Why aren't we all flying in electric planes?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 มิ.ย. 2024
- Electric planes are silent, cheap to operate and would be a great solution to a lot of aviation's problems including air and noise pollution. And they seem to be on the cusp of going commercial. I flew in the first ever e-plane certified to take off to figure out whether we will all soon be flying electric.
#planeta #electricplane #aviation
We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world - and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What we can do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.
Follow Planet A on TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@dw_planeta?la...
Credits:
Reporter: Aditi Rajagopal
Video Editor: Henning Goll
Camera: Henning Goll
Supervising Editors: Michael Trobridge, Malte Rohwer-Kahlmann
Fact-Check: Jeannette Cwienk
Thumbnail: Em Chabridon
Read more:
All about electric aviation: www.sciencedirect.com/science... and link.springer.com/article/10....
Forecast on hybrids:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Performance analysis on regional e-aircraft:
theicct.org/wp-content/upload...
Study on infrastructure needed for electric aviation (Heathrow): www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Chapters:
00:00 Introduction
01:08 Why electrify
03:20 Taking to the sky
04:05 The big battery problem
05:03 Re-design
06:19 Infrastructure changes
07:41 Other challenges
08:33 Where are e-planes?
09:40 Scale and conclusion
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qs5zdBqLn_8/mqdefault.jpg)
What do you think of this cute little plane, and the future of planes like this?
Cute is the right term. Usefull for where there are no other real options, like way out in Alaska, Australia and deep in Africa, mainly for medical & mail. Sadly it is more likely to become a rich peoples to have toy.
For "mass" transport of people trains or not traveling (other then on your own 2 feet) would be way better for the environment and local infrastructure gridlocks + health of the people living around airports.
Instead of depending on biofuels, that's not really sustainable, lets reuse all the plastic waste and turn it back into fuel. We have so much waste
Passenger-carrying rigid airship.
But electric, covered with perovskite photovoltaic foil developed by Olga Malinkiewicz in Poland.
When did you make this video? This information is completely outdated since battery technology increased a lot. It shows that Europe is not the centre (anymore) of battery research. Tip: research what CATL has to offer.
@@krzysztof8095 Thanks for this info, I was looking for something like this for a month.
“All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” - Blaise Pascal
they would if women liked that
Ｌ：０
15 years ago in 2009 the Mitsubishi i-MiEV was released (which was also badge-ed as the Peugeot iOn and Citroen C-Zero). This car had a range of about 100 miles and was super small, but 15 years ago it was the pinnacle of EV technology. Now 15 years later the world of EV's is so extremely different.
When you see how much EV's have changed in cars, you can see that the small little aircraft in this video is like the aviation version of the i-MiEV and in 15 years time it'll be a very different world.
I'm sure Hydrogen will be used for anything big which goes long distance, but electric aircraft would definitely be suitable for those 100 seater aircraft that hop from one city to the next will be everywhere.
This new technology advances very fast, we now have prototype cars from Polestar that can recharge (10-80%) in 10 minutes, and the best cars that are currently in mass production can do are the Kia's which can recharge (10-80%) in 18 minutes, the VW ID.7 isn't far behind with a recharge (10-80%) speed of 25 minutes.
Certainly if future aircraft can recharge in 10 minutes then there is no point to swap-able batteries. Currently turn around times for jet aircraft now is about 25 minutes.
Battery technology is actually a rapidly evolving field, and while it's true there are limitations today, advancements are happening quickly.
New materials and chemistries are being developed that promise increased energy density, meaning they could store more energy in the same size battery. This could significantly extend the range of electric planes.
This makes me want to get a job in the electrochemistry industry since I have recently finished high school
@@WildKard123 EV battery technology is in it’s infancy so it has time and space to improve
Agreed, one can imagine structural batteries, etc. it’s just not the low hanging fruit as passenger vehicles today
What has dramatically changed in the last ten years to production EVs? Nothing
@@jadenspires1891EVs battery technology is not young. The first lithium-ion battery was made in 1976. It has little promise.
My understanding is that aviation batteries will require an energy density of 400kw per kg, but recent developments have batteries at 500 kw per kg. So we are already there, with higher density coming . So Not long before short haul flights use electric planes. Cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain as well
You mean Wh/kg? Yeah, there are new battery news all the time but I take that with a pinch of salt. In the 16 years since Tesla Roadster came out there has maybe been a doubling of energy density on the pack level for car batteries.
Let's not underestimate the importance of the Pipistrel. Now there's a viable product with >100 orders, research money will follow. The path towards bigger & longer range eplanes has begun.
Batteries are already running into the limitations of physics and assorted laws, throwing more money at it won't fix those limits. Hybrid options need land, energy and resources that are also limited, i.e. we'll have to make choices.
@@hillockfarm8404 Hang your hat on that if you like. It was once thought that telephones wouldn't catch on because there wasn't enough copper in the world, that global computer sales would be measured in mere 100s a year, that solar panels would only ever be for space exploration…
@@hillockfarm8404 You're mistaking "current battery density" with "limitations of physics". There are enormous leaps and bounds still available in battery technology, they just aren't ready yet. Pipistrel was impossible once. If they can get a 45 minute flight time to 1h30m, that opens up way more of the pilot licensing pathway, increasing demand hugely.
Nice, just move all that pollution and toxic byproducts to a poorer country where the battery materials are mined. Batteries really aren’t that eco friendly… like at all. The only real solution to the climate crisis is to stop looking for “greener” alternatives to the inherently harmful things we do, and instead just stop doing those harmful things in the first place. Which means ride a bike and walk instead of drive, don’t fly unless absolutely necessary (meaning pretty much never), and more things along those lines.
@@hillockfarm8404 CATL have just doubled energy density with 500w/Kg in production & use, so no.
I love planes, but even clasic train is often better option.
I much rather spend 12 hours (1500km) at night in a comfortable bed with a restaurant type of meal and a working / relaxing place, than an hour to the airport 2 hours at the airport 2 hours on the plane and an hour from the airport in a crowded busy and mostly unpleasent day envirament.
Sleeping fast speed train would do the same for most world wide distances.
Hey there! Gladly, there are more and more overnight trains coming in Europe for example. By the way, we looked at China´s high-speed train a while ago if you are interested 👉th-cam.com/video/9wJCltuawSs/w-d-xo.html
And how you are going to cross oceans? Or, in the US where it is 3,000 miles coast to coast ,and if a bullet train averaged 150 MPH, it would take 20 hours, whereas on a plane it would only take 6 hours. Australia is even worse because the interior is almost completely empty.
Trains, use trains when possible.
If I use up 30% of my life getting around the US for my job, that’s a level of inefficiency that the economy is unable or unwilling to accept. Unfortunately or fortunately that’s the only option for a large country and even within a large densely populated city in a democracy where you just can clear homes or businesses to lay rail lines.
@@tvm73836 Sure, plains are needed for certain occupations, but for majority cases high speed trains are much more sensible. I dont know much about US but it can start upgrading existing railways to a high speed ones.
It’s more expensive and takes longer times than a flight until that is solved most will not use trains
First certified electric planes flies in north eastern sweden. Seems cold isn't really a problem, if you take care for it.
You just need proper thermal insulation and management. An electric car with proper insulation and a heat pump for heat management loses about the same range in the freezing cold as a gasoline car. Heck, the first car to drive all the way between North Pole and South Pole (apart from a few boat trips across the ocean) was an electric one because it can still work in the Antarctic environment, which combines such low temperatures and low air pressure that would prevent regular fuel cars from working without large adaptations to their engines.
The problem with batteries and cold is when you have no thermal management, in which case you can effectively lose a lot of range.
A bit weird that the obvious work-around "flying (much) less" wasn't even mentioned.
Everyone knows it, specialy who watches this channel
Flying less is a flight of fantasy that will never happen. Why? Because flying is based more on economics than on environmental considerations. The only way to get people to fly less is to make flying a lot less affordable, and nobody’s going to go for that - not the passengers, not the airlines, and certainly not the governments who decide on the taxes and tariffs to be imposed. Good luck with that approach.
Good luck.
Tell that to the Indian IT guy, whose parents never imagined getting anywhere near an airplane , just about to take his first flight.
@@AtulBhatia You can also build more high-speed rail. For short and medium distances high-speed rail is often faster than flying when you take into account how long boarding an airplane takes. And high-speed trains are not only electric, they also use far less energy to transport the same weight across the same distance than an airplane.
This is already being seen in China, the country with the most extensive network of high-speed rail by far, where the demand for flights - both passenger and cargo flights - is falling on just about every route that has competing high-speed rail.
This, of course, won't replace all flights; longer flights would still be faster than high-speed rail, and for intercontinental flights it might not even be possible to build rail connections. But it would reduce how much people fly by a lot.
Carbon tax
The reporter is providing outdated information on the dangers of batteries. Fire is not an issue for the current LFP, sodium or Hydrogen/oxygen batteries. Only nickel based lithium-ion chemistry poses a risk in modern batteries.
High speed rail would get rid of the plane problem.
Electric short range sea planes make a lot of sense for people living in Alaska and much of Canada that doesn't have roads. Electricity can be produced with hydro, solar, wind or burning fuel (including wood) and lakes and bays are everywhere. These electric sea planes already exist.
I was actually thinking about Alaska. In a lot of respects, it doesn't make sense. There's no charging infrastructure in remote places. And yet, in other ways, it does. Shipping gas and fuel to remote villages is dangerous, time consuming, and expensive. Self-sufficient electric travel could be useful. That said, Alaska is potentially kinda too big for this.
Air taxis where flight times are 10-30 min makes a lot of sense.
The battery of that ultra light weighs maybe 25% of max takeoff weight. A bigger plane where 50% of the weight can be the battery could get a flight time of close to 2 hours, that would start to become really useful.
Love Aditi's presenting style. We really need to have shorter working weeks and more time for holidays so we can travel by methods other than planes. Fewer flights more free time
planes should be only for oversea travels, focus on hyperspeed bullet trains for domestic travels, then there wouldn't be a need for electric planes and efficient for domestic travel would improve immensely
Yea, but people hate building the infrastructure. It's annoying. People are so short sighted with these things.
Would a hybrid use electric on taxi & cruise only? Could there be more energy efficient procedures designed for them (power off descent into a final approach?)
I think it might work for really small scale applications but unless we can increase the power density of battery storage by several orders of magnitude or come up with a new way of storing a lot of power with a very very high power density, it will be nearly impossible to scale up.
Not orders of magnitude. The most energy dense commercially available battery (as in, ones you can buy in large quantities, not just in the lab anymore) has 500Wh/Kg, and that isn't even a solid state battery; fossil fuels have around 13,000Wh/Kg, of which only about a quarter, or about 3,250Wh/Kg, is useful energy (internal combustion engines waste most of the energy in the fuel).
Then you need to take into account that, apart from the battery, everything else related to propulsion in an electric vehicle - including an electric airplane - is lighter. Wires in place of fuel lines, no pumps, much lighter engines, no need for cooling, etc. That further reduces the weight difference.
This is still not enough for long range air travel, mind, but if batteries improve their power density by, say, 5x compared with the best ones available right now, that should be enough to cover all current aviation use cases.
@@FabioCapelaagree with most of that. Though, a lot of the weight in EV applications comes because you DO need cooling - and often a lot of it. Especially in an application where you may be going through temperature extremes over the course of a flight, thermal management will be essential.
Biofuels are a false hope. There isn't enough land to grow crops for aviation fuel and feed people. Synthetic fuels would be a better option, but it's hard to see them scaling up to make a significant contribution.
I think the solution (unpopular as it might be) may be that we need to prioritize limited biofuel and efuel capacity for the cases where alternatives like high speed rail or electric flight just aren’t feasible (I.e., long distances and over oceans).
@jaxbronson9734 True, I’d class these with synthetic.
@jaxbronson9734 Hi Jax, So long as we make good use of it and don’t just burn the stuff that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
I think it's hydrogen plane
It's the future tech
Biofuels still don't receive enough funds for RnD. Also,
>There isn't enough land to grow crops for aviation fuel and feed people
simply false. European renewable ethanol association (ePURE) members produced more food and animal feed than fuel in 2022, according to audited data released today by the industry group. ePURE members - representing 85% of EU installed capacity - produced 5.9 million tonnes of food and feed co-products including high-protein animal feed and 4.5 million tonnes of renewable ethanol last year, according to the statistics. Additional co-products included 1.1 million tonnes of captured biogenic CO2.
Currently, we can use in local airline. This will improve local economy.
How the heck would hybrid planes make sense? It would fill the battery during regenerative breaking mid-flight? Or it would spend all electric power on the first 5 minutes and just be a heavier, less efficient combustion plane the rest of the way?
Could a hybrid design work somehow? Using traditional fuel for when power's needed but battery power to cruise? Or could it be too heavy?
The less batteries the better. We're probably going to have to use hydrogen for long passenger routes. Renewable methane (biogas) is also an option.
I honestly didn't understand the hybrid argument. If it's in series, then we're trading one inefficiency for another. There are limits to the improvements there. If it's parallel, then you're still dealing with a lot of weight just for the sake of partially improving the problem. Meh to both.
Pursue tech like hydrogen where necessary. But find applications where battery will work. That may not be cargo, but there's plenty of aviation that takes place with small groups of people or small alone of cargo over modest distances.
No mention of wireless Mid-air charging?
After hundreds of years of fossil fuel powered cars, electric cars have evolved to become a viable option now. Same way as battery technology improves, electric planes will become more and more viable. Global warming, heatwaves and sinking lands make it really important for us to support these new technologies
Oversimplified solutions rarely work perfectly. Electric planes need an gasoline or jet APU in order to provide heating and extended range.
Good info..
There were a number of technical inaccuracies in this video which is a shame as your channel is usually pretty good.
I think that for short-to-medium range flights, high speed and potentially even (although it is currently non-existent(?)) high speed sleeper trains could become the future-as they should; they're vastly more efficient. However, this means that the only obvious utility of battery or hybrid planes would have a better, and better-established competitor... It's all still quite up in the air
Hybrid aircraft is possible if you can place a turbine or a windmill in front of the propellers but birdstrikes can be a problem for this design.
Well, at least they already figured out the e-helicopter
Two notes:
1. When using kerosine you can fill the tank as required. On a short flight, you tank less fuel, allowing you to take more passengers and cargo.
2. When burning fuel the aircraft gets lighter and more efficient.
With batteries, you must carry the same weight during the entire flight.
Another thing to note is that the oxygen needed to burn is free with kerosine. You don't have to carry it.
Probably fully electric for short trips but hybrid should work for longer distances.
Thank you Santos Dumont 🇧🇷✈️
4:15 - A Hona Civic’s range on a full tank is a little less than twice the range of a Chevy Bolt on a full battery. *_Very unlikely_* we’re talking about a factor of 17.
That may not be too far off for the raw amount of energy stored in the Civic’s gas tank vs. in the Bolt’s battery, but an electric drive train is more than 3 times as efficient as a gasoline drive train.
Thank you.
Somebody finally mentioned the hybrid concept I have been talking about for a long time. Granted, I have been exploring idea mentally like getting into superconductors and trying to get those superconductors high temperature enough to be cooled with LNG, which then gets burned in the jet engine part of the hybrid aircraft was well as advanced batteries like LiS possibly tripling the energy density of the battery if a suitable configuration can be found that will last as LiS has not historically been known for longevity.
Something else to consider is eFUEL. This is as in synthetically creating fuel with electricity. You keep using the hydrogen example, which has largely been reformed from fossil fuels, so nothing saved, but really eFUEL covers a more broad range such as methane, propane, and even liquid, gasoline like fuels at room pressure and room temperature. You may go well the easiest to do, hydrogen is super expensive to do from the eFUEL route today and if you look into these other fuels, it is even more expensive. Yes. eFUEL is just not that efficient to make. People are always working on more efficient ways to make eFUEL and there have been advances over time. I would venture to say this is where better nuclear reactor designs like coming up with a cost effective to mass produce Thorium Molten Salt reactor should be considered. If you can mass produce this type of reactor, which is inherently safe and needs far less material to be made safe than light water could ever dream of being, I mean we are comparing a modern fighter jet like the F-22 to a WWI era Sopwith Camel kind of deal here, we may be able to produce the electricity reliably and consistently round the clock to make eFUEL cheap. When eFUEL becomes cheap to make, you start looking into denser forms like methane, propane, and even this gasoline like stuff and especially want to try to make something more like kerosene so you can just stuff it into existing jets and call it a day.
And for the environmental friendliness of eFUELs? With hydrogen, it just takes up too much space in the airliner, plus it is pretty easy to end up blowing away a whole airport in a mishap and surrounding city with big fires raging with toxic materials burning in the raging inferno, so it is actually pretty hard to justify this. With methane, it still takes up a lot of space, but you start getting into you could stick it into an attic tank in a large airliner as a cryogenic liquid that would normally have the attic space largely unused and then if you can mix it in with cooling superconductors for a hybrid electric plane, maybe it starts making some sort of sense. With propane, this starts getting to be a lot easier to handle as it turns into a liquid with a modest amount of pressure, takes up even less space, gravimetrically is more energetic than standard jet fuel, and at least the last major loss of containment I saw when a "bomb" train derailed, the propane found an ignition source before it could fully boil into a gas and mix with atmospheric oxygen, so it turned into a mostly harmless fireball with one complaint I came across of someone saying when their vehicle got licked by the fireball, their trailer caught fire. But the point is they could be close enough to catch fire without getting killed by a huge blast as there was no big blast. Granted, there was a huge mushroom cloud over the derailed bomb train, but that always happens when you have a lot of heat in one spot. It was just the flame progressed slowly enough to not make a big boom while the big booms are what normally do the most damage. Methane and especially hydrogen are far more prone to more rapidly mixing with atmospheric oxygen and so are far more likely to create a big boom once they find an ignition source. Getting into making eFUEL, you start with splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen. With heavier eFUELs than hydrogen, you get into soaking up CO2. So say you pull the CO2 out of the atmosphere, you just put back what you take out when you burn the fuel. Then a normal product or bi-product of burning the fuel is water. So you put back what you started with and so have a circular cycle, no net emissions.
Need Sam from Wendover to weigh in.
"Why electric planes may never go big" are you sure about that?
We don't need batteries to keep electric planes in the air!
.
Could you do a video on silicon batteries?
Hey Jaden! We did a video on silicon for different purposes, such as electronical devices, and issues with it recently. Hope this helps and is what you are looking for 👉th-cam.com/video/ydiX4Iayosg/w-d-xo.html
It's a shame you didn't go to Pipistrel headquarters in Slovenia!
clearly DW has no idea on the progress CATL and BYD has been making. They have 500 WH/kg enough to make national flights a breeze with ultra fast quick charges and this isn't even the physical limitation. this video is years behind whats possible now so catch up.
Hey there! We focused on the first certified electric plane here. For CATL they are still in the internal testing phase of electric airplanes.
@@DWPlanetA When are you doing a video on this? The future is more interesting than the past!
Whoa depressing title - I tend to think the Heart Aerospace etc goal of having ~50% weight batteries seems good PARTICULARLY if battery switching can happen…
So for a 787/a350 replacement not happening before 2040 BUT maybe a return to more active hubs transfers in Iceland and Hawaii etc!?
pulling out and inserting an array of batteries has to be viable in some way right?
@@ayoCC the fact that the newest 777 has wings that move to lengthen wingspan each time it leaves the flight gates by bodes well-also emergency battery release!?doesn’t exist for burning jet engines!?!?
Planes for distances up to 1000km will be electric in the future, there is no doubt about that. -aircraft sizing is not so clear, probably it will be smaller planes for 30 to 50 passengers, but that's not yet clear, we need to see how it is developing.
What a great video for now I see the future in small electric planes, like we have in Slovenia Pipistrel. Also hydrogen could be the solution for longer flight
Entire europe almost and all countries in asia with high speed rail can avoid air travel and cars .
then we can use jet fuel engines for real must go air travel
Zeppelins could be the future battery powered aircraft.
Not likely, not even for short distance flights.
Too slow, too expensive, too vulnerable to the weather.
Electric Plane was a hothead concept sprunt out of Tesla fever but could have never worked out. But still, aviation accounts for only 5% of global emissions, even when 1.89 due to longer stratosphere stay, still is quite small compared to electricity generation CO2 emission, or automobiles. Take the low-hanging fruit first.
Don't you think small planes are a low hanging fruit? The example in the video, island hopping planes, seemed like a easy electrification task to me.
@@SchwuppSchwupp The problem persists in scale. When talking about Aviation, scale matters. Of course everyone can build a jet, but it takes billions of dollars to certify one that is safe(forget the internet industry or consumer products, aerospace safety is much more rigorous and they have it in place for good reason---you don't want another 737max crash), so overall you need much more demands to recover the development expense
@@jamesau4296 sure, the development of a full size jet would be hard to justify, possibly because of physics impossible for now. The stuff in the video is more like a very small plane, a plane of the size a private person can own. These might have a nice business case today.
Currently airlines already limiting the battery passengers can bring on board due to risk of explosions and fire hazards. Now they want the passengers to sit on top of the huge explosive and fire hazard? Lmao 🤣🤣🤣
Laptop / phone batteries do overheat & explode when charging. LFP & similar batteries for transport do not due to thermal management & more robust chemistry. Avgas is far more explosive than a modern battery.
Charging vs. 7:00 battery swapping
Swedish electricity is powered by hydro, nuclear and wind. In that order. Still very much low carbon tho
Love this woman’s energy
Hey there! Happy to hear that you like our reporter Aditi. She is one of our regular reporters so feel free to subscribe to not miss any of the videos ✨
The great European and western countries along with Japan and others work towards advancements in technologies that help human civilization modernize.
First ‘cars’ were electric
You may guess what is the most efficient bio fuel? 😂😂😂
Battery Planes 😂😂😂 go for Seaweed biofuels... And yeah it's scalable...😊
Company that made the pipistrel? Girl, pipistrel IS the company lmao
yea lol
What about hydrogen and ammonia power?
Energy density (by volume) is drawback for both hydrogen and ammonia. Pressurised storage tanks add to the weight - so these options aren't without their challenges.
Well, that's a really good question! We have a couple of videos about it. Check them out!
👉 th-cam.com/video/AGTjKJHu99c/w-d-xo.html
👉 th-cam.com/video/7KkBE0HgNJQ/w-d-xo.html
👉 th-cam.com/video/p-79z8nffkM/w-d-xo.html
If you want to see more videos like these, subscribe to our channel, we post new videos every Friday ✨
The reason why we aren't flying in battery powered airplanes is because of two things, weight and possibility of a battery fire.
I'm more worried above jet fuel fires & engine fires than modern batteries! As in upthread, weight is now resolved for up to 1000kms with 90% fuel cost savings.
IF we can build POWER FULL LIGHTWEIGHT APU unit that power GENSET and it's FUELED wirh GREEN LIQUID FUEL. It could be big.
The word, sustainable, is usually just marketing jargon and often very overused. E planes are turbo props at best and are a much slower means of transportation compared to jet engines.
The reporter/writter who wrote this script needs to do a better job at its research. I looked into the "first aircraft that ever flew" and in fact it didn't "flew" it floated, flying is an aerodynamic process that involves wind speed, lift and drag. Floating is a process that only involves buoyancy.
Go Airship Or go Laminar Flow.
Your comparison to car batteries with about 175 Wh/kG limps massively. CATL just went commercial with a battery with 500 Wh/kG. Considering as well the reserves a plane needs to have, that extends the range of the electrical plane possible to be built today already by a factor 3, or 200%, not yet taking into account future battery development.
I agree that electrical flight will probably never go long distance, but by 2040 a lot longer ranges than today will be possible.
Before jet planes, prop planes hopped between airports en-route to destinations out of range. If electric planes are 90% cheaper to fly, imagine low costs airline hopping flights to destinations out of range! If energy & tax favours it, it will happen for anyone where costs exceeds time, like Concorde v 747.
Good luck
The gravity plane is a much better idea
Currently, an EMP would only disable the aircraft's electrical systems, since the spark generated for the engine is produced by magnetos, which are basically magnets. If we move to the entirety of the propulsion system generated electrically, an EMP would cause the engine to stop functioning. Now, airplanes wouldn't just fall out of the sky, but they would turn into gliders with no way to continue to propel themselves. This, in my estimation is the largest oversight of the entire electric airplane argument.
The hell are you talking about lol. An EMP is not the main design consideration. And 1) commercial airplanes can be shielded from EMP (and normal radiation). And 2) an EMP is going to screw a modern plane all the same lol. Everything is controlled electronically. It's literally steer by wire.
It's like me arguing that all plants have to go electric because then there will no longer be bird strikes on engines... Yea true, but..
I am not an electrical engineer, but a Google search suggests that all modern cars whether ICE, hybrid, or ev would be disabled by an EMP. So I imagine it is the same for an Airplane. It doesn't matter if your jet burns fossil if the control system and fuel injection systems are disabled.
the only valid solution is have multiple solutions. Sadly all expensive and not enough willpower to for them. For example if you could use a train instead of an airplane with more room confort and less hassle to get on it will help a lot. Specially if the price is lower. I dont think however this will happen see US for example hardly any investment in quality rail roads and since there is a lot of tax brakes on flying its hard to compete with airplanes.
Biden just approved high speed rail . Better late than never
1:16 “Aviation makes up for around 3% of global emissions… by 2050 that number is projected to rise to over 8 times that”. That sounds scary, until you realise that the real world aviation emissions are not going to increase; rather, emissions from all other sources will reduce so that aviation takes up a larger piece of the pie. Too, these projections are based on the assumption that aviation’s emissions will stay static, but the fact is that aviation emissions have shown a dramatic decrease over the past few decades, and there’s no reason to believe that they won’t continue to do so in the near future - witness the new breed of engines that offer 15% greater fuel efficiency over the previous generation, and the push to introduce blended wing aircraft with hydrogen fuel in the near future.
Jet fuel production won't be increasing 8 times more.
Real data manipulation lol.
Hydrogen can have bigger potential in avaition sector.
THIS is why hydrogen, e-fuels, and biofuels need serious investment and shouldn't just be labeled as a "fossil fuel industry scam."
Batteries will never have the same energy density as hydrocarbon fuels. They're held back by their fundamental chemistry. And for many applications, energy density plays a major role in overall efficiency.
You're going to be surprised how dense battery gravimetric and volumetric densities will increase over the next 10 years. Furthermore, electric power systems run in the high 85+% efficiency range far more than even jet turbines and way way more than piston engines. Thus, electric flight does not require the density of liquid fuels though more density is always better.
E-fuels *are* a scam. Firstly, they require renewable energy to be considered clean. Worse is that e-fuel usage will still emit the other usual pollutants: like SOx, NOx, CO, nano-particulates, benzene, toluene, xylene and other volatile hydrocarbons that all contribute to nasty smog that congests all of our major cities producing a myriad of long-term health problems. ICE vehicles (including e-fueled ones) are especially bad as they emit that stuff right in our faces in the places where we live, work, and play.
Furthermore, after e-fuels are produced, distributed and burned to create power at the wheels, only some 10% of it actually creates kinetic energy and 90% of it is loss. It would have been better to pump that energy onto the grid and charge an EV, electric aircraft or power cities. E-Fuel vehicles could be produced but likely many regions will not allow owners to register their vehicles or have to pay exorbitant registration fees like $10,000USD like they do in major Chinese cities. Clean air rules will only become stricter over the years as they should be to protect people's life-spans and health-spans.
Hydrogen is also in the same boat of inefficient production/distribution. But direct hydrogen combustion does not create smog emissions other than potentially some NOx. It would be interesting to see hydrogen packaged in ammonia as part of an aircraft fuel system since ammonia is liquid at -33.6C or 250psi versus hydrogen's cryogenic liquid temperatures and massive 10152psi (700 bar) pressure to get useable energy density out of it.
Hey there! We also tackled biofuels more in detail a while ago 👉 th-cam.com/video/XXu15NlOuGo/w-d-xo.html And if you are interested in hydrogen, make sure you don´t miss this week´s video which is on hydrogen in Europe. It will be published this Friday ✨
Biofuels are not a viable alternative to either fossil or electric fuel. They are too expensive and not scalable.
250 miles? Why bother? Just drive
So, going to have LI ion battery fires in the air? Brilliant
except, that chemistry will never be used for that reason!
What happens if the battery in an electric plane bursts into flames?
I assume the same when a jet engine catches fire. There are less ev fires than ice. Good examples are Holyrood movies 😂
Use nuclear powered jets.
Now call me a genius because i solved the energy efficiency problem 😜
🇪🇺🛩️⚡️👍
"Electric engines" … 🤣 (It's "motors" …)
Synthetic fuels.
😂😂😂😂😂
There is nothing wrong with sustainable aviation fuel as long as it is not made from food crops or whole trees.
Electric planes this is funniest stuff ive read in 2024
We can’t even get EVs right. What makes you think we can get Electric Planes right. 😂 This is a joke.
The fact that yes we can, we just need to try.
@@josuearce8148 - Not in your lifetime.
Because EVs suck. Good luck putting an EV airplane fire out.
The only solution is flying much less. People need to start taking the climate emergency like it is an actual emergency.
If someone doesn't understand this at this point, they're never going to.
Another German propaganda anti-electrification video.
So again, electrification is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE
And this is why humanity is doomed... I give us 20 years or so!
Didn't know that aviation was so vital for humanity.
we can live without planes, will have to wait for airships to reemerge again and it will only take around 3x the time to travel around than planes. Also Hydrogen exists for planes.
@@c0rnichon I meant it means planes will still use fossil fuels and the airline industry currently is responsible for 4%+ of CO2 emissions. And all those small % CO2 emissions all add up to the end of Civilization as we know it!
Good luck going for 450 passenger airliners to 120 passenger airships! And the fares will be extraordinarily high, as instead of 100,000s of airline flights every hour, it will be 1,000s of flights A DAY! And it will take at least 24 hours to get from New York to London, or New York to L.A.!
@@gamingtonight1526 also hydrogen planes.
Good info..
Hi Senthil! Glad you liked our video 😀 If you want to see more content like this, subscribe to our channel, we post new videos every Friday ✨