compromise between cost and utility. There are certain safety bottom lines that can’t be crossed, but once those are covered, it is about making a product that will make the company money. Sometimes the product you design doesn’t make any money, but buys the company regulatory overhead to sell products that do make money. Thus you make a certain number of nearly useless electric vehicles in order to meet the CAFE standards to enable the sale of overpriced trucks and SUVs.

MarkW
Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
April 26, 2016 7:52 am

As an engineer, if I’m hired to build something, I will build it. The only time cognitive dissonance would come into play for me would be if the device I was building was for some kind of destructive purpose.
If the customer wants to waste his/her money, that’s the customer’s business, not mine.
If they ask my opinion, I will give them my honest opinion. If they don’t, then once again, that’s their business.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  MarkW
April 26, 2016 1:18 pm

A lot of them get disillusioned in the cause. If they are doing it for the job, it’s nothing. However, if they think they are there to make a difference, then it’s frustrating beyond belief
I see the same with TCEQ employees. They go in thinking they are Planeteers and industry is evil, and then they end up issuing fines over incomplete paperwork and computer crashes. Some try and delude themselves that they are helping industry (permitting is the worst on this, as they often get the idea to “write permits for the common person” and come up with a result that is not easily usable by either expert or layman), but most others just get cynical and transfer to industry or private consulting.

michael hart
April 26, 2016 1:39 am

A single man crossed the English Channel to France in a human-powered aircraft 37 years ago. Imagine what could be achieved if all the greenies were forced to travel this way to their protests.
Heck, they could even go to conferences in cold dark places where solar cells don’t work.

Richard of NZ
Reply to  michael hart
April 26, 2016 2:11 pm

Even more interesting is the fact that the aircraft used, Gossamer Albatross, evolved into the Gossamer Penguin which was solar powered. A even later development, Gossamer Challenger also solar powered,flew from Paris to Manston.
It seems that little progress has been made in the past 30 odd years. The first round the world flight by conventional aircraft occurred in 1924, just 21 years after the brothers Wright first attained controlled powered flight. It would appear that development of solar flight is happening much slower than technologies that had some actual, as opposed to theoretical, potential.

son of mulder
April 26, 2016 1:57 am

Phileas Fogg would not feel threatened.

Harry Passfield
April 26, 2016 2:17 am

solar planes are not restricted by fuel payload, and can reach very high altitudes, because they don’t depend on burning fuel with oxygen for their power

We tend to call ’em satellites when they get that high. Nothing new under the sun.

Catcracking
Reply to  Harry Passfield
April 26, 2016 10:24 pm

Gee, and I thought planes fly because they get lift from the air (mostly Nitrogen and Oxygen with trace CO2) passing above and below the wings carefully designed to produce lift? No lift needed?

April 26, 2016 2:19 am

It is a lovely piece of work that has about as much relevance to the future of practical transport as the man-powered aeroplane. If you truly want renewable powered long distance transport, sailing ships are far more practical. You can even carry passengers. Some of my ancestors got here that way.

Slipstick
April 26, 2016 3:13 am

What is wrong is not with renewables but with the soda-straw view, absolutist, critical thought free spins such as this article. If the impracticality of a solar powered cargo plane is a metaphor for what is wrong with renewables, it is also a metaphor for what is wrong with coal, since a coal powered plane would be even less practical. Trying to make a point about renewables in general using this example is simply ludicrous.
Consider that solar powered drones for surveillance and dirigibles for short haul cargo movement are eminently practical.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Slipstick
April 26, 2016 6:43 am

Ahh, but if I process that coal into a liquified gaseous form and put it into the jet engines I can fly a 777 on it (with some engine and fuel system modification). I can’t do that with solar.
Is it practical? No, but if liquid fuels are unobtainable and coal is cheap and plentiful, that is what I would do!

MarkW
Reply to  Slipstick
April 26, 2016 7:55 am

Ahh, the frustration of the true believer. It’s the perfect way to start the morning.
Nobody is proposing that we build a coal powered plane, so your analogy is ludicrous on it’s face.
Much like yourself.
On the other hand, the backers of this project are the ones who are claiming that it can replace fossil fuel powered planes, and by that they mean petroleum products.
I love the angst of the warmista, it smells like victory.

dmacleo
Reply to  Slipstick
April 26, 2016 9:47 am

true, being the guy that stands on the wings in mach .8 at approx 35K ft trying to shovel coal into the fan bypass ducts in a manner that gets it into the compressor stages would truly suck….

Gamecock
April 26, 2016 3:13 am

I’ve seen this sort of head fake with cars.
The tech here is with the PLANE, not the solar. Solar still sux.

Tom in Florida
April 26, 2016 4:37 am

So what happens when this plane encounters a strong head wind?

Alan Davidson
Reply to  Tom in Florida
April 26, 2016 4:56 am

Goes into reverse……….

Russell
Reply to  Alan Davidson
April 26, 2016 7:15 am

Westerly winds they could never go back just west to east around and around.

Reply to  Alan Davidson
April 26, 2016 11:38 am

Tumbleweed.

tadchem
April 26, 2016 4:38 am

Just wondering whether Bertrand Piccard is related to the twins Auguste Piccard and Jean Piccard, 19th century balloonists…

MarkW
Reply to  tadchem
April 26, 2016 7:56 am

I was wondering if he is related to Jean Luc Piccard.

Reply to  tadchem
April 27, 2016 11:17 am

He is indeed a member of the famous Piccard family:
Grandfather Auguste Piccard was the first to reach the high stratosphere with a balloon and father Jacques Piccard was an underwater explorer into the lowest depths of the oceans.
Bertrand Piccard and Brian Jones did perform the first around the world non-stop balloon flight.
The airplane flight is performed with the help of a meteorologist in my country, David Dehenau, to find the best wind directions at different heights, who also helped them with their balloon flight and also Steve Fosset with his first ever solo balloon flight non-stop around the world… The Piccard/Jones balloon flight was completed in 19 days, 21 hours and 47 minutes, Steve Fosset even faster: 13 days, 12 hours and 16 minutes. Compare that to the plane, which needs about a year…

Jeremy Meredith
April 26, 2016 4:41 am

You guys are all the same people who said 100 years ago that aeroplanes would never replace the reliable dirigible. Have fun in the shadow of the adoption curve.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Jeremy Meredith
April 26, 2016 6:39 am

False equivalence there, Jeremy. Fun to Believe, though, huh?
Enjoy your ignorance.

Reply to  Jeremy Meredith
April 26, 2016 6:45 am

If you look back to the 1920’s and 1930’s then you will see that an equally large group of people believed that airships were the future of air-travel. They were wrong.
And frankly, giant airships were of far more practical use than this concept will ever be – with regard to transportation of passengers and goods.
You are simply proposing that we are equivalent to the people who failed to see that the future was rigid aircraft. But we are the people proposing that the future is the continuation of this proven tech.
We are clearly equivalent to those people, since we are saying the same thing.
Why are you not suspecting that it will be you who has fun in the shadows?
This solar powered glider technology will never transport significant quantities of people or goods.
Not unless somebody can find a way to increase the brightness of sunlight by several powers.
It may be useful for other purposes.
So far, it is just good at drawing attention and wasting massive amounts of energy and money.

Akatsukami
Reply to  Jeremy Meredith
April 26, 2016 7:01 am

No problem, Jeremy. We’ll just destroy a few 7×7’s in spectacular accidents; then we’ll be all set to replace them with an immature technology that would have (literally) crashed and burned if it hadn’t had a government monopoly to fall back on. That’ll show ’em!

Owen in GA
Reply to  Jeremy Meredith
April 26, 2016 7:20 am

Engineering is a dreadful field. It keeps having to deal with the practical limitations of technology.
At the altitudes this flies, there is probably about 1000watts/square meter possible to collect at high noon. Solar cells are what, about 40% efficient at the best? This gives 400 watts/square meter maximum collected.
A 777 engine at takeoff produces about 117MW. To produce this much power, would require 292,500 square meters of solar cells per engine!
Now if we give solar technology the chance to break the laws of thermodynamics and achieve 100% efficiency that is only 117,000 Square meters per engine at noon to create the thrust of a 777 at takeoff.
For comparison, the wing area of a 777 is 427.8 square meters. In other words you would need the surface area in a perfect solar cell case of 546 Boeing 777 wings per engine to fly a modern airliner.
A soccer pitch is approximately 7140 square meters so the engineering challenge is to make a plane with enough flat surface area to encompass 16 soccer pitches light enough to actually fly on one 777 engine’s worth of thrust. (provided we can break the laws of thermodynamics and produce 10% efficient solar cells). This is the reason people here scoff at this idea.

Owen in GA
Reply to  Owen in GA
April 26, 2016 7:22 am

oops 100% in that last parenthesis.

Reply to  Owen in GA
April 26, 2016 11:06 am

Owen.
Thanks.
You saved me from having to work out these obvious details (at least obvious to a competent engineer) and post them here.
Your post is exactly why a solar airplane will never be practical.
And these details are exactly why the liberal ignoranti, who took philosophy or economics instead of hard science, will never understand.
Instead, they will wave their arms and say the equivalent of “because unicorns.”

Reply to  Owen in GA
April 26, 2016 11:29 am

Thank you for this patient explanation.
Albeit a “back of an envelope” analysis.
And what we discover from the back of the envelope is that this kind of vehicle is doomed to always have a very small envelope.
In a sense, the huge amount of money squandered on this silly stunt project, may serve to highlight the deficiencies which are immediately clear to people familiar with the existing fundamental limits.
Perhaps if we were situated near to the binary star and massive energy source Cygnus X-1, then we could more successfully harness the planet-bound radiation to create an experimental solar craft that could break the sound barrier. We could call it, Experimental Craft One. Or maybe X-1 for short.
This idea is brilliant.
Where is my X-prize?
(Apologies for indulging in yet more silliness.)

Billy Liar
Reply to  Jeremy Meredith
April 26, 2016 8:59 am

You are obviously unaware that airplanes got where they are today with the use of a compact lightweight energy source – Jet A-1.
Solar is a diffuse energy source with a heavyweight concentration device which even if it was 100% efficient would still not compete with kerosene.
Have fun watching solar fail to be adopted (without subsidy).

April 26, 2016 5:05 am

Why didn’t they simply add a windmill to the front and back of the plane to capture the power of the wind? Then that thing could have stayed aloft for ever and flown around the world in a matter of minutes and the power grew exponentially as it gained speed!

Reply to  atthemurph
April 26, 2016 11:31 am

Your idea is being sidelined already.
Quite possibly due to the conspir&cy by “Big Oil” to deny people access to exponentially self-increasing power sources.

benofhouston
Reply to  atthemurph
April 26, 2016 1:49 pm

I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or not.
If you aren’t, please look up the second law of thermodynamics.
If you are, that joke stopped being funny when people were seriously recommending it.

April 26, 2016 5:14 am

Really good posting.
The solar plan did one thing that airplanes can do – fly a man through the air and it did that one thing to s large extreme – all around the world. It can not do a lot of things that planes typically do, carry significant cargo, deal with adverse weather, travel at a high speed, maneuver… The one thing it does well kind of misses really does not embrace the “value” that planes can provide. Similarly producing kwh is a singular value that does not encompass the widespread benefits available from more conventional generation technology. Adding up the applications and kwh produced will not mean that renewables can replace conventional generation.

Bruce Cobb
April 26, 2016 5:29 am

A useful thought-experiment is to imagine that the anti-carbon mass delusion hadn’t happened. Would a stunt like this have ever gotten funding? Doubtful. And if it had, what they’ve “achieved” would mostly be deservedly laughed at and derided. To call this an “accomplishment” makes a mockery of true accomplishments like that of the Wright Brothers.

Mark
April 26, 2016 5:34 am

[snip] ‘Duh!’ Like it’s supposed to replace a real 747 or any other fossil fuel plane.

Amatør1
April 26, 2016 6:01 am

“Solar planes will never replace fossil fuel powered planes”
true … because in reality “fossil fuel” does not exist.

Mart
April 26, 2016 6:22 am

A 10 month gap in the trip? How come? Did they need to recharge it for 10 months?

Reply to  Mart
April 26, 2016 11:45 am

A fried battery apparently. Very expensive to replace. And the trip is only halfway done.

CaligulaJones
April 26, 2016 6:25 am

Every year, there is a “news” article that shows how students at the [insert name of local university] are getting great mileage out of their solar-powered car. Every. Year.
I guess its a step up from all Kardashians, all the time, but barely.

Resourceguy
April 26, 2016 6:30 am

Strap Al Gore to it for a flight and it will capture a lot more viewers.

Reply to  Resourceguy
April 26, 2016 3:54 pm

At Algore’s weight it won’t leave the ground.
Of course if we get all the hot air and BS removed he can pilot the “model” planes.
Definite sarcasm. Right?

Steve Oregon
April 26, 2016 6:43 am

I fail to see how this is any more meaningful than had they circumnavigated the globe with a peddle power plane. It’s nifty, but so what.

April 26, 2016 7:15 am

“But the difficulty of achieving this feat showcases why solar energy will never be a viable replacement for fossil fuels.” A very comprehensive statement, not supported by the valid argument made here about solar power for AIRPLANES. Solar power , stored in batteries, can certainly power automobiles – all of
Tesla Motors supercharger charging sttaions get most (or perhaps all)of their power from solar panels, which charge large master batteries used to charge customer vehicles either when there is no sun, or when there are no cars hooked up that need to be charged. Of course, the simple fact that this can be done (using massive govt subsidies, by the way) doesn’t mean that it makes sense to do so, even in the context of reducing carbon emissions. Nuclear power, in the form of advanced reactors, such as the molten salt reactors, which not even the most biased anti-nuke greenies can object to (at least not logically)
will be the solution to carbon free power that is cheaper than fossil fuel power, even coal power. Solar
power, or any unreliable power source, requires massive supporting back up capacity (usually fossil fuel
powered) that renders it both uneccessarily complicated, but a lot more expensive than simply the cost of the solar apparatus.

kenwd0elq
Reply to  arthur4563
April 26, 2016 10:03 am

The Tesla charging station at Harris Ranch, CA (about halfway between Sacramento and Los Angeles) is, or used to be, powered by DIESEL generators.

beng135
April 26, 2016 7:17 am

Thank you for flying Sunny Airlines.
Please notice the “fasten your seatbelts” light has been activated. Unfortunately, we have been slowed by running under a cloud bank, and the sun will set soon, so we’ll have to ditch in the ocean. Review your emergency pamphlets and prepare to take the position. Your seat cushions will act as flotation devices.
Thank you for flying Sunny Airlines, and have a nice day!

MarkW
Reply to  beng135
April 26, 2016 8:00 am

There’s your problem right there.
The power needed to light the “fasten your seatbelts” signs took too much energy away from the motors, and we are going to crash. Sorry about that. Now fasten your seat belts.

Reply to  beng135
April 26, 2016 11:47 am

And the pamphlets weigh too much. 🙂

James at 48
April 26, 2016 7:59 am

The underlying airframe technology is more useful for traditionally powered air launched rocket platforms.

Mike M the original