Electric aeroplanes may be closer than you think. Here's why. | Joshua Portlock | TEDxPerth
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ต.ค. 2024
- Electric power will soon disrupt the general aviation industry. This could forever change not just the design of aircraft, but the design of our cities and the way we live. In this talk, aviation engineer and entrepreneur Joshua Portlock shows why electric aviation is inevitable - and imminent. Aviation designer This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
The "when" depends on the pace of battery development.
The "When" depends on Elon Musk and his own timeline.
And battery development is a big "IF." Batteries may not EVER be capable of powering practical electric aircraft.
Better batteries will be developed, when there is a clear need for it.
Meaning, we have to use, what is available now and somebody will come along and say: Hey, I know how we can do this a bit better.
People will figure it out, I'm sure of that... :-)
@@granadakimj Our need for a better battery does not guarantee that it's possible to develop batteries which are good enough to make electric aircraft practical, the physical world does not bend to our needs. The Uber concept is likely to be the only concept in which electric aircraft are practical, because it's likely to be used infrequently enough to allow the vehicles to recharge and because it will be used for short trips. Electric air taxis aren't likely to have anything more than a minuscule effect on transportation in general, though.
400wsper kg is enough for an electric jets and the Maxwell acquisition by Tesla for their DBE tech has a pathway to 500wh per kilo more than enough for electric jets for intercontinental flights
As an airline pilot who flies a jet that can fly and landl itself from 41,000 feet to the ground.The people who make statements that it will "never" happen really make me scratch my head. Are you not aware that virtually EVERY technological breakthrough had people saying exactly that before it became a reality? The airplane, electric lights, the wired telephone, computers, nuclear energy, space travel, cell phones, faster than sound flight, and so many more. Now we are treated to people saying that electric powered flight will "never" happen. Right. "Never." Sorry skippy but it is already happening...TODAY. Are they the ultra-capable supersonic aircraft we have today after 116 years of development? No, because we are at the DAWN of the electric aviation age. The BEGINNING. And rest assured electric aircraft won't need 116 years to reach parity.
If a person is monitoring the almost unbelievable pace of advancements in 1. battery technology 2. electric motors 3. nanotechnology and 4. artificial intelligence they would have to be amazingly short-sighted not to see what is ahead not very far down the road (or in the sky!) I believe that we are getting better at recognizing our ability to make technical progress, which is why you have so many people today WHO KNOW saying "when" instead of "if." They know it is just a matter of time...and that time is compressing at an increasing rate.
*He was superb!* Great to see such presentations.
I think there is a basic misunderstanding here. This technology cannot scale up to passenger airliners. The training aircraft are briliant but only fly for an hour. The proposed air taxis will be similarly limited to flight time, and for a good reason. There comes a point where adding bigger batteries for longer flights adds too much weight to the aircraft, and so does adding more passengers. There is a limit to miniaturisation of batteries for physical reasons, and battery technology is already at or close to that limit. So if you put enough batteries in a plane to fly 200 passengers for say 6 hours, it could never get off the ground. It is though a brilliant technology for short trip light aircraft.
‘Battery tech at or close to its limit’? Never heard of graphene? Solid state electrolytes? The Faraday Challenge? Wake up and smell the nanomaterials!
All aircraft, even vertical take-off ones, will almost certainly be restricted to landing and taking off from designated landing areas. This means that the fifteen-minute flight you take that used to take an hour driving, will still have, probably, another thirty or more minutes added to the journey in getting from wherever your aircraft lands and where in the city or whatever you need to actually be, most of the time.
Just because something is electric doesn't mean that it is emission free. You need to get the energy from somewhere, and that is not necessarily a renewable source. You need to store energy in, atm not so renewably produced batteries. Also, I'm pretty sure driving somewhere takes less energy than flying somewhere. Lets go with small electric cars rather than with huge suv's or even larger electric aircrafts.
3D structured graphene, 3DSG, would work wonders for the frame, blades, and engine. 3DSG also forms the basis for a new class of graphene ultracapacitor. Electric aircraft are much closer than you realize
Easier said than done.
Yup that's nowhere close to happening
I feel that our speaker glossed over the part on propellers and exaggerated greatly the advantages and no mention of the disadvantages of ducted propellers (fans). These VTO craft are extremely energy hungry and are a secondary application of electric power in flight. The chief advantage of VTO is in the reduction of facilities space. These craft will work best for short hops in, say, urban settings. Notice that the Alpha is a prop plane. It is safer, it is short ranged, it is super efficient. Imagine a one hour trip only taking fifteen minutes; what can we do with the extra time (catch up on our email)?
700 Wh/kg is said by someone at NASA to be the threshold required for new batteries chemistries to allow 100+ passenger commercial aircraft being powered by electric fans. That is within shooting range of new battery chemistries but way beyond say Tesla's 250 Wh/kg used in current Tesla vehicles. Short trip small aircraft with 2-8 passengers will open new markets that conventional small aircraft cannot compete in and move into conventional aircraft markets as Joshua is explaining in this talk.
Elon Musk doesn't agree with it. He claims that the battery technology is fine if the aircraft itself can fly higher to be more energy efficient and does regen on the way down.
Matt Casters regen on the way down would be so cool, makes sense from a fundamental standpoint. Or a free glide path, but I suspect that’s not how flight paths are designed at this stage
Innolith says they've made a rechargeable lithium ion battery with a 1000Wh/kg capacity.
If that's true then the electric aviation revolution is nigh!
Musk has also said 500Wh/kg was his threshold for small planes too. And if/when the Tesla/Maxwell deal comes off, he has a path from 250 to 300Wh/kg immediately and 500Wh/kg in future. (According to Maxwell presentation in 2018)
@@Folkert.Cornelius easy to say anything
I got a laugh at one of his last statements. First some history; back in the fifties when fuel and cars were cheap, urban sprawl was all the rage. This eventually led to today's problems of too many people traveling great distances back and forth to work, etc. causing huge traffic jams. Now at the end of this speech, he talks about this new technology leading to the ability to spread out to greener pastures and have the ability to get back and forth quickly. That is... until tens of thousands of these aircraft crowd the skies just like cars today do on the highways. Do I see history repeating itself?
Yes, that was a bit of a bummer, that end vision. It reminded me too of the 50's, 60's urban sprawl. I get the sentiment he is expressing, but if you create nice smaller, communal hamlets, then you cannot also have the 'workers' hopping off to work somewhere else ... . To be for real, the living AND working will have to happen within these smaller communities; crafts and local services. No big jobs in the city, no unlimited riches, no hopping to islands for recreation. The same but electric is not enough, more fundamental change need to happen to face the future. Otherwise it IS history repeating itself.
Cars crash on roads, heaps of "commuter" aircraft would create 2 problems, killing people in mid air then crashing to earth and killing others.
@@adoreslaurel -- Though I agree that when a plane or multiple planes crash that would also endanger those on Earth, I believe that the small planes to come will all have (to have) autopilot software taking care of the takeoff, flying and landing. But yeah, when it is crowded up there, and people do crazy things anyway, I am not reassured that all those autopilot software versions will keep it clean. Just as with self-driving cars accidents will happen and take away part of the appreciation for this new kind of transport. Until it is common enough to be the standard. Then we will take it as it is, even with accidents.
I am not happy seeing a continuation of a lifestyle that prioritizes personal fun and comfort, even when the combustion engine is replaced by a clean version. It will be "too many damn planes up there".
@@tubularap We should all relax, personal commuter aircraft will never happen, the obstacles to overcome are too many, the best we can hope for are automated cars that will/might? just keep traffic flowing.
Physical presence Will be in lower demand because of improved telecom. Mobility will therefore be improved.
Pretty amazing.
Only 1 hour of flight, and when you get to where you are going, you're going to have to wait a loooong time to recharge. You have to worry about heat much more than you would in a regular piston-engine airplane, and your battery depletion is not a linear rate, so it can become less reliable over time as to how much battery time you actually have left.
If you do battery-swaps where you have a storage of batteries awaiting an arriving aircraft, then it become a faster process. I don't see these being popular as a personally-owned vehicle, but if you have specific 30-minute routes, you could sell these rides to the rich that need to jet around NYC or San Francisco Bay.
Wrong! Remember how unreliable ICE-driven planes were 100 years ago. If they were thinking like you do, there would be no advancement!
@@MichaelOZimmermannJCDECS My critique was directed at this SPECIFIC airplane, not the future of electric airplanes. I never made any sort of claim suggesting that electric airplanes could never become a viable/useful form of transportation.
of course electric motors are vastly more efficient and relatively maintenance free, the issue will always be energy storage. not only the carbon footprint to build and recycle but also the lack of energy density in the batteries.
You need to swat up on battery & supercap advances. Battery/electric duel trains are now running with more to come.
I would propose a transitional detachable trailer-prop/battery assembly that can attach and detach mid air and provide a thrust assist.
To extend the range of battery electric planes, Wankel rotary engines are being looked at. They are approx one third of the size and weight of piston engines of the same power output. When they burn hydrogen they are 23% more efficient with near zero emissions. The efficiency rises again when they are running in their _sweet spot_ power band. They are almost immune to catastrophic failure, unlike piston engines. Ideal as range-extenders.
The problem remains that these machines churn up a lot of dust and dirt when taking off and landing, although we could use grass lawn for landing pads to eliminate that problem. If there were a lot of them we would need to find other solutions to this problem. It is just a different form of air pollution in the final analysis, and probably also not sustainable for all transport needs for that reason. In terms of efficiency, elevated monorails need to be the mainstay of public transport, with aircraft supplementary and mostly for intercontinental use, to prevent overcrowding the skies with many small aircraft.
They will surely have a big role to play, so thanks for your presentation and hard work. These machines need to built like a superlight bumper car, almost indestructible. A sphere is an amazingly stable shape, question is how do you steer a sphere? Spherical oxygen tanks are just about the only item which survive reentry from a missile or rocket. The sphere is worth investigating.
I guess designs with hybrit options are the solution. So you got your basic electric aircraft design, with motor, electronics, batterys and with some spare place for one of the following 3 options.
1. just more batterys
2. a little gas engine that powers a generator and recharges the battery in flight. Therfore enableling longer flight times when needet.
3. a fuel cell or some other alternativ to burning gasoline
So now you can choose for your needs and potentialy even update when new options come to market. A hybrit design is often a good option, when you use the extra range not all of the time. Eg. you got your 45 Minutes of full electic flight and then you can go to hybit mode and go for 3 hours more. Your gas engine then only has to be designed for cruse power demand and not for lounch power demand, wich is way higher. So you can use a smaler engine and operate it at its best performance point with a constant rpm.
He didn’t mention the fact that vertical takeoff takes significantly more energy than horizontal, thus reducing flight times
It depends on how far the flight is. At each end the plane will be instantly plugged in to be recharged.
@Mr Brightside
You really don't know how R&D works do you?
@Mr Brightside
You still have not a clue.
You have no clue.
@Mr Brightside
You have no clue.
This guy is living in LA LA land. There would need to be several quantum leaps in battery power density before this is even feasible. The resulting batteries would then be incredibly dangerous due to the amount of energy they have stored. Not in my children's lifetime.
Did you look at and take note of the video?
That said, acknowledging that we already have electric airplanes making test flights, personally, I think that those predicting ducted fan personal vehicles becoming a panacea for future travel are not thinking far ahead enough or with enough clarity and historical perspective to see that it will only make things worse overall even if it will solve anything at all. I personally don't want to see a future with clotted skies filled with private air taxis, electric flying lawn chairs or personal aero packs. Such a thing is questionably dangerous -heck we already have too many maintenance and regulation issues with existing commercial flight- with all the mayhem of exponentially increasing air traffic at multiple levels and malfunctioning or colliding craft falling out of the skies everywhere and killing people and damaging structures below. NO THANKS. This presents is a visually and mentally distressing dystopia which is quite unkind on the human need for generalized tranquility and perception of overall relative personal safety not to mention the predictable and unknown distresses it would put on the already human-taxed animal kingdom. This is one of many cases technologically where while surely we can do this, but likely we should not.
My personal belief is that future transportation needs to be moved to discreet underground tunnels more in line with what Elon Musk envisions with his "Boring Company". To head off one objection upfront, they don't have to be creepy, as you can even pipe in natural light from the surface using fiber optics. The economic benefits, safety advantages and higher efficiencies of sustained underground transport are too numerous to ignore. You can potentially reduce somewhat the distance travelled and energy expended over long distances due to short-cuts made possible by the curvature of the earth . It won't endanger other people and structures with heavy objects falling out to the skies. You don't waste energy fighting nature's unrelenting forces of gravity and air friction, thus a back-pressure/forward-vacuum tunnel can transport people and goods many times more efficiently in terms of energy expended per unit of weight and much faster than is possible by air due to the problems of air resistance and gravity. Underground tunnels can be constructed at depths and with such techniques that don't vibrate or create noise for people and animals living naturally at ground level. So let's really rethink this notion of transportation (and the need for it, sub-urban sprawl is not a good thing). Hyperloop style tunnels, traffic tunnels and trains are more advantageous for mass people transit and for goods transit because of much greater energy efficiency expenditures per unit of mass move after construction, decreased danger to surface dwellings and surface dwellers and decrease potential for exploitation criminally and in terms of terrorism. There is a lesser restriction of increasing the amount of mass travel below surface and a much greater restriction in the ability to safely increase mass travel above the surface. Air transit should be a last resort reserved for urgent matters and emergencies because its inefficient in terms of energy waste and increasing air traffic multiplies the risks for accidents both above and involving people and structures on the ground. Therefore, we should be looking at ways to reduce inefficient and dangerous air transit with only a possible exception for low-altitude drone package delivery and even that has some questions about safety and terrorism.
Increased personal freedom to transport in the air opens up too many additional avenues for accidents, terrorism, and the visual and audible blight of it will be terrorizing for people and animals everywhere. We must also consider the short term and long range psychological impacts of what we are doing in making such a large shift of technology implementation before we implement it widely. Can we strive to think things through better than we did with forever expanding freeways and fleets of cars? Think critically about this: Clouded skies will increase stress, increase accidents, increase problems with mayhem from ill-intentioned people (gravity and its restrictions is a major blessing for security that shouldn't be taken lightly) and even have many small but noticeable impacts that might not be foreseen such as for example a somewhat minuscule reduction in the efficiencies of neighboring roof-top solar collection (any shading shuts down production a lot on solar systems in a big way)..
I once had a dream that a popular well known corporation created, mass produced and popularized cheap personal air-packs like jet-packs that could move people individually anywhere they want to go through the skies. They released it with a surprise upon the public and much fanfare, topping a few million units in sales and resales the very first week on the market. The mayhem created just one month out from launching the product was so incredible with the problems created by unrestricted individual flight being numerous in terms of crime and safety that people everywhere swiftly agreed to ban such devices into perpetuity and the company was forced to discontinue making them and refund all the sales and scrap all the units because issues of security and social impact were the last consideration in their quest to dominate the skies. Their inability to foresee or complacency about their product's impact on the general population put them out of business in the final analysis. People are not ready and will not ever perhaps be ready to deal with unrestricted vertical movement for the individual because individuals acting independently without oversight can not be trusted not to do bad things with such unrestricted access to geography offered by such technology. It is not natural, counter-conventional and nobody from individuals to corporations to governments are ready to deal with the impact and challenges that such easy movement through the air creates for property boundary and security-system evasion, personal safety, psychological well-being, damage to community visual aesthetics, anticipating criminal activity, nuisance and dangerous activities like street-racing in the sky, traffic congestion and management issues, and the huge increase in the demands upon the planet for energy production to power all these systems. In short, mass transit in the skies is an impossibility to safely implement and retain a sane, orderly and tranquil sustainable society.. This I am certain of.
Isn’t open propeller more efficient then a ducted fan? I don’t have any arguments to protect this, but I just thought that’s how it works
onni borg Yes they are more efficient than ducted fans. DF’s are a standard mistake of beginning designers.
@@rsailor971 Thanks for replying, yeah although they are commonly used in aeroplanes I believe that's just because safety on ground handling
I am surprised why he did not talk about Fuel Cell / Hydrogen planes. They can have energy density much higher than the best batteries available.
"I am surprised why he did not talk about Fuel Cell / Hydrogen planes. They can have energy density much higher than the best batteries available."
Fuel cells have longevity and cold weather temperature issues. Also complex and expensive. And liquid hydrogen is very volatile. Not forgetting requiring expensive catalysts, like platinum. Generating hydrogen is inefficient too, requiring electricity for electrolysis. Where fuel cells may offer promise through is in the maritime environment. In fact there's been a recent breakthrough regarding the generation of hydrogen in real time from a cobalt cartridge and feeding it directly into the fuel cell.
it takes something like 80% of the usable energy of the hydrogen to actually produce it. So when trying to reduce inefficiencies this has to come in to play.
@@sickbailey21 but if the Hydrogen is produced from renewables like Solar / Wind, is it not better than using current Fossil Fuels (aviation fuel) which has ONLY 20-25% efficiency?
Most molecular hydrogen today is produced by ripping it off of hydrocarbons...
They're probably too focused on their flying wheel chair.
Zero emission depending on where your electricity comes from.
Zero _tailpipe_ emission, not lifecycle. Even shoes has emissions if you take its lifecycle into account. So that obviously isn't the claim.
@Mr Brightside What's your source for that? UCSUSA shows a very different story. It depends a lot on the local energy mix and the vehicle class but EVs always win even in coal-heavy states, and in states with high renewables it's not even close. The average is ~50% less lifetime emissions.
@Mr Brightside I looked through a few reports by LowCVP and I couldn't find one that showed BEV emissions were comparable to ICEVs. The closest I found was a *2018* report: "Understanding the life cycle GHG emissions for different vehicle types and powertrain technologies". It said "Recent academic LCA studies continue to show that overall life
cycle GHG emissions for BEVs are generally lower than for ICEs
" and "40-60%" of GHG emissions from BEVs come from in-use with the comment "Carbon intensity for electricity could be nearly
zero if renewable, sustainable electricity is
used in the vehicle. This should shift all life
cycle environmental burdens to vehicle
production and end-of-life". A potential ~50% reduction in total emissions just from an improved energy mix doesn't seem like "not the biggest factor" to me. After all, production and EoL emissions are inevitable and I presume the potential for reduction is much less there.
I found the document with the 46% figure that you talk about in a *2011* press release (the full report was not available). And I don't see how you can use that figure to come to the conclusion that there is virtually no difference. I noted they mention a 18 vs 24 tons of lifecycle CO2 emissions for midsized BEVs and ICEVs respectively. That's 75%, which I presume is the figure you rounded to 80% (I couldn't find that figure anywhere) and further changed with some assumptions about higher use of the vehicles and its impact of its lifecycle. You should note that their estimate is based on a fixed energy mix in the UK, which is very unlikely (especially since it's already improved since 2011). And thus if you produce a new vehicle today, its annual in-use emissions will _decrease_ in opposition to an ICEV. And there's a lot more to it than that, so I don't want to make further conclusions. Note that BEVs have changed a lot since 2011 though.
Lastly, I don't think passenger vehicles are directly comparable to aviation. Just like they aren't to trucks and busses. Generally, however, BEVs are most favorable when they are designed for a long lifespan and rarely sits idle.
@Mr Brightside What's your source on battery packs in BEVs not expected to last the lifetime of the vehicle? I know it used to be a concern 5-10 years ago, but not in recent years when BEVs have been out on the real roads.
But if that is true, then that certainly adds relevant emissions to the car - not sure where you have the 2-3 tonnes from though - I would actually expect it to be more.
Tesla currently expects their battery packs to last 300k-500k miles and expects to move to a million mile battery pack as early as next year. I'm sure other OEMs will follow suit in a few years time. So I don't see this as a big concern in the bigger picture, since BEVs aren't even mainstream yet.
@Mr Brightside I'm not sure why the UCSUSA expect 100k miles since the standard warranty of most BEVs is 100k miles or 8 years - so you'd definitely expect it to be at least marginally longer than the warranty or it'd be pretty bad business.
I agree that battery replacement is an interesting problem for future car owners because the battery packs today still cost roughly 50% of the cost of a new vehicle. If the rest of the BEV is designed to be durable for much longer and it supports significant OTA updates, it still might have good value, but I also think it's possible that it won't. I think we'll have to wait and see. It's also worth noting that battery pack costs are still dropping pretty fast, but some OEMs have refused replacing batteries because 8 year newer tech is incompatible with earlier models. I expect standards to come soon enough though, so this won't be as much of a problem.
Another thing to note is that batteries probably won't be recycled right away. A 70%-75% degraded battery pack is still very valuable in other industries, and the degradation is expected to be slower in less intensive environments than in a BEV. I don't remember the sources for those claims though.
As for Tesla's battery mileage claims, I agree that they should be taken with a grain of salt. But since they plan on launching their own fleet of cars, they have an incentive to be right. Conservatively, I think it's safe to assume the average is at least warranty + 20% though, so 9½ years or 120k-144k miles in their case. However, there's also some decent user-based data on Tesla degradation that shows a very promising trend line of roughly 25 years or ~700k miles before hitting 75% capacity. Since it's still early days we have yet to see what will happen.
I really hope flying cars won't take off soon. Mostly because it will be an incredible sound pollution almost everywhere. The reason I think they won't take off soon, is mostly because they're still far less efficient than road vehicles, and thus fundamentally more expensive. Then there's battery technology innovation needed. And then there's the safety requirements that will necessarily need to be much greater in order for the public to allow dense air traffic. When failures occur, aircraft incidents are far more damaging than road vehicle ones.
@Muskar wrote:
_"I really hope flying cars won't take off soon. Mostly because it will be an incredible sound pollution almost everywhere."_
It is irritating when people post who never looked at the video.
@@johnburns4017 What's that supposed to mean? Is that about the "you can't hear it above 300ft" claim? I'm implying I don't see how they would be able to pull off a quiet air space, except when they're gliding. Especially not for vehicles that creates enough lift to support the weight of people. You might not easily hear 1 of them. But try 50 or 100. And take offs and landings will always be very noisy regardless. Sound pollution is one thing though but another thing is how much landings and takeoffs stir up dirt, dust etc. I've worked next to an active helicopter pad for 2 years and even though this'd be better than that, it's really quite awful.
Don't worry it will never happen not because of the technology but because of the simple fact you can't takeoff/land wherever you please regardless if automation is in control.
There also isn't nearly as much free airspace for "skyways" as people believe since aircraft can't fly as close to each other as cars go, they create turbulence they need lateral space, above about 13000 ft you need supplemental oxygen and above 18000 ft is absolutely controlled airspace you run out of room quickly for columns of opposing lanes of aerial traffic that also need safe vertical separation. Nevermind the complexity of the airspace around a major airport.
@@PabloGonzalez-hv3td Good points about the space needed from turbulence. I think computers are very capable of managing such a logistical system though. From what I've seen from aviation management, they're very slow at adopting new technology. And laws about where you can land and take off could be changed. But what do you mean about supplemental oxygen? Inside the cabin or are you saying that electric aviation needs oxygen to run (I don't believe so)?
Batteries become inefficient in cold weather. Just ask any e-car owner how long it takes to charge in the cold compared to warm temps.
Jaguar have a small heater to warm the batteries which gives longer life.
@Mr Brightside
The small heater makes matter more efficient overall.
All that’s missing is the flux capacitor
It’s very exciting to be at the dawn of electric transportation in general, now let’s plan for the resultant 10x electrical energy demand to enable this leap in prosperity.
I think you're unaware of how much excess power there is at night, and how much wind and solar is being installed.
For commercial planes that carry more than 50 passengers, the real transition to non-CE planes is hybrid technology.
the woman doing the hand sign translation must be speechless of this tech
Suoerb video
It is of little value unless there is commercial advantage in crowded cities where commercial advantage is greatest airspace is already unavailable ...clearly subsitution for existing light aircraft is something happening in the uk...but development of car substitution is not realistic....both the uk and the states are using drone patrols of coastal and land borders but density of such items are restricted...in areas where no restrictions exist such as rural areas or emergencies might have limited value,surveying of roads,maps,or infrastructure takes place from satellite services. Uba intend to politically lobby polititions to bring a fantacy of taking the car into the sky to avoid traffic congestion....clearly traffic jams in the sky will be a failure
@Mr Brightside these concepts are possible with existing technology, ,were you in Germany this week to look at new seimens electic light aircraft propulsion units at the expo ? Red Bull aircraft might be racing electric units in the future, commercially light aircraft too pipstral are adding to existing offerings due this summer. Gliding clubs have been using self launching El assist for sometime now, development of electric propulsion for hybrid airliners are underway.... Electric Drones are been developed in pilot schemes in Africa to deliver medication in remote areas...
@Mr Brightside I think you are mis interpreting what was said. Electric light aircraft like the pipistral ARE available for sale currently,and electric assist gliders are also.There will be more coming onto the market in future years.
Commercial subsitution for jet engines are NOT available at present but several research projects are been undertaken.However hybrid technologies may find their way into everyday transportation within twenty years.
when its not TED but TEDx you know its not useful
Check out the Celera 500
More urban sprawl?
Can't wait for the dashcam footage of these new vehicles
I think commercial (all) aircraft should be electric and should be lifted and launched vertically with automated lighter than air balloon drones (like they do with some rockets) which could partially deflate and fly themselves back down to the airport after proportionately deflating until a plane gets above its stall speed and it releases itself during takeoff from the balloon. The hot air or gas, drone batteries, aircraft batteries, etc could all be powered/created with solar power and planes could even be taken higher than their desired cruising altitude for more gliding fuel advantage.
I like his enthusiasm but this isn't remotely inspiring or anything like a TED talk...
Except this will be in the top 3 largest disruptive innovations affecting city life in 6 years.
wouldn't want to see this displacing high speed rail because it's more energy efficient and would hate to see the sky turn into visual sewers like our freeways and highways. Currently I'm looking out my office window across the water to Rottnest island and only a few helicopters and light planes fly NS along the Perth coast, what about when thousands of people all wanna fly up and down the coast every day? yuk. Certainly very interesting prospects though.
I think ultimately something like a hyperloop is going to be cheaper and more energy efficient. And I do think that underground makes a lot of sense if boring becomes cheaper.
I think that might not be a bad problem to have.
In the US, there is really no high speed rail, and it will probably never happen (LA has already put the brakes on theirs). Freight carrier own all the tracks, and the advantage of doing transport in the air is that its multi dimensional, vastly more spacious, and point to point.
HSR is more energy efficient? HS2 in the UK is designed to be the fastest in the world at 250 mph. They are now talking of reducing the speed as they consume amazing levels of electricity.
@@johnburns4017 UK not known for it's HSR technology. Compared with fossil fuel powered flight (and all the taxis to airports etc), HSR is *extremely* EE, and moe importantly very low emissions.
Ducted fans are found to be inefficient in forward flight as compared to open rotors unless you tilt the rotors so that the fans are in an axial climb phase for most of the flight regime.
Even attached to smaller electric motors? I don't see how tilting them for most of the flight regime would help as some of the thrust for froward flight is lost. Given that in forward flight lift is generated from the wings, I dubious about your claim.
To you have a citation for that?
it will depend more on the size of the duct than the size of the motor if the ducted fan is in edgewise flight right? i think a tiltrotor concept in which wings provide lift during forward flight will be more efficient....
@@BasabAdhyapak
Well yes, that's the idea. Most of the ducted, tilting fan prototypes have wings to generate lift in forward flight. It would be daft not to. In regard to some, the fuselage also acts as a lifting body.
Do you have any links for this "ducted fans aren't as efficient in forward flight as conventional prop" claim?
@@martinw245 sorry i don't have any links to support that claim
Can you give me some materials regarding this. It will be very helpful.
Electric airplanes already exist! Look at the TH-cam video for the Pipistrel. It is a fully working flying normal performance electric small plane. Remember the solar powered glider that flew fo 24 hours? That was an electric plane. Larger ones will be next. There are already tests going on for high performance electric airplanes. This isn't a next decade thing. This is already beginning.
he doesn't seem to remember how bad batteries are atm, and uses ducted propellers not ducted fans. But yes for light training aircraft the technology is there.
Urban sprawl is a good thing. Who in their right mind would want to live in inner urban cities that are war zones. Urban sprawl occurred to get away from the Madness and crime that is considered normal in these areas. I’m happy way out in the crime free suburbs where the schools are not run like prisons and life is not much different from the leave it to beaver days.
Battery Tech X GASOLINE. Will it ever get to the point of equivalent energy output???
electric aircraft and e-engine design is well ahead of battery technology and it may be a while before that catches up
The elephant in the room is...there is no airspace.if you want to fly get a pilots licence and a helecopter or airline ticket.pointless to think these would be viable outside high density cities. Uba is one company trying to prevent other users from existing airspace useage over other useage at like there road model at taxpayers cost...landowners would find this unacceptable.conclusion failure as discribed. Just remind us all...does it take 14 times more energy to fly a helicopter to the same desination as a car ?
you must be living in city xD of course this is not for highly dense populated places, it is more for interstate, quick transport, or emergency transport like ambulance... it will grow quickly by many companies, but not as a main means of transport, not yet
Make sure you let the billion dollar companies know they are wrong.
Electric flight is much more efficient than electric driving, surprisingly.
@@andrewradford3953 that is in level flight...but vertical flight is very energy intensive what ever the power unit...the real kicker is the cost to the taxpayer a new airtraffic control infra structure for a few rich people who try to avoid their taxes?
@@gothic6662 - Electric aviation definitely has its place with smaller aircraft but as of yet the concept doesn't scale up to airliner size however It can never be a means of mass transit you simply can't takeoff/land wherever you please regardless if automation or humans are in control.
If this is meant to eliminate traffic jams the traffic is where the people are. Uber air intends to fly between established skyports not plop down on driveways and even they intend to use pilots for the foreseeable future.
The biggest obstacle to electric aviation is battery technology. In 30 years, people will wonder how we managed with all those clunky gas burners.
Misleading graphic - only one rotorcopter is in the sky, but if the speaker's future pans out and everyone is travelling by these things, then the skies would be blacked out by rotorcopters everywhere, and the skies would be completely congested. This is a 1950s version of transportation transferred to the sky. I see these as more useful in the bush and countryside than in a congested (or sprawling) city. Cities work best with integrated metro as the main mover of people through tunnels. That's proven by maths and physics as vastly more efficient than moving individual humans in individual boxes on wheels or in the air.
Did he say LEADED aviation gas? I thought lead in fuel was banned - someone please explain
Sure. Some piston aircraft engines have a large compression ratio (the ratio between max and min volume of each cylinder) because they need to develop a lot of torque. This makes them prone to detonation, that is, the fuel and air mixture igniting at the 'wrong' point (also known as knocking). Obviously that isn't ideal because engine knocking, which is would be hard to hear when sat in the cockpit, quickly develops into pre-ignition which then severely damages the engine. Lead additive in the fuel prevents knocking. And yes, from an environmental standpoint this clearly is not great.
@@michaelpye8299 thanks for the reply. Yes, it is clearly dangerous - no amount of lead is safe in the human body - do you have any idea how prolific lead in aviation fuel is?
An electric plane would only be zero emissions if you created the electricity used to charge the batteries with zero emissions.
which isn't hard at all, esp in Australia.
Like hydro, solar, wind and nuclear. They aren't zero but close enough.
Population growth is the biggest problem.
which is easy to do, australia is perfect for solar.
now tell me how a non-Electric plane could ever be Zero emissions at all?
Well Perth is basically in a desert so I won’t think it is that hard to get a zero emission plane
@Mr BrightsideLess emission is better, riiiiight????? That is what we should strive for. Just because in the process of making PV parts creates emission, we should stop because it creates "some" emission? At least the total emission throughout it's life cycle, will be less than if it was for a fossil fuel engine aircraft. Less is good. More is bad in this case....Simple.
Curiois to know what would be battery architecture
I don't think we want a sky full of electric planes/helicopters. We should speed up ground transportation with hyperloop tunnels and self driving electric cars. And that's much more likely gonna happen.
I was listening carefully until he said in 5 years we will have fully autonomous flying vehicles for 4 people ... I mean, he is passionate, but he is not realistic at all. Also, when he was talking about using 2 electric motors for vertical take off he forgot to mention WHY this time of aircraft has a driveshaft connecting all the propellers: if one engine fail you want all propellers to spin at the same speed, otherwise you die (not a hard landing, you and everyone around you dies)
No, propellers are not connected, each has it's own engine. But planes are designed to be able to fly safely with one engine only.
with 8 not 3
@@andrasbiro3007
@@helihobbit
What do you mean?
@@andrasbiro3007 you can be safe on six or eight props, But not on the or four
It would've be cool if this was about airplanes.
Bravo
0:25 You can swim there, too - you look strong enough.
Unfortunately, energy density favors gasoline by a fair amount still, and weight is everything. Also constant speed aircraft engines are more efficient than cars, so there’s a reason that a 1960s era Cessna is more useful than a slick new battery plane. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care about the environment as much as most, but I’ll be glad when batteries are more competitive.
Expand the cities so that the poor can't afford to go to work. Sounds lovely. I'm on board with air taxis and trainers for general aviation, but when clueless politicians listen to stuff like that they make life much harder on the poor people they claim to represent.
What about insurance? I had to say it.
Moot because no neighborhood will tolerate a VTOL unless you live on a massive ranch with huge separation from others as the dust and debris plume will be ridiculously unbearable. (at least as depicted as tho you are going to take off and land in your driveway)
The gasoline engine is finally becoming a buggy whip.
The fuel cell powered electric plane patent has expired.
It is now affordable to accru hours of flight time with electric planes.
This is a great idea. But it's not very practical yet. But keep working on it. ust imagine the congestion in the air when 100 people try to go to the island. 25 planes instead of 1 boat. Then there is the issue of air sickness.
You felt guilt about the airplane emission?
Yes, imagine the day when you can take off and land vertically. I can't wait. Oh wait, we have it now it's called a helicopter. This would be no different. The flight paths they describe are illegal. You cannot fly within 1,000 ft of a populated area by FAR AIM regulations. This is why you don't see helicopters at top every building for the rich CEO.
The problem with the electric is the battery weight. This is the problem that Tesla is having with the semi and is the reason that small plane is limited to one hour of flight. Gas electric hybrid is the next step. Not battery.
Kyle D I don’t believe the Tesla semi has a ‘’battery weight” problem. Apparently the drive train of a large diesel and a electric plus battery are similar and so similar payload possible.
It may have other problems in getting up and running (resource limited)
I can't believe this guy was accepted as a an expert in aircraft. Most of what he says is true, I grant him that, but I stopped the video when he went too far stating that a ducted fan is more efficient than a large propeller. Go tell Bell helicopters that they should replace their large rotors with ducted fans to improve the efficiency and they will laugh all the way to the floor. In the equation F = M x A, for the same value of "F", the larger the mass "M" (the diameter of the prop or fan or wing) the smaller that the acceleration "A" of that mass needs to be and therefore the less turbulence is produced and the less energy is lost. And BTW, that is exactly what the Dean of the then Department oaf Aerodynamics of M.I.T. explained to me back in 1965, so don't question me.
Also ducts are heavy and the radial struts to support them block some airflow, negating much of the benefit.
@@dekutree64 A duct is good for noise reduction and people around the propeller. For a given propeller diameter it is true that you get more static thrust by putting a duct around the prop. But as you say, it weighs and blocks sone of the airflow and this last statement of yours plus the wetted area becomes a great drag at higher speeds and therefore t is a vary bad idea if you want speed. For limited space applications, where a small diameter propeller is a must, the ducted fan might be the right choice
If you asked me a few years ago about whether electric aircraft would fly in the next two decades, I would have said it's unlikely, for the reasons cited by many here commenting; battery limitations... HOWEVER! Since no one here seems to have mentioned it, there is one absolutely fundamental difference between now and even a few years ago: politics. Climate change, whether you believe it's human-induced or otherwise, is happening, and the evidence is overwhelming that we are likely the cause. In any case, aviation is a sizeable contributor, and since aviation is set to continue to rise, the focus on emissions by governments is only getting more aggressive. Governments are beginning to impose carbon taxes on flying. Eventually, this will lead to restrictions on aircraft that are the worst offenders. So this means that despite the overall efficiency/range/payload of electric aircraft being worse (at least for now), they will become attractive to airlines when taxes outweigh the efficiency argument. Alternative fuels, carbon offsetting, and other schemes could play a part too. But electric aircraft are coming, and the spark to set it off will be the politics.
Disrupt the general aviation industry? Yes, of course. A four hundred seat intercontinental battery powered Boeing is just around the corner. Along with a battery powered FedEx plane hauling twenty tons of freight.
Do you have to be such a dope?
Rotor craft like Joshua Portlock's prototype are considerably less efficient than an airplane design with equivalent performance.
I don't know many airplanes that can take off vertically. Though it is much more efficient to use a wing for lift, efficiency is not what is being pushed here; a future with flying cars is. Honestly I don't like the idea of having cities that are unaffordable due to poorly planned transportation systems for the poor.
Unless it’s short distance it won’t work.
Well again, Elon Musk says he's got a design for a long distance electric plane. By flying very high with less air resistance and by using electric regeneration on the way down he claims it's possible. Granted he's probably too preoccupied with other things to actually make one but I can see how you could make it happen.
7X less waste??? Sounds like 3X to me. (he shows "nature" as a fully developed tourist trap, not natural in the slightest) Unless you have tens of acres between you and your neighbors no VTOL will ever be tolerated in your hood with all sorts of dust and debris blasted across the landscape.
Real Estate Values will be threatened in 10 years.
Not even a mention of Lilium VTOL jets?!
Mmm... yes and nope,
Yes for electric. Nope for planes and copters everywhere. The noise alone would kill you. Ever have a helicopter flying above you, a passenger plane hanging low in the sky? You coulda hardly hold a decent conversation in those situation. Now times that by 1000 or more, buzzing across the sky where you live constantly. Pilots and passengers don't just wear ear muffs in those small planes for nothing (other than for communication), because it is loud.
I want air travel as a reality just as much as the next person, but they really need to solve the noise issue. Not to mention safety being a giant can of worm.
From the title I thought this video must be about new lighter battery tech. Nope, waste of time. We know electric planes are cool. We’ve known that for years. Without new battery tech they’re not happening. If that battery tech ever gets here, electric planes will explode into production everywhere. We don’t need any more pep talks or flashy designs. We need batteries with greater energy density. I’m sure he’s a nice guy, and does super cool stuff that everyone will benefit from someday, but electric plane vids like these are mostly pointless regurgitation.
Ain't gonna fly. The math does not add up.
Electricity doesn't magically reduce the amount of power needed to fly an aircraft. A Piper GA aircraft used for these shuttles runs a 180HP or bigger engine. In cruise it runs at 70% power, that's 126HP which equates 93kW. Going with his data that 30% of the energy is wasted on heat, 60kW is delivered to the prop. So even assuming 100% efficiency with ducted fans and what not, to fly the same aircraft for 1 hour you need 60kWh of electric energy. You need 30 minutes safety reserve, so that means the equivalent of a Tesla 100kWh battery pack weighing 600+kg is needed to have a safe 1-hour flight. Want to fly longer distance? Add 600kg battery packs. Soon you won't be able to take off.
Now you land and you need to recharge. You'll be stuck for at least 5 hours charging your battery, meanwhile planes with IC engines fill up in 5 minutes and fly again. At that rate, twelve can fill up in an hour from a single gaspump. Suppose all other GA aircraft are electric too. Now these 12 all need their own charging station for 5 hours. In those 5 hours, another 60 planes arrive. You need 60 charging stations if you want to service them in the same time as would be needed for IC aircraft from a single gas station. These electric charging stations are 20-50kWh each. That's a *lot* or electrical infrastructure. And a lot of parking space.
I've done similar strait-forward calculations for a mid-size domestic airport with airliners. To keep them flying you will need 5 nuclear power stations of 2 GWh each, running at full power 24x7. Turn-around times are immense. Charging currents and voltages are through the roof. Outrageously dangerous stuff.
Perhaps all these electric-everything advocates need to take a step back and look at the entire chain. And then they'll come to the same conclusion: Ain't gonna fly..
I heard that there is a company out there who is striving to make batteries which produce 1kw per kg of energy and there are only a couple of years away from producing it. And with charge times getting faster with tesla's new v3 charger, a change could be coming sooner than you think. As for charging infrastructure, it is a lot simplier and cheaper to put in a charging station than it is to put in a fueling station with its tanks and pumps. And karosene is a dangerous fuel to keep around as opposed to having electricity which if there is a mishap can be shut off with a switch or advanced software. And when these batteries become more energy dense, they will also serve the purpose for storing the energy so these airplanes can be recharged which will probably get there energy from a hybrid of grid and off grid sources.
What have you been doing these calculations for? You are spot on. Our company has been developing Purpose built IC engines designed to run a a wide variety of fuels
Electricity may not reduce the amount of power needed to fly the aircraft, but it reduces the amount of wasted energy, making it more efficient, at least for short flights.
Recharge time is an issue if quick turnaround is required. But, that could be handled by battery swap. You also have to take into account that electric motors require much less maintenance than gasoline engines, so time is saved there.
Large electric airliners are completely infeasible at this point. But, smaller hybrid electric airliners are being developed which will use electricity on takeoff and ascent, small, highly optimized liquid fuel engine during cruising, and even recharge during descent. This can save a significant amount of fuel.
@@dansanger5340 The problem isnt with the delivery of the electrical energy from batteries to motors. The problem is how this energy is generated in the first place, which comes from almost exclusively coal. We are developing exactly that in Hybrid internal combustion engines running at a constant speed.
@@samdixon4579 Not all countries have a coal-heavy grid like Australia. Even the US, which used to rely mostly on coal, has seen the proportion drop precipitously, now down to 27%, and still dropping.
Science and the Universe is laughing at our gullibility. Mother Nature and time will clean up the mess of our arrogance.
Nope, skipping this update, waiting for balance patch.
In your dreams maybe...
Right, trust our lives to engineers or old parts. Dude, what you know came off the back of those innovators of the past. Secondly, you show one plane getting around, look at a freeway and now replace all those cars with planes. Finally, electricity is not free, and for every solar panel used to charge that bad boy is one less available for a home or other use. Personally, I love the idea of electric, but ultimately we need to start using less.
Battery technology is not up to it yet, but that's irrelevant. Electric drive train, with generator is still more efficient than an ICE drive train, and when battery technology gets better you can replace the ICE generator...
"Battery technology is not up to it yet"
It is if you don't mind a 50 mile range for, say, an air taxi. Numerous companies are testing prototypes as we speak!
Mapping
Then make one!
If it’s better than why aren’t there any being tested or made?
Why hasn’t Boeing made one?
You’re a better engineer than what Boeing or name any of the aerospace giants?
I think not but I’m from Missouri
Show Me.
Venture Capital. Hence the talk(s). It's advertising to get Venture Capital.
Correct me if I'm wrong but all major aircraft manufacturers have electric plane prototypes and roadmaps. Boeing you mentioned invested in JetSuite.
"If it’s better than why aren’t there any being tested or made?"
Google is your friend! There are numerous companies around thew world currently testing prototypes of these vehicles.
@@martinw245 And Google will show how long they've been doing this, as well as how many times 'this is happening in 5 years' have been uttered in the last 40 years.
@@martinw245 Google Advanced Composites. Burt Rutan has been doing aircraft with lighter materials for well over 20 years. And the battery densities we have now, are able to hold a plane up for 60 minutes. You DO realize that the flight time hasn't changed on 20 years either, right?
Blah blah blah ducted fan blah blah vertical takeoff blah blah blah... then he shows he's settled on a fixed wing, propeller configuration, slid a motor in place of an engine and uses a runway.
Well, it makes sense to start with the simpler, cheaper case, no? What I found amazing is that that small craft could fly hundreds of miles on just 4.9kWh.
Actually there are numerous companies working on and currently testing VTOL electric aircraft. Google is your friend.
It is because the ducted fan tech haven't been used for any significant range tests. Battery powered propeller planes have been used and tested with longer range. That is why he is showing it. He did show the ducted fan concept with Uber taxi service. Battery tech haven't improved enough for that yet. That is why he didn't show the actual working prototype.
@@1flash3571 Just about every single passenger jet is a ducted fan, which is more range-efficient, so I have no idea (do you?) of what you are talking about wrt batteries.
I am now dumber for having watched half of this... How do I get that time back? Anyone?
So what happens when a sunflair knocks out all the electricity if we got thousands of these flying around? Happend in Canada just a few years ago.
Ground effect aircraft...
If it's low down enough to use the ground effect then it isn't really an aircraft lmao
Yeah, wing in ground effect has great potential for fast _marine_ vehicles, but it can't make air taxis.
@@leftaroundabout Even water isn't flat enough for those things to work very well.
Hybrid jet is still possible
aeroplane? really.
He's Australian airplane is a North American term
Biofuel is better
Thanks for the stock tip...Uber is going to take over the world with VTOL electric planes
Uber doesn't trade publicly. Yet.
All very nice, but the vast majority of people are unable to safely pilot a plane, and always will be. Who's going to regulate all this? The last thing we want is everyone getting in the air unlicensed because only death will result. Autonomous aircraft? God save us. Good luck with your development but the last thing we need on earth is "everyone" getting into the air, because disaster is the only destination. People can't even walk without falling over. Machines are great but an aircraft isn't a train, while the automated cars barely work at the moment. It'd be hilarious to watch everything go wrong until they fell on your head.
I wonder if those battery vehicle guys ever heard of the formula
_e=_ *m* * _v²_
Pretty sure never. They probably heard of e=1/2 * m * v^2 though.
@@kennethfong7488 What do you mean with e= ½ m v² ? Was Einsteins Formula e= ½ m c² ? I rather think not. You do not happen to be one of those lithium accu pack airplanes ingeneers?
@@erikschiegg68 they aren't splitting atoms. He is talking about kinetic energy, which is KE = 1/2 × m × v^2. Also, you didn't help your case when you misspelled engineer.
@@Bryan-qd4fk You two are right aout kinetic energy. And what about the potential energy? But all the same, mass has to be kept small. I'm not natively speaking english and prefer more precise languages as german. Have a nice Easter.
Unless you charge your batteries with solar-panels or wind-turbines or hydro-electric, the whole guilt-trip about burning fossil fuels is totally bogus. While super-efficient electric motors can be up to nearly 90% efficient, how much is lost charging and discharging the batteries, distributing the electricity to the motor and so forth. Frankly, internal combustion engines aren't that inefficient compared to other schemes, because the source of energy is directly converted to motion. In fact, more savings are possible via smooth surfaces and efficient aerodynamics, as the pipistrel airplane illustrates nicely. People fixate on single aspects of designs rather than look at the entire situation honestly and thoroughly. Incidentally, I hope everyone else also noticed that 99% of the solutions shown in this video are only for the ultra-rich who regularly land at work on top of the sky-scraper where their office is. Definitely not for regular folks. In contrast, the simple pipistrel type solution is potentially cheap enough (when manufactured in large quantities) to be viable for "regular folks". But they won't be landing on top of sky-scrapers, they'll be landing on "large lawns" the size of football fields, which can be located in every community (just as playgrounds are). In fact, a straight section along one or two or three or four borders of a playground can serve as 1 to 4 runways for one of those pipistrel airplanes, because it only needs 100 meters or less (a football field) to takeoff and land.
Electric drive's electricity demand will promote solar production because the concentrated expense of fossil fuel power plants are prohibitive vs the distributed cost of solar leading to solar incentives. If electricity is the currency of energy, then fossil fuel will die naturally. It is only because gasoline and diesel remain energy currencies that fossil fuel remains financially viable.
@@mrknesiah : One thing to remember. Electric power is not a *SOURCE* of energy, but a means of transmission and consumption.
The closest to electric power being a "source" of energy is solar panels, but the *FACT* is, the source of power is *LIGHT.*
And with wind power, the source is the "motion of air molecules".
And with hydro-electric, the source is the "motion of water".
The fact is, most people don't even realize this entire topic (as discussed by virtually everyone, and certainly in an mainstream discussion) is pure *apples and oranges.*
Let me ask this to *maybe* get you thinking a bit more clearly about this issue in an honest and fundamental manner.
What if someone has a nice big array of solar panels (or wind turbines, or water turbines (hydro-electric)) ... and takes the electricity generated to dissociate H2O (water) into H2 (hydrogen) and O2 (oxygen). Then they put the liquid H2 they generated into tanks in the wings of an airplane ... the same shape pipistrel airplane as in the article perhaps.
That airplane has a conventional piston engine that could burn gasoline, but instead is fed hydrogen gas boiling off the liquid H2 in the fuel tanks, and sucks up O2 from the atmosphere just like any conventional piston engine... and runs off the solar-panel generated H2 ... and emits only H2O as in "water" (because that is the emission from a piston engine when run off of H2 and O2).
So ... is that "better" or "worse" or "same" as an electric airplane? I dunno ... depends on how you value things.
The real problem is ... with current battery technology at least ... one *cannot* get as high an "energy density" with batteries and electric motor as one can get with liquid gasoline + oxygen-from-the-air or liquid hydrogen + oxygen-from-the-air. Which means, my friend can fly her pipistrel virus sw with 912iS engine about 6000km before she runs out of fuel ... while a battery version of the same air-frame can't go anywhere near as far ... *MANY TIMES* less far in fact.
Since she flies across the pacific ocean in hops of up to 4000km, the greater range of piston engines is an *absolute requirement.* For a flight school, perhaps the electric airplane is good enough ... though there is the fundamental problem that graduating students can't fly 99.999999% of airplanes because they have no idea of the extra steps required to deal with conventional piston or turbine engines/airplanes. But ... that's not something that can't be addressed by giving them 10% or 20% of their instruction time in a more conventional aircraft ... like the otherwise nearly identical pipistrel virus sw or pipistrel alpha airplanes.
BTW, electric motors aren't the "energy density" problem ... the best of them are quite efficient in fact. The "energy density" problem is the batteries. They are still far from what they need to be to compete against conventional piston engines. That's sad, but *FACT.*
Solar power IS a source of energy.
So much so that billions are being invested in huge solar plants in the deserts of Africa that will export electricity to Europe. This is already happening.
All of this can be done cheaper with internal combustion engines ... so what is going on here?? ..some guy , collecting investors money by using the latest tech buzz ... seriously, what did he even demonstrate a chair that kind of flew, with NOBODY in it, LOL .. while TH-cam has many examples of such home built contraptions with Pilots actually in them and flying, for just a few minutes before the very best batteries die. FYI - building one does not take new tech, its all cheaply available parts currently sold to Radio Controlled Hobbyists. A practical Electro VTOL will require a leap frog in battery tech, a MUCH greater power to weight ratio, cost reduction, ..and still such a vehicle will be extremely expensive relative to a passenger car.
Not VTOL, but electric aircraft have been with us a while now. Pipistril sell a small trainer to flight schools that significantly reduces cost of flight training. Short flight time, so useful only for pattern training. However... theres Eviation's Alice, in testing now, has a range of 1000 kilometres and carries 7 people at lower cost per kilometre than an IC powered aircraft..
Important also to remember that we have inorganic lithium ion batteries in final testing that double energy density, not to mention solid state lithium ion almost with us. Theres also just been a big ultracapacitor breakthrough, so the short term future for battery tech is bright. Should also mention that development of hybrid aircraft is progressing nicely.
The small vehicle he demonstrated was merely a quick build to demonstrate the use of ducted fans. Electric power generation and ducted fans is way more efficient than IC engines, in fact IC engines are only 30 to 40% efficient were as electric motors are 90% plus efficient. This results in significant cost reduction. In fact the small vehicle he demonstrated would be impossible with IC engines as you would be dealing with the excessive weight of internal combustion engines, gear boxes and drive shafts. Electric propulsion eliminates all of the aforementioned as they are direct drive.
@@martinw245 Yes, I agree with most of what you said .. fixed wing electric planes can be cost effective for short duration flights.
My previous comment was more directed at the idea of a personal or autonomous taxi vehicle for short point to point commuter hops (1-4 passengers) ... VTOL without fixed wing ... just can't be done until we have 2X improvement in battery power density. The batteries we have now are still too heavy for a practical duration flight ... and we know this is true, because commercial vehicles do not exist yet.
As for the next generation batteries (organic Li, Solid State, etc..)?? Seems every week someone is claiming an amazing breakthrough .. then several years later, no commercial products materialize .. so I remain skeptical until we see something get close to volume commercialization .. and it does take years to get to that point ... like the lithium cells in cars today, their chemistry has been known for years, but it took a decade of effort to get production volumes up and mfg costs down to a reasonable level (EVs are still too expensive, but cell prices will be dropping a lot next year, as China pumps its mfg capacity up).
@@KrustyKlown
"As for the next generation batteries (organic Li, Solid State, etc..)?? Seems every week someone is claiming an amazing breakthrough .. then several years later, no commercial products materialize .."
Too be honest, I don't recall any promises that haven't come to fruition for several years. In 2013 the University of Colorado made some significant breakthrough and were quickly acquired by Dyson. Don't think they have made any unfulfilled claims, just that they are working on them.
John Goodenough of course, who invented the lithium ion batteries we have now, announced in 2017 that he had manged to develop a solid state battery. I don't recall any claims as to when it will be available though. They have simply announced that its in the later stages of testing.
"so I remain skeptical until we see something get close to volume commercialization"
A company called "Solid Power" have received funding to build a manufacturing line for their solid state batteries. So that's very promising indeed, and suggest the availability of the batteries is close.
Samsung are also working on a solid state battery, and there was speculation that it would be in the new Galxy S10. I have one... it's not. LOL!
So in essence, I'm more enthusiastic than you in regard to availability. What I do think though is that there's a good chance that inorganic lithium ion might beat them to the market. As Swiss company Innolith say they have just made a huge breakthrough. 1,000 watt hours per kilogram. So we are talking about a range of 600 miles in something like a Tesla. Inorganic lithium ion is non flammable, ultra safe, and Innolith are saying they have finished testing and that the battery can handle double the cycles of a conventional lithium ion battery.
Now you may think that Innoloith are being somewhat hyperbolic with their claims. But here's the thing... their battery is already in service. The Hagerstown, Maryland for PJM Grid, which operates the regional utility grid for all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia... are using their technology.
I would estimate that within 2 to 5 years we will have either inorganic lithium ion, or indeed slid state lithium ion on the market.
@@KrustyKlown
I forgot to mention ultra/supercapacitors. As we speak, Lamborghini are developing an electric hyper car with a hybrid lithium ion, supercapacitor technology. Supercapacitors enable an extension of range and reduction in charging time. Fisker too, are developing the same technology.
Finally... and again this could be just an empty claim. A company called Killowatt Labs say they have a supercapcitor technology that charges in seconds, but dissipates electricity slowly, like a battery. It's totally safe, non flammable, and can handle one million cycles. They have installed the technology in the grid in, somewhere in the world, think it might have be South Africa for demonstration purposes. Lets hope they are telling the truth.
Exciting times ahead though for battery and supercapacitor technlogy.
To be honest, hydrogen might be more practical for airplanes.
Doubt it.
If you like 90-95%% efficieny losses - go for it
Electric battery is not practical for every vehicle type in existence (nor are rare earth minerals environmentally friendly in their own right).
@@tidepoolclipper8657 They are practical and in use with trucks, buses, cars, ferries, motorbikes, bikes, small planes - not rockets I suppose! (what do you mean by the rare earth minerals comment - they aren't used in batteries - used in some electric magnet motors but not induction motors - care to elaborate - we definitely know oil is not environmentally friendly)
Burning hydrogen actually gives you toxic exhaust fumes as well so you would need a fuel cell which requires batteries as well, lots of maintenance... It's not that simple really.
what about USA green new deal to have b747 or ab320 cordless by 2030..pipe dreams until battery tech makes leaps and bounds
Lol. That's just a whackjob congresswoman's crazy proposal
seems like we might need a battery ejection pod thing and a backup power source...since corporations are allowed to self regulate and cheap is the name of the game when it comes to corporate profits...
just give it a week and GOP will give a monopoly to one or 2 donor business's...it'll be illegal for anyone else to even try to start a business...like it is now with all monopolies...basically everything...now...just get an app and operate illegally for a decade till you put small business's outta business...corrupt government has your back...