How many times does it need to be said? We are not trying to save the planet, we are trying to save our lifestyle and ourselves. As for the planet, it has gone through much worse.
No, we are trying to destroy our lifestyles. The powers that be realise that when we run out of fossil fuel, civilisation, if the lid is not firmly bolted down on it by a repressive totalitarian regime of worldwide government, is likely to blow its top. They are very scared. They don't understand engineering, so they haven't yet realised that energy is not the problem - nuclear power can sort that easily. Neither have they realised that a free market is likely to develop solutions, or they wouldn't sabotage it with massive 'eco subsidy'. Greens and their supporters are not forward looking: they are the new Luddites.
Some of countries and cultures are really trying to save the planet, but meanwhile most of the others are accelerating the destruction process. Is it anymore worth save your life style or save the planet ?
A great roundup of the technology but I must admit I was a trifle disappointed. I was expecting an actual air race. Now that would be cool and a sign that electric aviation is coming of age.
Has anyone thought of how efficient towing the fuel could be on gliders towed by your aircraft in the main cruise parts of an electric aircrafts vlight plan or electric top up from blips using some sort of quick relay system discarding depleted and using now anew pack
@@TheDavidlloydjones believe me, environment will heal itself, ecosystem will be restored by nature and biodiversity will flourish again. There will be no man to use chemical fertilizers or deadly pesticides or clearing the forest so the entire planet nature will reclaim it place. In school we were taught the density of gases and CO² have high density than 0² N² H² are lighter compared to CO² Methyn are heavy than we think. I think this global issues needs more honest discussion. Yes, we accept there are so many air pollution but is it because of deforestation or emissions. 2nd how are we going to balance our fresh water and stabilize our soil without natural rainforest? Rainforest should be the primary discussion not fossil fuel.
No fuel costs? You still have to pay for the electricity to charge the onboard battery. Off course airport hanger roofs would be ideal foe solar PV panels to generate your own electricity.
Battery electrification is perfect for light aircraft from private to short haul commuter. For large commercial aircraft the answer today is eco-fluel or e-kerosene. E-fuel uses renewable energy to create hydrogen using electrolysis and then combine the hydrogen with captured atmospheric carbon.
This is a great "plain language" peak at the chalenges and status of aircraft electrification. What was surprising to me was the number of other significant projects that were not included in this presentation on the "Great Electric Airplanr Race", eg the current speed leader, Rolls Royces "Spirit of Innovation"
Would be a nice docu if you would stick to the tech and not keep boasting about that climate BS! I wanted to see this docu about the development of electric planes, which is good IMO, but switched it off after 3:31 min of hearing climate change lies.
I find baffling how every "documentary" about air transportation totally IGNOREs, like MASSIVELY IGNORES, the issue that is cargo ship emissions: They are way bigger, and they have moved even LESS towards green energy. Literally nothing. And there is no fix in sight. They were only able to reduce their emissions a little by moving slower, but even if aviation triple with no improvement, and cargo ships just maintain the same rate, they would STILL be polluting more. Also, Lets say for a second that, like stated, aviation will be the "Last Dinosaur" (it won't, you can't really fix the emissions of agriculture), and lets say it triple. It would still be a 90% emissions drop from today (if everything else stopped, it won't). Yes, in that scenario Air transport would account for nearly 100% of the emissions, but that would be 10% of todays emissions (again, if everything else stopped). The actually more realistic figures put aviation at around 30%, with all other forms combined reducing its emissions only two thirds, and food production still above it. The only real solution to decarbonize the planet is population reduction. Don't even get me started about how battery production pollutes more than aviation, and it would ruin the planet to produce even twice the batteries we produce today. Electric is NOT the solution, reducing consumption is.
I fly electric planes all the time and its great fun but i still love the sound and smell of IC as thats just next level but for a commercial world changing feat especially to help in climate we do need to head in towards hybrid at least . great video loved it 🙂
How they cut out the sound the E-Plane makes , to show how quiet it is, and the noise on a Helicopter comes not from the engines ( of course their involved in the noise pollution ) but the sound and noise you hear is from the rushing air , same on jet engines . E- Motors will not change that , and if you think that E-Cars E planes aren't have a carbon foot print as stated in the Movie , you nothing but a dreamer. some diesel cars have a lower carbon footprint the E-Cars the difference is that I can drive with the diesel car 500000 km to reach the carbon footprint of an Electric Vehicle the only difference is with Electric car I drove 0 km.
That problem is also being worked out. There is a drone company that made very different style of propellors that cancel out a lot of the vibrations from propellors. Most problems have viable solutions, they just have to be worked out.
@@RicardoMusch And so what, you can't silence the Air rushing thru and around the Airframe , and if I want travel with 900km/h in a jet you will hear the electric motor spool up to max rpm even you have no compressor stage and fan blades rushing the Air thru the duct, look at model Aircraft using an impeller going 200 or more km/h. And on the Aircraft in the Movie doing 150 Km/h you want double the speed you need 4 times the Energy and so on. so need gearing so you can put a larger high pitch propellor on that thing still you need more power it works only I hav the same Propellor size than I can save the power consumption , if I double the pitch I still need 4 times more power. so don't get fooled from those idiots , no one can change the Physics
Whilst generally pessimistic about electric flight, the noise issue is actually valid. Most of the noise of a turbofan comes from the slipstream, whereas with a propeller driven aircraft most of it comes from the propeller tips. The ease with which relatively cheap electric motors can operate at different speeds means that you can optimise number of propellers and tip speed of them to optimise for noise reduction. The fact is that the general fashion for twin engine high bypass ratio turbofans which are already pretty quiet, is pure economics. Jet engines are precision instruments. Electric motors are not. I've even made one myself that was reasonably usable. Get the propeller sizes up and the RPM down and they are way more efficient and less noisy than jets or turboprops or piston engines. Sadly the batteries have not really got much better in the last ten years or so, so they are not commercially viable except for very short flights - up to 200 miles perhaps. Nor is there any indication they ever will be.
Ships are ideal vehicles to employ small nuclear reactors. These are being prototyped everywhere in the world. Reactors are heavy with the necessary shielding and containment - too heavy for aircraft - but they are ideal for ships , and who hasn't got a nuclear submarine working these days?
- add in a turbine "range extender" and all these electric options will increase in viability immediately - no need to wait for future batteries - biodiesel is an option for the "necessary greenwash" - eliminating lead from the GA fleet is as important as reducing NOx from heavy transport. (2 seat trainers need at least 2 hours range - plus reserves, 30mins min - to be useful for cross country nav flights)
Ive been flying electric planes for nearly 20 years. Model ones. But the equations governing them are the same. After 20 years of battery development we still cant beat one hour of flying time. Nor has that situation really changed in the last decade. In short battery development has slowed down to asymptotically approach the theoretical 'best a battery can do' And its nowhere near good enough or safe enough for anything but short flights. Which is a pity, because in every other respect electric planes are brilliant. One of the advantages of fuel engines is that you don't have to carry te air to burn the fuel. Or the by products like the exhaust either. So the fuel weighs a lot less than the combined exhaust products. . Only lithium air batteries which 'burn' air look like they might one day be feasible to get the weight down enough for long flights, but they are total pie in the sky right now.
Great video of a great industry - I am a farmer that likes to fly general aviation light aircraft! I live next to a huge national park in NSW Australia that was burnt-out during the huge bushfires 3 years ago. The CO2 given off was bigger than what man does by burning fuel in a controlled manner, and fires occur year after year all over the planet. Bushfires can be prevented by back-burning but the polititions who are most concerned about CO2 levels don't prioritise bushfire prevention by back-burning. On top of that rare-earth metals for batteries are mined using large amounts of diesel fuel (that is why batteries are expensive to produce). Following the bushfires, governments are banning wood fires across the western world - very expensive for people heating homes outside of cities - and humans are prevented from the primeval comfort of life giving warmth and satisfaction of fire without having been consulted. We should be talking about bushfire prevention, the diesel being burnt to mine battery components, and the right of people to utilise fire for warmth and primeval comfort outside cities where access to electricity infrastructure is not available or prohibitively expensive. The global south does not prohibit fire, and it needs to burn diesel and gas until it can catch-up industrially with a West that it will provide food and manufacturd goods to so as to fund it's rise in living standards - they reserve the right to industrialise too.
The shipping industry is also nowhere near to approaching zero emissions and little progress has been seen so far apart from a few small boats and ferries. Wind powered shipping barely exists and no commercially available sail propulsion systems are evident. Most ships burn the worst grades of oil and also produce vast amounts of toxic and particulate pollution. The emissions of shipping are always conveniently omitted from most country’s published transportation emissions
So, if fuel consumed by aircraft traffic to and from Logan airport amounts to only 25% of fuel consumption in Boston city (conveniently not compared to the whole area served by Logan and aircraft fuel consumption not distributed along the route) isn't it a better idea to convert ground traffic to electric? It is much easier and cheaper to convert ground transportation anyways and this will have much greater effect.
the comparison of jet fuel to batterie weight misses the much better conversion of stored energy to mechanical energy. So basically the electric motor has 3 times better efficiency than the fossil engine. That makes the equivalent battery aprox 10x heavier than the fuel - instead of 30x heavier.
Jet exhaust gasses are listed by NASA and available online. The analysis consists of two pages of synergised chemical compounds. Each page has two columns of small print, and the list includes seven known carcinogens. Jet exhaust has far more in it than C02, water vapor and NOX. Even worse is high altitude heat deposition which cannot be simply doing nothing to the weather, especially when jets often fly right inside the jet stream. I would guess that jet heat and pollution is the primary driver of the terrible record-breaking weather we have been experiencing. Also, LA County officials found that noise pollution is the most serious health risk in that county. Go Alice!!!
In general any lithium battery is safe for a full recharge in around 80 minutes if you have enough power supply. They are then good for maybe an hours flight. Battery technology is good for about an hour in an aircraft or 250 miles in a car, with a one hour stop to recharge. At best the technology, fully developed might be able to double that in future. Then you run into the hard limit of the laws of physics and electrochemistry. I am amused by the idea of using hydrogen and calling it green. The exhaust would be pure water vapour - far far more a greenhouse gas than CO2. And it makes contrails that are artifical clouds as well.
At around minute 7, you can't say you're "measuring the pollution" when just a minute earlier you've shown the two people discussing where they can find the biggest "plume" around the airport. They're looking for the most dramatic story they can put together -- and they don't seem to realise that to make the drama work they have to keep that fact secret. I sympathise with them. I hope electric aircraft will work, and that we'll be able to generate the electricity in some healthy, renewable, etc. etc. way. But I don't think we can cheat and lie our way into that better future. Claiming to be "measuring" when in fact you're looking for drama is cheating and lying.
The idea of everyone flying instead of driving is terrifying. Most people are barely competent driving a car on a busy highway in a two dimensional space. Put those people in an aircraft and a third dimension and accidents will be spectacular. The personal daily flying vehicle is just a pipe dream.
Two dimensional space is where all of the hard things that hurt when you hit them at speed are. In the air the only things that are up there are clouds and enough space for there to be nothing but virtual roads where there is no oncoming traffic or intersections between your start and destination. More good news is that full self driving is already at this stage. 👍🏽
Sorry, but there is just way too much ideology mixed into this whole video. "Saving the planet with electric propulsion" - But where does the electricity come from? Where do the batteries come from? It's just one huge circlej3rk of people who like to feel good about themselves by outsourcing issues to other places. I am all in favor for non-dogmatic approaches, so I do love the idea of eVTOLs, but they overburden themselves with promises of "this is the future of mobility". It is not. It's a very small piece of the pie.
The key for commercial aviation is synthetic fuels made using either renewable or nuclear power. The technology has been worked out all that needs to be done is get it to scale.
I totally agree. SynJet kerosene is perfectly possible, and in the grand scheme of thing ex of government interference will happen when synthetic kerosene from (probably) nuclear power becomes cheaper than fossil fuel. Perhaps fuel cells instead of jet engines could burn it.
Only one problem. Transition to CLEAN electricity is pretty slow. When your electric plane is still using NUCLEAR power plant electricity, what's the point?!
Because creating other forms of transport like this can actually reduce the amount of energy used. Point to point flight in small verhicles may eventually become so efficient that it outperformed cars or other transport since you can fly from a to b without stopping or having to follow a road. And the energy you have to generate could come from renewable sources, possibly more clean nuclear in the future.
@@everydaycarrycanada951 No, it has issues because it will bankrupt Russia and Saudi Arabia. Who are rich enough to launch massive propaganda campaigns about 'radioactive waste' that are absolute bunk. Nuclear reactors reduce the total amount of radioactive material in the world in the long term
The problem right now is we want to have our cake and eat it too. We are spoiled, let’s be honest. Relatively cheap, fast mass air travel might have to undergo a fundamental change to a little slower, but far more efficient and greener mode like airships. All these small vehicles are definitely cute, and sexy, but we need big modern, safe and efficient lighter than air craft to replace jet travel. It will take a little longer, but imagine the style you could travel in! I am surprised that the Musks and Bezos of the world haven’t built one yet.....they will though. Mark my word. They will be so comfortable they will make jumbo jets look like covered wagons.
What a load of propaganda nonsense; i can't be arsed too tell you why, do your own research suffice it too say used EV's here in the UK are worthless , the dealerships who sold you the vehicle don't want them. As t infrastructure
While I enjoyed the video and the delivery of information I don't like the fact he refers to evolution as a choice. "The octopus choose to ...." That is not how evolution works. There is no choice, just those creatures more adapted to their environment survive and procreate.
Given all the electronics and the total lack of viability, I think we should call these 'Pi in the sky''😄 If only the laws of electrochemistry could be broken....
Have fuel stations on huge balloons supplying electric energy at strategically pre-determined points .A floating airport saving the need to use all your power climbing
There is no need all for piston engined light aircraft that still use avgas with lead. It is inexcusable as there are alternative turboprop light aircraft r that use unleaded kerosene.
I can tell you have zero clue. The lead in 100LL is there for cooling and Anti knock. If you run unleaded in a traditional piston powered air craft you will cause the engine to fail
@@everydaycarrycanada951 Au contraire mon ami. It is you who hasn't got a clue. I know why lead is added to avgas. It is the same reason it was added to pertrol/gasoline for ICE land vehicles.You obviously haven't got a clue about the horrendous damage that lead in fuel has already done to humanity. It has actually lowered the average IQ for vast numbers of people all over the world. I suspect you are such a victim. This is why it is inexcusable that it should be allowed to be used, especially when there is an alternative for light aircraft in the form of the turbo-prop. Most of these light aircraft are pleasure aircraft, mostly decades old, and should just simply be banned and scrapped. Any commercial variants used for such things as crop dusting or glider towing, could easily either use a turboprop or a helicopter. Do some basic research on the damage lead in lead has done, before making such ignorant comments whilst hiding behind a pseudonym. Start here: th-cam.com/video/IV3dnLzthDA/w-d-xo.html
Oh it meets the needs of SOME people. Trillions have been wasted on renewable energy, heatpumps, electric cars etc. Someone has received all that money.
It’s amazing how they are calling it clean flying. I guess if you put the mental blinders on, you can justify passing the polution problem on to the power companies. You know, good old coal, natural gas, & diesel power stations. The biggest issue is creating a polutant free power grid large enough to power cities, vehicles, industries, planes & soforth. Without the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to create such a system, we will always be reliant on some form of fossil fuel.
Maybe we should all just stay away from all fossil fuels and live on a liveable planet instead. I can explore the planet on google earth. I can have a face to face meeting with anyone anywhere on Zoom. I can’t spread diseases to other places or pick them up. I can generate power in my community. So stop with the attitude of stealing from future generations so you can have it all now.🌎🤔
Have you never heard of wind, solar and hydro? (Not to mention all the other technologies being researched). If one can heavily reduce the amount of fossil fuels needed for flight by (partially) electrifying flight then the energy you need to produce can be produced much more efficiently.
Nuclear power will do most of what we need. It is already way cheaper than renewables and will in time rival fossil fuels as the cost of mass produced nukes falls, and fossil fuel prices rise. The problem is not one of grid energy, it is one of portable energy, where nothing beats a tank of kerosene, or chemical feedstocks, where whole new processes will need to be developed to e.g. smelt metal. Naturally all the taxpayer dollars and massive government subsidies are going nowhere near viable projects - it's all being wasted on windmills and solar panels.
Oh electric jets are perfectly possible. All a modern turbofan is is a huge ducted fan that happens to be driven by a jet engine. It could be driven by an electric motor just as easily. The problem is how you power that electric motor. Batteries dont really cut the mustard.
@@leosmith848 yeah that's also what I mean. For short flight is great for long ones it gonna be a bit more difficult i think. Lets see. I love the drone like vehicles tho. Hopefully one day we will all be able to enjoy them
Suddenly after the pandemic, the "experts" realized that the pollution is excessive and the measures want to be taken all of a sudden. So far have they slept or is anyone profiting from this business? So far these specialists have slept or want to fool us as in another recent case.
The battery that makes electric aviation practical would be the invention of the century.
Thank you Miles, always loved your aviation content.
Nice documentary, it's cool to see how much progress is being made and all the various ways in which efficiency can be gained.
11¹¹1¹1
Well done to all the tec PEOPLE and engineers very impressive ✌️🇬🇧👍
One word, BATTERY. Solving storage is the biggest problem.
How many times does it need to be said?
We are not trying to save the planet, we are trying to save our lifestyle and ourselves. As for the planet, it has gone through much worse.
No, we are trying to destroy our lifestyles. The powers that be realise that when we run out of fossil fuel, civilisation, if the lid is not firmly bolted down on it by a repressive totalitarian regime of worldwide government, is likely to blow its top.
They are very scared.
They don't understand engineering, so they haven't yet realised that energy is not the problem - nuclear power can sort that easily. Neither have they realised that a free market is likely to develop solutions, or they wouldn't sabotage it with massive 'eco subsidy'.
Greens and their supporters are not forward looking: they are the new Luddites.
Some of countries and cultures are really trying to save the planet, but meanwhile most of the others are accelerating the destruction process. Is it anymore worth save your life style or save the planet ?
Amazing stuff.
Hardly anybody should own a car. They should use one when they need one. That does not include driving alone to work. It does involve sharing.
Imagine a world where only the wealthy get to fly....everbody else is abandoned....thats the future.
Or born another ford then everybody hv one
A great roundup of the technology but I must admit I was a trifle disappointed. I was expecting an actual air race. Now that would be cool and a sign that electric aviation is coming of age.
Massive challenges indeed that will happen! I love what you are doing keep it up for the advancement of the human race.
please stop using the stupid term of "saving the planet"...the planet will be here regardless of what we do. We might not though.
Well said.
How 'bout "Environmental stability -- with or without the human race..."?
Has anyone thought of how efficient towing the fuel could be on gliders towed by your aircraft in the main cruise parts of an electric aircrafts vlight plan or electric top up from blips using some sort of quick relay system discarding depleted and using now anew pack
Having fuel stations in balloons at strategic points
George Carlin.
@@TheDavidlloydjones believe me, environment will heal itself, ecosystem will be restored by nature and biodiversity will flourish again. There will be no man to use chemical fertilizers or deadly pesticides or clearing the forest so the entire planet nature will reclaim it place. In school we were taught the density of gases and CO² have high density than 0² N² H² are lighter compared to CO² Methyn are heavy than we think.
I think this global issues needs more honest discussion. Yes, we accept there are so many air pollution but is it because of deforestation or emissions. 2nd how are we going to balance our fresh water and stabilize our soil without natural rainforest? Rainforest should be the primary discussion not fossil fuel.
No fuel costs? You still have to pay for the electricity to charge the onboard battery. Off course airport hanger roofs would be ideal foe solar PV panels to generate your own electricity.
Not to mention how electricity is made, mostly by coal electric plants. And how fast those batteries degrade? It is not so green after all.
Battery electrification is perfect for light aircraft from private to short haul commuter. For large commercial aircraft the answer today is eco-fluel or e-kerosene. E-fuel uses renewable energy to create hydrogen using electrolysis and then combine the hydrogen with captured atmospheric carbon.
Where do you get the massive amounts of electricity to run the electrolysis plant from?
This is a great "plain language" peak at the chalenges and status of aircraft electrification. What was surprising to me was the number of other significant projects that were not included in this presentation on the "Great Electric Airplanr Race", eg the current speed leader, Rolls Royces "Spirit of Innovation"
Very cool
Interesting documentary.
Would be a nice docu if you would stick to the tech and not keep boasting about that climate BS! I wanted to see this docu about the development of electric planes, which is good IMO, but switched it off after 3:31 min of hearing climate change lies.
Exactly!
I switched off because everyone knows flying objects are impossible
EXCELENTE DOC......
It would seem that the drag of 12 nacelles and folded props would put a big dent in the savings from the narrow wing.
Your narrative is inspired by Klaus Schwabb. Your truly obedient wef employees.
I find baffling how every "documentary" about air transportation totally IGNOREs, like MASSIVELY IGNORES, the issue that is cargo ship emissions: They are way bigger, and they have moved even LESS towards green energy. Literally nothing. And there is no fix in sight. They were only able to reduce their emissions a little by moving slower, but even if aviation triple with no improvement, and cargo ships just maintain the same rate, they would STILL be polluting more. Also, Lets say for a second that, like stated, aviation will be the "Last Dinosaur" (it won't, you can't really fix the emissions of agriculture), and lets say it triple. It would still be a 90% emissions drop from today (if everything else stopped, it won't). Yes, in that scenario Air transport would account for nearly 100% of the emissions, but that would be 10% of todays emissions (again, if everything else stopped). The actually more realistic figures put aviation at around 30%, with all other forms combined reducing its emissions only two thirds, and food production still above it. The only real solution to decarbonize the planet is population reduction. Don't even get me started about how battery production pollutes more than aviation, and it would ruin the planet to produce even twice the batteries we produce today. Electric is NOT the solution, reducing consumption is.
I fly electric planes all the time and its great fun but i still love the sound and smell of IC as thats just next level but for a commercial world changing feat especially to help in climate we do need to head in towards hybrid at least . great video loved it 🙂
How they cut out the sound the E-Plane makes , to show how quiet it is, and the noise on a Helicopter comes not from the engines ( of course their involved in the noise pollution ) but the sound and noise you hear is from the rushing air , same on jet engines . E- Motors will not change that , and if you think that E-Cars E planes aren't have a carbon foot print as stated in the Movie , you nothing but a dreamer. some diesel cars have a lower carbon footprint the E-Cars the difference is that I can drive with the diesel car 500000 km to reach the carbon footprint of an Electric Vehicle the only difference is with Electric car I drove 0 km.
That problem is also being worked out. There is a drone company that made very different style of propellors that cancel out a lot of the vibrations from propellors.
Most problems have viable solutions, they just have to be worked out.
And the sound of a turboprop aircraft is definitely mostly made by the engine and pistons, not by the moving prop itself.
@@RicardoMusch And so what, you can't silence the Air rushing thru and around the Airframe , and if I want travel with 900km/h in a jet you will hear the electric motor spool up to max rpm even you have no compressor stage and fan blades rushing the Air thru the duct, look at model Aircraft using an impeller going 200 or more km/h.
And on the Aircraft in the Movie doing 150 Km/h you want double the speed you need 4 times the Energy and so on. so need gearing so you can put a larger high pitch propellor on that thing still you need more power it works only I hav the same Propellor size than I can save the power consumption , if I double the pitch I still need 4 times more power. so don't get fooled from those idiots , no one can change the Physics
@@powertothebauer296 I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make. 🤷
Whilst generally pessimistic about electric flight, the noise issue is actually valid. Most of the noise of a turbofan comes from the slipstream, whereas with a propeller driven aircraft most of it comes from the propeller tips. The ease with which relatively cheap electric motors can operate at different speeds means that you can optimise number of propellers and tip speed of them to optimise for noise reduction.
The fact is that the general fashion for twin engine high bypass ratio turbofans which are already pretty quiet, is pure economics. Jet engines are precision instruments. Electric motors are not. I've even made one myself that was reasonably usable. Get the propeller sizes up and the RPM down and they are way more efficient and less noisy than jets or turboprops or piston engines.
Sadly the batteries have not really got much better in the last ten years or so, so they are not commercially viable except for very short flights - up to 200 miles perhaps. Nor is there any indication they ever will be.
Why only aviation; what about shipping? Ships burn huge amounts of fossil fuels.
Working on that too.
Why always "what about" ism... We can work multiple problems at once, we've done that before... We are humans after all
This documentary is called "the great electric airplane race"... Not "the great electric airplane and ship race"...
Ships are ideal vehicles to employ small nuclear reactors. These are being prototyped everywhere in the world. Reactors are heavy with the necessary shielding and containment - too heavy for aircraft - but they are ideal for ships , and who hasn't got a nuclear submarine working these days?
- add in a turbine "range extender" and all these electric options will increase in viability immediately - no need to wait for future batteries - biodiesel is an option for the "necessary greenwash" - eliminating lead from the GA fleet is as important as reducing NOx from heavy transport.
(2 seat trainers need at least 2 hours range - plus reserves, 30mins min - to be useful for cross country nav flights)
This is for the people who make electric planes. Please skip the hybrid version and go full electric.
Ive been flying electric planes for nearly 20 years. Model ones. But the equations governing them are the same. After 20 years of battery development we still cant beat one hour of flying time. Nor has that situation really changed in the last decade. In short battery development has slowed down to asymptotically approach the theoretical 'best a battery can do' And its nowhere near good enough or safe enough for anything but short flights.
Which is a pity, because in every other respect electric planes are brilliant.
One of the advantages of fuel engines is that you don't have to carry te air to burn the fuel. Or the by products like the exhaust either. So the fuel weighs a lot less than the combined exhaust products. . Only lithium air batteries which 'burn' air look like they might one day be feasible to get the weight down enough for long flights, but they are total pie in the sky right now.
Great video of a great industry - I am a farmer that likes to fly general aviation light aircraft! I live next to a huge national park in NSW Australia that was burnt-out during the huge bushfires 3 years ago. The CO2 given off was bigger than what man does by burning fuel in a controlled manner, and fires occur year after year all over the planet. Bushfires can be prevented by back-burning but the polititions who are most concerned about CO2 levels don't prioritise bushfire prevention by back-burning. On top of that rare-earth metals for batteries are mined using large amounts of diesel fuel (that is why batteries are expensive to produce). Following the bushfires, governments are banning wood fires across the western world - very expensive for people heating homes outside of cities - and humans are prevented from the primeval comfort of life giving warmth and satisfaction of fire without having been consulted. We should be talking about bushfire prevention, the diesel being burnt to mine battery components, and the right of people to utilise fire for warmth and primeval comfort outside cities where access to electricity infrastructure is not available or prohibitively expensive. The global south does not prohibit fire, and it needs to burn diesel and gas until it can catch-up industrially with a West that it will provide food and manufacturd goods to so as to fund it's rise in living standards - they reserve the right to industrialise too.
😅
The shipping industry is also nowhere near to approaching zero emissions and little progress has been seen so far apart from a few small boats and ferries. Wind powered shipping barely exists and no commercially available sail propulsion systems are evident. Most ships burn the worst grades of oil and also produce vast amounts of toxic and particulate pollution. The emissions of shipping are always conveniently omitted from most country’s published transportation emissions
So, if fuel consumed by aircraft traffic to and from Logan airport amounts to only 25% of fuel consumption in Boston city (conveniently not compared to the whole area served by Logan and aircraft fuel consumption not distributed along the route) isn't it a better idea to convert ground traffic to electric? It is much easier and cheaper to convert ground transportation anyways and this will have much greater effect.
Working on that too. Buy a Tesla.
the comparison of jet fuel to batterie weight misses the much better conversion of stored energy to mechanical energy. So basically the electric motor has 3 times better efficiency than the fossil engine. That makes the equivalent battery aprox 10x heavier than the fuel - instead of 30x heavier.
It seems irrelevant until they can produce batteries with zero emissions or aren't we just moving the pollution from one product to the next?
No.
No comparison regarding pollution. Jets are filthy cancer machines.
Climate deviants. Contrails ? Chemtrails you mean. Geo-engineering
Rich people playing with expensive toys. All, redundantly, working on the same problem just because they want to get richer.
9:24 Post 9/11 and during the grounding of aircraft the temp ROSE! 16:21 No fuel costs??? Is your electricity free on that side of the world ???
where does the battery come from
Jet exhaust gasses are listed by NASA and available online. The analysis consists of two pages of synergised chemical compounds. Each page has two columns of small print, and the list includes seven known carcinogens. Jet exhaust has far more in it than C02, water vapor and NOX. Even worse is high altitude heat deposition which cannot be simply doing nothing to the weather, especially when jets often fly right inside the jet stream. I would guess that jet heat and pollution is the primary driver of the terrible record-breaking weather we have been experiencing. Also, LA County officials found that noise pollution is the most serious health risk in that county. Go Alice!!!
What about fossil fumes large tankers, cargo vessels, cruise ships & recreational boats ?
@@rscott2247 High altitude deposition of greenhouse gasses and heat is far more dangerous than terrestrial deposition.
Question is, Where dose the power you use to charge the battery's come from ?. Air taxis. Most of the day would be spent charging.
In general any lithium battery is safe for a full recharge in around 80 minutes if you have enough power supply. They are then good for maybe an hours flight.
Battery technology is good for about an hour in an aircraft or 250 miles in a car, with a one hour stop to recharge. At best the technology, fully developed might be able to double that in future. Then you run into the hard limit of the laws of physics and electrochemistry.
I am amused by the idea of using hydrogen and calling it green. The exhaust would be pure water vapour - far far more a greenhouse gas than CO2. And it makes contrails that are artifical clouds as well.
At around minute 7, you can't say you're "measuring the pollution" when just a minute earlier you've shown the two people discussing where they can find the biggest "plume" around the airport. They're looking for the most dramatic story they can put together -- and they don't seem to realise that to make the drama work they have to keep that fact secret.
I sympathise with them. I hope electric aircraft will work, and that we'll be able to generate the electricity in some healthy, renewable, etc. etc. way. But I don't think we can cheat and lie our way into that better future.
Claiming to be "measuring" when in fact you're looking for drama is cheating and lying.
Brilliant!. Cheaper electric Trainers.
But
'More people of color'.
Thus confirming that they need to be helped!
Start stocking up on extremely long extension cords !!! 😁
The idea of everyone flying instead of driving is terrifying. Most people are barely competent driving a car on a busy highway in a two dimensional space. Put those people in an aircraft and a third dimension and accidents will be spectacular. The personal daily flying vehicle is just a pipe dream.
Two dimensional space is where all of the hard things that hurt when you hit them at speed are. In the air the only things that are up there are clouds and enough space for there to be nothing but virtual roads where there is no oncoming traffic or intersections between your start and destination. More good news is that full self driving is already at this stage. 👍🏽
Sorry, but there is just way too much ideology mixed into this whole video. "Saving the planet with electric propulsion" - But where does the electricity come from? Where do the batteries come from? It's just one huge circlej3rk of people who like to feel good about themselves by outsourcing issues to other places. I am all in favor for non-dogmatic approaches, so I do love the idea of eVTOLs, but they overburden themselves with promises of "this is the future of mobility". It is not. It's a very small piece of the pie.
loved to see the tech of it but got so sick of the woke green propaganda
The key for commercial aviation is synthetic fuels made using either renewable or nuclear power. The technology has been worked out all that needs to be done is get it to scale.
I totally agree. SynJet kerosene is perfectly possible, and in the grand scheme of thing ex of government interference will happen when synthetic kerosene from (probably) nuclear power becomes cheaper than fossil fuel. Perhaps fuel cells instead of jet engines could burn it.
Only one problem. Transition to CLEAN electricity is pretty slow. When your electric plane is still using NUCLEAR power plant electricity, what's the point?!
Nuclear is actually one of the cleanest. Yet still has its own issues due to the byproducts.
Because creating other forms of transport like this can actually reduce the amount of energy used. Point to point flight in small verhicles may eventually become so efficient that it outperformed cars or other transport since you can fly from a to b without stopping or having to follow a road.
And the energy you have to generate could come from renewable sources, possibly more clean nuclear in the future.
@@everydaycarrycanada951 No, it has issues because it will bankrupt Russia and Saudi Arabia. Who are rich enough to launch massive propaganda campaigns about 'radioactive waste' that are absolute bunk.
Nuclear reactors reduce the total amount of radioactive material in the world in the long term
Infancy 1 hour flying in a bug smasher. Infancy will last for ever, not going to happen. Like the flying cars. Dream on.
#release_high_energy_density_battery_tech
I'm sure a great many people have heard of electric aircraft. A swarm of flies, times a thousand, every day, every hour. The Future!
The problem right now is we want to have our cake and eat it too. We are spoiled, let’s be honest. Relatively cheap, fast mass air travel might have to undergo a fundamental change to a little slower, but far more efficient and greener mode like airships. All these small vehicles are definitely cute, and sexy, but we need big modern, safe and efficient lighter than air craft to replace jet travel. It will take a little longer, but imagine the style you could travel in! I am surprised that the Musks and Bezos of the world haven’t built one yet.....they will though. Mark my word. They will be so comfortable they will make jumbo jets look like covered wagons.
Where do you get the helium from? You could use hydrogen, but one spark - and - boom!
What a load of propaganda nonsense; i can't be arsed too tell you why, do your own research suffice it too say used EV's here in the UK are worthless , the dealerships who sold you the vehicle don't want them. As t infrastructure
Great story man, so because some dealers in the UK don't want a used e-car the whole electrifying of vehicles (be that air, land or sea) is useless?
@@RicardoMusch Re -read my post and see what you are missing?
"Sales of BEVs fall by 70% in 2023"
Basically electricity is now far more expensive than petrol !😅
Hydrogen power wins this race
Globalskylove
Stop the climate BS you don't understand and talk about the technics instead.
While I enjoyed the video and the delivery of information I don't like the fact he refers to evolution as a choice. "The octopus choose to ...." That is not how evolution works. There is no choice, just those creatures more adapted to their environment survive and procreate.
Just imagine all the cars that are now on the streets - flying. Right.
Not one-dot-o, but one-point-zero! Why yanks say o, when they should say 0? And dot, when they should say zero?
Given all the electronics and the total lack of viability, I think we should call these 'Pi in the sky''😄
If only the laws of electrochemistry could be broken....
What about of the decarbonation of your dinner plate?
That's happening too.
Have fuel stations on huge balloons supplying electric energy at strategically pre-determined points .A floating airport saving the need to use all your power climbing
Who knows some craft could even land ona huge helium balloon supporting a runway aircraft carrier in the sky
Who knows sometimes the most ridiculous idea might b
Be the answer
Good sense
There is no need all for piston engined light aircraft that still use avgas with lead. It is inexcusable as there are alternative turboprop light aircraft r that use unleaded kerosene.
I can tell you have zero clue. The lead in 100LL is there for cooling and Anti knock. If you run unleaded in a traditional piston powered air craft you will cause the engine to fail
@@everydaycarrycanada951 Au contraire mon ami. It is you who hasn't got a clue. I know why lead is added to avgas. It is the same reason it was added to pertrol/gasoline for ICE land vehicles.You obviously haven't got a clue about the horrendous damage that lead in fuel has already done to humanity. It has actually lowered the average IQ for vast numbers of people all over the world. I suspect you are such a victim. This is why it is inexcusable that it should be allowed to be used, especially when there is an alternative for light aircraft in the form of the turbo-prop. Most of these light aircraft are pleasure aircraft, mostly decades old, and should just simply be banned and scrapped. Any commercial variants used for such things as crop dusting or glider towing, could easily either use a turboprop or a helicopter. Do some basic research on the damage lead in lead has done, before making such ignorant comments whilst hiding behind a pseudonym. Start here: th-cam.com/video/IV3dnLzthDA/w-d-xo.html
Good topic but a lot of focus on this climate emergency (that might not exist).
Electric power will succeed when it meets the needs of the people.
Oh it meets the needs of SOME people. Trillions have been wasted on renewable energy, heatpumps, electric cars etc. Someone has received all that money.
It’s amazing how they are calling it clean flying. I guess if you put the mental blinders on, you can justify passing the polution problem on to the power companies. You know, good old coal, natural gas, & diesel power stations.
The biggest issue is creating a polutant free power grid large enough to power cities, vehicles, industries, planes & soforth. Without the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to create such a system, we will always be reliant on some form of fossil fuel.
Maybe we should all just stay away from all fossil fuels and live on a liveable planet instead. I can explore the planet on google earth. I can have a face to face meeting with anyone anywhere on Zoom. I can’t spread diseases to other places or pick them up. I can generate power in my community. So stop with the attitude of stealing from future generations so you can have it all now.🌎🤔
Nope.
Have you never heard of wind, solar and hydro? (Not to mention all the other technologies being researched).
If one can heavily reduce the amount of fossil fuels needed for flight by (partially) electrifying flight then the energy you need to produce can be produced much more efficiently.
Nuclear power will do most of what we need. It is already way cheaper than renewables and will in time rival fossil fuels as the cost of mass produced nukes falls, and fossil fuel prices rise. The problem is not one of grid energy, it is one of portable energy, where nothing beats a tank of kerosene, or chemical feedstocks, where whole new processes will need to be developed to e.g. smelt metal.
Naturally all the taxpayer dollars and massive government subsidies are going nowhere near viable projects - it's all being wasted on windmills and solar panels.
Gee, all the moaning Minnies on here. Do some research , guys!
Start with Tony Seba and RethinkX!
The sunlight is able to enter but unable to escape is that making any sense?
As long as there is no electric jet engine it will not happen
Oh electric jets are perfectly possible. All a modern turbofan is is a huge ducted fan that happens to be driven by a jet engine. It could be driven by an electric motor just as easily. The problem is how you power that electric motor. Batteries dont really cut the mustard.
@@leosmith848 yeah that's also what I mean. For short flight is great for long ones it gonna be a bit more difficult i think. Lets see. I love the drone like vehicles tho. Hopefully one day we will all be able to enjoy them
Poc pos
Suddenly after the pandemic, the "experts" realized that the pollution is excessive and the measures want to be taken all of a sudden. So far have they slept or is anyone profiting from this business? So far these specialists have slept or want to fool us as in another recent case.
TV SUX ..
"Not one drop of oil" 😂😂😂😂😂😂, no lubricants, right? No gaskest sealants, right?, no insulation on the cabling, right ?! Gimmy a break !!!!