Why Hydrogen Will Never Be The Future Of Electric Cars

i was looking for something else on YouTube tonight and stumbled across this.

I must admit the headline made me sceptical but after watching it and the fact Sandy Munro gives it some credibilty I think it has possibilities.

https://youtu.be/brEm4mEizns

Technofreak:

 

i was looking for something else on YouTube tonight and stumbled across this.

 

I must admit the headline made me sceptical but after watching it and the fact Sandy Munro gives it some credibilty I think it has possibilities.

 

 

 

https://youtu.be/brEm4mEizns

 

https://youtu.be/053rKZjP-8c?t=1545

This was in the news this week and there was also an item on RNZ about Sounds Air's plans for the ES19.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/green-travel/300384673/couldnt-be-prouder-sounds-air-locks-in-electric-plane-deal

Last month this two part article was published. It absolutely debunks the idea that batteries are a viable option for aircraft.

https://leehamnews.com/2021/07/01/the-true-cost-of-electric-aircraft/

https://leehamnews.com/2021/07/08/the-true-cost-of-electric-aircraft-

For those of you who find it TL:DR here are the main points.

• For an aircraft with only a 200 nautical mile operational range (which isn't very far) a 19 seat electric aircraft needs a battery capacity weighing 4500 kg plus another 4300 kg of battery to meet the legal reserve requirements. Total battery weight over 8000 kg
• Too allow for battery degradation the battery needs to be increased by 20% bringing the weight up to around 11,000 kg
• Current 19 seat turbo props weigh about 5000 kg empty and about 7700 kg fully loaded. Weight for a fully loaded equivalent electric turbo prop would be  around 16,700 kg. 
• It’s virtually impossible to make something sensible around this weight in the 19 seat category.
• The take off distance for the electric aircraft will be much longer due to the weight.
• For a 200 nm flight a turbo prop requires about 630 kg of fuel of which it will burn about 320 kg, the electric equivalent will require at least 8300 kg of battery.
• It is estimated that batteries will need to be replaced every 1000 flights/charge cycles.
• A turbo prop costs about $180 USD of fuel for a 200 nm flight.
• Assuming equivalent energy consumption as the turbo prop an electric aircraft will consume only $67 USD of electricity. (See below, as the energy consumption is not the same.)
• Even allowing for 3000 cycles for the batteries (which is highly unlikely), the batteries will cost between $350 and $420 USD per flight. at 3000 cycles fuel costs of around 2.5 times the fuel costs of a turbo prop.
• The extra drag from the battery weight increases the power requirements and reduces speed.
• The electric aircraft will consume three times as much energy over the 200 nm trip as the turbo prop aircraft
• Due to the vastly increased drag the 8300 kg will in fact give less than 100 nm of range.

On the other hand this recent news item seems to suggest that they will be viable

https://www.soundsair.com/2021/08/Sounds-Air-to-fly-electric-passenger-aircraft-by-2026/

morrisk:

 

On the other hand this recent news item seems to suggest that they will be viable

 

Depends how big the government subsidy is. (hashtag) VirtueSignalToTheMax

morrisk:

 

On the other hand this recent news item seems to suggest that they will be viable

 

 

 

https://www.soundsair.com/2021/08/Sounds-Air-to-fly-electric-passenger-aircraft-by-2026/

 

 

 

 

 

That article links to the RNZ item I mentioned in my post. It doesn't really matter how up to date the news item is, it cannot change the physics of what's involved. 

The climate change commission report also said we'd have regional electric aircraft by 2026. They cannot change the physics involved either. When you know the physics of the myth of electric aircraft you then have to question the validity of the rest of that report. It's not as if the electric aircraft proposition is a little bit incorrect, it so much into fantasy land it should never have been in the report if it had been properly researched. These are the people advising our government on climate change. Heaven help us.

The comments section following on from the second article of the two part article that you have referenced makes interesting reading. Who knows what is to come.

So it sounds like short-haul aeroplanes are indeed a possible use for hydrogen where the benefits far outweigh the inefficiencies of production.   

Interesting that Napier Airport is converting its unused land around the runway to a solar farm - it would be then potentially be used to produce hydrogen.

Although still a concept, Airbus has published some ideas and looks to be actively researching it.    

In Technofreak’s post about battery weight substitute ‘pressure vessel’ and there’s your answer about hydrogen in commuter sized aircraft. As well as handling cryogenic fluid both during refuelling and inflight, the pressure vessel would need to be in the fuselage because the shapes they come in don’t tend to fit well into wings and therefore require more structure to carry them. This problem does not occur with either liquid fuels or batteries, both of which can be distributed in the wings. Swapping out wing mounted batteries may introduce its own problems though.

As far as future transport options go it would be far better to go after the ‘low hanging fruit’ of surface transport than worry about the 3% of carbon emissions that air transport is responsible for. At least until battery technology can achieve at least a tenfold increase in energy density per kg.

A look at the members of the Climate Commission will give you an insight into what engineering expertise was involved. Pick the answer you want, pick the people that will provide that answer and set the terms of reference. Viola!

Technofreak:

 

That article links to the RNZ item I mentioned in my post. It doesn't really matter how up to date the news item is, it cannot change the physics of what's involved. 

 

The climate change commission report also said we'd have regional electric aircraft by 2026. They cannot change the physics involved either. When you know the physics of the myth of electric aircraft you then have to question the validity of the rest of that report. It's not as if the electric aircraft proposition is a little bit incorrect, it so much into fantasy land it should never have been in the report if it had been properly researched. These are the people advising our government on climate change. Heaven help us.

 

But its a great idea, really great. That gets a lot of people happy. Thats its unrealistic... well maybe that politics. Im not expecting a heavy to be using watts anytime soon!

Dingbatt:

 

In Technofreak’s post about battery weight substitute ‘pressure vessel’ and there’s your answer about hydrogen in commuter sized aircraft. As well as handling cryogenic fluid both during refuelling and inflight, the pressure vessel would need to be in the fuselage because the shapes they come in don’t tend to fit well into wings and therefore require more structure to carry them. This problem does not occur with either liquid fuels or batteries, both of which can be distributed in the wings. Swapping out wing mounted batteries may introduce its own problems though.

 

As far as future transport options go it would be far better to go after the ‘low hanging fruit’ of surface transport than worry about the 3% of carbon emissions that air transport is responsible for. At least until battery technology can achieve at least a tenfold increase in energy density per kg.

 

A look at the members of the Climate Commission will give you an insight into what engineering expertise was involved. Pick the answer you want, pick the people that will provide that answer and set the terms of reference. Viola!

 

Thats it. We need greenhouse gases, if we didn't have them we would not be here. Its about reducing the wrong uses. Me buying an EV wont help, and air travel is needed. If there was a major volcanic eruption tomorrow would be shut that down as it doesn't comply with the Paris Accord? Change what we can change.Reduce what we can reduce.

Technofreak:

 

morrisk:

 

On the other hand this recent news item seems to suggest that they will be viable

 

https://www.soundsair.com/2021/08/Sounds-Air-to-fly-electric-passenger-aircraft-by-2026/

 

 

That article links to the RNZ item I mentioned in my post. It doesn't really matter how up to date the news item is, it cannot change the physics of what's involved. 
The climate change commission report also said we'd have regional electric aircraft by 2026. They cannot change the physics involved either. When you know the physics of the myth of electric aircraft you then have to question the validity of the rest of that report. It's not as if the electric aircraft proposition is a little bit incorrect, it so much into fantasy land it should never have been in the report if it had been properly researched. These are the people advising our government on climate change. Heaven help us.

 

Genuine question: So are the people at Sounds Air and other places investigating this idea just ignoring scientific reality and blowing all that money on expensive consultants, merely so they can be woke or engage in virtue signaling?
If the idea was truly pie-in-the-sky unrealistic, I would have thought that the vast amount of information out there on this topic (including that information not on YouTube) would have put them off even looking into it.

Dingbatt:

 

In Technofreak’s post about battery weight substitute ‘pressure vessel’ and there’s your answer about hydrogen in commuter sized aircraft. As well as handling cryogenic fluid both during refuelling and inflight, the pressure vessel would need to be in the fuselage because the shapes they come in don’t tend to fit well into wings and therefore require more structure to carry them. This problem does not occur with either liquid fuels or batteries, both of which can be distributed in the wings. Swapping out wing mounted batteries may introduce its own problems though.

 

There are already designs - yes, paper only at this point - for short-range aircraft with under-wing  lightweight carbon fibre tanks for liquid hydrogen. Like this B-N Islander based design:

https://www.flyer.co.uk/project-fresson-opts-for-hydrogen-for-islander-flights/