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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.