Faced with global warming, aviation aims to turn green

April 8, 2018 by Pierre-Henry Deshayes
A computer generated image of the hybrid-electric regional aircraft being developed by Zunum Aero, a start-up partly financed by
A computer generated image of the hybrid-electric regional aircraft being developed by Zunum Aero, a start-up partly financed by US aeronautics group Boeing that could enter service as soon as in 2022.

Will we someday be able to fly without the guilt of causing environmental damage? A handful of firms and regulators hope that the electric revolution in cars will also take to the skies, helping the industry cope with an expected boom in travel and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"Many people say that we must get rid of air transport because we will never be able to deal with emissions and noise, but this is an outdated approach," said Norwegian Transport Minister Ketil Solvik-Olsen, who recently hosted an aviation conference in Oslo.

Norway, the largest oil and gas producer in western Europe, is paradoxically a pioneer in the field of electric transport. The Nordic nation aims for all new vehicle registrations to be zero emission by 2025 and launched a first electric ferry in early 2015.

After land and water, the northern kingdom is now turning to the sky with the goal of electrifying all short haul flights in just over 20 years.

"In my mind, there is no doubt: by 2040 Norway will be operating totally electric," said Dag Falk-Petersen, head of the country's public airport operator, Avinor.

Tesla of the skies?

Air transportation's impact on global warming is estimated at around five percent through CO2 emissions and other substances, including nitrogen oxide and water vapour.

As the number of air passengers is expected to almost double by 2036 to 7.8 billion per year, according to the International Air Transport Association's (IATA) projections, aviation's impact is on a course to increase substantially if nothing is done.

Meanwhile, the airline industry aims to cut its CO2 emissions in half by 2050 from 2005 levels.

While the international umbrella group Climate Action Network (CAN) says these goals are unrealistic, some airlines are beginning to look at electric-powered aircraft as an answer.

The small regional carrier Wideroe Airlines, operating in Norway's far north, plans to renew its fleet of twin-engine Bombardier Dash 8 planes with electric-powered aircraft by 2030.

"Aircraft producers see that they have to do it because otherwise there will be a new Tesla taking their positions," said Falk-Petersen, referring to how the upstart US electric car manufacturer has shaken up the traditional automobile industry.

Both of the major manufacturers of large passenger aircraft, Airbus and Boeing, are exploring the viability of electric planes.

Airbus aims to develop a hybrid model called E-Fan X, and has teamed up with British engine maker Rolls Royce and German industrial group Siemens. The first flight is planned for 2020.

Zunum Aero hopes that cheaper operating costs will entice airlines to go electric

"One of the biggest challenges is electricity storage," Glenn Llewellyn, general manager for electrification at Airbus, told AFP.

As with cars, the performance of batteries is a critical element, with the added problem that they are heavier than fuel and carrying them into the air is the most-energy intensive part of the flight.

"But at the same time battery technology is probably the technology in the world which has the most investment. So it will evolve," added Llewellyn.

'Any place in the world'

Zunum Aero, a start-up partly financed by US aeronautics group Boeing, meanwhile plans to bring a 12-seat hybrid plane to the market by 2022.

"The price that we're targeting is very much in line with the current aircraft but the operation cost is just a fraction, it's literally 60 to 70 percent lower than an equivalent aircraft in operation right now," said the startup's founder Matt Knapp.

The expected lower operating costs of electric planes, both due to cheap electricity and simpler motors, means that the highly competitive could end up adopting them quickly.

Airbus offered several years ago updated aircraft with 15 percent fuel savings, and as jet fuel is a major cost for airlines, they quickly placed orders for thousands as they tried to get ahead of rivals.

The transition to electric could also provide another advantage: they are much quieter, meaning they may win exceptions to restrictions imposed due to noise near residential areas.

Combined with the fact that electric planes don't need such long runways, they could be used at some smaller airports close to city centres.

Avinor said switching to electric would also help airlines avoid any climate change related penalties that regulators could impose, such as higher taxes and flying restrictions.

Norway sees itself as a good test bed for electric planes.

"There are a lot of issues to deal with, with icy conditions, with heavy winds," says Widero CEO Stein Nilsen.

"But if we can do that here in Norway, I'm certain that this air plane will cope with any conditions in any place in the world."

Explore further: Norway aims for all short-haul flights 100% electric by 2040

Related Stories

Airbus, Rolls-Royce, Siemens working on hybrid plane

November 28, 2017

Airbus, Siemens and Rolls-Royce are teaming up to develop a hybrid passenger plane that would use a single electric turbofan along with three conventional jet engines running on aviation fuel.

Transatlantic test for Airbus low-cost airliner

February 13, 2018

The long-range version of Airbus's updated single-aisle aircraft took off Tuesday on a flight from Paris to New York in what could be a boon for low-cost flights across the Atlantic.

Airbus tests self-flying taxi

February 2, 2018

Airbus said Friday that it had successfully held the first test flights of the Vahana, an electric, pilotless flying vehicle that it hopes will be able to ferry people around cities.

Recommended for you

Google braces for huge EU fine over Android

July 18, 2018

Google prepared Wednesday to be hit with huge EU fine for freezing out rivals of its Android mobile phone system in a ruling that could spark new tensions between Brussels and Washington.

EU set to fine Google billions over Android: sources

July 17, 2018

The EU is set to fine US internet giant Google several billion euros this week for freezing out rivals of its Android mobile phone system, sources said, in a ruling that risks fresh tensions with Washington.

49 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

humy
3.8 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2018
I am spectacle it would ever be cost effective to make passenger aircraft go all-electric and especially for the longest international flights. The reason for this is because the energy density of even the best batteries is just too low for long flights.
I think a more realistic option is to switch to biofuel for passenger aircraft PROVIDING it is NOT the kind of biofuel from the current kind of biofuel crops that unsustainable compete with food crops and/or require the clearing of forests.
HeloMenelo
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2018
Let them produce pure electric planes, we need something to drive battery technology to a higher level.
Even if it is not yet up to the standard required, at least it will push the technology to be up to standard at some point in time.
Beckler
4.5 / 5 (6) Apr 08, 2018
Airports have huge open areas - ideal to fill with solar arrays to charge aircraft. Also one can imagine battery swap at airports. If it's just off the runway and fully automated it might cost only a few minutes of flight time.
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 08, 2018
In the "Transportation Sector" is where it becomes clear that wind and solar are a joke.
Earth's circumnavigation:
- solar-powered airplane: ~ 2 years.
- military hypersonic scramjet: ~2 hours.
https://ichef-1.b...24in.png
TrollBane
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
Beckler, some airports have huge open areas, but arrays of solar panels also reflect sunlight, which is perhaps problematic for pilots who are trying to land. Much space is also kept clear for safety purposes, such as the minimum of space permitted at the end of runways for aircraft that overshoot.
Shootist
1.3 / 5 (15) Apr 08, 2018
faced with a climate that naturally changes and is well within historical norms both hot and cold, airlines bow to the Watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) demands to control the means of production and transfer wealth from the successful nations.
TrollBane
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2018
And Shootist jumps in with the usual regurgitated talking points, a blatant distortion of the meaning of the phrase 'historical norms', stereotyping of environmentalists and his typical paranoid imaginings about globalist/socialist conspiracy.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2018
Norway, the largest oil and gas producer in western Europe, is paradoxically a pioneer in the field of electric transport.

Not really a paradox. Norway has always held that the profits from oil and gas would go towards a futur restructuring. From the get-go they were very aware that these riches are finite putting the money into the 'Norway wealth fund' to the tune of 1 trillion dollars (which ain't half bad for a country of 5.5 million people).
Combined with the fact that electric planes don't need such long runways

That's an intereting statement. Anyone know why this is so?

and transfer wealth from the successful nations.

Well, money is stransferred to the most successfull. So if another company is more successfull you should be all for that, right? Or are you saying protectionism and closed markets is good?
TrollBane
3.5 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2018
Antialias, I noticed that other articles suggest better use of facilities at smaller airports, which is not the same thing as needing a shorter runway. Could it be related to fuel storage and fuel delivery procedures? Also, propeller-driven aircraft might have lower air speeds that are suitable for shorter runways. That's what I get from this comparison of turboprops with light jets. https://www.strat...ircraft/
skystare
2.6 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2018
Electric airliners are a long way in the future, barring some amazing battery breakthrough.
Since airplane fuel contributes around 2% of human-sourced CO2, if we eliminate the technologically low hanging fruit of coal fired power plants and petro-power for surface transport and building heating, we could reduce CO2 output to 19th century levels without even looking at aviation. And even then, the amount of avfuel needed could be synthesized from aboveground carbon.
And, the length of runway needed has exactly nothing to do with the power source of an airplane. I notice a lack of clear attribution for that statement, probably because the originator wants the disinformation out there without being embarrassed in front of friends.
gkam
2.9 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2018
"Combined with the fact that electric planes don't need such long runways "
"That's an intereting statement. Anyone know why this is so?"

It is because the motors and propellers line the entire wing, and can produce sufficient air across it to provide lift at little or no speed.

doogsnova
4.5 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2018
If the military can refuel fighter jets and other planes mid-air,
I don't see why electric planes wouldn't be able to do the same thing.

Of course, that's assuming no other technologies come out within
the next ten or twenty years, which is unlikely.
zz5555
5 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
My understanding is that, not being constrained by having liquid fuel in the wings, electric planes allow for interesting designs, some of which will allow for higher lift at lower speeds. Therefore, shorter runways are possible.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 08, 2018
If the military can refuel fighter jets and other planes mid-air,
I don't see why electric planes wouldn't be able to do the same thing.
Indeed, electric planes can be refueled mid-air by gasoline/diesel generators:
https://uploads.d...7879.jpg
https://uploads.d...e821.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...jeVJ.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...7JiF.jpg
https://pbs.twimg...tXKU.jpg
tekram
5 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2018
High lift propellers along the wings of the X57. The X-57 "Maxwell" is an all-electric experimental aircraft. The X-57 flight demonstrator is designed to showcase one way electric power can shape new airplanes through a technology called Distributed Electric Propulsion (DEP).

https://www.youtu..._MvUH06M
gkam
3 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2018
zz55, it is not the need for fuel capacity but pure aerodynamics which determine the shape of the wing. But those more conducive to slower flight can be allowed with a change to electric power and multiple propellers.

And a NASA experimental has already been built which can take off with little speed because the motors produce sufficient airflow over the wings for most of the length to provide that lift.
gkam
3.2 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2018
I worked the flightline at Edwards when we were flying the XB-70s and all three variants of the Blackbird. We had the X-15, so far still the only manned hypersonic aircraft. We had the XC-142 and XV-5, and P-1127, the early Harrier for VTOL, but it was a different time: High speed still mattered.

Now we seem to want efficient and quiet even if it means a loss of speed.
KBK
5 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
Hybrid is probably the way to go.

Electric systems as the main propelling system, with a turbojet back up for battery charging and glide functions, which would be the requisite safety net for the crossover time period... when going fully electric only, as the final design norm.

short haul to start, obviously.

Very doable.

Everything that is required, already exists. Eg, three engine, electric on each wing, turbojet in the tail.

We even have this in miniature, already, as each large commercial jet has a small turbojet for maintenance and start up. Everything is already in place, on that end, and already well flight proven as an integrated near 'fail proof' system.
KBK
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
It's all about switching ti electric based systems, while providing the FEEL of having a safety back up.

It's not me, it's the people who have to fly in it. Is it safe? "It's the safest damn thing you ever saw", is what the answer HAS to be, and be that kind of answer for everyone who inquires or takes a swing at it to attack it..be it special interests, media, individuals, etc.

Note how self driving for electric cars is doing right now. ---Not very well.

All attacks must slide off the plane like it was made out of Teflon.

In this way you can shorten the conversion to electric by a decade, shorten through this gentle half way SAFE methodology-introduction-adoption.

I really don't care what some might think of as being stupid or inefficient. That line of speaking and thinking means exactly jack shit here. :)

It's about what kind of plane people will actually board and take flight in -- to do so willingly, with no qualms.....and has nothing to do with anything else.
Liebnitz434
4 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2018
I am spectacle ..... The reason for this is because the energy density of even the best batteries is just too low for long flights.


Agree getting around the bottleneck of energy density seems impossible with current technology as a 50X improvement would be needed to match jet fuel. Fun to see if big capacitors could work.

A 30,000 rpm flywheel with radius of 3 m and 5000 kg could store enough energy to provide enough energy for a 737-500 to cruise at 900 km/h at 10,000 m altitude for 4,000 miles.

What's preventing this from consideration as it doesn't seem as far out as batteries.
This has been proposed as a design for hybrid electric vehicles (accelleration->power down deceleration-> power up) and is already used for the ELECTROMAGNETIC AIRCRAFT LAUNCH SYSTEM.

Whether by battery or flywheel there will need to be a motor capable of creating thrust adequate to bring velocity up to 900 km/h. Would that look like a high-bypass turbofan or propfan?
Turgent
2.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2018
Since airplane fuel contributes around 2% of human-sourced CO2, ... we could reduce CO2 output to 19th century levels without even looking at aviation.


Aviation fuel consumption per mile is significantly less than ground transport and it continues to improve. The flip side is that this and other factors are rapidly driving up passenger flight miles. Boeing and Airbus are cranking out planes at accelerating rates and this looks like it will continue for the indefinite future. So the potential growth of aviation CO2 might be considered. What I have never seen addressed is the effect of contrails, NO2, and H2O release in the stratosphere, as regards AGW and CC. It is not trivial. If you live under the Ohio flyway it is obvious this has a pronounced effect on cloud cover. When air traffic was grounded on 9/11 the skies I was under became crystal clear and night temperatures were considerably less.
marcush
5 / 5 (1) Apr 08, 2018
Whatever happened to all those plans from 10 years ago to make jet grade fuel from algae?
PeterPiker
4 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2018
The short take-off capability would be due to the inherently high starting torque of electric motors. For example, a Tesla can go 0 to 60 in about the same time as a Porshe. Also, electric motors are far more efficient than internal combustion engines and require far less maintenance. The issues of battery weight and costs are being addressed for EV manufacture, and also for grid storage.
Thorium Boy
1.4 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2018
A very bad, cold winter just killed 48,000 people in Britain alone. A warming climate, if it is happening and no matter what the cause is better than cold.
howhot3
3 / 5 (4) Apr 08, 2018
So, a very warm winter just caused the birth of 48,000 in Cameron alone. A warming climate, IF it is happening and no mater what the cause is better than the cold? I call BS on your facts there @Thorium boy.
howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2018
The electric jet is not that far away. I predict 10yrs and it will be commercialized. Electric flight is going to be another game changer in the economies of the world. Just like the Jetsons cartoon, flying Uber like services will add relief to crowed inter-urban highways, and may commutes from more remote locations quicker and easier.
arcmetal
5 / 5 (2) Apr 08, 2018
A very bad, cold winter just killed 48,000 people in Britain alone. A warming climate, if it is happening and no matter what the cause is better than cold.

... And somehow excess heat does not kill people?
unrealone1
3.3 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2018
The energy density of 1 kilo of jet fuel compared to
The energy density of 1 kilo of lithium batteries ?
And then there is safety ?
ThomasQuinn
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2018
faced with a climate that naturally changes and is well within historical norms both hot and cold, airlines bow to the Watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) demands to control the means of production and transfer wealth from the successful nations.


So, do you consider yourself very witty for dog whistling with what is LITERALLY a nazi slur? Because you're obviously referencing the SS-term for the SA, "beefsteaks - brown on the outside, red on the inside".

Pathetic piece of human garbage.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2018
gkam/zz5555 I think you are correct. This article gives some info on the advantages of the design possibilities - http://www.pbs.or...viation/
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2018
And somehow excess heat does not kill people?

Global warming also does not automatically mean 'milder winters'. It means more weather extremes. People die more during extreme weather conditions (be they hot or cold). They don't die due to prolonged exposure to a bit warmer/colder weather but because a short extreme puts them over the threshold they can tolerate

This line of reasoning that:
"2°C warmer global temperature"
is the same as
"Every place on earth will have the same climate as today but just 2°C warmer"
is only put forth by total imbeciles who don't know the first thing about how anything in the real world works.
Turgent
1 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2018
Concern about the risk of deaths attributable to GW induced CC is like moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. There is mounting evidence that we should be more concerned about a Carrington Event (1859 CME). Losing power for 18-24 months will cause hundreds of millions of deaths due to cold and more than a billion due to crop loss.

The CME threat is more imminent and catastrophic; unfortunately CME can't be blamed on humanity and therefore isn't politically useful. Should a Carrington Event happen it will cut population by billions thereby greatly reducing CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, the damage done in the interim of freezing and starving humanity will cause planetary adverse effects like those Mao created by the Cultural Revolution.

CME protection could be accomplished in coordination with upgrading the grid.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2018
we should be more concerned about a Carrington Event

Difference is: we can do stuff about climate change. We can't really do anything about a CME. So you can worry about a Carrington Event all you want - it does no one any good.
skystare
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2018
On air-to-air recharging - dangerous & expensive & weather dependent. Ask any air force.

On electromagnetic (or any other method) launching - the airplane still needs to land on a runway. Also a large number of passengers will not be up for the g-loads involved.

Electric fanjets would easily be as reliable and safe as turbofans. Existing airframes could be easily refitted.

Battery technology stands in the way and I don't remotely expect it to be good enough for airliners in the next ten years. Unlikely even in twenty.

Turgent
1 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2018
@antialias

Un __________ Believable. "total imbeciles who don't know the first thing about how anything in the real world works." Should you know anything you couldn't say this. All hail the Herd Science of AGW. Your premise is that CC is subject to human control and CME is not. This is a fallacious dichotomy. Beyond any doubt CC is beyond human control i.e. Younger Dyras, MWP, Little Ice Age. There is an ever growing consensus among climate scientists that CC is a non-linear chaotic system. The turd polishing with ever more data crunching models and tweaked temp data is losing its appeal. Even if AGW is accepted as true any assertion that we can stop it is conjecture. It is logical we can but not necessarily true. We do know we have lived through similar GW before and the consequences were positive rather than negative. Whether we can affect control is an entirely different subject. For example ocean warming has a lag time of between 100 and 1000 years.

cont
Turgent
1 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2018
Can you explain what we can't do to prepare for a Carrrington Event? One scenario of the AGW alarmists is crop failure. Both CC Porn and a Carrington Event could produce mass starvation with the environmentally adverse effects.

Good news is a CE would reduce population such that the "goals" of the Paris Agreement could be reached.

Such tiny minds operating in such tiny boxes has diminished the AGW and CC discussions to so much discredit.
Turgent
1 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2018
"On electromagnetic (or any other method) launching - the airplane still needs to land on a runway. Also a large number of passengers will not be up for the g-loads involved."

Yeah, we can't have 400 lb. Grandpa taking 9 gs on take-off. The seat will rip out and he'll go through the back of the plane and we'll have a runway full of roadkill. EMALS is highly controllable so g-loads need not be more than today.

gculpex
not rated yet Apr 09, 2018
"On electromagnetic (or any other method) launching - the airplane still needs to land on a runway. Also a large number of passengers will not be up for the g-loads involved."

Yeah, we can't have 400 lb. Grandpa taking 9 gs on take-off. The seat will rip out and he'll go through the back of the plane and we'll have a runway full of roadkill. EMALS is highly controllable so g-loads need not be more than today.


I'd love to do 9G's in an airplane!
greenonions1
not rated yet Apr 09, 2018
I'd love to do 9G's in an airplane!
Are you sure? Have an Uncle who was engineer with military in England. He got to do a ride along in a military fighter jet. Pilot told him "Don't even think you can avoid throwing up - every single person who sits in the ride along seat - brings up their lunch."

I get air sick if a commercial flight hits some turbulence - no 9G's for me....
skystare
1 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2018

"EMALS is highly controllable so g-loads need not be more than today."

If the g-loads are no higher, the runway will be no shorter.

EMALS would be terrific for a single-stage-to-orbit craft, though. Supersonic off the end of the runway, ramjets to 60,000 feet, then light the rocket. Big fun!

ThomasQuinn
1 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2018
we should be more concerned about a Carrington Event

Difference is: we can do stuff about climate change. We can't really do anything about a CME. So you can worry about a Carrington Event all you want - it does no one any good.


I don't wholly agree. We can, and should, make contingency plans on how to most efficiently deal with the effects, which are reasonably predictable. For instance, how to limit damage to the world's electrical infrastructure by responding in the optimal way as soon as it is clear that a serious CME is hitting us, how to deal with a situation where power is out over a large area for a long time, how to deal with the presumably large number of fires, and the loss of many/most/all satellites under a situation like that.

I'm sure many people can give better examples than I, but my general point remains that planning to deal with the consequences should be a concern and that it would be wise to do so way ahead of time.
Thorium Boy
2.3 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2018
So, a very warm winter just caused the birth of 48,000 in Cameron alone. A warming climate, IF it is happening and no mater what the cause is better than the cold? I call BS on your facts there @Thorium boy.


48,000 died as a result of being unable to handle the cold. Flu, pre-existing medical conditions, undeveloped immune systems, immune systems weakened by other ailments. Last winter killed 40,000, this winter has been worse. Cold is bad.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2018
Contingency plans exist.

Climate change is a certainty and we need to deal with it. CMEs are an uncertainty (we don't know when and if one will strike). When you have a limited budget you do risk assessment.

You're essentially saying we should put all our money into proofing our house against possible, future lightning strikes while the basement is flooding. That makes no sense to me.
humy
4.5 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2018
A very bad, cold winter just killed 48,000 people in Britain alone. A warming climate, if it is happening and no matter what the cause is better than cold.

and, of course, heat stroke never kills anyone.
https://www.thegu...e-change
ThomasQuinn
3 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2018
Contingency plans exist.

Climate change is a certainty and we need to deal with it. CMEs are an uncertainty (we don't know when and if one will strike). When you have a limited budget you do risk assessment.

You're essentially saying we should put all our money into proofing our house against possible, future lightning strikes while the basement is flooding. That makes no sense to me.


No no no, that is not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that simply because it is not possible to predict when (not if - when it's happened in 1859, in less severe form in 1921, 1960 and 1989 and a near miss in 2012, it's not a one-off) such an event will occur, it does not follow that we should simply ignore it and not plan ahead. That does *not* mean I think all, or even a significant proportion of, the available resources should go to planning for it, but that preparing for it is necessary. I agree that dealing with GW is more urgent, but not to the exclusion of everything else.
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2018
My contingency plan is a PV powered house with two days of electrical storage and two electric cars. Because of the backlog, we get the batteries in August.

howhot3
5 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2018
You know what? I just don't understand why all of the rightwing flakey climate deniers all freak out about electric planes. You would think it's a end of the world event or something. Republicans... just kooks and nuts; but I digress to far. Airflight could easily help in the reduction of CO2 emissions simply by using a green fuel. You would like electricity simply because it will be cheaper than other sources. But there are certain machines that will need a very compact fuel, like jets, tractors, and other combustion driven machines. That is where BIODIESEL and BIOJEtFUELS will become profitable markets for these zero-carbon products.

CO2now.org has global average CO2 at 408,35ppm for this past February. This is looking bad folks. Very very bad.

arcmetal
not rated yet Apr 11, 2018
The energy density of 1 kilo of jet fuel compared to
The energy density of 1 kilo of lithium batteries ?
And then there is safety ?

Lithium batteries is not the only way to hold electric potentials. There are better ways now, and since these are nascent technologies there will be better methods in the future by the time they have developed electric planes. Super capacitors are advancing rather well. And I haven't had one explode on my yet.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2018
The energy density of 1 kilo of jet fuel compared to
The energy density of 1 kilo of lithium batteries ?
And then there is safety ?

What you need to get from point A to point B is a certain amount of energy. Whether that is stored in jet fuel or batteries doesn't matter when it comes to e.g. a fire/explosion. The energy content released is the same.

If you worry about safety consider the data we have on cars: The average rate of fire for internal combustion engine cars is 1 every 20 million miles. The average rate of fire for a Tesla is 1 every 100 million miles.
(For some weird reason these few fires seem to make the news and generate outrage - while ICE cars never get any flack for their worse safety level. Could it be because old car makers are top ad buyers and Tesla has no need to buy any ads - and so the media has an incentive to report on Tesla issues?)

So I'd feel a LOT safer in a battery operated aircraft than a jet fuel powered one.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.