NASA's electric plane tech is coming in for a late, bumpy landing NASA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on Wednesday released an audit of the agency's electrified aircraft propulsion (EAP) flight demonstration projects and found all will likely experience schedule delays and cost overruns. The reports casts doubt on the technology's ability to help the aviation industry reach government …
You don't need more than a school level qualification in a STEM subject to work out that practical electrified aircraft (other than small puddle-jumpers) are an impossibility. OTOH we know how to make hydrocarbon fuel from water and CO2 - just add (lots of) energy, if only we had a worldwide system of nuclear plants to provide it. And there's already a worldwide distribution system for it and propulsion systems that can use it.
They may also live near Khmelnytskyi. Couple of days ago, there was a very large bang there, followed by a small spike in gamma radiation of a few nSv over normal background. Then some reports of that drifting into Poland, and much speculation about whether it did or didn't happen. If it did, one theory was it was due to DU ammunition stored there, but that's not normally a gamma emitter. Or it could just be fake news. Given certain sections of the media love spreading FUD about radiation, they were a bit quiet about this one.
But back to the story. Given battery requirements for EVs, why aircraft? If the requirement is lower CO2, then there are already multiple ways to create synthetic aviation fuel that would be sustainable.
Jellied Eel: Given battery requirements for EVs, why aircraft? If the requirement is lower CO2, then there are already multiple ways to create synthetic aviation fuel that would be sustainable.
One of the issues with fuelled, rather than electric, flight is the emissions are at high altitude and can produce condensation trails which can have a surprisingly large effect on warming for their apparent size, see, e.g. https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/contrails-aviation-climate-change-satavia-scn-spc-intl/index.html#
"A study that looked at aviation’s contribution to climate change between 2000 and 2018 concluded that contrails create 57% of the sector’s warming impact, significantly more than the CO2 emissions from burning fuel. They do so by trapping heat that would otherwise be released into space."
As contrails are in part created by condensation of atmospheric water vapour around particulate emissions from burning fossil fuels, what the aircraft industry needs to do is reduce the use of fossil fuels (airlines are, for some reason, exempt from most current agreements on fossil fuel reductions to reduce man-made climate change).
Ahh, I see the good old 'down-vote-without-explanation' crowd are at it again.
Maybe it was the statement about how contrails form, see:
https://scied.ucar.edu/image/multiple-contrails#:~:text=The%20white%20streaks%20you%20see,(aerosols)%20in%20aircraft%20exhaust.
"Contrails are clouds that form when water vapor condenses and freezes around small particles (aerosols) in aircraft exhaust."
Or perhaps that I mentioned 'man-made climate change'? (The whole point of electric aircraft is to reduce fossil fuel emissions to reduce their effect on global weather and climate.)
I guess that unless someone actually explains their downvote, I'll never know.
I guess that unless someone actually explains their downvote, I'll never know.
People rarely do, but you'll notice it happens whenever you touch on 'sensitive' topics. It's not something I do, because if I disagree with someone's comment, I'll say so..
Or perhaps that I mentioned 'man-made climate change'? (The whole point of electric aircraft is to reduce fossil fuel emissions to reduce their effect on global weather and climate.)
Which is one of those effect exceeds cause issues. Or highlights.. other factors. So sure, there is a teeny amount of effect from con (or chem?) trails. But as with much climate dogma, it's extremely transitory, ie it'll have a short duration effect of blocking some incoming radiation, and the same for outgoing radiation. An IR photon will only be 'trapped' for a very short time, then it'll be spat out again in a random direction. The probability of that photon making it back to the surface and thus creating global warming obviously decreases with altitude. Unless people believe in a flat Earth, of course.
But there was 9/11, and the absence of con-trails. Stuff got observed, more stuff got fabricated by climate modellers.
Satavia pivoted to tackling contrails, by developing a weather prediction model that can forecast the conditions that lead to their formation.
Volcanologits* becomes entrepeneur, flogs model outputs, profits! So the usual climate story. Or as the ever reliable wiki puts it-
When no commercial aircraft flew across the USA following the September 11 attacks, the diurnal temperature variation was widened by 1.1 °C (2.0 °F). Measured across 4,000 weather stations in the continental United States, this increase was the largest recorded in 30 years. Without contrails, the local diurnal temperature range was 1 °C (1.8 °F) higher than immediately before.
So this must be true, because wiki goes to extreme lengths to ensure only the truth about climate change is published. But if true, this doesn't make sense. We're supposedly facing Thermageddon, if we don't prevent 1.5°C warming by 2027. Yet this says if we do ban contrails, we can expect 1°C warming? Are they trying to kill everyone by converting aircraft to electric jets?
Like a lot of climate 'science', it doesn't make sense other than opportunists going after the money being dangled infront of them to create 'solutions'. This one is fun because there was some emipircal evidence, although correlation rarely equals causation. Yet it's well known that climate models are notoriously inaccurate when it comes to assumptions wrt cloud cover, and cloud cover is just a wicked problem to model.
But the science is also pretty well known. Or just people know that sunbathing when it's cloudy isn't as warm as when there are clear skies. Or if they're self-identifying as solar panels, it's colder at night when there's clear skies than when it's cloudy. Politicians even know this, eg the UK's Clean Air Act 1956. So.. I wonder? Could Clean Air Acts introduced by Western governments have had an impact on the climate? Historical data strongly suggests they did, and after all, if small amounts of contrail reduction lead to 1°C warming, what effect did removing smogs have?
But no, the answer is CO2. It's always CO2. With CO2, we can finally tax thin air, and profit from 'managing' it.
There's also interesting research going on around Svensmark's theory that Cosmic Rays have an effect on CCNs (Cloud Condensation Nuclei) and thus changes in cloud cover & planetary albedo. CERN even demonstrated the theory is correct by running an experiment with one of their big cloud chambers. If so, then there's an obvious candidate for natural variability, although some climate 'scientists' deny there's any variability in cosmic rays (or SEPs), even though there's copious evidence to show they're talking bollocks. But their careers depend on adhering to CO2 dogma..
*I spotted that one but thought I'd leave it in as an example of what happens when scientists become activists..
Use the fuel in a fuel cell to drive electric motors, it doesn't have to be simply burned in a turbine.
I guess that's one of those efficiency things. So we have current aircraft that carry fuel plus a means of converting that fuel into thrust. We have proposals to replace that with batteries that use electricity to create thrust. If we used fuel cells, it'd need the cell, the fuel, and the thrust. So I guess it's a question of mass, volume, fuel/energy density, cost etc. Batteries kind of offload the energy creation by simply being a store, but they're heavy and take up space. Their energy density is much worse than regular jets, ie 1m^3 of bateries weighs much more than 1m^3 of jet fuel, and has a lot lower energy potential. Plus as a regular aircraft burns fuel, it gets more efficient because it's lighter. As a battery aircraft drains charge, it gets less efficient because it's hauling flat batteries. I guess fuel cells become a hybrid fuel, and it'd be the mass/volume needed for the fuel and the energy output the cells could provide to the motors.
"as a regular aircraft burns fuel, it gets more efficient because it's lighter. As a battery aircraft drains charge, it gets less efficient because it's hauling flat batteries."
On reading that I had a vision of an electric aircraft periodically dropping little spent batteries to reduce weight as it flew. These to be parachuted down and collected for re-charging and re-cycling of course .
It must be Friday afternoon, is it home-time yet?
On reading that I had a vision of an electric aircraft periodically dropping little spent batteries to reduce weight as it flew. These to be parachuted down and collected for re-charging and re-cycling of course .
And you thought it was annoying when a seagull left a deposit on your car...
That study also stated "Uncertainty in the radiative transfer due to soot cores within the contrail cirrus ice crystals is thought to be large, as the change in the shortwave (SW) albedo is large (Liou et al., 2013). The soot impact on contrail cirrus RF has not yet been quantified." It might increase the short wavelength albedo and reflect more solar energy than it traps, just as clouds do. "Uncertainty thought to be large" is another way of saying "we have no idea".
And we're going to get people to build those plants how exactly? Most Western governments would be voted out in an eyeblink if they tried to start nuclear projects on the scale required to do that. Changing public opinion is going to take decades, and that's assuming no major accidents occur for a while: each of those sets us back twenty years even when nobody dies, whereas killing people by the hundreds of thousands per year via coal emissions (plus those killed or displaced by AGW-enhanced extreme weather) appears to be just fine. And any government who tried it via authoritarianism would be accused of running a military nuclear program and sanctioned, regardless of whether it's true or not.
I wish we could use your solution, but we won't. Not any time soon. So, looking for any alternative, even if it's just for short-range stuff, has merit.
Politics is a problem every bit as hard as physics, sometimes harder.
In spite all of the downvotes, you're absolutely correct.
>90% of all aviation fuel is burnt on journeys more than 500 miles. Electric aircraft might have potential to get aircraft a couple of hundred miles, but no more.
We might get slightly better batteries in the future, but battery technology is not subject to Moore's law - we can't expect revolutionary new chemistry to turn up out of nowhere.
The future is either hydrogen or synthetic aviation hydrocarbon fuel. Electric aviation is a niche at best, and more likely a complete dead end.
<quote>We might get slightly better batteries in the future, but battery technology is not subject to Moore's law - we can't expect revolutionary new chemistry to turn up out of nowhere.</quote>
I broadly agree with you, but one should never underestimate the ingenuity of very smart people with a sufficient financial motivation. There are often ways round unsolvable problems, and lots of modern tech was seen as improbable or impossible [or pointless - ed] until it became commonplace.
Energy density has risen from 55Wh/litre to 1600 in 12 years, and 80Wh/kg to 700 since 1990*. Still a lot of dead weight to carry around, but never say never.
*https://physicsworld.com/a/lithium-ion-batteries-break-energy-density-record/
one should never underestimate the ingenuity of very smart people with a sufficient financial motivation
Ah, the Amber Rudd approach. Never mind the physics, smart people will always be able to do what politicians want.
Make sure you've got the right hashtags...
"to make hydrocarbon fuel from water and CO2 - just add (lots of) energy, if only we had a worldwide system of nuclear plants to provide it. "
Better to use renewables; persuade green things to make oil in vats under direct sunlight, or just use solar panels and feed the leccy into a conversion plant.
why not just drill for oil and make jet fuel?
Hydrocarbon fuels have a MUCH better energy-to-weight ratio than batteries made from the lightest metal in existence (Lithium).
And without saying much else on the topic, man-made CO2 is not causing AGW or AGCC or whateve (in my bombastic opinion at least).
So having an electric airplane is "interesting but impractical", and GUMMINT MANDATES to do the impossible simply remind me of Arthur C. Clarke's "Superiority"
Meanwhile the CCP will continue burning as many fossil fuels that they want, even at levels that exceed the rest of the world. Xi Jing 'Pooh' is a chemical engineer. He knows the truth.
Why not simply ban private jets, business class ? As a bonus executives can no longer take credit and pretend they are completely responsible for a sale as opposed to the real workers who did the hard work. Business trips are simply a way to concentrate credit on a bullshitter instead of the real workers or talent.
If they tried for a more realistic timescale instead of cold-war-era-dick-swinging a la "by the end of this decade" moon programs, they wouldn't look like such numpties.
Even Diamond, arguably actual pioneers in adopting new technologies (*) , state they're going to first roll out a single engine 2-seater trainer designed for pattern/circuit work with an endurance of 45 minutes. They hope for this year and certification next year.
https://www.diamondaircraft.com/en/service/electric-aircraft/
And yes, I absolutely have more confidence that Diamond can pull it off, far more than I trust current NASA to do so.
(*) probably because they're in central Europe where the NIMBYs would have otherwise shut down general aviation to where they wouldn't even be able to produce commercial pilots anymore.
Electric flight is possible, but replacing a typical passenger jet with an electric aircraft isn''t possible without batteries beyond the capabilities of technologies that can reasonably be foreseen.
Put simply, the foreseeable energy density of battery technologies is not good enough for long range electric air transport.
Fair enough, I outed myself as an unabashed Diamond fanboi (I day dream about a gofundme to buy me a -62). Pipistrel, in my mind, just rank closer to the light recreation class aircraft, whereas Diamond has a more continuous "from 2-seat trainer to 7 seat twin" line. Knowing full well that a Virus and a -20 are similar in specs and mission. However the -36 is based on the -40 4-seater, with the weight of 2 seats now taken by the batteries - which demonstrates the issue other posters have pointed out as well.
The article states:
Unfortunately, the Maxwell Project's costs have overrun by $47 million – a larger figure than its original estimated total cost of $40 million.
Which I understand to mean an overrun of $47 million over and above the original £40 million budget, so a total of $87 million so far.
"government-mandated net-zero greenhouse gas emission targets by 2050."
The problem of course being government setting a target with no clue how it could ever be hit. It has been a great driver at making people poorer and inflicting economic damage but beyond fantasies of saving the earth it hasnt achieved much positive.
We'll see in 2050 if the target was realistic. It doesn't mean a target hasn't to be set. Target is "a level or situation that you intend to achieve". It doesn't mean it will be achieved for sure.
About economic damage, it must be balanced with the cost of global warming: We find that by the end of this century, there is a more than 75% chance that limiting warming to 1.5 °C would reduce economic damages relative to 2 °C, and a more than 60% chance that the accumulated global benefits will exceed US$20 trillion under a 3% discount rate (2010 US dollars) [...] Relative to a world that did not warm beyond 2000–2010 levels, we project 15%–25% reductions in per capita output by 2100 for the 2.5–3 °C of global warming implied by current national commitments7, and reductions of more than 30% for 4 °C warming
@Potemkine!
"We'll see in 2050 if the target was realistic. It doesn't mean a target hasn't to be set."
Except by law the UK and some others have set the target. We legally have to hit a target we cannot hit. We do not have the technology or wealth to meet the obligations without severely damaging our standard of living. We will be cold, hungry and in the dark but some fools will feel good about it (the exempt class I expect).
"About economic damage, it must be balanced with the cost of global warming"
Absolutely. So we have a theory that doesnt hold water, based on data we know to be unreliable and very limited, put through predictive processes with huge error bars and pushed as propaganda when there seems little reason to be concerned. To avoid this problem we must economically damage our economies and drag people down to a poorer standard of living to appease the authoritarians and mud hutters. And the result has been to mass deploy technology we know doesnt work and leave countries energy insecure and increasing the costs on everyone for zero gain. But its ok because the figureheads are politicians buying beach front properties (they claim will sink) and a truant schoolgirl.
Of course the result has been for the rest of the world to build power generation while we erect monuments to a sky god and fall back on coal just to keep the lights on. We were so close to blackouts and yet it was a mild winter. Food costs have shot up. The cost of everything increases due to bad energy policy. We intentionally kneecapped out countries for nothing. But it makes some mud hutters feel good.
I have a scheme for reducing aviation CO₂ emissions by 50% - fly half as much. There we are. Job done. Just organise some kind of voucher system to limit the number of flights anyone can take to (say) two return flights per year. Much easier than all these technical solutions, and could be introduced very quickly. It would only be temporary, of course - the scheme would be withdrawn once truly zero-carbon aircraft are available. I know it wouldn't be popular, but sacrifices are going to have to be made if we want to save the planet.
@David M
"Just organise some kind of voucher system to limit the number of flights anyone can take to (say) two return flights per year"
Does that include for flying cargo around the world? The there is the problem of the scum who would run such a scheme who would undoubtedly need to fly more so would be exempt, as would their cronies.
And why must we reduce flights? Because we cant let the plebs travel can we.
"And why must we reduce flights? Because we cant let the plebs travel can we."
If the alternative to restricting flights is an ever-increasing number of wealthy* people flying more and more, burning more and more oil, causing more and more pollution, then we're doomed.
The current amount of flying is a recent phenomenon -- hardly anyone I knew flew in the 70s, now lots of them fly several times per year. Younger people are growing up thinking this is normal, but it's not.
My family considered moving to Australia in the 1960s, it would have meant a weeks-long trip by boat, and they probably wouldn't have returned to the UK for decades. Now some people do that sort of journey on a whim.
Travel can be great fun, but when it's starting to endanger the planet we live on, it's time to put on the brakes.
*The vast majority of humanity never fly in their entire lives, those of us who can travel when and where we want are incredibly privileged, even if we don't realise it as such.
@Joe 3
"If the alternative to restricting flights is an ever-increasing number of wealthy* people flying more and more, burning more and more oil, causing more and more pollution, then we're doomed."
So would you prefer an ever decreasing number of wealthy people (aka make us all poorer)? All under the assumption that we are somehow bringing about doom? I was happier when when hippies went and made themselves poorer on a patch of land where they could make each other poor and miserable but leave the rest of us alone.
"The current amount of flying is a recent phenomenon"
The invention of aircraft plus improvements in design and it making people richer leads to more of it. Kinda like people having a lot of food and plenty to choose from due to populations getting richer.
"Younger people are growing up thinking this is normal, but it's not."
Again let the hippies go back to their field and their communes where they can live the peasant lifestyle if they wish. Leave the rest of us alone.
"My family considered moving to Australia in the 1960s, it would have meant a weeks-long trip by boat, and they probably wouldn't have returned to the UK for decades. Now some people do that sort of journey on a whim."
People are richer. Just as we ship products around the world and have instant communications. Richer.
"Travel can be great fun, but when it's starting to endanger the planet we live on, it's time to put on the brakes."
And there the test fails. It doesnt endanger the planet, it makes us all richer, put brakes on your own life if you wish but leave the rest of us alone.
"*The vast majority of humanity never fly in their entire lives, those of us who can travel when and where we want are incredibly privileged, even if we don't realise it as such."
People get richer aka more privileged. We have the same issues with food. Some places in the world are poor. Some places trying to get richer. And some people here think we need dragging back to poverty so they can feel like the saviours of the planet.
It is important to consider alternative perspectives when discussing the impact of travel and wealth distribution. While it is true that increased wealth has contributed to the rise in air travel, focusing solely on the benefits for a privileged few ignores the larger implications for society and the planet.
Claiming that limiting travel would make us all poorer is an oversimplification. Sustainable practices and responsible consumption can be pursued without plunging society into poverty. It is not about depriving individuals of their freedoms, but rather finding a balance between personal enjoyment and preserving the environment.
The argument that the invention of aircraft and wealth accumulation naturally lead to more flying fails to acknowledge the negative consequences associated with excessive air travel. The environmental impact of aviation, such as carbon emissions and habitat destruction, cannot be ignored. It is crucial to recognize that our actions today affect future generations, and a more thoughtful approach to travel is necessary.
The notion that younger generations growing up with frequent flying consider it normal is precisely the point of concern. Normalizing unsustainable practices perpetuates the cycle of environmental degradation. Rather than dismissing the issue by suggesting that those who oppose excessive travel should live a "peasant lifestyle," it is important to foster a culture of responsibility and awareness.
The argument that increased wealth justifies the expanding reach of travel overlooks the fact that not everyone benefits equally from this wealth. Global inequality remains a pressing issue, with vast disparities in access to resources and opportunities. By focusing solely on personal wealth and convenience, we perpetuate systems that perpetuate inequality and marginalise those who are unable to participate in extensive travel.
Lastly, acknowledging the privilege associated with the ability to travel does not mean advocating for dragging anyone back into poverty. It is about recognizing the disparities that exist and working towards a more equitable distribution of resources and opportunities. Rather than vilifying those who raise concerns about the impact of travel, it is important to engage in constructive dialogue and collectively strive for a more sustainable future.
In summary, it is crucial to consider the broader implications of excessive travel and wealth accumulation. While travel can be enjoyable, it is necessary to find a balance that takes into account the well-being of both individuals and the planet. Addressing the environmental consequences and working towards a more equitable distribution of resources are key aspects of ensuring a sustainable future for all.
"just organise some kind of voucher system to limit the number of flights anyone can take to (say) two return flights per year."
And I guarantee that, within a few months, there'll be a roaring trade in voucher swapping. Within twelve, every single citizen of all third-world countries will have been recorded as having made their two flights (probably without even knowing it).
Because schemes that force people to not do something want to do have always worked really well.
Who are you to tell anyone they can't fly more than twice a year. As in: one family holiday, one business trip, one visit to friends or family members abroad.
You know nothing of the reasons behind the travel. You seem to making an assessment that because you personally think something is excessive, everyone else must adapt to your way of thinking. Usually by some sort of authoritarian means. Issuing vouchers is still an authoritarian restriction.
Why must the "Solution" to these [rectally extrapolated] "problems" *ALWAYS* *BE* something that involves:
* Heavy-handed government control
* Some kind of rationing
* Loss of freedom
* Lowering of living standards
* Increased cost / Lower wages
* Higher tax rates (especially for those trying to BECOME 'the rich')
* Socialism/Communism
That much should be a 'red flag' that maybe, JUST MAYBE, we're being LIED to, and it's REALLY just *TYRANNY* trying to take over...?
wordsmith "Cheap long distance aviation is a relatively new thing. There was a time that can be remembered by some folks still alive, when it didn’t exist. I think we could probably cope without it."
Sorry, wordsmith, but I have to disagree. OK, WE may be able to do without it, but not everyone will be ok. Cheap long distance aviation 'for the masses' may be relatively recent, but it is essential for may countries whose economies rely heavily on tourism. Us Europeans can travel to Southern Spain, Egypt, Africa, the USA, Canada and the Far East really quickly for a week or two of holiday in 'the sun' with a bit of foreign culture thrown in, and get home in time to resume the drudgery* of work, having spent our hard-earned cash abroad. Can you imagine how congested the roads and railways of Europe would be if all these tourists had to travel by land and sea rather than air?
Before mass market air transport, people 'holidayed' mostly in their own country, a few rich people went on 'the Grand Tour' (the reason some car makers put 'GT' on their vehicles' names). There were 'company' holidays when a factory would close down for two weeks over the summer and the workers would go to Blackpool, Skegness, Scarborough, Bognor Regis or wherever, en masse. Unfortunately cheap mass air travel is inextricably interlinked with 'the global economy'. A significant reduction of mass air travel by tourists would be a major problem for some countries.
*Or exhilaration of knowingly contributing to the glory of human existence and the world as a whole, depending on your point of view.
Thank you for beginning your reply with an apology for the rest of it. But there are more important considerations than a trip to Dubai.
The world can adapt by choice, or be forced to adapt and depending on tourism will count for nothing if it is the latter.
Being able to travel to Australia in a day or so is amazing, but it is something of a privilege and not essential.
You make a lot of claims with zero proof. Just because you make a claim doesnt make it true.
Lower travel of all kinds is a large step towards IMPROVING. Commuting every day for hours in a car/train/plane/hyperloop is not a privilege its a tax on the most limited resource we all have, namely our time. Wasting time on all travel is stupid.
Not sure how you figure wasting time travelling is a benefit or increase in wages or life, when basically nobody gets paid to commute.
"I have a scheme for reducing aviation CO₂ emissions by..."
100% !
And it is easy. Just stop ALL flights, especially the thousands of flights per day within the US or the EU. As these journeys can all be taken by land transport, such as electrified trains.
Of course, not every country has built a huge network of rail tracks (and thanks to Beeching in the 1960s, the UK got rid of lots). But that can be rectified, with a substantial amount of infrastructure funding (and probably still less than all the so-called "research and development" going into high capacity, low mass batteries as well as the use of composite materials for aircraft fuselages and wings).
But trains do make more sense, and people will just have to get used to a slower journey time and with maybe some change of train at various hubs. After all, trains did a great job long before jet airplanes arrived and we've been spolit by such short journey times (by plane) over the last 30+ years.
I expect a lot of downvotes from devotees of journeys by planes, but we do need far better solutions that what are currently being hyped right now (and none of the hyped up new EV transportation suggestions will actually generate real benefits from reducing air pollution straight away, if ever).
In fairness to Beeching he didn't actually cut anything. His remit was to report on the costs of running the lines compared to their passenger numbers, assuming steam-hauled trains. It was the Ministry of Transport of the day, and a Transport minister allegedly in bed with the road transport industry, who decided on the cuts without any attempt to look at efficiency improvements that could come from, say, replacing steam trains with diesel railcars. That's one of the reasons that lines are being reopened, they are actually viable with the right equipment.
The goal of the Maxwell is not vertical takeoff. Instead, the goal is to size the wing for cruise speeds, and use propeller slipstream over the wing to allow the "too small" wing to continue to work al the low speeds / high angles of attach seen during takeoff and landing. This is supposed to offset the higher weight of the electrical drive-train somewhat.
Sadly the project leader / insigator (talked to him a couple of times) got poached by one of the e-vtol air taxi projects Über?
But woah! for 80 million, or just 40, we would have had that baby up in the air years ago!
The most green plane is one that doesnt fly at all. Anothe green solution is to ban business class, basically nobody shoudl be doing business trips to sell or do a power point presentation, they can do that over Zoom. Conferences are also a big wank thats just a complete was of energy, have them at home.
Electric plane? Why not. But certainly not running on batteries if it has to be large and fly a long time.
If everything goes well (probably not, that's R&D after all), we should have a megawatt-class propulsion system flying in 2026.
The thing electricity does the quickest and the best is expire, and arrays and banks of balanced caps and cells do not scale well or on the cheap. The best example I know of, where electricity is used for propulsion is the diesel-electric railway engine, where the power-plant is directly coupled to the generator, and the electricity is consumed immediately.
Maybe storing electricity is not such a bright idea.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
