Help Promote Electric Aviation

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Aerowerx

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
5,535
Location
Marion, Ohio
The only way that picture would be better is if there was black soot spewing from the exhaust stack on the generator.

... Oh! And the battery pack in the car was on fire!
Look carefully.

The spring loaded cap on the exhaust is open, and there is smoke coming out.

The thing is spitting out carbon!:eek:

So that is why it is 21.1 degrees here instead of 21.0!;)
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,101
Location
Orange County, California
... I've not had to clear carb ice yet at 350+ hours. I don't know if that's because I've always used it correctly or luck, but it's something that was talked about in training, but no actual practice, as it's not something you'd willingly cause.
It was luck. You can do everything right, and still run into it. Had it happen with an instructor on board and he turned it into a very good learning opportunity.

I love the idea of electric aircraft, for the simplicity, the easy operation, the potential to park the airplane with a solar panel all week long and have free flying every weekend. All good stuff. Like some others, I roll my eyes when the "green" language is trotted out - light planes fly so few total hours that even electrifying the entire fleet would have exactly zero effect on "the environment." The only "green" issue in aviation is the airliner fleet, not GA. A single airliner flight across the US burns more fuel than a light sportplane will burn in its entire life, several times over. And there are tens of thousands of airliner flights every day around the world.

I think training seems, at first, to be an ideal niche for these early-stage electric airplanes. The duty cycle is certainly about right. But as Dan and some others have pointed out, the little habits and muscle-memory you learn in the first part of your training carry through your entire life flying airplanes, and take a lot of re-training to overcome. To paraphrase the military, "train like you fly and fly like you train," applies especially to new pilots. A useful example comes from self-launching sailplanes and motorgliders. Pilots who have primarily or solely been (unpowered) sailplane pilots throughout their entire flying time have a very hard time grasping the idea, at the "gut" level, that engines are sometimes hard to start on the first attempt, sometimes don't start on the first attempt. These pilots tend to get too low trying to "scratch" out on a thermal or ridge lift and, when it doesn't pan out, turn to the engine as if it will always immediately start perfectly. They don't have the experience of sitting on an apron, grinding away on the flight-school trainer that doesn't want to go fly on a cold weekend morning. That'll give you a different attitude about starting engines, if you began your flight training that way. Teaching students to fly in an electric airplane is going to give them the fundamental "gut" belief that the engine will always start immediately when they throw the switch, something that isn't necessarily true of any IC engine they end up flying.

Once the electric airplane is common in the GA fleet, then electric trainers are going to have all the advantages that 12 notes has pointed out. But until then, IMHO, training in one is going to be training very differently than how you're going to end up flying "for real," and that's potentially very dangerous.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
5,278
* While perhaps only some energy delivered to electric-powered aircraft is generated from renewable sources, virtually no energy delivered to combustion-powered aircraft comes from renewable sources.
There have been corrections to that. It must be 20 years ago that some Ukrainian scientists took some dolomite (a form of limestone, which is the rock formed from the skeletons of gazillions of tiny sea animals and from algae), some water, and put the mix under terrific pressure and heat. They got crude oil out of it. The old tales of oil being from the dead bodies of dinosaurs is badly mistaken. As the seabed is buried under more sediment, or as tectonic movement shoves it under another plate, oil is formed, and it seems to be an ongoing thing. Whether enough is formed to keep pace with what we're using is another question, but considering the fact that three-quarters of the earth's surface is under the seas, one has to wonder.
 

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,101
Location
Orange County, California
... Actually airport I fuel at most I know the fuel pump is 240v... So powers already out there...
I understand your point, but do you really think they're going to let the electric aircraft block the pumps for an hour? Pretty sure the airport manager would like to do some business with the other airplanes that roll up for fuel. Not to mention that OSHA for the pump operator, and the local fire department, aren't just going to let you run a long 240V extension cord from a fueling point. What could possibly go wrong? o_O

The infrastructure required for electric powered "cruising" airplanes is running lines under the pavement so that there's a charging station at each of the transient parking tie-downs. That's going to be rather spendy but, until it happens, you're just playing games.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
4,833
Location
US
It is sustainable, and actually more green and clean than piston or turbine engines due to the electricity source in the Fresno area they are based in (see my previous post).
Your previous post made a vague claim that is largely irrelevant:
Fresno (where they are located) is closer than most cities to renewable energy generation. I haven't found a detailed analysis, but did find a report from 2015 stating that "The Greater Fresno area generates approximately 3,987 Megawatts(MW) of electricity through thermo,hydro,solar,and biomass facilities." If they ran that rate of production full time, this would approximately equaled electricity consumption that year (yes, I know that's an oversimplification), this at least has a reasonable shot of being clean aviation.
If you are interested in making a relevant claim about the cleanliness of the charging source for these planes, you'd need to do a real study of when they'll be plugged in and the grid attributes at that time. More importantly, you'd need to find the marginal "cleanliness" of the additional power generation needed to feed >new< load that is placed on this grid. The use of average cleanliness is a bit of slight-of-hand we see often in these claims. These planes will be new load on that grid, and so the cleanliness of that additional power is what matters, not the cleanliness of the average power. Just like an individual's marginal tax rate is the only relevant thing in determining how much of any additional income will go to Uncle Sam. Until cheap storage becomes available, many grids are already built out with all the (unreliable/intermittent) wind and solar capacity that it is economical to have (even with the generous subsidies these sources receive). So, new load is largely met with non-renewable sources. That's the way it is. Now, by whatever the favorite metric of the day is, some will claim that the electric planes are cleaner than the ones that they ostensibly hope to push off the market, but they do come with an environmental price tag.
Sustainable, green, and clean would certainly qualifies for this - if this was ever included anywhere, but it was not.

You are criticizing them for using the terms clean, green and sustainable, but if you bothered to read the original post, the linked main article, or actual petition, you may have noticed that NEITHER CLEAN NOR GREEN ARE MENTIONED IN ANY OF IT. Sustainable is in the title of the project and that's it.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
And please stop yelling.

I used to just laugh at the unsubstantiated green marketing hype--it was funny and didn't impact me. Now I've seen enough to know that these big hand-wave claims >do< impact me, eventually they come back as "the consensus" and are used to restrict my choices. So, I'm done laughing and giving ground. They could have chosen to ask for this waiver and make their case based only on operational or economic criteria, and the publications/press releases could have done likewise. They'd have my support. Instead, they've chosen to wrap themselves in the green cloak, they should anticipate the pushback that comes with that.

Do they want to go down that road? They can start by showing the recycling plan (ha!) for those epoxy and fiber Pipistrels. How much life-cycle embodied energy do they have when compared to a recyclable aluminum plane? And, more fundamentally, why are these people using all this energy to joy ride around the sky? "Clean" electricity (maybe from fossil fuels) or direct burning of fossil fuels, it doesn't matter. Energy is fungible and these are electrons that could be used instead to light schools and hospitals, etc. These wasteful people should find a hobby with lower environmental impact--maybe weave themselves a hairshirt and go pick up litter in their spare time.
 
Last edited:

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
4,720
Location
Mojave, Ca
Look carefully.

The spring loaded cap on the exhaust is open, and there is smoke coming out.

The thing is spitting out carbon!:eek:

So that is why it is 21.1 degrees here instead of 21.0!;)
Yep, I saw the flapper open and some evidence of exhaust but I was talking about SMOKE - like TRACTOR PULL smoke!

...I suppose that's what you get when the Tesla driver is really in a hurry for a recharge.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,072
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
Good summary, V1.

Would also note that batteries are used to store electricity, and the same inefficiencies that are keeping battery-supplied electric aircraft from being commonplace are also keeping electricity, from any source of generation, from being stored in useful and economic quantities. Until that happens there will continue to be a need for on-demand production.


BJC
 
Last edited:

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
5,278
...I suppose that's what you get when the Tesla driver is really in a hurry for a recharge.
I think most of those diesel generators are in more remote areas with little or no power available. They're the equivalent of the middle-of-nowhere gas stations that can charge a lot for gasoline because there's no competition. The EV's limited range means that it's stuck with relatively urban areas unless such machines as in the picture are available at intervals.

This fall we drove to see friends near Fort Nelson, BC, on the Alaska Highway. Believe me, there are hundreds of miles of nothing but hundreds of miles up there, and it might be a long time before anyone takes a casual cruise to AK in their EV. With the area's aggressive weather, nobody will make easy electric airplane trips either if they have to synchronize charge stops with flyable/unflyable periods.

Here's a section that actually has some powerlines. We saw many miles with no lines at all.


upload_2019-12-18_11-34-35.png
 

tspear

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
795
Location
Oneida
I understand your point, but do you really think they're going to let the electric aircraft block the pumps for an hour? Pretty sure the airport manager would like to do some business with the other airplanes that roll up for fuel. Not to mention that OSHA for the pump operator, and the local fire department, aren't just going to let you run a long 240V extension cord from a fueling point. What could possibly go wrong? o_O

The infrastructure required for electric powered "cruising" airplanes is running lines under the pavement so that there's a charging station at each of the transient parking tie-downs. That's going to be rather spendy but, until it happens, you're just playing games.
Actually, considering the time to pump. Fairly simple to make the electric shutoff when demand happens for the fuel pump. This would not have much of a material impact on the very long charge time for the plane anyway....

Tim
 

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
4,720
Location
Mojave, Ca
Not sure how much real estate you have at the pumps in your area, but having an airplane "at" the pump around here means it will need to be moved before another can even get close.
 

Aerowerx

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
5,535
Location
Marion, Ohio
This discussion sounds, to me, like an excuse looking for a reason.

As for Fresno, I would like to know the total peak kW demand on their part of the grid, and what percentage of the demand is the renewable?

There is a wind farm here in the county. But with all the industry in the area I doubt if it is more than a drop in the bucket compared to the demand. Still, it makes people feel good. After all, this has nothing to do with science if it gives everyone the warm fuzzies!:rolleyes:
 

Hephaestus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,675
Location
YMM
I understand your point, but do you really think they're going to let the electric aircraft block the pumps for an hour? Pretty sure the airport manager would like to do some business with the other airplanes that roll up for fuel. Not to mention that OSHA for the pump operator, and the local fire department, aren't just going to let you run a long 240V extension cord from a fueling point. What could possibly go wrong? o_O

The infrastructure required for electric powered "cruising" airplanes is running lines under the pavement so that there's a charging station at each of the transient parking tie-downs. That's going to be rather spendy but, until it happens, you're just playing games.
Oh in my world where industrial retrofits is a daily thing... Having the power out in the vicinity is the hard part. Fishing new larger wires and a new breaker, surface mounting new conduit or flex out to the other end of the tank to install a charger isn't a big challenge.

And *cough* I can think of a few arses who manage to block the pump for more than an hour already :)

Pushing electric charging to the other end of the 100ll pump will be easy. The nema10 pieces aren't a big deal - then you'd probably need 50'+ on the charge cord itself. Not exactly a huge obstacle to overcome.
 

12notes

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2014
Messages
1,042
Location
Louisville, KY
Your previous post made a vague claim that is largely irrelevant:
You're entire post is based on a situation that does not exist, and is completely and totally irrelevant to any reality that exists. They have not done anything that you think they have. Please quote their website, application or the original post for where they claim clean, green, or any big hand-waving claims, other than the single mention in the application about reduced emissions in the San Joaquin Valley training area.

My "largely irrelevant" claim was just quick research, clearly stated as such and clearly stated to be an oversimplification and only mentioned that is had a chance to be clean. The clue should have been where I said:
"(yes, I know that's an oversimplification), this at least has a reasonable shot of being clean aviation."

If you are interested in making a relevant claim about the cleanliness of the charging source for these planes, you'd need to do a real study of when they'll be plugged in and the grid attributes at that time. More importantly, you'd need to find the marginal "cleanliness" of the additional power generation needed to feed >new< load that is placed on this grid. The use of average cleanliness is a bit of slight-of-hand we see often in these claims. These planes will be new load on that grid, and so the cleanliness of that additional power is what matters, not the cleanliness of the average power. Just like an individual's marginal tax rate is the only relevant thing in determining how much of any additional income will go to Uncle Sam. Until cheap storage becomes available, many grids are already built out with all the (unreliable/intermittent) wind and solar capacity that it is economical to have (even with the generous subsidies these sources receive). So, new load is largely met with non-renewable sources. That's the way it is. Now, by whatever the favorite metric of the day is, some will claim that the electric planes are cleaner than the ones that they ostensibly hope to push off the market, but they do come with an environmental price tag.
Thanks, but I'd rather not do a whole bunch of research for you. I've already shown there's abundant renewable generation in the area, if you want to do a deep analysis to show the actual sources of the airport's power, go right ahead. The largest amount of energy produced in the region is hydroelectric, not exactly an unreliable source. Your analysis might show that it's powered by natural gas or nuclear, but probably won't. (Coal has been largely phased out in California, so that's a non-starter.) Even if the source of energy at the airport is not renewable, good luck with proving that electrical generation at a natural gas power plant with emission controls is dirtier than leaded fuel in an ICE with straight exhaust.

And please stop yelling.
I'll stop yelling when you start talking about reality here, and not some fictional scenario.

They could have chosen to ask for this waiver and make their case based only on operational or economic criteria, and the publications/press releases could have done likewise. They'd have my support.
This is exactly what they did. Would you please read the original post, their website, or the actual petition before making these incorrect assumptions? And then support them, because they've done exactly what you just said would cause you to support them.

Instead, they've chosen to wrap themselves in the green cloak, they should anticipate the pushback that comes with that.
They haven't.

Look, there do exist people who think we should give up all fossil fuels now, bicycle everywhere, and all become farmers overnight. These people are in the extreme minority and irrational. However, pushing back at any attempt that might be an improvement to anything environmental because you assume they are part of that same group is equally irrational. Especially when the actual purpose is economic.

It's fine if you don't want to support it because you just don't like electric vehicles. But the cause of your outrage is between your ears, not anything this group has done or said.

These wasteful people should find a hobby with lower environmental impact--maybe weave themselves a hairshirt and go pick up litter in their spare time.
Or maybe, you know, try to make flight training cheaper with electric aircraft. Which is what they are trying to do.
 
Last edited:

Topaz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
14,101
Location
Orange County, California
Actually, considering the time to pump. Fairly simple to make the electric shutoff when demand happens for the fuel pump. This would not have much of a material impact on the very long charge time for the plane anyway....

Tim
I'm sitting here imagining the owner of the expensive e-airplane just happily going along with, "Sir, we're going to unplug your plane and move it out of the way while we fuel this string of three airplanes, then we'll plug it right back in. Shouldn't add more than 45 minutes to your charging time. Yes, I know the last two cost you a half-hour already, but I'm sure you'll understand."

Lead balloon. That's how that's going to go over.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
5,278
Oh in my world where industrial retrofits is a daily thing... Having the power out in the vicinity is the hard part. Fishing new larger wires and a new breaker, surface mounting new conduit or flex out to the other end of the tank to install a charger isn't a big challenge.

And *cough* I can think of a few arses who manage to block the pump for more than an hour already :)

Pushing electric charging to the other end of the 100ll pump will be easy. The nema10 pieces aren't a big deal - then you'd probably need 50'+ on the charge cord itself. Not exactly a huge obstacle to overcome.
Someone still has to pay for it, and if there are only one or two resident electric airplanes there, guess who it'll be?

Still not dissing electric airplanes. The buyers just need a clear picture of the immediate disadvantages, or they'll regret buying one. The early owners of private airplanes had similar inconveniences. Thinking 1920s and '30s.
 

Hephaestus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
1,675
Location
YMM
Someone still has to pay for it, and if there are only one or two resident electric airplanes there, guess who it'll be?

Still not dissing electric airplanes. The buyers just need a clear picture of the immediate disadvantages, or they'll regret buying one. The early owners of private airplanes had similar inconveniences. Thinking 1920s and '30s.
Well business owners might look at it as a future market, think there's even subsidies out there for new charging stations... But yeah it'll end up on your fuel bill, and the charge rates will be costly... But that's the early adopters surcharge.

Just saying - it's really not going to cost much beyond the price of the charger to retrofit it in near most fuel tanks now. As long as there's 240v or 208/3ph brought out there... I don't know US code but in canada you don't lay conduit that's only adequate for the line you're pulling - chances are even for a simple 15amp 240v circuit you're using 3/4/1" conduit so there's room for more in case of a failure or upgrades. Our building code requires allowances for electric cars now - so there's extra panel space & service overhead to allow for a charge system since 2012ish... So newer construction will always have the option open. Even my hangar got it, didn't have a choice that's the only way the power would come is with extra service for a electric car that does me no good.
 

tspear

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
795
Location
Oneida
I'm sitting here imagining the owner of the expensive e-airplane just happily going along with, "Sir, we're going to unplug your plane and move it out of the way while we fuel this string of three airplanes, then we'll plug it right back in. Shouldn't add more than 45 minutes to your charging time. Yes, I know the last two cost you a half-hour already, but I'm sure you'll understand."

Lead balloon. That's how that's going to go over.
lol, no. Not sure how many airports I have been too with fuel farms right next to the pump handle.
In every case; there has been existing pavement available at the other end of the tank farm or easy to run 100 ft away for the ePlane to park over there. And in many cases, the charger should have a Hydra head (one charger that servers multiple planes; they all need some priority system for this to work. For the last 20-30% charge rate slows down a lot).

Tim
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
5,278
The largest amount of energy produced in the region is hydroelectric, not exactly an unreliable source. Your analysis might show that it's powered by natural gas or nuclear, but probably won't. (Coal has been largely phased out in California, so that's a non-starter.) Even if the source of energy at the airport is not renewable, good luck with proving that electrical generation at a natural gas power plant with emission controls is dirtier than leaded fuel in an ICE with straight exhaust.
How much power is California importing from other states? I think I read somewhere that they wave the green flag while importing coal-generated electricity from elsewhere. Maybe I'm mistaken. But in my former home province of British Columbia, they're promoting BC's clean energy (pretty much entirely hydroelectric) while quietly importing coal-fired power. A quote:
Behind the sheen of its CleanBC program, the province holds back hydro power to instead import cheap electricity from 12 states including Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska and Montana which generate 55 to 90 per cent of their power from coal.

From https://thenarwhal.ca/clean-b-c-is-quietly-using-coal-and-gas-power-from-out-of-province-heres-why/
 
2
Top