Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Explore New Batteries To Power Electric Planes (technologyreview.com)
Can researchers built a new kind of battery powerful enough to fuel an electric airplane? MIT's Technology Review profiles a company co-founded by MIT materials science professor Yet-Ming Chiang:
He and his colleague, Venkat Viswanathan, are taking a different approach to reach their next goal, altering not the composition of the batteries but the alignment of the compounds within them. By applying magnetic forces to straighten the tortuous path that lithium ions navigate through the electrodes, the scientists believe, they could significantly boost the rate at which the device discharges electricity. That shot of power could open up a use that has long eluded batteries: meeting the huge demands of a passenger aircraft at liftoff. If it works as hoped, it would enable regional commuter flights that don't burn fuel or produce direct climate emissions...
The initial plan is to develop a battery that could power a 12-person plane with 400 miles (644 kilometers) of range -- enough to make trips from, say, San Francisco to Los Angeles, or New York to Washington. In a second phase, they hope to enable an electric plane capable of carrying 50 people the same distance.... Last year, the company announced plans to deliver a line of "hybrid to electric" aircraft with room for 12 passengers in 2022. At launch, the company intends to offer a hybrid plane with a gas turbine and two battery packs capable of flying around 700 miles (1,127 kilometers), as well as an all-electric version with three battery packs and a range of less than 200 miles....But crucially, the plane itself is expected to feature an open architecture that allows owners to switch out these modules over time, enabling them to upgrade to better batteries developed in the future or shift from hybrid to all-electric operation.
About 2% of the world's CO2 emissions come from air travel, and it's one of the fastest-growing sources of greenhouse-gas pollution. "More than a dozen companies, including Uber, Airbus, and Boeing, are already exploring the potential to electrify small aircraft," the article points out, "creating the equivalent of flying taxis that can cover around 100 miles (161 kilometers) on a charge. The hope is that these one- or two-passenger vehicles -- in most cases envisioned as autonomous vertical takeoff and landing aircraft -- could shorten commutes, ease congestion, and reduce vehicle emissions."
But with less ambitious batteries, "these would largely replace car rides for the rich, not displace air travel."
The initial plan is to develop a battery that could power a 12-person plane with 400 miles (644 kilometers) of range -- enough to make trips from, say, San Francisco to Los Angeles, or New York to Washington. In a second phase, they hope to enable an electric plane capable of carrying 50 people the same distance.... Last year, the company announced plans to deliver a line of "hybrid to electric" aircraft with room for 12 passengers in 2022. At launch, the company intends to offer a hybrid plane with a gas turbine and two battery packs capable of flying around 700 miles (1,127 kilometers), as well as an all-electric version with three battery packs and a range of less than 200 miles....But crucially, the plane itself is expected to feature an open architecture that allows owners to switch out these modules over time, enabling them to upgrade to better batteries developed in the future or shift from hybrid to all-electric operation.
About 2% of the world's CO2 emissions come from air travel, and it's one of the fastest-growing sources of greenhouse-gas pollution. "More than a dozen companies, including Uber, Airbus, and Boeing, are already exploring the potential to electrify small aircraft," the article points out, "creating the equivalent of flying taxis that can cover around 100 miles (161 kilometers) on a charge. The hope is that these one- or two-passenger vehicles -- in most cases envisioned as autonomous vertical takeoff and landing aircraft -- could shorten commutes, ease congestion, and reduce vehicle emissions."
But with less ambitious batteries, "these would largely replace car rides for the rich, not displace air travel."
Take a page from the Navy and catapult them into the sky.
Or maybe some capacitors to hold the 'launch' charge.
This could be slightly more significant than one might think. While these small planes aren't the main type most people think of when they think of "airplanes", they happen to be roughly the least efficient transportation available. Less efficient per passenger than large airliners.
To give one well-known example, when Al Gore and his wife go to dinner, his G-11 B burns 578 gallons per hour. ( 0.8 mpg).
Replacing transportation that gets 0.8 MPG with potentially renewable energy is an easy win.
San Fran to LAX is a heavily traveled route using aircraft like the A320.
I don't know if 12 and 50 passenger flights can compete on price.
Mpg = mph / gph
As much as they claim this as a solution to global warming it should be obvious it is not. First of all they admit that this is limited to very short flights, the kind of travel better suited to rail. Second, they have to know this will not make it to market any time soon. Even if they had flying prototypes today no passenger service would be allowed by any regulatory agency in the world without considerable testing. Then, even if they are approved to fly, there is the problem of infrastructure. They plan to swap out the batteries on the ground to avoid having to keep the airplane on the ground for a recharge. That will limit the places it can fly.
Here's a better idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
At best we can get these electric planes flying in 30 years. We can get carbon neutral synthesized jet fuel far sooner, all we need is a government willing to make it happen.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Uber getting mentioned in front of Airbus and Boeing.
could generate enough electricity and not create pollutants other than water vapor.
Or if you're Al Gore, maybe a couple of diesel generators. /s
Small all battery powered aircraft already exist and are in protection. https://youtu.be/Z10ItJzrP6E
Lets see, magnets in the fuel lines. Where have I heard that one before.
Evidently not.
...clean burning coal.
Indeed airplane design is largely about keeping weight as low as possible. The lighter the plane is, the farther, faster, and better it will fly per [any useful measurement]. Pretty much anything you try to improve on a plane can be improved by reducing the weight and then re-optimizing* the other parameters, especially fuel efficiency.
Tomorrow I'll finish building yet another electric-powered model I'm building. It flies for a long time for a battery-powered model, 20 minutes of more. To achieve that, I ended up with a max speed of only about 22 MPH. To make the batteries last twice as long, I'd need about four times as much battery, because roughly half the battery power is used to lift the batteries.
* Someone who knows gliders may be thinking about the fact that a glider will go faster if you add weight. That's true it'll glide for a shorter time, faster - if nothing else changes. If you don't optimize for the lighter weight, it'll go down faster and go forward faster. If you DO design for the lighter weight, the lighter glider will plain fly better all around.
Raymorris: the Howard Hughes of miniature airplanes extolling the virtues of weight-to-power ratios!
* Not busting your balls - sounds like a nice hobby actually.
APK
P.S.=> I just watched "The Aviator" again (one of my fav films of all-time) last night & had to put that in here - it was THAT or Snake Plissken & his glider from "Escape from NY" which I JUST finished re-watching an hour ago, lol (Aviator fit better)... apk
If this means not having to completely shut down a large section of the city every time the President flies into the airport (because he can air-taxi rather than road-caravan back out), then let's fucking do it already. I don't care what President or what city, this will be economically helpful by eliminating a half day of downtime for a large chunk of the city.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/news/a27039/tesla-battery-emissions-study-fake-news/
The basic idea of a fuel cell seems so cool.
The actual physics suck. The practical considerations of trying to use them utterly suck. They aren't close to being practical for other than some niche uses.
Here's some more info from people who have built fuel cell vehicles, including a couple of good links in the article:
https://energypost.eu/hydrogen...
As for aircraft, in aircraft design it's all about weight.
Decrease the weight and you increase the efficiency, speed, and performance. Unfortunately fuel cells weigh 30 times as much as turbine engines - and still need to be attached to a motor. Turbine engine specific power (power-to-weight ratio) is measured in kilowatts, fuel cell specific power in watts.
https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12520486&cid=57184660 - Nazi pedophile RAY MORRIS lying and trying desperately to push nazi propaganda. Hang this nazi punk ass!!!
I say, use the batteries to create a plasma or big arc instead of the friggin' laser for the bong.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Hi,
Thanks for your article,
Good work keep it up.
https://be-practical.com/MEAN-Stack-Training-in-Bangalore-%7C-Best-MEAN-Stack-Training-Institute.html
About 2% of the world's CO2 emissions come from air travel, and the 98% rest from fucking clean coal and its friends, that will charge these batteries.
While good batteries are good at any rate, CO2 is a bigger problem.
The best energy source to charge these batteries is Thorium LFTR reactors. Nuclear got a bad rap from Fukedupshima and Chernobyl, where Japanese culture of submission and keeping the head low resulted in multiple bad design and operational decisions resulted in a catastrophe that we have have yet to realize the full extent of as the ocean will die off and make the planet uninhabitable.
Location: Earthquake prone area a stones throw from the ocean, in the land where the term Tsunami was coined, wave barrier too low, multiple reactors so close to each other, backup generators below grade, Mid 1950's BWR boiling water reactor design with no intrinsic safety i.e. loss of water cooling means china syndrome. Reactors were shut down killing power output, relying on local backup generators that got flooded. No remote power to run pumps? Local storage of "spent" fuel rods, makes salvage more difficult. Water is also a moderator so loss of water is a double whammy.
All responsible people should be thrown into the corium.
Carrying around a "fuel tank" that weighs as much when it's empty as it does when it's full is always going to be less efficient than the regular kind.
"could significantly boost the rate at which the device discharges electricity."
Batteries currently (npi) already have a more than high enough power density. It's the energy density that needs improvement.
The reason is very simple:
Battery: same volume and weight whether charged or drained.
Fuel in a tank: consumed as it drains. As the vehicle travels, it becomes lighter and more efficient. A Boeng 777 or an Airbus A380 would have a far reduced range if it was not shedding a huge weight of fuel along the way.
The physics, rather than some nebulous conspiracy by "big oil", simply rules out batteries as a serious competitor to fuel-in-a-tank in a flight vehicle.
Nothing like needing to develop a new tech and needing to produce a new market space. I assume that YMC is just building hype that he is going to revolutionize the world with electric planes, and then pivot to something more practical such as cellphone or drone batteries. He is a master of hype, but ha$ a nose for making money.
I hope the slashsot community can filter out the BS and figure out the true motive.
> In Germany there is a market for high power fuel cells in the range of up to10kW - 20kW
And those weigh thousands of kilograms, therefore their social power is a few watts. As originally noted within parentheses, specific power means power-to-weight ratio, how many watts per kilogram.
It's a lot like specific energy, where hydrogen again sucks because it requires a pressure vessel that weighs more than the fuel does.
so it gives the plane more lift.
Hypocrite You're stalking ME now by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous as you always do - you sound jealous!
No, RayMorris I respect for at least accomplishing things. You? I don't.
* You're a psycho loser...
(Nothing more)
APK
P.S.=> ... & you now only KNOW it about yourself but you also PROVE IT for all to see once again... apk
And in the event of emergency landing, they are going to dump the batteries to some poor fellows house, or over some friendly neighbourhood in the vicinity of the airport?
https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12520486&cid=57184660 - Nazi pedophile RAY MORRIS lying and trying desperately to push nazi propaganda. Hang this nazi punk ass!!!
Better that we hang YOU on a barbed wire fence, you worthless faggot.
Weight is everything in aircraft design, and batteries are heavy. This is just the penny dropping on those who don't get this and have been hyping "OMG electric aircraft, so cool!"
And sure, better batteries will "help", in the way that adding a (tenor) saxophone and an electric guitar to a Kenny G song helps. It sucks a little less that way. It won't make it "good" though.
I thought the people pushing e-planes were environmentalists and/or concerned with safety.
Now you want thousands of airliners dropping dead batteries in flight?
BIG HEAVY FLAMMABLE EXPENSIVE LITHIUM BATTERIES?
Oh, were you suggesting planes waste time and energy to divert to designated drop zones? Expend man-hours and fuel on ground vehicles and infrastructure to recover and transport many thousands of massive batteries all around the country every day?
Environmental concerns aside, do you want these massive batteries raining down in lakes and forests and on homes and schools and freeways?
A few drop tanks on tactical planes in a war zone (a "necessary evil" waste) during a limited-duration war is one thing, but are you aware of the incredible number of airline flights in the sky all over the world 24 hours a day and 7 days a week?
Can researchers built a new kind of battery
Can are Slashdot editors capable editing story?
> Specific power is related to fuel and its weight.
That's called specific energy. Power is how much can be done right now. Energy is how much can be done for how long.
Horsepower is power. Watts are power. You measure the power of a motor.
Watt-hours measures energy. You measure the energy of a battery or an amount of fuel.
Hydrogen gas decent specific energy (you can go far without carrying much hydrogen), but only if you ignore the weight of the tank, which can weigh a lot.more than the hydrogen.
Hydrogen fuel cells have horrible specific power - it makes a weak motor, because they can't provide a lot of power at any given time. You need a huge fuel cell to power a tiny motor.
Maybe an example would make it more clear. The Emrax 268 is a 20kw motor. It weighs 44 pounds. To provide the 20kw needed to power that 44 pound motor, you'd need a 4,400 pound fuel cell. Plus the hydrogen.
That Emrax 268 is appropriate for a 3,000 plane. To power a motor capable of lifting 3,000 pounds of plane, you need 4,400 pounds of fuel cell.
Ergo a hydrogen fuel-cell plane can't get off the ground - it's too heavy, it doesn't provide enough power to lift itself.
Read your link. You linked to a 32,000Kg fuel cell capable of 1Mw. A 32,000Kg plane would need 7Mw.
Again, the fuel cell can't provide enough power to fly itself - much less the weight of the fuel, tank, motors, wing, fuselage, etc.
Fuel cells can't fly.
I don't know of any type of fuel cell that has a specific energy anywhere near 100Kw or better Do you?
All the types I'm familiar with are four to six orders of magnitude too weak.
Turbofan engines are about 80,000 Kw/kg. (80Mw)
Turboshafts are about 8,000-40,000 kw/kg. (40 Mw)
The fuel cells I'm familiar with are around 100 watts / Kg.
Lithium ion batteries are up to 4,000 watts / kg so they are impractical, but physically possible for short flights. Fuel cells pf any type would be at least 40 times as heavy, and Li-ion is at the edge of just barely working, on specific power alone. You don't even want to get started on specific energy, when you need a 1,000 Kg tank to hold 100 Kg of hydrogen.