330 mile range!!!! the green lobby has gone mad, don't book any long haul destinations in the near future LOL. Will airport Ramp areas be littered with electrical cables or will the aircraft have a row of Solar panels on top of fuselage?

bendewire wrote:

330 mile range!!!! the green lobby has gone mad, don't book any long haul destinations in the near future LOL. Will airport Ramp areas be littered with electrical cables or will the aircraft have a row of Solar panels on top of fuselage?

Well, there is a start to everything! 330 miles can cover a lot of short haul flight in Europe.

I think it would be either a battery swap system or just a cable pulled up from the ground like they do with fuel.

The BBC article mentions aluminium batteries which are not rechargeable (but store 8x the charge of AlLi) - so it would have to be a battery-swap system.

But that sounds like a logistical (and cost) nightmare! Can you imagine tonnes and tonnes of fresh batteries constantly being manufactured and shipped to airports around the world...?!?

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

But that sounds like a logistical (and cost) nightmare! Can you imagine tonnes and tonnes of fresh batteries constantly being manufactured and shipped to airports around the world...?!?

Once established and running, not sure how much costly compared to refine, transport and pump millions and millions of tons of fuel...

Another headline grabbing party trick gimmick from the electric lobby. For journeys of around 300 miles, high speed (electric) rail is best.

Agree, it is a start and 540 km can be enough for a lot of short haul flights in Europe. The problem is that for that distance, trains usually have a large market share in Europe.

However, across the Baltic sea or the Mediterranean it might be useful.

Presumably, they won't be flying them anywhere near London, with the average weather and ATC delay of 20-30 minutes. What reserves would they have, an hour? Then what?

Sounds to me like half a story written by a hack at the BBC. Easyjet has a record of supporting new technology proposals that could work long term for their business.

This could be a combination, including a turbo-electric setup to cover additional needs in the air and at takeoff. Something akin to the new Mercedes Project One car that has a 1.6 litre petrol engine and can outrun a Bugatti Chiron.

Eventually the split between fan and gas generator will happen, with battery storage between the generator and propulsion units. It's too good a potential system to ignore.

I commend them supporting innovation. In particular if it leads to the development of new air batteries that we will all benefit from. More useful than Virgin Galactic.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Aviation will be one of the last (if not the last) industries to abandon fossil fuels. Energy density is a nice to have elsewhere, but absolutely essential here.

Jayafe wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

But that sounds like a logistical (and cost) nightmare! Can you imagine tonnes and tonnes of fresh batteries constantly being manufactured and shipped to airports around the world...?!?

Once established and running, not sure how much costly compared to refine, transport and pump millions and millions of tons of fuel...

Of course it's much cheaper and more efficient to manufacture and pump a liquid! Several orders of magnitude...

Liquid fuel is all high bulk, no moving parts, no unnecessary packaging or excess weight/volume, low maintenance, low staff... the only way I see it working for an aluminium/air battery system is if you can make the battery pack itself reusable (and low maintenance) with swapable aluminium anodes - then you'd need a battery preparation centre at every airport, a large number of aluminium casting factories (using a lot of electricity and natural resources) at strategic locations (will probably need to be near the coast so aluminium ore can be constantly shipped in) with a highly-efficient rail network to constantly transport anode shipments to the airports. That is a *LOT* of infrastructure...

Interesting concept if it comes to fruition.





https://twitter.com/MaxK_J/status/913020012797022208

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Jayafe wrote:

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

But that sounds like a logistical (and cost) nightmare! Can you imagine tonnes and tonnes of fresh batteries constantly being manufactured and shipped to airports around the world...?!?

Once established and running, not sure how much costly compared to refine, transport and pump millions and millions of tons of fuel...

Of course it's much cheaper and more efficient to manufacture and pump a liquid! Several orders of magnitude...

Liquid fuel is all high bulk, no moving parts, no unnecessary packaging or excess weight/volume, low maintenance, low staff... the only way I see it working for an aluminium/air battery system is if you can make the battery pack itself reusable (and low maintenance) with swapable aluminium anodes - then you'd need a battery preparation centre at every airport, a large number of aluminium casting factories (using a lot of electricity and natural resources) at strategic locations (will probably need to be near the coast so aluminium ore can be constantly shipped in) with a highly-efficient rail network to constantly transport anode shipments to the airports. That is a *LOT* of infrastructure...

I disagree on your generalization that its more efficient to manufacture and pump a liquid over a solid, by orders of magnitude. I would say the comparison depends entirely on the liquid and the solid involved. In a number of cases various solids can be cheaper than liquids.

However, in the case of comparing many refined natural oil products vs the cost of aluminum; I would agree that there is likely at least 1 order of magnitude cost difference in favor of jet fuel. Aluminum is a very costly and energy intensive material to produce; which is why it's scrap value (by weight/mass) is so high compared to other common materials such as Iron.

The other problem with batteries is that however it is done to impart the initial charge, and any subsequent recharge, is much more costly than burning of oil directly. Most electricity sells for at least 4 times the cost of the base fuel to pay for the inefficiencies of conversion to electricity and infrastructure at the power plant. Only hydro-power is highly efficient in that conversion; and there is a very limited amount of hydro-power and resources in the world (and it sells for a bit over the cost of building and maintaining the hydro-plant). Most homeowners and small business pay about 10 times the cost of the base fuel due to a substantial loss by transmission of electricity, and the cost of the transmission distribution network + a small profit: In most US and European Cities studies have shown that only about half the electricity generated by a power plant is delivered to homes and small businesses as the other half is consumed by electrical resistance during transmission. For large manufacturers and newer smaller cities with modern higher voltage local distribution systems that loss has been reduced to only about 1/3 of what is generated by a power plant. The cost of upgrading the local transmission networks to modern high voltage systems (25-32K volts on the wires running down the street vs typically 2-6K of the old systems) is considered cost prohibitive.

You are correct in the cost issues related to the fabrication, shipment, reprocessing (if possible), and ultimate disposal of batteries.

The energy density and ease of use of Jet fuel will be very very tough to ever beat. I even project that even if we develop some kind of massive new electrical generation and run out of easily retrievable natural oil resources that we would manufacture Jet fuel for aviation use as the best option. Unless, there is some breakthrough of a totally new kind of power source.

Have a great day,

2175301 wrote:

I disagree on your generalization that its more efficient to manufacture and pump a liquid over a solid, by orders of magnitude. I would say the comparison depends entirely on the liquid and the solid involved. In a number of cases various solids can be cheaper than liquids.

However, in the case of comparing many refined natural oil products vs the cost of aluminum; I would agree that there is likely at least 1 order of magnitude cost difference in favor of jet fuel. Aluminum is a very costly and energy intensive material to produce; which is why it's scrap value (by weight/mass) is so high compared to other common materials such as Iron.

The other problem with batteries is that however it is done to impart the initial charge, and any subsequent recharge, is much more costly than burning of oil directly. Most electricity sells for at least 4 times the cost of the base fuel to pay for the inefficiencies of conversion to electricity and infrastructure at the power plant. Only hydro-power is highly efficient in that conversion; and there is a very limited amount of hydro-power and resources in the world (and it sells for a bit over the cost of building and maintaining the hydro-plant). Most homeowners and small business pay about 10 times the cost of the base fuel due to a substantial loss by transmission of electricity, and the cost of the transmission distribution network + a small profit: In most US and European Cities studies have shown that only about half the electricity generated by a power plant is delivered to homes and small businesses as the other half is consumed by electrical resistance during transmission. For large manufacturers and newer smaller cities with modern higher voltage local distribution systems that loss has been reduced to only about 1/3 of what is generated by a power plant. The cost of upgrading the local transmission networks to modern high voltage systems (25-32K volts on the wires running down the street vs typically 2-6K of the old systems) is considered cost prohibitive.

You are correct in the cost issues related to the fabrication, shipment, reprocessing (if possible), and ultimate disposal of batteries.

The energy density and ease of use of Jet fuel will be very very tough to ever beat. I even project that even if we develop some kind of massive new electrical generation and run out of easily retrievable natural oil resources that we would manufacture Jet fuel for aviation use as the best option. Unless, there is some breakthrough of a totally new kind of power source.

Have a great day,

Energy value of aluminum metal should be about the same, if not lower, than energy value of jet fuel (assuming same airframe weight and neglecting things like weight change, or associated weight difference)
Next, Aluminum can be fabricated where electricity is cheap (think Iceland or Norway, with mountains, rivers, and cheap hydro)
If AL battery is non rechargable, it becomes shipping Al chunks to consumer and spent AlOx back to manufacturer. Is that cost effective? I've seen more crazy things...

2175301 wrote:

The other problem with batteries is that however it is done to impart the initial charge, and any subsequent recharge, is much more costly than burning of oil directly. Most electricity sells for at least 4 times the cost of the base fuel to pay for the inefficiencies of conversion to electricity and infrastructure at the power plant. Only hydro-power is highly efficient in that conversion; and there is a very limited amount of hydro-power and resources in the world (and it sells for a bit over the cost of building and maintaining the hydro-plant). Most homeowners and small business pay about 10 times the cost of the base fuel due to a substantial loss by transmission of electricity, and the cost of the transmission distribution network + a small profit: In most US and European Cities studies have shown that only about half the electricity generated by a power plant is delivered to homes and small businesses as the other half is consumed by electrical resistance during transmission. For large manufacturers and newer smaller cities with modern higher voltage local distribution systems that loss has been reduced to only about 1/3 of what is generated by a power plant. The cost of upgrading the local transmission networks to modern high voltage systems (25-32K volts on the wires running down the street vs typically 2-6K of the old systems) is considered cost prohibitive.

You are correct in the cost issues related to the fabrication, shipment, reprocessing (if possible), and ultimate disposal of batteries.

The energy density and ease of use of Jet fuel will be very very tough to ever beat. I even project that even if we develop some kind of massive new electrical generation and run out of easily retrievable natural oil resources that we would manufacture Jet fuel for aviation use as the best option. Unless, there is some breakthrough of a totally new kind of power source.

Have a great day,

The other thing here is that oil is pretty expensive energy-wise.
As a rule of thumb, 1 kWt-hr of electricity is about equal to 1 cup of gas.
For US: I pay about 15 cents/kWt-hr including all delivery chagres and taxes; that translates into about $0.15x16 cups/gallon=$2.40 per gallon of gas - which is slightly lower than what I paid yesterday to fill up my car. Again, with all taxes etc.
Coal (which is still a backbone of US electric generation) is cheaper than oil.

Things may be somewhat different in Europe - or elsewhere - but not way different...

Two things:

1) I was under the impression that the energy required to turn bauxite into usable aluminium was huge - hence things like companies doing deals with African countries to flood half their land so they build a dam to power the smelting plant

2) The recent troubles in NZ have highlighted just how convenient and low-cost a pipeline is versus trucking in fuel - and I'm sure solid, bulky blocks of metal would be a heck of a lot worse.

kalvado wrote:

Next, Aluminum can be fabricated where electricity is cheap (think Iceland or Norway, with mountains, rivers, and cheap hydro)

... and Washington State, USA!

Also ideal for production of carbon fiber -- so much so that BMW chose WA State for it.

Ref: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... ber-plant/

An additional $100 million investment announced Friday, coupled with an earlier expansion now nearly complete, will triple the plant’s annual capacity to 9,000 tons of carbon fiber.

That expanded output will equal about one-fifth of the total global demand for carbon fiber today, making the 4-year-old joint venture between BMW and German carbon materials producer SGL the world’s single-biggest producer of the fiber, said Dr. Jürgen Köhler, SGL’s chief executive.

The plant will exclusively feed BMW’s i-series, iincluding the new luxury i8 hybrid sports car.

Just to clarify, the concept does not involve single-use disposable batteries. The batteries would be swappable so they don't have to be quick-charged during turnarounds, thus preserving battery life (in terms of cycles). A lot of the other objections to electrical power are equally applicable to ground transport, yet slowly but surely it's happening. The energy density issue is precisely the problem they're trying to solve. Lots more info on their website. Airbus' E-aircraft program is worth a butchers too.

bendewire wrote:

330 mile range!!!! the green lobby has gone mad, don't book any long haul destinations in the near future LOL.

Calm down, dear. In the unlikely event that an aircraft with these specifications makes it to market I'm sure airlines will still be able to buy longer ranged Jet-A powered alternatives.

BaconButty wrote:

Just to clarify, the concept does not involve single-use disposable batteries. The batteries would be swappable so they don't have to be quick-charged during turnarounds, thus preserving battery life (in terms of cycles). A lot of the other objections to electrical power are equally applicable to ground transport, yet slowly but surely it's happening. The energy density issue is precisely the problem they're trying to solve. Lots more info on their website. Airbus' E-aircraft program is worth a butchers too.

BBC text mentions Al-air batteries. I am not aware of rechargeable version of such battery. Actually I just found some papers, but quick impression is that it is not even a lab prototype yet.
If I am not aware of some latest work (very possible) and you have some good references for state of the art Al-air, I would really appreciate; topic seems interesting enough...
Al-air should be good on power density side of things, but making it fully rechargeable... Call me sceptical.
So idea of swappable Al electrode is not that crazy from my perspective - IF "Aluminum-air" is actually relevant part of the plan.

I'm digging the looks here of this concept. Looks like a Caravelle, an Avro Vulcan, and a Lockheed C-141 tail. I hope this takes off in the future I am ready for some new clean sheet design aircraft.

bendewire wrote:

330 mile range!!!! the green lobby has gone mad, don't book any long haul destinations in the near future LOL. Will airport Ramp areas be littered with electrical cables or will the aircraft have a row of Solar panels on top of fuselage?

You know planes already connect to ground power when they land. Moron.

kalvado wrote:

BBC text mentions Al-air batteries. I am not aware of rechargeable version of such battery.

Me neither. Presumably the Al-air battery has a specific use (Take off? APU? Emergency power?) and they do mention that they're in conjunction with Lithium Ion batteries. This is from their website:

Wright has taken a close look at the economics of rechargeable batteries for use in large airliners. We asked ourselves this question, “If we want to build an electrically powered airliner that offers cost savings over a conventional airliner, how long must the batteries last?” The answer is a sliding scale, depending on the cost of electricity and jet fuel. But the answer sits squarely in the multiple thousands of cycles.

Which makes it clear the Li-Ion will do the heavy lifting.

Edit: Should say that I was technically wrong to say it didn't involve "single-use" (anode replacement aside) batteries. But it's clear from the above they're not expected to provide the primary propulsion power, so all this debate about shipping aluminium all over the world is still a bit silly.

Edit2: Been doing a read around and from comments they made elsewhere I think in their concept the Al-air batteries will act as reserves. So a combo of Li-ion you recharge for main power, and the high cost but high energy density al-air that you hope you don't use too often.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

The BBC article mentions aluminium batteries which are not rechargeable (but store 8x the charge of AlLi) - so it would have to be a battery-swap system.

But that sounds like a logistical (and cost) nightmare! Can you imagine tonnes and tonnes of fresh batteries constantly being manufactured and shipped to airports around the world...?!?

There is a well known study that demonstrated the toyota prius as being equally damaging to the environment as a hummer h2 over its' lifetime due to battery manufacturing and recycling. Batteries have a long way to go yet in terms of capacity, safety and environmental friendliness.

BaconButty wrote:

Been doing a read around and from comments they made elsewhere I think in their concept the Al-air batteries will act as reserves. So a combo of Li-ion you recharge for main power, and the high cost but high energy density al-air that you hope you don't use too often.

Okay, that makes more sense wrt. my logistics concerns. So an Al/air battery is always lugged around but shouldn't be used - it would have to be large enough to provide backup power for X minutes / miles but as small as possible for weight reasons. I can see some interesting issues around inspection and replacement procedures... e.g. I expect the regulators would mandate replacement after every usage (however brief) to maintain the minimum capacity (kind of like ETOPS). So you'd still need some refurbishment infrastructure even though they'd (almost) never be used...

JCTJennings wrote:

Another headline grabbing party trick gimmick from the electric lobby. For journeys of around 300 miles, high speed (electric) rail is best.

A gimmick from EasyJet as well. The article says "backing", but what sort of? Is EasyJet funding any of this research with hard money? If it were the article would say so. Absent anything more specific, EasyJet is just playing the role of emotional support dog. Ask the CEO of EasyJet about this a year from now and she will say "what..."?

These "green" stunts from airlines are silly. How many airlines BS'd the public in the last few years with bio-fuel? Airlines are a dirty business: nasty fuel, noise, emissions, etc. The role of creating greener aircraft does not belong to them. It is the plane and engine makers that can move the industry towards a cleaner operation.

bendewire wrote:

330 mile range!!!! the green lobby has gone mad, don't book any long haul destinations in the near future LOL. Will airport Ramp areas be littered with electrical cables or will the aircraft have a row of Solar panels on top of fuselage?

If you were living in 1902 you'd be saying the same thing about the Wright brothers.

Every new technology has to start somewhere.

Electric planes are already viably entering general aviation: http://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/th ... light/208/

In the French Alps last summer, a plane set seven new world records. The two-seater aircraft climbed more than 20,000 feet in under two minutes, and reached speeds of 142 miles per hour. It flew nonstop for 300 miles. Perhaps these numbers don’t sound very impressive. But consider that the aircraft burned no fuel and emitted zero emissions. Instead, the plane used an all-electric motor powered by a single battery.

Try climbing 20,000 feet in a C172 in two minutes and see where it'll get you.

incitatus wrote:

JCTJennings wrote:

Another headline grabbing party trick gimmick from the electric lobby. For journeys of around 300 miles, high speed (electric) rail is best.

A gimmick from EasyJet as well. The article says "backing", but what sort of? Is EasyJet funding any of this research with hard money? If it were the article would say so. Absent anything more specific, EasyJet is just playing the role of emotional support dog. Ask the CEO of EasyJet about this a year from now and she will say "what..."?

These "green" stunts from airlines are silly. How many airlines BS'd the public in the last few years with bio-fuel? Airlines are a dirty business: nasty fuel, noise, emissions, etc. The role of creating greener aircraft does not belong to them. It is the plane and engine makers that can move the industry towards a cleaner operation.

Well, at some point there will be more pressure to use renewable energy, at which point biofuels will start replacing petro-fuels at scale. For short-haul, electric might not be a bad idea if they can improve on energy density.

incitatus wrote:

JCTJennings wrote:

Another headline grabbing party trick gimmick from the electric lobby. For journeys of around 300 miles, high speed (electric) rail is best.

A gimmick from EasyJet as well. The article says "backing", but what sort of? Is EasyJet funding any of this research with hard money? {snip}

Wright Aviation are funded by an assortment of venture capitalists. They're not really intending to build this aircraft, much like Boom (with whom they share some backers iirc) they will look to gain some IP/Patents and monetise them. I find it interesting to look at the configuration they've chosen even if it will never see the light of day - it gives clues as to how such an aircraft may be configured, and makes for an interesting contrast with Airbus' hybrid programs. Like @LH707330 said, it's where things are heading, assuming battery technology continues on the same trajectory. I'm sure Easyjet enjoyed the exposure, but they have always lobbied for manufacturers to be more aggressive technology wise, ultimately their business depends on it, like all LCC's in mature markets. And if they want exposure, I'd sooner they do it like this that take a leaf out of O'Leary or the Weirdy Beardy's book.