Houston we have a problem
Last year, United promised to slash its greenhouse-gas emissions by 100 per cent by 2050.
How are they going to offset gasses emitted by passengers on the plane?
America's United Airlines and regional carrier Mesa Airlines have together ordered 200 electric airplanes from an aerospace startup for short-distance passenger flights. Last year, United promised to slash its greenhouse-gas emissions by 100 per cent by 2050. To help reach that target, an investment unit dubbed United Airlines …
Forcibly put the gasses back into the passengers on debarkation perhaps?
So you give a pint of blood on take-off. They put it into a Sodastream and carbonate it. Then pump it back into you while you're strapped down for the landing. Who doesn't want fizzy blood?
Excellent idea, but I am afraid the logistical problem of making sure everybody gets his/her own blood back (infections, blood group incompatibility) might make it slightly unrealistic. And cleaning all necessary equipment between flights (same reasons) might also be a bit too energy consuming.
It's what I think when I see lorries nose to tail on the motorway... if only we could put each of those containers on some kind of chassis, link them all together with just one drive unit... maybe put them all on tracks to make it easier to pull ... maybe even electrify the whole system!
The trouble is that rail doesn't run to the start or end point, thanks to Beeching. In N America there's a huge amount of container (they call it 'intermodal') traffic, because it makes perfect sense to truck it by road for 200 miles, transfer it to rail for 2,000 miles and then run it on road another 200 miles to its destination. Hardly any UK journeys are longer than a couple of hundred miles.
Electric motors for taxiing have been looked at for a long time but the fuel cost of dragging a motor around just aren't worth the savings for a taxi-out or in, especially since this can be done with one engine shut down most of the time anyway. Big airports implements a traffic control system anyway so you won't be allowed to start engines until your taxi time is predicted to be short.
The launch system would only get you 15% of the energy you need to accelerate to cruising speeds, and that doesn't include the energy to get to cruise altitude, nor wastage for air conditioning or pressurisation.
A bigger aircraft like the Boeing 787 can draw up to 400kW for A/C alone, and can have a peak load towards 1.3MW. I can't see how even a light aircraft could have a flight time of more than about 10-15 minutes and a commuter-style jet? No chance.
Hydrogen storage? Possibly. Super-capacitors using some undiscovered technology. Maybe. Lithium ion batteries? Nah. For some things we're going to have to keep burning dinosaurs - but doing it carefully and efficiently. This means an end to flying to Spain for a fiver, not going there in a Tesla Jet.
The weight of the storage container for the aviation fuel on an airplane is, for all intents and purposes, negligible. Mostly just the sealant for the void spaces in the airframe. Maybe some structural members are heavier than if they would have been if the voids weren't filled with fuel. The fuel storage weight decreases significantly as the fuel is used.
This is not the same with batteries which have no change in weight. Nor with hydrogen. Currently 5Kg of hydrogen requires a container of around 80 Kg. Batteries, or compressed, hydrogen will reduce the payload capabilities of the airplane significantly.
Cryogenic hydrogen might be better, insulation is typically quite light, though does take up more space. Though I believe cryogenic hydrogen is volumetrically about a third as energy dense as kerosene...so you need three times as much space excluding thermal insulation.
Thus, I don't expect to see a battery or compressed hydrogen Airbus A320 equivalent plane in my life. Cessna equivalent yes. Though it will probably be inferior to a hydrocarbon burning aircraft in distance and payload weight. Might have other advantages that would make it worthwhile.
Not a bad idea. Some sort of ground conveyor would also be useful rathet than burning power on taxiing
I recall reading somewhere that Concorde burned as much fuel taxiing to the runway as most airliners burned flying to Brussels.
Made me wonder why they didn't just tow it out from the terminal with a ground vehicle (whether electric or dead dinosaur).
Of course, as other posters have commented - any time you don't need to cross large bodies of water, you're usually better off with high speed rail. Just as fast, delivers you to your destination (not the city's outer orbital) and doesn't involve being touched up pre-travel.
There is one other bugbear foot rail… mountain ranges. Quite a few all over North America…
50km of base tunnel for about US$10.5Bn - or approximately three B2 stealth bombers.
Of course the US would need more than one, but the tunnels are small-fry in comparison to building out the rest of the rail network which the US so desperately needs.
The launches on aircraft carries only do that due to their small length, with appropriately designed aircraft to cope with the strain.
If this was in an airport, you could have the launcher a couple of km long, so acceleration could be no more than you get now, as you'd have more time to get up to speed. This would also mean no major changes needed for the aircraft design to cope with high Gs.
Plenty of rollercoasters pull 3 to 4G for 3-4 seconds to complete a vertical loop. The best ones, old Schwarzkopf rides in particular would go as high as 6G though they aren't for everyone.
A sustained 2G winch/catapult setup sounds plenty viable. Runway length isn't restricted like a carrier catapult is.
Don't know how true this still is, but the same question was asked a while back (3 years ago), and one of the replies includes the maths. This assumed a 250nm range and similar sized aircraft as the one in the reg article. The thing that may have changed is the weight of the batteries, where the linked question assumed a third of the aircraft weight is the batteries, this could be lower now of course with tech improvements.
The TLDR is basically that assuming you accelerated the aircraft to full cruise speed via the launch system, you'd save less than 0.5% of the energy for the total flight (assuming full range), which equates to about 1.19nm extra range (on top of 250nm, so not much really).
The shorter the flight, the worse this gets of course. This could be improved by having lighter batteries, so perhaps needs a tweak for the new aircraft, but I don't imagine this has changed dramatically in the last 2-3 years or so (incrementally probably yes, but not enough to impact things here).
I'd suspect the extra cost and complexity of the launch system, will never out-way the gain you get, especially for short haul aircraft.
It wouldn't add much to the range per flight, but it would add to the longevity of the batteries making total ownership costs potentially much less for the operator. The batteries wouldn't need to dump large amounts of current over the short periods required on each takeoff, my reasoning for this is drones, if flown in normal mode batteries have a much longer lifespan than if they're flown in sport mode.
At take-off engines are typically at or close to maximum power. The requirement is to accelerate the aircraft to climbing speed, not cruising speed. There was a piggy-back airmail aircraft that was launched on top of a Sunderland flying boat and could cruise and land, but not take off under its own power.
https://www.alamy.com/the-short-mayo-composite-a-piggy-back-long-range-seaplaneflying-boat-combination-produced-by-short-brothers-at-their-works-at-rochester-kent-the-smaller-aircarft-the-mercury-is-placed-on-top-of-the-maia-flying-boat-the-plane-is-expected-to-bring-india-and-new-york-within-days-of-no-stop-flight-12-october-1937-image359628594.html
A typical winch launch for a glider uses about 1mile of 'piano wire' cable and can lift the glider to 1500' in still air.
"At take-off engines are typically at or close to maximum power. The requirement is to accelerate the aircraft to climbing speed, not cruising speed."
Maybe as this is a small aircraft it can take the length of a long airport runway to get to takeoff speed. Then, unlike jets, it won't have to do an initial steep climb before reducing power for noise abatement. An electric plane will be much quieter and hence may have lower and smoother power requirements.
On another topic - refuelling. Do the ground crew come out with a pair of giant caterpillar clips? 20 minute turnrounds won't get that much power back in. Or do they have a quick swap with already charged battery pack?
"Or do they have a quick swap with already charged battery pack?"
That might be the best idea. Conventional aircraft only fuel up with enough for the trip plus some spare to save weight. The same could apply to replaceable battery pack. If max range is 250nM, there's real reason they shouldn't use a half size pack for a 100nM trip.
> Conventional aircraft only fuel up with enough for the trip plus some spare to save weight.
> On another topic - refuelling. Do the ground crew come out with a pair of giant caterpillar clips? 20 minute turnrounds won't get that much power back in.
20-minutes seems a bit short. A major route from my city airport uses dash-8's (in addition to larger aircraft) as the flight route is ~300km. The turnaround time for the dash-8 200, which has a capacity of 36 passengers, is more like 40-60 minutes, once you allow for unloading of baggage/cargo/passengers and then loading baggage/cargo/passengers, plus the inevitable passenger who hasn't boarded yet and holds it up for 5 or 10 minutes while they are found.
According to Heat Aerospaces' FAQ, it's 40 minutes for an 'average mission' which I don't see defined:
What is the charge time?Charge time is largely dependent on the available charging infrastructure but with the recommended charging, we can charge an ES-19 in less than 40 minutes for an average mission.
What are the power requirements per charger?
We recommend an optimal charging power of 1MW per aircraft, to achieve the customer desired turnaround time.
Do electric aircraft require expensive ground infrastructure?
We estimate the cost per charger for the ES-19 to be around $500k. A significant part of this infrastructure could be dual-purpose supporting the ground transportation and service vehicles.
"We estimate the cost per charger for the ES-19 to be around $500k. A significant part of this infrastructure could be dual-purpose supporting the ground transportation and service vehicles."
That might be economic at the hub airport - but what of the remote regional airport that has only a couple of flights a day? As EV owners are well aware very fast chargers of much lower capacity are prone to frequent failure. With an equally expensive plane masquerading as a chocolate teapot on the tarmac - it's no fly until they can get a 'high-powered' engineering team to the issue. And they aren't going to fly up in another Mesa plane.
Single point of failure implies they need at least two of the bu**ers and hope the local sub-station doesn't blow.
1MW is a substantial draw, some of the airports(fields?) would not have power for that, so that expense will become augmented with grid storage costs too, you are probably looking at considerably more than the $500k to power the charger
1MW for 40 mins is 0.67MWh, In the smaller places you'd be looking at a battery pack that you can trickle charge and rapidly discharge; at larger hubs, you are probably looking at extra generation capacity, at least in Arizona Mesa have plentiful solar available...
It would probably have quite an impact but the issue is the resultant physical stresses on the passengers. It is one thing to be strapped into a form-fitting seat that supports you and kicked at 4G than a standard passenger seat.
What is acceptable to the military is probably not viable to the general public.
> the security check-in faff
The level of faff depends on the specific countries regulations (YMMV) and the size of the airport. e.g. International airports tend to have more faff and bigger queues to get through security. Smaller regional airports tend to have less faff and smaller queues. At my local regional airport, having to wait more than a couple minutes in a queue is unusual, and don't have to take off shoes/belts/etc. unless they trigger the metal detector. The longest I've taken to get through was 10 minutes, and that was because a couple of large flights were boarding soon (150 passengers each) so there was a last minute rush, and I was also randomly selected for the bomb-residue test which added a couple minutes to bring it up to about 10 total.
Shit!
I ride my bike that far to have a beer/coffee/bike show/visit friend/to look at the view/just for fun, most weekends and often during the week, 500 miles is just a day ride, I'm 60+ so don't travel as fast as I used to, and the "Blue and reds" are more frequent than pot holes these days.
According to Heat Aerospaces' FAQ:
What about reserves?Reserve, alternate, and contingency energy (fuel) requirements vary by geographical region, and by the type of operation being flown (VFR, IFR, etc). In addition, for short range operations, there are procedures for reduced contingency fuel, and for no alternate depending on the specific route.
However, as a general rule, a significant portion of the available energy on an electric aircraft needs to be reserved for missed approaches, adverse weather conditions, etc. Therefore, our early focus will be very short routes. This is not a problem – the unit economics of electric aircraft will be better the shorter the route, as the recharge times will be shorter, the battery wear will be less, and more departures can be made in a day.
In addition, for short range operations, there are procedures for reduced contingency fuel, and for no alternate depending on the specific route.
There are some routes where you need to request landing clearance before take-off. On those routes there are no alternates and weather isn't a surprise either.
Yes for most journeys 250 miles is driving range, although it depends on the geography of the specific journey. As it it could be much further and slower to drive if there were mountain ranges, bodies of water etc you have to drive around, that a plane can fly over.
Absolutely, I'm not entirely sure what parts of the US this would apply to, but I can envision a fair few flight routes in Scotland where this could be viable: the likes of Glasgow - Campbeltown (min 3h30 by road with 2 ferries, 5h otherwise), Aberdeen-Orkney (4-5h drive, 2h ferry), Orkney-Shetland (8h ferry).
Range wise, this would work for the likes of Glasgow - Belfast, or Liverpool - Dublin but not enough capacity with 19 seats.
According to Heat Aerospaces' FAQ:
What’s a typical route that the ES-19 will fly in 2026?Our early adopter market will be very short flights where there is high demand. This will include island-hopping and flying over mountainous terrain, where the flight distance is significantly less than the road routes available.
What are typical early routes in the US?
Examples of routes include Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD) to Purdue University Airport (LAF), which is 191 km, and San Francisco International Airport (SFO) to Modesto City-County Airport (MOD), which is 120 km.
What are typical routes in the Nordic countries?
Typical routes in the Nordic countries include Stockholm-Visby, Bergen-Stavanger, Skellefteå-Vaasa, Trondheim-Östersund, and Gothenburg-Copenhagen, as well as all domestic flights on Iceland and Greenland.
What are typical routes in the rest of the world?
We have seen large interest for domestic flights in Canada, New Zealand, the British Isles, and the Alps, but also from countries like Indonesia, a country of 17,000 islands that has undergone a four-fold increase in domestic air travel in the last decade.
"Yes for most journeys 250 miles is driving range, although it depends on the geography of the specific journey. As it it could be much further and slower to drive if there were mountain ranges, bodies of water etc you have to drive around, that a plane can fly over."
The first commercial airline in the US flew across the bay between Tampa and St Petersberg in ~20 minutes. The equivalent car journey was 20 hours, or 2 hours, weather permitting, by boat.
Chances are that short hop could be served by a far more efficient train service.
One that doesn't have to lift its batteries into the sky.
And can make multiple stops.
And run all day without having to stop to recharge.
I can see some examples where it's a good idea, such as reaching remote islands, but not the ones they give.
Draw a circle around Leeds with a 400km radius. Are there any destinations within that circle that would be useful to you? Sorry, but Schiphol is out of range (over 460 km)
That's assuming that 400km is the aircrafts operating range rather than its total range (including mandatory reserves required for ATC delays, possible missed approach and diversions).
Have a play with this
They claim a 250 mile range, so allowing for "reserve", say 200 miles. That covers, from Leeds, most of the main population centres of the UK.
If we assume that 250 miles is the practical range, ie that includes the "reserve", then it doesn't quite get to Inverness and the western Highlands, Cornwall or the SW of NI, but takes in all of the rest of the UK from Leeds. It's enough to cover many of the UK internal flights in what is currently the aircraft equivalent of a Nissan Leaf.
London - Edinburgh is out of range without "refuelling", but London to Paris, Antwerp, Brussels, Channel Islands are all in range.
250 miles is basically my "might as well drive" range.
Wrong use case. The traffic they are anticipating almost certainly is international travelers and/or business trips that depart/arrive at a relatively small number of airports. If you live in New England and want/need to travel to Germany would you rather drive 4 or 5 or 6 hours to Montreal, JFK or BOS, deal with difficult traffic, and pay through the nose for parking? Or would you rather drive 50 minutes to a regional airport, Lebanon, NH perhaps, park for free or at minimal cost, and check in there? Yes, you may spend an extra hour or so hanging out in airport lounges. And yes that is ... ahem ... terminally dull. But if the alternative is an hour or so fearing for your life in Boston's notorious traffic, airport lounges begin to look better and better.
> International travellers are rarely on the "short hop" range, especially in the USA.
You seem to be assuming the start and end-points of the travel are the international airports in the source/destination country.
Most of the time, people travel from home to the outbound international airport, which could be a few hundred kilometers, then from the inbound international airport to the final destination, which could bea few hundred kilometers away. Therefore using an aircraft such as the ES-19 could step in for those non-international legs.
I've had trips that have had 2 additional flights each inbound and outbound from the international airports, for a total of 5 air-legs, 1 international and 4 relatively short (all under 400km) domestic. Tiny local airport (uncontrolled airspace, no local air control at all) to a larger regional airport onto the international airport, with the same (in reverse) at the other end.
Although providing such short-hops merely to allow a more convenient airport to start from would almost certainly increase the total ticket price more than most passengers would consider reasonable from a cost/benefit pov.
Plus it would increase traffic into and out of the main hub by a large amount, and so landing and takeoff slots may not be available to allow it to be offered in practice.
Quite so. If you take into account the time spent getting to & from the airport at each end, and time spent queuing for check-in and security, driving would usually be quicker anyway.
I have also not been able to find whether that 250 miles includes the mandatory reserve required if the aircraft needs to divert. If it does not include reserve, then the destination would in most cases have to be closer than 125 miles.
"Whoop-de-do. 250 miles is basically my "might as well drive" range."
The early models of current electric cars had ranges of 30-40 miles in real life. Whoop-de-do. But things have moved on a little since then.
The first airliner flew in 1913, but never went into commercial service due to WWI. It had a range of about 600Km and carried 16 passengers in Russia. Post-war, the French Goliath flew commercially, carrying 14 passengers.
Mine too, and if it's a holiday, then for me the journey is part of the holiday, nice scenic detours etc. On the other hand, I frequently drive 300-400 mile round trips for work. That's not holiday and the journey is less fun. Not that my my departure or arrival points could possibly be helped by flying in this instance, but a lot of people need those short hops and a few hundred miles where the airports at each end are convenient will be a lot faster than driving for many. On the other hand "enhanced" security at airports may negate that. I've not flown for many years. I'd imagine that for internal flights, there are systems in place now to speed things up.
On the other hand, how long would London to Amsterdam take to drive?
Why would you drive? Eurostar takes ~4hrs, which is about as long as it would take you to get a train (or drive) out to a London Airport, get touched up clear security, fly there and then get a transfer into Amsterdam proper from Schipol.
And for your effort you get a decent seat and power sockets for your mobile devices, which is more than sleazyjet can offer.
Whoop-de-do. 250 miles is basically my "might as well drive" range.
Well done you. Nonetheless, there's a market for short-haul flights as evidenced by the strong short-haul flight industry (pandemic notwithstanding). Lots of countries have less developed road infrastructure, things like mountains or are a bit islandy.
Electric short-haul is a reasonable substitute for gas burners in those cases.
Although expanded rail is still preferable - quieter, more energy-efficient, no security theatre to endure and delivers you to an actual place of habitation - not a semi-rural location somewhere out on the city's orbital.
No, it isn’t. Middle English didn’t have standardized spelling, and was spoken long before the 17th century. This word’s forms in Middle English included “plough”, “ploughe”, “plouh”, “plouw”, “plow”, “plugh”, and “plughe”. It descends from the Old Norse word plógr, which displaced the native Old English sulh (that -h was pronounced /x/, like the -ch in modern German Bach). The modern form of sulh, “sullow”, has been relegated to dialectal use.
The 19 passenger limit is potentially much more than just not needed cabin crew.
If you stick to 19 passengers max and keep the maximum take off weight under a certain amount then the aircraft can (in the USA - ESA rules differ) be certified under FAR part 23 rather than the usual part 25 rules that apply to larger airliners
That has a whole host of implications, just a few of which are :-
Not needing cabin crew
Can potentially be operated single pilot
Lower G ratings for structural strength
Lower safety margins for runway lengths
Lower engine out performance requirements
HS2 will be replaced by HS3, wich will tunnel underneath England, Scotland, Wales and Nothern Ireland.
The main station will be underneath the Isle of Man, and the tunnel walls will be painted in a repeating Union Jack pattern. The station entrance staircases will be carpeted in over-size English flags made out of robust micro-fibers. The production contracts will be handed out on a no-competition basis due to Covid. The whole thing will prove to be an integral part in levelling up the UK.
Surely this where hydrogen would be better as the fuel source or is the fuel-cell not viable in the air? At least then you can stick with well-proven electric motor /propeller technology.
There was a test not that long ago of an electric jet engine but I think the scale was significantly larger than a 19 seat exec jet.
Thinking about 19 seats, what is the maximum number of passengers before cabin crew are needed? This looks to be a perfect replacement for G-ERTI......
Arthur, have you remembered to charge G-ERTI?
Fuel cell becomes viable if you require low power over a long time. This aircraft appears to require the opposite. Assuming that the hydrogen storage issue can be solved, it might be a better solution to modify (simplify) a jet engine to burn H2. While most of the imissions would be H20, there would still be the issue of NOX emissions.
But they'll be recruiting for a pilot now that Martin has defected to be with his princess. And anyway they'd have to change from "MJN Air" to "MEA Air".
(For the uninitiated this is a reference to the Brilliant radio comedy series "Cabin Pressure" by John Finnemore, available from the BBC.)
Where I live there are already a number of 19 seat aircraft in use as "might as well drive" doesn't apply unless you can drive over the sea!
Currently the airline uses some Dornier 228 NG 19 seaters.
Most of the flights are less than 120 miles (one route is only 25 miles, another is only 30 miles) so potentially the return flights (or even multiple return flights) could be done without recharging.
I imagine that there are a lot of use cases where this aircraft makes sense.
Inter island travel in the Caribbean for instance would be a perfect use case for this type of aircraft.
>Inter island travel in the Caribbean for instance would be a perfect use case for this type of aircraft.
Small nations are generally exempt from/don't care about headline grabbing climate accords
It might be worthwhile if you are trying to run some elite rich eco tourist resort
This post has been deleted by its author
"up to" 250 miles sounds good but it won't all be in the air - don't forget all that trundling along taxiways and aprons, I assume the engines won't consume power unless actually moving, like for cars? Although I wouldn't be too impressed to see the props keep stopping and starting as we move from terminal to runway...
Any idea how much power will be available for in-flight entertainment? Or even lighting/heating the cabin... Self-loading cargo tends to demand both.
Mines the one with the "I was a Fitter before Pontius was a Pilot" and "We never forget you have a choice" patches...
Sure I see the comments querying the range and practicalities but my view is this;
We see it whenever hydrogen is mentioned too (the trains trial reported on the other week as an example). Come on FFS we have to start somewhere right?
It's a "Look Squirrel!"
Every time United get attacked for taking a gazillion $ in bailouts and still selling their staff's organs, or it beats a passenger to death for looking Arabic, or somebody points out how much carbons it emits, it points to this and screams GREEN
"I'm also assuming these would be quite a bit quieter too would they not?"
They might not be. Much of the noise comes from the propeller on a conventional airplane. The engine noise of an electric plane will be quieter than a turbine or piston aircraft, but the props will still provide significant noise.
Maintenance may be an improvement. Electric motors will have fewer moving parts and lower operating temperatures.
>Maintenance may be an improvement. Electric motors will have fewer moving parts and lower operating temperatures.
That's why electric probably has a future in GA (small private plane hobby)
The big running cost is maintenance because engines have so many complicated parts and every last part must be manufactured, tested, installed, serviced by lots of paperwork.
If you make an electric motor that the FAA certify the equivalent of ETOPS, ie these motors typically run for 100K hours with a failure so we can relax service intervals.
And for GA a 1 hour flight time with 100mi range and 1 hour recharge would be perfectly fine
> It's 250nm now but come on, progress tells us tech will develop it into something much more useful
No, it's not 250nm now; it's 250nm in some company's product development pipeline.
That 250nm already assumes all the technological achievements which might happen in a 10 year timeline, have already come to pass. And then some.
In jet airliners there is a turbine available in case all the engines fail and this can power the hydraulics and essential electrical systems. There is no reason why, when losing height there could not be some sort of air braking using a wind turbine to generate electricity.
"a turbine available in case all the engines fail and this can power the hydraulics and essential electrical systems."
Yes thanks, I'm familiar with the concept of the Ram-Air Turbine. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_air_turbine
"A typical large RAT on a commercial aircraft can be capable of producing 5 to 70 kW, depending on the generator. Smaller, low airspeed models may generate as little as 400 watts. "
How much impact is something like that going to have on the efficiency, performance, range, etc of a 19 seater electric aircraft? I'm guessing it'll be around zero, so they won't be fitted. ICBW.
"...journeys are limited by the plane’s electric battery storage"
In reality, they're limited by the accuracy of the charge meter. A gas tank fuel level meter is extremely accurate, so it can be relied on as a basis for decision making while in flight. Not so a battery charge meter, as its reference point is the capacity determined at charging time but battery capacity varies dynamically with multiple factors including age, charge regime, temperature and discharge load.
The problem is the variability of air speed v. ground speed. Because flying into a stiff wind will empty the fuel tank or battery faster than flying in still air, the accuracy of the gauge is fundamental to safety, as when the fuel is out you crash. So safety margins will have to be much wider for electric planes than has been allowable to date (and there's unlikely to be much of an option for a "reserve" due to the very low energy density of the power source compared to gas).
I guess if you have N cells and discharge them one by one the you have a count down to empty even if you don't know the progress accurately for each cell?
Would need to have some cycle/wear levelling so they are all roughly the same "age" and so each one getting to cut-out voltage is representing a similar amount of energy used.
Sitting on top of several thousand gallons of kerosene is challenging which has created sophisticated fire supression systems - usually based on smothering the seat of the fire denying it oxygen. But that don't work with Lithium batteries as some Tesla ex-owners and their local fire services have discovered.
Maybe parachutes in the air or ejector seats on the ground could be a way around the issue?
The magic of CO2 again. Released in anywhere except China, India, Africa it causes fires, earthquakes, floods, and even bad weather. If released in China and Russia, say, while making cars, batteries, magnets, electronics etc plants get fed only. The only upside I can see is that small commuter airports near cities can work 24 hour cycle shifting passengers to big airports where real planes can take off.
I don't see this as an option for ALL air routes, but there are plenty that fit the range and capacity limitations where burning oil could be avoided.
The key fact is that every little helps - if only 0.01% of air traffic is replaced with electric power that's still a win.
Same with electric road vehicles: every electric car on the road is one less user of fossil fuel.
Even if the electricity is sometimes generated by burning oil or gas, *some* of that electricity is sustainably sourced, and that proportion is likely to improve as scientists and engineers target the technologies, and bean-counters see the small wins.
An aircraft/car/truck/earth-moving machine powered by oil is always going to be a polluter, one powered by electricity has the potential to be powered by *any* source of electricity.
Same with electric road vehicles: every electric car on the road is one less user of fossil fuel.
It depends how electricity is produced. If it comes from coal or gas, there's no gain. Add to this that electric vehicles will pose problem of their own: pollution because of lithium extraction, difficulty to recycle batteries... Also, building new cars to replace older ones that could still work will require a lot of raw materials.
The key fact is that every little helps - if only 0.01% of air traffic is replaced with electric power that's still a win.
I disagree with that. You cannot solve a problem if you address 0.01% of it.
One has to say it clearly: the main problem is that we are too many on this planet. This is the problem to solve. Either we make less babies, or we find another planet to export a part of the population.
Quote: "It depends how electricity is produced. If it comes from coal or gas, there's no gain."
Not true, even if all the power was from dirty brown coal, it's still beneficial to use EVs from a pollution perspective, as the bulk of the pollution is still moved to the power station and away from local environments. Which is much easier to deal with centrally, rather than having to deal with it in each individual vehicle.
Even ignoring CO2 etc. It also removes the vehicle particulate generation, improving local air quality.
Research done a few years ago in the EU (2017) showed that in Poland, one of the dirtiest power generators in Europe, that an EV would produce ~25% less CO2 over it's lifetime compared with a diesel car (better still if compared to a petrol car).
Similar research done in the US came to the same conclusion, EVs are always better than petrol or diesel, irrespective of how the electricity is generated.
Obviously the more 'green' energy you have, the better this gets.
That's hardly relevant. Yes tyres can wear out quicker on an EV than an equivalent ICE, but most of that is down to driving style. EVs generally have more torque available, so can cause tyres to scrabble if setting off quickly etc. But if you drive more economically, there is little difference in tyre wear between an EV vs an ICE car.
But even if we assumed all EVs wore their tyres out faster, that still doesn't offset the other benefits of using an EV by any meaningful measure.
Also if you're including things like tyres, you also need to start including things like brake pads, which are a large contributor of particulates into the local atmosphere. Most EVs, certainly anything new, have very effective regen braking, this massively reduces the wear on the brake pads, as the brakes hardly even need to be used under normal driving conditions.
The key fact is that every little helps - if only 0.01% of air traffic is replaced with electric power that's still a win.
It's not just overall air traffic, it's the type of traffic.
BA bring an A380 into Heathrow. Some passengers leave the airport, some connect onto another big jet. Quite a few get a domestic connection to Manchester/Birmingham/Edinburgh, or short-haul over to Paris/Amsterdam.
Now realistically at least some of those should be replaced by HS2. For the ones that can't however, an electric jet reduces emissions over Heathrow, it also eliminates emissions over the destination.
By number of movements, short-haul outnumbers long-haul by quite a margin, and will have an outsized impact on urban air quality. Airliners also tend to be more efficient the higher they are. A Dreamliner cruising at 35,000ft for 10hours is proportionally more efficient than a short-haul aircraft bouncing up and down on five one-hour flights over the same period. If the ES19 comes to fruition then it's way more than a 0.01% win for people living near airports.
Of course modal shift to HS rail which is faster, cleaner and quieter is an even bigger win, but in some places that's not practical (usually due to large bodies of water).
Surely biofuel is the obvious choice for aircraft. You don't even need to make any changes to the planes, existing planes can run on biofuel of suitable quality. BP are working on this: https://www.bp.com/en/global/air-bp/news-and-views/views/what-is-sustainable-aviation-fuel-saf-and-why-is-it-important.html