Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hybrid planes are possible and do currently exist. My guess would be a move towards other kinds of jet fuel, possibly renewable, are a more promising bet than commercial battery electric planes. Like you mentioned, there's a huge temperature differential to overcome for the comfort of passengers--also, there's a much greater weight penalty with the gravity vector than for vehicles on the ground as well as no real stop and go traffic in the air to take advantage of regenerative braking. It's just a really hard uphill climb for battery electric planes that doesn't seem to have a strong benefit compared to just figuring out more efficient and cleaner fuels for combustion, but maybe someone's got some real clever ideas.
I think for road, rail, and nautical applications there are much stronger inherent benefits from battery electric drivetrains. Planes? That one seems to have much heavier penalties in comparison unless we're talking about really nutty densities for batteries or some really clever alternative source of electricity or some things I'm just missing entirely. Anyhow, here's an interesting primer I read on it: https://www.engineering.com/story/el...planes-why-not
Developing cleaner and most efficient fuels, plus more efficient turbofan and jet motors is not a bad idea. There have been great technological achievements in the aviation field in recent years. To me it makes no sense to abandon ICE and switch to battery power, simply because for building a battery minerals have to be extracted from the ground, and there is a finite amount of it. The same applies to the extraction and the amount of petroleum left in the ground.
From a military-strategic point of view: It makes no sense for any powerful nation to abandon ICE and adopt only battery power, since batteries are just electric power storage devices, much like a tank full of gasoline. To do so would make that nation a target of other powerful nations. Now, for the civilian sector of the population (s), the adoption of EV's is not a bad idea at all.
Developing cleaner and most efficient fuels, plus more efficient turbofan and jet motors is not a bad idea. There have been great technological achievements in the aviation field in recent years. To me it makes no sense to abandon ICE and switch to battery power, simply because for building a battery minerals have to be extracted from the ground, and there is a finite amount of it. The same applies to the extraction and the amount of petroleum left in the ground.
From a military-strategic point of view: It makes no sense for any powerful nation to abandon ICE and adopt only battery power, since batteries are just electric power storage devices, much like a tank full of gasoline. To do so would make that nation a target of other powerful nations. Now, for the civilian sector of the population (s), the adoption of EV's is not a bad idea at all.
I agree with developing cleaner and more efficient fuels and machinery. It makes sense to abandon ICE for some applications where ICE is less efficient than an electric powertrain even when going from a power plant using fossil fuels that an ICE powertrain would use, because in essence you'd be getting more utility out of the same resource. The battery minerals aren't too bad because there's actually quite a bit of it that's untapped, there are multiple different usable battery chemistries, there's pretty decent recycling technologies for some of the materials that are more applicable for vehicle usage (they don't work so well for phones and laptops because the process of just collecting them all is pretty intense, but it's much less so for EVs because they are sizable amounts collected in one place already), they have good second use potential before recycling, and battery densities have gotten and continue to get a lot higher for the given amounts of material used.
IFrom a military-strategic point of view, there are probably some applications where electrically driven motors is overall substantially more efficient and resilient depending on the situation. There are after all a lot more energy sources that convert to electricity easily, but very few efficient ways to convert for an internal combustion engine which are generally pretty specialized in terms of the fuel feedstock they use to operate efficiently (like putting gas into a diesel engine is not going to be a fantastic idea). Obviously this isn't a switch to just battery power as batteries are a storage unit in the way most people think of batteries (rechargeable secondary cells rather than single-use primary cells though this latter usage would probably be good for emergencies).
Yep, that nearly 12 years old is just the median age so that means half of the US's fleet on the road is even older and some of them quite a bit older that aren't just cute classic cars. In my head, it's still sometimes weird to think of vehicles from the 00s to be old vehicles, maybe because the 00s is when I got my license and first purchased a car.
It's new vehicle purchases that are getting close to the tipping point, but even with that it means at least a couple of decades after that before they really become the most common powertrain for vehicles overall new and old. It also means a pretty gradual increase in electricity production to accommodate this is pretty much built in. Aside from that, I'm guessing a pretty healthy component of plugins among new vehicles in the coming years will be plugin hybrids or EVs with gas range extenders. Toyota, Subaru and Mazda especially seem pretty keen on that being their strategy.
Hybrid technology benefits from the technological advances being made in both the electrical and ICE developments (more efficient ICE and more efficient electrical components).
While electricity does not pollute the air, ICE does. However, the gasses emitted by the motor can be filtered and transformed or made less harmful. Just look at what a catalytic converter does for an ICE. https://www.autozone.com/diy/exhaust...hat-does-it-do
The same can be done for coal-burning power plants. So, cleaner-burning fuels, plus more efficient filters aren't bad ideas. The problem is that such things are very expensive.
I agree with developing cleaner and more efficient fuels and machinery. It makes sense to abandon ICE for some applications where ICE is less efficient than an electric powertrain even when going from a power plant using fossil fuels that an ICE powertrain would use, because in essence you'd be getting more utility out of the same resource. The battery minerals aren't too bad because there's actually quite a bit of it that's untapped, there are multiple different usable battery chemistries, there's pretty decent recycling technologies for some of the materials that are more applicable for vehicle usage (they don't work so well for phones and laptops because the process of just collecting them all is pretty intense, but it's much less so for EVs because they are sizable amounts collected in one place already), they have good second use potential before recycling, and battery densities have gotten and continue to get a lot higher for the given amounts of material used.
IFrom a military-strategic point of view, there are probably some applications where electrically driven motors is overall substantially more efficient and resilient depending on the situation. There are after all a lot more energy sources that convert to electricity easily, but very few efficient ways to convert for an internal combustion engine which are generally pretty specialized in terms of the fuel feedstock they use to operate efficiently (like putting gas into a diesel engine is not going to be a fantastic idea). Obviously this isn't a switch to just battery power as batteries are a storage unit in the way most people think of batteries (rechargeable secondary cells rather than single-use primary cells though this latter usage would probably be good for emergencies).
Yes, not only military aircraft use a great number of electric motors. DC power is widely used throughout an aircraft. The generators produce AC power (around 240 volts). Some of this power is stepped down, and even converted to DC. The reason for using DC power in Aircraft is because DC is quieter (less white noise) than AC and does not interfere as much as AC with electrical components that are close to each other. For example, aircraft radio and other waves are quite clean. DC motors are used to move flaps and slats, etc., or just as pumps to move and pressurize hydraulic oil to perhaps 4,000 psi. This can be used to extend and retract the landing gear.
A 12 VDC motor/pump can be used for a hydraulic snow plow. In this case, the pump is energized, and it immediately pressurizes the hydraulic fluid and reservoir. All you have to do now is to direct the flow with a lever in the cab (plow up/down, tilt forward/backward). DC motor are very powerful.
Hyundai just recalled 82,000 electric vehicles due to glasses in the battery. The Chevy bolt uses the same battery so if you have either of these cars make sure to pay attention to the recalls.
This is a brand new car and they're already having problems problems with them catching on fire. Just think how bad it's going to be in two or three years people shouldn't buy these cars unless they're willing to take the risk.
I’m still 10 years out minimum before even considering one.
LOL - I think about it now already, but at this point, I still wind up at "This isn't quite far along enough for me yet" - vehicle capability, vehicle cost, and charging infrastructure, for the sole vehicle, and for someone who needs to watch their budget.
When this next generation of vehicles with lower cost/higher density batteries comes out, and the charging networks are that much further along - say 4-5 years, I will re-evaluate and that could well be my personal "tipping point". I wish when I bought my current Forester-Touring almost exactly 2 years ago, the CR-V hybrid and RAV4-Prime (plug-in hybrid) were available as I'd likely have gone for one of those... good sized vehicles with good utility, and nearly 40mpgs.
Last edited by OutdoorLover; 03-07-2021 at 07:41 AM..
LOL - I think about it now already, but at this point, I still wind up at "This isn't quite far along enough for me yet" - vehicle capability, vehicle cost, and charging infrastructure, for the sole vehicle, and for someone who needs to watch their budget.
When this next generation of vehicles with lower cost/higher density batteries comes out, and the charging networks are that much further along - say 4-5 years, I will re-evaluate and that could well be my personal "tipping point". I wish when I bought my current Forester-Touring almost exactly 2 years ago, the CR-V hybrid and RAV4-Prime (plug-in hybrid) were available as I'd likely have gone for one of those... good sized vehicles with good utility, and nearly 40mpgs.
Another 20% better range and 20% lower price (which I think will happen quickly) and it's going to shift the value quotient over to EV's versus ICE and you'll see mass adoption.
I'm an early adopter and my brother is a late adopter waiting for all the kinks to be ironed out first. When I get him over to EV's, the dinosaurs can rest better in their underground tombs.
Hyundai just recalled 82,000 electric vehicles due to glasses in the battery. The Chevy bolt uses the same battery so if you have either of these cars make sure to pay attention to the recalls.
The early Bolt used batteries by LG Chem, but they were a bit different than the LG Chem ones in Hyundais, though the early Bolts did get recalled to fix a software issue that could cause a fire (5 cars did catch fire). The later Bolts had completely different batteries (made in the US instead of South Korea) with different construction and have no issues with causing dendrites in the battery packs, thus no fires and no recalls.
Quote:
This is a brand new car and they're already having problems problems with them catching on fire. Just think how bad it's going to be in two or three years people shouldn't buy these cars unless they're willing to take the risk.
170,000 gas cars burn down every year in the US alone. You shouldn't buy a gas car unless you're willing to take the risk. Amirite? I mean, you're driving a rolling bomb.
BTW, I was a passenger in a gas car that burst into flame and burned down while going down the road, nearly killing me. I had 3rd degree burns to both legs and the side of my face, so I'm a bit sensitive to car fires. I'll take my chances with the considerably safer EVs for daily driving.
I"m getting a little tired of your lack of knowledge when it comes to EVs.
Another 20% better range and 20% lower price (which I think will happen quickly) and it's going to shift the value quotient over to EV's versus ICE and you'll see mass adoption.
I'm an early adopter and my brother is a late adopter waiting for all the kinks to be ironed out first. When I get him over to EV's, the dinosaurs can rest better in their underground tombs.
I agree - I mean, EVs already offer numerous advantages today, not just the feel-good environmental benefits, but they're significantly quieter, accelerate much better and corner flatter, plus they have lower "fuel" cost and lower maintenance cost, so, cheaper to operate. It won't take too much more development before they are a compelling mainstream choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
