allardjd 1,853 Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 NASA Unveils Plans for Electric-Powered Plane http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/18/science/nasa-electric-plane-x57.html?_r=0 Interesting, but I'm not particularly impressed... "The design does not overcome the shortcomings of electric propulsion. Its 800 pounds of batteries will replace the rear two passenger seats, and the seat next to the pilot will be replaced with instrumentation, leaving space for only the pilot and no passengers. It can stay aloft for only about one hour." For comparison, two obese portly burly pax in a C-172 and an hour's fuel would weigh in at about 460 lbs, vice the 800 needed for the batteries. This thing is not intended to be remotely practical - just a demo of what is possible with a cutting edge application of current technology. It does not approach the performance/practicality of what's available on the market today. Basic research is necessary to push the envelope, and I'm all for it, including this project. This may not be a complete waste of money, though with a government agency doing the work, money will be squandered - that's pretty much assured. I expect some useful data will be extracted and potentially useful innovations will be developed. Anyway, the current state of affairs is that the energy density of currently available sources of electricity is just not in the same ball park as petroleum products. Batteries and fuel cells are the only remotely practical electrical alternatives to avgas and Jet-A, but neither of them will cut the mustard as they currently exist. Omission of solar from that list is not an oversight - it's an order of magnitude worse. You'd need a wing the size of Rhode Island for the solar cells and night flight or IMC conditions would be - - - - lets just say problematic. Direct combustion of hydrogen is a future possibility. That is not the same thing as fuel cells even though they use hydrogen as fuel too. I'm referring to direct combustion of hydrogen in an internal combustion engine. That's probably where we'll end up at some point if we have to move away from petroleum as an energy source, but certainly not in my lifetime. John 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Coffee 2,030 Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 (edited) I agree with much of what you say above John. Batteries are not nearly at the stage yet that can practically "fuel" an aircraft...nevertheless I'm excited that "Basic Research" is going on. I figure any "Basic Research" is going to squander money on avenues that don't end up pointing in the Final Direction taken...but that is the nature of Basic reasearch...exploring avenues and seing what can be found down them, even if it doesn't contribute to "THIS" venture, the information gained, if saved, could end up contributing to something new, or spur a new "Direction"...you never know, and that's why Basic Research is exciting...especially for the scientists involved no doubt, all of whom are hoping for an "Aha Moment". I am also puzzled that direct burning of Hydrogen isn't being pursued more. It's fairly abundant ...and it converts to water after it burns. It's the cracking it out of the water to begin with that is the problem...takes lots of energy to split H2O... more than would be available from the Hydrogen fuel created. Perhaps combining solar and wind farms (Non-mobile power) and using it to convert water into "Mobile Power" during periods of Peak Power production is a way to pull it off. It still wouldn't seem like a High Volume way to create fuel...however, perhaps commuter cars and local trucks will be using more electrical power from charging at home/office solar panels in the near future, and Mobile Clean Fuels can be used for vehicles like long distance trucks and airplanes that aren't able use electrical motors/solar charging systems due to range/payload issues. Edited June 18, 2016 by Captain Coffee Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted June 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 The waste I was referring to in government run projects was not the inherent risk in research of looking up what turn into blind alleys. It's the gross inefficiency that lack of a profit motive builds into any government activity. The thing government employees do best is to protect other government employees and to promote the "need" for more of them. You're absolutely correct about the hydrogen combustion cycle. It requires considerable electrical energy to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen - I believe it's on the order of about three times the energy available in the hydrogen produced. The advantage, of course, is that the hydrogen is portable while the power plant is not. The medium term answer might be fission nuclear. The long term answer is almost certainly fusion nuclear, when that becomes available. Wind power is not really going anywhere. Great Britain has just admitted that it's pretty useless and will build no more. Germany has suspended future expansion of wind farms. The inherent problem with wind and solar is that you must have enough conventional generation available to meet anticipated peak loads during times the output of wind and/or solar are low. It saves nothing in terms of being able to forgo the construction of conventional power plants. If massive energy storage on utility grid scales ever becomes practical, that could change but as long as electricity must be produced as it is demanded, wind and solar are fatally flawed. Wind and solar are utterly incapable of generating at competitive prices without heavy subsidies or taxation of the competing sources to "level the playing field". Either of those effectively drives the cost of energy up for the consumers. It's pretty much a boondoggle and the UK has finally come to its senses on this. Link to post Share on other sites
brett 2,316 Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 NASA has some of the best scientists and engineers in the world but I agree that they will turn it into a money drain and also take money away from the private work already being done at the moment. They need to be working on the root problems inherent in battery/electric use in aviation before they start building planes. Putting the cart before the horse is a waste of time in my opinion. Still they build some cool stuff, thanks for the link. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted June 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 2 minutes ago, brett said: Still they build some cool stuff... Yeah, they sure do. John Link to post Share on other sites
wain 879 Posted June 18, 2016 Report Share Posted June 18, 2016 Its the old battery issue again.. tech has advance leaps and bounds but batteries have not.. i read somewhere about new lightweight fast charging ones but they are a few years off..souch extra weight to be carried so impractical... Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Coffee 2,030 Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 (edited) John, I was listening to Bloomberg business the other day while driving, and your comments recalled a couple points from a discussion with a Nuclear Energy expert...not sure of her name...who commented that Solar and Wind power, during times of peak production, drive the cost of energy down, making nuclear plants lose money. Is that true? She also made the point that unlike other power sources, one can't just shut down a nuclear plant during times of excess power...so they are stuck having to just make money-losing power till the wind and sun die down again. So I am wondering if during those periods Nuclear plants could switch over to producing liquid hydrogen fuels. Build hydrocrackers and storage facilities on site...perhaps to reduce energy transmission loss, and to keep the process close to hand to react quickly to changing electricity values. At the very least they could fuel all their own on-site vehicles with the fuel, or sell it on open market And of course the oxygen produced could be captured and sold as well. Thoughts? I'm actually a semi-hippie very much in favor of nuclear power (fortunately my Local Friends aren't FS fans, and won't read this...shhhhh), caveat...if it is done safely. It is a great reliable 24/7 carbon neutral (relatively) source of power. There are ofc "scary" safety issues for all phases of NP, from mining waste, operating safely, and final waste disposal...but those are technically solvable problems...if there is the will and the money fund it all. Also...on reflection...I'm not sure that strapping existing electric motors, and existing bateries to an existing airframe (oh...new wing...cool) actually counts as Basic Research. Edited June 19, 2016 by Captain Coffee Link to post Share on other sites
brett 2,316 Posted June 19, 2016 Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 I think the only reason they build them now around here is for the federal alternate energy monies that pour in to their companies, not sure they care if they even work. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted June 19, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2016 "John, I was listening to Bloomberg business the other day while driving, and your comments recalled a couple points from a discussion with a Nuclear Energy expert...not sure of her name...who commented that Solar and Wind power, during times of peak production, drive the cost of energy down, making nuclear plants lose money. Is that true?" Not that I've ever heard. Solar and wind power might conceivably drive the marginal cost of energy down when operating, i.e. the cost of the next kilowatt hour generated is lower because their fuel cost is essentially zero. That ignores the cost of construction, maintenance and operation over the longer haul, the area under the expense curve. The grid is normally "fat" enough with load and other, higher cost generation that if wind/solar is unexpectedly high dialing back the nuclear output should not be necessary. Other, higher cost sources would be affected first. See below. Also, on grid scales, solar and wind maximum output is pretty much lost in the noise - it's a fart in a whirlwind in most places. It is true that nukes are not good load-followers, particularly when raising power - they have rate limits that must be adhered to when increasing power. They can shed load fairly quickly and can trip in less than a second if conditions call for it but jerking load around on a nuke is generally avoided for a number of reasons, technical, economic and safety-related. -------------------------------- "She also made the point that unlike other power sources, one can't just shut down a nuclear plant during times of excess power...so they are stuck having to just make money-losing power till the wind and sun die down again." That's a gross distortion of how grids work and how nuclear plants work. Nukes can take about 24 hours to re-start after a shutdown for any reason, sometimes longer. A situation where the need arises to shut one down because wind and solar output happen to be high is a pretty far-fetched scenario, but they can reduce power without shutting down fairly quickly if that's called for. It almost never is. A power grid is usually a multi-state system covering a few hundred thousand square miles and a hundred or more good-sized cities. The grid at any given time has many generation sources connected, all carrying some part of the load. They break down more or less like this... Base Loaded Plants: Low-cost, high-volume sources; sources not good at load-following; sources mandated by regulations or contracts. Typically nuclear or large-capacity natural gas fired units, but others as appropriate. Opportunity Sources: Usually low marginal cost. Hydro when water levels are high or adequate; wind and solar when available. Cross-connects from other systems when contract prices are favorable. Rolling Reserve: Good-sized units running at low to medium power that can be spun up quickly to respond to large, sudden load changes, e.g. when another source suddenly goes away, a high-voltage transmission line opens, etc. Typically higher fuel cost fossil-fired units are very good for this. They run fairly well at low/medium power and can respond pretty fast to increasing demand. Peaking Units: Types that can be easily started and shut down quickly and can run for a few hours at a time when load peaks are anticipated. Often, but not always, high-cost. Typically diesel, pumped storage hydro, gas turbines, older, smaller, less efficient fossil-fired units not yet retired. Other: Other generation sources, which may include any type of generation, typically loaded in ascending order of marginal cost. -------------------------------- "So I am wondering if during those periods Nuclear plants could switch over to producing liquid hydrogen fuels. Build hydrocrackers and storage facilities on site...perhaps to reduce energy transmission loss, and to keep the process close to hand to react quickly to changing electricity values. At the very least they could fuel all their own on-site vehicles with the fuel, or sell it on open market And of course the oxygen produced could be captured and sold as well. Thoughts?" There's no demand for it but it's plausible if the need emerges. Not on-site though - the security measures are cripplingly expensive. I need to point out, however, that we are not so fat in nuclear energy in the US that we have plants sitting around waiting for some load to connect to. Nukes are almost always base-loaded; the dispatchers will take all they can generate any time they can generate, for as long as they can generate, partly because they are not good load-followers but mainly because their marginal generation costs are low. If we're going to have large amounts of nuclear-powered hydrogen production, we'll have to build both. -------------------------------- "I'm actually a semi-hippie very much in favor of nuclear power (fortunately my Local Friends aren't FS fans, and won't read this...shhhhh), caveat...if it is done safely. It is a great reliable 24/7 carbon neutral (relatively) source of power. There are ofc "scary" safety issues for all phases of NP, from mining waste, operating safely, and final waste disposal...but those are technically solvable problems...if there is the will and the money fund it all." Nuclear Power is like aviation; if you're going to do it you'd damned well better be doing it right. Licensing and regulation of both activities is intended to assure this. Usually, it works. -------------------------------- "Also...on reflection...I'm not sure that strapping existing electric motors, and existing bateries to an existing airframe (oh...new wing...cool) actually counts as Basic Research." No comment - I've said enough about that already. -------------------------------- Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted June 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 2 hours ago, brett said: I think the only reason they build them now around here is for the federal alternate energy monies that pour in to their companies, not sure they care if they even work. Brett, you're turning out to be a pretty perceptive guy. John 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Coffee 2,030 Posted June 20, 2016 Report Share Posted June 20, 2016 I appreciate the time you put into that reply John. Very well explained. You basically contradicted what the (I refrained last time but I'll actually put the "s on it this time) "expert" on the radio said: nuclear is a high cost to generate power...and operates in the red on sunny and windy days/peak generation of wind solar, or times of low demand. Makes me want to just keep my music on in the car and ignore all radio "Talk". Cheers. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) Quote Direct combustion of hydrogen is a future possibility. That is not the same thing as fuel cells even though they use hydrogen as fuel too. I'm referring to direct combustion of hydrogen in an internal combustion engine. That's probably where we'll end up at some point if we have to move away from petroleum as an energy source, but certainly not in my lifetime. Over the past decade, the worlds major car manufacturers have conducted a lot of expensive research in regard to IC engines that burn hydrogen. It sounds like a great idea of course, the most abundant element in the universe, doesn't emit toxic or greenhouse gas emissions [at least not directly], but the drawback is inefficiency. Ford, Mazda and BMW are the only manufactures that haven't abandoned the hydrogen powered IC engine and all have scaled back their research. Everyone else working on hydrogen has adopted the fuel cell. Modifications are required of course to allow an IC engine to run on Hydrogen. Consequently a hydrogen powered IC engine would be 50% more expensive than a petrol powered equivalent. Energy density is also significant. petrol has an energy density of 34.2 MJ/L, whereas hydrogen has an energy density of only 10.1 MJ/L. Compressed gaseous hydrogen is even lower at 5.6 MJ/L. Obviously this means a hydrogen IC engine would produce a lot less power than we are used to with our petrol powered IC engines. The focus therefore for the majority of the manufactures is on fuel cells. So no, It's not looking likely that we will ultimately end up with hydrogen powered IC engines in our vehicles. Quote Wind power is not really going anywhere. Great Britain has just admitted that it's pretty useless and will build no more. Do you have any links to that? As far as I know there has been no such announcement in the UK. The only recent announcement I'm aware of is from Hugh McNeal, the CEO of a wind energy trade body. He was referring to the limited wind velocity in England, and how it may be no longer financially viable to build "onshore" wind farms now that subsidies are ending. So That's "onshore" and "England", not "offshore". and not Ireland or Scotland or Wales. As far as "wind not going anywhere... the first wind farm to be built in the English channel will commence in 2017.Unless it's been canceled and nobody told me. And worldwide of course ...the IEA forecast a 40% rise in wind power in 2017, with onshore wind expected to show the biggest growth. That's far from not going anywhere. Quote Wind and solar are utterly incapable of generating at competitive prices without heavy subsidies or taxation of the competing sources to "level the playing field". http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-06/solar-wind-reach-a-big-renewables-turning-point-bnef Quote Wind power is now the cheapest electricity to produce in both Germany and the U.K., even without government subsidies, according to a new analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). It's the first time that threshold has been crossed by a G7 economy.1 Quote The economic advantages of wind and solar over fossil fuels go beyond price.5 Still, it's remarkable that in every major region of the world, the lifetime cost of new coal and gas projects6 are rising considerably in the second half of 2015, according to BNEF. And in every major region the cost of renewables continues to fall. On the subject of subsidies... the fossil fuel industry is estimated to receive subsidies of up to $5.3 trillion per year! That includes the cost of environmental damage. If you don't count environmental damage, the IEA tell us the fossil fuel industry receives $548 billion per year, although this figure does vary each year. And in 2015, the UK government was the only G7 nation to increase subsidies for the fossil fuel industry while simultaneously reducing subsidies for renewable energy. The UK government actually pays £6bn a year in subsides to the fossil fuel industry, and firms like Shell and BP get twice that provided to green energy providers. Quote Shelagh Whitley, an author of the ODI report, said: “The UK has been cutting back support for solar power and energy efficiency, arguing that the burden was too high. Our figures reveal that in spite of supposed budget constraints the government is giving ever increasing handouts to oil and gas majors.” Edited June 21, 2016 by MartinW Link to post Share on other sites
MartinW 0 Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 (edited) On 18/06/2016 at 20:42, wain said: Its the old battery issue again.. tech has advance leaps and bounds but batteries have not.. i read somewhere about new lightweight fast charging ones but they are a few years off..souch extra weight to be carried so impractical... I have a Tesla showroom locally. Had the pleasure of sitting in a Tesla at the weekend, 400 mile range and 0-60 in 3.2 seconds. Tesla call it "scary mode". Fantastic for the motoring most of us do in the UK, but not so good for your annual holiday to Cornwall. Tesla charging stations are free to use, but you'll have trouble finding them. The extra weight of the batteries isn't an issue. The batteries in the Tesla are actually a structural component. If you removed the battery pack you would need to add extra metal to the structure. Hydrogen fuel cells are something liken 7 times more efficient than hydrogen powered IC, however, something like the Teslla is many times more efficient than a fuel cell. Quite a way to go yet, but electric vehicles are getting there. This has swayed away from aviation of course so I'll leave it at that. Edited June 21, 2016 by MartinW Link to post Share on other sites
allardjd 1,853 Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 25 minutes ago, MartinW said: This has swayed away from aviation of course so I'll leave it at that. Good choice. Me too. John 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts