Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Electric / hybrid aircraft propulsion (NOT cars)

It seems that Shell has joined the “consortium-of-car-makers-that-cannot-agree-on-a-standard” to roll out a bevy of 350kW charging points across Europe by 2020.

https://www.ft.com/content/9e879ee6-d121-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc

Silvaire wrote:

That’s why European governments can get away with 300 or 400% tax on gasoline

What European government has a 300% tax on gasoline?

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Silvaire wrote:

over a year we spend less than 5% of our take home pay on fuel, so the fuel cost is not really a downside. That’s why European governments can get away with 300 or 400% tax on gasoline, because people don’t actually care that much about the fuel cost but they value their independence and flexibility greatly, as they should.

Apart from the fact that the fuel tax rates you quote are pure fantasy you are right here. But the price of fuel will only go up over the next years, dramatically so as we approach the end of the world’s fossil fuel reserves and international climate change prevention treaties begin to bite.

Electricity on the other hand will become only cheaper as prices for wind and solar keep dropping. If one day we get fusion power as well electricity will probably become a free commodity.

Silvaire wrote:

You only live once and spontaneous travel, perhaps unplanned in detail until you’re doing it, is a wonderful part of living.

Yes but that’s a pretty bad excuse to f*ck up the world for our children and grandchildren. Spontaneous travel must become carbon neutral , otherwise we must cut it back!

Low-hours pilot
EDVM Hildesheim, Germany

If one day we get fusion power as well electricity will probably become a free commodity.

Fusion would change things dramatically. But only in countries which accept nuclear power. There is however no sign of it coming anytime soon. But even much more use of fission power would change things dramatically…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Airborne_Again wrote:

What European government has a 300% tax on gasoline?

There was a figure circulating in the U.K. a few years ago that three-quarters of the automotive pump price was tax, which is 300% tax rate. Here’s some data from more recently (2014), which looks to me to indicate about two-thirds is tax, or 200% tax rate. The percentage is numerically sensitive to the real base price, but 200% is regardless a higher tax rate than on almost other commodity, and that shows the demand is incredibly stiff, as per my point above. The reason government can get away with that is not that people like them but that gasoline is really good stuff that doesn’t cost that much in relation to the beneficial effect it produces.

There is no way that I will consider buying any inflexible electric vehicle as long as gasoline is available at low prices, e.g. 5% of my take home pay to go anywhere I want, any time, on zero notice.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 27 Nov 16:02

MedEwok wrote:

Yes but that’s a pretty bad excuse to f*ck up the world for our children and grandchildren. Spontaneous travel must become carbon neutral , otherwise we must cut it back!

That situation is actually a balance between two rights: the right to have children and/or immigration without restriction in an overpopulated world and the right for them (and us) to enjoy their lives in the future without excess regulation. As you demonstrate, a lot of people don’t place as much value on quality of life as they do on reproducing, when avoiding it would be beneficial to those remaining. I don’t believe technology will overcome those values in Europe and allow for what I’d consider a pleasant future for future generations – there are just too many people, and too few resources to supply enough energy in forms that are useful. I think Japan is a pretty good example of the resultant lifestyle. For European aviation specifically, given that private aviation does have a historical precedent, I think it means ongoing regulatory pressure towards restricted utility ultralight flying now, and eventually maybe restriction to very low impact, low utility electric powered ultralights.

My reactions to that overall situation are (1) avoid living in overpopulated places with few resources (the tactical aspect) (2) don’t contribute to overpopulation (the strategic aspect) (3) enjoy life now and be grateful (the fun aspect ) and (4) create lasting assets and leave them some day to a very slightly smaller number of people in the world (the responsible aspect). The latter has the pragmatic benefit of making me a popular husband and uncle, although I don’t think they actually want me gone

Peter wrote:

Fusion would change things dramatically. But only in countries which accept nuclear power. There is however no sign of it coming anytime soon. But even much more use of fission power would change things dramatically…

Fusion energy research is currently funded at ‘welfare for the over educated’ levels, and I think it’s hard to say whether there will ever be a payoff other than supporting smart people who would otherwise not have a job. I say this with some familiarity, but its no different than many other areas of science and technology.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 27 Nov 20:23

Luckily the advancementss of such countries like Denmark in the field of renewables (e.g. Avedøre biomass plant, Copenhagen 100% energy autonomous by 2025, citizens shareholding in wind farms etc.) expose the above beliefs as being slightly out of touch with European progress.

As a statistical datapoint, Europe has moved from 300TWh renewable electricity in 1990 to above 900TWh in 2015, with hydro share remaining constant at a tad under 300Twh… so much for “the sun doesn’t shine enough and the wind isn’t dependable”.

Last Edited by Shorrick_Mk2 at 27 Nov 21:37

MedEwok wrote:

But the price of fuel will only go up over the next years, dramatically so as we approach the end of the world’s fossil fuel reserves

I don’t buy that. That argument was first presented early in the 70’s and we have more known fossil fuel reserves now than ever, 40 years later. The future price (due to theoretical shortage) of fossil fuels is not a reason to switch to something else. If fuel prices rise, it will be due to taxation as a behavioural tool to shift consumers to alternatives. It has been used in Europe successfully for years to get more people onto the trains. Reduced carbon emissions is the “driver” in Europe, even though it is only part of the problem. Increased CO2 is possibly as much to due consumer behaviour resulting in reduced forestation (fewer trees, less CO2 removed from the environment). But that is rather off-topic…. sorry Peter.

Last Edited by chflyer at 27 Nov 21:31
LSZK, Switzerland

Firms team up on hybrid electric plane technology

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42152484

I did read first year chemistry at Uni, but it was a long time ago!

Correct me if I am wrong, but commercial electric aircraft are a million miles out of the range of current technology, if only because it is impossible to get close to the energy density of kerosene weight for weight compared with batteries?

The headline in the title is presumably as much pandering to the NIMBY lobby, because the energy will be entirely “created” from fossil fuel carried in the aircraft and even if all the engines are dual electric / conventional there will be a significant additional cost for each engine and loss of performance and load capacity because of the need to transport batteries around the world in the very aircraft they are powering.

Never the less clearly time and money is being spent – am I missing something?

The article mixes various levels of “electric powered” aircraft for added confusion. What you mean is that a purely battery powered aircraft is not feasible with current technology, which is correct for CAT but already incorrect for GA (see the Pipstrel Piper Electro discussed in the other thread).

The BBC article mainly seems to be talking about electric engines whereby the electricity is generated by quite conventional means, in this case a generator running on jet fuel. I personally see this as demonstrator for the electric engines themselves only. For a sustainable use one would obviously need another source of power to run the engines with. As battery technology improves, this may be batteries at some point in the future, but I don’t see this happening for at least 20 years and even then only in limited applications.

A hybrid approach is probably more interesting, e.g. using fuel cells or hydrogen. Still I guess some variation of jet fuel will only become fully obsolete in all applications once we have scalable fusion reactors in all kinds of vehicles which will allow us to progress to technology levels only seen in Star Wars so far

Low-hours pilot
EDVM Hildesheim, Germany
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top