Slashdot Mirror
Airbus E-Fan Electric Aircraft Makes First Flight
An anonymous reader writes "The aviation industry has taken a tentative step toward electric power with the successful maiden flight of the Airbus E-Fan. The manufacturer known for the massive A380 jetliner began testing this small experimental aircraft last week, with the ultimate aim of lowering the huge carbon dioxide emissions from commercial flights. The E-FAN is powered by 120 lithium-polymer batteries, and can fly at speeds up to 136mph. Measuring just 19 feet from nose to tail, the compact aircraft show that Airbus probably isn't ready for commercial zero emissions flight just yet, but it does highlight the potential benefits."
For this version of the plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
The aft main wheel includes an electric motor with 6kW power, which provides taxiing and acceleration up to 60km/h during the take-off
This may give the "plane on a treadmill" problem a bit more traction.
Knowledge Brings Fear
YES zero-emissions! The vehicle emits no carbon dioxide.
It is getting old, and it proves your intelligence that you keep repeating it.
It keeps getting repeated because people keep misusing the term "zero emission". When you use an absolute term such as "zero emission" it is either true or false. In this case "zero emission" is false. All electricity from the grid, which is where these aircraft will probably be charged from, has some component of fossil fuel based generation. Therefore by using grid power the aircraft is causing emission; just on another location.
How much pollution went into making that gallon of fuel?
No one claimed fossil fuels were zero emission.
What the poster is trying to get at is to use a more accurate term such as "low emission" which is a true statement.
Jet fuel has at least 50 times the energy density of lithium batteries ...
And various aircraft ranging from a Boeing 777 to a US Navy F/A-18 have been flown using aviation biofuel, carbon neutral. Its experimental an hellaciously expensive but its a more realistic future.
The vehicle itself is zero emission. The cost, environmentally and otherwise, of fuel and production, while important, are separate issues that need to be addressed separately.
If you try to solve a large, complex, problem in toto, you will likely fail. Breaking it up into manageable pieces is much more likely to succeed, such as starting with the end user product where you get the most bang for the buck and then work up the chain. Transportation is the biggest problem which will take the longest time to effect a transition, so getting started on it is important.
Once you have the transition to electric vehicles underway, then you can work on the dirtiest of the electric supplies and every time you make the supply cleaner, you automatically make everything powered by that supply cleaner, magnifying the effect of that effort.
Trying to claim a zero emission vehicle isn't zero emission is just trying to confuse issues and holds back progress.
The vehicles themselves ARE zero-emission as they don't emit any CO2. The power source is a different matter. It seems you are confusing zero-emissions and carbon footprints.
If it was so practical, why did they wholly cut funding. Seems like they had a long way to go to make the nuclear design feasible to where the crew was safe.
And how many civilians would fly with a nuclear reactor?
Replacing the nuclear reactor with batteries means A LOT of batteries. So I'm not sure how you can claim the whole idea is feasible just from a working nuclear design.
According to a Discovery Channel documentary:
1) There were two kinds of engine: Indirect Air Cycle that never got off the drawing board and Direct Air Cycle, that was actually built and tested but it emitted radioactive pollution and even back in the 50s and 60s people started to have second thoughts about a hundred or more things like this making regular operational flights spewing radioactive material over the countryside. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
2) What happens when one crashes? (see pollution concerns raised in point 1).
3) Shielding proved to be a problem. The aircraft power plant was only partially shielded because of weight constraints. The crew sat in "radiation shadows". and the power plant radiated in all other directions.
5) Combat aircraft have been known to have very high peace time attrition rates, a case in point being the F-104 at 30%. (see pollution concerns raised in point 1).
4) The thing would have been a logistical and maintenance nightmare.
5) ICBMs became a more capable and practically unstoppable delivery options. ICBMs were also likely to be a much safer weapons package during handling and in day to day peacetime operation.
6) Nuclear submarines became a viable option. Here weight was no issue so reactors could have full shielding and safety mechanisms. Subs were also way stealthier than any bomber so their combat survivability rating was higher and they carried a bigger war-load.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow