Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

cbc.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 188 posts

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#151

Post by davedx »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #27

You can do small aircraft like this, no problem. The trouble is you can't scale it up, due to how quickly the power and energy demands go up. This thing is 560 kW and gets a range of 86 nmi; an A320 is around 40 000 kW and has a range of 3 500 nmi, while an A380 is around 80 000 kW and has a range of 8 500 nmi. Going from this DHC-2 to the A380 requires an increase in energy storage by a factor of around 14 000x, whi…

> Going from this DHC-2 to the A380 requires an increase in energy storage by a factor of around 14 000x

First of all: citation needed.

Secondly: it's a disengenious argument to say "you can't scale it up", then give the largest passenger aircraft in operation as your first scale up target.

What about scaling up to the size of the propellor aircraft regularly carrying people between Amsterdam and many cities in the United Kingdom every day, or thousands of the other short haul routes? Indonesia is another example.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#152

Post by WalterBright »

ben_w wrote: post #147
WalterBright wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole "carbon neutral" think is a crock. Coal is, after all, just dead trees, so coal plants run on "biofuel" and are "carbon neutral".

Technically correct, but about as unhelpful as saying “solar isn’t renewable because the sun will eventually go out”. Our biology and our biosphere are not adapted to the atmospheric CO2 levels we would have if we burned all the fossil fuels.

My point is calling something "carbon neutral" if it is burning wood is equally unhelpful. Nothing is gained by burning a tree you just chopped down instead of burning a tree buried for a million years - the same amount of CO2 is released.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#153

Post by m-i-l »

ska wrote: post #64

Some perhaps useful context: Harbour air operates the worlds largest sea plane service, the majority of it between Vancouver (city) and Vancouver Island (mostly Victoria). They are a perfect test bed for this, as the in air time is about 15-20 min for most routes. (less 100km/60m ). So while electric is a long way from long haul domestic routes, let alone international, I could see it taking over specific services li…

Logan Air are also planning on "the the world's first electric–powered commercial passenger flights" in 2021[0] using a converted Britten-Norman Islander. It is similarly for an island hopping service, with the shortest flight just 1.7 miles (typically around 1 minute) which it sounds like this converted DHC-2 de Havilland Beaver should be able to manage.

[0] https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/islands/1893676/el...

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#155

Post by WalterBright »

philhippus wrote: post #150
WalterBright wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plants are good at capturing atmospheric CO2 and the resulting biomass can be turned into fuel using well established technology. I.e. burning coal.

Yes, but it takes 100's of thousands of years for the planet to form fossil fuels such as coal. We can't wait that long.

Just stuff the tree into the furnace. It'll burn just fine.

(The only reason the industrial revolution switched to coal was because the landscape was denuded of trees. The Jamestown colony in America was tasked with making glass, glass needs lots of fuel, and England ran out of trees. "Connections" by James Burke)

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#156

Post by m-i-l »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #27

You can do small aircraft like this, no problem. The trouble is you can't scale it up, due to how quickly the power and energy demands go up. This thing is 560 kW and gets a range of 86 nmi; an A320 is around 40 000 kW and has a range of 3 500 nmi, while an A380 is around 80 000 kW and has a range of 8 500 nmi. Going from this DHC-2 to the A380 requires an increase in energy storage by a factor of around 14 000x, whi…

How about using battery powered aeroplanes for shorter trips, and solar powered airships for longer distances? Bear in mind that the first electricity powered flight was an airship: "In 1883 the first electric-powered flight was made by Gaston Tissandier, who fitted a 1.5 hp (1.1 kW) Siemens electric motor to an airship."[0] And we also have solar powered airships which can stay in the air for 6 months at time now[1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship

[1] https://www.sciencealert.com/this-gigantic-chinese-airship-f...

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#157

Post by mkl »

WalterBright wrote: post #152
ben_w wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically correct, but about as unhelpful as saying “solar isn’t renewable because the sun will eventually go out”. Our biology and our biosphere are not adapted to the atmospheric CO2 levels we would have if we burned all the fossil fuels.

My point is calling something "carbon neutral" if it is burning wood is equally unhelpful. Nothing is gained by burning a tree you just chopped down instead of burning a tree buried for a million years - the same amount of CO2 is released.

But the tree you just chopped down got its carbon from the atmosphere just a few years ago. That's what makes it carbon neutral. The coal (/gas/oil/etc.) got its carbon from the atmosphere in the far distant past, so from our point of view it's new additional carbon that wasn't in the system before. It can only be considered carbon neutral over a time span of millions of years, which is pretty meaningless.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#158

Post by rklaehn »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #27

You can do small aircraft like this, no problem. The trouble is you can't scale it up, due to how quickly the power and energy demands go up. This thing is 560 kW and gets a range of 86 nmi; an A320 is around 40 000 kW and has a range of 3 500 nmi, while an A380 is around 80 000 kW and has a range of 8 500 nmi. Going from this DHC-2 to the A380 requires an increase in energy storage by a factor of around 14 000x, whi…

Why would it matter how big the plane is? For a certain battery energy density and battery mass fraction, you should get a certain range, no matter what the size of the plane is. If anything, large planes should be a bit more efficient.

I think hybrid would be a great compromise. Short range jets spend a lot of kerosene just during taxi and takeoff. If you could just do launch and climb on batteries and then replenish the batteries from a jet powered generator during cruise, that would already be huge in terms of not just CO2 but also ops cost.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#159

Post by mrpopo »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #141
mrpopo wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All we need to do is make it carbon neutral and our existing aviation tech won't even need to change. Except making it carbon neutral will require enormous amounts of energy, shift the price up, and make aviation available only to the richest among us. Aviation industry may keep existing, but will need to scale down.

Well, if we ever figure out fusion, we could get the enormous amount of energy part.

Ok; until then, we have to reduce CO2 emissions by 7% each year from now until we reach net zero in 2050. Even if we figured out fusion today (highly unlikely), it won't be deployed at scale by then (a modern fission reactor takes 10 years to build). So there are two choices really: progressively scale down the aviation industry, or ignore the climate crisis and let 100s of millions in poor countries die from climate-related causes.

Re: First all-electric seaplane takes flight in B.C.

#160

Post by mrpopo »

nine_k wrote: post #126
mrpopo wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All we need to do is make it carbon neutral and our existing aviation tech won't even need to change. Except making it carbon neutral will require enormous amounts of energy, shift the price up, and make aviation available only to the richest among us. Aviation industry may keep existing, but will need to scale down.

If the fuel is synthetic anyway, uh can be made better than kerosene. Also, we have a huge amount of free nuclear energy, daily delivered from Sun, about 1 kW / m². It is nit stable enough for electric baseload, but, depending on the process, may be adequate for fuel synthesis. North of Sahara may become a primary source of jet fuel, given its vast amounts of insolation, cheapness of the land, and access to seawater.…

Not exactly tomorrow, but we're facing a problem today. What are we supposed to do to reduce CO2 emissions between today and the mythical day we will have unlimited amounts of synthetic fuel available shipped by tankers from Morocco?
Post reply on HN