Battery powered flights from Washington DC to LA. No longer a pipe dream?

[@patrickdegenaar9495]

In Europe about 17% of flights are internal and 36% intra EU. So if that new CATL battery could even do 2000km, about 50% of EU flights could be replaced. That is huge!

[@bartroberts1514]

Shorter flights tend to produce more emissions per passenger km, too. So 50% of flights may produce 80% of emissions. Even better, with lower cost per passenger km due to higher energy efficiency, logistics options open up for networks of shorter travel time, safer.

[@wnklee6878]

I already use an electric flash light.

[@serversurfer6169]

It's similar in the US. A switch at STL could get you anywhere. 🤔

[@Roguescienceguy]

Some hybrid type of plane should be doable. Take off and climbing takes most of the power plus pure battery flight at altitude would make a huge difference as far as pollution goes. CO2-emissions near ground level are far less of a problem than those at high altitude. To make it viable though we may need upwards of 500Wh/kg and that really is the bare minimum imho.

[@thatfatman6978]

Oh good, lets burn more coal to charge batteries for rich people to fly around. How about stop flying around?

[@ruchirjadav6959]

This is highly underrated you tube channel. God bless you.

[@elchaposexcitingadventures1674]

Good compliment but I don’t think it is underrated.

[@robinhodgkinson]

Underrated? Go easy! I and 573,000 other subscribers don’t think so. ; )

[@Hyfly13]

Quietly understated maybe, but all the better for it!

[@DrakeN-ow1im]

This, and many of your other videos, reminds me of the adage: "Those who declare that something cannot be done should get out of the way of people already doing it." Remember that heavier than air machines cannot fly anyway ;)

[@jonashertz6145]

Refreshing to not have to hear an a.i voice … thank you for quality

[@theharper1]

Agreed - if someone has something to say, a real person should be saying it. I generally refuse to listen to AI narrated videos and mark them "do not recommend channel" so hopefully I won't see them in my KZbin recommendations.

[@vinniepeterss]

yeah, couldn't more agree with you

[@A3Kr0n]

A.I. Dave just passed the Turing test!

[@jackmcandle6955]

AI Dave IS the best.

[@tarstarkusz]

Why? It's the same nonsense.

[@zeiar1987]

Everyone should watch this quality channel! Greetings from Finland.

[@ChemCrafter]

China cut down on domestic flight with far more efficient high speed rail. That seems like the sensible solution to me.

[@RLee-zs1ds]

Totally agree, as charging up thousands of aircraft, tens or hundreds of millions of cars, when most electricity is generated by fossil fuels, may not lower the carbon emission by much. Also most electrical grids are limited in capacity, which would mean charging would have to be "staggered" so that the grid does not collapse. High speed rail would be much more efficient, as high speed electric trains carry more passengers than an electric aircraft.

[@francesconicoletti2547]

I doubt there will be an electric rail from Europe to Ireland or London to Orkney any time soon. It’s not either or it’s both.

[@jamesgrover2005]

@@RLee-zs1ds "The EU has the lowest share of fossil fuels in its electricity mix out of the top four emitters, at only 33%."

[@dermotbalaam5358]

@@RLee-zs1dsWon’t be too long before fossil fuel electricity generation is a thing of the past.

[@chromagraphphotoart]

Agreed, except where there is a sea to cross.

[@HermannKerr]

Harbour Air here in British Columbia has been messing around with Electric Aircraft. It looks like they are still at it. The distances they are covering isn't that large as Atlanta to Los Angeles but with better battery tech should make there conversions easier. I really love your KZbin content and how you present it.

[@frank-y8n]

They started with a very old DHC-2 Beaver which re-engined. A cheap way to win experience. When they buy new aircraft these will be much better, thanks to that experience.

[@igavinwood]

Not a comment about the technical, rather a thank you for keeping the hope alive.

[@seamon9732]

The rate of progress in the battery industry is quite frankly incredible. Meanwhile some people think nothing has changed in the last 20 years. Misinformed or uneducated?

[@thankyouforyourcompliance7386]

The first misinformation supporting the person's retention sticks in the mind and becomes the person's opinion.

[@jamesgrover2005]

@@seamon9732 there's been a misinformation campaign by the fossil fuel industry for my entire 54 years, I hope to live to see their industry cut down to niche applications. "Worldwide every year 1 in 5 deaths can be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels." - Harvard study

[@macmcleod1188]

WIllfully ignorant.

[@Ominousheat]

@@thankyouforyourcompliance7386 A meritless idea still needs enforcing to stick or society soon forgets it. Propaganda acquires returns not by targeting an individual's perception but, just like religion, by using mob mentality, using a soundbite that will grab a lot of people's attention until a critical state is reached and people start following the perceived status quo so as to feel safe within the herd.

[@twostate7822]

Misinformed or uneducated? Yes!!!

[@chrismorris1304]

I have been looking for this video all morning and figured I missed it. Thankfully, now I can begin my day with my coffee and some education.

[@lorenzoblum868]

Coffee is not sustainable.

[@CharlieBehrens]

@@chrismorris1304 If you join the Patreon you'll even get it early

[@motodude23]

Coffee and opinions

[@magnetospin]

That's why you should subscribe.

[@MarilynStangl]

@@lorenzoblum868 Stupidity is!

[@billsugden3734]

Thanks for the great work on informing us all.

[@JustHaveaThink]

Thanks for your support. Much appreciated

[@ksairman]

I really love your battery information, great research and summary.

[@huthutchinson1778]

a big Thank You for providing perfect Closed Captions. I really appreciate the extra effort.

[@fje1948]

As a retired Airline Pilot (Airbus 340) I consider this to be excellent news. Unfortunately by the time this technology becomes commercially available, I shall be 6 feet under. Thank you for this video!

[@GruffSillyGoat]

You may take some comfort in that battery powered flight is being used today in short haul express freight, with the advantage of rapid turnaround times (charges in 30 minutes), plus being able to load the plane whilst recharging.

[@fje1948]

@@GruffSillyGoat Interesting! I am unaware of this and thank you for publishing this!

[@robertweekley5926]

Don't rush to the Exit Too Soon! Life is really as fast paced changing now, as it was 100+ Years ago, squared!

[@experimentalcyborg]

You never know. Doctors at the cutting edge can perform miracles nowadays, that stuff will eventually make it to the mainstream.

[@michaeloreilly657]

I'll be 6 foot under as well. These aircraft have a max weight of only 8 tonnes. Mere minnows.

[@lancerbiker5263]

Great info, extremely well researched and presented as always.

[@ght33]

The idea of Electric aircraft is so exciting. Air travel is my personal dilema. I tried driving from home in Vancouver Canada to winter home in Merida Mexico and while it was a wonderful experience I would not do it again, let alone every year! So very good news!

[@pin65371]

The problem is the weight. If a plane takes off and has to do an emergency landing they either fly around for a while to burn off fuel or they dump fuel. With batteries they have the same weight if the plane is fully charged or not charged.

[@jamesgrover2005]

@@pin65371 might they do that due to the explosive nature of aircraft fuel? Edit : or just take off with the required landing weight.

[@lorenzoblum868]

The problem is how will they generate the electricity. Burning more coal?

[@Arisaem]

I just want high speed rails. Waaay more reliable than flights (especially with climate change). Like 1 out of 3 flights I've been on, there's been delays. Sometimes for 2 days. The worst delay I had on the train was like 20 minutes. It would also be cool if they make more trains you can bring your car on. Those are still slightly less than a plane ticket but you can haul more things with you. Sounds like that setup would be perfect for you. As of now, they only have those from Maryland - Florida. Hopefully they're included with the high speed rails that are being planned in the states.

[@Pecisk]

Driving over 200 kms is taunting, train is good. Train starts to become a problem around 1000 km. Anything much more flight would be good. Also if we get electric flying, it is innovation. You still need tons of electricity, but fact it will be there is really good prospect.

[@arxaaron]

Awesome. The density of your energy density reports is increasing as fast as the battery technology! 😂

[@GhostFS]

hehehe Technology go so fast that KZbin video become outdated in few month and need to be updated 😅

[@RayCromwell]

Jet fuel has a density of 15,000 Wh per Kg, and he's quoting batteries with ~250Wh/kg. The plane would have to weight 50 times as much. It's 2 orders of magnitude worse than jet fuel. This seems far fetched.

[@GhostFS]

@@RayCromwell The fact that you need to cheat so much to get the point across means that we are getting near. 1) 500wh/kg not 250wh/kg 2) With fuel only you have a puddle on the ground. Don't compare a complete power system with two connection with a liquid that need a tank, a pump tubing, something to ignite burn and utilize this thermal energy to something that go to the propulsion 3) Jet fuel is around 12.000 Wh 4) Also need to count efficiency and while is pretty high not high ad battery and electrical engines. 5) Old jet engine are mature tech no margin to significant improvement are remaining. Battery on the contrary are getting better by wide margin every year. Add up all those things the gap is much more narrow. Also considering that only 10 years ago an electric airliner was total science fiction and now even if challenging and not economically convenient... but real tech. That's astonishing.

[@RayCromwell]

​@@GhostFS Lot of handwaving, but whether it's 50x heavier, or 25x heavier, the energy density isn't there. Even 3x would be horrible for planes. Maybe for gliders or some turboprops, but it makes no sense. You'd be better off running planes on cooking oil.

[@retoblubber]

@@RayCromwell Please stop acting so stupid. Studies show that an electric comercial airplane with a 500 Wh/kg battery could have a flight range of up to 3000 kilometers. No one needs your inane argument.

[@martincotterill823]

Dave, once again you give me hope! Keep up the good work

[@jonashertz6145]

Refreshing to not have to hear an a.i voice … thank you for quality content.

[@scottdvorak5606]

Excellent video. You do a quality job conveying this type of info. Keep up the good work!

[@smallmj2886]

In the early days of transatlantic aviation the planes used to stop for fuel at Shannon, Ireland and Gander, Newfoundland. The distance between those is 1981 miles. Hmmm.

[@jamesphillips2285]

Unless they do battery swaps like some have suggested: charge times may be a problem.

[@SimonEllwood]

​@@jamesphillips2285Did you watch the video?

[@jamesphillips2285]

@@SimonEllwood Fast charges are hard on batteries.

[@theunknownunknowns256]

In my little city which has a rubbish tip named after John Cleese, I see BYD's, Polstars, Tesla's, Leafs, Mach-e's, GWM's, Hyunda and Kia's. At intersections there is often at least a couple more EV's other than mine. Never have I ever seen a EV Toyota, GM or VW.

[@billycarr7446]

You saw one of the three MachEs that Ford sold? Amazing. Ford lots have lots of MachEs just gathering dust. Ditto with their electric trucks.

[@Quickshot0]

You haven't seen any electric VW? I guess people where you are don't get them, I've seen one come by fairly recently over here from the ID series.

[@theunknownunknowns256]

​@@Quickshot0I might of seen on electric VW, but wasn't sure. I have seen a few Taycan's I've just remembered.

[@Quickshot0]

@@theunknownunknowns256 True, really remembering everything one has seen isn't so easy. I think you remember more cars then I do though.

[@cfprecious1]

Great weekly video as always thanks

[@LiiMuRi]

The biggest operating cost for an airline is fuel. If a battery electric plane could cut the fueling costs significantly (say half), that would be massive for the industry

[@islandmonusvi]

Joby Aviation is progressing rapidly toward FAA Certification of its short haul commuter eVTOL.

[@KenLeonard]

As gently as possible, until it is a certified aircraft, it is vaporware. The ratio of new aircraft that get to mass production vs new aircraft that are “on the cusp” of certification for years until they close their doors…is brutally small. The FAA is going to be exceptionally careful about certification of a commercial carrier - they have done it for a handful of small prop planes to see how that goes.

[@CharlieBehrens]

You had me at 600 miles/charge!

[@leftcoaster67]

Would it still take 10 minutes to recharge to 80% of 600 miles?

[@Sekir80]

@@leftcoaster67 What if it is 15 minutes? Or 20? Does it make it useless then? Are you that impatient? Hope not!

[@leftcoaster67]

@@Sekir80 no it would be less griping from people who go on about how long charging takes. 30 minutes is fine for me I’d grab groceries.

[@ThatOpalGuy]

@@Sekir80 indeed, if you are on a trip where you are driving longer than 600 miles, a thirty minute break would probably be a good idea

[@ThatOpalGuy]

@@leftcoaster67 or enjoy the scenery, if charging on an interstate highway.

[@davidkendall2272]

It is not just China being responsible for lowering EV costs, but Tesla also deserves to be recognized for pushing China with Tesla's Shanghai gigafactory and constant innovations in their technology. I am long time Tesla owner since 2012, and know that Tesla has made immense strides to reduce the costs of EV ownership with the Model 3 and Model Y, which have been incredibly powerful in promoting EV adoption. I look forward to seeing further battery developments that enable battery electric planes to go mainstream and for longer distances. Tesla has also been active in furthering battery development in improving battery density. I laud China for all the things they are doing to promote our transition away from fossil fuel sourced transportation to battery electric transportation.

[@brianbailey4565]

Nice concise update on battery development, great report.

[@James_Ryan]

The price of jet fuel often determines whether an airliner is profitable or not in a given year, therefore the first airliner to adopt electric planes will have a huge cost advantage over its competitors, forcing them to also go electric!

[@jeffro369]

Winter will slow the operations down, de-icing, holding ect......

[@sammason2300]

I don't follow. It's much, much cheaper to buy energy in the form of jet fuel than electricity

[@skierpage]

​@@sammason2300 I don't think so. Meta AI thinks jet fuel is about $1.20-1.30/kg, and has an energy density of 12.3 kwh per kilogram, so the cost of energy is approximately.$0.097 - $0.105 per kWh. Volume Industrial can get electricity cheaper than that. Furthermore, a battery turning a propellor is more efficient than a turbofan jet.

[@DrSmooth2000]

That presumes the grid input is stable or declining price per MW Maintenance costs presumably lower. Charging presumably take longer than a refuel. Sharp pencil work

[@clapetto]

​@@skierpageThe problem is that weight for aircraft is absolutely central. Here we are talking about substituting a fuel that will be like 6 kWh/kg (considering 50% efficiency from fuel to fan rotation) to batteries that are currently 12 times less energy dense. It is not commercially viable except for very short flights and still with decreased load capacity. Indeed the aircraft they want to test this out with will be 8 metric tons ("fuel" included). A Gulfstream G100 series is 6 tons empty and 11 tons full so pretty similar, and can accommodate 6 to 9 passengers flying for 5500km. Consider that in this field costs don't scale linearly: engines that are 1% less efficient means more fuel to be burned, sure, but also means more fuel weight stored for the same distance flown, which means a reduction of load capacity. Overall this amounts to a 3% decrease in revenue for the airline.

[@chuckkottke]

Well that was highly edifying! Thanks Dave!! 🔋 ⚡

[@punditgi]

Let's hope you are right about the new batteries. Great video, mate! 🎉😊

[@glacieractivity]

Just look at the busiest passenger routes in the world Jeju-Seoul (Korea) 449 km 13 mill passengers Sapporo-Tokyo (Japan) 835 km - 11 million passengers Hanoi-Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam) - 11 million passengers Sydney-Melbourne (Australia) 705 km - 9 million passengers. If you look at Europe domestically, little Norway has 3 of the top 10 routes in Europe (since it is really hard to make high-speed trains for the same reason that makes Norway pretty to look at - it is a topographical challenge). 300 km in a straight line can easily take over 7 hours to traverse "overland" due to mountains and fiords. These domestic routes make "Amsterdam-Madrid" or "Paris-Rome" look like struggling routes by comparison. Get aircraft to charge fast enough with a "city-hopper" range of 1000 km and suddenly we are looking at tens of millions of flight hours turned into low emission. I also like what Airbus Helicopters is looking into. Because of what helicopters do (hovering above our heads) we require them to run two turbines over populated areas (like SAR/Ambulance services), both engines needing to be powerful enough to fly away on their own. Airbus is testing out a single jet engine with "5 minutes of battery reserves" in case a second engine is needed for an emergency landing. Hybrid solutions deserve our attention even though Japanese car makers have done their best to soil the concept for a decade.

[@liam3284]

Sydney to melbourne could largely be replaced by rail. It's an easy overland route.

[@liam3284]

If you mean hybrid aircraft, it makes sense, but there is a weight trade off. Take off and climb out are inefficient phases of flight.

[@viarnay]

Deus ex machina...

[@Gerhard_Schroeder]

As always... Great video!

[@supermikeb]

Dave, you are the only channel I pay at Patrion for, and I really feel I'm getting great value for it. I just love your channel! Thanks so much!!

[@maxvaessen]

Awesome stuff, as always!❤

[@martyschrader]

Can't keep up with the advances in electric power generation and storage. Once costs come down from the stratosphere things will really begin to evolve. Imagine having generation in your back yard, storage in your garage, and resource sharing with all your neighbors. What a world. Kiss the major fossil fuel giants goodbye.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

This is why the Saudis are "diversifying".

[@shawnr771]

The battery advances are outstanding.

[@robertkeller2309]

I love this account.

[@gptiede]

The ability to have regulations that require all flights under 3000 km to be electric would be huge! I don't know the statistics off hand, but I do know that most flights here in the US are shorter than that.

[@fritzmusic]

Took a stab at stats on ChatGPT that look realistic: Let's break down the estimate for the reduction in CO2 emissions if regulations required all flights under 3000 km (approximately 1864 miles) to be electric in the US. Current Short-Haul Flight Statistics: According to various sources, a significant proportion of flights in the US are indeed shorter than 3000 km. Exact statistics can vary, but it's commonly cited that a large majority of flights fall within this range. CO2 Emissions Comparison: Fuel Consumption: Short-haul flights typically use jet fuel, which emits approximately 3.15 kg of CO2 per liter burned. Electric Aircraft: While electric aircraft do not emit CO2 during flight, their electricity consumption and associated emissions depend on the source of electricity generation. Estimating Potential CO2 Reduction: Assuming an average short-haul flight distance and fuel consumption, we can estimate the total CO2 emissions from current short-haul flights in the US annually. Next, estimate how much of that could be replaced by electric aircraft, assuming full adoption under the regulation. Example Calculation (Hypothetical): Hypothetically, if we assume that 70% of US domestic flights are under 3000 km (a common estimate), and if each of those flights emits an average of 1 tonne of CO2 per flight (based on average fuel consumption and emissions factors), then: Total CO2 emissions from these flights annually could be estimated. If all these flights were electric, and assuming zero CO2 emissions from electricity generation (though realistically, there would be some emissions depending on the energy mix), we could estimate the potential reduction. Conclusion: Without exact statistics, a precise tonnage reduction figure is challenging to provide. However, based on rough estimates and assuming a significant portion of flights are affected, the reduction could potentially be substantial, potentially in the millions of tonnes annually. To provide a specific tonnage estimate, one would need detailed flight data and specific emission factors, which are typically available from aviation and environmental agencies for more accurate calculations.

[@martinwinlow]

Half US internal flights are less than 500 miles…

[@fintux]

And you could have a design where you swap the batteries, so you could do a stop not much unlike refueling and carry on. If you don't have any passengers swapped, it will not be that much of a slowdown.

[@trueriver1950]

Problem is that the airlines would claim that the plane is traveling internationally, and just picking up local passengers en route...

[@rogerheuckeroth7456]

If this technology actually makes it to market, you won't need regulations, because the lower operating costs will be all the incentive needed.

[@MerlinDerMagier]

Very cool - but for day to day travel, high speed rail will always be more efficient than flying (active flying at least).

[@tiro2041]

Remember the safety margins that civil aviation have. You are to fly from departure to destination with at most 5% en-route margin, then be able to make an approach, fly to an alternate airport (usually they are about an hour away from each other, too close and you suffer the same bad weather at both airports), be able to hold for 30 min at that alternate. I've been an airline pilot for 18 years flying medium haul flights in Europe, Africa and Middle East, most pilots will take 10-20 min extra fuel and in the winter it could be more to cover for delays with snow-clearance etc.A 3 km runway till take at least 15 min to clear from snow. So as you see a 3000 km range does not mean you can fly 3000 km... short-haul flights are usually turob-propp and they live on very short turn-around times and they use very small amounts of fuel (3-500 kg of fuel) for short trips (1 hour) so the environmental gains from switching to electric flight is very small. These planes are also super cheap to buy and operate so the financial incentive must be substantial for operators to switch. I love electric cars but we have a safety track-record in aviation that is close to perfect, one of the reasons why we have that is because of our ability to carry a lot of extra fuel for the days where the weather is not as agreeable.

[@gregmorgan3508]

Thank you for giving a realistic perspective on the flight possibility. The climate cultist don't understand this. I expect legislation in late 2024, saying the electic plane will be mandated by 2025. We will see planes at airports with long charging lines just like now for cars. Moreover, there is no consideration for all the burning cars that I have seen in China. I would wait until 2045 before flying with a battery from Chinnnnaa.🎉🎉🎉

[@timmurphy5541]

​@@gregmorgan3508 Realism might be facing up to how bad the situation can get. People who still think we will be flying (electrically) at all could be classed as super optimists.

[@TheLeapinleopard]

Multiple hops opens up a lot more range, and with electric savings, multiple hops will make even more sense than before.

[@charleslongway149]

To cross the Atlantic requires parking obsolete ships or old oil platforms along the mid Atlantic ridge and crossing in 2 hops.

[@davepermen]

​@@charleslongway149not really, distances of only 3000km of water do exist. Or, have a hop on Iceland for a northern route.

[@michaelpaczynski941]

Look for batteries to evolve faster than the route matrix. An electric c919 sized airplane by 2027? It took them from 2008-2023 for the non electric c919. Something says 2027 is a little aggressive……more like 2037 once you consider the lengthy 2 year flight test program to prove the batteries, motors, power regulation system. Then making it FAA/EASA compliant. Time will tell.

[@stevebishop1161]

Europe to Ireland to Newfoundland to USA. It’s how they used to do it 1800 mile stints.

[@tarstarkusz]

3:25 This is simply false. The closer the battery gets to 100% charged, the slower it has to be charged. 5c charging is what you get when the battery is flat. But that rate steadily drops as you get closer to 100. It's more like .2c when you're at 95%.

[@kiwitrainguy]

I don't understand why people (not you) are so obsessed with the speed of battery charging. Battery packs can be swapped if people are really in a hurry. An electric car can be charged overnight while its owner/driver is sleeping. I've heard that the slower a battery is charged, the longer it will last; or the inverse of that, fast battery charging shortens the life of the battery.

[@tarstarkusz]

@@kiwitrainguy Swapping battery packs is fantasy and though I suppose it is theoretically possible, ain't gonna happen. It would require all of the carmakers to use the same exact chemistry, same physical dimensions and use standardized connectors between the car and battery. No integrated structural batteries either. Even if the industry -could- wanted to do all this standardization, there are all kinds of practical considerations that would make it expensive at minimum and as long or longer as charging at worst. "Swap stations" would have all the incentive to fast charge the battery every single time.

[@luxorwest]

I like eviation and there move to Washington, the momentum in the renewable flight space is super exciting

[@Alpha-Chinoh]

This is like a bolt outta the blue

[@mickeybailey1108]

I love your videos. As a citizen of the USA I hear many people who do not believe that all the carbon we have put into the atmosphere is doing anything at all. The information you provide helps me to explain something very simple, that we are moving forward. I have even thought of putting an electric engine in my antique vehicle. Thank you for the information.

[@ellsworthm.toohey7657]

Ah China ! Just bought a 10 Tbytes SSD for 100 USD ! If they can do that, sure, these batteries will be available nex month.

[@celestinarogers2935]

Thanks for reminding us how far we have come already in termes of electric transport, i tend to see only what we have not achieved yet!

[@teardowndan5364]

When a normal plane needs to make an emergency landing early into a flight, it can dump fuel down to the minimum needed to run the engines until touch-down to reduce landing weight. With a battery-powered plane, the whole plane has to be designed to repeatedly bear the full landing weight under all circumstances. Making the cabin frame strong enough to prevent passengers from getting crushed by batteries in an otherwise survivable crash will require a lot more structure. 500Wh/kg is still only 1/10th the net energy density of most fuels: gasoline is almost 10kWh/kg and with jet engines being ~50% efficient, that is ~5kWh/kg net. Needing 10X as many batteries as you need fuel will severely limit economically viable plane sizes and ranges.

[@EleanorPeterson]

Yep. Liquid fuel tanks get lighter as they empty. And yet... and yet I feel sure that those wild-eyed EVangelist chappies will claim that a battery pack also loses a SIGNIFICANT amount of mass as it discharges. In a quantum sort of way...

[@EleanorPeterson]

Yep. Mass matters. When airlines are actually weighing their plastic knives and forks and swapping four tines for three tines to reduce weight, I can't see them wanting to haul massive empty batteries around. At least, not without quadrupling their ticket prices to cover the cost.

[@incognitotorpedo42]

@@EleanorPeterson Electric planes are vastly cheaper to run than hydrocarbon burners. I heard one example where the fuel for the combustion plane cost $700 while the electricity for an equivalent battery plane was $17.

[@sammason2300]

​@@incognitotorpedo42How can that be so? Buying energy in the form of kerosene is much, much cheaper than electricity

[@jamesphillips2285]

@@sammason2300 The advantage kerosene has is being light weight (oxidizer is stored off-board) and compact (liquids are more compact than gasses like hydrogen). The electric aircraft may also be more efficient than the Avgas one. It may be a bit of an apples-oranges comparison.

[@TheLRider]

I share your Chanel across other KZbin channels devoted to petrol heads, as I'm one myself. It is a really interesting exercise😂. Very impressed as usual. Thank you thank you for some sanity.

[@spoonfuloffructose]

It really is amazing how quickly Chinese cars have gone from mediocre to excellent. And it's all enabled by fully embracing electrification, which unfortunately western automakers are still fighting.

[@lorenzoblum868]

China did not waste its resources fuelling wars all over the places...

[@darren_anscombe]

With a handful of industrial technology theft

[@JeffBilkins]

With a bit of state sponsored information to smooth over the issues.

[@dianapennepacker6854]

Chinese government subsidizes the hell out of the EV industry. About time. Now we can start stealing tech.

[@lorenzoblum868]

Why when I write that Chinese didn't waste their resources into useless wars all over the places my comment gets erased?

[@ianmackenzie8831]

Don't forget that one needs spare capacity for emergencies so you can't use the entire advertised range unless it already includes a reserve.

[@tomellis4750]

With mass electric aviation could be electrified runways, taxiways, aprons, to charge batteries, via elecrical pickups, for quickest turnarounds.

[@aliyada]

The electric planes are really really cool! Especially for rural communities. Id rather see investment in high speed rail, but both would be grand!

[@liam3284]

Even ordinary speed rail, just some regular intercapital services. They are already selling out since air fares shot up, just need more supply.

[@tonydeveyra4611]

I have heard that takeoff uses a tremendous amount of energy, compared to cruising. This has always made me wonder if a ground-based catapult/launchers--similar to the ones used on Aircraft Carriers--could reduce the amount of energy the plane needs to generate onboard to get airborne, and if that reduction in energy expended could then facilitate switch to batteries from fuel.

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

Gliders often so something similar with a winch because tow planes are expensive and challenging. Unfortunately it can’t really get you a significant fraction of airliner cruising altitude. One thing airliners maybe could learn from gliders is using negative flap deflections to improve efficiency at high speed.

[@MalcolmRose-l3b]

Nice idea but have a look at a video of carrier pilots as they take off - that's some serious acceleration. I'm not so sure that mum, dad and the kids are up for that kind of thing in a passenger plane. I suppose something like Maglev might be a possibility though where you could increase the speed more gradually..

[@tonydeveyra4611]

@user-fm6ns5nb4j the reason why there's crazy acceleration on the aircraft carrier is because the aircraft carrier is a short runway because it's a ship. A ground mounted launcher on a standard airport runway could have the same rate of acceleration as a regular commercial plane takeoff

[@pin65371]

@@MalcolmRose-l3b also planes really are not that strong. They would need to add a massive amount of structural components to the plane which would add weight in order to launch a full sized plane like that. Even the idea of using batteries doesnt make much sense. If a plane has to do an emergency landing they usually either burn off fuel or dump fuel in order to get rid of weight to land again. You cant exactly do that with a battery.

[@mb-3faze]

@@thamiordragonheart8682 Catapults might be a bit excessive for your average passenger plane, but if the acceleration phase on the runway could be powered by ground electricity (like with electric trains) then that would take a huge strain off the batteries. Clearly taxiing could be ground powered.

[@samjohnston4945]

Another excellent episode Dave. Thank you.

[@andreasherzog2222]

If 500 Wh/kg give you a range of 3000 km, a rather small further increase to say 600-650 Wh/kg will make your range transcontinental, because passenger jets use 50-60% of the energy to get to their travelling height (~10.000 m). But passenger jets are very expensive and have a lifetime of several decades. So it will take quite a while to replace them.

[@DrakeN-ow1im]

Much of the requirement for the high altitudes at which commercial aircraft operate is due to the efficiencies of the engines increasing with reduced temperatures. Now, eliminate that factor and, especially for shorter flight distances, the loss of energy due to the climb requirement, might well be substantially rduced.

[@maxmirot9460]

Not even close the energy density needed at 500 wh/kg. The range and performance is a just not suitable . If you do the math you probably need at least 1000 wh/kg. Closer to 1500 wh/kg to start creating commercial airplanes

[@NitishYadav-lb7zc]

Its good to see battery technology being developed at such a pace . We all thought E fuels were the only option for aircrafts but as every time science rocks ❤😂

[@EarthCreature.]

Lilium is already underway with rolling out a nationwide vertiport. Their 2030 fleets will be coast to coast battery powered transport

[@Techmagus76]

but only on paper so far and addressing a very different market of very short flights as expensive air taxi between few stationary points.

[@iko3]

Pipedream.

[@EarthCreature.]

@Techmagus76 It's cheaper than a train or cab and far quicker so you're wrong in every way. Good try using your lackluster imagination though

[@EarthCreature.]

@@iko3 I love that you'll miss out on it 😂

[@Sjrick]

Wow this is really amazing. They have come much further than i realized.

[@LilyWasHereMB]

CATL is a (communist) state owned company that is rapidly advancing battery technology that directly benefits China's economy and population. In the US, while we tend to shy away from state-owned businesses, we often subsidize private businesses with tax-payer dollars in the hopes of achieving the same goals as China. Very often however, the result of US public-private partnerships is not an advancement of or bringing to market a new technology rather, its an advancement of executive bonuses and shareholder dividends.

[@joeds3775]

Solid truth here.

[@Romerso1]

Just returning from a 3 month China trip. Sorry, china is not communist anymore. Not living in communes anymore. No they are are socialist led by highly educated technocrats which got 800millions out poverty. Any nobel price for that?

[@MarilynStangl]

@@Romerso1 How low is the poverty level in China compared to the US? Even the homeless in the US could be easily fed and housed but the very rich wouldn't make as much profit from that so it won't happen!

[@liam3284]

Don't count out the US completely, some intetesting work on sulfer chemistry there. The US mostly suffered from lack of interest by investors, while the likes of LG Chem preferred to reuse their laptop battery designs.

[@brianschwarm8267]

China isn’t communist, they are state capitalist. They haven’t even achieved socialism, nor are they trying to. Let us know when their economy is full of worker co-ops instead of capitalist enterprises…

[@tarstarkusz]

Each charging station would need its own full size nuclear power plant to power a charger that could charge a large jet for a 3k km trip in 12 minutes, which isn't even possible.

[@anthonydyer3939]

12 minutes is a bit tight for all but the smallest of aircraft. 25 minutes is the budget airline benchmark, and 40 minutes is the legacy airline benchmark. But certainly you need a lot of power available at hub airports (which are perfect for solar farms as it just so happens. Edinburgh airport has a solar array just off the western runway threshold for example).

[@tarstarkusz]

@@anthonydyer3939 No, airports are terrible for the amount of land needed. The land around airports is scarce and prices high. Flights happen 24/7. They happen when it's cloudy. They happen at night. etc.

[@-LightningRod-]

Thanks for sharing!

[@jmr]

As long as it ain't a Boeing plane! 😂

[@Tom-dt4ic]

Relax.

[@AFNacapella]

"...the pedals in your legroom are there to help you avoid thrombosis" "why are the lights so dim?" "please keep pedalling."

[@hvxcolors396]

This means that a majority of European flights can be covered with this technology. But first Europe must fight against the technology with all kind of tariff barriers.

[@experimentalcyborg]

If China plays their cards right they allow those batteries to be exported at a discounted rate, the EU lets Airbus build planes with them in order to meet their own climate goals in time, and our local battery production initiatives will get subsidized to be able to compete somewhere in 2040 or whenever we finally get off our asses.

[@maxhugen]

Even at the cost of using more fossil-fueled power generation of the enormous electricity demands? Seems like a zero sum game currently... 🤷‍♂

[@Litheon11]

@@maxhugen Every year renewable generation is growing exponentially. So no, it would not necessarily mean that fossil fuel power generation will have to increase.

[@maxhugen]

@@Litheon11 Tell that to the Chinese for a start, who's coal-fired power generation is increasing by 7% a year! Worldwide energy related co2 emissions keep rising, as the demand for electricity sky rockets, also exacerbated by the huge power requirements of AI data centres etc.

[@pauleast4372]

@@maxhugen Except that China is installing more sustainable energy production than the rest of the world put together (refer recent production from this channel). Even UK is now targeting net zero energy production by 2030 - only fossil fuel lobby keeps pushing back.

[@peterjohn5834]

Another superb presentation. Thanks

[@charlesashurst1816]

Can’t be done. Never work. The steamboat- I mean electric vehicle - is pure folly. (Satire)

[@cwartcam]

Great work as ever. A problem with planes is that they're required to carry enough fuel to do a few missed approaches AND divert to an alternate airport if they can't land, making the useful range sadly a lot less than the nominal maximum range. But that's not to say it can't work for US-style "commuter" routes etc in the near future.

[@dtoften]

Energy density reaching 500 Wh/kg compared to Jet A having 12 000 Wh/kg with 2/3 being loss is still 4 000 watts/kg. Still a ways off since weight is paramount. EVOTL such as Lilium have the best use for >200km trips. As battery energy density increases, then this will likely turn towards regional aircraft but 3 000km seems unrealistic for any practical passenger/cargo payloads.

[@GruffSillyGoat]

Most battery aircraft manufacturers are currently targetting the short and medium haul segment that represents the majority of flights. Long haul flights may required further shifts in battery technology, such as Lithium Air that offers similar power density to Jet A and is expected to commercialise around the end of the decade. As a spot check Lithium air currently offers an energy density of 1.7kWh/kg but has short cycle lifetime (

[@liam3284]

I would only expect those regional, city bus sized planes to be competitive. Replacing long haul aviation doesn't strike me as an effective use of resources.

[@GruffSillyGoat]

@@liam3284 - I anticipate the pivotal driver for replacing long haul flight's power source will be an economic rather than environmental consideration. The rising cost of petroluem based fuels as demand elsewhere drops and production shrinks will drive the economic case for adopting different energy source for flight.

[@nicholasrigg8999]

Lithium Polymer (LiPo) batteries used to power Model aircraft have been available in 5C charge/discharge rates for some years now. They are somewhat temperamental though and I wouldn't step into a commercial aircraft if it was so powered!

[@Neilhuny]

I still have friends and relatives (and taxi drivers, who ought to know better!) saying things like "But ev's can only do 200 miles". So frustrating: many years out of date. But am I also still living in the past by blaming fossil fuel companies and right-wing American influence? I don't think so

[@TheEvilmooseofdoom]

Which IS funny since uber drivers buy BEV's at twice the average rate. Even the ones that only go 200 miles go 200 miles at half the price or less.

[@andrewjackson7785]

Great videos and you present them so well.

[@simonpannett8810]

Smart move by China that was finding it hard to compete with Airbus and Boeing in normal powered Aircraft. This move (if successful) could leapfrog their Airline Industry and leave the 2 giants scrambling! Sooner we de carbons ALL travel the better!! Meanwhile, why are we not replacing diesel units in our trains with these new high density batteries??

[@jamesphillips2285]

"why are we not replacing diesel units in our trains with these new high density batteries??" .. because that is a waste of time when you can just install a catenary.

[@simonpannett8810]

@@jamesphillips2285 I was thinking of "branch lines" and those said to be too expensive to electrify with overhead cables?

[@jamesphillips2285]

@@simonpannett8810 The other day I read a third-hand account of a proposal to replace long distance transmission lines with battery trains: due to the slow approval process in the US. So nothing would surprise me at this point.

[@Mekuso8]

If I were flying across the Atlantic, landing on some small island for a battery swap, giving the crew and passengers an opportunity to go out and stretch their legs for half an hour, doesn't sound all that bad.

[@stevebishop1161]

It would probably mean getting off the plane and boarding another one to continue the journey. The original plane would probably be charged ready for the next load of passengers heading their way 👍

[@Mekuso8]

@@stevebishop1161 Why not just swap the batteries? It works either way, I guess

[@leftcoaster67]

Fuel is one of the largest fixed expenses on aircraft. The only issue on battery electric transport Jet fuel as it gets burned, makes the aircraft lighter, where as the batteries don't get lighter as they discharge. The largest amount of energy is takeoff and landings. So the batteries not only need to be lighter and more durable, and energy dense. Would people be able to handle flights that took longer since battery electric engines are basically propeller engines. Compressed hydrogen might be a better alternative?

[@yodaiam1000]

You actually don’t use much energy landing.

[@leftcoaster67]

@@yodaiam1000 there’s a blip when you reverse engines.

[@pin65371]

@@yodaiam1000 its not the energy required to land. Its the weight. They try to land with the least amount of fuel to cut weight so they dont destroy their planes. With a battery that isnt exactly possible. Maybe they could beef up the plane more but now you are adding a lot more weight again.

[@thamiordragonheart8682]

You can make an electric ducted fan, so that’s not technically a problem, and electric motors are light, compact, and reliable enough that there are some alternative configurations available that are dramatically more efficient. You are right that it’s a problem for batteries that fuel burns and gets lighter over the course of the flight and batteries don’t. Hydrogen probably isn’t the answer because carbon fiber compressed hydrogen tanks are a beams 20% hydrogen and 80% tank. For liquid hydrogen the ratio is flipped but it still has a lot of packaging problems and is hard go work, and invariable generates much more NOx because of its higher flame temperature. I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up with hybrid electric systems

[@yodaiam1000]

@@pin65371 Yes, that is correct. There are different design challenges for electric planes including structural issues. Some planes don’t need to dump fuel in an emergency but others do. It also depends on the situation. So you can land heavy in some cases. The point is that for many AC it is possible to design them to land heavy. Electric AC will start out as regional which are less likely to have to dump fuel.

[@michaelg659]

Just discovered your channel. Passed it on to a friend We both love it.

[@Ryan-ff2db]

I have no problem seeing this take over for smaller loud and stinky turboprop planes but it's hard to imagine any jets being replaced by this. The blades just can't get enough bite to fly as fast and high as jets. This isn't a problem with battery density, it's a problem with the propulsion technology.

[@thomasr7129]

Maybe we need to consider the design of the aircraft itself, with more focus on range and less on speed. Also, using jet streams more efficiently, as well as going shorter stretches where possible.

[@NScherdin]

Turbo fans. For all intents all an electric "jet" would replace would be the turbine(s). The fan part would likely remain very similar.

[@Yattayatta]

An electric jet engine would more efficient than a Kerosene one, they just need more testing and development to actually get ready for the spotlight. Researchers estimate an efficiency in real world scenarios of around 85% for a plasma driven jet engine, compared to 35-37% for a Kerosene driven one.

[@Ryan-ff2db]

@@NScherdin Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not an engineer, but from what I've read the current "Electric Jets" would require an enormous amount of energy. A single Boeing 747 is the equivalent of almost 60,000 horse power(45MW) and there's four of them on a plane totaling almost 240,000hp or about 180MW. The Electric Jet engine proposed by MIT is 1MW or 1/44th the power of a jet engine. Even if they build an engine that big it would require the equivalent of 3,000 60kw EV batteries to run for just 1 hour. Again, correct me if I'm wrong because the math seems wonky.

[@jamesphillips2285]

@@Ryan-ff2db A 4 engine jet won't be running those at full power (unless carrying a fully loaded space shuttle). The plane is able to fly with half those engines missing. Second power drops off after the climb phase (but that phase is close enough to 1 hour, I will give you a pass on that one -- put the excess in reserve if you must). So "only" 1500 60kW EV batteries. Model 3 battery weight: 480kg 747-400 Freighter can carry: 113,000 kg Freighter can carry: 235 Tesla Model 3 batteries.

[@A3Kr0n]

I'm glad to hear everything is working out and our growth in resource usage can continue. Tom came out with a new video in his series: Metastatic Modernity #11: Renewable Salvation?

[@BrendaAbigailSaloli]

😍😍 I love the grounded reality of this channel!!! Retirement took a toll on my finances, but with my involvement in the digital market, $15,000 weekly returns has been life changing. AWESOME GOD ❤️

[@SandersEmmanuelHondas]

You work for 40 years to have $1 million in your retirement. Meanwhile, some people are investing just $10,000 in a meme coin for a few months, sometimes less, and are now multi-millionaires. I pray that anyone reading this will succeed in life.

[@RafaelFelipeJoaquin]

Well I engage in nice side hustles like inves'ting, and the good thing is I do it with one one of the best(Sarah Evelyn Fic), she's really good!

[@EmmaCharlotteAnthony]

I just checked and verified your details on Google. she is very legit. After raising up to 325k by negotiating with her, I bought a new house and a car here in the US and also paid for my son's (Oscar) surgery. Glory to God.shalom

[@Debrum_Shawniea_Sebastian]

No doubts, this Sarah Evelyn Fic must be an icon; how good is she and how safe is "profit making" with her.?

[@PeterJohnJude]

*with over 10 years of tra ding experience, Mrs Sarah has gained herself a good reputation by helping a lot of persons build their finances' through inves'tments🇺🇸.*

[@alan2here]

Have a solar panel powered floating airport to span long overseas distances, that hot-swaps batteries. It could be more of a giant raft than with more heavy-duty military aircraft carrier like designs.

[@thecityatlas]

Also, dump spent batteries while you fly, with a drone recovery system along the route. Carrying the weight of batteries the entire distance is an enormous problem for battery aviation, which may never happen for long haul that way despite the hype shown here.

[@juleswastin1534]

It is a great step forward but... is the actual flight in the aviation industry the biggest emissions... even on long-term usage...? (To be fact checked) Building planes and now there batteries with all the extraction of metals, the "métallurgie" for building or repairs as well as maintenance and the mining and airport infrastructures that pressure on biodiverse environnements... All of this has an impact as well that makes me ask the questions: How much does this translate in a drop of fresh air in our black smokey ocean of emissions?

[@barbaralemons4741]

Thanks. A very well-informed take, as always. : )

[@ricklines8755]

Thank you again, Dave! Very positive news here

[@Tordvergar]

There's another name for super high energy density batteries. Bombs.

[@beautifulgirl219]

Just have a think! Thanks. :)

[@davepermen]

3000km would be enough to fly Europe/NA with the right route. Or, with one landing in island for about all routes. Or, by charging in the air, as one startup suggests.

[@tommieronen7424]

Again excellent video Dave! =)

[@GuinnessDesings]

Great Work on explaining the battery improvements, thanks for the show, safer air travel is coming😄

[@mondotv4216]

Let's just be clear - when we are talking battery powered aircraft being capable of 3000 miles we are not talking about modern passenger aircraft. The test aircraft is 9 tons with the possibility of 18 tons. An Airbus A380 has takeoff weight in excess of 560 tonnes. Can anyone see the discrepancy? As others have mentioned a hybrid aircraft that uses liquid fuels for takeoff, climbing and landing might make some sense in smaller passenger aircraft.

[@MichelVaillancourt]

Charles Linburgh flight - 1927 DC-3 -- 1935 Lockheed Constellation - 1943 Boeing 747 - February 9, 1969 ... 40 years when they were literally _inventing_ flying with every take-off, to the 747. I suspect that it'll be a lot less than that to get to 100-passenger fully electric flights. The Connie was 100 passengers, and that was just _20_ years. Let's just be clear ... we _are_ talking about modern passenger aircraft in the near future.

[@mondotv4216]

@@MichelVaillancourt Yep we are and no they won't - for a start you have to go back to propellor driven aircraft which are much slower. Then you have to get over the specific energy density of current battery tech. That's the kicker. We've already started to run into theoretical maximums using current anode materials - yes we'll keep tinkering and getting better but for workable heavy aircraft we need 10 - 20x current technology. On top of that another physics problem for heavy aircraft. When you use jet fuel you get considerably lighter as you exchange mass for thrust. That doesn't happen as you transfer electrons. So you're as heavy landing as you were at takeoff. That means you need upgraded landing gear and longer runways. Analogies about previous advancements just don't hold up - because they were all powered by liquid fuels. We could build a hydrogen jet engine tomorrow, but it's a bad idea. Hydrogen has material and storage problems that raise a bunch of safety issues.

[@philiptaylor7902]

This is really encouraging news, decarbonising short haul flights would be a massive step forward.

[@martinp8889]

You know, I'm seeing too many eVehicle fire reports to give me any comfort about eAircraft. Maybe one day!

[@waynecoons9695]

Absolutely fantastic.

[@Happy_2_Wheels]

He looks like the stereotypical Brit who would spend the Saturday afternoon in his local pub swearing at a TV with a football match on it.

[@patrickgriffiths889]

Great work. Thanks .

[@gbsbill]

I just got a small electric battery and inverter to supplement our home during outages. My Idea is to recharge it during the day via solar or the generator and have it run the frig all night. Now that I have cycled it a few times I see personally the attraction of having solar on one's home. Thanks for all the video's on each you are helping to educate me on this technology. Note: I have lfp batteries.

[@crm114.]

Great overview, thanks

[@andyl2201]

Thank you for another excellent video 👍🏻

[@Karmabim123]

Highly efficient battery transport is good but that depends on what is used to power the electricity generators. Many countries including China produce most of their power from coal-fired generators. So it doesn't matter how clean the cars are if there's still huge amounts of CO2 from the power stations. I'm not convinced of the merits of electric powered transport over internal combustion. Decades of ongoing development have been put into improving ICE vehicle emissions and they will still have a major place in future transport.

[@liam3284]

Its is the case now, but changing quickly since 2018, coal and gas generation are now falling in absolute terms of energy generated, and will only be 1/3 of the grid by 2030. If a flattening population stabilises demand, fossil fuel generation will be an insigificant part of the grid mid century.

[@stefankuiper3738]

Yes, aviation is an extremely exciting prospect. In an industry where fuel costs take up such a large proportion of ticket prices, the industry will likely rapidly move to transition the this much cheaper form of flying, which will also need far less maintenance. Airbus and Boeing better get busy, or we will likely all be flying in Chinese planes on the very near future.