All electric commuter (9 pax) aircraft
#11
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!
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!
#12
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2019
Posts: 229
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.
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.
#14
#15
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
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!
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!
Renewables aren't real, they are a theory on paper that require humans to invent science fiction technology.
#16
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2019
Posts: 229
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.
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,104
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.
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/
#18
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.
GF
#20
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.
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.
Fuel cell for generating electric power is a possibility as well.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post