Slashdot Mirror

With most issues raised about lithium for EV batteries, no-one seems to care about it relating to their phone/laptop, they will quite happily take them everywhere.

"Almost all that lithium—greater than 95 percent of it— is produced through a process of pumping underground brine to the surface and allowing it to evaporate in big pans. It’s separated from the brine using electrolysis." quote from https://cleantechnica.com/2016...
The photos circulating the net pretending to be open lithium mines are actually copper or tar sands http://www.snopes.com/lithium-...

Recycling is already happening and they can be recycled into new storage systems like home solar batteries as they don't need to be powerful as an EV requires.They make their money at the moment from extracting the other elements like cobalt.

Carbon fibre recycling is being worked on and getting better: http://www.compositesworld.com...

There are risks with all forms of transport and power generation, you just have to mitigate it in some way. ICE did explode (google Ford Pinto) before better design happened.

Yes, the dangers of not disposing of batteries correctly is known as are the dangers of lighting a match next to petrol/gas are also known - you take a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Some of the early X33 work had a lot of potential, and I remember reading about how the rocket nozzle work could be qualified as a major breakthrough. But it got scrapped.

The X-33 still has a lot of potential! Lockmart is still funding its own development the reusable lifting-body concept based on the X-33, there has been significant progress with the most difficult technical issue (i.e. developing a composite material capable of making cryogenic tanks with complex shapes), and there was any serious technology issue with the linear areospike engine (they just lacked a vehicle to put it in, once the X-33 funding wasn't renewed). IMHO, it's potentially game-changing technologies and lifters like X-33 and the DC-X that NASA's R&D resources should be focused on, instead of the the Ares program. If most of the personnel and money that was used to support the now probably-defunct Ares was instead used to continue development on the DC-X and X-33, we would have learned a lot more (even learning what doesn't work is of some value) and maybe even gotten one or two revolutionary launch vehicles out of it.

The Rocky Mountain Institute has been doing work on pressed carbon fiber parts that are 80% as strong as the parts done by hand.

Carbon fiber composites can be recycled. There are at least two companies, one US, one British, working on commercial facilities to reclaim the fiber. Here's a link to a recent article on it. http://www.compositesworld.com/hpc/issues/2007/May/111534

Airbus is a joke.

http://www.compositesworld.com/hpc/issues/2006/Mar ch/1204

Not to be redundant or anything, but the main reason that magnetos are still used is not because of the efficiency/performance but because they do not require electricity to work. As long as the brushes, magnets, plugs, etc are all functioning properly there will be a spark if the engine is rotating. If your alternators or batteries break, or if there is a short or something, the very last thing that you need at that point is to have your engines quit as well. It is true that airplanes are "gliders" with an engine, but when you lose an engine you sink, fast, and unless you happen to be in a great place such as the Midwest during daytime where there are fields everywhere, you're going to be in a heap load of trouble if you cannot find a suitable landing site quick. Also, that was an interesting article that you linked me to, thanks. About your comment on fuel burn, I believe that the FADEC system I linked to earlier solved (some) of those problems as it continuously monitors and regulates the amount of fuel being delivered to the cylinders. I don't believe that magnetos are (such) a big problem that they actually diminish fuel economy by that much. In fact, each cylinder has two spark plugs to ensure not only reliability, but also to maintain a consitant burn of fuel vapors during the combustion stage of the engine.

It is true that composite materials are expensive, however many of the kit planes, as well as some production planes like the cirrus/diamond air are using them because of the enormous performance gains you get by utilizing them. I believe that once the process is even further streamlined the cost will only continue decreasing until almost all airplanes use them. While there is the infamous starship blunder involving composite materials, the cirrus continually sets new sales records and that only goes to show that people are willing to pay for high quality, especially when it comes to an expensive hobby such as aviation where most of the people are already rich to begin with. If that seams hard to believe (it does for me too since I'm just a poor college student) you only have to look at the VLJs coming out. If people can afford to buy personal jets, then I believe that the additional price will not be a factor during these initial years when the material construction process is being perfected.