A Utah company says it’s packed more power into its aircraft batteries, allowing a practical leap in capability, particularly for the electric training fleet. Provo-based EP Systems says its new EPiC 2.0 storage system will give aircraft like the forthcoming eDA40 trainer up to 30 minutes more usable flight time, and that’s an important half-hour. The company’s earlier model, the 1.0, would allow for about 60 minutes of flight time, which is just a little less than the length of a typical flying lesson. That means students had to divide their time between the electric plane and a conventional trainer. “The additional range of these new batteries will allow us to do local flight training and cross-country flight training as well,” said Dan Sutliff, Assistant Professor at Utah Valley University. “Everything that needs to be completed for a private pilot certificate.”
The company said the more energy-dense battery (265 watt hours per kilogram vs. 205 wh/kg) was a decade in the making. “This really unlocks electrification for so many different customers in so many different segments,” said EPS CEO Nathan Millecam. “This is the first time where we’ve seen the convergence of all the technologies that we’ve been developing for over a decade now.” It’s not just a matter of putting more power in the cells. New technologies were needed to make them safe and prevent thermal runaway. The new batteries are a drop-in replacement for its earlier model.
A gallon of gas has 13,100 watt-hours/Kg.
Gasoline therefore is 49.4 times better than the best of these batteries.
Also, what mythical aircraft is this to be used in? As I recall the only certificated e-plane in the US is the Velis and that already has a battery.
I asked the same question and they got back to me so I updated the story. Diamond eDA40
Thanks for the extra work, Russ 🙂
William May: “A gallon of gas has 13,100 watt-hours/Kg.” Oh, dear. You are either ignorant of the fact (or conveniently forgot to mention) that the average Otto cycle ICE is about 20% efficient. So your 13kWh/kg immediately becomes 2.6kWh/kg. Now, I concede that an order of magnitude difference is still a lot of ground to cover but rechargeable batteries have already improved that much in their history (even in the last 30 years). What’s to say they won’t improve that much again but in a much shorter time frame (particularly with the rate of research accelerating hugely though the use of AI)? Besides which, 25% of the US’ commercial flights are short enough to be done with existing battery technology – it’s just the aircraft that are missing…
To start, a 50% increase is a huge accomplishment. Kudos to EPS for that achievement.
Second, you conveniently forgot to mention the inefficiency of the electric powerplant when bashing the inefficiency of of the ICE. Given, an electric powertrain is much more efficient than ICE, but not 100%, more like 80%-85%.
Lastly, fuel has a few further advantages that batteries will struggle to catch up with. Fuel gets consumed, making the aircraft lighter and reducing induced drag enroute, thus extending range. Most e-aircraft currently plan on putting batteries in fuselage, which doesn’t provide inertial relief in the wings and reduces the fatigue life of the aircraft. That 80% inefficiency works REALLY well at keeping the cabin warm and pressurized at altitude (I think it’ll be a struggle to keep people warm and oxygenated at FL350 with batteries). Oh, and that waste heat is also useful in shedding ice in many aircraft via bleed air.
I think electric aviation will have its place. I don’t think it’ll completely replace commercial flights in my lifetime without some hybrid approach.
Do the math: there’s a 29% improvement in battery capacity. If that took 10 years we have an improvement profile more like 3% simple interest per year. How long to double or triple that, much less one order of magnitude?
“What’s to say they won’t improve that much again but in a much shorter time frame?”
Physics says that. The best theoretical battery is 279Wh/kg according to https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b04330
Lithium battery are ok for cars because they can accept the 1,000 kg weight increase (with appropriately designed suspension.) Airplanes can’t.
OK, m, I’ll concede that the inefficiency of an ICE makes the stats look better. That’s a fair catch but as you also say, an order of magnitude difference or more IS a lot.
I just read where research into solid state batteries have promise and much work is being done in that area. In the same article, the BBC says, “Air travel accounts for around 2.4% of all planet-overheating emissions. However, it has a more significant warming effect, and it is one of the more polluting modes of transportation.” They’re lumping ALL air travel together in that statistic. Commercial ops burn one helluva lot more fuel overall than piston GA and would be the majority of that 2.4%. Conversely, piston GA is a teenie tiny blip of that 2.4% despite the fact that there are more ops and hours flown. We all know that from discussions of 100LL elimination. So trying to tell me that converting GA ops to electric is going to put any substantial dent in global emissions worthy of all the cost and effort is likewise ridiculous.
Nowhere here does EPS say what one of these batteries costs either in dollars OR in manufacturing impact … lifecycle costs. If we extrapolate from eV’s, those stats are high. Further, the loss of useful load due to carrying these batteries around AND in not being able to offload some weight — when necessary (like we can with petrol) — is also a detractor. An empty battery weighs the same as a full one. The ONLY place where eAviation makes any sense is in maintenance costs but that advantage doesn’t have much impact on the planet … only in operational costs. Maybe SOME types of air operations would benefit from electric propulsion but taken as a whole, it won’t. Period!
Here’s MY take on all these eAviation efforts on the GA front … it isn’t worth the time OR effort and doesn’t look like it will any time soon. Efforts like the electric seaplanes elsewhere in Avweb are even more ridiculous. And even if we could electrify airliners, we’d STILL only be talking about 2.4% of overall emissions. The single largest global impact area is in ground transportation and the public is now coming to the realization that IT isn’t ready for prime time, either. The climate isn’t gonna be better if we make eAirplanes any time soon.
At SnF, I purposely walked over to the Textron displays and took a look at the Pipistrel Velis electro. RIDICULOUS! If that’s what I have to do to fly … I’m done … ain’t gonna happen. A Diamond eDA40 might be usable but by the time the all in costs are calculated, it isn’t worth it other than MAYBE for flight schools flying a lot of hours / day.
Finally, IF you buy into anthropogenic climate change, why aren’t efforts at holding the population down in massively overpopulated countries like China and India being dealt with? We’re acting like man can just continue to procreate unfettered and if we only convert everything to electric, we can just keep on doing it. I’m bored with ALL of these eEfforts!
Exactly. Nuff said.
“I’m bored with ALL of these eEfforts!“
Exactly. Nuff said.
Actually the population of China IS decreasing, to the extent that the Chicom Party is alarmed.
India is not decreasing yet, but many other countries are, and the US would be decreasing in population were it not for immigration (legal and illegal). Not quite sure what population has to do with aviation, other than the use of commercial aviation and the fact that apparently fewer people are learning how to fly, which may affect demand for new and used aircraft.
I meant to add that the source is the annual report of the Population Resource Bureau (a private think tank).
I don’t give a damn about the population of those countries populations decreasing; they’re more than the U.S. . The U.S. generation of greenhouse gases is minute by comparison. We’ve already achieved massive reductions in same. Go after them … the air in China is worse than LA ever was. The loons on the left keep wanting US to do something; we’ve done enough … for now.
You can go round and round on the arguments over who should change, but it doesn’t matter unless countries are willing to fight over it.
As for the West changing, it would not be that complex to simply raise taxes on energy to reflect approximate carbon and pollution damage. Reduce income taxes to compensate, and you move the tax incentives from suppressing work to suppressing waste.
Of course, no one will go for it despite their objections having nothing to do with the sensibility of it, and everything to do with politics.
More people, more cows, more gaseous emanations and drain on global resources.
If you want apples-to-apples, electric motors are 85-90% efficient so nock down the 265 watt hours per kilogram by 10-15%.
And in reality the battery has many other efficiency knock downs from point of power generation. It is charged from the grid which there is an efficiency in creating electricity from coal/wind/solar/nuclear/hydro (32%/40%/20%/33%/90% efficient respectively), an efficiency in transmitting/distributing the power (about 92% efficient depending on location) from the plant to the charger, and an efficiency of the charger (75-90% efficient) to charge the battery. So that 265 watt hour per kilogram is only 10-60% efficient from power generation to charged battery, depending on power generation.
This isn’t an apples to apples comparison. Not even remotely. The efficiency in question is with the power storage aboard an airplane.
The pertinent statistic for most of us is: When can we buy a G35 for without taking out a mortgage that will last 10 years and start the airplane at -30? Or the pick up truck for that matter?
I seriously doubt that -30 degree temps are a pertinent factor for most of us – either flying or driving.
You’re wrong, Tim. IF we want to reduce co2, FULL end-to-end analysis of energy usage is required … including FULL life cycle costs. Pal is right. What you can store is only a PART of the equation! And don’t forget recycling all of these batteries, either!
What’s amazing is how well cost correlates with end to end CO2. When in doubt, whatever is cheaper is likely the best call.
on the weight to power topic:
Also do not forget the advantage of the weight reduction from the ICE engine to a single electric motor. weight with ICE engine vs weight with electric engine. AND the ICE engine is more complicated to operate, more failure points, and more expensive to maintain
Yes batteries cannot compete with ICE engines for long duration flights right now, but as energy density goes up the gap gets smaller and that is how advancements in technology work.
They can’t compete on short flights carrying passengers either. A 265wh/kg isn’t remotely enough. A Cessna Caravan with 9 passengers and the APE III kit has about 720kg available for fuel or batteries. 720kg of batteries at 265wh/kg gets you about 31 minutes of endurance at 60% power, no reserve.
Obviously 31 minutes with no reserve is not remotely useful. You’d really need 1000+wh/kg to start becoming practical for the shortest flights (gives about 1:55 endurance). And even then, nobody is going to invest (or finance) aircraft that are so impractical compared to ICE: cancelling flights every time you need an IFR alternate, or there is a chance of icing, or lacks charging infrastructure at your podunk airport, or can’t do quick turns, or is impossible to ferry means resale markets are very limited.
The real problem with all the capital going toward this hype is that there are real projects that could do much more for the environment, like compression ignition engines or hydrogen.
Right you are @John Holand. Progress comes with R&D plus experience; effort now pays off handsomely later. Battery tech advancements don’t follow Moore’s Law but progress has been steady, and applications for better batteries are scattered throughout the world economy.
Just look at the 90% price drop and efficiency gains in Solar PV over the last 10-15 years: solar and wind now generate electricity more cheaply than fossil fuel fired generating plants. The electric grid (which also seriously needs modernization/rationalization, but that’s more a problem of political will than technology) gets cleaner every year. For a slightly nerdy (well, OK: pretty darn nerdy) look at electrification trends, I recommend David Roberts’s “Volts” podcast.
Bottom line: the planet keeps warning us that we don’t have a lot of time to stop burning stuff for most of our energy needs.
More Koolaid for the masses. Last year I spoke with the head of flight training at Embry-Riddle in Daytona Beach. He said that it is not unusual for their students to taxi for 45 minutes before being cleared for takeoff. They increasingly use air condition in their fleet of C172s to decrease the stress on their instructors, baking in the Florida sun all day. Good luck on doing any flight training in battery aircraft that spend much time under power at low speed on the ground and running an air conditioning system. Jet-A diesels are the way of the future.
Maybe they need to relocate?
If you bring up Apples-to-Apples then the statement about power generation and transmission needs to be Apples-to-Apples too. Sourcing oil, extracting it, transporting to refineries pumping and ships, refining (which in themselves takes huge amounts of power), shipping refined oil, road and train transportation to depots and finally local distribution to refuelling points, all consume vast amounts of energy along with their attendent pollution. You can put your head in the sand, but any sane person can’t seriously think that makes any sense, it’s a century or more old technology that has to move on. Current elec tech isn’t there yet, but it’s making a start just like gasoline engines did in the beginning. ePower isn’t a threat, it’s an opportunity to make a difference.
And sourcing/refining the raw materials for batteries is much more environmentally friendly to begin with, just a few thousand enslaved children working the mines!
And one more thing to consider as to whether batteries will get better. It is not just a matter of engineering, it is a matter of the basic, underlying energy that CAN be stored in those electron bonds. Unless and until someone can find a way to extract the energy in the hydrocarbon bonds and release it as electricity instead of heat, and then reverse the process in-situ, i.e. build a secondary storage battery, we aren’t going to get near the energy density of gasoline, let alone diesel or Jet-A.
Right now Lithium is at the heart of the best reversible energy storage process we know of. There isn’t anything else on the horizon that can provide an order-of-magnitude leap in energy density. Until that breakthrough occurs, we are going to see very limited range and duration increases for ePlanes. The key is the basic science and until we see that, don’t expect a quantum leap.
I have flown the Pipistrel Velis. As an active CFI I cannot see this aircraft making any significant inroads for flight training. It is, in essence, a powered glider. They did that in order to eke out enough efficiency to be able to use the limited capacity in available electromotive systems. Unfortunately they didn’t include drag-increasing devices, e.g. spoilers/speed-brakes, to make energy control on final easier. If your student isn’t exactly on speed and altitude, i.e. have EXACTLY the correct energy state, she isn’t going to hit the desired touch-down zone. This will increase training time and sorties, losing the financial advantage that even limited electrical power offers.
@Brian, “If your student isn’t exactly on speed and altitude, i.e. have EXACTLY the correct energy state, she isn’t going to hit the desired touch-down zone”, I’d argue that makes it a great trainer.
Any article about “batteries” on AVWeb always demonstrates a Pavlovian response from the usual suspects. Do you still refer to movies with audio as “talkies?” Scared about cars replacing your horse-drawn carriage?
Yes, of course many of these ventures will fail. Many are being pushed and promoted in unrealistic ways. We won’t see electric airliners anytime soon, perhaps ever. But why the reflexive push against any technical advancement in this area?
The current state of the art provides a cost competitive (if limited) entry in the primary training market, and progress has been fast. For basic stick and rudder skills, learning how to fly the pattern, straight and level etc, that machine offers a very low hourly rate. Yes, it’s not a Bonanza for a long XC, but it’s not trying to be. If I were to consider starting a flight school in the next five years I’d be foolish to not consider an electric primary trainer.
The power density in the battery referenced in the article is quite impressive compared to what was available just five years ago. Don’t expect orders of magnitude improvement in the next five years, but I expect it will continue to improve.
What do we do with the spent batteries? Recycle? Bury? How long does it take to charge an ’empty’ battery? How much extra time does a significant cross-country flight take? From a practical standpoint (and based on conversations with other CFIs), no flight school within an hour’s flight time is planning on purchasing an electric airplane. Keep performing research and maybe someday these aircraft will be practical, but not now.
Question: I noticed the record high temperature yesterday was 91 degrees in 1959. What caused that record high? Just asking.
The reason a lot of climate change info sounds untrustworthy is because it is. Our academics have dropped in quality while, or because of, getting more political. Add to that the media being scientifically illiterate and also being political, and you get exactly what we have.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean nothing is going on, it just means reports of what actually is going on is delivered poorly after being “stepped on” like cheap drugs.
I’m no scientist, but I don’t like the idea of carbon levels rising even if I don’t know why or find predictions of what it will cause ridiculous.
I do know that governments prescribing the cures means corruption and bad science and often counterproductive policies.
I also don’t think that your example is a good reason to deny warming is happening. I really wish the scientists and journalists would stop thinking they know solutions. Everybody needs to keep more to our own lanes.
I think you are right, overall. More research and engineering is good. Even if electric planes never make it, odds are many valuable things will be learned. And, electrifying every light plane will still be a small drop in the bucket when we are all driving two to four ton cars with stop signs on every corner.
Tim M–“Yes, of course many of these ventures will fail. Many are being pushed and promoted in unrealistic ways. We won’t see electric airliners anytime soon, perhaps ever. But why the reflexive push against any technical advancement in this area?”
You mention that electric airplanes may not be competitive with conventional airplanes for other than training aircraft–that is true. The question is: How many people would train in a very light and limited trainer, then have to transition to a faster and longer range aircraft for actual trips? As a 50+year FBO, I fly ultralights, LSAs, conventional piston aircraft, turbines, gliders, and helicopters–but few people get to own or fly that many different types.
The old axiom “Train like you fly–fly like you train” applies here–ultralights and LSAs don’t fly like Bonanzas. It makes little sense to train in one aircraft, then be proficient in an airplane capable of going somewhere.
I’m glad that someone believes there is a market for these aircraft–it’s nice to have options–and they could be fun–but if there WAS a market for such limited aircraft, don’t you think that the industry would be building one? The reality is that all of the major manufacturers have given up on building even CONVENTIONAL trainers–no 152s, Tomahawks, or Skippers, or 2 place Yankees. That is lamentable, but if electric power was the answer, don’t you think that they would have come out with an electric version of these light trainers?
One would think so, but “HOPE” is not a strategy. If the proponents of electric aircraft really believe that they know something the major airframes don’t know, they should INVEST in the companies promising certification “just around the corner.” Most of us hope someone DOES come up with a “magic solution”–but for now, the market says “Not yet.”
VERY good point about no one building 2 place trainers anymore, Jim. So how the hell can the ‘dreamers’ here think eAirplanes are THE answer … they’re deluding themselves. Fairy dust and unobtanium does not exist.
Thinking about the situation some more … it’s too damn bad that all of the assets, energy, research and more doesn’t go into making modern U.S. made engines like the Rotax instead of the Lycosaurus we still build and use? The FAA is complicit in this problem. Hell, they can’t even help solve the lead problem so … it’s not surprising.
Thinking about it some more — and in like manner to eV’s — maybe hybrid power could help save some fuel and make the power available better. We install turbo systems why … to get sea level performance at altitude. We have METO ratings why … to get takeoff performance. An axial hybrid electric ‘helper’ system might well put a dent in the fuel usage.
One more point. I HAVE pictures of about 20 or more ERAU airplanes sitting elephant style on the taxiway at DAB. There’s NO WAY an eAirplane is gonna work there in summer. And there’s no way an eAirplane is gonna work in Oshkosh in winter. The dreamers can flap their tongues and press their keyboards forever … ain’t gonna make the real world requirements meet what is available now or on the foreseeable future.
GO HYBRID! Get more energy efficient and skip eAirplanes altogether. Even a Corvette is now available in hybrid format.
The only reason 2 place certified aircraft are not being designed and built is low volumes combined with certification costs. Diamond looked into updating the DA20, which should reasonably be IFR certified as is, to meet the FAA’s requirements. The changes would trigger recertification and weight which in turn meant the ROI was lower than simply stripping a DA40 down to a base training version.
As long as most schools will buy the old 172 no matter what, the market is going to stagnate.
Most of the current certified 2 seat aircraft will not carry 2 ‘heavy’ pilots and full fuel.
Plus, most of the experimental aircraft are 2 seat and are much faster than our ‘old’ trainers. And pilots can train in them again.
“…. they didn’t include drag-increasing devices, e.g. spoilers/speed-brakes, to make energy control on final easier. If your student isn’t exactly on speed and altitude, i.e. have EXACTLY the correct energy state, she isn’t going to hit the desired touch-down zone.”
I guess the art of slipping has been lost. I once did a flight review in a skylane and was slightly high in final. No problem with 5000 ft of pavement in front of me, but all of my landings are spot landings, so I entered a slip. The CFI just went rigid. Slips were only not in his tool box but he was terrified of them. I’ve flown J3s, champs, citabrias, decathelons and none of them had “drag-increasing devices” and spot landed just fine.
But, to teach airplane students (I hate the term “learners”) to fly in the real word of today, I agree with Brian Lloyd that “drag-increasing devices” are important – as are ICEs.
Yup, the first time I did a slip with a CFI, he also “went rigid”! I asked him what his problem was and he stated that he did not do slips. Hmm. So I said “let’s go to altitude and do slips until you are as comfortable with them as I am.” We did and he got a bit more relaxed about them. I find slips useful, especially for getting into some airstrips. Not terribly useful on instrument approaches, but you never know…
A LONG time ago, SPINS were taught as a technique to get oneself out of a cloud. If a cfi goes rigid in a slip, I imagine they’d have a coronary in such a maneuver. 🙂
In gliders, we teach a “benign spiral” in case you get caught on top of a cloud deck. You set the trim, open the spoilers and let go of the controls. This works well in most gliders (not all – and you don’t want to find out when you need it).
We do spin training with all of our glider students even though the FAA does not require it – YMMV in other countries. When thermalling you are typically a few knots above stall speed and the day WILL come when you’ll find yourself in an inadvertent spin.
When thermalling in a gaggle, I will fly faster than minimum sink speed, sacrificing performance for safety. Spinning down on top of a glider below you will make you very unpopular.
Just keep the nose down and the wing loading reduced.
We could argue that you did have “drag producing devices” on the aircraft. The flight controls that you employed to intentionally input cross-control between two sets of them! IIRC the F-22 does not have a traditional speed brake, it deflects both rudders inward when requested by the pilot. I am assuming the F-35 is the same.
The problem of lack of education/experience is not new. I was a Chief Instructor for a large 141 school in the 80’s (54 aircraft). At a safety seminar (I was also an Safety Counselor) we “older” CFI’s (I was mid thirties) got into an argument with young bucks with regard to their claim of no such thing as a “forward slip vs. a side slip”. After pulling out the FAA’s own Flight Training Hanbook, that got settled.
sigh, gotta proof read.
By the way, I don’t see any mention of hydrogen fuel cells as a type of aviation fuel. I think there may be a better future for that than diesel or electric. Diesel has had some issues getting started in small aircraft, but is improving. A flight school at my home airport has a whole fleet of Diamond diesel singles and twins, and has had apparently some issues with those engines. I have observed with some interest the new DeltaHawk diesel engine (the 180 is certified, and larger models are in the process).
What will work in reality will not be accepted by the FAA. See the Beech Starship for more info.
That is a remarkable improvement in energy density. That is about 40% better than Tesla’s current production batteries.
They may have compromised with battery cooling, which will further reduce longevity. Also I suspect less structurally strong which will increase fire hazard in a crash.
Do you have any basis at all for your suspicions?
The easiest way to reduce weight is to reduce features.
A battery can operate without liquid cooling but it will degrade even faster that way. An example is the early Nissan Leaf.
The amount of armor required by car batteries to prevent runaway thermal breakdown and eventual ignition from minor road damage is also heavy.
Doing away with that would save weight and money but make it even more likely the plane would ignite if crashed.
Tesla says their current auto batteries are 269 WH/KG.
Tanis has engine heaters for the Austro diesels–they are $1530 each. No problems starting. We are located in Minnesota, but if you don’t need THAT much heat, E-Z Heat makes pad heaters for only $185 each. What I DON’T like about the Austro in the winter time is the leaking liquid wing de-ice–nasty stuff–you don’t want to get it on you, and stains the hangar floor.
This is great! Finally an actual step forward in the process!! For years we’ve been being told how useful Electric Aircraft are by people who ignore all but what they want to see. An increase in energy density is an actual step of progress and that’s super refreshing. I mostly hate the “e” industry because it’s never about reality or practicality; it’s always about something that doesn’t exist yet but is going to be spectacular when it gets here – and then there is never any actual movement. Energy density has been the primary stumbling block and despite other posters assertions to the contrary there has virtually no real progress on that front in decades. The progress shown here does nothing to increase the validity of current e aircraft, but it is a huge step forward on the biggest issue facing the effort. For that I applaud them.
Now…. Electric anything is sadly still not progress over fossil fuel at this point. Those who cling so lovingly to its skirts fail to examine the question completely. But even if it is not legislatively mandated, it would be cool option to have. And who knows – MAYBE – just maybe – one day it could be more efficient.
And before you “electro nuts” go off on me – I live in a 100% solar house – do you? I also am an old Zero Population Growth guy from way back. That is true environmentalism. If you add more people, the environment is burdened more. Get with the program.
Very good and valid points– I agree!
265 WH/KG; great, except some of the latest EV batteries are over 500 WH/KG; one company has announced 720 WH/KG.
Battery tech is advancing in the way computers advanced; breakneck speed.
Solid state batteries are coming over the horizon; quantum leap in lightness, output, and charge time.
Some naysayers above display a shocking lack of knowledge of reality.
Brian,
The high energy cell is a prototype and is not a complete battery…see;
” Talent has successfully developed the world’s first automotive-grade, all-solid-state lithium metal battery prototype with a single cell capacity of 120 Ah and a real-world energy density of 720 Wh/kg, the company announced yesterday.”
So, probably a long way off as a production battery system.
I hate to sound like “Sheldon”, but I’m on a mission to correct the confusion between “power” and “energy”, as used by Russ and several commenters. These words are not interchangeable. Energy can be stored. Power is the rate at which energy is used (converted). Energy is stored in batteries and power is the rate at which the electric motor converts the energy into thrust. You would never say your fuel tank holds 300 horse power, although that’s how you might describe your engine. A kiloWatt-hour is energy and can be used at a rate per hour, leading to – kiloWatt-hour/hour to get kiloWatts.
Anyone that says “I’m not a scientist, but” needs to stop at the “but”. I *am* a reserach meteorologist at the University of Oklahoma/National Severe Storms Lboratory and I can assure without any reservations that global warming is real and it[s a legitimate threat. I cannot tell you what the best policy is. Governments may create policy for mitigation and then ask how mush effect that policy might have. It’s noy our job to recommend policy. It *is* our job to state what happenes under various mitigation scenarios. If we chose to do nothing, it’s not pretty.
Is the ‘real global warming’ from the inaccurate models, or are you referencing the poorly sited temp measuring equipment, which are also affected by the urban heat island.
Then, looking at the ocean tides gauges, the ocean level has been rising at about 2 mm per year, since measurements began 100 yrs ago. ref the gauge at ‘The Battery’ in NYC.
Show me real proof of a ‘legitimate threat’ ??
Ya made me laugh, Jim. I live on a salt water canal in FL. Every time the “ocean is rising and gonna eat ya” crowd says that, I run down to my dock to see how much time I have left. Problem is, aside from tidal flow and king tides, nothing changes. Those leftie loons ARE nuts. As to urban heat islands, same thing applies. Over a 50 years ago when I learned how to fly, there were MANY flight service stations … many located in rural areas. The temps they provided were “real.” NOW, everything is automated and the stations are located where … on airports with much asphalt, concrete and building. what do ya think that does to ‘average temp’ charts. The worst heat island is Atlanta.
Oh, and I’m an electrical engineer, used to analyzing large amounts of data and making sound engineering decisions.
Unfortunately, the ‘average temperature’ is highly affected by the warmer overnight temps , for various reasons, leading the the hype over ‘ Record Temperatures’. But the daily maximum temp hasn’t gone up, just the overnight low..!!
more fake misleading data.!
There might be a good investment in sump pumps in the distant future for our great great grandkids!
Only if you live within 12 inches of mean sea level, in about 100 years..!!!
I live at 900 ft msl, so I’m good for centuries.
[ but I’ll be ‘gone’ in less than 30 years..!!]
NO, Jim … a super duper AI computer has calculated this:
“As a result, climate change continues to progress onward, threatening the melting of the ice caps, which would send hundreds of thousands of miles of shoreline under the ocean. And according to a new simulation, humanity’s end could come in as little as 250 million years if climate change continues the way it has.”
“msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/a-supercomputer-simulation-just-predicted-when-humans-will-go-extinct/ar-BB1lRQb2?”
So in 250 million years, CO2 is gonna get us all … no wonder Joby and the battery boys and the eV boys are working so hard to slow it down. They are … LOONS!
Couple of thoughts:
1) With 60 or 90 min duration – how many of us take off, even in trainers, with 6 to 8 gallons of fuel in the tanks? I expect there could be a number of ground tows from the end of the runway. Or worse, transporting a plane back from an off-field landing.
2) One goal of electric planes is to reduce the carbon dumped into the atmosphere. A gallon of gasoline is 80 to 85% carbon (as a hydrocarbon) and creates 19.6 lbs of CO2 when burned. Very little of the carbon is left behind in the engine (perhaps on valves or to dirty up the oil). One gallon produces nearly 20 pounds of essentially dry ice. At the power plant, to create the electricity, about 90% of the CO2 is scrubbed out of the smokestack. Coal is nearly 100% carbon.
So for electric powered cars and planes, about 90% of the carbon is removed at the source. Carbon in the atmosphere has nearly doubled over the course of the industrial age. So if the goal is to remove carbon, this will work. Will removing carbon help with climate change? Well that depends on your view of the science.