Electric airliner concept unveiled.

[azul]

Could be not too far down the road, if we get our act together.

http://evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=25993

[Xipe Totec]

1. Shocking!

:evilgrin:

[mysuzuki2]

2. Wouldn't you need a really long extension cord?

[Hardrada]

4. LOL!

[Hardrada]

3. 20 years from now, I'll need electric walkers.

[backscatter712]

5. Requires battery technology that hasn't been invented yet.

Not to say that the 1000 Wh/kg battery won't be developed in the future, but we're not even close to that sort of electric storage capability yet.

[caraher]

6. It also requires breakthroughs in superconductors

The article specifically mentions the use of high-temperature superconductors in the motors. This is just a concept, not anything remotely close to development.

[azul]

7. If you were to throw, say, $100 billions at the project

how long until it is done? And what excellent jobs created, no?

Or how about $100 billions a year directed to developing electric energy each year instead on spending this amount to fight for oil as we are doing now in the USA?

EADS is planning ahead, they are testing electric and series hybrid electric planes now.

[Nederland]

9. If scientific advancement could be bought...

...we would have a working Star Wars anti-ballistic missile system and have cured cancer by now.

Throwing billions of dollars at an idea does not guarantee anything.

[azul]

12. Which "idea" is the whole point.

What are the up and downsides to spending on military stuff v sustainable?

Compare how much we spend to make war v to cure disease and what is the payback to society? And the spending does need some oversight: I would argue that we would have prevented and cured cancers by now if the investment had not been perverted to profit taking treatments instead of finding cures. And what is the military compared to the medical research budget?

[txlibdem]

20. The problem with Star Wars was the blank check and zero expectations from contractors

If you were a scientist and you were told that you'd have a fat paycheck to "study" this or that but the contract would be over as soon as you solved all the problems. Do you think that all problems would be solved quickly? Or would human nature dictate that the "studying" phase would last an entire career.

[TheWraith]

23. Or, you could simply refine aviation fuel from algae for a tiny fraction of the price.

Realistically, aircraft--large aircraft, at any rate--are one of the few things that can't be driven primarily on electricity. It makes much more sense to use algal hydrocarbons.

[bananas]

15. Current and Future Superconducting Wire Markets to 2017

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/current-and-future-superconducting-wire.html

Current and Future Superconducting Wire Markets to 2017

Development of 2G HTS Wire for Demanding Electric Power Applications (30 pages, by Superpower Inc) Superpower Inc is improving the cost performance of its superconducting wire and is expecting major market gains over the next few years.



<snip>

[txlibdem]

21. Increasing market opportunities with decreasing price

Exactly. That is why I never listen to the naysayers. I'm particularly interested in the advances made in "room temperature" superconductors.

[txlibdem]

8. I see the naysayers are out in force today

For the record, it's a darn good idea. And this *is* where we should be putting our research dollars toward: making everything we do far more energy efficient.

One thing missing from the design: thin film solar panels on the wings and top of the fuselage.

[Ready4Change]

10. While I like the idea, I naysay as well.

We are going to need this sort of thing going forward, so we need to develop it now. But there are substantial challenges, and I think we're going to need to re-wire our expectations.

Airliners consume tremendous amounts of energy. However, at higher altitudes they do make good use of that energy, with jumbo jets achieving per-passenger mileage like or better than most cars. Despite that efficiency, solar panels on their wings and fuselage won't come anywhere near their energy demands. (Just as a panel on the roof of a Prius doesn't free it from having to buy gas or plug in.)

Further, those panels would add weight, create maintenance/deicing issues, and provide no benefit at all for the 50-60% of the times such planes operate. Airliners operate pretty much 24/7, stopping only to load/offload or for maintenance. The gains need to outweigh costs (almost literally), and I don't think covering an EV airliner with panels would be worth the expense.

I'm not sold on the idea of swappable batteries. You won't be able to swap a Boeings batteries with an Airbuses (due to competition), or even between different models from the same manufacturer (due to different shapes necessitated by different design goals.) That problem could be solved through regulations, industry self-governance and discipline. But we are talking human-based social systems. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to occur.

More likely I think is what I think they call a flow battery? Where the operating fluid is drained out and recharged fluid poured in. The draining process would increase loading times, but wouldn't be as sensitive to changes in manufacture or aircraft model. Or, of course, some breakthrough in super light capacitor batteries would be awesome. But, thus far, those are just a pipe dream.

If I had to, I'd bet that aircraft such as this will still be built, even barring extreme advances in battery tech. But their use will be rare, and for only a privileged few, for a long time. The masses will use rail for long distance travels. That will be slower, hence our need to re-wire our expectations.

[azul]

13. Good down-to-earth considerations,

but creativity and some lowered expectations could be put to good use fairly quickly.

My conceptual approach would be to build almost zeppelin-like aircraft that uses hydrogen for some lift as well as energy for fuelcell-electric propulsion. They would not go as fast as the flying-bombs but they would not fall from the sky if problems arise and can be landed almost anywhere. Plus there is plenty of surface for solar so that, given a little time, they could re-fuel anywhere there is water (fuelcell run backward).

[Nihil]

17. Maybe not ...

> My conceptual approach would be to build almost zeppelin-like aircraft that
> uses hydrogen for some lift as well as energy for fuelcell-electric propulsion.
> They would not go as fast as the flying-bombs but they would not fall from
> the sky if problems arise and can be landed almost anywhere.

Hmmm ...

Check out the following links ...
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:R101_wreckage.jpg

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hindenburg_burning.jpg

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_Shenandoah_Wrack.jpg

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:R-38-rescue.jpg

Really?

[Ready4Change]

19. LTA aircraft have issues, but potential as well.

The R101 appears to have been a troubled design, almost from the start. Reading about it makes me wonder if anything worked right on that craft at all? Troubled engines, airbags forming leaks due to friction against the frame, valving that didn't work predictably, wonky ballast systems, and apparently a design that was unstable in pitch. Solution: Better designs. Most of these issues were solved during the dirigible era.

The Hindenburg burnt largely because of it's covering material, not because it was hydrogen filled. (Note: during that period nearly all aircraft were covered with similar materials, and burnt readily once ignited, in spite of not being hydrogen filled.) The fire DID ignite the hydrogen, but the gas then rushed out of the ruptured bags and went straight up, out of the frame of the film footage classically shown. The fire seen consuming the dirigible is fueled by the paint used on the skin, not hydrogen. Solution: Modern, flame resistant covering materials, and helium if one insists.

Shenendoah ran afoul of weather, which modern weather watching systems could go a long way towards correcting. Solution: Weather.com. :)

The R-38 was apparently poorly designed, as rudder tests managed to overstress the airframe. Solution: Better designs.

While the Hindenburg fire is viewed as the death knell for dirigibles, I think the real cause of their demise was growing speed and utility of gasoline fueled heavier than air craft. An LTA, during wartime, was nothing but a target. By the end of WW2 no one considered LTA's viable at all, except for small niche roles (coastal submarine patrol, or flying billboards over football games.)

Future LTA's have real potential as heavy lifters, and for moving cargo over areas not easily serviced by rail or ships. (Polar regions, mountains, as yet undeveloped areas.) Modern avionics can help them dodge troublesome weather, modern flight control systems can ease ballasting issues, modern materials can make them stronger, and modern engineering can make them more reliable.

Their main problem, as I see it, is speed. We've grown accustomed to zipping around at 500-600mph. Even optimistic designers don't predict speeds over 200mph for LTAs. A cruising speed of 100-120mph is more realistic. (Hindenburg cruised at 76mph, Goodyear style blimps about 40mph.)

Today, the choice between an 8 hour airliner flight to Europe or a 2 day LTA flight would be a no brainer for most people. Look at how many fly today, vs those who take a 5 day sea cruise. But in a future where airliners can't be operated at all? I think we'd adjust our expectations pretty rapidly, and LTA's could be seen as viable once again.

[txlibdem]

31. 5 day flight to Europe, an excellent boost for electrically powered high speed rail

The Germans are working on a magnetically levitated high speed train that can go up to 3000mph.

It would be an interesting future when train travel is both more efficient (as electric trains are) *and* much faster than the wasteful air travel of today.

[Ready4Change]

33. 3,000? Sure you don't mean 300?

300's still fast for a train. But 3,000, would require something like tunnels pumped down to vacuum. (Not that it wouldn't be cool and all!)

[txlibdem]

34. Yes, with the tunnels

I won't bore you with details but if you have a chance to read up on the SR-71 you'll see why they need the evacuated tunnels to go 3000 mph. Apparently it doesn't need to be a perfect vacuum, but I'm sure pretty close.

[txlibdem]

18. Apparently, you are *not* ready for change then... :-)

You state that we don't have the technology... yet. Well, we do not yet have the technology to increase auto fuel efficiency to the new standards recently proposed. Does that mean that the auto industry is just going to close up shop and forget about trying to meet that goal? Heck no.

What I hear as I read your post is a 100% defeatist attitude, perhaps unintentional I don't know. I've never believed a naysayer in my life. They are seldom on the side of history. They said we'd never land on the moon. We did. They said we'd never be able to feed the growing populations (ahem, Malthusians). We did. They said man could not ride in a vehicle traveling faster than 28 miles per hour as that speed would suck the air from your lungs. Well, you and I know that we did. They said that controlled manned flight was impossible. The Wright Brothers did it, and I'll bet you have too (ridden in an airplane that is). The list goes on and on.

So, if you are full of excuses for why we will never do this or that (fill in the blank), you are already defeated. I, however, have a clear understanding of history and the terrible accuracy of the naysayers (as in pretty much 0%) so far.

Thin film solar on the upper surfaces would weigh no more than a sheet of aluminum foil. You may have been thinking of regular solar panels which weigh a lot. This would generate enough energy to power all of the passenger comforts such as air filtration, lighting the cabin, maybe even enough for the LCD movie screens to pacify the travelers. Whatever amount they generate is that much less that the main battery will have to provide, leaving that much more for either going farther or going faster.

[Ready4Change]

22. Perhaps true. Lets do some math.

To optimistically go with this idea, let's design a future airliner to make optimal use of thin film solar. Let's use a flying wing design. That will give us better surface area, better weight/lift ratio, and is something both mentioned in the article as a future idea AND being worked on by designers of current airliners for future super-jumbo jets. A 747 has a wing span over 200 feet. Using that to set a very rough scale, let's say our flying wing will have leading edges 200 feet long, making its upper surface a triangle with an area roughly half that of a square with sides of 200 feet. That comes to an area of 20,000 square feet. Dang big.

I've a roll of tinfoil that weighs about 10 ounces, and contains 37.5 feet of the stuff. So rounding up I get about 4 square feet of foil per ounce. Using the thin film/tinfoil comparison, thin film solar on this aircraft would total about 5,000 ounces, or about 300 lbs. Actually not too bad. Let's double that to 600, for some wiring and stuff. Frankly, that's a LOT better than I expected. Maybe too much better? 747 paint weighs about 500 lbs. (That's an estimate. Between 200 - 1,000 lbs, depending on options.) Eh, lets go with 500. BTW, that paint lasts 5-10 years, and a strip down and repaint job costs about $150,000. Might apply later.

How much power do we get? Total solar radiation is, per rule of thumb, about 100 watts per square foot. Current thin film solar can collect about 10% of that. Future films will likely collect more, but our aircraft shape and orientation won't be optimal. (Passengers object to flying at 30 degree bank angles for long periods, for example.) So, at ~10%, we collect about at about 200,000 watts, at peak sunlight hours. That's pretty substantial. To push our plane through the air at 500 mph we'd STILL need 700 times that much (estimate: 140 megawatts for a 747.) But for auxillary power, 200kw IS useful. Could run AC on the ground in hot weather, and heating, which is seriously needed at altitude, all 4 seasons. And LED lighting and other such things. So :thumbsup:

Cost? A serious WAG here. Take the $150,000 of the paint job, plus $2 per watt for PV ($400,000). With engineering and regulation expenses, the WAG comes in (VERY optimistically) at less than $1 million per plane. Jumbos, today, easily cost in excess of several hundred million dollars, so that seems doable. :thumbsup:

And it could make sense. So long as we only operate them 5 hours a day.

But if we want to operate them like our current airliners, my optimism ends. (Here I go naysaying again. Sorry. :( I held off as long as I could.)

Todays airliners operate 24/7. To do that you MUST carry the ability to power those auxillary systems during non-solar hours. Thankfully, since you have to develop the ability to load MASSIVE quantities of energy onto the aircraft within an hour or two (in order to meet the vastly higher demands of motive power) adding a little extra to power auxillary systems is childs play. Since that ability is available during solar hours too, there is no need for aircraft mounted PV. If you want 24/7 service.

If I were merely a naysayer, I'd stop right here. Instead, I'll present an alternative, rather than just negation.

It would be better to take the effort and expense that would have been applied to aircraft mounted solar PV, and instead apply it to ground mounted PV systems. Use them to help charge the batteries (or fluid) to be loaded onto the aircraft. Pump their energy into ground based storage (which can be heavy since it doesn't have to fly.) Cover the roof of the airport (whose surface area dwarfs that of the aircraft) with thin PV. Further, since those PVs wouldn't need to be engineered for aircraft use, they'd be cheaper (so you could buy more, and thus store more energy per hour.)

Doing that, I think you'd get better returns for the effort, making the system, as a whole, more viable. That makes me feel more optimistic about the future.

[txlibdem]

26. On the ground versus on the plane. That's a very good question.

I could quibble and say that airliners fly above the cloud layer at 35,000 ft (or so) and there's some pretty darn strong sun up there. The amount of energy that hits the ground is 1366 watts per square meter. With less of the atmosphere to block the sun, I think the thin film solar on the aircraft will produce more energy than one on the ground per square foot.

I agree it would be costly but it could be integrated as part of the manufacturing process and that should reduce some of the costs. I don't know if the benefits would outweigh the cost (slight pun there...).

When you think of a flight from the USA to China, it would be flying with the sun and so should get more than 5 hours of sunlight to capture. The opposite is true: a flight from New York to London might get fewer hours of sunlight, but the return trip would enjoy a solar boost.

But you pose some valid questions that only time, computer simulations and some experimentation will be able to answer.

[Terry in Austin]

24. Misplaced idealism

I've never believed a naysayer in my life. They are seldom on the side of history. They said we'd never be able to feed the growing populations (ahem, Malthusians). We did.

Wow. Let's just say that this kind of belief in the force of history gave us such myths as "manifest destiny." A stirring bit of idealism, but ultimately cause for mischief. And shiny new tech is always subject to the wisdom test: just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. If that's naysaying, then clearly some nays need to be said!

As for "feeding growing populations," oh man -- for starters, those populations didn't just grow on their own. Population size varies directly with energy input: increases in energy mean increases in population, and vice versa. Basic ecology. The "Green Revolution" was made possible by dramatically increased energy inputs from our temporary abundance of fossil fuels.

There's a direct correlation between the population explosion and the increasing use of fossil fuel throughout the Industrial Age. We basically eat oil: it takes 10 calories of fuel for every 1 calorie of food produced.

The question is usually framed as "How will we get enough food to feed this growing population?"

But that's a problem, right there: it's the equivalent of asking "How will we get enough fuel to feed this growing fire?"

[txlibdem]

25. "How will we get enough fuel to feed this growing population?"

It's a valid question: modern agriculture uses 20% of our oil. One day we'll hear on the corporate-owned media that "OMG! We've hit peak oil." Which on that day will be a total lie. America hit peak oil in 1965.

Exxon Mobil, says that we will hit global peak oil sometime around 2040.
chart here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2409

Chevron has a pretty chart which stops at 2030 but shows increasing supply up until that date:
http://www.willyoujoinus.com/energy.issues/energychallengesandopportunities/theenergyportfolio/fossilfuels/
...PS, their chart shows that "current reserves" will be drawn down to lower than 20% of today's usage by 2030, we'll be riding high on "unconventional sources" and new discoveries. Well, anything's possible.

Others are less optimistic and say if we haven't already hit peak oil then we will next year:
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/gene/peakoil/peakoil-links.html

Saying all that, I agree with you that *current agricultural practices* cannot continue on into the future. Big Ag uses 70% of the fresh water available to the US. Modern agricultural practices waste 80% of the water that they use, causing agricultural runoff laden with pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers and other pathogens -- all of which go right back into our rivers and streams. Growing in dirt out of doors is at the mercy of mother nature: an unexpected freeze, a drought here, a flood there. With global climate change bringing stronger storms as well as longer droughts it's not a good practice to continue. And then there is the problem of transporting food thousands of miles, you have to pick it while still green (then they pump the container full of Ethylene gas to make the produce "look" ripe --even though it's still green inside) and they hope it will ripen sitting in boxes in some container on a ship or a truck. That's how you get a peach or tomato that tastes like cardboard. Yum.

When the "green revolution" came about, every farmer had to change their practices. In my opinion, another paradigm shift in farming methods is coming, soon.

I happen to think that it will involve greenhouse growing with hydroponic or aeroponic growing practices, coupled with vertical farming where that will increase yields more. Hydroponic lettuce production grows 4000 times the amount of produce per acre as dirt farming. Greenhouse hydroponics uses only 5% of the water of dirt farming and wastes practically none of it (evaporation gets some, that's just nature). Greenhouse hydroponic growing almost never uses any pesticides or herbicides, and can be located close to the ultimate customer so the produce can be allowed to grow till it's ripe and actually ready for picking.

So, while I agree with you that current farming methods are unsustainable, we already have the answer. You can probably go to your local grocery store and find "hydroponically grown" produce, which they sell far less of so they mark it up a bit. But when the artificial price barrier is removed and oil prices climb a bit more, you just might see greenhouse grown produce offered for less than the pesticide packed produce on the other shelf.

Reference:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/business/smallbusiness/19sbiz.html
http://seedstock.com/2011/05/06/sustainable-agriculture-market-roofto/
"And the costs? “In some instances, we’re actually selling for less,” Lightfoot said. “We can pretty much match the market’s wholesale tomato costs. We can beat the market’s loose leaf lettuce costs.” Freshly-harvested produce from a rooftop farm should also have a longer shelf life, which means less waste. Throwing away food adds to costs, of course." ...source: http://www.marcgunther.com/2011/06/02/up-on-the-roof-vegetables/

[Terry in Austin]

27. Actually, when fuel declines, the population doesn't grow at all

Quite the opposite.

For peak oil, 2005 is probably the strongest candidate. Production has been essentially flat since then, and the beginnings of decline are coming right up, an estimated 4 percent per year. And that's according industry optimists. Some on the Oil Drum make a good case for its hitting 8-10% per year.

Of course, there's nothing to replace the amount of energy we get from oil, so we do need to get busy with sustainable alternatives so we'll have at least that much. All of them put together are a pittance compared to oil, but some is better than none.

Over time, as available energy declines, so will population.

And with energy-intensive growing methods no longer feasible, yes, we'll need every trick in the book -- from aquaponics to local micro-farming to food-friendly changes in local zoning laws. I'm afraid dirt will remain the predominant medium, though -- very careful energy budgeting may allow for a certain amount of greenhouse/hydroponic production in special cases, but I wouldn't expect it to be the rule.

I think the biggest paradigm shift will be away from viewing farming as a specialized production system, and toward something that most individuals are involved with on a day-to-day, local basis. It's likely to be the primary economic activity of, if not most people, at least a significant percentage of them.

[txlibdem]

29. Over time, as available energy declines, so will population

You wrote, "I think the biggest paradigm shift will be away from viewing farming as a specialized production system, and toward something that most individuals are involved with on a day-to-day, local basis. It's likely to be the primary economic activity of, if not most people, at least a significant percentage of them."

If you like the farming life, living off the land, getting your hands in the soil then be my guest. But with the advances in energy efficiency that are coming, coupled with continuing decrease in the cost of renewable energy sources I just don't see that scenario playing out.

Perhaps you can post online somewhere to form a community where like-minded people can group together and farm the land as you describe. I just don't know how many takers you'll get. Maybe that's okay with you; all you need is a few strong backs and you can farm away. Let your farmer flag fly!
:hi:

[Terry in Austin]

30. Not really a choice

If you believe that alternative sources will ever provide more than a fraction of the energy we have today, the faith is kind of touching, but it's a losing bet. And you'd be betting the farm on it -- literally.

People will be involved in local food production because they prefer to eat. It's not like they'll have a whole lot of choice.

You could assume that some kind of techno-magic will make you exempt, but such confidence is not necessarily wise. The facts don't much favor it. The energy just plain won't be there.

Assume nothing about me, though. Thanks for your recommendation that I become involved, but I already am. It's actually a very good one -- you may want to consider it.


B-)
Future's so bright...

[Javaman]

11. "if we get our act together"

and there is the rub.

[kristopher]

14. We already have energy storage that can do this.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2011/2011-06-19-01.html

http://www.brighterenergy.org/24060/news/bioenergy/us-navy-demonstrates-algal-biofuel-in-military-helicopter/

http://honeywell.com/News/Pages/Honeywell-Green-Jet-Fuel-Powers-First-Ever-Transatlantic-Biofuel-Flight.aspx

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2009/05/24/biofuels-digest-special-report-on-aviation-biofuels-military-aviation/

http://www.amtonline.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=12489

[Terry in Austin]

16. Right up there with the atomic pogo stick

Gee, maybe we could do it, but why in the world would we want to?

If that's "getting our act together," we're in a lot worse shape than I thought.

x(

[happyslug]

28. Batteries capable of 1000 watts per Kilogram within 20 years????

Gasoline provides 12,200 watts of power per kilogram TODAY. Thus to provide the power of one kilogram of gasoline would require 12 kilograms of batteries that only exist 20 years from now (if then):

Energy densities:
http://wiki.xtronics.com/index.php/Energy_density

Wood provides over 3000 watts of power per kilogram.

Lithium-ion only provides only 200 watts per kilogram today (but "Secondary Lithium Ion Polymer" but maybe 1200 sometime in the future (The 1200 Watts per kilogram is at the above site, the 200 watts per kilogram is below):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery

More on Lithium Ion Polymers:

http://www.mpoweruk.com/lithiumS.htm

Weight is the number one enemy of planes, fuel (energy) is the biggest concern. With Gasoline having a Density of over 12,000 watts of power per Kilogram and Diesel/Jet Fuel having a density of over 13,0000 watts of power per Kilogram is the wight saving of getting rid of the Jet or Gasoline engine worth the extra weight of the energy storage unit (Which is what Batteries are to Electrical Motors, and what Gasoline is to gasoline engines). Prop planes are more efficient then jets on how energy is used, but I question the weight gain do to lower energy density of Batteries compare to gasoline or Jet Fuel (Even at the above excessive estimate of 20 years from now)

Energy efficiency is expected to increase over time, but in planes the main energy use is to stay flying and most of the improvements in that area was done prior to 1960. Advances in electronics have improve energy use, but sooner or later you hit a brick wall of maximum energy density. This is more a pipe dream then anything real, it may work, but there is a lot of numbers against it ever working.

[txlibdem]

32. The two front runners for battery supremacy are Zinc-Air and Lithium-Air

Many teams are working on each and there has been much progress made. Yes, still more research and trial and error is needed but the field is progressing and I wouldn't count it out by 2020.

Japan has made significant progress:
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2011/03/28/the-lithium-air-battery-makes-progress/

"Of the various metal-air battery chemical couples (Table 1), the Li-air battery is the most attractive since the cell discharge reaction between Li and oxygen to yield Li2O, according to 4Li + O2 → 2Li2O, has an open-circuit voltage of 2.91 V and a theoretical specific energy of 5200 Wh/kg. In practice, oxygen is not stored in the battery, and the theoretical specific energy excluding oxygen is 11140 Wh/kg, or 40.1 megajoules per kilogram. Compare this to the figure of 44 megajoules per kilogram for gasoline (see petrol energy content)"
...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_air_battery

[hunter]

35. Why are we always in such a hurry?

You can pretty much travel the entire planet at 35 miles per hour.

We simply need longer vacations and plenty of free time to enjoy the ride.