Why Don't We Have Electric Planes Yet?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 гру 2019
- Electric planes could revolutionize flight, from commuting in air taxis to making regional flights more affordable and long-haul flights more environmentally friendly. So in the era of electric cars, why are planes so far behind?
» Subscribe to CNBC: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBC
» Subscribe to CNBC TV: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBCtelevision
» Subscribe to CNBC Classic: cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBCclassic
About CNBC: From 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street' to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.
Connect with CNBC News Online
Get the latest news: www.cnbc.com/
Follow CNBC on LinkedIn: cnb.cx/LinkedInCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Facebook: cnb.cx/LikeCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Twitter: cnb.cx/FollowCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Instagram: cnb.cx/InstagramCNBC
#CNBC
Why Don't We Have Electric Planes Yet?
Why so negative?
I love the 737 MAX! Zero Emissions since March 2019! Very eco-friendly.
Gold. Lmao
Ah the famous Boeing 737 MAX CASUALTIES
Oh man
@Cole Phelps actually it is not Zero Emissions , its lower than most planes now, not Emissions free. Unless you know of a new version.
U mean the one thats crashing around?
Did you charge your plane? Yeah, its at 34% it'll be fine
Did you fill up your plane? Yeah, it's only 34% full it'll be fine
CodePlay how long would it take go from 34% to 100% in fuel compared to electric?! Minutes to hours!
Only 5 hrs with supercharger 😋
@@adrianaadnan7704 you've clearly gone beyond selling snake oil. You're now selling stupidity
man i dont know what to say 😔
“Your airplane’s battery is low. Would you like to enable low power mode to avoid *falling from the sky* ?”
Lol
"Your airplane's gas is low. Would you like to enable low power mode to avoid falling from the sky?"
RadimusCisco I was making an phone reference tho (._.)
@@rad2games889 r/wooosh
@@rad2games889 i think that scenario would just happen more frequently with an EV plane than with a jet plane so it is more likely to happen the "low power mode" with the EV version and the jet version maybe be very rare
“Urban Air Mobility” or as they are currently called “Helicopters”
They are inventing a concept that already exists lol
I like that bit where the helicopter lands on the building. That has been banned in NYC since the Pan Am Building disaster in the 80s. Not likely to return.
@@joshuas3897 Are helicopters quiet? I didn't think so
@@gabedarrett1301 We already have quiet helicopters, look up "Vietnam Silent Helicopter" and/or watch this ua-cam.com/video/qzkrW27c4h8/v-deo.html
@@joshuas3897 yes but their basically helicopters that are at least 90% cheaper to operate.
Why dont we have gas operated cellphones
real talk
and thats on 400cc two stroke iphone 30
if u charge phone in car you kinda are
Apple: *TAKE NOTES*
Why?
Because the REAL electric age is still in its infancy... We'll get there soon enough once power density of battery tech improves...
You increase power density of batteries all u are gonna get is a bomb..... ua-cam.com/video/8RbwOhM6PUk/v-deo.html
Ian Weetman if, not once.
Graphene is the key.
@@edmccloskey9696 Found the idiot
Gabriel
ThunderF00t is a university researcher who lives to improve technology and chemistry, so, we found one, you
Without even watching yet I'm pretty sure the answer is batteries.
But how about Hydrogen Fuel Cells assisted or put together along with the batteries???
@@aliasghar3265 energy density
@@VoltPercival Yes and no. Fuel cells have a higher energy density than batteries on a mass basis. On a volumetric basis is another story, and that creates challenges for airplanes is the size and shape.
@@julianpaige2939 yeah, especially to maintain aerodynamics.
@@aliasghar3265 not much difference; they both output electricity and need stored energy; in the case of fuel cell, it's stored hydrogen.. not sure which has higher energy density.
The answer is obvious : battery capacity is insufficient, and they are too heavy...
"Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Captain Obvious speaking..."
They would need really large wings to compensate too.
All of you are woefully short-sighted, inept and dangerously pessemistic if you cannot even imagine answers to all these challenges: just as 20 years ago fools such as yourselves could not have foreseen battery energy density improving so rapidly and so dramatically as to give us today's ultra-high performance cars with ranges of 500 and 600 miles (Tesla's Semi truck has acceleration three times what today's semi trucks can give, with 500 miles range... they are already being used for commercial purposes; and the Tesla Roadster with 0-60 mph of 2.1 seconds, 620 mile range, and 250 mph top speed). Yes, you are DANGEROUS, because lugheads such as yourself have the effect of group-think that impedes the continuum of progress.
You cannot see anything being better than it is today... but if you make the minimal effort you would find that companies such as Airbus already have smaller viable airworthy EVs-- electric systems are far more reliable due to extreme simplicity and minimal motor size.
As in the video where you see multiple tiny motors across a wing, each motor can have an entirely separate system of batteries and electronics. Such redundancy provides reliability and low cost of operation far beyond anything achievable by fueled aircraft.
There are constant new developments and breakthroughs: they recently discovered, for instance, that a bizarre quality of graphene allows electrons to flow with extreme efficiency across their plane when oriented at an angle of 1.1 degrees: they do not understand-- nor know yet-- how to make practical use of this unpredictable curiosity, but it took decades before we started to see tiny lasers used ubiquitously in all manner of personal, industrial, information and security systems.
Keep your distance, any of you myopic imbeciles. It took a single individual, Elon Musk, to show, after more than a half-century of "common knowledge" to demonstrate that, no, it is not impossible to boost a satellite into orbit with a rocket, and then save $35 million or so each time you direct the rocket to come back and land, to be reused multiple times.
SpaceX has done exactly that 50 times or so already, reducing the cost of space industry by two orders of magnitude. Stop trying to tell everyone what is impossible... you humiliate yourselves, and incur the wrath of those with more good sense.
@@billdale1 Sure, you mighgt get twice as much energy in a lithium ion battery over time with various developments, but 40 times the energy density ? Also, the video incorrectly claims that turbine engines are inefficient - they are in fact about the MOST efficient type of internal combustiion devices. Hybrid airplanes simply add weight for zero advantage !
@@billdale1 Spoken like a true moron. Wishful thinking does not make things true.
Always fascinating to see how the US is searching for solutions for their trafic problem. But efficient public transportation is never an option.
mkmm60 Are you an idiot?
One thing moves the other!
I thought NewYork had subways?
There is traffic problems in every major city in the world whether they have good public transportation or not.
Low population density is the answer for that... Unless you live in the top 10 cities in the US, public transportation doesn't make sense economically. So for most people in the US , working from home, carpooling and self-driving cars will solve most of the traffic jams traffic. Removing even a small percentage of cars from the road can eliminate most traffic jams as the number of cars goes below the maximum carrying capacity of the road.
@Amusis Theodore is mostly correct. Public transportation is not the greatest in the US, but it is growing gradually. Public transportation really makes a lot of sense for high population areas for both intra and inter city transport.
why did a click on a fifteen minute video that's just gonnae say "batteries are heavy innit"?? am aff
Thx
More was said than just batteries a heavy
thanks you saved my time, I will just exit the video now.
Aviation: "electric air. massively more innovation and more investment, its great"
Corona: "hold my beer"
Real shame too,it would make travel way cheaper
Corona.... Beer.... get it!?
@@bryanfeliciano4102 Never say never though. That type of technology is already here just in testing.
Solar powered planes
*PSSSJJJT* " This is your captain speakin, we're not going to London anymore due to low battery we have to fly by Florida."
*PSSSJJJT*
We have electric toy planes, does that count?
they have been around for years these news people are stupid. just because electric planes aren't implemented in commercial airlines doesn't mean they don't exist.. think of the man who made that sea plane with solar panels on his roof and just flew till his battery died landed on water.. slept while he waited for the recharge before continuing his flight.. it's like how they use to travel back in the day before long range planes.. where's the electric boats at? I think a Canadian eskimo kidnapped my baby.. better go..
All battery powered cars and planes are just toys for rich/stupid people. E-fuels are several times more economic for the mass market
There's an Electric Comercial plane that flew just a few weeks ago
Lol they exist... mine runs on diesel
Well here Siemens make bigger one at least a size of Cessna class
ua-cam.com/video/TcoTELN729M/v-deo.html
Because we can’t have nuclear reactors in a plane
We can, but its risky as hell lol
If we crash now that's great. LOL
Actually we can have nuke reactor planes. There is no radiation threat, just public perception is horrible due to a lack of basic science understanding. Blame your Congressman for your lack of education.
I don't believe reactor technology is anywhere near being small or light enough to be used for commercial aircraft. Plus if you had a catastrophic failure in the upper atmosphere any escapeing irradiated particles could be dispersed over a much larger area then if the failure happened at ground level. Plus then we have more nuclear waste to dispose of..... might be the best solution we have though....
@@huntsbychainsaw5986 we got nuclear powered submarines
Aviation history: Propeller Age -> Jet Age -> Propeller Age
We won't see electric large transport aircraft in our lifetime.
@@maxnicely8926 maybe it could happen
@@kennethtimorang8343 Jet engines use combustion to generate thrust. You cant recreate that with a electric motor without some sort of fuel source
@@maxnicely8926 fact of the day, but maybe it could be used in teeny-tiny private jets?
@@kennethtimorang8343 Not technically a jet, but it sure can be used for small business aircraft. Which is why I mentioned large transport category. I don't see how battery or propulsion technology will be able to replace 200-400 seat aircraft of today within the next 100 years.
"Air taxis" , also known as ... helicopters, at $500/hour.
Multicockybillionaires yes please.
I feel like the past 10 videos I've seen from CNBC has been a video that Real Engineering has already done. Anyone else think this?
True. They get interviews though. Maybe CNBC should join Nebula lol
That's where I learnt that kerosene is more effective efficient and energy dense than the best current electric options available
CNBC headlines covering up the
WHAT/WHY and HOW'S topics are mostly about the nonsensical stuff..
They never explain the why/how/rise/fall of someone/something part..
Just showing up some stats and news clips, a facetime video clip with their EXPERT, and ending the video without conclusion...
Down in that video's comment section, some comments will explain the why/how/rise/fall of part...remaining would be random opinions or wannabe experts..
nice day..
Real engineering is biased or simply campaigning for one camp.
Omg i am obsessed with real engineering... y arent they using that for uni modules
Liquid fuel becomes lighter as the journey progresses!
The battery will always weigh the same!
Abhishek Angadi Cool story bro.
Exactly why I can't imagine having fully electric planes, the weight is just questionable. Unless we invent lighter batteries.
That's a good point.
Jen Reyy No is NOT,
The weight has nothing to do with it. We have HUGE plane carriers that travel with Helicopters and Tanks across countries.
Engineering is all you need to deal with the extra weight, once the plane is above ground is completely irrelevant how much it weights before or after.
Edit: for the morons who forgot to read.... ENGINEERING will take care of the extra weight!!!
@@powerhouse884 lol wow so you're just going to ignore physics????
Simply due to the energy density in fossil fuels and the lack thereof in batteries.
@@Penguiniel this would be more of a hybrid and is only a good idea the way you described it if you have a very efficient system that will capture more energy (and waste less) from the combustion of fuel than what a plane running on that fuel would utilize and waste. Generally I don't think this is the case. but with a hybrid that runs on a combination batteries charged by greener sources of energy and jet fuel, they are saying in the video you could be much greener than we are now.
the plane gets lighter as it burns fuel. an electric aircraft has to carry this super thick heavy batteries that weigh the same when 100% and 5% ful
Harbor air has commercial electric aircraft...Google it.
"Why Don't We Have Electric Planes Yet?"
Title is wrong. There are electric planes. They are just two seaters
The Oil Companies are the reason why we don't have Electric Planes yet
DOMINION no physics are the reason we don’t have electric planes yet.
Joseph Barnett: physics or no physics, when (not if) WHEN electric plane technology starts looking like its gonna make a breakthrough the oil companies will step in big-time.
@@unhooked25 So, physics is the reason we don't have electric planes yet. Yeah, oil companies will obstruct, but for now it is physics.
Also wonder what will happen to jet planes.
@@lamia197 You both are wrong. We have Electric planes already. The reasson why we wont have long distanse high capacity planes only Electric is speed and range issues
I’ll bet Elon Musk is working on the Cyberplane as we speak.
If there is money to be made, Elon Musk will be there.
Well there are already rockets being made to help cut time for flights but I guess that just as bad as planes
@@inthefar-queue6270 More like money to burn literally and figuratively.
@@hellogoodbye8881 Solid fuel booster rockets are far more polluting than jets using aviation fuel.
Even Elon Musk is not silly enough to seriously think about using lithium electric storage in its present level of technology for an aerial vehicle.
"This is a vehicle that needs that reliability and safety to move people who are expecting that same experience that they would get **IN A 737**"
Allow me to stop you right there.
Chris Jovy a nice normal 737 is great. You only have problems when you try to make a plane that fights the pilots for control.
In fairness, all the older models of the 737 are as safe as any other aircraft. It’s only the newest variant with issues
Passenger : Question: Why is my flight delayed? Answer: Its taking a week to charge your plane up. Get It x
I hate how he said small turbine engines are inefficient, when they are the most efficient jet engines
compared to the electric motor they are.
@@philterry3293 They also don't generate nearly as much thrust
@@maxnicely8926 thrust is not a measure of efficiency.
@@philterry3293 doesn't matter how efficient they are if they can't generate as much thrust
@@maxnicely8926 Nonsense, thrust may equal speed, but it does not equal efficiency. Airlines are always searching for more efficiency, electric planes could shave 70% off fuel bills. Bottom line is a major factor.
Initiatives I don’t take seriously: Uber Elevate
that will be popular in a few years
some cities already have ubercopter
I'd take Tesla Elevate
Initiatives I don’t rake seriously: Uber
and WeWork, SoftBank Vision Fund
is that list exhaustive? 😅
UA-cam has been listening to my thoughts again.
You already think the idea before it was shown here?
Or you have been programmed to think like that
N u fell right into it n consumed. 😋
I was talking about this 2 days ago on the phone, they are diffinately listening to everyone.
If you want to save 15 minutes of your life, you can jump in here:
14:42 - *"Currently, the economics do not work."*
Thanks you !
Thanks bud !!
Talking of e f f ic i e n c y
There are electric planes capable of an hour plus of flight excellent (low cost) for training and short haul flights
We’re making it work in Canada ... because Canadians are on the technological cutting edge ...
www.harbourair.com/about/corporate-responsibility/goingelectric/
Well who's ready to fly with Tesla Airlines in 2040
No
heck yeah
The only thing that make Electric planes become reality is "Ultra low weigh battery", because battery is too heavy,
That's about as trite as it gets, it's the comment of someone who has no idea how little he knows.
Thousands of gallons of jet fuel is heavy as well
@@spaceoddity2485 - What is heavier a pound of lead or a pound of feathers?
intensity
Battery Operated is different than Electric. The plane could use a fuel cell and still be an electric plane.
Because Kerosene is about 40 times more effective efficient and dense as an energy to fly than electric.
I learnt about it two weeks ago
Wrong! The new batteries Tesla made provide 3 times the power for same weight and space
@@testaccount603
Show me the numbers.
What you mean? Electricity has no weight.
Jack is not in the box battery weight is huge, please research
@@JackIsNotInTheBox
PhD in Thermodynamics Phil Mason
m.ua-cam.com/video/8RbwOhM6PUk/v-deo.html
m.ua-cam.com/video/3K43XC9J82Q/v-deo.html
m.ua-cam.com/video/OmHnKKuBdco/v-deo.html
He should be able to explain this to you guys.
two words: energy density
Probably because turbines are unimaginably efficient for airborne vehicles.
Eon Gaming 100mpg per person!
However, keep in mind that much of that efficiency simply due to low drag at altitude.
Not quite. Jet fuel is much more energy dense. Also technically the plane gets lighter when it uses up fuel.
Why?
Because low battery in mid air will make people panic .
More than low fuel?
@@ChrisKnowles1170 There's more energy in fuel than a plane load of heavy batteries.
@@kansasthunderman1 did you not watch the video? Yes, jet fuel is more energy dense, which limits electric flights to short range. Crossing the Atlantic is not the only use of a plane.
The same applies to low fuel then.
They'll take every concern into consideration, like how long a fully charged plane will fly.
“oops we forgot to charge it”
TLDR: the energy density of gas vs lithium ion batteries is like 100 to 1 and batteries are heavy
That's also why electric cars haven't caught on much.
But u r also forgetting that more than 50% of that energy is wasted in the form of best and vibration.
@@kansasthunderman1 actually they are expanding rapidly, especially in emerging power China, and literally nearly all of Norway, and Western Europe is embracing it. Cars are not like planes.
@@dranzergigs8333 ...virtually no vibration and the heat is utilized...unlike electric planes that must use parasitic electric heaters...funny how that little tidbit is never discussed.
It's more like 50 to 1 in raw energy and even less if we take into account the weight of the fuel tanks and fuel system and the low efficiency (that is all the wasted energy) of a piston engine. LIthium ion batteries aren't the most efficient batteries anymore so this video was outdated long before it was posted. Graphene batteries were launched earlier this year and they already offer better effective energy density than liquid fuel for smaller commercial airplanes.
Building airplanes like cars, never thought I would say this, but thank god for the FAA. It's probably still decades before an electric plane can fly around carrying a full paper text of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
Just don’t forget to bring along your portable chargers !
Khairul Anwar hhhhhh
2 second video. Why don't we have electric planes yet? Physics. One gallon of jet fuel has more energy than 1,000 lbs of batteries.
You got that right. A gallon of gas contain over 30 KWH in chemical energy.
But you can have lighter engine and other parts in electric + you almost don't need to repair an electric vehicle
And there is the thermodynamic efficiency aspect too: jet engines directly convert 60-70% of fuel into thrust, which is about as good as power plants are at converting fuel into electricity. Using batteries with the additional costs, double-conversion losses and other overheads is a net negative regardless of how much better batteries may possibly get if they are going to get charged in significant part using fossil fuels.
@@artoruvidal2793 Not really, a jet engine is only a glorified air compressor, there isn't a whole lot that can go wrong with them already. The real challenge with jet engines is getting the fluid dynamics right. Even if you replace everything from the combustor down with an electric motor, you still need to do maintenance on the fan stages and bearings. Also, if you want to match a 747 engine's 45MW/4000kg, you would need to scale the highest power-to-weight electric motor I could find (200kw/20kg) to ~4500kg... so you start with a 500kg handicap before attaching fan blades to the motor shaft, adding bearings with their oil pumps, something to mount the motor-fan assembly to the rest of the plane, the motor's VFD unit which ain't going to be trivial at 45MW, a cooling system for the VFD, likely a cooling system for the batteries too, etc.
I wouldn't expect electric flight to make it much beyond light aircrafts.
@@teardowndan5364 You did not watch the video at all, did you? None of the planes they showed as being in development were jet engines, mostly they were (yet) talking about short, regional type flights where turbines are inefficient due to scaling anyway. Turboprop style electric motors would not have the exaggerated power requirements you are fantasizing about.
1950: I bet we'll have flying cars in the future.
2019: Give it 5-10 more years. =)
That is still the future you idiot
Oliver Revillo hahahahha
1960s Star Trek they had flip phones
Late 1990s they were reality for everyone
It's right around the corner.
How does it take 15mins to explain energy density isn't high enough in batteries yet?
There are already electric planes - they just aren't very common yet. There is an electric light plane called the Pipistrel which is made in Slovenia.
Because batteries are heavy and aren’t as energy dense as petroleum aka very inefficient.
Depends on what you mean by "efficient" but I otherwise agree.
But how would we achieve thermodynamic laws for the aircraft's thrust? Which mean they would have to reinvent a new turbine engine.
Electric vehicles are way way more efficient than petrol ones
@@etiennelamole9565 Yes, the engines are more efficient. However, as an energy source, kerosene is more energy dense.
Etienne Lamole theyre more efficient at using power. In other words they can travel a mile on less energy when compared to their gasoline counterparts.
However they’re not as efficient in the way they store their energy. The energy to travel a mile is stored in less space in a gasoline powered car.
CNBC is really pushing hard on these short documentaries. Sheer Quality Content!
Yeah and bloomberg too tho really quality content on these two channels lately
You are probably new to UA-cam.
They talk about weight...however we pay for “overweight” luggage on conventional aircraft...so how is hybrid air going to be feasible?
Thought deserving
the overweight luggage rule is actually for the workers! OSHA regulates the amount of weight a person has to lift for their jobs in a shift, so in order to avoid OSHA violations, and also help out the workers behind the wall, the airline charges you a hell of a lot to avoid the overweight bags.
"Why are planes so far behind?"
Aviation enthusiasts & every single airliners with CF6, RB211, PW4000 & every other loud turbofans:
*Because that's what heroes do.*
They have hydrogen plane in the works , Hyundai, Honda, BMW, Toyota all have hydrogen cars ready to launch, there are hydrogen trucks in the works, shell has invested heavily in hydrogen and here is the key in 2017 the Australian CSIRO invented a way to store and ship hydrogen, Japan plan’s to go fully hydrogen by 2030. You can manufacture hydrogen using solar power and store it and use it to provide electricity when it’s night, welcome to an actual green solution, batteries take 12 years to pay off and last 10 , GL with that.
@@SuperJohn12354 Let's just hope the beasts of the vintage commercial jet aviation (i.e those early high-bypass turbofans, the 747, 757, A300, A380 etc.) coupd survive that 'Hydrogenism' by allowing the engines to be powered by Hydrogen.
@@SuperJohn12354 OMG! What utter tripe! Where do I start?
No, all those car companies do NOTTT have hydrogen cars ready to go! On the contrary!
BMW had a hydrogen version of their 7 series more than 10 years ago! Nobody wanted it! Have you EVER seen one on the street?! Honda and Toyota were always talking big about their Clarity and Mirai boondoggles... but what happened with them? You can't fool anyone into buying a car that runs on peanut butter, if there are no peanut butter supply stations to accommodate you.
There is no good way to calculate all the EV charging stations all over the country, but when you count all of the ones at factories for their employees to use for free as a perk, or the ones in parking garages, theaters, restaurants, museums, etc., it is safely into the high tens of thousands. How many hydrogen stations? 69, as of the last count. And how many HFC cars? Google it yourself: the number actually DECREASED last year, because nobody wanted one! About 8,000 in the whole country, less than the number of Teslas made in a month.
Contrast that with EVs: on March 31, 2016, Elon Musk announced he was ready to take orders for the Model 3; he said it would require a $1K deposit. He was only expecting a couple of thousand orders.
What a surprise: within 24 hours, he had ~ 186,000 orders with deposits. Within one month, that number had swelled to close to a half-million. It took them years to catch up with the backlog... their Gigafactory in Sparks NV, is the largest building by footprint in the US, and 2nd by volume. All it produces is batteries for them.
They took less than a year to build their next factory, 212 acres in size, and were producing cars in less than a year.
Where are all the HFC stations? It's simple. No one wants a HFC car if there is nowhere to fuel it, and no one wants to build a fueling station if there is no one to sell the fuel to-- a classic Catch 22.
Why not build them? That's even simpler: a fueling station costs between 1 and 2 million dollars. Do the math: to install, say, 30,000 of them, which is actually just barely adequate, that would set you back something like half a TRILLION dollars... who would risk installing them, if there was no guarantee of a market, if they considered the facts below? Who would even have that much cash? Anybody that DID have that much, would be smart enough and savvy enough to know it made no sense to risk it all on anything such as a distant also-ran to EVs.
Unlike charging stations, which cost as little as $800. bucks including installation-- in many areas, the city or the utility will install it for free, and maybe even kick in the hardware, too. That's how it works here in L.A., and many other places across the planet... cities are eager to get everyone to drive EVs, because it's the cheapest and easiest way to reduce pollution, health care due to asthma attacks, emphysema, heart attacks, etc.
Back to those woeful HFC cars: why would car companies be so eager to sell them? Again, simple: it was like having an umbilical cord attached to their customers. Once a driver has one, it's a hot potato: they can't sell it... it is only good as scrap metal... so all they can do is drive it, and pay dearly for the fuel, which they can only get from the dealer, or someone connected to them.
EVs might not need anything from the dealer or manufacturer for years except for piddly stuff like tire rotations and windshield wipers; all of that is the main profit for car companies: they make more profit off of parts, oil changes, tune-ups, tranny service, radiator flushes, etc., than selling the car. As for HFC cars, there is less maintenance (at first!), and they give the hydrogen fuel to the customer free for the first year or so... but once the honeymoon is over and they have to start paying for things, a HFC car will break their backs: presently, the fuel is several times as much as gasoline-- $15. per gallon, give or take, and the cost gets kinda fuzzy since, for instance, you can't just fill your car up on Monday, park it for days, and expect a full tank to be there when you need it for the weekend: hydrogen gas needs to be kept at hundreds of degrees below zero just to keep all of it from boiling away.
(You said something about using sunlight to make the hydrogen... that is an incredibly inefficient way to make it, called hydrolysis. But the alternative-- called hydrogen reforming-- is no better than using gasoline, as it produces just as much pollution. It's a no-win situation.
Even under ideal conditions, hydrogen atoms are the smallest particles on the periodic table of elements, so there is literally nothing than can hold it-- even in a solid steel container, it will eventually escape from the most infinitesimally small cracks and valve clearances... it will seep right through solid tanks as if they were just sieves.
Wanna park that lovely FCV right next to the gas water heater, in your garage... the one with the pilot light?? Do you still want your house to be there in the morning? Are you always going to know if there is a cigarette smoker, or other source of ignition nearby? Would that weigh too heavily on your mind to be worth the stress and anxiety?
Hydrogen can make many materials brittle... what exotic internal parts will you have to replace in a few years, or chance having a catastrophic failure?
So many more problems... too many to count... have you ever seen the Hindenburg Zeppelin crash of 1937, in NJ? (Search for it.) Before that happened, people loved the whole idea of riding in a quiet balloon floating though the sky... afterward, everyone was horrified and unwilling to take the chance. Immediately, hydrogen was a curse.
That was more than 80 years ago... people forget; people die. But what happens when Soccer Mom with a van full of kiddies is at the fueling station when a semi truck loses its brakes, and plows into them, and they suddenly become the first story on the nightly news-- worldwide? Will ANYONE be convinced to get into a FCV again? The entire fuel cell²
market will die overnight.
So much of what is wrong with FCVs, has much more to do with what is right about EVs: look at the stats on how many EVs have been responsible for fires, and you will see they are per capita much safer than ICE cars, and infinitely less worrisome than FCV cars. They have no fuel tanks to explode if rear ended.
All the heaviest components in an EV are way down between the wheels, giving it a low center of gravity, which means excellent resistance to roll-overs, and they will corner like a Formula One racer.
There is so much more... do you really need to know?
Hydrogen is DEAD, and always has been... the hucksters trying to sell them just never told you that.
@@SuperJohn12354 wow yet another " true believer" that throws out false "facts" , omits HUGE amounts of costs that detract from his religion and refuses to listen to the truth....HAIL to the conspiracy theorists and true believers, may they forever be marginalized!
Always after 20 years
There are production electric planes now. Have been for a few years.
Okay, but why not rubber band powered airplanes?
As a norwegian, I look forward to flying domestic with electric planes. As of now, it's more expensive to fly short domestic flights than longer international flights. Widerøe, tar deg videre =)
They just test flew an electric passenger float plane here in British Columbia. The BC ferry fleet is also going electric.
Because we have barely started with electric cars and airplanes are a lot bigger, more complicated, and more power hungry than cars.
There are other issues to, planes need to be lighter to land than they are taking off otherwise they can over run the runway and crash. With fuel this is not a problem as it's used up while flying but with batteries that weight doesn't go away even if you use the energy
@@AdamSmith-gs2dv This mostly applies to the largest of airliners as not every airliner has the ability (requirement) to dump fuel
Someone please make my pants electric already!!!
Granted. Now, go to your local bdsm dungeon and ask the Dominatrix for the electro simulation toys
ur brain too
Do you have problems down there?
Replace regional to medium haul flights with electric rail service
The amount of energy required to roll the tires on a car is drastically less than the energy required to lift a heavy plane off the ground. Plus when your battery dies in a car you can pull over. The same can’t be said for an airplane
Soon governments will be able to order Uber Drone Strike & Uber ICBM.
"So there has been a significant enough improvement in the performance of batteries, which the automotive industry is really driving"
I see what you did there 😏
the only joke I actually wish was true...
@@AnotherCoyote I agree ...🙄
I see 3 major flaws with electric planes:
1. The risk of the batteries catching fire.
2. How do you safe occupants in accidents, when the airframe is under high voltage like we see it on cars.
3. Winter!
Lol we’re just getting the cars figured out, patience people.
Kinda cant afford to be patient...
A 747 holds about 200,000 litres of fuel. There is 10 kWh of energy per litre. The gas turbine engines on an aircraft are about 40% efficient. So that's 200,000*10*0.4 = 800,000 kWh of equivalent stored electrical energy. A Tesla 3 battery is 75 kWh. So the 747 would require about 11,000 Tesla three batteries. A Telsa 3 battery weighs about 1000 lb. So that's 11 million lbs of batteries to power the 747. A 747 has maximum take off weight of 910,000 lb, or about 1 million pounds. So we're an order of magnitude away in terms of weight, without considering cargo, passengers, or the weight of the plane's structure. That also doesn't consider the cabin heating load, which is substantial. Assuming that one could make an engine that even had the thrust necessary to fly the plane. A Tesla level 3 super charger's sustained charge rate is about 150 kW. So to charge the 747 batteries in a reasonable amount of time (under and hour) we'd need 11,000 * 150 kW = 1650000 kW = 1.6 GW of power. So expect to build a dedicated, very large, power generation plant, at every airport. Something on the order of two or three 5 GW nuclear power stations would be necessary at a large airport. A small airport might get away with one nuclear power plant or about 1000-2000 large wind turbines or 1000-2000 square kilometres of solar. And God help the firefighters trying to contain an out of control electrical fire, or a short circuit, in a fully charged 800,000 kWh battery, and the passengers trying to escape it. Imagine the scenarios.
@Dark of the knight Or just go bio-kerosene. Not science fiction today for large aircraft, whereas electric powered flight of large aircraft is firmly in science fiction territory. Small short range aircraft, sure. Large long range, not so much.
imagine having to charge the plane for 20 hours (or more) before the next flight
You can just swap the battery. Jet fuel takes a lot longer than 20 hours to refine, but we always have plenty on hand.
Marat B
I charge my electric car in 20-30 minutes.
@@ChrisKnowles1170 Batteries are too heavy for planes and you can't store spare batteries in clouds where a plane in mid flight can just pull over and get a recharge. .
@@kansasthunderman1 you gotta be pretty thick to think I meant mid flight
@@kansasthunderman1 they will get lighter yet more dense.
I think it's gonna be at least two decades before we see hybrid commercial airplanes ...let alone fully electric ones.
The “urban air mobility vehicles” or small electric helicopters will never be adopted if they are not able to reduce the sound created. Think of a drone, super small and light and you can still hear it a hundred yards away, not think of something 30x bigger. You will hear these for miles and they will be loud, nobody wants helicopters flying over them like cars drive down the street.
Everyone it's because the extension cords aren't long enough. There, I saved you 15 minutes of your life. I accept Visa, MC, AMEX, DISC, and DC.
if they just installed wireless charging everywhere we could never worry about batteries just ad a few magnets and we can make hover world..
"This not like your dad's Cessna 172"
relatable
Yea, its more like the 737 experience...
This is a commercial for the wealthy. An american dream for us plebs.
RH MB, so just when do you get a chance to throttle back the engine of that Cessna. When sightseeing? Hardly sounds like a good option for travel.
Lithium-air batteries will make electric planes possible due to higher density and no fire hazard. Lonnie Johnson will achieve this goal, I hope, as 5 years ago his battery was at 1.5x the energy density of current Lithium-ion batteries.
Actually we do have electric planes. HarbourAir has begun service by electric plane from Victoria BC to Vancouver. It’s a short hop, but it is probably the first commercial air service by electric planes. The carbon footprint of conventional air travel is horrific.
Harbour Air in Vancouver, BC just did a test flight of the first commercial aircraft, a modified de Havilland DCH-2.
Weird how lots of items started out with gas then changed to electric but the a phone. They always have been electric
6:31: So, they want to try to decrease CO2 emissions by making the planes slightly more efficient (which wont happen with the hybrid systems that they're proposing) and then make regional air travel a more common way to travel? Using regional air travel more often would just offset any reduction in CO2 emissions that they managed to gain by improving the efficiency of the aircraft... which can't be done by making the aircraft heavier with a hybrid system anyway. WTF is wrong with these people?
You should try diffusers battery. Which means the charging of the fuel cell is directly from air. Like nitrogen charger ions transport etc.
A local airline is going to go electric on short hops in Vancouver
Airlines: "When will the batteries be powerful enough to carry 500 passengers crammed into the space that used to hold 200, since we'll have eliminated the weight of the fuel?"
Lol the batteries needed to make this work will weigh more than the fuel
Why don't we have electric planes yet?
Satellite: Then you haven't met me yet.
Clearly, you don't know how sustained orbit works.
If you think high density airports are bad now, imagine when you have to let airplanes sit for hours to charge the plane.
Yeah maybe we need a better batterytechnology, as claimed in the Video you just commented under.
This sounded more like an ad for that dude from the Ampaire company.
damn it a was born way too early :(
Better than 2000 years ago
@1life To live yeaaahhh very true lmao
I believe we do have at least one that isn't a pure model aircraft. It has a wide wingspan and solar panels. It isn't a passenger plane, but not strictly a model either. An electric drone
Battery density is an issue. The thing about fuel is as you use it the aircraft gets lighter making the plane more efficient as it flys. As battery power drains the weight stays the same. So the plane is just flying about carrying depleted batteries. Or empty power
When hydrogen can be used in planes, then we’ll see electric planes. Or when super capacitors can be used....maybe.
What about dilithium crystals?
Graphene
9:10 this sounds just like how the Rotodyne operates, and that ended up being a failure.
I personally think and believe we need to upgrade our trains and even build lines throughout the US. If we had the trains like in Japan, China and Europe there would be less need to fly, when weather is bad like it currently is in the winter to some parts of the country when it's dangerous, it would enable us to travel easier and cheaper throughout the US plus it would lighten up traffic in big cities. My thoughts and concern with electric planes as it is with cars is, what happens when these electric cars and planes are obsolete and replaced? Are these batteries recyclable? Honestly, we don't even know if the car batteries are and creating a mass of these in the future could create worse pollution than what we have by replacing one danger to another type of monster.
Look it up, Harbour Air seaplanes in Vancouver announced having one since Dec 10 2019.
I'm looking forward to the free roads to be honest.
Because electricity can't melt steel beams
Facts!
You do know what welding is, right?
@@evilbred974Welding is a conspiracy theory!
I really hope the engines will have that nice screaming sound that normal jets have
I’d be interested in hearing about how far away industrial vehicles like semi trucks, tractors and construction equipment are from fully electric?
Tesla announced an electric tractor-trailer. I saw a picture. Their drawback is a shorter range than the trucking industry would like. Because they don't want the expense of more terminals. It would break many companies. But I think they're still going to be a success. Tesla is fantastic.
You can see Tesla's electric tractor-trailer on several videos on UA-cam.
Scientist's on this planet are lets say: Not much smarter than your average bear
Jungle Jim amen to that 😂
Then it should be easy for you to set the world on fire with your brilliant inventions. Best of luck to you son.
@@eddydogleg Son? I'm certainly not related to you in any shape, way or form pleb. AND talent like that just goes to waste on the galaxy's vermin.
@@eddydogleg No need to Get upset at me that you were born a pleb to your mum/sister in trailer 7.
eddydogleg it’s so obvious that their attempts are useless. Trying to turn an apple into an orange. Everyone is so stubborn with making batteries the future and not trying to find other ways. Batteries are as old school as engines run with gas.
They forgot to say that jet engines require fuel to create thrust. Even if they sort out the battery issue, electric motors will be propellers. Hence these aircrafts will be much slower than jets.
Wow, didn't even think of that. Good answer
In a high bypass turbofan engine the majority of the thrust is provided by the bypass Air. The hot gas generally provides only about 20% of the thrust. So electric motors does not have to be limited to just props
I didn't think Pete Davidson did anything except SNL.
Charging those batteries are going to be a problem. If not a hybrid engine, an APU will still be needed, it'll add range and/or reduce time btw sorties.
Or hot swappable battery packs at the LZ's. I believe the fastest way to charge is called "direct DC" but with battery packs so big it'll still take a hot minute.
The Scandinavians always think about the future and like to experiment 👍
Tony Stark... “Hold my beer”.
We are going to see this in this year 2020❣️
Like with the jet engine before it, once the next F-22 Raptor uses an all electric engine (quiet, efficient, low heat signature = no brainer), we'll start getting electric planes
Super commuting... Ha! I have two word "security screening" takes forever vs taking a bullet 🚆 train 🚅 or a bus 🚌
No security screening is required on aircraft capable of carrying 9 or fewer passengers.
You can't take a bus or train across an ocean. Also, a train ride across the U.S. takes about 70 hours VS only 6 for a plane.
@@airops423 cool, didn't know that. Let's see if that's available to the common folk.
@@kansasthunderman1 Oh trains and buses can't cross the ocean! Mind 🤯 and If America really wanted they could invest in highspeed rail. LMFAO
Why didnt they call this the: The Rise and Fall of the Airplane fuel
@Star Trek Theory Is it really run by Jews?
@Star Trek Theory what's with yall and Jews, here and there.
Anyone else find it ironic that General Electric makes engines that run on jet fuel? Electric planes are a perfect chance for General Electric to go true to its name
It's a shame that we simply don't switch to clean energy and automobiles on a global level to substantially reduce emissions, even with planes flying in the air the levels will go down drastically
Depending on how well they'd improve efficiency, could solar panels on the exterior of the craft and/or Hydro-electric generation be options?
Weight problem. Solar panel also requires battery to store energy. Theres a Trade off between weight and cargo space
Why don't we have balanced, unbiased reporting on Cable News Services?
Title should be "Why Don't We have Electric Airliners Yet?". In Australia there is a company making and selling private electric planes.
Extra battery packs are also an option for aircraft. or another plane can recharge another plane in the air - like how a US Air Force tanker refuels another fighter aircraft.