21 thoughts on “The Weekend Wonk: Electric Aircraft take Flight”
Baby steps.
In a hybrid system, the electric could lift the plane off the ground and then fuel take over to go long distance. A great deal of fuel is needed to get off the ground. It would be a reduction on the way to cleaner zero emissions flight.
if you look at the wright brother’s first flyer, the jets of 50 years later would have been hard to predict.
tech change happens much more quickly today.
Why not use catapult assist for landings and takeoffs. Captured energy from landing could be reused for takeoffs. Less fuel would have to be carried by airplanes making for greater efficiency. It need not be as aggressive as an aircraft carrier system.
In the second video when the engineer mentioned that the electric plane would require no oxygen to operate, it made me wonder if an electric helicopter could be developed for high altitude mountain rescues.
I’ve seen the prototypes of Velocopter that while limited, looked like they were making some progress on their E-helicopter.
The altitude limitations of a helicopter are not mainly a result of there not being enough oxygen for an internal combustion engine but more from the air not being dense enough to produce lift. Specially modified fossil fuel powered helicopters have reached altitudes of over 40,000 feet, and I think one DID land on top of Mt. Everest. Oxygen has nothing to do with it.
(And an E-helicopter makes more sense than an E-plane, since most helicopter flights are of short duration and short distance).
JFC! Why do I take medications to hold down my blood pressure and then view pieces like this that make my blood literally boil?
We are a VERY long way from developing any kind of the “cleaner zero emissions flight” that renubleguy speaks of. The aviation industry has only made PC noises about doing so where it really matters—-large, long distance freight and passenger planes—-and the ocean shipping industry (which is owned by the likes of the Kochs) is resisting mightily any real efforts to clean up their emissions (I think I read that there are 60,000 container ships at sea at any given time, most burning the dirtiest available fuel).
We don’t need “toy” airplanes like the Siemens “electric TRAINER” model that are just playthings for rich people and serve no real purpose beyond that.
And the second video clip is 17-1/2 minutes of pure unadulterated bullshit. Standing around in a hangar looking at a beautiful “ENGINEERING model” and slinging BS that is joyfully lapped up by a science ignorant moron “reporter” is meaningful? JFC again! Reminds me of Solar Roadway—-maybe the next “breakthrough” will be that they will have Solar Roadway runways and taxiways to charge the plane that doesn’t exist except as a beautiful model to picture in their fund-raising campaign.
Having spent some time in machine shops working my way through college and later in science labs as a student and teacher, I LMAO’d at the their “gee whiz” presentation of an ancient technology of manufacturing propellers, and the also ancient idea of counter-rotating propellers
I was appalled by the little “experiment” with the high RPM propellers—-in the real world, that demonstration would have been surrounded by a serious safety shield—-a containment in case pieces flew off. Instead we got the “reporter” surfing like a child on the wind blast (but they DID put on some flimsy goggles). It was meaningless anyway—proved nothing except that electrical power can be harnessed to move air—-DUH!
Peter talks about “tech change happening much more quickly” and “the jets of 50 years ago being hard to predict” on the basis of what the Wright Brothers did. That’s the same type of logic that is followed by those who say “electronic devices are getting smaller, cheaper, and faster and we don’t know where it will end”. There IS some truth there, but the logic fails when we extend it to things like planes and cars—-planes have wings and ride the air, cars have wheels and ride the ground, and anyone who saw and understood the workings of the first planes and cars (and trains) would immediately recognize those of today. Someone from 1910 would NOT have any idea of what a transistor or integrated circuit did, because that’s a REAL “tech change”.
Perhaps some Crockers noticed the announcement a few weeks back by NASA that they were working on an electric plane design? One with a narrow wing with lots of small motors lined up on the leading edge, the idea being that the wing’s lift at take-off would be enhanced by the air flow from the propellers (can anyone see the logic fail there?). This at a time when NASA’s earth observation programs are being cut by the Repugnants and Cruz so that more $$$ can be devoted to deep space exploration (and directed to the pockets of the aerospace industry). Hypocrisy and mindless wasted effort while the Earth cooks.
‘Nuf said. One final thought. The physics of ANY kind of transport—air, land, or sea—relies on the expenditure of energy to produce motion, i.e., move a quantity of mass from one place to another. In this “globalized” world that the free-marketers have created for us, we will need to move more “things” to ensure continued growth (and increased profits for the 1%), and we are NOT moving away from fossil fuels in the transportation sector with much speed—-as we do better with wind and solar on land, that is going to become a bigger part of the carbon emissions budget, and electric planes are NOT going to be much help. Excellent article by Fred Pearce, and good insights from SciAm
That’s why I talked about baby steps. Possibly hydrogen can step in at some point. Although there are some serious problems with using hydrogen on a long term basis. Metal embrittlement seems to be a big issue.
Or the other route is carbon sequestration. Use fossil fuels and suck it back out of the atmosphere later. Expensive, but maybe necessary. Putting flying out of the reach of the ordinary person in cost.
Just the same, the development is important to do. Take it as far as it can go and call for more development from high risk investors. They seem to show up for moving to that next development stage. Such flying around the world on solar.
Your naivete is exceeded only by your lack of understanding of the science, economics, and politics involved. Your comments on hydrogen and CCS demonstrate that. I will AGAIN offer up a very good commentary by Fred Pearce doe your edification.
Please read it and get your feet on the ground. The deniers are counting on bright-sided adoration of pie-in-the-sky schemes to delay real action on AGW, and you aid their cause with your “baby steps”
Another eye-opener is this 5/31 article (abridged) by Chris Mooney in the WashPost—-“The World Is About To Install 700 Million Air Conditioners. Here’s What That Means For The Climate”. Read the whole thing, but especially the next to last paragraph, as many times as needed to overcome your bright-sidedness.
“Americans use 5 percent of all of their electricity cooling homes and buildings. In many other countries, however – including countries in much hotter climates – air conditioning is still a relative rarity. But as these countries boom in wealth and population, and extend electricity to more people even as the climate warms, the projections are clear: They are going to install mind-boggling amounts of air conditioning, not just for comfort but as a health necessity.
“In just 15 years, urban areas of China went from just a few percentage points of air conditioning penetration to exceeding 100 percent – “i.e. more than one room air conditioner (AC) per urban household,” according to a recent report on the global AC boom by researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. And air conditioner sales are now increasing in India, Indonesia and Brazil by between 10 and 15 percent per year, the research noted. India, a nation of 1.25 billion people, had just 5 percent air conditioning penetration in the year 2011.
“A study last year similarly found “a close relationship between household income and air conditioner adoption, with ownership increasing 2.7 percentage points per $1,000 of annual household income.” For Mexico in particular, it therefore projected a stupendous growth of air conditioning over the 21st century, from 13 percent of homes having it to 71 to 81 percent of homes.
“We expect that the demand for cooling as economies improve, particularly in hot climates, is going to be an incredible driver of electricity requirements,” U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said in an interview.
“Overall, the Berkeley report projects that the world is poised to install 700 million air conditioners by 2030, and 1.6 billion of them by 2050. In terms of electricity use and greenhouse gas emissions, that’s like adding several new countries to the world.
“The biggest country for air conditioning growth, and associated greenhouse gas emissions, is projected to be India….”
” the demand for cooling … is going to be an incredible driver of electricity requirements,”
So what? We happen to be bathed in enough energy – free for the harvesting – to run 10,000 air conditioners for every man, woman, and child on the planet, whilst they each run 50,000 hair dryers, inside their 50,000 shiny new refrigerators, which are themselves ensconced inside 50,000 clothes dryers.
Once we build our RE infrastructure, how much energy we use is essentially independent of environmental consequences. PV panels will have useful lifespans of at least 100 years. And in 20 – 50 years time, those PV panels will have next to zero fossil fuels used in their manufacture.
We stand on the brink of a humanitarian revolution, where dirt-cheap pollution free energy in superabundance will raise the living standards of everyone on the planet, save the 1% who already enjoy such a lifestyle.
And the only thing blocking that path are the naysayers.
The 15kW electric motor produces power equivalent to a 20-25hp gasoline engine. That’s comparable to many 2-stroke and 4-stroke paraglider motors on the market. Weights are roughly the same as well. The big differences are reliability and environmental. The Exomo has a fraction of the moving parts of, say, a Polini engine and can be turned off and on with the click of a switch. And of course, there’s zero hydrocarbon pollution and less noise and vibration.
As with anyone asking about an electric car or electric bike, for that matter, the two questions of “how far” and “how fast” also come up. According to Blottin, most paragliding sessions last less than an hour, so having a battery that offers 45-60 minutes of flight time is sufficient. Exomo offers two packs: a 17Ah lith-ion battery good for about 45-minutes of continuous flying, and a slightly larger pack good for about 60-minutes of flight time. Equipped with the Exomo engine and battery pack, a pilot could fly in a straight line about 40 km in a hour or some 25 miles, so ‘top speed’ is about 25 mph, just slightly faster than someone riding a bicycle. But the view is incredible!
What you really needed to add was the thought that all of this is just “toys” for the self-indulgent rich of the developed world, and contributes to carbon emissions rather than reducing them.
“The view is incredible”? Sure is, and if God had wanted us to see it, he would have given us wings, and we would have burned “natural” food flapping them like birds rather than using fossil fuels.
I wonder what the one in nine people on the Earth who are constantly hungry would think if they could “view” people playing with their toys and flying overhead while AGW progresses and further destroys their chances of ever having full bellies?
Thanks for including the video clips of the Siemens aircraft project CleanTechnica has further information. Looks both promising and scalable.
“A new type of electric motor — weighing just 50 kilograms, but delivering a continuous power output of around 260 kilowatts (roughly 5 times comparable drive systems) — was recently demonstrated live in an Extra 330LE aerobatic airplane by researchers from Siemens, according to a press release from the German giant.”
. . . . . .
“Siemens and Airbus will reportedly be using the motor for the development of regional aircraft. “By 2030, we expect to see initial aircraft with up to 100 passengers and a range of around 1,000 kilometers,”
The “initial” aircraft will be flying by 2030 (and the “production” ones some unknown time after that?) By 2030 (14 years from now) I expect air travel to be severely curtailed because of the rapidly worsening climate change situation—-part of the coming Great Disruption (see Gilding). Any planes that are still flying will likely be transporting food rather than passengers.
This is just more pie-in-the-sky scheme by capitalists and corporations seeking to get rich.
LMAO! Every little bit helps, but the real problem with aviation is the carbon emissions produced while flying. Why are so many focusing on every little bright-sided thing they can find rather than the 600 pound gorilla?
Start-up developing electric 2-seat VTOL aircraft
11 July 2016
Lilium Aviation, a German startup initially funded by the European Union and supported by the European Space Agency and its Business Incubation Centre Bavaria, is developing a 2-seat, electric VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) aircraft, with planned rollout in January 2018.
Lilium was formed by a team of aerospace engineers and product designers from the Technical University of Munich.
Current specifications for the personal aircraft include:
Max. take-off weight: 600 kg
Payload: 200 kg
Cruising velocity: 300 km/h / 180 mph
Max. velocity: 400 km/h / 250 mph
Range: 500 km / 300 mi
Power: 320 kW / 435 hp
You will not be deterred from your naive bright-sidedness, will you? A “startup” has a “planned roll out” of an electric VTOL 18 months from now? Yep, just like Tesla has big plans but can’t even meet delivery targets today. Solar Roadway redux.
And they have a nice photo of their exotic looking “engineering model” (hollow inside, of course) to aid in their fundraising efforts? Please tell us why we need an electric VTOL aircraft anyway, and what the market is likely to be, how much it will cost, etc. Another toy for the rich that will only use up more of the carbon budget.
Also from Siemens this great use of an old idea in Sweden (with new technology innovations), will also be set up Stateside later on, a possible solution for reducing road freight pollution and emissions.
Baby steps.
In a hybrid system, the electric could lift the plane off the ground and then fuel take over to go long distance. A great deal of fuel is needed to get off the ground. It would be a reduction on the way to cleaner zero emissions flight.
if you look at the wright brother’s first flyer, the jets of 50 years later would have been hard to predict.
tech change happens much more quickly today.
Why not use catapult assist for landings and takeoffs. Captured energy from landing could be reused for takeoffs. Less fuel would have to be carried by airplanes making for greater efficiency. It need not be as aggressive as an aircraft carrier system.
In the second video when the engineer mentioned that the electric plane would require no oxygen to operate, it made me wonder if an electric helicopter could be developed for high altitude mountain rescues.
I’ve seen the prototypes of Velocopter that while limited, looked like they were making some progress on their E-helicopter.
The altitude limitations of a helicopter are not mainly a result of there not being enough oxygen for an internal combustion engine but more from the air not being dense enough to produce lift. Specially modified fossil fuel powered helicopters have reached altitudes of over 40,000 feet, and I think one DID land on top of Mt. Everest. Oxygen has nothing to do with it.
(And an E-helicopter makes more sense than an E-plane, since most helicopter flights are of short duration and short distance).
Good point. I hadn’t thought about air density at that elevation.
JFC! Why do I take medications to hold down my blood pressure and then view pieces like this that make my blood literally boil?
We are a VERY long way from developing any kind of the “cleaner zero emissions flight” that renubleguy speaks of. The aviation industry has only made PC noises about doing so where it really matters—-large, long distance freight and passenger planes—-and the ocean shipping industry (which is owned by the likes of the Kochs) is resisting mightily any real efforts to clean up their emissions (I think I read that there are 60,000 container ships at sea at any given time, most burning the dirtiest available fuel).
We don’t need “toy” airplanes like the Siemens “electric TRAINER” model that are just playthings for rich people and serve no real purpose beyond that.
And the second video clip is 17-1/2 minutes of pure unadulterated bullshit. Standing around in a hangar looking at a beautiful “ENGINEERING model” and slinging BS that is joyfully lapped up by a science ignorant moron “reporter” is meaningful? JFC again! Reminds me of Solar Roadway—-maybe the next “breakthrough” will be that they will have Solar Roadway runways and taxiways to charge the plane that doesn’t exist except as a beautiful model to picture in their fund-raising campaign.
Having spent some time in machine shops working my way through college and later in science labs as a student and teacher, I LMAO’d at the their “gee whiz” presentation of an ancient technology of manufacturing propellers, and the also ancient idea of counter-rotating propellers
I was appalled by the little “experiment” with the high RPM propellers—-in the real world, that demonstration would have been surrounded by a serious safety shield—-a containment in case pieces flew off. Instead we got the “reporter” surfing like a child on the wind blast (but they DID put on some flimsy goggles). It was meaningless anyway—proved nothing except that electrical power can be harnessed to move air—-DUH!
Peter talks about “tech change happening much more quickly” and “the jets of 50 years ago being hard to predict” on the basis of what the Wright Brothers did. That’s the same type of logic that is followed by those who say “electronic devices are getting smaller, cheaper, and faster and we don’t know where it will end”. There IS some truth there, but the logic fails when we extend it to things like planes and cars—-planes have wings and ride the air, cars have wheels and ride the ground, and anyone who saw and understood the workings of the first planes and cars (and trains) would immediately recognize those of today. Someone from 1910 would NOT have any idea of what a transistor or integrated circuit did, because that’s a REAL “tech change”.
Perhaps some Crockers noticed the announcement a few weeks back by NASA that they were working on an electric plane design? One with a narrow wing with lots of small motors lined up on the leading edge, the idea being that the wing’s lift at take-off would be enhanced by the air flow from the propellers (can anyone see the logic fail there?). This at a time when NASA’s earth observation programs are being cut by the Repugnants and Cruz so that more $$$ can be devoted to deep space exploration (and directed to the pockets of the aerospace industry). Hypocrisy and mindless wasted effort while the Earth cooks.
‘Nuf said. One final thought. The physics of ANY kind of transport—air, land, or sea—relies on the expenditure of energy to produce motion, i.e., move a quantity of mass from one place to another. In this “globalized” world that the free-marketers have created for us, we will need to move more “things” to ensure continued growth (and increased profits for the 1%), and we are NOT moving away from fossil fuels in the transportation sector with much speed—-as we do better with wind and solar on land, that is going to become a bigger part of the carbon emissions budget, and electric planes are NOT going to be much help. Excellent article by Fred Pearce, and good insights from SciAm
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/reduce_co2_emissions_shipping_aviation_regulation_paris/2995/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/…/pollution-from-planes-and-ships-l...
That’s why I talked about baby steps. Possibly hydrogen can step in at some point. Although there are some serious problems with using hydrogen on a long term basis. Metal embrittlement seems to be a big issue.
Or the other route is carbon sequestration. Use fossil fuels and suck it back out of the atmosphere later. Expensive, but maybe necessary. Putting flying out of the reach of the ordinary person in cost.
Just the same, the development is important to do. Take it as far as it can go and call for more development from high risk investors. They seem to show up for moving to that next development stage. Such flying around the world on solar.
Baby steps, you say? Lord love a duck!
Your naivete is exceeded only by your lack of understanding of the science, economics, and politics involved. Your comments on hydrogen and CCS demonstrate that. I will AGAIN offer up a very good commentary by Fred Pearce doe your edification.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/reduce_co2_emissions_shipping_aviation_regulation_paris/2995/
Please read it and get your feet on the ground. The deniers are counting on bright-sided adoration of pie-in-the-sky schemes to delay real action on AGW, and you aid their cause with your “baby steps”
Another eye-opener is this 5/31 article (abridged) by Chris Mooney in the WashPost—-“The World Is About To Install 700 Million Air Conditioners. Here’s What That Means For The Climate”. Read the whole thing, but especially the next to last paragraph, as many times as needed to overcome your bright-sidedness.
“Americans use 5 percent of all of their electricity cooling homes and buildings. In many other countries, however – including countries in much hotter climates – air conditioning is still a relative rarity. But as these countries boom in wealth and population, and extend electricity to more people even as the climate warms, the projections are clear: They are going to install mind-boggling amounts of air conditioning, not just for comfort but as a health necessity.
“In just 15 years, urban areas of China went from just a few percentage points of air conditioning penetration to exceeding 100 percent – “i.e. more than one room air conditioner (AC) per urban household,” according to a recent report on the global AC boom by researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. And air conditioner sales are now increasing in India, Indonesia and Brazil by between 10 and 15 percent per year, the research noted. India, a nation of 1.25 billion people, had just 5 percent air conditioning penetration in the year 2011.
“A study last year similarly found “a close relationship between household income and air conditioner adoption, with ownership increasing 2.7 percentage points per $1,000 of annual household income.” For Mexico in particular, it therefore projected a stupendous growth of air conditioning over the 21st century, from 13 percent of homes having it to 71 to 81 percent of homes.
“We expect that the demand for cooling as economies improve, particularly in hot climates, is going to be an incredible driver of electricity requirements,” U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said in an interview.
“Overall, the Berkeley report projects that the world is poised to install 700 million air conditioners by 2030, and 1.6 billion of them by 2050. In terms of electricity use and greenhouse gas emissions, that’s like adding several new countries to the world.
“The biggest country for air conditioning growth, and associated greenhouse gas emissions, is projected to be India….”
” the demand for cooling … is going to be an incredible driver of electricity requirements,”
So what? We happen to be bathed in enough energy – free for the harvesting – to run 10,000 air conditioners for every man, woman, and child on the planet, whilst they each run 50,000 hair dryers, inside their 50,000 shiny new refrigerators, which are themselves ensconced inside 50,000 clothes dryers.
Once we build our RE infrastructure, how much energy we use is essentially independent of environmental consequences. PV panels will have useful lifespans of at least 100 years. And in 20 – 50 years time, those PV panels will have next to zero fossil fuels used in their manufacture.
We stand on the brink of a humanitarian revolution, where dirt-cheap pollution free energy in superabundance will raise the living standards of everyone on the planet, save the 1% who already enjoy such a lifestyle.
And the only thing blocking that path are the naysayers.
This looks like a good fit for an electric motor in flight. 45 and 60 minute flying is considered the normal amount of time in flight.
http://evworld.com/focus.cfm?cid=328
The 15kW electric motor produces power equivalent to a 20-25hp gasoline engine. That’s comparable to many 2-stroke and 4-stroke paraglider motors on the market. Weights are roughly the same as well. The big differences are reliability and environmental. The Exomo has a fraction of the moving parts of, say, a Polini engine and can be turned off and on with the click of a switch. And of course, there’s zero hydrocarbon pollution and less noise and vibration.
As with anyone asking about an electric car or electric bike, for that matter, the two questions of “how far” and “how fast” also come up. According to Blottin, most paragliding sessions last less than an hour, so having a battery that offers 45-60 minutes of flight time is sufficient. Exomo offers two packs: a 17Ah lith-ion battery good for about 45-minutes of continuous flying, and a slightly larger pack good for about 60-minutes of flight time. Equipped with the Exomo engine and battery pack, a pilot could fly in a straight line about 40 km in a hour or some 25 miles, so ‘top speed’ is about 25 mph, just slightly faster than someone riding a bicycle. But the view is incredible!
I need to add in that these are parasailing flying machines.
What you really needed to add was the thought that all of this is just “toys” for the self-indulgent rich of the developed world, and contributes to carbon emissions rather than reducing them.
“The view is incredible”? Sure is, and if God had wanted us to see it, he would have given us wings, and we would have burned “natural” food flapping them like birds rather than using fossil fuels.
I wonder what the one in nine people on the Earth who are constantly hungry would think if they could “view” people playing with their toys and flying overhead while AGW progresses and further destroys their chances of ever having full bellies?
Thanks for including the video clips of the Siemens aircraft project CleanTechnica has further information. Looks both promising and scalable.
“A new type of electric motor — weighing just 50 kilograms, but delivering a continuous power output of around 260 kilowatts (roughly 5 times comparable drive systems) — was recently demonstrated live in an Extra 330LE aerobatic airplane by researchers from Siemens, according to a press release from the German giant.”
. . . . . .
“Siemens and Airbus will reportedly be using the motor for the development of regional aircraft. “By 2030, we expect to see initial aircraft with up to 100 passengers and a range of around 1,000 kilometers,”
http://cleantechnica.com/2016/07/06/siemens-electric-airplane-flies-us-toward-future/
The “initial” aircraft will be flying by 2030 (and the “production” ones some unknown time after that?) By 2030 (14 years from now) I expect air travel to be severely curtailed because of the rapidly worsening climate change situation—-part of the coming Great Disruption (see Gilding). Any planes that are still flying will likely be transporting food rather than passengers.
This is just more pie-in-the-sky scheme by capitalists and corporations seeking to get rich.
Also the electric motor taxiing system looks very promising in the near future . . . .
The Safran and Honeywell system is aiming for certification in 2018, several airlines have supported this project.
“The team is still working on the program with a goal of certification in 2018 and entry into service shortly after,”
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aerospace/2015-06-03/safran/honeywell-egts-system-delayed-two-years
LMAO! Every little bit helps, but the real problem with aviation is the carbon emissions produced while flying. Why are so many focusing on every little bright-sided thing they can find rather than the 600 pound gorilla?
IN development is a two seater electric aircraft. We can see what will happen as these work their way into reality.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/07/20160711-lilium.html
Start-up developing electric 2-seat VTOL aircraft
11 July 2016
Lilium Aviation, a German startup initially funded by the European Union and supported by the European Space Agency and its Business Incubation Centre Bavaria, is developing a 2-seat, electric VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) aircraft, with planned rollout in January 2018.
Lilium was formed by a team of aerospace engineers and product designers from the Technical University of Munich.
Current specifications for the personal aircraft include:
Max. take-off weight: 600 kg
Payload: 200 kg
Cruising velocity: 300 km/h / 180 mph
Max. velocity: 400 km/h / 250 mph
Range: 500 km / 300 mi
Power: 320 kW / 435 hp
You will not be deterred from your naive bright-sidedness, will you? A “startup” has a “planned roll out” of an electric VTOL 18 months from now? Yep, just like Tesla has big plans but can’t even meet delivery targets today. Solar Roadway redux.
And they have a nice photo of their exotic looking “engineering model” (hollow inside, of course) to aid in their fundraising efforts? Please tell us why we need an electric VTOL aircraft anyway, and what the market is likely to be, how much it will cost, etc. Another toy for the rich that will only use up more of the carbon budget.
Also from Siemens this great use of an old idea in Sweden (with new technology innovations), will also be set up Stateside later on, a possible solution for reducing road freight pollution and emissions.
http://cleantechnica.com/2016/07/11/good-news-ev-truckers-swedens-electric-highway-goes-live/