Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

JetBlue and Boeing Are Betting Big On Electric Jet Startup 'Zunem Aero' (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the all-bets-are-off dept.

A new startup called Zunum Aero is aiming to reinvent how users travel short distances, such as from San Francisco to Los Angeles. "The Kirkland, Washington-based company [...] plans to build a fleet of hybrid electric jets to sell to major carriers for service on densely traveled regional routes like San Francisco to Los Angeles or Boston to Washington, DC, "reports The Verge. Two aviation giants, Boeing and JetBlue, are reportedly backing the startup. From the report: Lower operating costs (i.e., no fueling) will allow carriers to reduce fares by 40 to 80 percent, they predict. And by flying a smaller aircraft that would be subject to fewer TSA regulations, Zunum claims it will take less time to go through security before boarding one of its planes. Zunum aims to build several models of hybrid-electric propulsion jets. At launch, its first class of aircraft will be tiny, in the 10-15 foot range, with a 10-passenger capacity and a range of up to 700 miles on a single charge. (Think San Francisco to Portland or Atlanta to DC.) Those planes can be expected to roll off the assembly line by the early 2020s, the company's CEO Ashish Kumar told The Verge. By the 2030s, as electric battery technology improves, Zunum hopes to build larger aircraft that can carry up to 50 passengers and travel up to 1,000 miles on a single charge. (Think Seattle to LA or Boston to Jacksonville, Florida.) Zunum's aircraft will feature hybrid electric motors with the capacity to accept recharging power from a variety of sources. Because airplanes are typically kept in service for up to 30 years, Kumar says its important for Zunum's aircraft to be future proof. That means designing them to be compatible with future battery designs and range-extending generators, with an eye toward ultimately switching from hybrid propulsion to fully electric motors once the technology catches up.

6 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Can you say "energy density" ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's a problem the snake oil salesman known as Ashish Kumar is willfully ignoring.

    Yes, batteries will get better, but 40 times better ? That remains to be seen, and there is NO guarantee
    it will ever happen.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_densities_of_common_energy_storage_materials

    1. Re:Can you say "energy density" ? by Solandri · · Score: 3, Informative

      What you're willfully ignoring here is that the efficiency is not all that matters. A plane has a certain payload capacity, and the fuel/battery load counts against that. Your 10x greater efficiency (actually it's closer to 2x) does no good if the energy density of batteries is so low that you now have zero remaining payload for passengers and cargo. And you get most of the 2x worse efficiency back by the fuel being burned (and thus no longer having to carry its weight) throughout the flight.

      Anyhow, TFA describes hybrid electric jets. All the energy the electric motors use will come from burning fuel. So the overall system-wide efficiency of the electric motor will by definition always be worse than using the fuel for thrust. At least under nominal conditions. That's the catch which makes hybrid-electric jet engines viable - you can't always operate the engines at nominal (highest efficiency) thrust. If you tune the engines for optimal efficiency at cruise, they end up being inefficient at low thrust. So the idea is to run the engines at cruise power a bit longer to charge some batteries, then you turn the engines off and use an electric motor powered by the batteries to provide the minimal thrust needed during descent.

      TFA openly admits the technology is not yet there to make a fully electric jet viable. Which was AC's point.

  2. Electric jet? by manu0601 · · Score: 4, Informative

    How can a jet be electric?

  3. Re:LOL airlines reducing fares by mattack2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...except the fact that airline fares are way cheaper, adjusted for inflation, than they used to be...

  4. Re:It's not April 1, and yet ... by onkelonkel · · Score: 5, Informative

    You have no idea. Small airplanes have much less stringent security requirements. I flew from Vancouver to Victoria last year on Harbour Air (10 seat floatplane). I called to find out how far in advance i had to be there. HA - What time is your flight?. Me - 7 AM. HA - be there no later than 10 to 7. No security check of any sort. At 7:00 on the nose the pilot walked into the lounge, announced the flight and we all walked down to the dock together. This was downtown to downtown, and the from the time I arrived at the "Airport" to the time I walked off the dock in Victoria was 35 minutes. Pure awesome.

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
  5. Re: LOL airlines reducing fares by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Informative

    Jesus that is scary as fuck. It's certainly not the oil, aluminum, food, flight attendants, or pilots that have gotten any cheaper, so I assume most of the cuts have been to safety.

    Oil: Wrong
    Aluminum: Wrong
    Food: What food?
    Flight attendants: Wrong
    Pilots: Way wrong

    Not to mention:
    Much smaller seats
    Odds of sitting next to an empty seat to spread out onto: used to be good, now nearly zero.

    As for safety, there used to be major air disasters in the USA about once per year. How long has it been now? I don't recall one in the last decade.