Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Elon Musk's Next Great Idea? Electric Air Travel (bgr.com)

Posted by timothy on from the fly-hydroelectric dept.

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from BGR: Elon Musk is changing the world one idea at a time. First, with Tesla, the man so many people call the real life Tony Stark has done an incredible job of bringing electric vehicles to the mainstream. Second, Musk has been doing an impressive job over at SpaceX in the realm of space travel. And third, Musk's effective rough draft of a high-speed transportation system known as the Hyperloop is being contemplated and conceptualized in a very real way by some extremely smart people. So where does Musk go from here? Why, Mars of course. Recently, Musk said that he plans to unveil SpaceX's Mars roadmap next September. But on another front, Musk has also been thinking about developing an electric airplane capable of taking off and landing vertically. While answering a few questions during a Q&A session at the SpaceX Hyperloop Pod Award Ceremony last week, Musk was asked what his 'next great idea' was. The answer? Electric-powered air travel.

47 of 346 comments (clear)

  1. The technical problems with this are immense. by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Batteries do not have the energy density of jet fuel. The primary thing that matters here is energy density, which has two forms, energy per mass and energy per volume. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density Both need to be much better than they are today for electric airplanes to have any chance (lifespan and and number of cycle uses also need to improve but that's in some ways less of a barrier.) Energy density of batteries by both metrics batteries has increased by 5%-10% a year depending on the exact metric and choice of examples https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-battery-energy-density-improves-5-8-per-year which is exponential growth ( but with a much slower doubling time than something like Moore's Law. One has a doubling about once every 8 or 10 years.) Jet fuel has an energy density of around 45 MJ/kg, The most efficient batteries have a little under 1 MJ/kg. So one needs at least about 5 doublings before batteries can reasonably compete which will start to occur if they have an energy density of around 32/ MJ/kg. Similar remarks apply to energy density measured by joules per volume. However, there are technical reasons to think that batteries will stop doubling before that (see theabove quora link for details which argues that we can't make batteries much than four times as efficient before we start running into serious theoretical limits). At around 20 MJ/kg, one maybe could run planes practically but they would be much less convenient and practical than today's jets and that would be at the very upper end of the plausible limits just from a straight energy density estimate.

    However, the situation is even worse than that. When you use jet fuel, you use it up. Depending on the type of airplane, at take off fuel is generally 25% to 50% of the mass of the plane. So one gets serious savings that one doesn't have to move all the used fuel the entire way. That doesn't work with batteries: they are the same mass and volume whether or not they are charged, and dumping them would defeat most of the point. It might be possible to do some sort of staging approach where one uses some set of batteries to nearly empty and then have them break off in a modular plane that returns to the ground site. But that itself would lead to all sorts of additional problems.

    So it is likely that we will still see fossil fuels used for jets for the next 40 or 50 years. Indeed, it is likely that they will be the very last use of fossil fuels.

    1. Re:The technical problems with this are immense. by t0qer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To every upvoted point, there has to be a counterpoint.

      Sure jet fuel has a higher energy density, but that isn't the end all to the problem. You also have energy efficiency, which to my knowledge is pretty terrible on jet or turbo prop engines. I've been flying LiPo/Brushless RC aircraft for a while now, and in the right conditions your power efficiency comes right on par there with gas (minus any of the issues with ICE engines) In even better conditions, an electric plane can "recharge" batteries on descent.

      There's a brand of starter electric planes called "Parkzone" One model (F-27 Stryker Brushed) was a particular favorite of mine. I went to a Gforce Lan event at Fort Mason, and on a lull between matches I flew it out in the heavy winds of the big green lawn. I kept that thing up there for 3 hours on a NiCd battery (usually only went for 15 minutes) I just sort of hovered it, more like "sailed" it and the motor just kept recharging the battery.

      You can't really put jet fuel back in the tank like that. All sorts of crazy tricks you can do with electric though.

    2. Re:The technical problems with this are immense. by brambus · · Score: 5, Informative

      So batteries don't necessarily need to directly compete with combustion engines because electric engines could (and I stress "could") have higher efficiencies than either piston or turbine engines (both of which actually lose a fair amount of the energy in the fuel to their engine cycle as exhaust heat). At 20MJ/kg a battery would compare very well to jet fuel. A good high-bypass turbofan can get maybe 40-45% efficiency. An electrically driven fan, might go as high as 80-90%. But AFAIK Musk wanted to make these aircraft supersonic. While a fan-driven engine *theoretically* can go supersonic, in practice it's so horribly inefficient that it's unlikely to be practical. That's where the Brayton cycle comes in and we're back to the 40% efficiency range (regardless if the reaction mass heating is provided by hydrocarbon fuels or an electrically-sourced heating mechanism) and batteries in that case are dead in the water.
      The kicker though, as you correctly identified, is mass loss during flight. Aircraft get a lot of efficiency from this mechanism and also significant mission flexibility (for shorter missions you can take less fuel and more cargo). An electric aircraft would pretty much have to be factory-built for max range from the factor. I highly doubt it's ever going to be practical to reconfigure an electric aircraft on the flight line for shorter haul by taking some batteries out - keep in mind how tricky even comparatively tiny electrical systems are (see Boeing 787 Li-Ion battery fires). Plus the red tape on this is would boggle the mind.
      Lastly, we needn't rely on fossil fuels. The public at large always thinks "smelly fuel = dirty". Not necessarily. We can synthesize a wide range of synthetic jet fuels already. Provided that the carbon source for that fuel is "renewable" (e.g. dissolved carbonic acid in ocean water), we could keep the venerable jet engine in place and simply source the fuel in a renewable manner. Then the fuel simply becomes a liquid chemical battery with fantastic power density and deployment flexibility.

    3. Re:The technical problems with this are immense. by Dan+East · · Score: 2

      It might be possible to do some sort of staging approach where one uses some set of batteries to nearly empty and then have them break off in a modular plane that returns to the ground site. But that itself would lead to all sorts of additional problems.

      You just solved a big part of the problem! LOL Think about gliders. Once towed to altitude, they can soar for a long time. So Musk could have some kind of quadcopter type superstructure, which includes batteries, etc, which boosts the aircraft straight up to say 15,000 feet. The craft then releases and uses standard lifting surfaces and a small electric powered prop to propel it (aka it's a standard type airplane but electric). The quadcopter framework then returns straight back down to the launch point, and either swaps out batteries or recharges. It's just a vertical elevator essentially. If your flight is less than a hundred miles, which I bet most would be, you wouldn't need much extra propulsion in the airplane portion since you are already at such a high elevation to start with.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    4. Re:The technical problems with this are immense. by vux984 · · Score: 2

      Genuinely curious: Can you clarify why your argument doesn't apply to cars?

      Given jet fuel is 45MJ/kg, and the best battery is 1MJ/kg (per your post), then how is it electric cars are already viable, given gasoline is 44MJ/kg?

    5. Re:The technical problems with this are immense. by Luthair · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All the inconvenience & cost of air travel with the speed of a train. Why not just argue for an electric zepplin, at least it could probably cross an ocean or a continent.

    6. Re:The technical problems with this are immense. by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2

      Good points which do make my concerns less severe, especially in regards to efficiency. And yes, you are right that we can synthesize fuel directly although it seems like that would be economically very expensive. I like the idea though of capturing carbon from the water.

    7. Re:The technical problems with this are immense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The model airplane community is where a lot of delusions about the possibility of electric air travel come from. I'm sure you've seen the "man-carrying" many-copters that even university teams are working on. Do I need to point out why that is a bizarre and stupid waste of time and resources? Quad copters are a great way of building small vehicles, because small propellers accelerate quickly, so steering by modulating the propeller speed is easy and works well. This doesn't scale up. Large multicopters are hilariously inefficient and difficult to control compared to more conventional helicopter designs. Small electric models beat ICE models hands down because internal combustion engines don't scale down well to that size. Just because something works well when you're flying one or two pounds of foam doesn't mean it's a good idea for an actual plane.

    8. Re:The technical problems with this are immense. by legRoom · · Score: 2

      An electric plane would have about 3% of the energy to work with, and little-to-no efficiency gains compared to a hydrocarbon-powered jet.

      A Boeing 777-200LR (among the longest-range airplanes ever built) can fly almost 18,000 km with a full load. Multiply this by 3%, and we get 540 km, or 290 nmi. (And that's a huge airplane; smaller planes generally have much shorter range, assuming they're actually carrying a payload.)

      However, this may actually be an over-estimate of the electric plane's range, though, because a significant portion of the 777's fuel is devoted to take-off and climbing to cruising altitude right at the beginning of the flight. You can select a lower cruising altitude to avoid some of this, but you'll have to fly slower to maintain comparable range in the thicker air.

      Los Angeles to Las Vegas is probably doable.
      Paris to Madrid is way too far.
      London to Frankfurt or Sydney to Melbourne is a stretch; either would probably require reductions in payload and/or cruising speed.

      And of course, even where the route is possible, this is a horrifically expensive way to go about things: you need a humongous plane to go much of anywhere (at least if you want it to be faster than ground transport), which will be both time consuming and dangerous to recharge (kilovolts and kiloamps at the same time if you want to make multiple flights per day) after every short hop.

      All around, it makes far, far more sense to just use liquid fuels. Synthetic fuels are a legitimate option, although many of the specific options commonly suggested are a poor fit for aviation:

      Hydrogen is a terrible choice unless you're planning to go hypersonic, or into space. Its density is way too low, even liquefied, and you'll have to work with extreme temperatures, pressures, or both - which means heavy tanks and significant safety challenges.
      Methane is good for ground transport or rockets, but it's too hard to liquefy to be a good choice for ordinary subsonic planes, I think.
      Amonia (which someone else suggested) is an interesting possibility for rockets, but way too toxic for me to be comfortable fueling every airliner with 50+ tons of the stuff.

      Ethanol is a legitimate option. (But please, stop making it out of corn!)

      Really, though, the best known fuel for planes is the one we're already using: a diesel-type hydrocarbon blend. It's energetic, dense, not particularly explosive or flammable, stable across a wide temperature range (especially the higher grade stuff available to aviation users), and fairly clean-burning in a modern turbine.

      It's also dirt cheap, thanks to oil wells. If you want to replace fossil fuels in jets, figure out how to make synthetic diesel cheaply. Bio-diesel seems promising, but at the moment it's really expensive, and the manufacturing process doesn't scale up enough.

  2. Re:Batteries just don't store enough energy... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If it takes off vertically, you could possibly provide electrical power from the ground for a certain distance, overcoming the initial lift off energy use at least. But still, better hope battery tech evolves dramatically for any real prospect of fast long distance E flying.

  3. Re:Batteries just don't store enough energy... by Jamu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Li-Air have roughly the same specific energy as gasoline. I'm guessing aviation fuel is similar. So if electric engines can be that are more efficient than jet engines...

    --
    Who ordered that?
  4. Re: Batteries just don't store enough energy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A very expensive Li battery can hit 1 MJ/L. Diesel (jet fuel) is about 36 MJ/L. There needs to be over an order of magnitude improvement before this can work.

  5. Re: Batteries just don't store enough energy... by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When flying, isn't it weight rather than volume that matters?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  6. Re: Batteries just don't store enough energy... by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes. Also, you can't ignore comparative efficiencies of engines. Or engine mass to weight ratios. Or the length of time to market, and the expected level of battery change during that time period. Or side benefits (for example, the ability to have small, very light engines was made use of in one NASA experiment that placed numerous small engines along a wing, causing an effect that created drastically more lift at low speeds and allowing for a much shorter takeoff distance).

    And beyond that, you can't ignore economics. Having reduced range but getting your fuel at a fraction of a cost may ultimately prove to be more desirable. It's a very complex issue that one can't just make all-encompassing statements based on a single figure like "energy density of batteries vs. energy density of fuel".

    Anyway, this is hardly Elon's first time to mention it. Years ago he mentioned that he wants to be the first person to have an electric plane break the sound barrier. If there's anything one can say about Elon, it's that he sure doesn't set the bar low...

    --
    It's times like this I wish I had a friend named 'The Professor'.
  7. Oh really by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    Does anyone actually refer to Elon Musk as "the real life Tony Stark", other than some fanboys here on Slashdot? Because this is the only place I ever see it - although you can certainly rely on it happening here, every flipping time he's mentioned.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Oh really by Tom · · Score: 2

      Of course not, he is the real world Iron Man, while Tony Stark is the Marvel Universe Iron Man. You see, not the same person, just a universe crossover. Happens all the time in comics.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  8. Mostly usable for battery freight by pesho · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The only practical application of an electric airplane within the near future would be lug around batteries. Which may come handy to Elon with his gigantic battery factory. Stuff the "plane" with fully charged batteries and fly it to the nearest sea port or distribution center.

  9. the man so many people call the real life Tony Sta by alexhs · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, you see the problem: it doesn't fit in the subject line.

    Next time you reference Him, I suggest you use the proper enneagrammaton for The Man Known As The Real Life Tony Stark: TMKATRLTS.

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
  10. Re:Batteries just don't store enough energy... by goarilla · · Score: 2

    But a plane gets lighter as it uses up its energy. I don't think you can drop your empty battery cells during flight :D.

  11. Re:Batteries just don't store enough energy... by phayes · · Score: 3, Informative

    Electric air planes with lithium-air batteries would weigh the same at landing as they do at takeoff whereas a 747 loses around a quarter of it's weight en-route.

    --
    Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  12. Re:Batteries just don't store enough energy... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    On the other hand, as the jet fuel is consumed the weight decreases. Batteries stay the same weight for the entire flight.

    An interesting point . . . when a jet needs to make an emergency landing with full tanks, it will ditch the fuel before attempting a landing, because of the fire danger. Will this be necessary with Li-Air? Could there be a danger of a fire if the plane needs to land under "extraordinary circumstances? Like, no landing gear?

    So will a Li-Air plane need to have a mechanism to ditch the batteries?

    And if the batteries land in my backyard, can I keep them . . . ?

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  13. Why batteries? Hydrogen much denser. by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As I posted below, it seems pretty obvious you would use fuel cells instead of batteries for an electric aircraft... from your energy density link compressed hydrogen has an even better energy density (142 MJ/kg) than jet fuel (46 MJ/kg)!

    The cost of hydrogen production is estimated to become close to gasoline production over the next decade or so, but there is a huge pollution benefit to using fuel cells which could drive adoption quicker.

    The currently very low cost of oil is probably the main thing that would keep airplanes from going electric soon.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  14. Re:STOP, EVERYONE STOP by Luthair · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've only heard it from tech press who are constantly cheerleading Tesla and Musk. I've questioned the number of Tesla stories on Slashdot before and been downvoted by fanboys, their marketing, sales methods, spats with journalists etc just aren't technology stories.

  15. Re:Batteries just don't store enough energy... by MightyYar · · Score: 2

    Just generate a giant arc to ground. Like mighty Thor.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  16. Re: Batteries just don't store enough energy... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, you are. Telsa price out of range of most people, the batteries are too damn expensive

    Are you a typcial progressive-liberal shithead that can't understand hard economonics and engineering?

    Exactly, I thought otherwise - and wrongly, when a friend gave me teh lecture while we were tooling down the road in his F-450 Platinum edition Pickup truck. The base model starts at 65 thousand.

    A true vehicle for the masses.

    And don't say it's a rare bird. I've seen several tooling around in my neck of the woods. Well, actually I've never seen one off the road. It's a really nice truck. But remarkably expensive once you add in the options.

    And you don't need to be your "typical liberal progressive shithead" to look up prices on the internet. Parts of that invective might be applicable to some folks who can't be bothered to verify their memes.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  17. Re:Batteries just don't store enough energy... by willy_me · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Electric air planes with lithium-air batteries would weigh the same at landing as they do at takeoff whereas a 747 loses around a quarter of it's weight en-route.

    It is even worse then that. Li-Air batteries absorb oxygen as they release electricity. They get heavier the lower the electric charge. The only possible advantage is that they are lightest when they require the most power - take-off.

  18. Re:Lashing out by hackwrench · · Score: 2

    Well that sure escalated fast.

  19. Re:Batteries just don't store enough energy... by Ecuador · · Score: 2

    Well, you could always throw each battery as you exhaust it. Might be tricky if you are over land, but with a good radar (& infrared camera for night flights) I guess you could avoid hitting people.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  20. Tony Stark comparison by quax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No idea how Elon Musk feels about it, but I think it's not quite appropriate.

    The fictional Tony Stark made his money with dubious weapons business.

    Frankly Elon Musk is the better man.

  21. Musk considering what NASA has been researching by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Informative

    NASA has been researching electric aircraft for quite a while. They do have some advantages, although they're not ready to commercialize yet.

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ar...

      http://www.nasa.gov/aero/testi...

      http://aero.larc.nasa.gov/file...

      http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...

      http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  22. Dumping fuel before landing by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, they still do that, though in developed areas it's often flying for longer to burn the fuel rather than just dumping it.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  23. Re:Why batteries? Hydrogen much denser. by brambus · · Score: 2

    Actually hydrogen has great specific energy (energy per unit mass), but lousy energy density (energy per unit volume). Even ignoring the massive weight of a vessel capable of holding hydrogen at >5000 PSI (needed for it to stay liquid at room temperature), liquid hydrogen has only on the order of 1/10 the density as compared to jet fuel (70.85 g/L vs ~800g/L).

  24. I can't even get a quote for his power wall tech by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 2

    All this new tech is fantastic, but it is very frustrating when you have the cash to spend on it and the companies that resell his tech (in Australia) will not bother to take on jobs that are more complex than a "plug it in and walk away" type install.

    I really wish Elon Musk would give them a boot up the ass about that attitude because big problems don't get solved by only accepting easy and routine tasks.

  25. Re: Batteries just don't store enough energy... by thestuckmud · · Score: 2

    Li-air batteries gain mass as they discharge because the process consumes atmospheric oxygen.

  26. Re:Batteries just don't store enough energy... by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Musk seems to be assuming an order of magnitude improvement in battery technology for all his investments... maybe he knows something we don't? Lot's of people are claiming improvements right now, none seem to provide energy density exceeding gasoline. Probably hydrogen comes closest in energy per unit weight, but I'd think the storage difficult would negate that.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  27. Re:Batteries just don't store enough energy... by aaronb1138 · · Score: 2

    JP-8 Actually has a little less specific energy than automotive gasoline; however, the diesel cycle for ICEs (JP-8 is more or less kerosene, closer to diesel than gasoline) and Carnot for turbines turns the efficiency for certain specific load tasks in favor of these safer, lower energy fuels.

    The bigger issue for a battery powered plane though is the fact that the batteries don't get substantially lighter and have mass going out the tailpipe. This is very important in fuel economy calculations for aircraft, you generally don't carry a full tank for continental flight. Just like the classic rocket equation, this is a sharp sword of adding more fuel, means much of the fuel is there just to carry the fuel needed to carry the cargo to the destination.

    For shorter flights, as well as the turn around times typical for airliners, the battery pack would need to be entirely modular, both in size and swapping out between flights. This brings about a variety of new concerns structurally as well as for the the storage method for the battery. One can make it very modular, with solid electrical connections at the cost of yet more weight. The goals are largely counterproductive.

    I suspect what Musk is really looking at though, might just be the low capacity private corporate jet industry. Gulf Stream certainly has nice enough margins to compete with, and the restrictions of electric power will just be a conversation piece for C-levels at cocktail parties.

  28. Re:Batteries just don't store enough energy... by Firethorn · · Score: 2

    Interesting idea. I wonder, at least for a relatively short hop, how the energy costs factor between the stages of a flight. I mean, taxing over to the runway or back to the terminal is probably not very much. You could actually be recovering energy during a landing.

    So how much fuel is used during takeoff vs gaining cruise altitude?

    How much energy could you save if you, say, had a plane with electric engines and you launched it using a catapult/cable/power line that provided all energy needed for the engines until it hits 1k or so feet in altitude?

    That's before you get into crazy thoughts like ground-based wireless energy transmission by laser or microwave.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  29. Re:Batteries just don't store enough energy... by CRC'99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    An interesting point . . . when a jet needs to make an emergency landing with full tanks, it will ditch the fuel before attempting a landing, because of the fire danger.

    No, no they don't. The dump fuel because the maximum landing weight on commercial aircraft is much lower than the maximum takeoff weight. Fuel is too damn expensive to dump just because you don't want to explode. They'll dump fuel until they are under the max landing weight, then land.

    You can land at heavier than the max landing weight - but you'd better get it right or you'll never fly again - even if the landing is a good one.

    --
    Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
  30. Re:Conversion loss by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    -1 Stupid.

    You're forgetting that 60-75% of the energy in hydrocarbon fuel is wasted in the form of heat when you burn it in a combustion engine. Conversion losses for electricity are a tiny fraction of this.

  31. Re: Batteries just don't store enough energy... by delt0r · · Score: 2

    Do the math. The amount of energy even with 100% efficient solar cells amounts to nothing for a practical airliner.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  32. Re:Why batteries? Hydrogen much denser. by delt0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem with hydrogen is storage. Even in liquid form it is only 70kg per m3 compared to about 800kg/m3 for jet fuel. And that is at 20K which is really really really really cold and complicates tank design a lot. other forms of hydrogen storage have massive weight penalties.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  33. Re:Nope. Same as cars by legRoom · · Score: 2

    Airplanes are not cars.

    A full sedan-sized gas tank is about 55 kg, and comprises 4% of the weight of the whole car.
    The Tesla Model S battery pack is 540 kg, and comprises 28% of the weight of the whole car.

    A fully-fueled long-haul passenger jet may be as much as 50% fuel by weight.
    There is simply no weight margin available to devote to multiplying the weight of the energy storage system by 10x; attempting to do so leaves you with something too heavy to fly at all.

    Moreover, even if it could get off the ground, a miraculous all-electric plane that was 100% battery by weight would still lack the energy required to carry the weight of the battery, alone, at 600 mph across the Atlantic Ocean using wings and ducted fans. (This assumes present-day resuable battery tech; I am not suggesting that future battery tech couldn't do better.)

    Additionally, most of the factors that make electric cars more efficient than hydrocarbon-powered ones (like regenerative braking) don't really apply to airplanes.

  34. Re: Batteries just don't store enough energy... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Most people can't afford those big trucks, either. You may have seen "several" in your area, and so have I... but I've seen several Teslas, too. Hell, I finally saw one actually in Lake county, and there sure ain't no superchargers around here. Someone must have been going between Mendo and Napa. I don't see $65,000 trucks actually in Lake county either, though. I see those over in Napa too, or down in Santa Rosa. Up here in the sticks it's cheaper trucks all day.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  35. Re: Batteries just don't store enough energy... by PatrickNarkinsky · · Score: 2

    Just not true. There is an active lithium mine in the US

  36. Re: Batteries just don't store enough energy... by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 2

    I think all of this is just another way of distracting us from his real innovation "Tax Avoidance"

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  37. Re:STOP, EVERYONE STOP by Eloking · · Score: 2

    I've only heard it from tech press who are constantly cheerleading Tesla and Musk. I've questioned the number of Tesla stories on Slashdot before and been downvoted by fanboys, their marketing, sales methods, spats with journalists etc just aren't technology stories.

    So you consider this news not "/. worthy"?

    If there's one thing I've learn with Elon, it's that he's usually not joking about his "project". Paypal, SpaceX, Tesla Motors, Solarcity, the battery gigafactory and now even Hyperloop is becoming more and more real.

    I think that the guy earned his right to have an article in /. about his new electric VTOL jet aircraft concept.

    --
    Elok
  38. Re:Batteries just don't store enough energy... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

    Or a rail gun.... heck, all you really need on the vehicle is a parachute.