Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Solar Impulse 2 Takes Off From Hawaii To California With No Fuel (cnn.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the soak-up-the-sun dept.

An anonymous reader writes: After stalling on the island of Oahu for almost 10 months, the Solar Impulse 2 continues its journey to fly across the world with no fuel. Today, it took off from Hawaii to California piloted by Swiss explorer and psychiatrist Bertrand Piccard. Since the plane travels at about the same speed as a car, it'll take 62 hours to complete the flight across the Pacific to the San Francisco Bay area, some 2,500 miles (4,000 kilometers) away. The pilots and team call this test "the moment of truth," as they've experienced weather delays slowing down the progress. It was originally scheduled to land in Abu Dhabi, where it started its journey in March 2015, by the end of last summer. The plane had to be grounded for nine months while the batteries were being fixed. Now the Solar Impulse 2 has new batteries, a new cooling system that can be manually operated by the pilot, and $20 million in fresh funding to keep the mission up and running, according to CNN.

53 comments

  1. make it so by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    all the way

    1. Re:make it so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Number one, I order you to take a number two.

    2. Re:make it so by LocutusOfBorg1 · · Score: 1

      Resistance is futile.

  2. Never gonna fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    62 hours and $20M instead of 5 hours and $500 or less. Sounds like a bunch of PhDs burning through grants.

    1. Re:Never gonna fly by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      62 hours and $20M instead of 5 hours and $500 or less. Sounds like a bunch of PhDs burning through grants.

      and some pretty long layovers.

    2. Re:Never gonna fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The first rotating device driven by electromagnetism was built by Peter Barlow in 1822 (Barlow's Wheel).
      Moritz Jacobi created the first real rotating electric motor in May 1834 that actually developed a remarkable mechanical output power. His motor set a world record which was improved only four years later in September 1838 by Jacobi himself. His second motor was powerful enough to drive a boat with 14 people across a wide river."
      16 years for a motor that could move 14 people? Pff, we should give up on this stupid electric motor idea, steam is way better. They are obviously burning grants.

    3. Re:Never gonna fly by websitebroke · · Score: 1

      ... layovers in Hawaii.

    4. Re:Never gonna fly by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      $20 million is a lot. It makes you wonder who is paying for it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Never gonna fly by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Oops, bad example. Steam or internal combustion is better for boats and ships, it's how they move.

    6. Re:Never gonna fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although badly illustrated, his point still stands.

    7. Re:Never gonna fly by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no it doesn't stand at all. when we had real need for electric motors in the latter part of 19th century progress in that field was FAST. My midwest U.S. city had electric trains for public transit in 1889, and that was lagging a decade behind europeans.

      Solar power is improper application for airplane just as electric motor was and still is for boats and ships.

  3. No fuel. Except for the fuel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Batteries are fuel, you troglodytes.

    1. Re:No fuel. Except for the fuel. by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 2

      Batteries are a power transfer system, not naturally occurring fuel.

    2. Re:No fuel. Except for the fuel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Refined Gasoline is a power transfer system, not a naturally occuring fuel.

    3. Re:No fuel. Except for the fuel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, refined gasoline is not a power transfer system, it is primarily a fuel. Refining crude oil into gasoline requires only a tiny amount of energy, relative to the energy content of the feed stock. While batteries themselves are a power storage/transfer system, the energy stored within a charged battery is essentially "fuel."

    4. Re:No fuel. Except for the fuel. by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 1

      A battery is a collection of cells. A cell is a container for material that can hold an electric charge. It's the equivalent of a gas tank for electricity. You have to put energy into it if you want to take energy out. The fuel in this case is sun light.

      --
      I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
    5. Re:No fuel. Except for the fuel. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      wrong. a gasoline tank holds fuel which produces far more energy than it takes to make. a cell merely is energy storage, and takes more energy to "fill" than it can deliver back. ditto for hydrogen, it is just an energy storage mechanism, not an energy source.

    6. Re:No fuel. Except for the fuel. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      your stupidity shows what is wrong with the US educational system. Batteries are for energy storage, just as a fuel tank in a car is. neither are fuel

    7. Re:No fuel. Except for the fuel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wrong. a gasoline tank holds fuel which produces far more energy than it takes to make. a cell merely is energy storage, and takes more energy to "fill" than it can deliver back. ditto for hydrogen, it is just an energy storage mechanism, not an energy source.

      Wrong. Oil is a storage mechanism for sunlight.

    8. Re:No fuel. Except for the fuel. by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Refining is the process of getting dirt, sand, and other things that are not oil out of oil found in the ground... it doesn't add energy, it just purifies the matter into something that burns into nothing.

      Gasoline has a smell because sulfur is intentionally added so it isn't confused with water. All cooking oils have smells illegal to use on the road added so they're cheaper than engine fuel.

  4. Fuel? by jklovanc · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The fully charged batteries could be considered fuel.

    1. Re:Fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd put it more strongly. Batteries are a form of fuel. The fact that it is not liquid is of no importance. It would have been a different story if it ran on solar power alone the entire duration. It's not as if batteries are new tech.

    2. Re:Fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd put it more strongly. Batteries are a form of fuel...

      Actually.... the batteries are the fuel tank and the electrons are the fuel.......

    3. Re:Fuel? by galabar · · Score: 1

      I suppose the batteries could have been completely discharged and then charged while installed on the plane (on the ground). I wonder if they took that extra step?

    4. Re:Fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.

      A fuel is any material that can be made to react so that it releases chemical or nuclear energy as heat or to be used for work.

      In this scenario the sun itself is the fuel.

    5. Re:Fuel? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The fully charged batteries could be considered fuel.

      They are definitely an energy source, so I'd accept them as fuel. But since I chimed in, and aimed at no one in particular, I'l go over the history of batteries and flight..

      Batteries? We don't need no stinkin'batteries! Planes start by a strong back twirling the prop! Batteries? They are for starting the engines! That's about it.

      Batteries? They'll never power any flying vehicle. That's crazy talk!

      Batteries? Sure they can power RC planes, but they'll never power a real plane!

      Batteries? Hell sure they are powering a plane, but they're so damn expensive - never be practical!

      Battery powered planes? they are so awesome, and it's a pity we had to fight those damn liberals so many years to get them!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:Fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The batteries do not carry enough charge to get the plane all the way to California. The batteries are charged during the day via solar panels and discharged at night to keep the plane flying while there is no sun.

    7. Re:Fuel? by PPH · · Score: 1

      In this scenario the sun itself is the fuel.

      Yes. If they parked it on the taxiway and let the sun charge it up. No, if they plugged a charger into the wall socket. Then the fuel would be (largely) oil (what they use for base load in Hawaii).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:Fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd put it _even_ more strongly: you're dumb (and the others that claimed the same, you're not alone).

      BTW, my car's gas tank when empty is fuel, by your "reasoning".

      Man, and we used to mock Reddit...

    9. Re:Fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > No, if they plugged a charger into the wall socket. Then the fuel would be (largely) oil (what they use for base load in Hawaii).

      You can't say that. The electricity which comes from the socket knows nothing about its origins. It could also come from solar batteries (installed at some plant), wind or even geothermal (Hawaii being Hawaii, it is plausible).

    10. Re:Fuel? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Lithium batteries can be fuel but they burn pretty quickly :)
      Otherwise it's just doubleplusungood word redefinition games.

    11. Re:Fuel? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I'll put it more strongly - if your English teacher read that they would cry.

    12. Re:Fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The electricity it was charged with was the fuel. The batteries are just the tanks.

    13. Re:Fuel? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Its a mix. Something like 80% of Hawaii's power comes from oil fired plants. But it could come from anywhere. And if it makes you feel good to believe that you are using the solar part, fine. But everyone else thinks the same thing and somebody has to be wrong.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    14. Re:Fuel? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Batteries? Hell sure they are powering a plane, but they're so damn expensive - never be practical!

      Expense is not the issue weight is. Fossil fuels are over an order of magnitude more energy dense that batteries and it will take a while to change that. Weight is the most important factor for aircraft

    15. Re:Fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The top of the plane is covered in solar panels. It's called the "Solar Impulse 2." It's solar powered, it's in the freaking name! How do you not get this?

    16. Re:Fuel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expense is not the issue weight is. Fossil fuels are over an order of magnitude more energy dense that batteries and it will take a while to change that. Weight is the most important factor for aircraft

      Yes, weight is key and when you burn fuel, you no longer have to carry its weight. Batteries suck for airplanes and always will. It's not like you can drop them when they are empty. Ol Olsoc, just because my RC can fly for 5 minutes on a battery that takes 3 hours to charge days say anything about batteries being useful.

  5. EM energy is the future by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    sources of electromagnetism are the only sustainable source of electricity that is actually sustainable for mankind. chemical energy is great but we lack technology and global infrastructure to make it anything but our disastrous present situation. nuclear is fantastic but we need still need to develop a proper LFTR because breeder reactors are dangerous for just anyone to have.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:EM energy is the future by ThatTreeOverThere · · Score: 1

      What do you think about geothermal energy?

    2. Re:EM energy is the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...obviously didn't.

    3. Re:EM energy is the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      geothermal is good for heating/cooling stuff but you can't do much else with it...

    4. Re:EM energy is the future by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      What the fuck? Iceland generates almost all its electricity with geothermal, and is in the process of being an exporter.

      Anything that can create mechanical motion can produce electricity, and the operative part of geothermal is the same as nuclear; steam turbines.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:EM energy is the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      geothermal is good for heating/cooling stuff but you can't do much else with it...

      So what you're really saying is that you're an idiot and you really should waste your time here.

    6. Re:EM energy is the future by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      it's a great idea in theory... as long as you don't consider plate tectonics. the earthquakes triggered by geothermal drilling makes it a poor choice. however, i haven't heard anyone try to use heat from an active volcano... probably because you know... it's a volcano. ;)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    7. Re:EM energy is the future by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Iceland is on an active plate boundary. It has access to hot wet rock. There are not many places like that in the world.

      The idea that if Iceland can to it everyone can is just wrong.

    8. Re:EM energy is the future by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      geothermal is good for heating/cooling stuff but you can't do much else with it...

      I know, right? What good is heating stuff? Lame.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    9. Re:EM energy is the future by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Except, of course, for much of the Pacific Rim...

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:EM energy is the future by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      A little geology for you. The Pacific rim is made up by subsection zones where the hot rock has a tendency to be very deep and dry. Iceland in on a mid ocean ridge which brings hot rock to the surface and therefore into contact with water. Just because there are faults and volcanoes does not mean good areas for geothermal. There are some small pockets of geothermal potential on the Pacific Rim but it is not everywhere.

  6. Oh they've got fuel all right by dcooper_db9 · · Score: 3, Funny

    You'd think for $20 million they could've bought some gas.

    --
    I do not block ads. I do block third party scripts.
  7. Geothermal vs Solar by Framboise · · Score: 1

    The global power produced by Earth in the form of heat (high entropy energy) amounts to less than 50TW. The average global power received by Earth from the Sun in the form of light (low entropy energy) amounts to 174,000 TW. (wikipedia).

    So you are comparing a minuscule heat flow percolating upwards compared to a large photon flow raining downwards. By the way plants show in which direction to look to collect low entropy energy.

    Needless to say that you need exceptional spots, like Iceland, concentrating locally geothermal power to be more effective than solar.

     

    1. Re:Geothermal vs Solar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This statement doesn't take into account the efficiency of conversion there.

      Let's for a moment presume current PEAK conversion efficiency for both energy sources along with availability.

      Efficiency of Geothermal : 17%
      Efficiency of Solar : 10% (Photovoltaic- current available best. In labs it's as high as 40%, but you don't HAVE that right now...) or 6% (Photosynthesis...so much for the supposition that plants show the way...)

      So, the total potential available power from Geothermal is, based on your statement: 8.5TW
      The total potentially available SOLAR power, if you were to pave the entire world in solar panels : 17,400TW

      Yes, there's more energy there to be had...the problem begins with the thing I highlighted just now. You're quoting the net total insolation to Earth with your comparison which is utter and total bullshit of the worst kind. It is also the daily total, so in order to see it, you'll need storage and distribution tech to spread it about to gain that total you just quoted. Worse, you won't ever see the totals there because you're going to not have 100% available insolation to your collection systems. Cloud cover will remove a goodly part of your potential for you. You could, in theory, have the arrays out in space at one of the Lagrange points and beam the power back, avoiding some of these problems, but unless you're building an Earth sized structure, you're not seeing the 17,400 TW of power, to be brutally blunt. Worse, the beaming back has it's own issues for health, safety and environment that remove any advantages there. Makes for nifty SF from a bygone era, but it's not useful to discuss as power sources as none of it is "green" or even remotely sane.

      You see, this is the problem with each and every idiot (yes, I am very much calling you one...) that sees fit to quote this sort of thing as a justification for what they *FEEL* to be the truth . It is not attainable because you can't reach 100% coverage. You fling numbers about, not once stopping to think that the numbers, while massive, don't tell you the truth at-all. And then you delude yourself that plants have "the way" to peaks there. They don't, actually. They're inefficient, overall- they're just better at chemical conversions than we are right now. It's why you have people making "fuel" out of crops right now. In the end, you can't ever reach the numbers you quoted with Solar. Solar, if you could even make it practical and offset the pollution and energy losses to make it (which, right now, you can't...) would provide similar numbers to the Geothermal story right now...with the lab peaks being where you'd see 8.5 TW. It's not sustainable. It's not even reducible to practice. But, there's always someone that's gone to Potato/Turnip having blown past "Full Retard" that wish-I-may, wish-I-mights about solar like you just did. It *IS* /. after all.

  8. FAIL by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    So basically this thing failed? I mean, if you have to replace something as major as batteries how does that count as proving a solar plane can go round the world? That's a hell of a thing. I can understand maybe replacing a bolt or two .. but swapping out the batteries that just don't sound right.

  9. Oh man, Hawaii?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bad luck for them to get grounded in Hawaii? Who would want to be stuck there for 10 months?