United Airlines buying 100 Electric Jet Airliners

[Pato del Muerto 52616]

2 hours ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Lost in all this craze is the fact that new geared turbofan models of the 737 and 320 burn a gallon a minute less fuel than their predecessors. 

I would think the logical intermediate step between them and electric planes would be something like having an APU provide power to two electric motors with battery back up like a diesel electric locomotive. Or have the apu top off the batteries as needed. 

They're obviously still  a few leaps in technology away from practical emission free travel. 

BTW, the navy did patent small fusion reactors recently. That would be a start if it ever reached fruition and battery and other electric tech took another step forward with stuff like graphene etc..

Is size constraint the reason the military never appropriated the naval fission into other craft like tanks or planes?

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

What would be the point of that? If the power is still coming from combustion, it doesn't seem like you're gaining anything unless planes can also take advantage of regenerative braking in some form. 

The point would be reduction in emissions. One smaller power plant creating electricity for two ducted fans versus two turbines. 

Its not a one to one example, but an A321 burns 15 gallons a minute at cruise. Or 900 gallons an hour. It’s APU with bleed and electric load on it burns about 45 gallons an hour. So yeah, a significant reduction in emissions is available. It would be an intermediate step and a significant decrease in emissions even if such a power plant had to burn 200 gallons an hour to either recharge the batteries or power the electric fans directly. 

Airbus is currently working on both regenerative braking and electric motors on the main wheels to allow the plane to taxi with APU power alone versus 1 to 2 engines. Impractical for a short taxi, but probably invaluable at places like LGA or with significant off gate weather holds. 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Bobby_Batronic

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

25 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Is size constraint the reason the military never appropriated the naval fission into other craft like tanks or planes?

I wasn’t thinking direct placement into modes of transportation, but more the magical unicorn farts needed to recharge said electric vehicles in a clean manner with small, perhaps city centric plants.

Just spitballing, but its not unimaginable. 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Bobby_Batronic

[Dahobbs 17692]

15 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

The point would be reduction in emissions. One smaller power plant creating electricity for two ducted fans versus two turbines. 

Its not a one to one example, but an A321 burns 15 gallons a minute at cruise. Or 900 gallons an hour. It’s APU with bleed and electric load on it burns about 45 gallons an hour. So yeah, a significant reduction in emissions is available. It would be an intermediate step and a significant decrease in emissions even if such a power plant had to burn 200 gallons an hour to either recharge the batteries or power the electric fans directly. 

Airbus is currently working on both regenerative braking and electric motors on the main wheels to allow the plane to taxi with APU power alone versus 1 to 2 engines. Impractical for a short taxi, but probably invaluable at places like LGA or with significant off gate weather holds. 

Oh, that's really interesting. I wouldn't have expected the smaller power plant to be more efficient than the current primary engines. 

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Oh, that's really interesting. I wouldn't have expected the smaller power plant to be more efficient than the current primary engines. 

It’s a much smaller turbine that isn’t required to move large fan blades. Like a trolling motor versus a big outboard. 

[elfenix 34338]

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

If the power is still coming from combustion, it doesn't seem like you're gaining anything unless planes can also take advantage of regenerative braking in some form. 

there might be aerodynamic advantages to being able to separate the combustion and propulsion parts of the motor

[AeroHorn 754]

Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePo4) batteries avoid these metals (Nickel and Cobalt-free) but have a bit lower power densities due to lower operating voltage. They are safe and long lasting, and are being implemented in cars. I hope this chemistry gets a bit more efficient, which will solve the mining problem. Lithium itself is very widespread and is usually close to the surface.

 

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

there might be aerodynamic advantages to being able to separate the combustion and propulsion parts of the motor

The question is whether the battery tech is evolving slowly enough to justify building intermediate step airframes that will last 20-30 years. 

[Dahobbs 17692]

1 minute ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

The question is whether the battery tech is evolving slowly enough to justify building intermediate step airframes that will last 20-30 years. 

I'm just not sure there is a clear path to the type of density required for anything but a small airplane. While I think hydrogen as a fuel for consumer cars is a dead end, it probably makes more sense for planes than lithium ion batteries. 

[lmao 178]

On 7/14/2021 at 1:10 PM, 0xdeadbeef said:

From the linked article:

This is exactly what big car companies used to do with All Electric Vehicles before Tesla came along.  They dump a little money into some interesting startup, sign a meaningless, non-binding 'deal' for some number of units, and they get great press out of it and it makes it seem like they care... and then they continue business as usual. 

In this case Heart Aerospace seem to only have just received $35Million in Series A funding. 

I'll make a not-so-bold-prediction that this will not fly in 2026 and United will never receive any planes. 

 

 

[elfenix 34338]

11 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

The question is whether the battery tech is evolving slowly enough to justify building intermediate step airframes that will last 20-30 years. 

boeing can't even figure out if it has the space to build a plane spanning the 737-787 gap between currently available new engine tech and those intermediate airframes

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/15-billion-jet-dilemma-facing-boeings-ceo-2021-06-02/

[washparkhorn 9939]

The USAF is testing electric aircraft for short haul medevacs with VTOL:

http://www.militaryspot.com/news/air-force-electric-aircraft-performs-first-medevac

https://kittyhawk.aero/heaviside/

Edited July 15, 2021 by washparkhorn

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

35 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm just not sure there is a clear path to the type of density required for anything but a small airplane. While I think hydrogen as a fuel for consumer cars is a dead end, it probably makes more sense for planes than lithium ion batteries. 

Storing liquid hydrogen is pretty much a no go for flying because of the extensive insulation and whatnot required to keep it liquid. 

[Biff Tannen 45750]

Am I the only one shocked that this thread actually seems to have evolved into a meaningful discussion after starting off with the regular dipshit naysayers who don't have any clue what they are talking about?

[Surly Bevo 25178]

Am I the only one shocked that this thread actually seems to have evolved into a meaningful discussion after starting off with the regular dipshit naysayers who don't have any clue what they are talking about?

You ever heard that one about the weather in Texas?

[Armybrat 40920]

7 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

That's why I said most companies were transitioning away from cobalt entirely for batteries. It isn't a necessary component and can be replaced.  e.g.,

https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/22/21451670/tesla-cobalt-free-cathodes-mining-battery-nickel-ev-cost

https://www.mining.com/cobalt-nickel-free-electric-car-batteries-are-a-runaway-success/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200716101612.htm

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/09/heres-what-tesla-will-put-in-its-new-batteries/

And, in case you are interested more generally, here is a good article on the advancements in batteries over the years:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/05/eternally-five-years-away-no-batteries-are-improving-under-your-nose/

You could literally say this about pretty much anything done to gather resources for our modern life. I'm sure you have the same concerns about ground water contamination associated with fracking or the mining of other metals. The solution isn't to abandon development entirely, but rather to improve our processes to lessen human and environmental damage. 

Serious question:

How does fracking contaminate groundwater when it is injected two miles deep? 

[Neonmoon 38130]

11 hours ago, Armybrat said:

Serious question:

How does fracking contaminate groundwater when it is injected two miles deep? 

Shitty casing job 

[Armybrat 40920]

17 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Shitty casing job 

That is the fault of the careless driller, not the process.

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

21 hours ago, RPM said:

Yeah, but what powers the treadmill for takeoff?

A couple cats that may or may not be there.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

21 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

That is the fault of the careless driller, not the process.

 

Fracture should in the subsurface bedrock could also be a potential cause.

I like what fracking has made possible, but I think it's managed terribly too often meaning even once is too much if it destroys an aquifer.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4977]

15 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Am I the only one shocked that this thread actually seems to have evolved into a meaningful discussion after starting off with the regular dipshit naysayers who don't have any clue what they are talking about?

It appears you may have spoke too soon.

[956 Worldwide 34794]

20 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Is size constraint the reason the military never appropriated the naval fission into other craft like tanks or planes?

Size is a huge one, and it’s not just the size of the reactor but the ridiculous amounts of shielding you need to keep crew from getting radiation poisoning. And cooling the thing effectively is another issue. 
 

And then it’s just the general safety of the idea. You don’t want tiny nuclear disasters on a battlefield when things that are designed to be shot at, get shot at. You don’t want an airplane to crash carrying a nuclear reactor and poison your own cities. A ship or submarine sinks to the bottom of the ocean and it’s taken care of to a degree.
 

The sole real benefit is range/operating time and that gets more than outweighed by complexity and downsides. ICBMs eliminated the need for a permanently flying bomber. And it’s hard to see the use of an infinite range tank, you don’t operate them for so long, that far away from general supply lines. If you really don’t have enough gas to keep the tanks running, then you don’t have enough for all the other ICE equipment moving men and materiel around behind and with them and are screwed anyway.

[Dahobbs 17692]

3 hours ago, Armybrat said:

That is the fault of the careless driller, not the process.

 

Right, just like child labor is the fault of the mining company, not the process of mining. Things can be done in a way to avoid environmental and human damage. Or they can be done incorrectly or carelessly. That was my point. You don't abandon progress, you find a better way to do it. 

[Armybrat 40920]

43 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Right, just like child labor is the fault of the mining company, not the process of mining. Things can be done in a way to avoid environmental and human damage. Or they can be done incorrectly or carelessly. That was my point. You don't abandon progress, you find a better way to do it. 

Correct... and Chesapeake has been one of the most egregious violators, particularly in Pennsylvania.