# Help Promote Electric Aviation

### Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

#### 12notes

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
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/
I've done research that shows the renewable power generation in the area this is happening is about equal to consumption in the area, if you want to refute that is the case, then you do your research to do so. If you want to expand it to the whole state, go ahead, but that's not relevant to the project. If that still doesn't provide the answer that some people want to see, I have a feeling they will ask for a life story of every single electron involved.

That article is a great example of cherry picking statistics. They include all the numbers that sound scary and leave out the important one - a comparison to total electricity generation.

"In 2018, Powerex exported 8.7 million megawatt hours of electricity to the U.S. for a total value of almost $570 million, according to data from the Canada Energy Regulator. That same year, Powerex imported 9.6 million megawatt hours of electricity from the U.S. for almost$360 million. "

I couldn't easily find numbers from 2018 for total power generation in BC, but for 2016 it was 74.5 GWh. Generally, power generation goes up as time goes by, but this should be in the ballpark for 2018. This represents an worst case maximum of 14% of BC imported energy has some dirty sources (9.5GWh/(74.5-8.7)GWh). The report I linked also states that "more than 1%" of BC energy is from petroleum and 1% from natural gas, so let's be generous and call them 3% for a total of 17% ("more than" was used for rounding errors, it's 88% hydro, 9% biomass geothermal, 1% wind), and round up to give it the most pessimistic estimate of 20%. So what's your point here, that 80% clean and renewable is a waste of time and the only acceptable option is an overnight transformation to 100% renewable and clean? This is an impossible requirement, technology advances don't work this way.

Also, the real percentage of "dirty" energy imported is much lower than 14%, the article also states that among the 12 states they import electricity from, they are all lower than 100% coal generating, but they do state that Wyoming at 90% coal power generation, Utah at 70%, Nebraska at 66% (+3% natural gas), Montana at 55%, and Arizona at 23% (+44% ng). They don't mention the other 7 states or the amount bought from each state, but since the rest of the article is trying to scare you with scant information, it's probably safe to say the percentages of the other 7 states are all lower that 55%.

You'll also notice they sold power at peak times (hence the higher price), which means they had to have excess capacity at peak demand, and imported at the off-peak, for $210 million in profit. BC Hydro's total profit for 2018 was$706 million, they didn't do this because then needed to, it was just additional profit. If they needed it, they'd be importing at peak.

Reference used for power generation for BC:

BC Power 2018 annual statement (.pdf link)
https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-portal/documents/corporate/accountability-reports/financial-reports/annual-reports/bc-hydro-annual-service-plan-report-2017-2018.pdf

Last edited:

#### Hephaestus

##### Well-Known Member
They're kind of omitting the massive amount of power they import from alberta in those numbers

Just sayin' - last I looked at NEB #'s we (alberta) were BCs largest supplier of electricity.

#### Topaz

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Dale Kramer tested his Electric Lazair batteries and found they went 250 charges.
What was the criteria for "went"? I presume some kind of threshold of the original amp-hour capacity? It's not like a liquid fuel tank, where the criteria is "empty." Electrics are a little different, and I'm wondering what the "standard" criteria is, if any yet, for replacing the battery pack.

#### Topaz

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
To all: We're not going to solve the world's energy problems in this thread. I'd like this one to stay very narrowly on the OP's topic. Thanks.

#### BBerson

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
What was the criteria for "went"? I presume some kind of threshold of the original amp-hour capacity? It's not like a liquid fuel tank, where the criteria is "empty." Electrics are a little different, and I'm wondering what the "standard" criteria is, if any yet, for replacing the battery pack.
By "went" I meant average number of cycles he measured before something went bad with each brand battery. He eventually chose the most reliable brand.
He tested several brands before spending thousands for the set.
In my experience with RC models, all sorts of things can ruin the pack. They rarely last a year, yet nobody counts cycles. Once they start to degrade they are not going to last long. Of course, every type and brand is different.
I don't know of any standard for RC batteries like Kramer used.

#### Topaz

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
So the criteria is that the pack (by virtue of an element within it) is unusable? I would expect that there would be a capacity-reduction criteria for "practical" usage.

#### BBerson

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Usually one cell fails, loose power gradually and you need a new pack. For a manned experimental, I would expect the owner would replace a bad cell as first choice. But I don't know the Pipestrel maintence criteria.

#### Hephaestus

##### Well-Known Member
Usually one cell fails, loose power gradually and you need a new pack. For a manned experimental, I would expect the owner would replace a bad cell as first choice. But I don't know the Pipestrel maintence criteria.
You can't really do that with lipos - you need to keep matched cells... Always kept together always charged and discharged the same - throwing a new cell into an old pack is a recipe for disaster.

#### BBerson

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
If you have several identical packs you could salvage and match a good cell from one pack. But yes, realistically most wouldn't bother.

#### 12notes

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
Deleted to prevent moderation per Topaz's message above.

Last edited:

HBA Supporter

#### tspear

##### Well-Known Member
"You do realize" that the warranty of both companies is 24 months or the recommended engine TBO (whichever comes first),right? The TBO is a lot more than the 100 hours Pipistrel is offering on this power system warranty. If a flight school really flies their plane 4 hours per day, it'll be out of the Pipistrel propulsion system warranty in less than one month.
This very limited Pipistrel warranty for a novel propulsion system should be a giant red flag for any potential purchaser (unless you can get the planes "for free" as the subject of this thread did. In that case, no need for due diligence.)
LMAO, No flight school goes through the TBO hours in two years. I helped finance a couple planes for flight schools (one via leaseback, the other was a proposed leaseback). In the mid-Atlantic you were generally looking around 150 hours a year. In Florida, the estimate was between 200 and 250 hours.
Then you read the details of the warranties; you find Lycoming and CMI both have many more exclusions. So sure, they cover a few more hours, but they have many more exclusions.

Tim

#### tspear

##### Well-Known Member
By "went" I meant average number of cycles he measured before something went bad with each brand battery. He eventually chose the most reliable brand.
He tested several brands before spending thousands for the set.
In my experience with RC models, all sorts of things can ruin the pack. They rarely last a year, yet nobody counts cycles. Once they start to degrade they are not going to last long. Of course, every type and brand is different.
I don't know of any standard for RC batteries like Kramer used.
Not sure this is the same guy. But there was a pretty interesting write up about testing batteries for an experimental ultra light.
But when I showed the article an over educated friend (chem and electrical degrees); he said the guy doing the testing did exactly the wrong stuff to make the batteries last.
Depending on the battery chemistry; for longevity you should only charge to roughly 80% and draw down no lower than 20% and recharge at a specific rate.
The reason EV car batteries are really out performing expectation is that many drivers actually never take the car out of the 20-80% range which means the batteries are lasting much longer than anticipated in many cases. The problem with aviation is the battery capacity is already marginal; and if you lop off 20% to save the battery (the top 20%) and assume the bottom 20% represents FAA mandated reserve amounts. The plane may not work....

Tim

#### Vigilant1

##### Well-Known Member
LMAO, No flight school goes through the TBO hours in two years. I helped finance a couple planes for flight schools (one via leaseback, the other was a proposed leaseback). In the mid-Atlantic you were generally looking around 150 hours a year. In Florida, the estimate was between 200 and 250 hours.
Hey, tell that to the guy in Fresno behind this whole electric flight school idea--he's projecting 4 flying hours per airplane per day. I agree with you--very unlikely.
Then you read the details of the warranties; you find Lycoming and CMI both have many more exclusions. So sure, they cover a few more hours, but they have many more exclusions.
" . . . A few more hours?" The >shortest< Lycoming TBO is 1400 hours, most common engines are 2000 hours. That's 14 to 20 times as long as the 100 hour warranty Pipistrel is offering. A California flight school has weather good enough to match the 200-250 hours per year that you've cited for Florida aircraft. So our Pipistrel's electric power system will be out of warranty in 6 months. If they had a Lycoming engine in the plane, it would be under warranty for the full 2 years. It's a big difference, especially since there's so much less field experience with the electric propulsion system.

Of course, when the factory tells you to anticipate that a $21,000 component will become unserviceable somewhere between 300 and 700 cycles (200 to 462 flight hours), that's a significant factor and shorter than the TBO on a Yugo. Mark Last edited: #### BBerson ##### Well-Known Member HBA Supporter Not sure this is the same guy. But there was a pretty interesting write up about testing batteries for an experimental ultra light. But when I showed the article an over educated friend (chem and electrical degrees); he said the guy doing the testing did exactly the wrong stuff to make the batteries last. Depending on the battery chemistry; for longevity you should only charge to roughly 80% and draw down no lower than 20% and recharge at a specific rate. The reason EV car batteries are really out performing expectation is that many drivers actually never take the car out of the 20-80% range which means the batteries are lasting much longer than anticipated in many cases. The problem with aviation is the battery capacity is already marginal; and if you lop off 20% to save the battery (the top 20%) and assume the bottom 20% represents FAA mandated reserve amounts. The plane may not work.... Tim Right. And airplanes also need several times more power to cruise per pound than cars. And drawing at a rate that depletes the battery to 20% in 40 minutes isn't ideal either. Cars don't do that unless hotrodded... and those guys that do that likely buy new batteries often. #### tspear ##### Well-Known Member Hey, tell that to the guy in Fresno behind this whole electric flight school idea--he's projecting 4 flying hours per airplane per day. I agree with you--very unlikely. " . . . A few more hours?" The >shortest< Lycoming TBO is 1400 hours, most common engines are 2000 hours. That's 14 to 20 times as long as the 100 hour warranty Pipistrel is offering. A California flight school has weather good enough to match the 200-250 hours per year that you've cited for Florida aircraft. So our Pipistrel's electric power system will be out of warranty in 6 months. If they had a Lycoming engine in the plane, it would be under warranty for the full 2 years. It's a big difference, especially since there's so much less field experience with the electric propulsion system. Of course, when the factory tells you to anticipate that a$21,000 component will become unserviceable somewhere between 300 and 700 cycles (200 to 462 flight hours), that's a significant factor and shorter than the TBO on a Yugo.

Mark
Mark,

We agree on the numbers, just not on the significance.

Tim

#### Dan Thomas

##### Well-Known Member
LMAO, No flight school goes through the TBO hours in two years. I helped finance a couple planes for flight schools (one via leaseback, the other was a proposed leaseback). In the mid-Atlantic you were generally looking around 150 hours a year. In Florida, the estimate was between 200 and 250 hours.
Then you read the details of the warranties; you find Lycoming and CMI both have many more exclusions. So sure, they cover a few more hours, but they have many more exclusions.
Tim
When I was in the flight school we had a few years where we were putting 800 hours per year on each of the 172s.

#### ToddK

##### Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
I am all for electric airplanes... when they are competitively priced to similarly equiped piston powered aircraft, when there is a large number of trained A&Ps who can diagnose and service them all over the country, when the battery capacity is equal to an equivalent weight of 100ll, when there is 20 years of maintenance data that shows they require the same or less maintenance then a typical piston airplane, and when the cost of replacement batteries is shown to be equal to or less then the cost of 100ll over the same number of hours flown (including the price of an environmentally sound battery disposal method), and when battery technology allows them to produce the same amount of power cold, as when they are hot. I reserve the right to add to this list, as I think on it more.

Right now none of that is even close to possible, and cobbling existing technology together, and cramming into an airplane that will never be certified, is NOT A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, or innovative, or pioneering, or a sign that we are getting close to truly viable eplane. Its a curiosity, a cool pet project, a vanity project for the wealthy, a publicity stunt, or a scam to solicit investment.

The real "steps in the right direction" are occurring at universities, in labs, and at engineering firms all over the world as new battery and engine tech is being developed. Once that happens it will be immediately clear to us all when the time has come for a real commercially viable eplane. Right now we are not even close. Right now we are here:

#### Attachments

• 83 KB Views: 7

#### Pops

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
There were years that I put about 400 hrs on my C-172 work airplane. Doing the peak season I would put 150 hrs a month and one week I flew 76 hours.

#### Pops

##### Well-Known Member
Log Member
I am all for electric airplanes... when they are competitively priced to similarly equiped piston powered aircraft, when there is a large number of trained A&Ps who can diagnose and service them all over the country, when the battery capacity is equal to an equivalent weight of 100ll, when there is 20 years of maintenance data that shows they require the same or less maintenance then a typical piston airplane, and when the cost of replacement batteries is shown to be equal to or less then the cost of 100ll over the same number of hours flown (including the price of an environmentally sound battery disposal method), and when battery technology allows them to produce the same amount of power cold, as when they are hot. I reserve the right to add to this list, as I think on it more.

Right now none of that is even close to possible, and cobbling existing technology together, and cramming into an airplane that will never be certified, is NOT A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, or innovative, or pioneering, or a sign that we are getting close to truly viable eplane. Its a curiosity, a cool pet project, a vanity project for the wealthy, a publicity stunt, or a scam to solicit investment.

The real "steps in the right direction" are occurring at universities, in labs, and at engineering firms all over the world as new battery and engine tech is being developed. Once that happens it will be immediately clear to us all when the time has come for a real commercially viable eplane. Right now we are not even close. Right now we are here:
Very well said.

Dan

2