Gordie H

Agreed electric is isn’t zero emissions. But it does seem like it could be much more efficient overall. The electric motor itself (as I understand) is more efficient (compared to combustion) and almost maintenance free (no oil changes, longer life span, etc).

The biggest gains, I would think, would be in the taxi. Think about how much fuel we waste just sitting around waiting for takeoff. I'd also assume they engineered some energy recapture in the descent (in lieu of speed brakes)…just like electric cars do instead of using traditional brakes.


…just a layman’s perspective – I’m for whatever the hell works

JamesNoBrakes

Well, that's only 20% more than we are at today, so that seems doable...

Excargodog

No, a 120% INCREASE is more than double what we do today. A 150% increase would require us to produce two and a half times the electricity we produce today.

tomgoodman

“The Planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas.”

—George Carlin

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7wd_L3ejXIs

JohnBurke

No, they're not.

I followed the Solar Impulse as it did it's around the world flight, and visited it on the ground, as well as watched arrivals and departures. I viewed it as a historic aviation event, and found it a remarkable achievement.

That said, it was a very large airplane with a very light payload traveling at very slow speeds, and had to be cooled and charged for extended periods on the ground. It required a team of about 60 engineers and considerable ground equipment, flown in transport category large aircraft around the world to support the airplane. Despite the facade of efficiency, it was quite the opposite, burning a great deal of fossil fuel in two jet transports, and a lot of energy in diesel generators to run chargers and cooling equipment, while it was on it's mission. Add it in there and the solar impulse burned a lot more fossil fuel, and proved far, far less efficient, than if they'd simply jumped in a learjet, or even a 757, and flown around the world. Go figure. All that to carry one guy.

Solar Impulse was proof of concept, an exercise, and not the end result, but a step in a long journey. It's a far cry to point to economically viable electric aerial transport at this point in time, however.

Will it eventually be possible? Maybe.

galaxy flyer

Since when is the government “subsidizing” gas at about $12 per gallon? Where’s several trillion dollars in taxation coming from?

GF

pangolin

It’s a lie other countries tell their people to justify the high cost of gasoline.

JohnBurke

The government is not subsidizing the fuel; it's sold at a profit, and even then a large percentage of the cost of a gallon of automotive fuel is tax.

The government is making money on fuel sales; it takes in substantial revenue from fuel; the government is not subsidizing it.

UAL T38 Phlyer

U.S. Gasoline use:

Federal tax revenue:

Average US gas price in 2018 was $2.72 (statistica.com). By your assertion, we’ll call that subsidy $12.28 a gallon.

143 Billion x 12.75 = $1.756 Trillion in subsidies.

....or 52.73% of total Federal tax revenue.

Better check your math.

CrimsonEclipse

Let's see, there's a lot of stupid to debunk here.

The battery energy density myth was already debunked by ATPcliff.
(Good luck Cliff, it's throwing pearls to swine around here)

Nuclear: oh my, no.... Aside from the ridiculously obvious Chernobyl references, it's just not economically viable.
Wind: Cheap, profitable, doesn't screw the environment, can be used with batteries. Plenty of places to build it.
Solar: Cheap, profitable, doesn't screw the environment, can be used with batteries. Plenty of places to build it.

"Electrical transportation will require 150% more electricity capacity, bla bla bla whine whine"
No.
Most charging will occur during low utilization, meaning, at night. So when everyone is asleep, power plants are at low capacity. Charging electric cars, trucks, and airplanes, there will be enough generation without the need for upgrade.

Coal: (laughing) expensive, obsolete. Move along
Natural gas: it's good for certain locations. Still makes CO2, but the least bad of the Nuke, Coal, Gas solutions.
Hydrogen: It's a dead pathway. inefficiencies, weight, complexity. Might work for remote areas or some trucks. There might be a technical breakthrough, but I'm not banking on it.
Fuel Cells: Meh. Fuel cells require H2 or some other consumable. The companies who support it do so not for efficiency, environment, or initial cost. They support it because it requires a consumable that they can supply... for a price.
Hydro: a dead technology. You have what you have (in the USA at least) and that's really it.
Capacitors (or SUPER Capacitors as the marketers would say): Is a highly probable technology with price and density for most transportation solutions. You want to make money? Find the Cap company.

The oil industry IS subsidized heavily. Take away the wars we started to keep oil readily available and there goes half the cost. Decrease the demand for oil by 3-5% and we can control OPEC, not the other way around.

This new electric airplane is an interesting advance and a brilliant one. It fits a very specific niche in aviation and allows it to be a real world proving ground for the electrical propulsion systems with high utilization and cycles placed on the motors, batteries, cooling, and regulation systems.

The lack of moving parts and MUCH lower maintenance will REALLY decrease costs in addition to the decrease in consumables.

An interesting problem will be the fact that the take off weight will always be the same as the landing weight.

Electric wins on simplicity and efficiency. End of story.
Energy density is still a challenge but it is being solved faster than many expect.

As for the Genius who says "electrical airplanes are hard because I saw the 'Solar Impulse once"

This is quite possibly the dumbest comment that I've seen in years.
We're all stupider having read your comment.
May god have mercy on your soul.

Bunch of Cretans here.