[...] 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: 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.