News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Study identifies main culprit behind lithium metal batter... by Gibbon1 on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @03:32AM (#20817674)
You aren't wrong about that. The problem current prototypes have is range is limited especially when you include 'reserve fuel' requirements. If the aircraft can only fly for an hour and you need 30-45 minutes reserve you only can fly for 15-30 minutes. Double that and now you can fly for 75 to 90 minutes.

Assuming 300 mph. The first case gives you an effective range of 75 to 150 miles. Second case gives you 375 to 450 miles range. That's 3 to 5 times more effective range.

Go on google earth and start drawing 450 mile radius circles around population centers. Yeah that.

Bonus: Eviation is claiming an estimate of 650 miles range with their yet to fly Alice.

The two big advantages with electric flight are fuel costs and maintenance costs. For electric the fuel cost is a third to a quarter lower. And electric motors should have a much longer service life and lower maintenance needs than turbo props.

Re:Study identifies main culprit behind lithium metal batter... by close04 on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @05:47AM (#20818245)
There's a slight disadvantage for electric planes when it comes to "refueling" times for those ~1000kWh batteries. This may be worked around in multiple ways like (very) fast charging or battery swaps. But without this you'd have a pretty bad turnaround time.
Re:Study identifies main culprit behind lithium metal batter... by DennisP on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @07:49AM (#20818812)
For small planes like the Eviation, a lot of the market is private and charter, which probably don't need really fast turnaround anyway.

But yeah, to make a big carbon impact, electric planes would definitely need fast turnaround.

Re:Study identifies main culprit behind lithium metal batter... by dsfyu404ed on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @08:24AM (#20819051)
>which probably don't need really fast turnaround anyway.

Most charter flights are just to fly to somewhere nearby, drop someone off, fly somewhere else pick someone else up, repeat. Often the destination is some small airport that doesn't have jet fuel (most charter aircraft are turboprops) so you need enough fuel for the return leg or you make a 30min detour to somewhere that does.

The hops are often small but you often need to do many of them back to back without a ton of downtime in between and usage patterns tend to be not well distributed (not much happens on a Tuesday but on a Friday every rich banker is trying to charter a flight to their house on Nantucket or wherever). It's basically the same usage pattern as an uber vehicle will see only the vehicle itself is a proportionately larger cost so you can't as easily just have more of them to make up for charging time (like some electric bus fleets do).

Charter flights are one of the last things I can see being electrified unless battery swaps become a thing because the charging time directly hits profitability.

Re:Study identifies main culprit behind lithium metal batter... by rlpb on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @07:20AM (#20818666)
> Assuming 300 mph.

I think that's a very generous assumption. Typical small engine light aircraft cruise at 70-120 knots (80-140 mph). Wikipedia[1] suggests 211 mph as the current electric speed record (made in 2017). I doubt typical aircraft will be as optimised for speed as the one that holds the record. Increased speed causes exponentially increased aerodynamic drag, so if you want to increase range, slower speed [than your maximum speed] is the way to do it, not faster.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_EA-300#Variants

Re:Study identifies main culprit behind lithium metal batter... by agumonkey on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @08:10AM (#20818960)
Could a two step setup be of interest ? an external device or vehicle to to lift it up, then the internal battery takes care of sustained gliding in high altitude (low air density) ?
Re:Study identifies main culprit behind lithium metal batter... by fencepost on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @09:17AM (#20819431)
Even without an external lifting element there's plenty of history for towed launches for a little extra push. Aircraft carrier catapults and ground launched gliders come to mind.
Re:Study identifies main culprit behind lithium metal batter... by agumonkey on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @09:44PM (#20825933)
yeah I had these in mind, the question is would it change the energy equation significantly
Re:Study identifies main culprit behind lithium metal batter... by sneystein on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @06:20AM (#20818390)
The effects of electric battry density is cumulative. A lot of the requirements come from hauling the battery. If the battery gets smaller, you also need a lot less energy
Re:Study identifies main culprit behind lithium metal batter... by Gibbon1 on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @06:56PM (#20824919)
Yes that too, lower battery weight means the rest of the aircraft can be made lighter. It's been a long time since I've seen numbers but the effect is more significant than people would naively assume. As you increase the weight of component you need to also increase the wing area and the required power. Which itself adds weight.
Re:Study identifies main culprit behind lithium metal batter... by mrfusion on Wednesday August 28, 2019 @08:39AM (#20819153)
We may have to revisit that rule for electrics.

Or one option is that we normally don’t let li-ion batteries discharge completely to preserve battery life but that could still count toward your reserve with the right software.

Or I believe there are some existing one time use batteries that are way more entry dense than li-ion? Perhaps those could be part of the system just for emergency use and to meet reserve requirements.