Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Aviation Technology
All electric commuter (9 pax) aircraft >

All electric commuter (9 pax) aircraft

Search

Notices
Aviation Technology New, advanced, and future aviation technology discussion

All electric commuter (9 pax) aircraft

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-22-2019 | 05:02 PM
  #11  
FlyJSH's Avatar
Day puke
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,865
Likes: 0
From: Out.
Default

Just where are we going to get all the electricity required to recharge all these "zero emission" vehicles? Currently (no pun intended) the US gets electricity from: (percentages are approximate)


Clean burning natural gas - 34%
A 500 year supply of coal - 30%
Evil, environment destroying nuclear - 20%
Snail Darter killing hydroelectric - 6%
Migratory bird killing wind -5%
And everything else - 4%

There are not many more places to put hydro dams, wind farm locations are becoming harder to find, and 'everything else' is tapped out too. So the question is, do we add more CO2 to the air or churn out more radioactive waste?

If one does the math for gasoline, the US would need to increase electricity production about 120% to replace auto fuel. And since every time energy is converted from one form to another efficiency is lost, that 120% is probably more like 150%.

Ahhhh, zero emissions!
Reply
Old 06-22-2019 | 05:15 PM
  #12  
Banned
 
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
No. No possible battery chemistry can provide the required energy density/specific energy. Chemistry is a very mature science, we're not going to suddenly find a new molecular structure when can store ten times the energy.

All we can do with batteries is improve the efficiency of known chemistry towards the theoretical max. Also improve cycle life and charge cycle degradation characteristics.

Right now mature (commercially viable) battery technology can get to around 200 W hours/KG. Theoretical chemical limit is about 1,000 Wh/KG.

Jet A is 12,000 Wh/KG...

There's no uncharted territory in molecular chemistry which is going to provide an order of magnitude+ improvement in specific energy. The answer is going too be biofuel.
Wow! A categoric no and no way ever. Those final word were rarely proven to be true. Remember what Dunning Kruger said...
Reply
Old 06-23-2019 | 07:28 AM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 2,014
Likes: 1
From: Retired NJA & AA
Default

I wonder how the time will be logged and how it'll be seen by an airline you're applying to. Turbine/Turboprop maybe? Might have to make an all new category.
Reply
Old 06-23-2019 | 08:29 AM
  #14  
Excargodog's Avatar
Perennial Reserve
 
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 14,261
Likes: 259
Default

Originally Posted by Aeirum
Wow! A categoric no and no way ever. Those final word were rarely proven to be true. Remember what Dunning Kruger said...
If you know of a way to change oxidation reduction equation values or repeal the second law of thermodynamics, well...don’t hold back.
Reply
Old 06-23-2019 | 10:51 AM
  #15  
:-)
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Likes: 1
Default

Originally Posted by FlyJSH
Just where are we going to get all the electricity required to recharge all these "zero emission" vehicles? Currently (no pun intended) the US gets electricity from: (percentages are approximate)


Clean burning natural gas - 34%
A 500 year supply of coal - 30%
Evil, environment destroying nuclear - 20%
Snail Darter killing hydroelectric - 6%
Migratory bird killing wind -5%
And everything else - 4%

There are not many more places to put hydro dams, wind farm locations are becoming harder to find, and 'everything else' is tapped out too. So the question is, do we add more CO2 to the air or churn out more radioactive waste?

If one does the math for gasoline, the US would need to increase electricity production about 120% to replace auto fuel. And since every time energy is converted from one form to another efficiency is lost, that 120% is probably more like 150%.

Ahhhh, zero emissions!
Powerplant nuclear waste are dry pellets that can be reprocessed, however, there is way too much political red tape to even attempt affording it. The government would have to do it for free. But that's really the only solution there is for zero emissions; Going balls to the wall with nuclear. Eventually we will build those reactors when we have no choices left. The question is how much additional climate damage are we willing to do before we build them.
Renewables aren't real, they are a theory on paper that require humans to invent science fiction technology.
Reply
Old 06-23-2019 | 11:19 AM
  #16  
Banned
 
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Excargodog
If you know of a way to change oxidation reduction equation values or repeal the second law of thermodynamics, well...don’t hold back.
I don’t. However, I could imagine an aircraft with battery power in conjunction with an efficient range extender (possibly nuclear) just powerful enough for cruise, regenerative speed brakes etc. The possibilities are many. To say that there will never be electric wide-body aircraft with certainty is simple overconfidence in ones own ability to predict the future. Another consideration is that aircraft of the future may all be “wide bodies” regardless of size.
Reply
Old 06-23-2019 | 11:53 AM
  #17  
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 4,153
Likes: 341
Default

Originally Posted by Aeirum
I don’t. However, I could imagine an aircraft with battery power in conjunction with an efficient range extender (possibly nuclear) just powerful enough for cruise, regenerative speed brakes etc. The possibilities are many. To say that there will never be electric wide-body aircraft with certainty is simple overconfidence in ones own ability to predict the future. Another consideration is that aircraft of the future may all be “wide bodies” regardless of size.
There is a Q100 flying around with a hybrid power plant. It uses smaller turbines for cruise and an electric assist motor when taking off and climbing.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/05...l-planes-soon/

As electric motors get more robust, powerful, and reliable, there may come a time where aircraft are powered by small nuclear reactors. Of course, this is many many years away but presents interesting ideas about aircraft design and capability.

Interesting concepts at play for the future.

https://www.defenseone.com/technolog...troops/154406/
Reply
Old 06-23-2019 | 12:58 PM
  #18  
galaxy flyer's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 5,244
Likes: 2
From: Baja Vermont
Default

Originally Posted by Aeirum
I don’t. However, I could imagine an aircraft with battery power in conjunction with an efficient range extender (possibly nuclear) just powerful enough for cruise, regenerative speed brakes etc. The possibilities are many. To say that there will never be electric wide-body aircraft with certainty is simple overconfidence in ones own ability to predict the future. Another consideration is that aircraft of the future may all be “wide bodies” regardless of size.
If it flies one day after your funeral it doesn’t matter.

GF
Reply
Old 06-23-2019 | 01:13 PM
  #19  
Banned
 
Joined: Mar 2019
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by galaxy flyer
If it flies one day after your funeral it doesn’t matter.

GF
It doesn’t matter anyway. It’s the same cat skinned more efficiently.
Reply
Old 06-23-2019 | 03:05 PM
  #20  
pangolin's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 4,083
Likes: 0
From: CRJ9 CA
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
No. No possible battery chemistry can provide the required energy density/specific energy. Chemistry is a very mature science, we're not going to suddenly find a new molecular structure when can store ten times the energy.

All we can do with batteries is improve the efficiency of known chemistry towards the theoretical max. Also improve cycle life and charge cycle degradation characteristics.

Right now mature (commercially viable) battery technology can get to around 200 W hours/KG. Theoretical chemical limit is about 1,000 Wh/KG.

Jet A is 12,000 Wh/KG...

There's no uncharted territory in molecular chemistry which is going to provide an order of magnitude+ improvement in specific energy. The answer is going too be biofuel.
There's other ways to store power and to generate power. A large capacitor is one way but I don't know about the weight and controlled release or stored energy.

Fuel cell for generating electric power is a possibility as well.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
AboveGround
Aviation Law
27
01-16-2019 02:06 PM
EZBW
United
131
05-04-2017 08:19 PM
cgull
United
3
12-20-2012 10:15 PM
APC225
United
14
05-29-2012 10:35 AM
woodfinx
Hangar Talk
16
08-04-2010 10:59 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices