After Norway has plans to ban the sale of petrol cars in 2025, now they what to make all short-haul flights electric by 2040.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/18/norway-aims-for-all-short-haul-flights-to-be-100-electric-by-2040

One hand, it is forward thinking, but it sounds too good to be true.

2040 - Breaking News, Lithium Ion finally reliably not on fire.

smallvoyageur wrote:

After Norway has plans to ban the sale of petrol cars in 2025, now they what to make all short-haul flights electric by 2040.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/18/norway-aims-for-all-short-haul-flights-to-be-100-electric-by-2040

One hand, it is forward thinking, but it sounds too good to be true.

It sure does sound like Virtue-signalling from Pipe-Dreamers. But I am sure he is getting a lot of goodwill, attention, and is also probably going to fly to a lot of conferences internationally, to deliver speeches. Flying on fossile fuel. In the 50s and 60s we had Sci-Fi dreaming of planes run by their own nuclear reactor, because it was the atomic age.

It would be interesting, however, to go OSL-EWR on an electric plane!

They don't want to burn their own oil. They want to sell it to other Countries. They have plenty of hydro-power so the carbon footprint could be good.

That is ambitious, and impressive. Congrats to Norway!

(Although one has to wonder about banning oil-using vehicles in one's own country, while exporting two million barrels a day elsewhere...)

Very ambitious indeed. And I'm pretty certain it won't happen.

It’ll take a large increase in energy density of battery storage— on the order of fifteen times more dense. Petroleum has been a prime commodity in transportation for a reason—immense amount of energy per pound/kg. Then, the next problem is structural—an electrically powered plane will weigh just as much on landing as it did on take-off, so airframes will have to account for that.

GF

In 2040, my grandkids will have their own flying cars (which I was promised by now ).
It's nice to set goals for others when you're not accountable for achieving them. But why not?

OPTION 1

1) NEW Bergen-Berlin Octostop service!

OPTION 2

2) (Cockpit warning horn) PULL UP! PULL UP! PLEASE PEDAL FASTER! TERRAIN! PLEASE PEDAL FASTER!

I for one would be very surprised if this will be the case ...

I thought when I first heard it, as it was in the same week that the Norwegian government was introducing Portuguese style drug discrimination laws, they must be having some wicked stuff!

On a serious note, it sounds more like the 2005 Sweden Oil-free 2020 initiative, a good and thoughtful target to head to but as we get near impractical.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Then, the next problem is structural—an electrically powered plane will weigh just as much on landing as it did on take-off, so airframes will have to account for that.

Doesn't that already have to be somewhat accounted for now? What if an A380 heading out on a 12-hour flight has a bird strike on takeoff and has to do an emergency landing? It'll weigh slightly less than it did a few minutes prior, but it can't be too different...

AirlineCritic wrote:

That is ambitious, and impressive. Congrats to Norway!

(Although one has to wonder about banning oil-using vehicles in one's own country, while exporting two million barrels a day elsewhere...)

I have a rich friend who is a vegetarian and owns a slaughter house. Sounds like Norway!

What is the point?

airzona11 wrote:

What is the point?

Seriously?

Oil must die if we are to save our world and ensure a decent future for both humankind and plant and animal life on Earth.

I’m amazed at the regressive attitudes here among you a.netters. There is more than enough power available from natural sources to provide all our needs. It’s just a question of there being the political and social will to harvest it, and possibly pay more for our energy in the short term.

Any other course and we’re doomed. It really is that simple.

Maybe short haul electric rail services will come more into play than actual flights ? If not in Norway certainly in better suited countries further south ?

Very well put, TheLion!

Norway has a lot of short, thin routes, sponsored by state money, where 10 minute flights replaces 3-5 hours by car. Formerly flown by Twin Otters and now half-full ageing Dash 8s, with no current alternative manufactured that can satisfy regulations and use the 800m fields, lots and lots of hydro power, money to invest in enviromental research.

Electric school planes are already a thing, and 22 years ahead? That is 247-> 707 territory. Of course it can be done, batteri technology is going a long way in time. Remember, they aren’t saying long haul.

Less than half of the cars sold in Norway last year were traditionally gas/diesel-only cars.

TheLion wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

What is the point?

Seriously?

Oil must die if we are to save our world and ensure a decent future for both humankind and plant and animal life on Earth.

I’m amazed at the regressive attitudes here among you a.netters. There is more than enough power available from natural sources to provide all our needs. It’s just a question of there being the political and social will to harvest it, and possibly pay more for our energy in the short term.

Any other course and we’re doomed. It really is that simple.

2039: Norway reclassifies all flights longer than 1 mile as long haul...

That's nice but perhaps they should wait for electric airliners to actually exist before announcing such a ban.

Weight of batteries and electric motors would have to be substantially reduced or @kalvado is exactly right!

I enjoy getting a good laugh watching the anetters say electric planes wont work.

A massive 38% of the cars in Norway are now electric. The highest in the world by a very big margin.

The USA is under 1%. Nearly all of Europe is under 2%. Most members here would be totally uneducated on this topic. Combine this with a bit of stubborness and It would take a full electric plane to enter commercial service for them to finally see the light.

Norway has more experience with electric vehicles than any country in the world. If they think it will happen then it's definitely going to happen.

RJMAZ wrote:

I enjoy getting a good laugh watching the anetters say electric planes wont work.

A massive 38% of the cars in Norway are now electric. The highest in the world by a very big margin.

The USA is under 1%. Nearly all of Europe is under 2%. Most members here would be totally uneducated on this topic. Combine this with a bit of stubborness and It would take a full electric plane to enter commercial service for them to finally see the light.

Norway has more experience with electric vehicles than any country in the world. If they think it will happen then it's definitely going to happen.

Another thing Norway is famous for is strange thought inside environmental official's skulls, e.g.:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zei ... 01145.html
And Norway is also famous for their airliner designs and production facilities...

kalvado wrote:

And Norway is also famous for their airliner designs and production facilities...

They dont make electric cars either. Yet this hasn't stopped industry delivering electric cars to Norway.

All the electric aircraft startups will have a full order book if the governments start forcing airlines to buy them. 22 years is more than enough time.



Norway in only a few months will be at the halfway point with 50% of all new sales are electric. They are at the steepest part of the curve so they will reach 80% within a year or two.

Leasing companies are already making it difficult to buy a petrol car as they know in 3 years times when the lease ends the car will have much higher depreciation.

RJMAZ wrote:

I enjoy getting a good laugh watching the anetters say electric planes wont work.

A massive 38% of the cars in Norway are now electric. The highest in the world by a very big margin.

The USA is under 1%. Nearly all of Europe is under 2%. Most members here would be totally uneducated on this topic. Combine this with a bit of stubborness and It would take a full electric plane to enter commercial service for them to finally see the light.

Norway has more experience with electric vehicles than any country in the world. If they think it will happen then it's definitely going to happen.

At my work electric cars are common.

But there is engineering to be done that is expensive. If the technology was at TRL7, we could see an aircraft in 2026. Since the technology isn't even beyond a concept, please tell me who is developing it.

Americans know electrical capabilities. How much carbon does Norway export buying electric cars? It isn't zero... You are aware of the mining operations that occur to produce today's batteries?

With aircraft, weight is critical. Cars still don't fly, so wheels support that weight.

From someone who helps design aircraft, let us get a serious discussion on energy density for aircraft that fly fast enough to fly.

Malthusian fads come and go. If you want to reduce carbon, first look at coal. E.g., Japan just signed long term coal supply contracts to replace nuclear to help charge their electric cars.

Lightsaber

RJMAZ wrote:

kalvado wrote:

And Norway is also famous for their airliner designs and production facilities...

They dont make electric cars either. Yet this hasn't stopped industry delivering electric cars to Norway.

All the electric aircraft startups will have a full order book if the governments start forcing airlines to buy them. 22 years is more than enough time.



Norway in only a few months will be at the halfway point with 50% of all new sales are electric. They are at the steepest part of the curve so they will reach 80% within a year or two.

Leasing companies are already making it difficult to buy a petrol car as they know in 3 years times when the lease ends the car will have much higher depreciation.

How is 22 years enough time? Aircraft are still putting in technology first patented in the 1950s. Do you realize how many billions it will cost to develop the technology?

Is Norway investing the billions? More than likely they just regulated away the business. Eh..

Lightsaber

IPFreely wrote:

AirlineCritic wrote:

That is ambitious, and impressive. Congrats to Norway!

(Although one has to wonder about banning oil-using vehicles in one's own country, while exporting two million barrels a day elsewhere...)

Don't worry about the oil. It will be burned to generate the electricity used to charge the clean batteries.

Not in Norway:

mxaxai wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

AirlineCritic wrote:

That is ambitious, and impressive. Congrats to Norway!

(Although one has to wonder about banning oil-using vehicles in one's own country, while exporting two million barrels a day elsewhere...)

Don't worry about the oil. It will be burned to generate the electricity used to charge the clean batteries.

Not in Norway:

Norway population (5M) as a fraction of worldwide population (7000M): 0,07%.
It's not difficult to show a graph that electicity is produced with renewable energy when you have a national population that is half of Tokyo and you only need one or two plants to produce the required power.

I also doubt that the figures account for off-grid power generation, as is the case for smaller towns and settlements across Norway.

If Norway want to contribute to reducing global emissions, they should stop oil extraction.
IMO you can claim to be eco-pioneers only once you stop oil production against your economical interests.

RJMAZ wrote:

kalvado wrote:

And Norway is also famous for their airliner designs and production facilities...

They dont make electric cars either. Yet this hasn't stopped industry delivering electric cars to Norway.

All the electric aircraft startups will have a full order book if the governments start forcing airlines to buy them. 22 years is more than enough time.



Norway in only a few months will be at the halfway point with 50% of all new sales are electric. They are at the steepest part of the curve so they will reach 80% within a year or two.

Leasing companies are already making it difficult to buy a petrol car as they know in 3 years times when the lease ends the car will have much higher depreciation.

Norwegians buy their second car as an electric car because e-cars park for free in Oslo and are allowed to use bus lanes.

And Norway has cheap electricity because of much hydro power. But reality is a little more complicated.

In late spring and summer they have too much hydro power and export some of it, for instance to here in Denmark. Opposite in late winter/early spring, when the lakes are running empty, and the snow in the mountains really hasn't begun melting yet, then they import a lot of power from Denmark. Sometimes the wind is blowing hard in Denmark, and Norway can get some power from Danish wind turbines. Sometimes the wind is not so strong, and we fire up our coal power plants to keep both Denmark and Norway running. In the latter case the Norwegian e-cars become the most dirty cars in the world.

They will have to do something which we haven't heard about yet, or their 2040 electric airliners will the same way become the world's most dirty way of transport.

But at the end of the day, Norway got a new government the day before yesterday, a difficult three party minority government with a lot of internal disagreements and cooperation issues. They have to launch this sort of missiles every now and then to divert focus away from their real issues.

RJMAZ wrote:

I enjoy getting a good laugh watching the anetters say electric planes wont work.

A massive 38% of the cars in Norway are now electric. The highest in the world by a very big margin.

The USA is under 1%. Nearly all of Europe is under 2%. Most members here would be totally uneducated on this topic. Combine this with a bit of stubborness and It would take a full electric plane to enter commercial service for them to finally see the light.

Norway has more experience with electric vehicles than any country in the world. If they think it will happen then it's definitely going to happen.

Norway has a ton of electric cars because they are tax-free and therefore much cheaper to buy than ICE cars, that's basically the gist of it. Don't mistake that proportion of sales for EVs being highly competitive with ICEs.

HK Tesla sales went down the shitter when the government stopped exempting EVs from the new car registration tax. Before then, the Model S was the best selling sedan in all of HK chiefly because it was relatively affordable compared to other options.

Waterbomber wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

Don't worry about the oil. It will be burned to generate the electricity used to charge the clean batteries.

Not in Norway:

If Norway want to contribute to reducing global emissions, they should stop oil extraction.
IMO you can claim to be eco-pioneers only once you stop oil production against your economical interests.

^Yes.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't operate on absolutes or without contradiction. I'm for radical steps to reduce carbon emissions and applaud significant steps to get there.

It's a shame to see posters dismiss the underlying vision for this measure, rocky road to implementation or not. It's also a shame that our share hobby is also one of the most environmentally destructive activities in the world. Thankfully, the aviation industry is so bad that there's great opportunity for improvement.

Unfortunately, I suspect we we will have to lose an entire foundational ecosystem before people realize the severity of the crisis.

TheLion wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

What is the point?

Seriously?

Oil must die if we are to save our world and ensure a decent future for both humankind and plant and animal life on Earth.

I’m amazed at the regressive attitudes here among you a.netters. There is more than enough power available from natural sources to provide all our needs. It’s just a question of there being the political and social will to harvest it, and possibly pay more for our energy in the short term.

Any other course and we’re doomed. It really is that simple.

Haha I love how you take my statement, step up onto some high horse and tell me I have a regressive attitude. Did my statement offend you? I never said we need to burn crude oil previously. I have a serious question for you, where does Norway get all of their wealth? What % of air traffic worldwide is domestic Norwegian traffic? Better yet, where does the energy come from to fill the batteries? Have you seen the environmental impact of lithium-ion batteries / where they are made / how they are disposed of?

My point was the irony that the wealth of Norway is from oil and they are posturing, that is all this is, saying domestic air travel will be electric. With current and next-gen technology, very inefficient/ not commercially or even academically viable.

lightsaber wrote:

With aircraft, weight is critical. Cars still don't fly, so wheels support that weight.

The solution is so extremely simple. If battery density is too low you just increase range by making the cabin smaller and payload lighter.

So what you'll see is a C-130 sized wing full of batteries with a small ATR72 sized fuselage underneith.

So the electric plane will be much larger and weigh much more while carrying the same payload equal distance.

Lets crunch some numbers for this theoretical aircraft. Take a C-130, it weighs 34T empty. With a ATR72 fuselage it would weigh under 30T, probably 28T. With the C-130's maximum takeoff weight of 74T you have 46T remaining for batteries and passengers. Batteries are fairly heavy so 39T of batteries will fit in the wings, leaving 7T for 72 passengers in the ATR72 fuselage.

Tesla's 100kwh battery in the P100d weighs 500kg. So the C-130 wing would have 7800kwh of battery storage. The C-130J's rolls engines put out 3500kw at sea level but only 1500kw at 30,000ft, So economy cruise it's only using around 5000kw to cruise at 620km/h. This means this aircraft could fly for well over an hour at 600km/h. This is a all electric range of 800-900km.

Now this is with current battery technology and it can easily cover most of the regional flights currently covered by ATR72 and Q400. I could then see an aircraft like this open up small general aviation airports for comercial flights due to its very low noise.

It is highly likely battery density will increase by at least 50% in the next 10 years. That would allow the above theoretical design to increase range up to 1200-1300km range.

They better start cranking up their own aircraft manufacturer because I'm petty sure you can make the 737/A320/Q400/CRJ/ERJ totally electric. And there will still be quite a bit of the 737s and A320s doing domestic flights in Norway by 2040.

Guess my post on the same topic got buried. Anyways, I don't see this being accomplished by 2040, but perhaps sometime after that.

I think they should focus more on improving rail services between Oslo and the smaller cities including increasing speeds and frequency and also testing trains that run on batteries or other fuel sources. Electric trains that run on batteries instead of overhead wires are already starting to be tested.

The Lion,

We’ll be burning oil for the remainder of the .21st Century, without doubt, for most transportation. Unless we go nuclear in a very big way.

RJMAZ,

How long will it take to recharge those 39T of batteries?

GF

TWA772LR wrote:

They better start cranking up their own aircraft manufacturer because I'm petty sure you can make the 737/A320/Q400/CRJ/ERJ totally electric.

Actually none of the designs you mention could be made into a successful electric airliner. If you filled the wings with batteries and hit maximum takeoff weight they could only fly 200kms.

You would need a totally new clean sheet design, the wings would have to be significantly oversized compared to todays airliners.

Q400 would probably have the best chance. They would have to shorten the fuselage back to Q200 length but maintain the heavy lifting wing of the Q400 to carry enough battery power.

RJMAZ wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

They better start cranking up their own aircraft manufacturer because I'm petty sure you can make the 737/A320/Q400/CRJ/ERJ totally electric.

Actually none of the designs you mention could be made into a successful electric airliner. If you filled the wings with batteries and hit maximum takeoff weight they could only fly 200kms.

You would need a totally new clean sheet design, the wings would have to be significantly oversized compared to todays airliners.

Q400 would probably have the best chance. They would have to shorten the fuselage back to Q200 length but maintain the heavy lifting wing of the Q400 to carry enough battery power.

Funny thing about my post, I actually meant to say can't. My crappy phone strikes again.

Honestly, the only real way that this could be feasible is if the Norwegian government were to start up their own aircraft manufacturing company, similar to Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, and Embraer. Unless, of course, if the airline were to somehow convince the aircraft manufacturers to start using electric engines for their planes...

TWA772LR wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

They better start cranking up their own aircraft manufacturer because I'm petty sure you can make the 737/A320/Q400/CRJ/ERJ totally electric.

Actually none of the designs you mention could be made into a successful electric airliner. If you filled the wings with batteries and hit maximum takeoff weight they could only fly 200kms.

You would need a totally new clean sheet design, the wings would have to be significantly oversized compared to todays airliners.

Q400 would probably have the best chance. They would have to shorten the fuselage back to Q200 length but maintain the heavy lifting wing of the Q400 to carry enough battery power.

Funny thing about my post, I actually meant to say can't. My crappy phone strikes again.

LOL!

RJMAZ wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

With aircraft, weight is critical. Cars still don't fly, so wheels support that weight.

The solution is so extremely simple. If battery density is too low you just increase range by making the cabin smaller and payload lighter.

So what you'll see is a C-130 sized wing full of batteries with a small ATR72 sized fuselage underneith.

So the electric plane will be much larger and weigh much more while carrying the same payload equal distance.

Lets crunch some numbers for this theoretical aircraft. Take a C-130, it weighs 34T empty. With a ATR72 fuselage it would weigh under 30T, probably 28T. With the C-130's maximum takeoff weight of 74T you have 46T remaining for batteries and passengers. Batteries are fairly heavy so 39T of batteries will fit in the wings, leaving 7T for 72 passengers in the ATR72 fuselage.

Tesla's 100kwh battery in the P100d weighs 500kg. So the C-130 wing would have 7800kwh of battery storage. The C-130J's rolls engines put out 3500kw at sea level but only 1500kw at 30,000ft, So economy cruise it's only using around 5000kw to cruise at 620km/h. This means this aircraft could fly for well over an hour at 600km/h. This is a all electric range of 800-900km.

Now this is with current battery technology and it can easily cover most of the regional flights currently covered by ATR72 and Q400. I could then see an aircraft like this open up small general aviation airports for comercial flights due to its very low noise.

It is highly likely battery density will increase by at least 50% in the next 10 years. That would allow the above theoretical design to increase range up to 1200-1300km range.

. You're ignoring a couple of significant issues:
-No commercial airliner today is designed to have MLW>=MTOW, the ATR72s MLG certainly wasn't designed to support 74t at landing, reinforcement to make it support such weights adds weight.
-Even if we assume your battery energy densities are correct (they seem optimistic), they are measured at sea level, at 15000ft crusing with ~-15-20C ambients such a 39T battery configuration isn't storing 7800kw, more like 6000kw, solutions to this (heating elements) would also add weight and reduce range.
-You are ignoring diversion/reserve needs for aircraft, so 800-900km theoretical range becomes more like 600-700km. And that's before accounting for the loss in energy density due to cold temps.
-Fire suppression systems would need to be much, much more effective, Jet A can't really do anything harmful without oxygen, but Li-ion cells will happily do a thermal runaway in the same condition, again, that adds weight and costs.
-If battery densities are going to increase dramatically over the next decade or two, then which sane financier/lessor would be willing to offer reasonable rate 7-10 year leases? Knowing that residuals on such aircraft would be crap and they'd be unlikely to place them in other airlines. That's a big problem with hybrid/EV cars today, as everybody wants to lease but no one wants to own because people expect new & better by the time the 2-3 year leases expire...

I think this is a pipe dream. Look how long it took to get 787 from the drawing board to the skies, and it still is conventional enough that it has jet fuel in the wing and turbines hanging from the pylons.

That's not to stay that it's not a good idea - if A & B don't have designers creating theoretical electrical designs already, then they are being short sighted for sure.

But for the time being, the weight and shielding required for lithium cells (remember the 787 battery fires?) or the safety risk if they are unshielded, are both too high of a hurdle in my opinion. The number of cells required would be tremendous.

I think it's more likely that you'd see some very small commuter aircraft (two props, 8-20 pax perhaps?) operating at low speed (150-200 mph?) as a first step, and that's probably still at least 10 years off.

TheLion wrote:

Any other course and we’re doomed. It really is that simple.

No, it's not. Go read the actual IPCC climate change reports, and ignore the hyperbole of the politicians on both sides of the issue. The consensus of the scientific community is there is a strong and worthwhile case to be made for weaning the world off net carbon-emitting activities, but the word "doom" does not appear anywhere in the actual science.

As for the electric short-haul planes - I don't know how much authority the executive of the public agency that runs Norways airports has, but I suspect he doesn't have much ability to set any legally binding targets. His own language (per the Guardian's reporting) doesn't indicate he believes he does either. He seems to just stating he thinks it is a viable goal.

Airbus doesn't seem very convinced, considered their hesitance to push very hard even towards hybrid aircraft, and Airbus has a lot more experience with aircraft design than I'd bet Dag-Falk Petersen does.

Great decision.

Waterbomber wrote:

I also doubt that the figures account for off-grid power generation, as is the case for smaller towns and settlements across Norway.

I've never heard of any off-grid small towns or settlements in Norway*. Can you give us an example?

*As far as I know, Longyearbyen, the world’s most northerly city, is the only off-grid Norwegian city. There has been talk about a 1000 km under sea electric cable, like the ones being used for hydro power export from Norway to the UK and continental Europe, but perhaps it'll rather be hydrogen: https://geminiresearchnews.com/2017/02/ ... -hydrogen/

Why stop there? Why be satisfied with electric engines? Why not mandate commercial gliders? One could start with improving the design and the payload of the Messerschmitt Me 321 Gigant.

JustSomeDood wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

With aircraft, weight is critical. Cars still don't fly, so wheels support that weight.

The solution is so extremely simple. If battery density is too low you just increase range by making the cabin smaller and payload lighter.

So what you'll see is a C-130 sized wing full of batteries with a small ATR72 sized fuselage underneith.

So the electric plane will be much larger and weigh much more while carrying the same payload equal distance.

Lets crunch some numbers for this theoretical aircraft. Take a C-130, it weighs 34T empty. With a ATR72 fuselage it would weigh under 30T, probably 28T. With the C-130's maximum takeoff weight of 74T you have 46T remaining for batteries and passengers. Batteries are fairly heavy so 39T of batteries will fit in the wings, leaving 7T for 72 passengers in the ATR72 fuselage.

Tesla's 100kwh battery in the P100d weighs 500kg. So the C-130 wing would have 7800kwh of battery storage. The C-130J's rolls engines put out 3500kw at sea level but only 1500kw at 30,000ft, So economy cruise it's only using around 5000kw to cruise at 620km/h. This means this aircraft could fly for well over an hour at 600km/h. This is a all electric range of 800-900km.

Now this is with current battery technology and it can easily cover most of the regional flights currently covered by ATR72 and Q400. I could then see an aircraft like this open up small general aviation airports for comercial flights due to its very low noise.

It is highly likely battery density will increase by at least 50% in the next 10 years. That would allow the above theoretical design to increase range up to 1200-1300km range.

. You're ignoring a couple of significant issues:
-No commercial airliner today is designed to have MLW>=MTOW, the ATR72s MLG certainly wasn't designed to support 74t at landing, reinforcement to make it support such weights adds weight.
-Even if we assume your battery energy densities are correct (they seem optimistic), they are measured at sea level, at 15000ft crusing with ~-15-20C ambients such a 39T battery configuration isn't storing 7800kw, more like 6000kw, solutions to this (heating elements) would also add weight and reduce range.
-You are ignoring diversion/reserve needs for aircraft, so 800-900km theoretical range becomes more like 600-700km. And that's before accounting for the loss in energy density due to cold temps.
-Fire suppression systems would need to be much, much more effective, Jet A can't really do anything harmful without oxygen, but Li-ion cells will happily do a thermal runaway in the same condition, again, that adds weight and costs.
-If battery densities are going to increase dramatically over the next decade or two, then which sane financier/lessor would be willing to offer reasonable rate 7-10 year leases? Knowing that residuals on such aircraft would be crap and they'd be unlikely to place them in other airlines. That's a big problem with hybrid/EV cars today, as everybody wants to lease but no one wants to own because people expect new & better by the time the 2-3 year leases expire...

- The C-130J can land at the same weight as its normal takeoff weight. So it is possible.
- I dont think the cold temperature would be an issue. During the climb the batteries may warm up so the cold temperature would be benificial. In a go around situation the batteries range would slightly increase as they would now be at sea level again.
- I could see the batteries stored in the wings in removable groups located away from any primary structure. Any fire could simply vent to atmosphere and group of cells is isolated. You could even jettison the pack, A new battery pack can then be swapped in quickly.
- If the first electric aircraft is a 20 seat regional it will have plenty of life with future owners after the lease ends. Plus the removable battery packs could be swapped for ones with higher density.

Electric trains have been for decades. Electric cars are more challenging. They makes environmentally sense in densely populated areas as they reduce the near emissions that local people breath. They reduce the carbon dioxide emissions if the additional electricity is produced by renewable or nuclear power.

For aviation, the electric propulsion is much more challenging. I think that using biofuel or synthetic fuel made with renewable sources would be much more realistic. Biogas cars are also increasing their popularity, maybe more than electric because they are much cheaper. While methane has higher energy density than petrol, the tanks weigh more so I do not claim it is suitable for aviation, but several liquid biofuels or synthetic fuels can be easily used.

You two are astonishingly shallow, clueless and factless. Real Duning-Krueger posterboys!

IPFreely wrote:

prebennorholm wrote:

Sometimes the wind is not so strong, and we fire up our coal power plants to keep both Denmark and Norway running. In the latter case the Norwegian e-cars become the most dirty cars in the world.

But that pollution is in Denmark. Norway is still using clean, renewable, electric energy. :D

The same thing will happen with planes. Unless Norway decides they will only use renewable energy in which case they will ground flights until the wind picks up in Denmark so that the planes' batteries can be charged.