Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power Transportation Businesses Earth

Researchers Explore New Batteries To Power Electric Planes (technologyreview.com) 141

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Researchers Explore New Batteries To Power Electric Planes

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Take a page from the Navy and catapult them into the sky.

    Or maybe some capacitors to hold the 'launch' charge.

  • Slightly significant (Score:5, Informative)

    by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Saturday November 03, 2018 @07:29PM (#57587716) Journal

    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.

    • 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.

      How did you convert "gallons per hour" to "miles per gallon"?

    • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      It's not just the fact that fuel economy is atrocious when it comes to flying. Release of CO2 exhaust occurs high up in atmosphere, making it much more potent in terms of greenhouse effect relevance.

      Then there's the whole "much more efficient engines" aspect of it. You could turn the entire wing trailing edge into a bunch of small engines, something effectively impossible with ICE.

      • It's not just the fact that fuel economy is atrocious when it comes to flying.

        Not per passenger it isn't.

        • Depends on the plane. You're thinking of the big jets that carry hundreds. This is for the tiny passenger aircraft that serve small airports, isolated communities and island ferry service.

          • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

            No, I'm thinking any fixed wing aircraft. Aerodynamic advantages of being able to control flow of air with a set of small engines instead of having to have aerodynamically harmful control surfaces is present on any fixed wing.

        • 1 G10 per Al Gore isn't efficient - but then Earth is in the lurch for little people. (or - he wouldn't live in the huge home etc if he thought the crisis was as dire as he made out... - but would if he stood to make money on carbon credits)
    • by avandesande ( 143899 ) on Saturday November 03, 2018 @09:50PM (#57588088) Journal
      Actually small propeller planes get about 25mpg.
      • Actually small propeller planes get about 25mpg.

        On leaded fuel. mmmmm, lead. It's not OK for the average person to spew it out of their tailpipe, but it's just fine for the five-percenters or whatever who can afford a private airplane. Guess they vote.

    • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

      The problem is not the fuel type, but rather how inefficient business jets are when they're only transporting 1 or 2 people. If you actually fill the plane, then it would be getting 10 mpg per passenger.

      Switching to electric doesn't help. His Gulfstream II B uses 21.6 MJ of energy per hour, which requires 12 tons of batteries to store. Since the plane is only 30 tons when loaded, I imagine this would cause some problems during takeoff.

  • 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.

    • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Saturday November 03, 2018 @08:05PM (#57587824)

      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.

      They compete on convenience by NOT flying from SFO to LAX, and instead flying from/to smaller regional airports.

      I would pay a premium to fly directly from Reid-Hillview [wikipedia.org] in San Jose, which is a 15 minute walk from my house, directly into Santa Barbara or Orange County Airports. That would save me $60 on Uber cost for every trip, and I would be happy to pay that much more for the airfare just to save the time.

      • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        You can get a ticket from San Jose to Long Beach for $60 today. Why would you pay double that for Reid-Hillview to John Wayne? Not to mention a prop plane is going to be much slower so you won't be saving the overall travel time.

      • by mjwx ( 966435 )

        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.

        They compete on convenience by NOT flying from SFO to LAX, and instead flying from/to smaller regional airports.

        I would pay a premium to fly directly from Reid-Hillview [wikipedia.org] in San Jose, which is a 15 minute walk from my house, directly into Santa Barbara or Orange County Airports. That would save me $60 on Uber cost for every trip, and I would be happy to pay that much more for the airfare just to save the time.

        Where I live there is an alternative to air travel called "rail". Rail "stations" are much smaller so they can be put at many more locations. Also they do not have the intensive infrastructure requirements of airports and many stations can be effectively unmanned. I can take a rail trip to a city 400 miles away for about the same time as flying considering that my nearest airport is a 25 mile drive. Granted that a city 400 miles from my current location has to be in another country. Perhaps you can petitio

    • by schwit1 ( 797399 )

      A 12-50 person aircraft is often used by people with more money than sense, such as CEOs or hollywood types. Cost per passenger mile may be less important than the appearance of being environment conscience. They can also write these costs off as a business expense.

      • by i.r.id10t ( 595143 ) on Saturday November 03, 2018 @08:44PM (#57587938)

        They are also how people get from small local airports to larger hubs and form the working group of the various small commuter airlines that go from hubs to regional or local airports.

        For the "power at take off" issue, why not steal the idea of an assisted take off from the Navy and the steam catapult? Since there is a much longer runway to work with the assistive acceleration wouldn't need to be as violent and sudden, which could make it usable for passenger if not cargo. No need to borrow the other half of the Navy solution and install arrestor hooks, still have a nice long runway to land on.

        • by c6gunner ( 950153 ) on Saturday November 03, 2018 @09:57PM (#57588104) Homepage

          why not steal the idea of an assisted take off from the Navy and the steam catapult?

          It's one of those catch-22 situations; no manufacturer is going to build a plane which requires that system until the system is in use on a very large number of airfields .... and no airfield is going to pay to install those systems until there are planes which actually need them.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Youâ(TM)re a bit behind the times. Look up the new EMALS electromagnetic catapult system thatâ(TM)s replacing steam catapults. Much less violent acceleration and more throttle control, I.e. can handle planes of many sizes. Also much lower maintenance than steam systems.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System

        • by eknagy ( 1056622 )

          An auto-detaching power cord could work even better and is readily available - spin up the engines as much as you can while breaking, then release breakes. You better have good brakes ;)
          A very long (think: mounted on a pick-up) auto-detaching power cord that can be reeled up can power you even until liftoff.

      • Reading the web site, I think the /. summary is misleading.

        They wouldn't go from SFO to LAX. They would go SQL to SMO. From their site:

        Today
        Route SFO to LAX
        Door-to-door time H:MM 4:40
        Fare $130

        Zunum
        Route: SQL to SMO
        Door-to-door time H:MM: 2:16
        Fare $121

        They must be projecting significantly cheaper operational costs to make regional airport service profitable.
        I like the smaller regional airports but they may not have the connectivity you need to get where you want to go.

        Another thing they mention: pos

        • They must be projecting significantly cheaper operational costs to make regional airport service profitable.

          The operational costs will be dramatically reduced, because the electric motor is heroically simpler than any of the other propulsion options except maybe solid rocket boosters — fine for takeoff assist, but impractical for other purposes. And then there's all the up/downstream stuff you don't have to check, like for water in the fuel, etc.

          • They must be projecting significantly cheaper operational costs to make regional airport service profitable.

            The operational costs will be dramatically reduced, because the electric motor is heroically simpler than any of the other propulsion options except maybe solid rocket boosters — fine for takeoff assist, but impractical for other purposes. And then there's all the up/downstream stuff you don't have to check, like for water in the fuel, etc.

            For a full electric aircraft I think the new tech will eliminate some things and create some new challenges, like
            Lengthy recharge time will increase aircraft turnaround time
            Unlike conventional fuel, battery weight will be the same on landing as it is on takeoff. This will affect landing gear and tires.
            Battery replacement costs depending on how many cycles they can handle (and the FAA will allow)

            Hybrid tech will probably be more complex and costly but save money on cruising fuel cost..

            I saw one study where

      • What do you think how often I sit in a plane that has 100 or more seats and only has a hand full of passengers? Once a year minimum. However, one reason for that usually is: the plane is expected to start the next morning from the other airport ... and then it is filled better.

    • Well, the example of LAX to SF was not about actually flying that route but giving an impression about the distance.

  • 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 p

    • It does not make much sense to plaster scandinavia with a rail way system, that supports small cabins of 10 - 20 people.

      Your jet fuel idea, or the navies idea will never be commercial viable. If you would watch the video you promote tho badly since months, you had realized that. Because they explain in details why that only makes sense for the navy. Hint: transportation cost of fuel to all places on the world where the navy has a carrier.

      • Here's someone with a doctorate that disagrees with you. Professor Gordon Aubrecht finds synthesized fuel from nuclear power is certainly viable. I don't recall how much detail he goes into it here but he's known to support synthesized fuel from nuclear power.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

        He makes the interesting case that the ultimate solution will be in solar power but we will need nuclear power to get us there.

        Here's another idea on a "bridge" to alternative energy. T. Boone Pickens thinks natural

        • You tell me it will never work?
          No, I did not tell you that. I simply pointed out that the links you provide are for the navy, to cut down their costs and supply problems. You most certainly would be the first one complaining if a gallon of gasoline at the station costs what the navy would pay for artificial fuel.

          Electric planes won't fly any time soon.
          They are already flying ...

          Synthetic fuels can happen very soon if we are truly concerned about a zero carbon future.
          In Europe, yes. On the rest of the worl

          • I simply pointed out that the links you provide are for the navy, to cut down their costs and supply problems.

            Then you are not clicking on the links I am providing. The US Navy is but one of many groups working on this problem. They get mentioned a lot because they have proven the technology. All that's left is working out the details to ramp it up to commercial scale production. This is very much unlike battery powered airplanes where there's no functioning prototypes. While it's true that the Navy has only tested their fuel (publicly at least) on a model airplane, the fuel works. They tested the fuel in a l

            • That's a laugh, no government will be lowering fuel taxes. Assuming that's true then you've proven my point.
              Of course they do. Or why is Bio-Diesel cheaper than ordinary Diesel? Because the tax, already right now, is on "mineral oil". Not on Bio oil or synthetic oil. Mix in Ethanol or Bio Diesel into your fuel and the amount of tax on the bill is lower.

              I obviously only watched your navy video ... I don't waste my time with video watching. Reading is 10 times faster.

              All that's left is working out the detai

              • It most likely will be bio gas and/or oils made from algae.

                No, it won't. I've seen the math and bio-fuels simply cannot provide the energy we need for transportation. Citation:
                https://www.withouthotair.com/... [withouthotair.com] (You'll have to read through the next few pages to get it all, not just the page I provided a link to.)

                Everything in your post is a steaming pile of unsubstantiated bullshit. There is no energy future for the world that does not include nuclear power or widespread poverty. Oil prices will rise as it runs out, at some point this price point will reach to

                • The future of "synthetic" fuel if you want to call it that way is Algae.
                  Not nuclear power. You can not produce competitive priced "gasoline" with electricity until the gasoline at your gas station has hit the $5.5 mark.

                  No idea what is so complicated in grasping that. It is in your own links.

                  You spreading your lies is not helping.
                  I don't spread any lies, asshole! A lie means the person is knowingly telling something that is not true. If I say something that is wrong, it is not a lie, asshole!!

                  • The future of "synthetic" fuel if you want to call it that way is Algae.
                    Not nuclear power. You can not produce competitive priced "gasoline" with electricity until the gasoline at your gas station has hit the $5.5 mark.

                    First, gasoline getting to $5.50 is certainly possible and the technology developed by the Navy, if deployed essentially as-is, would mean fuel costs never get above that. Absent such technology the costs could keep rising as petroleum becomes more difficult to obtain. Second, that price of synthetic fuels is based on no future development in cost reductions for nuclear power or this synthesis process. That $5.50/gallon isn't just the top end for petroleum based fuels then, as synthesized fuels would beg

                    • Here's something you could educate us both on, how much would this algae based fuel cost?
                      Why don't you google it?

                      https://www.google.co.th/searc... [google.co.th]

                      1.7 million hits ...

                      https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com] an easy read, you can even download the PDF.

                      And as you are so fond of youtube videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
                      Or if you like a more official one: https://www.energy.gov/eere/bi... [energy.gov]

                      So, your defense is your ignorance?
                      Ignorance about what? If you disagree with me or I say something wrong: it is not a lie

                    • Why don't you google it?

                      I believe I explained this to you before. I know what I know because I "googled it". I shared what I know with you and where I got it from so we can both know of what we are talking about. If you don't share your sources then I cannot know what you know except what little bit you've shared. If you know of a reputable source on all of this then point it out to me so I can soak it in, not just the tiny bits you put in a few words on a web forum. By not sharing your source I have no idea on if what you kn

                    • If you want me to believe algae has any possibility of producing enough fuel to meet any nation's transportation needs
                      ROFL.

                      I did not say enough ... it simply is much easier and more effective to make bio fuels with algae than making synt fuels with nuclear power (or other electricity, or heat).

                      Again, if you don't want to google stuff: it is your problem, not mine. I gave enough links regarding algae based fuel.

    • Too little, period. If air travel accounts for 2% of CO2 emissions, shouldn't we be focusing on other stuff first?
  • 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

    • I don't think you realize just how much electricity is needed. No, "a small hydrogen fuel cell or two" would not provide anywhere near the necessary power for the type of aircraft they're talking about. Maybe for something like a single engine 2 seater cesna ...

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Tupolev Tu-155 for people interested in the history of liquid hydrogen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
    • 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... [energypost.eu]

      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

      • fuel cell specific power in watts.
        Depends on the fuel cell. In Germany there is a market for high power fuel cells in the range of up to10kW - 20kW to heat houses and feed excess power into the grid. However for normal use, they are in the 1kW range.

        • > 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.

          • The fuel cells I mentioned are installed stationary in houses. The weight is completely irrelevant.

            where hydrogen again sucks because it requires a pressure vessel that weighs more than the fuel does.
            If you pressure it ... there are other solutions to store it. Most "normal" fuel cells run on natural gas anyway.

            • > The weight is completely irrelevant.

              You claimed I was incorrect about the power to weight ratio, also known as specific power. Specific power is, by definition, the power (watts) divided by the weight in kilograms. Weight is very much relevant to calculating power divided by weight.

              • First of all I did not claim that.
                I did not see any mentioning of "specific" in your post. That is all.

                And the definition you give here is wrong anyway. Specific power is related to fuel and its weight. Not the mass of the engine. Obviously you could argue that high power fuel based engines have a better weight to power ratio than a conventional fuel based engine. E.g. a rotary/Wankel engine versus a piston one.

                But: what has that to do with fuel cells?

                • > 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.

                  Hydroge

                  • 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.

                  • 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.
                    I don't know why you continue to claim this. It is simply wrong, even when I misread and gave an inappropriate answer to your "first post".

                    Here is an example: https://www.hydrogenics.com/hy... [hydrogenics.com]

                    • 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.

                    • Then I misread your point.
                      I was not aware that you are talking about fuel cells for flying.

                      Anyway, your fuel cell example, if I may nitpick, is for hydrogen fuel cells :D there are plenty of other types.

                    • 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, a

    • Why use a fuel cell on an airplane when it is perfectly suited as a fuel for jet engines?

      I can understand such use as a means for backup electric power but to provide power to propel the plane sounds quite silly.

  • 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.

    • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

      The president already has helicopters. How is an electric plane that needs an airport going improve his mobility?

      • by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

        It doesn't need an airport, it's supposed to be VTOL. It's also closer to the size of a car than that of a helicopter, so they could carry it inside Air Force One, wheel it out, and fly away. Go to the event, then fly back, load it back into the plane, and move on to the next stop. Don't paralyze half a city for a caravan.

        • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

          Do you realize that helicopters are already designed to be as small as possible while carrying a pilot and passenger? If they could have it any smaller (and thus lighter and cheaper to build) they would have done so already.

  • I say, use the batteries to create a plasma or big arc instead of the friggin' laser for the bong [slashdot.org].
  • 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.

Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know that?

Working...