Battery Powered Flight–Still A Pipedream
By Paul Homewood
I had a model plane that was powered by rubber bands when I was a boy, but you would not fly across the Atlantic on one!
When a one-person plane powered purely by electricity took to the skies above the village of Little Snoring, it was a remarkable achievement in British engineering.
The maiden voyage of the first all-electric light aircraft designed and built entirely in the UK could herald the beginning of a new, homegrown, zero-emissions aerospace manufacturing industry.
But its victory lap didn’t last long. The plane was up for just 33 minutes above the airfield in Norfolk, before it came back down for a recharge.
The all-electric microlight aeroplane could last up to 90 minutes on full charge “on paper”, according to Guy Gratton, an associate professor of aviation at Cranfield University, who piloted the Sherwood eKub.
The plane was manufactured by The Light Aircraft Company (TLAC), which sells small planes to hobbyists around the world, and built by a British-based consortium led by Mr Gratton.
It is a major achievement in the race to establish emission-free air travel which the Government has backed with its Jet Zero Council. But it is unlikely to be the answer to eliminate the guilt from your overseas holidays any time soon.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/04/electric-planes-have-finally-taken-wont-get-far/
Why is soppy Emma Gatten writing this, instead of the Telegraph’s aviation editor, who might know what he is talking about? (And, by the way, I don’t have any guilt about flying!)
As any aviation expert would have told her, battery powered flight has a fundamental obstacle, which it cannot overcome except for this sort of microlight, short range flight - the ratio of weight to energy density.
Put simply, to install enough battery capacity for a longer flight would add too much weight to the aircraft for it to be in any way useful.
This microlight might find a niche amongst hobbyists. But as the Managing Director of TLAC admits:
“For the hobbyist, the leisure aviator, there is undoubtedly a market for it. But I’m certainly not basing my entire company’s future business on the project.”
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
if you actually wanted to “decarbonise” (what a pathetic term) you can do it right now, indeed it already has been proven. There is no need to change the aircraft at all – modern jets can last up to half a century and are expensive to replace. So called “carbon neutral” (another stupid term) synthetic hydrocarbons can be made now. The gas turbines really don’t care as long as it burns correctly. There really is no need to reinvent the wheel.
Exactly. If you do not care about energy use (and thus cost) there is nothing stopping you from making high energy density “carbon neutral” fuels today.
Although the economics of flight is top of the list for commercial airlines. If it doesn’t make economic sense, no level of technology will be enough.
A far better option is fuel produced from “Blue” oil.
This is oil extracted by enhanced recovery techniques using CO2 captured from industrial processes. The amount of CO2 injected is greater than the amount released during refining, transporting and consuming the products: the oil is “carbon-negative”.
It’s growing fast in the US (where else). The oil companies are enthusiastic because they get paid for sequestering the CO2, on top of the value of the oil produced.
One example is Denbury Oil:
“Chris Kendall, Denbury’s President and CEO, commented, “We are thrilled to continue progress on our Cedar Creek Anticline EOR project in 2021. This will be one of the largest EOR projects ever undertaken in the United States, using 100% industrial-sourced CO2 to recover over 400 million barrels of oil. Additionally, the oil produced will be Scope 3 carbon negative, as the amount of industrial-sourced CO2 that will be permanently injected to produce each barrel of oil will be greater than the combined emissions associated with the development and operation of the field, including the refining and combustion of the finished petroleum products. We believe that this carbon negative oil, which we have labelled “blue oil,” will ultimately be a preferred commodity as it assists end users in reducing their own carbon footprint.””
The “dream team” would be to hook up some Allam-cycle power plants to the CO2 pipelines……
Of course, none of that will take “dangerous” CO2 out of the air and BURY it somewhere….the rationale for CCS technology and its subsidies.
I have visions of BA grounding its fleet when one catches fire.
David – I have visions of making flights wearing a full Nomex suit, with a parachute built in.
The heat from all combustion reactions actually comes from splitting the diatomic atmospheric oxygen molecule, this releases energy. So the main fuel is actually free and surrounds us, the hydrocarbon just sustains the reaction. There is no chance of a battery powered commercial airplane ever being viable, just too heavy. Hydrogen powered, either fuel cell or combustion unlikely to be viable, energy density of hydrogen low unless highly compressed and cryogenic . Emma Gatten is simply copying PR releases to raise funds for these hopeless causes. I cancelled my telegraph subscription last week, because of censorship and wholesale deleting of comments, the price also more than doubled to £12.99 a month, I get the Washington Post for $10 a year!
It is reckoned that something like an electric airbus A320, to have the same range as a jet, would required batteries 13x the maximum take-off weight, and take at least 12 hours to recharge. Electric passenger flight is just a non-starter.
It wouldn’t need much of a recharge if it never took off 😆
Splitting the dioxygen molecule actually requires a large energy input. Most of the energy from burning a hydrocarbon comes from the heat of formation of H2O. The heat of formation of CO2 also contributes but not as much.
KB is correct, of course.
However, it is understandable why people who have not studied Chemistry – or who have forgotten the basics* (which includes most biologists!) – become confused as soon as the talk turns to ‘the sources of energy.’
Calling coal, for instance, ‘a fuel’ gets one thinking that there is (chemical) energy IN that inert black mass, and that one has to EXTRACT it. That it is like splitting a bone to extract the marrow. Or splitting the atom to extract some of the mass as energetic radiation. But these analogies are simply wrong ones.
For one thing, the oxygen which combines with the coal is of equal status as a fuel. It is just that we reserve the word ‘fuel’ for the consituent that is in shorter supply. In a rocket the engineers do indeed call the liquid oxygen ‘the fuel.’ Obviously, GeoffB has correctly noticed this particular fact of nomenclature.
For another thing, there is no energy in a bond. The common explanation in biology texts that the energy of the cell comes from ‘a store in the high energy bonds in the chemical called ATP’ is wrong on so many levels.
*There is a clear definition of a ‘bond energy’ and that is that this is the energy required to BREAK the bond. To determine the energy absorbed in a chemical reaction you (essentially) add up the bond energies in the reactants (i.e. what input of energy it would take to return them to individual atoms) and compare that to the total bond energies in the products (i.e. the energy which would be released as the atoms associated themselves in the new setup.
I think the ultimate source of the confusion is that it is rarely made clear that ‘bond energies’ are tools in imaginary calculations. Of course, they are imaginary calculations that are made for entirely real situations. If one does a dozen or so ‘drill’ exercises from the chapter on general reactions in any A-Level Chemistry Text book, anyone can grasp it.
Isn’t the Post even worse than the Telegraph on Green insanity?
This brings range anxiety to a new level, especially with the drop in temperature with elevation and consequent impact on range.
“especially with the drop in temperature with elevation”
Being sciency again — How dare you!
“Never say never…”
The company, which is backed by Toyota and recently acquired Uber’s flying taxi division, has said that it plans to have a full-scale air taxi service in operation by 2024, including regional trips. The point of the 150-mile flight was to demonstrate how far its aircraft could fly on a single charge, to allay concerns about the vehicle’s range and battery. If you want to fly from New York City to Montauk, Joby wanted to show that it can get you there without running out of juice.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/27/22595877/joby-aviation-electric-air-taxi-150-mile-flight
Can you circle and divert to another airport should there be an emergency at your destination?
As someone pointed out to me – assuming a battery-powered airliner got into the air – when a normal airliner has to make an emergency landing it dumps fuel to reduce its landing weight, something a battery-powered aircraft cannot do: it’s landing weight is the same as its take-off weight. Not good for the airframe.
Dumping the fuel also has implications for any fire in an emergency landing or crash landing. For a battery the fire potential remains as the battery is still there, Dumping a battery could be equated to dropping a bomb.
And if the battery were dumpable, what if accidently jettisoned in flight, or by terrorist act?
Dumping fuel can take a long time, so in a desperate emergency one wouldn’t bother, best to get yourself on the ground and sod the airframe. (Example B777 approx 2tons / min – about 40 mins from AUWt to Max LWt) Loading 100 tons of pink paraffin was not unheard of on some of the sectors I used to fly.)
Little Snoring? How apt. Battery powered aircraft?….Zzzzzzzzzzzz
A battery-powered engine in a hybrid aircraft would be useful for noise/pollution reduction during take-offs and landing. It would be popcorn time as pennies dropped with “greens” that they could lose one of the main weapons deployed against aviation.
Not forgetting a ‘hybrid’ is actually TWO engines and TWO fuel sources, i.e. extra weight which shortens range. For electric drive, you need propellers which simply cannot generate the same level of thrust as a modern jet engine, so a hybrid plane is limited to propeller driven. I cannot imagine a fully-laden Jumbo Jet being able to take off with propellers. Not only that, when not powering the engine, a hybrid’s battery needs recharging, taking power away from the combustion engine, which shortens the plane’s range. I somehow cannot see this working.
With a silencer fitted (as most new light aircraft types), most of the noise is from the propeller. Electric aircraft are not silent – e.g. Pipistrel Alpha Electro, quiet but not that much quieter.
Let’s not forget that the engines just don’t push the aircraft through the sky. They also have to supply electrical and hydraulic power for the controls systems, not to mention the need to pressurise the hull when above 10,000 ft. Jet engines today will often have 3 or 4 different generators attached to each one to supply power as required.
Yes, it’s all a bit silly, unless you are convinced of CARBON doom or make your living by as a fellow traveler…
I saw Guy Gratton give a presentation on this last weekend at Popham. He started by claiming how efficient it was compared to an internal combustion engine. Someone pointed out that you need to look at the whole system efficiency, not just from after you had charged the thing up – much bla bla and bluster followed.
They are also working on a two-seater and he started talking about using this for flight training. Asked how this would work when it takes 6 hours to charge for a 1 hour flight (i.e. one training flight a day) more bla bla and bluster.
Most of the funding for this is government (i.e. taxpayers) money, but Guy gets to play and most of the smallish audience had all drunk the green kool aid so he had an easy ride.
Assume that batteries with 100 times current energy density are available. Those would make electric planes somewhat practical. Many other problems remain. Couple of items.
Landing weight generally lower.than takeoff weight spec. Not losing weight by using battery energy. So have to loose cargo / passenger capacity as trade off.
Lots of issues involved recharging a 737 with say 3,000 kWH of power. Power grid upgrades, how many hours, multiple sets of large cables, etc. Bigger planes, bigger batteries, compound the headaches. Add in numerous planes needing recharging and the problems, and sometimes the batteries, explode.
An extra propeller could be like a wind turbine to recharge the batteries 😎
Another big impact is extra ‘drag due to weight’. Its not noticeable for electric cars but its significant for planes
Existing planes have made much of reducing drag relative to size already. this on top of the other battery issues just kills it except short range ( because you have reduced the energy carried in batteries to make it feasible)
“a major achievement in the race to establish emission-free air travel”
My matchbox car collection is a major achievement in the race to establish emission-free cars.
From my memory a range of about 5 metres with a good push🚗
Ah! But despite the name they don’t catch fire.
Dear Paul,
I have one off-topic observation I would like to put to you. I would be interested in your view:
I have not heard much on the topic of ‘saturation’ for quite a few months. Nevertheless, the evidence that I have seen suggests to me that the relevant CO2-sensitive IR wavelengths are either saturated or very nearly so. This would imply that CO2 emissions cannot create further greenhouse effect warming. That implies that Net Zero is a very expensive irrelevance. My evidence has mainly been the paper by W. A. van Wijngaarden1 and W. Happer, the JMA studies of Japan, China, Ireland and elsewhere, the UAH temperature data.
P.S. Apart from us, the two main contributions of atmospheric CO2 are volcanic and tectonic. How come we chose Mona Lua, on one of the most active volcanoes in the world and in a very active tectonic plate boundary with frequent submarine earthquakes, as our representative of worldwide CO2 levels? Just a thought.
Best Wishes and thanks for all the hard work and information,
Mike Gilding
” How come we chose Mona Lua, …” {Mauna Loa}
The Observatory is one of many where CO2 is monitored, along with 8 or so other gasses. Search WUWT with “Mauna Loa CO2” and you will get 1,800 + hits. A few years ago, I recall there were at least 6 other sites doing similar work and they crosscheck each other to make the system robust.
You can learn at: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
Also, rethink this: “tectonic plate boundary” versus “hot spot”
Professor JohnTyndall – the first person to properly investigate the absorption of ‘radiant heat’ by gases – knew about ‘saturation’ in 1859! See his ‘Heat – as a Mode of Motion.’
Of course, he did not know about the fine-structure of the absorption spectrum or quantum mechanics but he knew, or anticipated, much of what is practically important in the subject.
One sometimes encounters modern claims that the increasing partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will widen the absorption bands of carbon dioxide, but such widening is negligible unless carbon dioxide reach levels many times greater than at present.
It is not quite correct to say that saturation will preclude any further warming effect. The real take-home is that the effect of increasing carbon dioxide will be (probably already is) subject to a law of logarithmic growth rather than linear growth.
Instead of ‘catastrophist” concept,
(Eq.1) Effect = Constant A x Amount of CO2
we have ‘warmist’ concept,
(Eq.2) Effect = Constant B x Log (Amount of CO2).
To be clear I am not accepting that there is an effect of CO2 increase. I am just pointing out that if there is a major effect, it will behave as per Equation 2.
Professor Kalghatgi an expert in mechanical engineering calculated an Airbus 320 powered by batteries would have to be 39 times heavier than the present variant! And that’s before the issue of recharging batteries is considered. Short hops in a microlight may be possible but even serious trips in a light aircraft would be a problematical and an expensive one at that.
You might have used rubber bands for your model aircraft back in 1970, but nowadays most kids use electric motors and batteries.
Battery technology is fine for flying a very light aircraft – has been since around 1985. Modellers have been improving things during the last 30 years, and now you can fly a model which can carry a man. That’s all this experimental plane is -a big model aircraft…
It’s the absolute guff these journalists come out with too. Why is it a ‘remarkable feat for British engineering’? It appears to be a battery pack and electric motor fitted to a microlite – perhaps a skilled job, but no more a feat than fitting a petrol engine and fuel tank.
Even for the short flights it would be relegated to what would the turnaround/recharge time be and how would that electricity be produced?
I am not sure why anyone would even consider battery powered flight. Surely basic physics dictates that to carry any meaningful payload requires as high a power-to-weight fuel source as possible?
As I recall all of the significant advances in aviation have come from exploiting increasingly powerful fuels and engines, together with the switch from prop to jet.
This seems to be once again the Green obsession with fantasy physics chasing impossible dreams.
And why choose a propulsion system where the fuel degrades as a total over the flight time. At least all jet fuel provides full power until its all used. Batteries lose power as an overall unit – not a desirable characteristic when up in the air!
Indeed, the basics of ‘heavier-than-air’ flight were known for a long time but the reality had to wait for the right engine. The ‘right engine’ consists of both the metal bit and the fuel bit.
Battery pack is great on the weight of fuel but worse than a nightmare on the metal bit.
There was a good chunk of honesty in the Telegraph article-
‘ Everybody who is knowledgeable is sceptical about what we can deliver,” he acknowledged. “What we’ve got is slower, lower performing, heavier and less capable than an aeroplane with a conventional engine.’
Whether he calls himself a ‘denier’ is moot.
“But with the big jets going a long way, I can’t see this tech working”
The Airbus A350-1000 has now got the range to carry a decent payload non-stop between the UK & Australia (and return), and Qantas will soon be operating the route using them. This is something that will NEVER be possible with an electric power train…
They already fly non stop from Perth/Darwin to UK , but the flight originates in Melbourne and Sydney.
those A350K planes will allow 230 passengers non stop from Sydney etc
They can put a big battery as payload in a big jet and refuel the little ones while in flight.
Where are Rube Goldberg & Keith Robinson when we need them.
So when the battery goes nuclear what do the passengers do apart from kiss their ass bye bye.
‘it was a remarkable achievement in British engineering’
It was a stunt.
‘The maiden voyage of the first all-electric light aircraft designed and built entirely in the UK could herald the beginning of a new, homegrown, zero-emissions aerospace manufacturing industry.’
Nah. Not really.
And what exactly does this professional writer mean by ‘ zero-emissions aerospace manufacturing industry?’ The manufacturing industry will be zero-emissions? Aerospace is zero-emissions? Manufacturing in the air?
Excellent technical analysis of the smaller turboprop sized aircraft when run under batter power here – by an aeronautical engineer
‘So instead of 628kg jet fuel, where 320kg gets consumed during the flight, we have a constant 8,847kg battery system. The electric energy is 14.09 times heavier for the maximum range flight for the electric airliner.’
and the hidden effects of more drag due to weight/bigger wing requiring even more more energy
‘The next problem for the aircraft is that the climb drag is 55% higher than the Beech 1900, despite optimizing the climb speed to a lower value to decrease the drag.
It continues in the cruise where the drag is 91% higher, once again after cruising at an optimum 180kts instead of 230kts to keep the drag down. The 91% additional drag comes from the larger wing (parasitic drag) and the extra weight (induced drag).’
Very interesting link Duker. Thanks for that.
Flight is the ultimate example of trade-offs! Its There’s No Such Thing As a Free Lunch in indisputable fact.
so, is it back to the Wright Brothers?? from Trevor, in New Zealand,,still smoking my pipedream!!
The whole point of Net Zero is to ban flying because you hate it if you are a Swampy Green and think modernity is anti-nature or you hate it because the plebs ruin all the nice places if you are an Elite Green.
The Useful Idiots like Johnson still think we are just swapping techniques, not having a revolution.
“..think we are just swapping techniques…”
That puts the finger on the crooked thinking involved.
and with masterful understatement…
click through the Twitter link to see “some damage” – the rumor that he aircraft was renamed “The Black Knight” isn’t true.
correction G-HYZA
ZeroAvia’s statement
– pilot error or not enough gas left for a go-around?
I’d add that the incident report for N866LP isn’t out yet
“…hydrogen powered…”
Shades of the Hindenberg.
I do not think the proponents of all this new stuff have fully taken into account the extreme nervousness and risk-aversion of modern society. If it is just a matter of cost, the sheeple will go along with almost anything (until the bill lands on the mat, by which time it is too late) but not where a big black headline is in prospect, such as:
AIRLINER EXPLODES AT HEATHROW! THIRD ONE THIS MONTH!
https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/electric-flight/alpha-electro/
“conservative” bs as usual.
2nd try… https://i.ibb.co/gmzW91G/electric-aviation.jpg