By Robert Bradley Jr.
“… the usable range of a 19-seat plane goes from about 160 miles to about 30 miles. For a larger aircraft like the 100-seat planes that Wright is building, it’s less than six miles.”
“Electric planes could take to the sky soon, maybe even before the end of the decade. But they probably won’t be able to take very many of us very far. For now … you might want to just ride a bike or take the train.”
In a sea of government subsidies and PR stunts, the Deep Decarbonization movement regularly tees up alternatives to direct fossil fuel usage. Posing as technological optimists, the strategy is to change the mindset of mineral energy dominance, so that an attitude of “if government builds it, they will come” can be politically possible.
But what is physically possible is not what is economically prudent, defined as using less resources rather than more to allow other wants to be met.
The market picks winners, leaving losers for government. Rather than tax-and-spend, taxes should be reduced for individuals and business to allow greater market entrepreneurship.
Perhaps sometime in the future a revolution will take hold from what is today’s best practices, but by then, the technology might be wholly different from what the government is subsidizing.
——————————————-
When it comes to airplanes, batteries are the killer: too heavy, too bulky. Energy density, in other words. (And that electricity is probably fossil-fuel created anyway.)
This story is told in This is What’s Keeping Electric Planes from Taking Off (MIT Technology Review (August 17, 2022). Casey Crownhart provides a reality check on electric airplanes. Excerpts follow:
- Startups are exploring how electric planes could clean up air travel, which accounts for about 3% of worldwide greenhouse-gas emissions. The problem is that today’s electric aircraft could safely carry you and about a dozen fellow passengers only around 30 miles, according to a recent analysis.
- The limiting factor is the battery, in particular the amount of energy that can be stored in a small space. If you’ve folded your legs into a cramped window seat or been charged extra for overweight luggage, you’re probably familiar with the intense space and weight constraints on planes.
- Today’s batteries don’t have the energy density necessary to power anything but the lightest planes. And even for those, the trip will be about as far as a long bike ride.
- Batteries have been packing more power into smaller spaces for about 30 years, and continuing improvements could help electric planes become a more feasible option for flying. But they’re not there yet, and ultimately, the future of electric planes may depend on the future of progress in battery technology….
- The battery requirements to fly even these short trips are pretty substantial. Heart’s 19-seat planes will carry about 3.5 tons of batteries on board, for a combined capacity comparable to that of eight to 10 electric vehicles….
- Some in the industry are skeptical that such planes could be successful without major improvements to batteries. “The battery technology is just not there yet,” Mukhopadhaya says.
- In a recent report by the ICCT, Mukhopadhaya and his colleagues found that the range of electric aircraft would be severely limited with existing energy storage technology. “We were surprised by how terrible the range was, frankly,” he says.
- Using estimates for current battery densities and plane weight restrictions, the analysts estimated that 19-seat battery-powered aircraft would have a maximum cruise range of about 260 km (160 miles), significantly less than the company’s claim of 250 miles.
- Forslund argues that estimates by outside observers don’t give a true picture of the company’s technology, since they’re not privy to details about its battery pack and plane design. (The company plans to design its own aircraft rather than retrofitting an existing model to run on batteries.)
- Reserve requirements could severely limit the true range of electric planes. A plane needs extra capacity to circle the airport for 30 minutes in case it can’t land right away, and it must also be able to reach an alternative airport 100 km (60 miles) away in an emergency.
- When you take all that into account, the usable range of a 19-seat plane goes from about 160 miles to about 30 miles. For a larger aircraft like the 100-seat planes that Wright is building, it’s less than six miles.
- “That reserve requirement is ultimately the killer,” says Andreas Schafer, director of the air transportation systems lab at University College London.
- According to the ICCT analysis, batteries would need to basically double in energy density to enable the short routes that startups are aiming for. That improvement likely approaches the limit of lithium-ion batteries, which are used today for EVs and consumer electronics. Even with this sort of progress, electric aircraft could only displace enough aircraft to cut less than 1% of emissions from the aviation industry by 2050.
- In order for electric planes to play a more significant role in decarbonizing air travel, energy density may need to quadruple, Schafer says. This could require novel types of batteries to reach commercialization….
- Electric planes could take to the sky soon, maybe even before the end of the decade. But they probably won’t be able to take very many of us very far. For now, unless there’s a fjord in the way, you might want to just ride a bike or take the train.
Final Comment
Yes, electricity for bikes, golf carts, or kiddie get-arounds. But not for airplanes, much less rockets. And cars and trucks–that is political correctness in place of economic correctness. At a time of record federal budget deficits, deep decarbonization subsidies and edicts are an easy cut.
Every once in a while, some ignorant headline refers to “electric jets”. Google search finds them too. I suppose it’s more a commentary on changing language, like Kleenex. But it’s still ignorant.
There are electric jets: a lightning going from the top of thunderstorms towards space.
I thought those were called “sprites”?
https://nordicspace.net/2018/05/01/the-mysterious-jets-sprites-and-elves/
But which way is the “electricity” actually traveling ?
This might be a mechanism charging the ionosphere.
A nuclear jet would be more feasible than a battery powered one.
They were really cool, and interesting enough looked like the turbine engines seen in alot of the Star Wars universe. I had thought them anachronistic and that Lucas just used them for show – but now I know that, say the engines of the Razor Crest look exactly like the twin-turbine single-reactor design that was trialed in the 60s.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/slam.html
Planes don’t crash often, but they do crash. I can’t imagine the after effects of a nuclear plane crashing in a populated area.
Or a battery one? Geoff S
I don’t think that planes actually crash more than once
The radioactive material would be housed in containment at least as rugged as what is used for radioisotope thermal generators. Some years ago a satellite powered by an RTG ended up in the Pacific Ocean after the rocket launching it suffered a catastrophic failure. The wreckage smashed into the water at high speed. The RTG was recovered, repaired, then installed into another satellite – which was launched successfully. No radioactive material was released.
RTG’s (Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators) are becoming scarcer and scarcer since the last few were built. I believe the Russians are the only ones who might be able to make more, due to the idiocy overwhelming any current further progress.
They don’t put out much at only about 100W, but we use them for satellites, and rovers, because the extension chords from earth are just too long. BTW that’s why solar panels were invented as well.
These exotic methods of creating electric power have their niches, in remote locations where all of the other better ideas aren’t available.
That is what the Air Force was working on when they developed the liquid thorium fluoride salt reactor. They wanted a strategic bomber that could stay in the air for weeks or months without refueling.
Vancouver Canada’s Harbour Air is retrofitting all its aircraft to electric propulsion. I guess nobody told them it won’t work while they were doing their successful maiden flight.
An Oxford professor at a GWPF talk in London a few years ago showed a slide that stated:
“[An] A320 Neo carries 266 MWh of fuel energy. A battery pack carrying the same energy would weigh 1640 tons – 19 times the max take off weight. At 1 MW, would require 11 days to charge.” Also: “Moore’s Law for batteries. Not Applicable. Electrons in a microprocessor do not take up space but ions in a battery do. Only new battery chemistry will bring major changes.”
I don’t expect any battery powered passenger or freight aircraft of any economic worth in the near term, or even long term, if ever. Small electric aircraft may be usable though in niche applications, e.g. short island hops.
Everything comes down to power density. Batteries are heavy, and that weight is not consumed in use. Plus recharge times are far greater than the load discharge times. Consider how long you can run a car on 100 pounds of gasoline (15 or 16 US Gallons), vs. a Tesla’s 1000 pounds of batteries. The T3’s range is 262 mi. on full charge. 15 Gallons of gas can get you at least 300 miles, and more like 450. Fill time for the empty gas tank, 5 minutes. Full Charge time for the T is a *minimum* of 8.5 HOURS. But a battery airplane of that scope couldn’t get off the ground.
Power density of Solar and Wind is the same issue. Both are diffuse sources to the point of being ethereal (besides being definitionally intermittent).
another factor regarding fill/charge : you can completely fill a gasoline tank to 100% capacity – sometimes even more as I’ve seen friends fill all the way up to top of the neck pipe (not advised). Batteries are not to be charged past 80% and are built with charge governors to halt charging at that level. It’s unclear to me if the rated range values are based on 80% batt level or 100% level.
You are also not supposed to discharge those batteries below 20%.
That’s for lithium-ion and lithium-ion-polymer. Lithium-iron-phosphate is quite happy with being charged to 100% and held there, and it also doesn’t have problems with being discharged to nearly zero. Compared to lead-acid batteries, Li-Fe-Po4 batteries have the same usable capacity at less than half the weight, due to lead-acid not tolerating discharge below 50%. The same capability also enables Li-Fe-Po4 to have the same, or more, usable capacity as Nickel Metal Hydride at much lower weight.
There’s a company manufacturing Li-Fe-Po4 battery upgrades for hybrids that came with NiMH batteries. For a 2004-2009 Toyota Prius it cuts 40 pounds off the battery weight while increasing the usable capacity*. With the EV mode hack (it wasn’t available on North American models) the lithium battery can run the car for more than 5 miles where the original was doing good to go 3. Why Toyota didn’t add the EV switch here was because in the USA and Canada really short trips by car aren’t so common and running on only the battery as much as possible would reduce the battery life and decrease fuel economy by having to run the engine more to recharge.
*The total capacity of the new battery is less than the *maximum* capacity of the original but almost all of it is usable where the car’s system only allows the NiMH battery to charge to 85-90% and considers it “empty” around 20%. The company that developed the new battery figured out how to trick the charge controller into fully charging it and allowing it to almost fully discharge if needed – without any modifications other than swapping out the battery modules.
In other words the empty to full KWH of the new battery is greater than the 20% to 90% KWH capacity of the original.
Lithium-iron-phosphate is also a lot heavier than Li-Ion, so any additional storage capacity will be consumed by hauling around that extra weight.
Mst,
Stop it, you are using logic when fantasy is the theme. Geoff S
Except that small short-haul aircraft generally have extremely tight turn around times. If 30 minutes of flight time takes 2 hours to recharge then, in the words of Ricky Riccardo, “Lucy, we got a problem.”
Seems like they’ve run out of dehydrated water supplies.
The Pipistrel electric trainer aircraft has a battery pack that can be unplugged and replaced with a fully charged pack in minutes. Problem solved. Look it up on YouTube.
always remember a battery “stores” energy … a gas tank stores “fuel” that the engine uses to make energy … a huge difference …
Unless someone starts inventing new types of atoms, the battery chemistry is pretty much limited to what we already have.
Yes. Significantly increasing energy density is quite a frightening prospect. It changes from being a fire risk to an explosion risk.
Exactly, Moore’s ‘law’, economies of scale, etc., etc. are not applicable to battery storage. It’s just physics, and the sooner folks get it into their heads that this narrative is being entirely driven by socialists, scientific illiterates and economic rent seekers, the better off we’ll all be.
I have been flying battery powered aircraft for many years. So HAH!
How many passengers?
Picky picky.
Like the cute little electric water taxi, nice for tooling around a harbor while having a drink.
Or the electric “tug” now in service in Auckland port. Maybe there’s a reason it’s said to be the only one in the Southern Hemisphere! I suspect that it’s time spent “tugging” will be far less than it’s time spent recharging!
Apparently sitting around much of the time is what tugs do in Auckland
‘This powerful new tug, which has a 70-tonnes bollard pull, is capable of manoeuvring even the largest vessels and can undertake two or more assignments before being recharged, which takes just two hours.’
https://www.damen.com/insights-center/news/damen-s-first-all-electric-tug-sparky-delivered-to-ports-of-auckland
The problem with lightweight batteries is there are just not enough elements between Helium and Lithium…..🤔🤔🤣
And that only for private vehicles – a short hop electric is fine for Obama to fly from shore to his island mansion once or twice a week but how would it work commercially? Replaceable batteries for every leg of the trip?
At least electric cars would have an advantage over ICE engines in stop-n-go traffic but there’s no advantage for airplanes.
Quote: “how would it work commercially?”
It won’t. That’s the goal. Flying will become impossible for the masses because “fossil” fuel will be forbidden and electric is not feasible.
Indeed only Obama and the other reptiles will be flying, not you.
The German Green party (stagename for Bloodthirsty Communists) have stated this as one of the aspects of the “new society” they are striving for.
“Some in the industry are skeptical that such planes could be successful without major improvements to batteries. “The battery technology is just not there yet,” Mukhopadhaya says.”
Sigh…Here we go again. “The battery technology is just not there YET [emphasis added].” No one asks if it ever could be, because no one is willing to say “never.” But you can say that in the case of battery powered airplanes. All batteries operate by putting an electrical circuit between two atoms or molecules undergoing an oxidation/reduction (for some odd reason called “redox”) reaction. The oxidizer accepts an electron from the other atom or molecule, forming a compound – but not before that electron has done some work for us.
On a weight basis, the most energetic chemical reaction there is (excluding fluorine as an oxidizer) is that between hydrogen and oxygen. To achieve the 266 MW-hr energy load that the A-320 carries in the form of jet fuel (22,300 kg), one would have to carry 59,850 kg of oxygen and hydrogen – and then only if one could extract 100% of the energy from the combination. A fuel cell can extract perhaps 80% of that energy (and that’s a stretch goal). [Hydrogen (H2, the fuel) has a molecular weight of 2.016, and an oxygen atom (O, the oxidizer) an atomic weight of 15.999. When they get together, they form water, H2O, with a molecular weight of 18.015, and release a whole lot of energy.]
When you speak in terms of a battery, there are chemicals other than the fuel and oxidizer involved. Lithium is the fuel in any lithium battery. It has an average atomic mass of 6.94, and has two isotopes, Li6 and Li7; obviously Li7 is the more abundant, with Li6 making up only 7.6% of the lithium on Earth. Using only Li6 would cut down the lithium weight by 14.3%, but it’s only a couple of percent of the battery weight to begin with. Other elements, such as oxygen (atomic weight 15.999) and cobalt (atomic weight 58.933), phosphorous (atomic weight 30.974) etc., are mixed in. You can’t get away from oxygen, but need to hold down the amounts and atomic weights of other elements. It’s a shame that helium 3 isn’t chemically active.
Lithium is the next lightest element after hydrogen that is a fuel, and oxygen is the first lightest element that is an oxidizer, Obviously, lithium and oxygen together weigh more than a water molecule (27.33% more), and the redox reaction is less energetic than that of hydrogen and oxygen. And with the need to have other, heavier elements in the mix…well, one can see that there are no possible “breakthroughs” that will result in anything that can beat hydrogen and oxygen for energy per unit weight. And since hydrogen and oxygen already weigh more than the equivalent energy in jet fuel (not considering the weight of equipment needed to extract their energy), it is evident on the face of things that no battery will ever be light enough to power much of an airplane.
Interesting that you should mention the Airbus A320, Ilma (or is that lima?) – it was known as “the electric jet” by pilots as it was one of the first to use electronic displays and control systems. I believe that’s the origin of the phrase which has now been mis-appropriated by morons who don’t understand what it really means.
Hmmm. “Ilma” is Finnish for “air”.
I never heard of an Airbus A320, Ilma before.
the first time I heard electric jet was in regard to F-16 Falcon fighter early in its development; it was designed with a mostly electronic control stick rather than the physical lever & hydraulics of prior fighter jets, as well as a lot of electronic avionics.
The F-16 still has hydraulic actuators. And the stick is an electronic sensor to provide inputs to the flight-control computer.
I thought that was termed a ‘fly-by-wire’ aircraft?
I thought it was ilma, the capital “i” looks too much like the lower case “L” in this font.
You’re right Mark – zoom in on the Ilma and you’ll notice the first letter is slightly shorter than the second, so it’s definitely a capital i in front.
People who design typefaces (‘font’ is actually the style) that have different case letters looking the same need to be keyhauled.
As far as I know, the DC2 was among the first airplanes to be practical for paying passengers, and these have no where near that lift and range performance.
The Douglas DC-2 specs from Wikipedia:
Maximum speed: 210 mph (340 km/h, 180 kn) at 8,000 ft (2,400 m) · Cruise speed: 190 mph (310 km/h, 170 kn) at 8,000 ft (2,400 m) · Range: 1,000 mi (1,600 km, 870 …
Not sure how that compares to 30 miles range.
The DC2 was way better
Sure, the DC2 has 30 times the range, but on the plus side, the DC2 will only be 3% of the cost, so…
Oh, wait.
The DC 2 was just a step to the more capable DC 3 and relatively few were made since the DC 3 came into service a year later.
I was just being a pedant
But still there was nothing incorrect with what Tom said.
No! And I did not say or imply that there was. Just that the DC 2 was at best an interim airliner.
The Ford Tri motor proceeded it by 10 years and I think there were some smaller aircraft before that. The DC2 and DC 3 were big advances because they could fly and even take off on one engine making them a safer aircraft. The metal construction also was an advancement because the Tri motors that still fly require extensive inspection because of wood used in their construction.
Many of the sources I have seen made the claim that the DC2 or DC3 were the first planes that could fly passengers at a profit. None were technical enough to give sources.
TWA started out flying Tri Motors. They weren’t called TWA in those days but they became TWA.
TWA’s predecessor, was Transcontinental Air Transport founded in 1928. In 1929, it began the first transcontinental a 48-hour coast to coast trip with the first leg on the Pennsylvania Railroad overnight from New York City to Columbus, Ohio. There, passengers boarded a Ford Trimotor aircraft at what is now John Glenn Columbus International Airport, and flew to Oklahoma. Then they took the Santa Fe Railway overnight trip to Clovis, New Mexico, where they would take a second Ford Trimotor flight to Los Angeles.
A hangar at the southeastern corner of John Glenn Airport bears the logo of Transcontinental Air Transport.
In 1930, Transcontinental merged with Western Airline to be come Transcontinental & Western Airlines. In 1937, Howard Hughes took control. After World War II, the airline was awarded international routes to Paris and Rome, and in 1950 changed its name to Tran World Airlines.
Hughes was in his time what Elon Musk is now. Those of you too young to have seen Huges a cultural phenomenon should watch the excellent bio-pic “The Aviator by Martin Scorsese. Hughes was the basis for Iron Man.
I have that information stashed somewhere. My roommate had an A&P rating and worked for TWA in St Louis and LAX. Naturally when one is so close to an airline, you accumulate a few books on the subject. I think all of those are left after dealing with the estate. The family wanted a number of things from the estate which I gladly gave the however I think they left all of those books behind.
Just found the book “Legacy of leadership” A pictorial history of Trans World Airlines Copyright 1971 by Walsworth Publishing Company, Inc.
It says they started out as a mail carrier and added charters using Fokker Universals. They had to make money or they wouldn’t have stayed in business.
“The market picks winners, leaving losers for the government…”
Exactly. Anyone who needs a subsidy should not get one because they are have an unviable business plan.
Yep. When nobody but the government will fund your idea, then it is an uneconomic boondoggle.
The Internet was exactly that, funded by the government in the beginning
Wrong. DARPA funded DARPANet, which was used to connect some of the bigger universities together and make it easier for them to share data – for DARPA projects initially. But those sneaky students soon found other uses for it. Then private industry saw how useful it was, and building on the basic protocols, mostly TCIP/IP, created the internet; all without any government funding or subsidies.
What? You do not believe Al Gore created the Internet? Heretic!
Denier!
DARPA is the organization that designed and organized the Arpanet.
DARPA was started by President Eisenhower in 1958, the same time as NASA, in response to the USSR’s Sputnik launch several months earlier.
The Information Processing Techniques Office inside DARPA started on the Arpanet in 1967 as a means of connecting the IPTO’s working groups together, so they could discuss their projects and ideas, and share data.
Just a note, the agency was originally called the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). It got the “D” for “Defense” in the early 1970s, but it has always been part of the Dept. of Defense.
From: https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-DARPA-and-ARPANET
The most popular network protocol in the world, TCP/IP protocol suite, was designed in 1970s by 2 DARPA scientists—Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, persons most often called the fathers of the Internet.
In the spring of 1973, they started by conducting research on reliable data communications across packet radio networks, factored in lessons learned from the Networking Control Protocol, and then created the next generation Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), the standard protocol used on the Internet today.
In the early versions of this technology, there was only one core protocol, which was named TCP. And in fact, these letters didn’t even stand for what they do today Transmission Control Protocol, but they were for the Transmission Control Program. The first version of this predecessor of modern TCP was written in 1973, then revised and formally documented in RFC 675, Specification of Internet Transmission Control Program from December 1974.
During the development of TCP, Cerf and Kahn used the concepts of CYCLADES, a French packet switching network, designed and directed in 1973 by Louis Pouzin. It was developed to explore alternatives to the ARPANET design and to support network research generally. CYCLADES was the first network to make the hosts responsible for the reliable delivery of data, rather than the network itself, using unreliable datagrams (Pouzin coined the term datagram, by combining the words data and telegram) and associated end-to-end protocol mechanisms.
TCP/IP became the standard Internet communications protocol that allow digital computer to communicate over long distances. The Internet is a packet-switched network, in which information is broken down into small packets, sent individually over many different routes at the same time, and then reassembled at the receiving end. TCP is the component that collects and reassembles the packets of data, while IP is responsible for making sure the packets are sent to the right destination. TCP/IP was developed in the 1970s and adopted as the protocol standard for ARPANET (the predecessor to the Internet) in 1983.
From: https://scos.training/history-of-tcp-ip/
There were many different projects to connect computers at remote locations. I worked at a company that had networked computers all over the world many years prior to the introduction of the internet. The http protocols were developed at a university. If memory serves, that university was in Sweden.
The big one was SNA developed by IBM. It was designed for business and as such, it was a bit cumbersome but it still functions today. Originally it was transported over SDLC protocol however today it can be transported over IP protocol.
Except when the plan is to harvest the subsidies, then quit.
Except where the government of the country thinks it will be able to bring in international trade from the funded startup
A battery fire in the sky is not a wishfull event…
No fire in the sky is a wishful event.
Is that like “fire in the hole!”
That’s how it will end up, a hole in the ground on fire.
Unplanned / uncontrolled fire in the sky is bad. Controlled fire in the cumbustor is a most wishfull thing.
Nor is running out of battery charge in the sky.
Hey, here’s an idea – maybe they should add a “backup system” of jet engines and fuel tanks, which of course would operate far less efficiently since they would need to be powerful enough to carry the dead weight of the batteries in addition to everything else.
Or better yet, just ditch the batteries and electric motors altogether.
Kind of like what we should do with worse-than-useless wind farms and solar farms.
Any model plane or drone enthusiast could tell you that. Quadcopters tend to have the gliding characteristics of a stone. Model aircraft, which can glide, need power for the servos, and uncontrolled model aircraft have an unusual affinity for large trees.
If they had any brains at all they’d just add a wind turbine on top of the fuselage. It would keep the batteries all juiced up for the whole flight…..
I was thinking of a battery ejection system, in case the batteries die, to get rid of the dead weight for the obvious emergency. Or to eject in case of battery fire.
However, the requirements would include a rocket motor so the ejected battery pack would fly directly to Greta’s house for impact.
I think that individual cells would definitely have an ejection system for any solution involving flammable batteries.
Actually, that risk (running out of battery charge) could be mitigated by building paved “runways” in a straight line between all airports. No vehicular traffic allowed, as this could cause a collision. Extra advantage is job creation to build and maintain all those “runways”.
I should apply for a study grant. Biden is giving away money like it was someone else’s, so it should be easy to get that grant.
You’re not even allowed to check in a hoverboard today. Just imagine when the whole plane is a hoverboard battery.
Containerships dont like them either. Once a fire gets going inside a container deep in the hull, they cant be put out
The total loss for insurance purposes is astronomical
Yes, and this annoys me. I want to buy a fliteboard, but use it in Australia and in Italy. I would have to buy two batteries, one in each location and only pack the board itself. I believe the battery may not be allowed in carry on, being too large and/or too heavy.
An earlier commenter on WUWT mentioned lightning.
Ships don’t react terribly well to a lightning strike. But generally, they continue floating ……
Can someone advise on how a battery-powered airplane will do after a lightning strike, please?
Auto
I would imagine that electric planes would react to lightning the same way ICE planes do. In other words, it makes no difference.
I think every UN official, government handout seeker, and other virtue-sigbaling idiot headed for the latest COP conference should fly there on one of these ev planes.
That would solve a lot of real problems.
Often, is is forgotten that batteries don’t weigh less at the end of a trip. Fuel does. Out the exhaust it goes. So, airplanes land MUCH lighter than they take off.
Being a keen observer, I have noted how labored a plane is at take-off, when fully loaded for a long voyage. Sometimes a distressingly close-to-the-end of the runway take-off happens. Really long trip, really big plane, really full of passengers … and FUEL. And a couple of times in my life, we’ve gotten to the end of the trip and almost-but-not-quite landed, needing a come-around for another pass. I was struck by how NOT labored the same plane was minus all that spent fuel. Zoom… right back up for another circuit of the airport.
Just goes to show. Also, why some of the more far-fetched electric aircraft proposals have called for jettisoning (with parachutes) the spent batteries to mimic fossil fuel’s performance.
“Also, why some of the more far-fetched electric aircraft proposals have called for jettisoning (with parachutes) the spent batteries to mimic fossil fuel’s performance.”
That’s either going to make someone very wealthy, if it lands safely, or very burned, if it gets impaled on a metal pole.
Even if it works, and nobody on the ground gets hurt, I can just imagine what the recovery costs are going to be. Whole teams, whose only job is to drive a big truck (electric powered of course) just to locate, recover and return those batteries to the airport.
Planes flying over the ocean will make recovery a bit more problematic.
Over the ocean, they just have to look for the smoke from the burning battery.
Remind me again why we need to generate less carbon dioxide and why we’d want to even consider battery-powered planes or jets.
Too much CO2 will make food too easy to grow, and we want the human population to die off so we can control the pitiful remnants as they labor in squalor to support the elite in luxury. (IE Anger, avarice, pride, sloth, envy, gluttony, and lust.)
Lust.
Concubines.
Remember this.
Your grand-daughters, if they survive.
Auto
It’s why jets will circle for hours to burn off fuel as landing with close to take off weight is likely to collapse the undercarriage. If batteries provide the power source then you will need uprated (heavier) landing gear. Vicious circle.
or they discharge fuel over water if possible before attempting emergency landing.
as to uprated landing gear, that’s not a problem because you can employ the same standards as carrier aircraft landing gear, except now your gear will weigh several times more, reducing customer payload. It’s all about the weight in aviation.
Carrier deck landing gear have tires at 300 psi. Makes for very hard landings. Passengers don’t like hard landings. Been there done that.
Civilian passengers are generally averse to walking off a plane a half inch shorter than when they got on!
Cant collapse the undercarriage with full fuel load when landing.
What really happens is that a full check in maintenance is required before going back into service This might be a few days ?
This is the part the airlines dont like so they dump fuel ( quickly) or fly around at low altitude to burn it up ( slower)
A plane’s maximum take off weight is considerably heavier than its maximum landing weight.
If a fully loaded plane has to perform an emergency landing it will have to actually dump fuel to get below its landing weight.
Example a 747 has a maximum take off weight of 910 000lbs and a maximum landing weight of 688 000lbs.
That would require dumping 222 000lbs of fuel if it were required to perform a landing immediately after taking off.
A battery powered plane has to be able to land at the same weight it takes off at – this is a considerable disadvantage.
So even if an electric plane could match a 747’s performance it would still only be able to handle about half the payload.
They could always offload the passengers by parachute whilst circling the airport 🙂
HAHA. And the passengers could carry dead batteries with them.
Usually there is a one time over weight landing allowed with a safety inspection after landing. How far over may be the question.
yes. Its a normal use limit not a never to be exceeded number. The full maintenance check and maybe some replacement of parts that are now time expired etc that are the problem
Did Capt Sullivan on miracle on the Hudson flight drop fuel? I don’t think so, but they quickly gave up the option of a runway landing.
Landing weight has to do with the stress on the landing gear. Captain Sullivan didn’t use the landing gear.
Who is this Captain Sullivan of whom we speak?
https://simpleflying.com/the-miracle-on-the-hudson/
No need to dump fuel if the plane is on fire! Recommend landing immediately. We used to practise this in the sim. IIRC we had about 10 mins to get from 30000ft onto the ground. Good fun – in a simulator.
Simples,
sled launch the plane using a superconducting electromagnetic levitating runway from the top of a cliff , that would save battery weight.
now where is the phone number for Mr Musk ?
And you can use the same Superconducting magnetic rail to support and slow the aircraft on landing, leaving all that gear (wheels, suspension, brakes, steering) on the ground like gliders do. After all, you’ll never be too far from an open maglev landing strip!
John_C
” … leaving all that gear (wheels, suspension, brakes, steering) on the ground ..”
Like the Me-163 Komet [A rocket-powered ‘plane] did.
Very reassuring.
Not.
My father [and his buddies] flat out refused to fly captured Komets in 1945-46, even at Test Pilot Training School – ETPS.
One chance in three of coming down unharmed, two in three of being alive.
Based on German records captured
So, sense, I feel’
I wouldn’t be here ………
So possibly not the best marketing ploy, ” … leaving all that gear (wheels, suspension, brakes, steering) on the ground ..” I suggest.
Auto
Yes, and when a FF-powered plane has to return to the take-off airport because of a problem, it often has to orbit somewhere and burn off fuel, or dump fuel (arghhh), since the landing gear aren’t designed for the mass of a fully-load aircraft for landing.
Jettisoning batteries like the AA Class Mercedes. (see Saturday Night Live video)
Somebody does not understand how flight is made possible by engines which either drag or push the aircraft down the runway until lift is achieved via the wing structure to get its heavy butt off the surface of the planet.
Okay, that’s simplistic, but that’s generally how it works. If the morons in the climate change cult don’t understand that, then let them build their “electric” planes and go for it. Spectacular crashes guaranteed. I won’t be aboard any of their craft.
That’s an aviation “First” I wouldn’t want to claim.
“First person to die in an electric plane crash.”
An easy solution would be mid-air recharging like they do for military air craft now. That would be doable with existing technology.
Now, does anyone make any flying solar panels?
Yes. It has been achieved. Around the world in about 400(?) days
I reject the idea that that is ‘do-able’ with existing technology. Sounds good, but in’t. Here’s why: rate of charge. My peppy little Tesla has a 80 kWh battery, and weighs about 1,100 lbs. Granted, it wasn’t optimized for ‘flight’ (i.e. trimmed of all excess weight), but still, over 80% battery mass. For 80 kWh.
Now, assuming you could plug in the Tesla while traveling down a hypothetical ‘charging corridor’, where a charging truck would sidle up and somehow insert a charging dongle into the thing, at the present, it would take some 3/4 hour to charge the thing at the max of 120 kW input. SURE, a much bigger connector could be arranged, with maybe megawatt levels of charging (i.e. 5 minutes). But still.
So in that context, let’s look at your basic commuter jet. 737-300, 2000 knmi, 20,000 L fuel, 32% efficient engines, 125 passengers. 35 MJ/liter of thermal, about 10 MJ/l of propulsive energy. 10 MJ/l * 20,000 l = 200,000 MJ propulsive. Which is the same as 200,000 megawatt-seconds of stored energy.
Now, instead of (because of battery limitations) storing all that power, say it only can store 20%, and requires 5 in-air rechargings. Right? 20% * 200,000 MJ = 40,000 MJ per charge. At a minimum of 100 MW charge (requiring one hell of a cable), that’s till 400 seconds or about 7 minutes of connect time. Which has to be done 5 times over the trip. WITHOUT fail (ever!), or the bird falls out of the sky like a rock.
Just saying. It is far, FAR, FAR from do-able with ‘existing tech’. Power is kind of that way.
The original post forgot the /sarc tag.
Any engineer, and most anyone else, will tell you that when the topic turns to battery airplanes the sarcasm tag is pretty much hardwired.
The problem is that the recharge rate is at best, a little greater than the rate at which the energy is being used by the engines.
Basically you are going to have two planes flying along, tethered by the charging cable.
One plane has passengers and a small battery. The other plane is all battery.
They fly in tandem until the big battery is exhausted, then the first battery plane disconnects making room for a second, fully charged battery plane to connect. Keep this dance up until your plane with passengers reaches it’s destination.
It would work.
As for economics, don’t ask.
OMG – that almost sounds doable and some venture capital seeking nerd is going to steal the idea to setup himself and his friends with some cool research and development jobs (that won’t produce anything workable).
So an e-liner that takes off with passengers and crew, and is met every few miles by a stripped down flying battery that either plugs in and powers the e-liner (or just tows it….) until the tanker-battery is almost done. The e-liner then continues on to meet up with the next one, and so on, 100 rendezvous to cross the country.
Mark my words, some subsidy-seeking-missile scientist/engineer will be featured on Electrek or Interesting Engineering as the saviour of mankind for working on the idea mentioned above.
You’re making it too difficult. The government wants passengers to fly on an all-electric plane. Build something similar to a military tanker, except it generates electricity from jet fuel powered generators. This is transmitted to the passenger jet via an electrical cable not too different from the refueling boom the military uses to transfer jet fuel now. Voila! An all electric plane with excellent range!
Like other “great” ideas here, it is not energy efficient nor clean, but for rich passengers interested in virtue signaling, it is a solution.
By the way, this isn’t really very different from Boeing’s concept of batteries kept full by on-board ICE generators. In either case, you’ve got energy losses converting FF energy kinetic energy to electric (battery) energy, then electrical battery) energy to kinetic energy (propellors). Doesn’t save energy, fossil fuels, CO2, or even maintenance. As a retired Boeing engineer, I hope this stupid idea doesn’t affect my pension!
How many hours of flying would it take to recharge those batteries? How much electricity would the recharging AC need to do the job? I can envision upwards of 12 hours would be needed for the whole operation!
I have a really long extension cord that rolls up on a drum.
If you have ever used one without unrolling it from the drum, you will understand why that won’t work if a maximum charging current is required. I tried it once while welding – replacement long cables are not inexpensive!
I gather that the power lost in ohmic heating is not well dissipated when the entire wire is in one tight clump inside a dirt resistant housing?
You’ll find it’s much easier to swap the entire battery pack in flight. Now we’re going back to the pony express.
What, just have all the passengers leap plane-to-plane in midflight?
Getting from Point A to Point B might become quite an adventure.
Just change the entire passenger compartment to a recharged fuselage every 20 minutes of flight time….
I was going to submit an article about this after reading about one of these recently:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/first-u-s-all-electric-airplane-takes-flight-at-moses-lake/
A few selected quotes:
A Tesla has 6,831 cells – so this is >3x the number of cells. How stable is this? And what do you do if they burst into flame in-flight? Will they offer parachute training for the passengers before take-off?
So not very large. This won’t have any impact on emissions – there’s a LONG way to go. As for “a few hundred miles”, I notice that they didn’t even mention the range of this prototype.
At least he admits that the technology isn’t ready yet. BUT
So that magical non-existent technology will be ready for production in the next five years?
I can’t speak for anyone else but I certainly wouldn’t invest in something that requires a technology that doesn’t even exist. Might as well invest in free unicorn flights.
From the Alice website, the battery is 1/2 the 16,000 lb gross weight, so 8,000 lb. Using Tesla data the battery would have about 800 kWhr of energy. The motors are 600 kW units [2].
So, calculations are that the aircraft has 42 minutes of energy, minus the 30 minute reserve requirement leaves 12 minutes of legal flight.
The aircraft flew for 9 minutes..!
Usless a miracle occurs, electric aircraft will be limited to the Alpha Electro, flying 2 people for 1 hour.
https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/products/light-sport-microlight/alpha-electro/
Then there is the recharge problem, time and cost of the equipment.
The reserve will not be a requirement. We’re saving the world.
“Invest” – you got it – this is just a product to solicit venture capital money from deep pocket, small brains trust fund investors.
It is amazing how far along on the costly development path one gets before realizing, “This ain’t gonna work.” It’s not hard to figure out before even putting pencil to paper, so to speak. The core problem seems to be wishful thinking driven by the climate misconceptions and misrepresentations. There is a market demand, sadly, for exactly that kind of nonsense.
Politicians almost everywhere would surely approve. Like our Prime Minister here in New Zealand whose business experience is limited to wrapping fish-and-chips in a takeaway place. But that would not stop her virtue-signalling subsidy-granting ability!
The exhortation to take the train instead of flying – to save the environment! – bothers me greatly considering that the train ride costs more and takes longer. For me, a good rule of thumb is that the true cost of of a travel option will reflect its energy use and hence its dreaded carbon footprint.
When they say that the train has a lower carbon footprint than flying are they really including everything involved? If it’s more expensive then it must be using more resources, infrastructure and personnel per Km than flying, and all of that is not carbon free.
Another problem with replacing air travel with rail travel, is where do they intend to put all the new trains that are going to be needed?
Have they calculated how many new miles of track are going to have to be laid down to accommodate all of those trains? Have they calculated the cost of all that track, plus maintenance?
Yes, 100x – who’s going to be happy having their property expropriated to put in the rails – and if people whine about planes overhead, how much screaming will there be with more trains whizzing by?
I really think all the carbon footprint numbers and the LCOE calculations are seriously flawed or fraudulent.
It ain’t gonna happen. They have torn out a massive amount of the rail infrastructure over the last 50 years.
Electric airliners (I don’t want to incur the wrath of grammar-Karens by calling them ‘jets’) – e-liners? – would only be practical if there was a way to beam power to them as they are flying, similar to solar power satellites.
Since the green zealots don’t give up and they hate nuclear with an irrational passion, we’ll eventually see solar power satellites on the grid scale, but not so sure they could be reliably tuned and aimed to follow a jet – oops, e-liner, let alone thousands of e-liners on thousands of flight plans.
Might be easier to have the satellites beam their power to fixed sites, and then have ground based units scattered all over the country beaming power up to the planes.
Not sure how flight over oceans could be handled.
Once again, don’t even bother trying to justify the extra cost on an economic basis.
That goes without saying, green fanatics don’t care about economics… or reality for that matter.
MarkW
“Not sure how flight over oceans could be handled.”
Oars.
Next question.
Auto
This is the first comment that gives me hope here. And I want the beam for my Tesla, too. A “Tesla” after its namesake has no batteries on board, but has fabulous electric traction.
I can put my cellphone on a charging pad. Why not just put a bunch of those in the pavement ?
sorta /s
The problem with battery powered transportation is you have to haul around all that weight whether or not there’s energy left. Jets continually get lighter as they fly – greatly extending their range.
I would not expect any major breakthrough in battery chemistry unless someone discovers new low atomic weight elements with valences far higher than anything we know of. A lithium atom has only one valence electron, but is very light which is why it dominates the EV market. There are many anode/cathode combinations that produce higher energy densities, but most are not capable of multiple recharge cycles.
And recall that for every pound of fuel (kerosene) used, about 15 pounds of air are used and that 15 pounds does not have to be carried by the airplane. that makes a HUGE difference, because in a battery all the weight (battery) must be carried.
A great argument for a fuel cell. My dream is an ethanol-powered fuel cell, but that’s a really long dream.
How about having a battery fire whilst in the air?
“This is your captain speaking. Will all passengers head to the nearest exit, please?”
Might a battery fire occur after a lightning strike?
Just asking.
Auto
It’s about as likely as a fossil fuel powered jet exploding after being hit by lightning.
Not if the batteries are part of the airframe.
The first 787s were grounded when their relatively small battery packs onboard had some combustion issues. As power density and totals increase does risk also increase?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-lithium-ion-batteries-grounded-the-dreamliner/
I guess I’ve always wondered what battery planes will use to provide locomotion. Props seem to be the only real solution. Not the most efficient.
Planes will have to fly lower and slower.
If they fly low enough, they can save weight and power by not pressurizing the cabin.
1930’s all over again.
Electric zepplins?
If they fly really low they can save the weight of the wings too for huge savings.
Oh, and the rudder and the rest of the tail will be unnecessary too.
And the certification will be much easier too, because it won’t be under FAA rules, and that will help with costs
Propeller “efficiency” depends upon flight mode :-
take offis vastly different tolevel flightprops are good. . . in places.
(especially when rotating horizontally above your head)
Surely the green alternative is a glider?
Sling shot into the air with rubber bands?
Oh! Oh! The Navy slingshots jets into the air with rail guns. Rail guns run on electricity, don’t you know. So build a big rail gun with plenty of windmills and batteries to power it and just shoot planes to high into the sky so high they can just glide to their destination.
Problem solved. Next!
After landing, of course, the ground crew will need a BIG spatula – to unstick what’s left of the occupants from the cabin floor and walls!
The upgrade in Freon for cooling causing replacement of good air conditioning equipment because the previous Freon is no longer available is an example of the senseless at work. And all to save the planet. It reminds me of postal stamps before the forever stamp.
Maybe all this use of coal, oil and natural gas will save civilization from an ice age. Just speculating.
Battery powered airplanes. No.
WRT the upgrade of Freon refrigerants, this was the one of the initial scams of the enviromental movement. To promote the closing of the “ozone hole”, via the 1990 Montreal Protocol, the refrigeration industry and spraycan propellant makers gaveup their use of the Freons. What we ended up with was, refrigerants now costing hundreds of dollars /Kg and no improvement in the size of the ozone hole. A cynical person might think that the environmentalists were used to push the scam because the Freons were coming off of patent protection and prices would plummet. But now, at least the refrigerant makers get much more for the new patent protected refrigerants and everyone has forgotten about the ozone hole. But the alarmists learned the new method of getting what they want. As for electric aircraft, more Green navel gazing.
The Ozone Hole is still there.
I guess if any decent headwind is expected the flight will be cancelled. It wouldn’t affect me as there is no way I’d book on a flight on one of these things.
the denser the battery the bigger the fire when it goes bad … thats always the danger in storing energy (i.e. batteries) vs making energy (burning fuel in an engine) …
Wow, this brings new meaning to a “puddle-jumper” flight. The “Cabin crew, please be seated for take-off” and the “Cabin crew, please prepare the cabin for landing” could be merged into a single announcement.
Also save on meals/snacks/drinks, carts for running them up and down the aisle. “For a larger aircraft like the 100-seat planes that Wright is building, it’s less than six miles.” I doubt that in six miles they could attain the altitude to cross the Rockies, which means they’d have to choose less direct routes. On the bright side, no need for oxygen. More weight savings!
Why are we even discussing this? Don’t we all know that we need to increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere for the sake of the plants?
I understand that about 1000ppm would be a good optimum. That is what the plastic tunnel farmers reckon.
Also: Aeroplanes are a very good way of distributing it across the globe.
I’m waiting for the wackos like this to start gluing themselves to commercial aircraft.
Environmental Protesters Glue Themselves To Floor. They Complain They Can’t Poop. Conservatives Roar. | The Daily Wire
I doubt batter power would even be adequate to power a blimp.
We do not need batteries. For those who remember the balsa wood model planes in the late fifties propelled with a rubber band that was wound up. They flew pretty well. I am just not sure about scaling them up. 😉
Could also install pedal cranks at every seat so passengers could rewind the band during the planes flight. The company could then give fare discounts to passengers that put in an exemplary effort. Would work for the electric ones as well. Most people could generate 140 to 180 watts. Their combined output would help somewhat in a Flintstone kinda way.
😊 😉
You didn’t see the passengers on my last flight to Chicago. Their power-to-weight ratio is a good deal South of their IQ’s.
Yes but Tour De France teams might be able to go supersonic🤣🤣🤣
What happens when one gets struck by lightning or gets the static charge known as Saint Elmo’s fire?
Let me introduce you to Saint Peter.😰
The bolt goes straight to the battery. You’re a genius!!
Planes get hit by lightning almost everyday currently.
Duracell bunny says if god intended man to fly he wouldn’t have invented Spanish air traffic control….
True – but the devil would have!
Why not steam powered airplanes? The concept is ridiculous. So is towing a small trailer behind a Ford F150 EV. It has a range under 100 miles! Car companies and their customers have discovered a new form of stupid.
The trailer can have a 12KW generator and a few fuel drums, which would make the whole package more practical that the F150 EV sans trailer. Still, the ICE F150 would be better.
In the late 1800’s, a guy called Stringfellow built a model aircraft that was steam-driven. Lacking powerful IC engines, it was all that was available. I’ve no idea, however, if it actually FLEW!
Lead Zeppelins come to mind.
Or an Iron Butterfly
Sorry I can’t help myself🤷♂️
Nice one.
But what is physically possible is not what is economically prudent, defined as using less resources rather than more to allow other wants to be met.
Economics is under the control of the (world) government. Simply tax conventional fuel at a high enough level to make electricity cheaper.
Reserve requirements could severely limit the true range of electric planes. A plane needs extra capacity to circle the airport for 30 minutes in case it can’t land right away,
Again, that’s a regulatory requirement. Simply free electric aircraft from all safety rules, while doubling the safety rules on conventional aircraft. That’s how they killed nuclear power….
The E-planes could get a “few” more flying miles if they use steam catapults to get the planes up to take off speed, and maybe a bit more. Just think how exciting a 3g takeoff would be. 😲😲😲
“At a time of record federal budget deficits, deep decarbonization subsidies and edicts are an easy cut.”
That is 100% certain to happen. That’s precisely the only way to begin recovery from the néomarxist WEF/UN misery and extermination business plan. Leave corrupted institute’s to cope with the fallout. Don’t bail out Harvard, etc. Let the Heads of Sustainability Decarbonization departments, faculties, agencies, research chairs… deal with their own redundancy.
I used the research into electric flight, before we even have a fix for the worthless renewables grid as a marker for my 100% certainty of the Great Re-reset.
Way off topic, but I just wanted to comment on the generally very nice AI pictures used lately to illustrate a lot of the articles here.
One thing I noticed though is that if you really pay attention and zoom in one notices weird things in the drawing, like some tail-like structure in the front of the main airplane.
Using a rough Wikipedia number of 3.5L/100km per passenger over a jetliner fleet the weight of the batteries on that 19 seater is the equivalent of 80,000 or 90,000 passenger kms. All that capacity that’s just sitting their, getting a free ride, and unusable.
But I suppose weight is not important in flight.
“Weight not important”? For my first twenty-odd years of working life I was a “Weights Engineer” in a couple of aircraft companies. Important? You bet! It was my living! Now, BALANCE is another thing – one aircraft we sold was mis-loaded, and when it landed, sat down on its tail!
My biggest grip with the narrative is the focus on how to make planes more efficient as the solution. Somehow they expect to achieve range through improved plane technology, from the article above the need is about a factor of three, what is forgotten is that if the technology could be developed it could also be applied to FF planes thus reducing the 3% usage to 1%.
As an aside my problem with battery planes focuses on frozen batteries, but I do think a hybrid plane could improve performance by using takeoff electric motors thus reducing engine size and optimizing for altitude rather than takeoff and altitude.
My former co-worker and boss liked to remind vendors (we worked for an airline), “You know, when you run out of fuel, it is not like you can pull off the road and roll to a stop.”
Those of you who follow developments in the UFO world- know about the “5 observables”: https://www.history.com/news/ufo-sightings-speed-appearance-movement
The first, according to that web site is:
Solyndra syndrome.
Late to this thread, but can make an SME observation. It is VERY unlikely that there will every be a rechargeable battery more energy dense than LiIon. All the attempted candidates (zinc air being one hope about 10 years ago) have intractable lifetime problems (zinc air was charging dendrite growth leading to shorts). So it is beyond unlikely for there to be electric powered airplanes. Don’t need an MIT degree to figure that out.
Love the final comment.
… hey, hey… I had a plane when I was a kid with an electric prop.
… carried/ran it around the yard…. started “throwing it”…. you know, wanting it to fly.
… well, you know the story…. another broken toy while I was growing up.
… but…hey, I moved on to a Cox model airplane, small single cylinder engine.
… and you know what… it really did fly… I thought it was cool… yeah, I crashed it a time or two…
Sounds like flying cars may be the more economical way to go. Where’s my Jetsons car!?
The biggest obstacle to scaling battery powered commercial planes is strictly economics…….not enough crazy people who will spend money to board one.
Straight battery powered aircraft can do some niche tasks like air taxis or pilot training where endurance of less than 2 hours is not a significant hindrance. For point to point medium and long distance trips, either hybrids or hydrogen fuel cell power is feasible. Aircraft only need high power output for takeoff and initial climb, then cruise, descent, and landing need relatively low power levels, which is why hybrids make sense. Use the stored battery power for takeoff and climb, then use the fossil fuel power only to provide cruise, descent, and landing power, with the battery providing emergence backup power as may be needed.
My Cessna needs all 175 hp for takeoff and climb to altitude. But in cruise I have to throttle back to 150 hp at max cruise of 140 mph to not go over the rpm redline. I can reduce the power to 100 hp, but then I’m only flying at 90 mph.
In the traffic pattern I fly at 90 mph, so I’m still using 100 hp…
Maybe jets have different fuel use under those conditions ?
I guess airplane weight doesn’t matter in your world?
Aircraft weight is the major factor in the rate of climb. If it’s too heavy for the wing to lift and engine power to produce the lift, it won’t get off the runway.!
Once in the air, in cruise, weight doesn’t affect airspeed as much since the higher speed requires a much lower of angle of attack of the wing, and not much increase in drag, s a low weight.
I think that the whole electrification of transport is based on a misconception and lack of understanding of how the electricity grid works.
Generally speaking, renewables and nuclear run at maximum available output and cannot increase that in the face of extra power requirement.
(Hydro is the exception that is non CO2 emitting but can modulate output but few countries have significant hydro power so for the sake of this post I will ignore it)
France is a very good example as it (until very recently) generated 75 to 80% of it’s power by nuclear. Balancing of load and supply being carried out by gas generation. So significant increase in generation requirement to meet battery cars is met by increasing gas generation.
So to say that the charging electricity for French cars is 75 to 80% nuclear is completely wrong.
I have seen time and time again that is how CO2 emissions for electric cars is assumed to be but it is not so.
Yes things like interconnectors muddy the water a bit and the rate of expansion of renewables offsets what I said earlier, but U.K. specfic, our building of renewables does not seem to be reflected in the amount generated to the grid, presumably as older wind generators decline in output and some being retired as end of life.
And to compound the problem for our already shaky grid we are pushing electrification of domestic heating (Total domestic heating load being four times greater than maximum electrical demand but only for about four months of the year. Electrically it is complete and utter lunacy.
Looking forward to the first article that describes air to air electric recharging …!!
These problems are imaginary!
“Reserve requirements could severely limit the true range of electric planes.”
Just take a lesson from COVID authorisation and remove the reserve requirements. safe and effective – job done.
As for the limited range from batteries – Doh! Just run them off the mains grid, for goodness sake.
And almost any article I have read misstates the reserve requirements.
Commercial passenger flights must almost universally operate using instrument operations procedures: There must be enough “fuel” onboard for expected ground operations, takeoff, standard departure procedures, climb and cruise to destination, an instrument arrival procedure, instrument approach to minimums, missed approach and departure procedures, flight to a secondary destination which has weather forecasted to be above published minimums, and instrument arrival and approach to landing, plus 45 minutes of reserve.
Are there any aircraft on the drawing board which can legally take off with paying passengers and meet those requirements? What is the practical range of such aircraft?
There’s an easy solution. Power the plane using lightning and then you don’t need batteries. I ran a computer model and it works. A mere $1 billion will allow me to build a working prototype. The system will be working within 30 years, guaranteed.
Actually, we’ve had electric golf carts since the 1980s, but ICE golf carts remain common. Less stranding / more reliable although slightly noisy.
The last time I looked at Wright planes, the idea was to use aluminium-air batteries. The plane would have range of about 800 miles, enough for London to Paris or London to Aberdeen
Aluminium-air has many times the energy density of a lithium battery, with the downside it is not truly rechargeable. It is effectively “burning” aluminium using atmospheric oxygen in a type of fuel cell.
The plane is refuelled by replacing the waste aluminium oxide with fresh aluminium ingots. I expect this is a fairly quick process.
However the aluminium is “recharged” by re-smelting the oxide, which is a very energy intensive and inefficient process. The overall efficiency of the plane will be very poor when that is taken into account. Plus, those several hundred mile journeys would be better done in high speed train.
Why is anybody still talking about cutting carbon “emissions” ?
What’s the temperature outside at 30000ft?
Luckily temperature does not affect batteries much.
Oh wait……..
Aviation fuel has problems when it gets too cold, any water in the fuel starts to freeze at low temperatures and turns to slush. Airliners actually have elements to warm the gas and melt this slush before the fuel is sent to the engines.
British Airways flight 38 crashed at Heathrow in January of 2008 because of this problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_38
Two concrete examples showing the folly of electric aircraft are as follows:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNtLBLveeM (Pipistrel Velis Electro: Cool, But Not For The U S Market)
It has a mere 20 minutes of flight time to maintain reserve charge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72HifKoIb7A (Will they SHARE their Secrets?! Electric Aircraft Safety culture)
Excellent analysis of the state of the art and how safety will play a role in who wins and looses, by an actual working Captain and Line Training Captain for a major airline, who flies B737. He tends to paint too rosy a picture on the one hand, but points out facts that show this whole “industry” is headed for the dustbin if you read between the lines….