SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the airline-spelled-backwards-is-enalpria dept.
[...] Assuming these electric aircraft could be built, would they actually lower emissions? At present, no. Given the average emissions involved with powering the US grid, the emissions involved with powering an electric aircraft (including losses during transmission) would be about 20 percent higher than those generated by a modern, efficient jet engine. That doesn't mean they'd be entirely useless from a climate perspective, though. Once the additional warming effects of aircraft are taken into consideration, the electric aircraft comes out ahead by about 30 percent.
Future considerations complicate things pretty quickly, though. The price of renewable energy is expected to keep dropping, which will make renewables a larger part of the grid, lowering the emissions. The authors estimate that the vast majority of charging will take place during daylight hours—the peak of solar production—as well. Assuming future solar production leads to a discount on electric use during the day, it could help the economics of electric aircraft; currently, they only make sense economically with fuel at about $100/barrel.
How all of this would affect air travel is very sensitive to the capacity of future batteries. The authors estimate that an effective range of about 1,100 kilometers would allow electric aircraft to cover 15 percent of the total air miles (and corresponding fuel use) and nearly half the total flights. That would raise the total electricity demand by about one percent globally, although most of that would affect industrialized nations. Upping the range to 2,200 kilometers would allow 80 percent of the global flight total to be handled by electric aircraft.
Zeppelins still don't seem to figure into the answer.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Lester on Saturday December 15 2018, @10:17AM (15 children)
People talk about electric cars, with batteries or hydrogen cells or compressed air etc. The question is that there are not mines of hydrogen or whatever you want. They only store energy. In fact, there are only a few sources of energy: Sun, geothermic and nuclear. Fossils fuels is just a battery that was recharged millions years ago, and that instead of releasing energy in form of electricity releases it in form heat.
Most electricity comes from fossil fuels. So we are exchanging
(fuel -> heat -> mechanic energy)
for
(fuel -> heat -> mechanic energy [turbine] -> electricity -> transportation by wires -> mechanic energy [car engine])
And in each step you waste energy. So, electric cars don't look a great idea from the energy or pollution point of view.
Nevertheless there are other points. We already have the technology to move from any energy from/to electricity. Electricity is a very portable format, it is the Esperanto of energies. ;-). So, when we run out of fossil fuels (2030-2050) [wikipedia.org]. We will have most of our machines running with electricity. We won't face two problems, replacing fuels and replacing all our engines. At least we have several years to replace fuel engines by electric engines and improve this technolgy.
Most electricity comes from fossil fuels, and if we were to replace all current combustion cars with electric cars we would have ten fold (or one hundred) the production of electricity. How? Now with nuclear and fossil fuels, but we will run out of both. It looks like renewable energies will not be able to replace completely fossil fuels and fusion seems to be far. So it looks that we will have to live with less energy.
Anyone who believes in indefinite growth in anything physical,
on a physically finite planet, is either mad or an economist
There is not sustainable growth, only sustainable equilibrium.
The later we be aware of this fact, the lower will be the standard of living when we reach the equilibrium
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 15 2018, @11:21AM (5 children)
We will never run out if fossil fuels. It's just their price will rise so much that they would be too expensive to burn. Note that the industry needs both coal (metallurgy, chemistry) and oil (chemistry.) Transition of chemistry away from oil and gas is likely impossible, as we make nearly all plastics from them. Transition of industry is possible, but we need more nuclear power plants and a stronger grid, probably with 230/380V routed into houses. (The current 120V standard was already obsolete in 1960-s, as it limits power use and consumes precious copper.) Any government official will tell you that we need 100 years for that upgrade.
Electric cars will improve ecology for several reasons. First, they do not pollute where people live. Second, millions of exhausts of individual cars cannot be efficiently cleaned; but central power plants can be. Third, efficiency of high power turbines is higher than an ICE of a car. Fourth, there are non-polluting sources of electric power. Due to range/cost issues, a hybrid is a good transitional choice. (I have a hybrid for more than a decade.)
(Score: 3, Disagree) by Dr Spin on Saturday December 15 2018, @12:03PM (1 child)
Most of the world already has 230V to houses. Its just that America is chronically backward.
We have already reached the state where most pollution from recent cars is from the tyres and brakes. Not everyone is driving 1970's clunkers.
Unfortunately electric cars weigh a lot more than the alternatives, and as a result, pollution from brakes and tyres is higher.
Of course, actual research into actual pollution levels and its causes in real life is hard to come by.
The efficiency of a high power turbine is indeed higher than that found in a car. However, the distribution losses here in the relatively tiny UK are 30%.
They would be higher in almost any other country. You would be far better off having a truck engine drive a generator at the end of your street, and
then using the waste heat for home heating instead of throwing it away. We have piped gas to every home, so this could burn nice clean gas
(as sold by a Russian mafiosi near you) or hydrogen - ideal for convenient explosions.
There is still a massive opportunity for something better. We research scientists need more grants! (Please give generously).
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Saturday December 15 2018, @06:58PM
The US is 240v to the house (10 better than 230).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Lester on Saturday December 15 2018, @12:23PM (2 children)
Yes, that is the peak of oil that I linked. But from a practical point of view, if driving from home to work cost 100$, you don't have gas for car.
And medicine. Many drugs use chemicals components from crude. That is why shortage of oil it will be nightmare, and it is stupid just burning it. But as long as there is champage on the ice, let's party, toast and drink.
Nuclear power is expensive [wikipedia.org]It is a huge investment, that you may recover in years, that means financial costs. It costs to manage the waste. it costs to dismantle it. No private company wants to build a nuclear power plant, and those have done it, have swindled the government (o the citizens), many of the hidden costs are assumed by the government (waste, financial, assurance, security for years after dismantlement).
Now there are about 450 nuclear plants in the world. You need 7 years to build one. Are we going to build 4,000 before 2050? I don't think so. Second. Uranium is as limited as fossil fuel. According with this [wikipedia.org]at the current rate we will run out of Uranium in 135 years, if you build 4,000 nuclear plants it will last 13,5 years.
Nuclear plants are not profitable.
Well I'm in Spain, we have 220V. Since 1960, I think.
I' not very optimistic about transition. None wants to give up conveniences. Problems look far and politicians are not going to promise sacrifices today, for a better tomorrow. And if they do, we will not vote them.
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Saturday December 15 2018, @06:55PM
Most of the US is 240 also, but split phase ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-phase_electric_power [wikipedia.org] ). High energy devices like whole house central AC/heat pumps, water heaters, dryers. 120v is for 2.5kw devices.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 15 2018, @10:17PM
4,000 nuclear plants will not appear overnight. We have at least 30-50 years to transition to fusion plants. We have no time left to drag the feet. Gather physicists, explain the problem to them, task them, finance them. There is no other way - we need remaining oil for chemical works, we will run out of Uranium soon, and solar/wind cannot power huge demands of steel furnaces and aluminum plants (the power must be delivered non-stop, otherwise metals solidify forever.)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 15 2018, @11:42AM
Solar/wind needs better storage tech, but thats probably coming too slowly. There is plenty of thorium, and lots of U238 for fast breeder plants.
When (if)* fossil fuels run out and people start freezing to death in winter and going hungry all year round, you are going to see much less opposition to nuclear plants, partly because they will be using greenies for fertilizer.
*Thomas Gold wrote a couple of well-researched books that convincingly argued that 'fossil' fuels are mostly primordial, the bio components are contamination from the deep biosphere, and that there is a hell of a lot more of it than oil/gas/coal companies will admit to. Power from the Earth and The Deep Hot Biosphere.
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Saturday December 15 2018, @11:51AM
electric cars don't look a great idea from the energy or pollution point of view.
But think of the politicians! Electric cars allow you to have aspirations!
(And politicians do not need to take reality into consideration).
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 16 2018, @05:14AM (6 children)
Straw man argument. Are we living at the best standard of living possible? Do we have long life spans in excess of a million years. Do we live everywhere we could possibly want to live in the Solar System? No? Then we have plenty of room for growth despite its unsustainability. And plenty of reason to expect our eventual standard of living will be much higher than present.
It's like demanding that humans stop growing when they're three week old fetuses because growth is unsustainable while ignoring that three week old fetuses are absolutely useless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 16 2018, @08:25AM (1 child)
He said indefinite growth, presumably meaning infinite growth based on his comment about a finite planet, not growth. And while 3 week old fetuses do grow, humans don't grow indefinitely. Most stop growing in their teenage years.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 16 2018, @08:20PM
I bring your attention to the following comment which was part of my original quote.
The assumption was that we had already reached the limit of growth and any further growth would just make things worse - just like assuming that there's no reason to grow a three week fetus any more, merely because one assumes that growth is bad.
(Score: 2) by Lester on Sunday December 16 2018, @10:55AM (3 children)
We can think about other planets, but now that is SF. I'm talking about solutions in the short - medium term, in 50 years. I don't think we will be in Mars or on a Jupiter's satellite in 50 years. But we are going to hit planet limits in 50 years, energy and other natural resources. In fact, we have already hit them. Copper has sky rocket it's price because some years ago one of the biggest mine of the planet got exhausted. But copper problem is nothing compared with future shortage of oil.
No. We are already in troubles. Well, not "We", but a great part of human kind. And in not too long, "we", middle class in western countries, are going to be in troubles. Next generation, people now is 20 years, has a mean standard of living lower than me, 50 years. There are more high paid jobs, there are much more pathetic jobs and there are much, much less, middle class jobs. And the future is not going to be better. The truth is that all new economy demands less workforce.
I suggest to read this link Mana [marshallbrain.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 16 2018, @08:22PM (2 children)
Probably not, actually. there's a lot of room for all those resources, particularly energy.
(Score: 2) by Lester on Monday December 17 2018, @10:39AM (1 child)
No, there is not room for fuel oil at all. Peka of oil [wikipedia.org]. In fact, many experts state that we have already reach the peak, but thanks to crisis there is low demand.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 17 2018, @12:44PM
Fuel oil is not a subset of fossil fuel.
Uh huh.