Groundbreaking all-electric plane paving way to greener aviation

[GenesisNemesis]

https://techxplore.com/news/2020-05-grou...eener.html

The world's largest all-electric plane has successfully completed a test flight, the first step in a long process its developers say will led to an era of low-cost, pollution-free air travel.

Seattle-based electric motor manufacturer Magnix teamed with local airline Harbour Air to retrofit a Cessna Grand Caravan 208 with a 750-horesepower zero-emissions motor and conducted its first test over Moses Lake, Washington, Thursday. The 37-foot Caravan is one of the most popular medium-range commuter airliners in the world. It can carry up to nine passengers.

Observers of the 30-minute test flight say they could barely hear any noise from the plane. In fact, the much smaller, fuel-engine powered Cessna chase plane accompanying the test plane made far more noise, observers said.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It would be nice.

[Minimalist]

It has to be better than the 737-MAX.

[Deesse23]

Range: 100mi

Unfortunately the same problem as with electric cars: energy density of storage medium.

[Dancefortwo]

Range: 100mi

Unfortunately the same problem as with electric cars: energy density of storage medium.

Well, I think the idea behind these electric passanger planes is for short hops between smaller communities.  It cuts out trips to big airports.

[no one]

Groundbreaking plane, that's quite a takeoff.

[Deesse23]

Range: 100mi

Unfortunately the same problem as with electric cars: energy density of storage medium.

Well, I think the idea behind these electric passanger planes is for short hops between smaller communities.  It cuts out trips to big airports.

Sorry for the quick response, it was from my tablet. I hate my tablet.

We cant say for sure, how "green" this plane is until we know how the electrical energy was created for its batteries. For all its worth, it could be from a coal fired power plant (which is still more efficient and *green* than having its own combustion engine, but still, not THAT much greener). This also applies to all electric cars: we have ot make sure the generation of energy is done in a sensible way, or we just shift the problem of pollution from individual vehicles to major power plants.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Range: 100mi

Unfortunately the same problem as with electric cars: energy density of storage medium.

Well, I think the idea behind these electric passanger planes is for short hops between smaller communities.  It cuts out trips to big airports.

Sorry for the quick response, it was from my tablet. I hate my tablet.

We cant say for sure, how "green" this plane is until we know how the electrical energy was created for its batteries. For all its worth, it could be from a coal fired power plant (which is still more efficient and *green* than having its own combustion engine, but still, not THAT much greener). This also applies to all electric cars: we have ot make sure the generation of energy is done in a sensible way, or we just shift the problem of pollution from individual vehicles to major power plants.

^^^^ This! So much this! ^^^^

I really wish green technology companies would quit trying to advertise as being pollution free. It just hands ammunition to the opposition. That it's an improvement over conventional engines and a step toward a greener future never seems to be enough. It has to be "pollution free", even when it really isn't.

[Deesse23]

Well, I think the idea behind these electric passanger planes is for short hops between smaller communities.  It cuts out trips to big airports.

Sorry for the quick response, it was from my tablet. I hate my tablet.

We cant say for sure, how "green" this plane is until we know how the electrical energy was created for its batteries. For all its worth, it could be from a coal fired power plant (which is still more efficient and *green* than having its own combustion engine, but still, not THAT much greener). This also applies to all electric cars: we have ot make sure the generation of energy is done in a sensible way, or we just shift the problem of pollution from individual vehicles to major power plants.

^^^^ This! So much this! ^^^^

I really wish green technology companies would quit trying to advertise as being pollution free. It just hands ammunition to the opposition. That it's an improvement over conventional engines and a step toward a greener future never seems to be enough. It has to be "pollution free", even when it really isn't.

Still, even a coal plant is more efficient than a car sized combustion engine (even if we include the transportation and storage cost of the ennergy until we got it in our car). Power plants in general get more efficient the bigger they are. Thats why individual traffic with individual priopulsion plant is the least efficient.

That being said, our CO2 footprint wont significantly change if we all change from burning fossil fuels in our cars to buring it (in bigger chunks) in our coal power plants to generate electricity for our cars.

Electric cars nowadays also have a major caveat: charging particularly fast charging (who wants to wait hours to *fuel up* his electric car?). Current cars have a radiator running during charging (have seen it personally on a Tesla) since the currents are so high (voltage must be limited for safety reasons and power = volate x current) that the batteries get hot during charging. got batteries = los sof energy = loss of efficiency.
Very latest charging systems (iirc BMW) have such insanely high currents that the connectors and wires are becoming a concern too and the slightest degradation (or deviation in quality) will basically make them able to fry eggs on.

Its not as simple as it looks like at first glance.

Personally i dont see a technological leap in battery or charging tech for electirc cars very soon. I see more progress for fuel cells. Storage of H is making progress lately. H is availiable in abundance and can be easily generated (from H2O) too....but i am digressing.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Range: 100mi

Unfortunately the same problem as with electric cars: energy density of storage medium.

Well, I think the idea behind these electric passanger planes is for short hops between smaller communities.  It cuts out trips to big airports.

Sorry for the quick response, it was from my tablet. I hate my tablet.

We cant say for sure, how "green" this plane is until we know how the electrical energy was created for its batteries. For all its worth, it could be from a coal fired power plant (which is still more efficient and *green* than having its own combustion engine, but still, not THAT much greener). This also applies to all electric cars: we have ot make sure the generation of energy is done in a sensible way, or we just shift the problem of pollution from individual vehicles to major power plants.

The only benefit to such a shift is that the carbon-scrubbing would probably be more economical, being more concentrated. Even so, I can't see it being a big difference in reducing overall CO² output without, as you say, taking steps to ensure cleaner generation at the source.

[Fireball]

I saw a guy in an electric vehicle, nut don't remember the brand. It was a sporty little thing. The back window had, "If you drive anything but an electric car you are supporting wars all over the world", or something to that effect. As  mentioned above, all the lard head has done is shift the pollution elsewhere.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Sorry for the quick response, it was from my tablet. I hate my tablet.

We cant say for sure, how "green" this plane is until we know how the electrical energy was created for its batteries. For all its worth, it could be from a coal fired power plant (which is still more efficient and *green* than having its own combustion engine, but still, not THAT much greener). This also applies to all electric cars: we have ot make sure the generation of energy is done in a sensible way, or we just shift the problem of pollution from individual vehicles to major power plants.

^^^^ This! So much this! ^^^^

I really wish green technology companies would quit trying to advertise as being pollution free. It just hands ammunition to the opposition. That it's an improvement over conventional engines and a step toward a greener future never seems to be enough. It has to be "pollution free", even when it really isn't.

Still, even a coal plant is more efficient than a car sized combustion engine (even if we include the transportation and storage cost of the ennergy until we got it in our car). Power plants in general get more efficient the bigger they are. Thats why individual traffic with individual priopulsion plant is the least efficient.

That being said, our CO2 footprint wont significantly change if we all change from burning fossil fuels in our cars to buring it (in bigger chunks) in our coal power plants to generate electricity for our cars.

Electric cars nowadays also have a major caveat: charging particularly fast charging (who wants to wait hours to *fuel up* his electric car?). Current cars have a radiator running during charging (have seen it personally on a Tesla) since the currents are so high (voltage must be limited for safety reasons and power = volate x current) that the batteries get hot during charging. got batteries = los sof energy = loss of efficiency.
Very latest charging systems (iirc BMW) have such insanely high currents that the connectors and wires are becoming a concern too and the slightest degradation (or deviation in quality) will basically make them able to fry eggs on.

Its not as simple as it looks like at first glance.

Personally i dont see a technological leap in battery or charging tech for electirc cars very soon. I see more progress for fuel cells. Storage of H is making progress lately. H is availiable in abundance and can be easily generated (from H2O) too....but i am digressing.  

I'm not yet sold on hydrogen. It takes as much energy to split it off from water as it provides. The vast majority of hydrogen available to us comes from hydrocarbons, leaving us with shit-tons of carbon to deal with. There are some promising experiments going on at NREL with both hydrogen and non-fossil methane, but those are still at the proof of concept stage. I don't think there's going to be a single answer to our energy problems, and I think we're going to have to make serious progress with efficiencies. I'd even say that, short term, improving efficiencies of current technology is more important than replacing energy sources. A fleet of cars with 150/MPG engines would do more to reduce carbon emissions right now than a fleet of electric cars, though the picture will look different farther down the road.

[Paleophyte]

We cant say for sure, how "green" this plane is until we know how the electrical energy was created for its batteries.

Of course that's in the USA, which is still dwelling in the dark ages.



In Canada our cars run on water.



Most places don't have that much hydro power, but Europe has reduced fossil fuel consumption by using more wind and solar.

For all its worth, it could be from a coal fired power plant (which is still more efficient and *green* than having its own combustion engine, but still, not THAT much greener).

Umm.... No. Aside from the toxic crap that coal pumps into the air, coal has a much lower energy density than jet fuel. A coal-fired power plant will never be as efficient as a jet engine in terms of energy/tonne of CO₂ and that's before you factor in losses for an inability to follow load, transmission losses, battery charging and discharging efficiencies, etc.

[Deesse23]

Canada generates 60% of its energy by Hydro/Thermal?