Skip to comments.
A powerful new battery could give us electric planes that don’t pollute
MIT Technology Review ^
| October 30, 2018
| James Temple
Posted on 11/03/2018 12:15:15 PM PDT by Zhang Fei
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-110 next last
To: Zhang Fei
That sudden stop when the extension cord runs out...TWANG!!!
To: Zhang Fei
To heck with batteruy charged planes. It seems this idea might improve land-based batteries.
To: Zhang Fei
i just LOVE magic battery posts!
23
posted on
11/03/2018 12:45:52 PM PDT
by
catnipman
((Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!))
To: Zhang Fei
Another reason not to fly.
24
posted on
11/03/2018 12:46:20 PM PDT
by
bgill
(CDC site, "We don't know. how people are infected with Ebola.")
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Its perpetual motion machine. No energy needed.
25
posted on
11/03/2018 12:50:00 PM PDT
by
Vaquero
(Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you .)
To: Zhang Fei
Bull$hit. It takes more power to charge up the batteries to power the plane than what is available in petroleum products.
They keep repeating the stupidity.
26
posted on
11/03/2018 12:50:20 PM PDT
by
I want the USA back
(It's Ok To Be White. White Lives Matter. White Guilt is Socially Constructed)
To: minnesota_bound
That sudden stop when the extension cord runs out...TWANG!!! That gives me an idea: a combination of extension cords that automatically disconnects, with magnetic-induction catapults to get the plane moving along the runway (similar to new aircraft carrier catapults). That ought to reduce the amount of battery energy required onboard the plane during liftoff.
Heck, you might get 25 miles flight out of the plane. But the energy used from the ground sources would still be generating pollution, darn. Just shows that traditional liquid fuels currently carried on planes is the most efficient way to go, and has the most bang for the buck.
27
posted on
11/03/2018 12:52:29 PM PDT
by
roadcat
To: Zhang Fei
People have no idea how much electricity it would take to replace the energy in fossil fuels. Every 100K gallons per month is the energy equivalent of 4.65 MW/hr of power. That's gasoline, diesel or Jet A had more BTUs/gallon.
100,000 gallons per month
= 138 gallons per hour
* 115000 btu/gallon
= 15700000 btu / hr
/ 3.41 btu /watt
= 4653958 watts
= 4.65 MW/hr of electric power equivalent
4.65 MW can power 3022 houses (
650 houses per MW)
28
posted on
11/03/2018 12:53:47 PM PDT
by
dynoman
(Objectivity is the essence of intelligence. - Marilyn vos Savant)
To: I want the USA back
Check post 28, then run the numbers on jet A used at a big airport!
29
posted on
11/03/2018 12:54:47 PM PDT
by
dynoman
(Objectivity is the essence of intelligence. - Marilyn vos Savant)
To: Zhang Fei
To: Zhang Fei
An Airbus A380 on takeoff, if hooked to electrical generators, could power a state. Not a city, a state.
31
posted on
11/03/2018 12:56:08 PM PDT
by
UNGN
(I've been here since '98 but had nothing to say until now)
To: Zhang Fei
An Airbus A380 on takeoff, if hooked to electrical generators, could power a state. Not a city, a state.
32
posted on
11/03/2018 12:56:08 PM PDT
by
UNGN
(I've been here since '98 but had nothing to say until now)
To: Zhang Fei
Relax! It will have had huge rubber band wound up inside and if the batteries fail all they have to do is remove the finger holding the prop and it will take over.
33
posted on
11/03/2018 12:59:26 PM PDT
by
TonyM
(Score Event)
To: Zhang Fei
It just transfers the energy from a pollution source that’s needed to generate and store it to drive the motors.
34
posted on
11/03/2018 1:10:56 PM PDT
by
mosesdapoet
(Mosesdapoet aka L.J.Keslin another gem posted in the wilderness)
To: Zhang Fei
On the next episode of Air Disasters....
35
posted on
11/03/2018 1:12:15 PM PDT
by
JZelle
To: Zhang Fei
A very useful technology, if developed.
Does little to reduce carbon emissions.
Not that reducing carbon emissions is necessary or useful.
36
posted on
11/03/2018 1:14:12 PM PDT
by
marktwain
(President Trump and his supporters are the Resistance. His opponents are the Reactionaries.)
To: blackdog
Ok. Now I can’t stop laughing!
To: Zhang Fei
Let me know when they manufacture a battery-powered SR-71 Blackbird.
38
posted on
11/03/2018 1:21:01 PM PDT
by
gigster
(Cogito, Ergo, Ronaldus Magn us Conservatus)
To: dynoman
Here’s LAX;
48.6 million barrels per year
133,150 barrels/day
5,548 barrels per hour
233,013 gallons per hour
128,100 BTUs per gallon Jet A
29,849,054,794 LAX BTUs per hour
8747894427 watt/hr equivalent
8,747 MW/hr equivalent
Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant generates 2,256 MW of power.
It would take the equivalent of almost four Diablo Canyon nuclear power plants to charge electric airplanes equal those currently flying out of LAX.
39
posted on
11/03/2018 1:32:16 PM PDT
by
dynoman
(Objectivity is the essence of intelligence. - Marilyn vos Savant)
To: Moonman62
“At least they are attempting to bring their batteries to market. Other that it joins the thousands of long forgotten battery claims Ive seen over the years.”
And let’s not forget the Fish Carburetor on which GM supposedly bought the patent rights to keep in off the market. Fish Motto: Zip, Plus Mileage!”
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-110 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson