Otto Aviation done with Phase One testing of Celera 500L aircraft

Tantalum said:
TheDrive recently did a good review of this. It's not just coal and where the power comes from, it's the whole mining process of lithium that is often overlooked. For several of these applications the breakeven point is well down the line as far as CO2 emissions goes

https://www.thedrive.com/news/electric-pickup-trucks-are-dirtier-than-you-think

TLDR-sorta-from the article;

"..
These are large, heavy vehicles with massive batteries, and there's still an environmental price to pay even if the costs have been pushed upstream and out of sight. Most electricity generation in the U.S. still produces CO2, though renewables are more in the mix depending on where you are. More important is that manufacturing electric trucks produces far more emissions than their internal-combustion counterparts. The crush of new models this year made us wonder: Where's the break-even point between gas and electric pickups? How far would you need to drive both a 6.2L V8 Ram TRX and a silent Hummer EV before their lifetime emissions catch up and the Hummer becomes the truly greener option?

We crunched the numbers, and found out the answer is farther than you'd think. Will today's electric trucks be better for the planet over time than their fossil-fueled equivalents? Absolutely. Do they cut carbon emissions enough in the short or long term to justify driving one over something smaller, even a gas car? Absolutely not.
.."
Click to expand...
Exactly my point on the mining process. But it's not just carbon emissions that has me thinking lithium batteries are a stop gap. Lithium is mostly found in arid climates where water is scarce. Put the lithium ore into a water slurry and wait. It destroys the soil structure and leads to unsustainable water table reduction. Some of the largest lithium reserves are part of the Salton sea and they're coming up with new technology to mine that... without destroying what little ecosystem is left.

If we took the investments we've made into wind, solar, and lithium and put them to nuclear and hydrogen projects I think the environment as a whole, not just carbon emissions would benefit. But Nuclear is a dirty word to the green new deal folks.
 
Racerx said:
But Nuclear is a dirty word to the green new deal folks.
Click to expand...

Not sure this is true, or even has been true for many decades. Most nuclear obstructionism I see is by NIMBY.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Not sure this is true, or even has been true for many decades. Most nuclear obstructionism I see is by NIMBY.

Tim
Click to expand...

Oh I think they’re out there. Renewables alone won’t meet future needs.

 
Having spent a few years in the nuclear industry, the thing that killed it more than anything else was cheap shale gas. The company went from trying to get in on the hopeful boom in new plants to doing mostly demolition work. Now why spend $18 billion and 15 years for a new plant when you can get a gas plant for $1 billion in two years.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure you meant $18 billion, not million. I think it's glaringly obvious those that support renewable energy are vehemently opposed to nuclear power.

Given the abilities of modern materials and manufacturing, digitized process control, and the fact the US Navy has operated hundreds of nuclear submarines and ships with 20 year old enlisted personnel for almost seventy years without an accident, it's clear opposition to placing small modular reactors on the grid is driven by ignorance and ideology.

EDIT: Before someone says "What about Thresher and Scorpion?", those tragedies were caused by critical piping systems failures due to faulty construction. Since the Navy initiated the SUBSAFE program after those incidents more than fifty years ago, there have been no failures or incidents related to shipboard reactors.
 
Last edited:
Yes billion! The technologies on the SMRs have a lot of promise. Will probably take one of the government utilities to take the plunge and buy the first one. The science is there. Now it’s just the politics and the money.
 
3393RP said:
I'm sure you meant $18 billion, not million. I think it's glaringly obvious those that support renewable energy are vehemently opposed to nuclear power.

Given the abilities of modern materials and manufacturing, digitized process control, and the fact the US Navy has operated hundreds of nuclear submarines and ships with 20 year old enlisted personnel for almost seventy years without an accident, it's clear opposition to placing small modular reactors on the grid is driven by ignorance and ideology.

EDIT: Before someone says "What about Thresher and Scorpion?", those tragedies were caused by critical piping systems failures due to faulty construction. Since the Navy initiated the SUBSAFE program after those incidents more than fifty years ago, there have been no failures or incidents related to shipboard reactors.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, we didn't stop flying after the first few accidents. We learn and the technology by now is current is extremely mature. That's a great point about all of our predominant military tech running on nuclear
 
TomF said:
Yes billion! The technologies on the SMRs have a lot of promise. Will probably take one of the government utilities to take the plunge and buy the first one. The science is there. Now it’s just the politics and the money.
Click to expand...

Going on memory, there was a design approved for a SMR. And the factory to build the SMR is supposed to come online late this decade with a government utility as the first customer.

Tim

Edit: found it: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-approves-first-us-small-modular-reactor-design
 
Really cool!

(except the digital windows)
 
While the design is cool, this story smells like their previous project failed, so they are pivoting and needing more investment money for another risky project.
It would be nice to know why, after all that hype, the Celera did not go into production?
 
If he can hoodwink some of the private equity guys to give him a bunch of money and use it to work at building an aircraft, that's fine by me. There's a capital glut and spending some of it to hire engineers and machinists/fabricators sounds good to me.

I sure won't be giving them any of my money.
 
MountainDude said:
While the design is cool, this story smells like their previous project failed, so they are pivoting and needing more investment money for another risky project.
It would be nice to know why, after all that hype, the Celera did not go into production?
Click to expand...
Exactly. And using big words like laminar flow private equity doesn't understand. Like other aircraft don't have some laminar flow. At a certain point you've got to **** or get off the pot. Ditto for evtol's.

I'm sick of hearing "game changer". It's said so frequently it's lost all meaning. Wasn't the Red engine they were running supposed to be part of the game changer? Delta hawk finally gained approval. But 15 years after it was deemed a game changer and it feels like all the hype has become stale and unable to capitalize.
 
FormerHangie said:
If he can hoodwink some of the private equity guys to give him a bunch of money and use it to work at building an aircraft, that's fine by me. There's a capital glut and spending some of it to hire engineers and machinists/fabricators sounds good to me.

I sure won't be giving them any of my money.
Click to expand...
Could this be some kind of a carbon credit trading scheme? “On paper, our aircraft’s carbon emissions per seat-mile are 5% of a Gulfstream. If you give us millions of your real dollars, you will offset your imaginary carbon emissions enough to cover your next 20 trips by private jet.” I don’t know how much reality enters into carbon neutrality.
 
Racerx said:
Exactly. And using big words like laminar flow private equity doesn't understand. Like other aircraft don't have some laminar flow. At a certain point you've got to **** or get off the pot. Ditto for evtol's.

I'm sick of hearing "game changer". It's said so frequently it's lost all meaning. Wasn't the Red engine they were running supposed to be part of the game changer? Delta hawk finally gained approval. But 15 years after it was deemed a game changer and it feels like all the hype has become stale and unable to capitalize.
Click to expand...
Yeah they keep using “laminar flow” over and over again as if they invented it. They also speak of the aircraft’s performance in the present tense. As if it’s a proven design and already flying. Definitely wish them luck. I always like to see new designs but I hate the hype of crazy claims that never come to fruition.
 
MountainDude said:
While the design is cool, this story smells like their previous project failed, so they are pivoting and needing more investment money for another risky project.
It would be nice to know why, after all that hype, the Celera did not go into production?
Click to expand...
Didja notice how the previous failed iteration has become a technology demonstrator and proof of concept? Too funny.
 
geezer said:
Power paste is not an energy source, it is an energy storage system, with the usual energy loss in its creation, and release.
Click to expand...
Serious question. What's the difference between an energy source and an energy storage system? It seems like they are, from a practical standpoint, synonyms to me.
 
Salty said:
Serious question. What's the difference between an energy source and an energy storage system? It seems like they are, from a practical standpoint, synonyms to me.
Click to expand...
From a practical pov, the sun is an energy source and batteries can store the energy captured by solar panels. Of course, one could argue that all matter is an energy storage system with the challenge being extracting the energy
 
Bob Noel said:
From a practical pov, the sun is an energy source and batteries can store the energy captured by solar panels. Of course, one could argue that all matter is an energy storage system with the challenge being extracting the energy
Click to expand...
That's my point. The sun can be viewed as energy storage or a source, in my view. I don't really see a practical difference. If anything the difference is simply perspective of usage. A battery is a source if I have a device that's designed to stick a battery in it, but it's a storage device if it's in it's packaging.
 
Salty said:
Serious question. What's the difference between an energy source and an energy storage system? It seems like they are, from a practical standpoint, synonyms to me.
Click to expand...


Salty, lets consider the power paste cartridge after a flight. It just recharges itself, and ready to go again? No it must be connected to an energy source, and recharged.

The analogy of the battery still in its wrapping being an energy source does not acknowledge that the chemicals mined had energy locked in them, and the combination produced useable electric power until the reactions used up that energy, and the battery became trash.

I use mostly rechargeable batteries, and recognize the power in them come from the local coal burning power plant that extracts the energy of coal to produce electricity. They repeatedly flew my little electric airplane, but that energy came from coal.
 
Salty said:
That's my point. The sun can be viewed as energy storage or a source, in my view. I don't really see a practical difference. If anything the difference is simply perspective of usage. A battery is a source if I have a device that's designed to stick a battery in it, but it's a storage device if it's in it's packaging.
Click to expand...

consider hydro-electric as an energy source. Water flowing downhill can be captured and used, or it can just run downhill without providing power for any usual purpose (let's ignore commentary on "useful" such as whether lighting NYC at night is truly useful).

Technically, water is flowing downhill because of it's potential energy state being higher in the earth's gravity well. From a practical POV, that technicality is only of interest to nitpickers and such.

maybe consider this: any energy storage can be used to provide energy on-demand. Not all sources can store energy to be used on-demand.
 
geezer said:
Salty, lets consider the power paste cartridge after a flight. It just recharges itself, and ready to go again? No it must be connected to an energy source, and recharged.

The analogy of the battery still in its wrapping being an energy source does not acknowledge that the chemicals mined had energy locked in them, and the combination produced useable electric power until the reactions used up that energy, and the battery became trash.

I use mostly rechargeable batteries, and recognize the power in them come from the local coal burning power plant that extracts the energy of coal to produce electricity. They repeatedly flew my little electric airplane, but that energy came from coal.
Click to expand...
Coal is just a energy storage system.
 
Salty..... You win.

Depending on point of view, a moving train is both coming and going simultaneously.

You pick a point of view, you win.
 
geezer said:
Salty..... You win.

Depending on point of view, a moving train is both coming and going simultaneously.

You pick a point of view, you win.
Click to expand...
I wasn't trying to win. I was curious if there is some technical difference that actually defines one over the other. I'm not finding one. It seems, as you said, to be purely a difference in perspective.
 
I think it's more a commonly accepted use of terminology. "Energy storage" means, in common use, something that stores energy - a battery, a gas tank. "Energy source" means, in common use, the "thing" that is stored. Electrical potential, gasoline, hydrogen, and so on. Sure, you can get more technical, more specific, more pedantic. Coal or gas or the sun or a lake is energy storage, whatever. Gravity is an energy source. Doing that doesn't add any value.
 
May have been posted before, but laminar flow in the lab has potential, but in the real world not as much. The P51 had a laminar flow wing. But the real advantage came because of manufacturing quality that allowed the parts to fit well, etc. that reduced drag. It’s not a silver bullet.

I wonder if the next phase of testing will be “successfully concluded” coincidentally only when the next round of funding runs out. But of course before anything is certified or even a final design is set.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top