Those monsters

[flyingcheesehead]

Harbour Air is a fantastic operator... and they are all about going green. I agree with you... this model would be a good place to start. My question is how do you stay charged. This operation is a turn and burn model, with flights leaving every hour, and turning around to come back. That is how they do well. How can you charge an airplane and continue this?

Well, if they're saying it's good for a 30-minute flight, and charge time equals flight time, then all they really need to do is plug 'em in as soon as they arrive, charge while unloading/reloading pax and cargo, and that'll be most of the charge time they need. And no more hot starts!

The Beaver came with the 450 HP Wasp Jr. I know they are specing a 750 HP motor but figure 300 HP average over the trip. 300 HP x .746 kW/HP = 223 kW or 223 kWh for their stated endurance. For the Tesla S, "90kWh pack has 7,616 cells; battery weighs 540kg (1,200 lb)", so we are looking at about a 3000 lb battery pack.

Yeah, these aren't going to be quick-swap batteries, unless there's some sort of a lift they can build into the docks. This is going to be a plug-in-and-quick-charge model I'm sure.

It's not a problem dragging a huge high power electric cord over the dock to a plane floating in water?

You're not just putting a massive extension cord on it. Looking at what is used for electric cars, there is no power on the power pins until the plug is in the vehicle, and the vehicle's and charger's computers have communicated the amount of power available and the amount of power desired. THEN they turn on... And the power pins are a first-make, last-break type of connection so if you unplug it while it's charging, it automatically shuts off and you don't get a giant spark.

You could drop an automotive charge cable into salt water and not have it short anything.

Making these planes electric with a horde of high-tech batteries will give an inflight electrical fire a whole new level of excitement.

Batteries burn slower than avgas.

Going green is good! Fire up those coal, oil, and gas power plants to make more of that green electricity!

Even if you burn avgas to make the power in the first place, you'll be more efficient and thus nicer to the environment than burning avgas in a piston engine. Power generation, transmission, and electric motors are all around 90% efficient, so figure 73% overall efficiency in terms of useful energy out of the fuel, vs the 30% or so efficiency of a naturally aspirated piston engine.

That's a great thought if you're in British Columbia where you have thousands of acres of unused land that you can dedicate to storing water and enough elevation change to make hydro power profitable, but here in the flat lands, every foot of water takes up a lot of land space which is used for ag production. Somebody's got to feed the world.

And that's why we have a lot of wind power going in here in "ag country". But you can put solar in above the ditches and canals that take water to the crops, too. Hell, you can burn cow farts!

As I like to tell people, there's a lot more energy in your Taurus's fuel tank than a Tesla's batteries.

Yes, but the vast majority of the energy in the Taurus's fuel tank is going to be made into waste heat instead of usable power. A 100kWh battery on a Tesla is, well 100kWh. That's about the same energy content as 3 gallons of gas. But, the Tesla will be 90% efficient at turning that into motive power, while the Taurus will be maybe 30% efficient if it's relatively new and well-maintained. So, the Tesla will go over 300 miles with its "3 gallons" while the Taurus is going to take about 13 gallons to travel the same distance.

 

[Brad Smith]

Batteries burn slower than avgas.

I'm speaking of electrical fires, not gasoline fires. Lithium batteries burn with an intense heat that can set off surrounding batteries and melt an aluminum or composite airframe in seconds. If a Lithium battery drops below a certain voltage it can become unstable and self-ignite, and remember, there will be hundreds of these cells connected together to power an aircraft. The chance of having a cell go off is probably higher in a seaplane like the DH2 or Beaver which will be subjected to vibration, saltwater, altitude changes, extreme temperature fluctuations, hard landings etc. Also, the performance of a battery powered aircraft degrades with every charging cycle of the batteries. Not so important for ground based transportation, but an aircraft depends on a pre-determined performance capability for climb rates, clearing 50' obstacles, reserves etc. Electrically powered aircraft are a neat idea but not quite ready for prime time.

 

[Salty]

Even if you burn avgas to make the power in the first place, you'll be more efficient and thus nicer to the environment than burning avgas in a piston engine. Power generation, transmission, and electric motors are all around 90% efficient, so figure 73% overall efficiency in terms of useful energy out of the fuel, vs the 30% or so efficiency of a naturally aspirated piston engine.

So you lost 70% efficiency burning the avgas in a piston engine, but it’s still more efficient after Losing that 70% and then another 30% of what’s left. This is how you get people to invest in these projects.

 

[alfadog]

Supposedly energy density in EV batteries should double in the next few years to, say, 400 Wh/kg. That would make something like this feasible. Given present technology, I doubt they can build much more than a proof-of-concept with nowhere near the ability to fly any significant useful load for one hour.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Also, the performance of a battery powered aircraft degrades with every charging cycle of the batteries. Not so important for ground based transportation, but an aircraft depends on a pre-determined performance capability for climb rates, clearing 50' obstacles, reserves etc.

Certainly, they'll have to limit both peak power and the amount of the battery capacity they use to avoid performance being degraded, but that's pretty much a no-brainer. Anyone who isn't doing this with Lithium batteries is just dumb... And I'm sure the people who are doing this aren't dumb.

So you lost 70% efficiency burning the avgas in a piston engine, but it’s still more efficient after Losing that 70% and then another 30% of what’s left. This is how you get people to invest in these projects.

What are you talking about? I gave the gasser the benefit of the doubt in not including the energy cost of refining or transporting the fuel. But what you're saying makes no sense.

Supposedly energy density in EV batteries should double in the next few years to, say, 400 Wh/kg. That would make something like this feasible. Given present technology, I doubt they can build much more than a proof-of-concept with nowhere near the ability to fly any significant useful load for one hour.

Unfortunately, aviation is too small to drive sea changes like this. The fact that we're even talking about it is thanks to the automotive industry, and they still haven't gotten near the good part of the S curve yet.

Luckily, we can take advantage of the advances in automotive technology. The same sensor technology that was developed for air bags in the late 80s and early 90s is what allowed glass panels to come to GA in the early 2000s. Once the automotive market can figure this whole battery and charging thing out for us, electric planes have a much better chance of becoming feasible.

 

[CharlieK]

Even if you burn avgas to make the power in the first place, you'll be more efficient and thus nicer to the environment than burning avgas in a piston engine. Power generation, transmission, and electric motors are all around 90% efficient, so figure 73% overall efficiency in terms of useful energy out of the fuel, vs the 30% or so efficiency of a naturally aspirated piston engine.

Power generation is around 90% efficient, even if you're burning avgas? If you're talking about future possibilities... maybe so. If you're talking about what can be done right now, your numbers are off... just a touch.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Power generation is around 90% efficient, even if you're burning avgas? If you're talking about future possibilities... maybe so. If you're talking about what can be done right now, your numbers are off... just a touch.

Well, since I don't think anyone uses avgas in a utility-scale powerplant, the efficiency there is purely theoretical. I figured that was obvious.

But it does appear that I was misremembering the thermal efficiency of other kinds of powerplants. Still, it would have to go much lower before it would be as bad as a normally aspirated Otto-cycle piston engine.

 

[Dav8or]

95% of BC's electricity is generated from renewables. The rest is from biomass. Coal based power generation has been eliminated in Ontario and Quebec. Makes greener sense than say, the US east of the Mississippi.

Thank you. We really need to bury this anti electric bull crap. Even in most of America that does use coal, electric is still better than burning gas/diesel.

 

[3393RP]

After reading the article, it seems like they're only refitting the beavers that have already been ruined with the PT6. And, they said it would take an hour of charge per hour of flight, but that will get better with new battery tech.

I wonder if the eBeaver will be flown by the senior pilots, or if the junior pilots will?

It's always "new battery tech". Everyone assumes since computers became faster and the smartphone was invented, batteries will magically gain better energy density. Even the guy modifying the Beavers does it.

By then, Ganzarski expects battery power densities to have improved enough to enable Harbour Air to fly full passenger loads with at least 45 minutes of flight time and 30 minutes of reserve power.

Chemical batteries are not going to provide a 50% increase in power density by 2021. That's twenty one months from now.

All of these electric power pushers sound like Lyle Lanley, the guy trying to sell a monorail on The Simpsons.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It's always "new battery tech". Everyone assumes since computers became faster and the smartphone was invented, batteries will magically gain better energy density.

It has nothing to do with magic, and everything to do with the number of R&D dollars being spent on the problem by the automotive industry and to a lesser extent the computer/smartphone industry.

It has already improved a fair bit in the last several years, but it's not attributable to "magic," just science.

 

[3393RP]

The Beaver came with the 450 HP Wasp Jr. I know they are specing a 750 HP motor but figure 300 HP average over the trip. 300 HP x .746 kW/HP = 223 kW or 223 kWh for their stated endurance. For the Tesla S, "90kWh pack has 7,616 cells; battery weighs 540kg (1,200 lb)", so we are looking at about a 3000 lb battery pack.

Since the Beaver has a 2,100 lb useful load, I believe I see a problem.

 

[3393RP]

It has nothing to do with magic, and everything to do with the number of R&D dollars being spent on the problem by the automotive industry and to a lesser extent the computer/smartphone industry.

It has already improved a fair bit in the last several years, but it's not attributable to "magic," just science.

Give me a break. Your answer is just the same inane generalities that have been used for years. The provider is saying there will be a 50% improvement in battery density in 21 months. R&D money doesn't change chemistry.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Since the Beaver has a 2,100 lb useful load, I believe I see a problem.

How much does one of those big radials weigh? Including all supporting systems - Fuel tanks and lines, exhaust, starter, alternator, etc... Certainly less than the battery, but a significant percentage of the battery weight will be made up for by removing all that other stuff.

Give me a break. Your answer is just the same inane generalities that have been used for years. The provider is saying there will be a 50% improvement in battery density in 21 months. R&D money doesn't change chemistry.

There's certainly no guarantees of 50% in 21 months. It may only be 5%, which might not even be enough to switch production over to a new thing. Or, someone could have a breakthrough and it could be 100% by then. They'd need to be having that breakthrough right about now, though, to have things in mass production a couple years from now.

My point was that it isn't "magic" like you said before. It's science. And there are a LOT of people doing research on increasing battery energy density and other battery characteristics right now. Yeah, chemistry doesn't change - But the chemistry of the guts of the batteries that are being used DOES change. We've gone from Lead-Acid to Nickel-Cadmium to Nickel Metal Hydride to Lithium Ion with a lot of more minor changes in between and since.

Yes, it's possible (but unlikely) that nobody will come up with anything in the next two years. It's also possible (but unlikely) that we'll get a cheap supercapacitor that can store 500 kWh in a 10-pound unit. I think 50% in two years is quite optimistic, but not at all outside the realm of possibility.

 

[3393RP]

They are replacing a PT-6, not a radial. Based on the photo in the Forbes story, the electric motor isn't much lighter than the turbine.

Thank you for telling me batteries have evolved from lead acid to ni-cad to NMH to Li ion. I had no idea.

Again, your post is just generalities that are posted thousands of times per day all over the internet.

Expecting a battery with 50% more energy density to be available for bolting into this theoretical electric DHC-2 in twenty four months is most assuredly out of the realm of possibility.

Your stance on electrification is well known. IMO you don't do reality very well. Almost every post you make has some element of supposition or apple polishing.

I look at things a bit more realistically.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

They are replacing a PT-6, not a radial. Based on the photo in the Forbes story, the electric motor isn't much lighter than the turbine.

Ah. That does change the equation somewhat.

Thank you for telling me batteries have evolved from lead acid to ni-cad to NMH to Li ion. I had no idea.

You didn't act like it.

Again, your post is just generalities that are posted thousands of times per day all over the internet.

Because they're simple truths: 1) progress is happening, and 2) it's science, not magic.

Anyone who is posting specifics and not generalities is probably a battery researcher or knows one... And that number of people is vanishingly small.

Expecting a battery with 50% more energy density to be available for bolting into this theoretical electric DHC-2 in twenty four months is most assuredly out of the realm of possibility.

Again... I didn't say I "expect" it. I just said it's not impossible.

You say it's impossible. There's a 99% chance you're right. I say it's possible, but highly unlikely. There's a 100% chance I'm right.

Your stance on electrification is well known. IMO you don't do reality very well. Almost every post you make has some element of supposition or apple polishing.

I look at things a bit more realistically.

It's not that I'm unrealistic about these things - It's that there are plenty of naysayers who will bring up the negatives. I don't need to do that, because they take care of it for me.

But, my perspective has changed after actually experiencing electrification for myself, and finding that it's not nearly as bad as those naysayers like to say.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

There’s some interesting work with lithium sulfur batteries, and polymer electrolytes. Some of this work is in early commercial stages. Whether these products stand up to the rigors of real world use is still to be determined, in my opinion. I suspect @flyingcheesehead is getting his battery performance improvement numbers from this work. It exists, but I don’t know if, or how soon, we’ll see it.

 

[PaulMillner]

Well, since I don't think anyone uses avgas in a utility-scale powerplant, the efficiency there is purely theoretical. I figured that was obvious.

But it does appear that I was misremembering the thermal efficiency of other kinds of powerplants. Still, it would have to go much lower before it would be as bad as a normally aspirated Otto-cycle piston engine.

Yeah, my professional experience was that combined cycle power plants were closer to 50% efficiency... but that’s better than the 34% of simple cycle. Of course, we weren’t looking at latest and greatest, or we wouldn’t have been there...

Remember, the most efficient plants are going to be base loaded. Incremental demand will be met by those 34% efficient standby plants.

Paul

 

[CharlieK]

Obviously the best solution is to figure out a coal fired alternative for use in aircraft. Batteries be damned.

Nuclear might be a better option, wouldn't have to fuel often. Enough fuel for the life of the plane, would be a much safer alternative to those that suffer at fuel planning...

 

[SkyDog58]

My goodness. I will first admit that I have not adequately studied up on the technology itself so I cannot weigh in on the actual feasibility of it. However, I believe that if someone is willing to spend their money on development of the technology and someone else is willing to be an early adopter of the technology, eventually we all could potentially benefit from it. I'm glad to see individuals and companies putting in the effort and cash to move the technology forward. I wish them success.

 

[alfadog]

The base R-985 weighs 640 lbs. Add accessories, oil, etc. and you are probably shedding close to 1000 lbs. I am sure that they can build a decent demonstrator with a 200 kWh battery and enough left over for a crew of two even if they go a bit over certificated gross. Work out the bugs while better batteries are perfected. Both lithium-metal and solid-state batteries are not too far out.

 

[TipTanks]

Hydrogen fuel cells anyone? I kind of like the idea of the belly mounted batteries with a jettison feature

 

[flyingcheesehead]

There’s some interesting work with lithium sulfur batteries, and polymer electrolytes. Some of this work is in early commercial stages. Whether these products stand up to the rigors of real world use is still to be determined, in my opinion. I suspect @flyingcheesehead is getting his battery performance improvement numbers from this work. It exists, but I don’t know if, or how soon, we’ll see it.

FWIW, I don't have any numbers. I just know that a lot of work has been going on in this arena for the last decade especially, and that improvement has been happening, and further improvement is highly likely.

I don't consider 50% improvement from today to 2021 to be likely, but I also don't consider it to be completely impossible, nor "magic".

 

[3393RP]

The base R-985 weighs 640 lbs. Add accessories, oil, etc. and you are probably shedding close to 1000 lbs. I am sure that they can build a decent demonstrator with a 200 kWh battery and enough left over for a crew of two even if they go a bit over certificated gross. Work out the bugs while better batteries are perfected. Both lithium-metal and solid-state batteries are not too far out.

Again, the aircraft being converted is powered by a PT-6. The 350 HP electric motor looks to be an even weight swap. The fuel tanks probably don't weigh more than 200 lbs.

I see you're another one of those that knows energy density magic is just around the corner.

 

[3393RP]

FWIW, I don't have any numbers. I just know that a lot of work has been going on in this arena for the last decade especially, and that improvement has been happening, and further improvement is highly likely.

LOL...

Could you be a little less vague?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

LOL...

Could you be a little less vague?

No. Like I said before, anyone who has actual specifics on this is a battery researcher, and those are pretty rare.

But, let's go back to what you said at the beginning of our disagreement:

It's always "new battery tech". Everyone assumes since computers became faster and the smartphone was invented, batteries will magically gain better energy density. Even the guy modifying the Beavers does it.

All I'm saying is that IT IS NOT MAGIC. IT IS SCIENCE. And it is driven by R&D dollars, which right now are largely coming from the automotive industry. Tesla, LG Chem, and others are putting a lot of effort and money into improving the energy density of their batteries, and they are having some success.

Just looking at Tesla's packs, the energy density has improved by over 25% from the S/X packs to the 3... But at the module/cell level, it's done better than that because the 3 pack includes the charger and the DC-DC converter in addition to assorted other bits that were external to the pack on the S/X, so the mass of the 3 pack as measured was artificially higher than it would have been in an apples-to-apples comparison.

By then, Ganzarski expects battery power densities to have improved enough to enable Harbour Air to fly full passenger loads with at least 45 minutes of flight time and 30 minutes of reserve power.

Chemical batteries are not going to provide a 50% increase in power density by 2021. That's twenty one months from now.

I missed this before, but you need to check your math. That's a 25% increase, not a 50% increase... And with the reserves that the pack will need to have built into it already, it's more like a 15-20% increase at the cell level.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

FWIW, I don't have any numbers. I just know that a lot of work has been going on in this arena for the last decade especially, and that improvement has been happening, and further improvement is highly likely.

I don't consider 50% improvement from today to 2021 to be likely, but I also don't consider it to be completely impossible, nor "magic".

How about 100% improvement in energy density? They are building a plant to make Li-S batteries. Current Li-S technology has twice the energy density of current Li-ion batteries, and theoretically up to 5x the energy density. Historically, we've achieved fairly close to the theoretical limits.
https://oxisenergy.com/https-oxisen...019-02-codemge-press-release-final-004-1-pdf/

Sony is reportedly going to sell such batteries in 2020.

LOL...

Could you be a little less vague?

See above.

Give me a break. Your answer is just the same inane generalities that have been used for years. The provider is saying there will be a 50% improvement in battery density in 21 months. R&D money doesn't change chemistry.

R&D money never changed chemistry. R&D money lets us learn chemistry, then exploit it. I should know- I'm a chemist.

 

[alfadog]

Again, the aircraft being converted is powered by a PT-6. The 350 HP electric motor looks to be an even weight swap. The fuel tanks probably don't weigh more than 200 lbs.

I see you're another one of those that knows energy density magic is just around the corner.

I was going off the base certificated numbers for the original Beaver. Losing the R-985 and all that entails from the base numbers should give them more than enough to install the electrics if they are allowed a bit over certificated gross as experimental and I do not see that as a problem. The PT-6 is irrelevant, I am using base certificated numbers.

 

[3393RP]

How about 100% improvement in energy density? They are building a plant to make Li-S batteries. Current Li-S technology has twice the energy density of current Li-ion batteries, and theoretically up to 5x the energy density. Historically, we've achieved fairly close to the theoretical limits.
https://oxisenergy.com/https-oxisen...019-02-codemge-press-release-final-004-1-pdf/

Sony is reportedly going to sell such batteries in 2020.


See above.


R&D money never changed chemistry. R&D money lets us learn chemistry, then exploit it. I should know- I'm a chemist.

You need to do another Google search. The glowing press release from Oxis fails to mention the serious impediments that prevent Li S batteries from being considered a viable energy storage system. They are nowhere near becoming a commercial product.

At this point the "factory" Oxis is building is nothing more than a pilot plant. It is not a production facility.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

You need to do another Google search. The glowing press release from Oxis fails to mention the serious impediments that prevent Li S batteries from being considered a viable energy storage system. They are nowhere near becoming a commercial product.

At this point the "factory" Oxis is building is nothing more than a pilot plant. It is not a production facility.

They've had a number of breakthroughs in 2017 in this technology. They've apparently overcome the polysulfide issues that previously limited the number of recharge cycles. Making 2 million cells is a bit more than simply a pilot plant. There have been other advances in 2018 as well, but Oxis is the furthest along towards commercialization.

Another company, Sion, has been supplying Li-S batteries for about 4 years now for specialized applications. At that time, commercial- yes, but not ready for most uses due to a limited number of recharge cycles. They have too, since then, incorporated the improvements that went around the polysulfide issues.

You're going off old information.

 

[EdFred]

It's not hatred against electric it's the that the people that buy these look at everybody else with some sort of disdain like they are somehow morally superior to the rest of us. I put electric vehicle drivers in the same category as vegans. It's mostly for show and status and "look at me" not really about being green, especially when you look at the rest of their energy footprint.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I don't understand the vehement hatred against electric.

10 years ago Tesla announced the model S. Look where they're at now. And people were saying it was a waste of time. That people would never buy it. That electric cars were useless since they could *only* drive 250 miles before needing to recharge. That the superchargers were a gimmick. Etc etc. Yet here we are.

Electric cars are great. Driven them. They really nice. If I could afford a model S, I'd get one. The benefits are huge. As someone else stated, the efficiency is fantastic. Modern power plants are more efficient than automobiles at generating power.

If a power plant is more efficient than an internal combustion engine, and you don't lose the increased efficiency via transmission loss... what's the issue? I mean, fossil fuels are AMAZING sources of energy. Buttt.... What exactly is the problem with using them more efficiently?

I don't get it either. Electric vehicles have limitations, but they work pretty well within those limitations. I drove a hybrid last week on both legs of my trip. Drove over 200 miles, moved equipment between customers, and used only 4 gallons of gasoline. If I lived elsewhere, I'd buy a full EV for my normal commute. It's not a matter of being "green", it's a matter of saving money on gasoline and periodically stopping to buy fuel.

Some of the comments I read in this thread make me think of this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05091-3

 

[3393RP]

They've had a number of breakthroughs in 2017 in this technology. They've apparently overcome the polysulfide issues that previously limited the number of recharge cycles. Making 2 million cells is a bit more than simply a pilot plant. There have been other advances in 2018 as well, but Oxis is the furthest along towards commercialization.

Another company, Sion, has been supplying Li-S batteries for about 4 years now for specialized applications. At that time, commercial- yes, but not ready for most uses due to a limited number of recharge cycles. They have too, since then, incorporated the improvements that went around the polysulfide issues.

You're going off old information.

No, I'm using current information. At this time, Li S batteries are not close to being a commercially viable product. Sion may sell them, but most likely they are very small pouch cells unsuitable for anything more than research applications.

As for OXIS, here's what the press release you linked says:

CODEMGE’s US$60m investment will go towards the building of the plant in Belo Horizonte with Phase 1 having a cell capacity of 2 million cells per annum. Collaborating with Siemens Digital Factory, among others, the aim is to design a plant that will produce around 5m cells by the mid 2020s. OXIS expects to complete Phase 1 in 2022.

Receiving money going "towards the building of the plant" is not the same as building a plant. The $60M investment is a fraction of the money needed to build a facility capable of the stated production goals. Note the timeline given; OXIS "expects to complete Phase I by 2022”. The gratuitous mention of Siemens gives the appearance of the industrial giant's imprimatur, when in fact no such link exists.

Furthermore, OXIS's claim the plant will have "a cell capacity of 2 million cells per annum" is quite a bit different from your implication that two million cells will be produced in the near future.

In fact, their announcement makes no commitment at all they will be making a product for commercial sale anytime soon. It is purely speculative.

Another page on their website confirms my statement their planned facilities will be pilot plants:

Building pilot cell manufacturing facilities: The commercialisation scale up plan is to build cells in pilot facilities and prove them in a number of applications.

Full scale cell production is planned for our pilot manufacturing plants in Brazil and in the UK.

Again, "production is planned". By the company's own statements, it's evident their technology is immature and unready for production. If OXIS is "the furthest along towards commercialization" as you stated, the implications for Li S batteries and the industry as a whole are obvious.

There has been little or no progress in solving the issues that cause rapid deterioration of Li S cells during discharge and charging.

This document produced by the Berkeley Livermore National Laboratory is a year old, and since its publication there has been no indication from researchers or industry of any recent progress in mitigating polysulfide migration across Li S electrodes.

The lithium-sulfur battery has a theoretical energy density much greater than commercial lithium-ion batteries; however, the technology exhibits fade and hence limited battery life. In these batteries, active sulfur species (as dissolved polysulfide ions) migrate to the lithium metal electrode. Then, irreversible reactions involving these polysulfides can occur at the electrode that result in the loss of its ability to store charge. Attempts to protect the metal from the polysulfides have been only partially successful.

https://science.energy.gov/bes/highlights/2018/bes-2018-04-h/

The facts are plain, Li S battery technology has large hurdles to clear before it can become useful.

 

[3393RP]

I don't understand the vehement hatred against electric.

It's not hatred. The exaggeration and misinformation produced by Tesla and other sources is parroted by proponents of the technology, and the hype surrounding discussion is usually unnoticed by those the faithful seek to convert.


Those that rebut or criticize are labeled as haters, as you have done.

 

[Darter 100]

I think the ticket to any of these electric commuter planes is going to be to have a removable battery that can be charged at the terminal, and a new fully charged battery swapped in for the flight. No different than filling up the fuel tank really!

Like a fork lift at a assembly plant swap out and keeep moving

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It's not hatred against electric it's the that the people that buy these look at everybody else with some sort of disdain like they are somehow morally superior to the rest of us. I put electric vehicle drivers in the same category as vegans. It's mostly for show and status and "look at me" not really about being green, especially when you look at the rest of their energy footprint.

Ed, I don't think I'm "morally superior." And I don't want people to "look at me", in fact my first EV was a Ford Fusion Energi and one of the things I really liked about it was that it looked EXACTLY like a plain old gas Fusion, with the exception of the charge port door and the small "Energi" tag on the back (similar to their EcoBoost tags).

I had an i3 for a year, because it was a freaking steal. Under $150/mo. I dealt with the weird EV look by waiting for Corvette drivers to give me that "morally superior" look of disdain at a stoplight and leaving them in the dust. But I'm glad to be back to a Volt now, which looks more like a normal car. I *hate* the "EV look", as do most people, which is a large reason why they don't sell particularly well. Most of us EV enthusiasts would rather have more normal-looking cars, like Teslas, Volts, and Fusions.

And you're right, it's not really about being green. It's about enjoying driving again. It's about the convenience of not having to stand at a gas pump when it's -10 degrees out (or having to go to a gas station at any temperature, for that matter).

It's not hatred. The exaggeration and misinformation produced by Tesla and other sources is parroted by proponents of the technology, and the hype surrounding discussion is usually unnoticed by those the faithful seek to convert.

Those that rebut or criticize are labeled as haters, as you have done.

OK, let's talk about this misinformation. Show it to me. What has Tesla said, and where did it hurt you?

Most of us merely seem like fanatics if you are, in fact, a hater or have bought into the FUD that surrounds EVs, and we seek to bring the truth of the EV driving experience to those who haven't experienced it for themselves yet.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

No, I'm using current information. At this time, Li S batteries are not close to being a commercially viable product. Sion may sell them, but most likely they are very small pouch cells unsuitable for anything more than research applications.

As for OXIS, here's what the press release you linked says:

CODEMGE’s US$60m investment will go towards the building of the plant in Belo Horizonte with Phase 1 having a cell capacity of 2 million cells per annum. Collaborating with Siemens Digital Factory, among others, the aim is to design a plant that will produce around 5m cells by the mid 2020s. OXIS expects to complete Phase 1 in 2022.

Receiving money going "towards the building of the plant" is not the same as building a plant. The $60M investment is a fraction of the money needed to build a facility capable of the stated production goals. Note the timeline given; OXIS "expects to complete Phase I by 2022”. The gratuitous mention of Siemens gives the appearance of the industrial giant's imprimatur, when in fact no such link exists.

Furthermore, OXIS's claim the plant will have "a cell capacity of 2 million cells per annum" is quite a bit different from your implication that two million cells will be produced in the near future.

In fact, their announcement makes no commitment at all they will be making a product for commercial sale anytime soon. It is purely speculative.

Another page on their website confirms my statement their planned facilities will be pilot plants:

Building pilot cell manufacturing facilities: The commercialisation scale up plan is to build cells in pilot facilities and prove them in a number of applications.

Full scale cell production is planned for our pilot manufacturing plants in Brazil and in the UK.

Again, "production is planned". By the company's own statements, it's evident their technology is immature and unready for production. If OXIS is "the furthest along towards commercialization" as you stated, the implications for Li S batteries and the industry as a whole are obvious.

There has been little or no progress in solving the issues that cause rapid deterioration of Li S cells during discharge and charging.

This document produced by the Berkeley Livermore National Laboratory is a year old, and since its publication there has been no indication from researchers or industry of any recent progress in mitigating polysulfide migration across Li S electrodes.

The lithium-sulfur battery has a theoretical energy density much greater than commercial lithium-ion batteries; however, the technology exhibits fade and hence limited battery life. In these batteries, active sulfur species (as dissolved polysulfide ions) migrate to the lithium metal electrode. Then, irreversible reactions involving these polysulfides can occur at the electrode that result in the loss of its ability to store charge. Attempts to protect the metal from the polysulfides have been only partially successful.

https://science.energy.gov/bes/highlights/2018/bes-2018-04-h/

The facts are plain, Li S battery technology has large hurdles to clear before it can become useful.

Your chemistry is based on old information- By the nature of research, those summaries, while of some use, don't list the latest work. I'm writing a review article for ACS Combinatorial chemistry.

There are many ways of getting around the polysulfide problem-
https://cen.acs.org/energy/energy-s...-boosts-lithium-sulfur-battery/96/web/2018/10
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsami.8b11029
These are only some of the ones published- almost no one will publish a paper unless a patent is granted.

We are starting a pilot run of an improved product where I work- the product is something we have sold for about 2 years now, with some improvements. These units will be subjected to additional testing both internally and at certain customer sites to ensure that they work as designed. The software and hardware will be tested- the fact this is a "pilot run" doesn't mean that the technology is immature, but rather that the manufacturing process is being tested to make sure the work instructions are being interpreted as intended, production machinery is working correctly, and QC procedures are effective. My point is that "pilot facilities" probably means limited production while they work the problems out of production while getting buyers as they ramp up production.

"Production is planned"- your reply to that is a non sequitur since if production isn't planned, there is no need for a plant, is there? You don't need to build a manufacturing plant for a "pilot run" as you seem to define the term- a limited quantity for testing, and a "pilot run" as you seem to define it certainly does not need a capacity of 2 million cells.

So...why the hate for electric vehicles? It's not your money invested in the R&D, and obviously Harbour Air thinks there's some sort of business case to be made for at least some electric airplanes. I'm pretty sure they know a bit more about their business than either of us. It's ok to be skeptical, but your comments go beyond skepticism.

 

[edo2000]

I don't think that the comments are "hate" for electric vehicles. I think it is more weariness of unending announcements of "paradigm shifts" that don't pan out. With associated numbers that are obviously wrong, and usually deliberately so. "90% power generation efficiency??… really?" I hate to say it, but operators like Harbour Air get lots of more or less free press, by being associated with this "rollout" and it really doesn't matter to them whether anything practical ever comes of it.

Having said that, I fully support the use of EVs wherever they are practical. I don't own one, but I will... probably soon.

 

[TCABM]

I don't understand the vehement hatred against electric.

...what exactly is the problem with using them more efficiently?

As others have said, it’s not hate. I don’t care what type of energy source you prefer.

Seeing every EV argument that plays out here, my parental PTSD kicks in and I have flashbacks of one of my four year olds after they learned to ask why.

So, here’s the answer to the question about efficiency.

There is not an EV available for my use case, which isn’t that uncommon. Until it exists, it’s all leprechauns and rainbow unicorn farts.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

It's not hatred against electric it's the that the people that buy these look at everybody else with some sort of disdain like they are somehow morally superior to the rest of us. I put electric vehicle drivers in the same category as vegans. It's mostly for show and status and "look at me" not really about being green, especially when you look at the rest of their energy footprint.

I put electric vehicles in the same category as my dream ICE-powered vehicle: instant response to go-pedal inputs (really, really instant), fabulous acceleration without raising a ruckus, still suitable for long trips, reliable, and cheap to operate. My dream ICE-powered car has never happened, and never will, but I can buy a Tesla now (and I would, except that I rarely drive at all, having put under 15K miles on my car in 4.5 years, so I'd rather get another airplane.)

 

[alfadog]

Ed, I don't think I'm "morally superior." And I don't want people to "look at me", in fact my first EV was a Ford Fusion Energi and one of the things I really liked about it was that it looked EXACTLY like a plain old gas Fusion, with the exception of the charge port door and the small "Energi" tag on the back (similar to their EcoBoost tags).

I had an i3 for a year, because it was a freaking steal. Under $150/mo. I dealt with the weird EV look by waiting for Corvette drivers to give me that "morally superior" look of disdain at a stoplight and leaving them in the dust. But I'm glad to be back to a Volt now, which looks more like a normal car. I *hate* the "EV look", as do most people, which is a large reason why they don't sell particularly well. Most of us EV enthusiasts would rather have more normal-looking cars, like Teslas, Volts, and Fusions.

And you're right, it's not really about being green. It's about enjoying driving again. It's about the convenience of not having to stand at a gas pump when it's -10 degrees out (or having to go to a gas station at any temperature, for that matter).

...

I wouldn't waste the keystrokes responding to generalities and stereotyping.