Back to Squawk list
  • 23

Battery breakthrough achieves energy density necessary for electric planes

تم الإرسال
 
Researchers have achieved a world-leading energy density with a next-generation battery design, paving the way for long-distance electric planes. The lithium-air battery, developed at the Japanese National Institute for Materials Science (NIMS), had an energy density of over 500Wh/kg. By comparison, lithium-ion batteries found in Tesla vehicles have an energy density of 260Wh/kg. (uk.finance.yahoo.com) المزيد...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


n555cf
rbt schaffer 9
... MAN WILL NEVER FLY ..... and indeed we did.... bring on the electric planes
n555cf
rbt schaffer 2
You can never break the speed of sound... you'll break into pieces.
bartmiller
bartmiller 7
This is interesting an encouraging news.

Electric propulsion is an inherently simpler system than an internal combustion engine, with fewer moving parts and less maintenance needs.

Recycling lithium batteries definitely a current challenge. They cannot be mechanically shredded or chemical decomposed like other batteries. However, there is very good research going on now to address this issue. Most batteries are assembled by robotic manufacturing. So, there is work to design the batteries to be disassembled by robot to get at the key recyclable or reusable components. There is also work to be able to renew an existing battery to put it back in service.

This isn't unique to planes or cars. We have these batteries in so many devices that we use and carry that it's an essential step.
TorontoJeff
Jeff Phipps 21
A story about battery technology (still on the bench) and the commenters have to break into a Left vs. the Right argument. Is there no forum left in the world free from being politicized?
M5180C
M5180C 14
Amen. EVERYTHING is a tool serving political narratives, we can no longer have pure scientific achievements.
hi1cotton
Michael Cotton 19
If this political environment existed in he 1950's we would still be fighting Polio.
OccamsRazor
Ben Bosley 3
Identity politics is the rule of the day
billseward
Bill Seward 3
I read through the comments and I didn't see one that couldn't have been expressed without the politics. But in this world, that's unlikely to happen.
jimsarushfan
Huck Finn 1
I disagree! What about weather forums? Never mind.........

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

jimsarushfan
Huck Finn 3
Got Bias Randy?
Flyboydad
Larry Iglehart 1
Marco needs a doctor.
KineticRider
Randy Marco -2
Facts... just FACTS that you will never understand.
TiredTom
Tom Bruce -3
or dems that condemn anything conservative
pearsek1
eric pearson -4
Check your rating, Randy
billseward
Bill Seward 5
Technology in a lab is a long way from technology you can buy commercially. I wouldn't bank on this until you see it out in the wild.
usrepeaters
Rob Palmer 4
Sounds like these, applied to autos, could provide a longer range as well. Gas tank usually runs you 300 miles plus; with this adopted we're into electric cars for certain. Fresh air will be good for us all!
pnschi
pnschi 3
I'd love to see practical electric planes, but what mass - i.e. what total power capacity - have they achieved? A 1 gram battery holding 0.5 Wh would have the energy density of 500 Wh/kg. And how much space does a kg take up? Jet fuel has 24 times the fuel density.
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 2
Interesting way to compare the two forms of power but we need to take into account that the jet fuel’s weight varies as it is used up but the battery weight is static. So you really need to work on the equation a bit further but otherwise it is a pretty good comparison.
FrankHarvey
Frank Harvey 3
How do emission free electric engines propel a cargo carrying airframe at 0.7 mach at 35,000 feet ?

Logistical systems today are partially dependent on vehicles that can carry roughly 200,000 lbs a distance of 3,000 miles at 450 miles per hour, or better, through the air. It has taken us about 100 years to develop this ability.

How long will take to replicate current aviation technology with emission free electric powered freighters ? Or do we have to alter our distribution requirements and methods ?
alancurtis2
alan curtis 2
The key to commercial use however, remains unsolved.

> The team is now planning to implement other materials into the
> battery with the aim of significantly increasing the battery’s cycle life.

In other words, it might be light enough to fly, but it would need replaced too often to be commercially viable.

It probably will happen, but not tomorrow...
Alan
irvmull
irvmull 4
"Over 500 Wh/kg."
Nice, until you consider:
1. jet fuel has 12,000 Wh/kg.
2. aircraft get lighter as jet fuel is used up, batteries stay the same weight as they were at takeoff. So, even if the energy density was exactly the same, the battery flight would require more energy, just to keep the batteries off the ground.
n555cf
rbt schaffer 3
Yes, but the thermal efficiency of a turbofan is maybe 35% +- ... Piston engine 20-25%... Most of it goes out the tailpipe as heat. When you consider weight, there are electric motor designs I have seen weighing 30 pounds that produce 160 HP ... just for scaling .... and that battery is 98% efficient. Also that battery they are working on has a theoretical limit of maybe 3-4X more energy density... So when more brilliant minds than us get that squared away, LOOK OUT... Every hanger will have a solar roof and your plane will be 'topped off' ready to go when you pull her out.
tsberry901
tsberry901 3
United we stand, divided we fall.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

linbb
linbb 3
But cars and trucks dont have the same problem aircraft do, the weight of the batteries requierd to make them viable to transport anything other than themselves. Durationg of there charge is not the large problem with aircraft its getting them off the ground with a pay load.
jimsarushfan
Huck Finn 4
Well you could always put pedals in front of each passenger's seat in economy and call first class 'pedal free' class.
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
I like that. Thinking outside the box may provide some solutions.
Now to add to that let’s put meters on each set of pedals and give passengers a refund based on how much energy they produce.
wmmoseley
mike moseley 2
My Tesla model 3 is a fantastic vehicle. Agile handling, super quick(smokes the porches and vet's to the dismay of the owners) , low maintenance,low cost to own and power, clean and quite, and charges in my garage from solar panels on my roof. It's a no brainier and one day aircraft will follow suite.
jimsarushfan
Huck Finn 0
Why not take a long trip across country? Better check your route to make sure you can 'fuel' it up somewhere.
ewrcap
David Beattie 3
I’m sure horse owners were saying this about combustion engine vehicles at the turn of the century. When more people bought cars, capitalists stepped forward and filled the need for gas stations. There’s money to be made. It will happen.
wmmoseley
mike moseley 5
have taken many medium and long distance jaunts. Don't have to "check the route" as the software does that for me and lets me know where and when to stop and charge. 300 plus mile range, and charging stations are ubiquitous and becoming more common as auto manufactures build out the network. OK, so it takes half hour or so to charge up vs. 10 minutes for a "filling station" so I take a break, stretch my legs, have a meal or cup of coffee or even go shopping, but that problem is being addressed with super fast charging and the charging technology is going to catch and far surpass ICE technology, in the near future.
pearsek1
eric pearson -2
Yes, but apparently you do not travel more than 50 miles on a cloudy day...
wmmoseley
mike moseley 8
guess you haven't kept up with the latest electric vehicle and solar technologies. 300+ mile range(some boast 500+), solar on roof with 10kw battery backup. never had a problem with range or the ability to charge. People told the Wrights brothers "it'll never fly" and my grandfather( electrical engineer) told the story of how naysayers resisted having electricity installed in their homes for fear it would cause a fire or electrocute them. Thankfully, visionaries never listen to the peanut gallery.
yaquinalady
Lynne Smith 0
Insurance costs? Thanks
kelliott3ster
kelliott3ster 1
A lot of aggressive ignorance abounds. Here's my take: the Shell CEO said it best (paraphrasing him): cash flows from the present generation of energy supply (mainly oil and gas) has to fund the next generations, whatever they might be. Oil and gas and coal will be still be in the mix, but the final price of these products will have to bear the cost of clean-up.
jimsarushfan
Huck Finn -7
Reality check. Cleanup is at the point of diminishing returns. The cost of cleaning up the majority of pollutants is miniscule in comparison to the cost to clean up a very small and insignificant amount of pollution.
avionik99
avionik99 -2
And whats the carbon footprint that is required to manufacture and obtain the materials required? What about the destruction to the planet to mine the minerals required? What about the landfill issues when ridding the discarded batteries? Where and how do we get the power to recharge when the sun isnt shining or the wind isnt blowing? Youre going to need millions of these huge batteries that will leave its mark on this planet forever. But heck it fits the fearmongering leftists agenda so we just dont ever mention the real costs to the planet and our pocketbooks.
linbb
linbb 4
Oh and in the pacific northwest they want all the dams taken out on the Snake and some on the Columbia river too. CA wants us to supply more power to them as they are shutting down all of the power plants nuke and gas powered. They wanted our water from here years back now they want power too my thoughts TOUGH
n555cf
rbt schaffer 3
So it has been calculated with the current state of Solar panels, approximately 1/4 of the area
flooded by a HYDRO dam would be required to produce the same amount of electric power. Say goodbye to the dams, HELLO to the Salmon, and put solar on 1/4 the area.
billseward
Bill Seward 2
As long as the area they're built on is the area consuming the power, it could be a workable idea as far as it goes. But what do they do at night or on cloudy days? That's a trite but legitimate concern.
n555cf
rbt schaffer 2
Battery's to even out the day/night loads. And there are meny designs more friendly than lithium that can be used for a fixed ground mounting. I'll bet your power is likely produced more than 50-100 miles from your home. Our nearest fossil power generation plant is about 80 miles distant as the crow flies.
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
Obviously it is not your property that you are proposing to use for your solar panels. It will likely be in rural arias were farmland will be taken out of production or in wilderness arias were wildlife will loose habitat. It’s always easier to destroy some one or something else’s lives then to deal with building it were you are.
n555cf
rbt schaffer 2
Those hydro dams submerged whole town's which were taken in the 1930s. What I said was 1/4 of that now submerged land covered in solar panels would produce the same amount of power.. add battery tech and get 24/7 power. Restore the rivers and you might recover the salmon runs. We have a few solar farms nearby and they don't bother me one bit. I got 12 panels on my roof and the power bill is under $30/month. 6 more on my garage and I'll be giving power to the power company.
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
I am very aware of the impact of hydro Dams since the farm I was born on is now under water so please don’t try to preach to me. I brought up a couple of concerns because of the impact a power generation project had on my family just so a bunch of people far removed from the land wanted cheap power. I really don’t give a dam if you only use 1/4 of the space it’s still land that is either used for producing food or is wildlife habitat. I support small scale Solar using roof space but even you should realize that if power corporations go solar they won’t be looking at roof top models were they share the profits with home owners. Instead they will purchase or bribe the government into expropriating land and build some mega project. As I said it’s easy for you to support power projects because it’s not your land they are going to take.
LeftlySC
Stephen Leftly 1
You are comparing lithium mining - the once mined lithium is reused many, many times, to the ongoing damage of coal, oil, tar sands, fracking and more importantly the huge damage being caused by climate change?

Also if a farmer wants to grow electrons rather than wheat are you saying he doesn't have the right to make their own decision do that? Are you saying that your opinion overrules theirs?

The fossil fuel industry has an unmatched history for destroying the environment but in your eyes that is OK?

The trouble with fossil fuels is that it is once and done, and hideously inefficient.
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
I’m not sure who you are addressing here but it appears to be my post so I will answer.
I never said anything about lithium, coal, oil, whatever it is you call tar sands, fracking or climate change.
I am all for farmers using their land as they please. I am against governments and big corporations forcing farmers off their land or destroying wildlife habitats in order to make power projects to give city people cheap energy.
You obviously know nothing about the fossil fuel industry and are regurgitating the radical anti everything crowd’s propaganda.
Fossil fuels are cheap energy. Until something viable and as equally cheap comes along the industry will remain wether you or I like it or not. The automobile wasn’t successful because of some anti horse groups, it was successful because it was better then horses. The same will happen when something better then fossil fuels comes along and with technological advancements that may be sooner then you or I can imagine or it may be longer then you or I want it to be.
Have a nice day.
LeftlySC
Stephen Leftly 0
Actually fossil fuel is not cheap...just heavily subsidized.

While I may "know nothing about the fossil fuel industry" I seem to know more that you...
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
What subsidies? Again you are showing off your ignorance on the subject.
jimsarushfan
Huck Finn -4
All of the present demands on electric power cannot be furnished by solar or wind and now the gas and coal hating freaks want to place a huge load on the grid? Sounds like something Biden and Buttigoose would think of!
LeftlySC
Stephen Leftly 0
Actually the numbers are not as bad as it may seem. For most EVs charging takes place off-peak when otherwise unused capacity.

Is there an imbalance today for sure but that is shorter term transition issue.

Tell me what is your solution to climate change?

MikeMohle
Mike Mohle 1
OH, and don't forget, a Nuclear Power Plant solution is off the table, at least in USA.
charleslindberg
Charles Lindbergh 3
Nukes are currently being funded with $ 2.5 Billion for research in Biden's infrastructure bill. Nukes are back on the table but future designs will be vastly different from past reactors.
avionik99
avionik99 6
Nuclear energy now provides about 10% of the world's electricity from about 440 power reactors. Nuclear is the world's second largest source of low-carbon power (28% of the total in 2019). Over 50 countries utilize nuclear energy.
linbb
linbb 2
Um really? Not so fast there are several under construction and many are not going to be shut down. CA is one which is low on power but shuttering all Natural Gas and Nuke plant in the next few years. Already has announced to all who own electric cars to please not use them during power shortages.
jimsarushfan
Huck Finn 0
You just cnt make this shit up!!
pearsek1
eric pearson 1
I try hard not to be derrogatory, but really, carbon footprints?!! A political concept to liberate your money as a tax because you choose to move about the planet. "Global climate change", another white paper written by two college idiots that became a hysterical world BS. Man hasn't been on the planet but a tick of the second hand on the planetary clock. The planet has more influence on atmospheric change by having all it's active volcanos erupting than man and industry. The only RELIABLE energy has been oil, NG, coal, wood. Wind and sun (renewable) has proven to be spotty when Mother Nature (sexist) has a hissy fit. Look at Texas Feb 2021, 25% of the state is wind generated and taken off-line because of a freeze. And, the sun don't shine everyday, often for many days. And, Tesla-guy, try as you might...you cannot charge up another 3-400 miles (tank of gasoline) in 30 minutes! I am out of the gas station in 5 minutes.
pnschi
pnschi 6
It was NG going offline - thanks to deregulation - that was the cause of most of the failure in the Texas freeze of 2021.
charleslindberg
Charles Lindbergh 4
The problem with windmills not running during a cold winter day lays with Texas. The same weekend as the freeze in Texas, windmills in Illinois Iowa and Indiana kept spinning and generating without interruption.
LeftlySC
Stephen Leftly 1
Eric: Have you actually read any of the climate research? The data supporting human caused climate change is just overwhelming. Literally thousands of scientists from many dozen countries have contributed to the conclusion that human release CO2 and other greenhouses gases (mostly methane) are causing significant changes to the planet's heat balance.

It is simply stunning that anybody in 2022 can expound that somehow climate change is not real. Ignoring the problem is simply putting one's head in the sand and seriously delays us dealing with with the problem.


While it is true that over the last +5,000 years our energy has been provided by releasing CO2.. unfortunately we have pretty much come to the end of that road and in the next 30 or so years have to transition away from fossil fuels. One can not navigate to the future by looking in the rear view mirror.


Oh and by the way scientists HAVE measured the CO2 released by volcanoes and it is much, much smaller than the CO2 released by humans... something like 60 times less. This volcano myth was debunked at least 20 years ago but somehow the climate change denier lobby keep bringing it up and ignore the actual research. See: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities. (but of course you would probably say that the research is all made up.....).

As for charging most EV owners most of the time spend effectively zero minutes charging up their car....When they get home, as they are walking from their car to their backdoor, they plug in...seconds at most. ICE powered cars have to be driven to the gas station on a weekly basis, need oil and filter changes every 5,000 miles etc. etc. Net net EV owners spend a lot less time keeping their cars charged than ICE owners spend keeping their gas tank filled.

As other posters have said the problem in Texas was natural gas pipeline valves freezing up. Wind power actually delivered more power than it contacted to...but there was not enough of it and there were grid failures. See: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/climate/texas-blackouts-disinformation.html



TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
Have you read the actual data or just the summaries by politicians? Take the IPCC reports for instance, if you read them they sound like we are on the verge of extinction but when you follow the papers and studies they quote you find that they cherry pick what meets their ideology and ignore anything that doesn’t. Many authors of peer reviewed papers are angry about this but the media ignors them and just pushes the conclusions of the IPCC reports. Don’t just follow blindly but look into this yourself, every report includes the source material and by reading it you will see what I am saying.
LeftlySC
Stephen Leftly 1
Yep I am currently reading AR6 - all 3947 pages of it. It takes a while, lots to read, even more to the need to refer back to underlying research.

I can say categorically your statement "they sound like we are on the verge of extinction" is totally wrong. The language in the report is very reserved in tone but is very clear as to the issues that climate change will bring. Please post the section numbers where this exaggeration occurs.

Also I have not found a single instance where the AR6 reports findings are different than the underlying papers. If there are "many authors who are angry about this" they sure are quiet. The criticism I have seen is that, if anything, the AR6 report is too moderate.
SmittySmithsonite
SmittySmithsonite 0
It's a power grab, plain and simple. While there may be a TINY shift in climate due to man, they will exploit the cherry-picked details of this in their favor at all costs. Shift the billions from the oil industry to the green industry, and a certain political ideology rules the world and gets to tell us serfs how to think and act. The lust for power is very real. If these power brokers actually cared about the environment, they wouldn't be taking a convoy of jets to their summit in Europe, followed by an armored convoy of their entourage and security details from the airport to the meeting venue, however many times a year they have it. With their money and pull, they could easily come up with another way to get there. It's all, "Do as I say, not as I do", all in the name of whichever ruling class controls the planet.
jimsarushfan
Huck Finn -4
What's a carbon footprint and secondly, who cares? I want to go from point a to point b and back again.
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
A carbon footprint would be the total amount of CO2 generated over the life of said product. In this case the battery’s carbon footprint would entail all the CO2 released from the beginning of the mining or manufacturing of raw materials to the final disposal or recycling of that battery. With all the variablesI am not sure if we can accurately calculate it
LeftlySC
Stephen Leftly 1
True if we are trying to account for all the CO2 ...but if we are doing that we also need to include in the calculation for fossil fuels all the infrastructure that supports the delivery of fossil fuels.

Also we can expect that a large part of the materials used in the batteries will be recycled so it all gets rather complicated.

TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
I fully realize that it is complicated and doubt we could ever really calculate the actual total footprint of anything. But if we restrict the numbers to metrics we can honestly compare between industries we should be able to get an accurate comparison.
LeftlySC
Stephen Leftly 1
Maybe. That being the case the fossil fuel industry loses by a country mile.

For example: the energy payback time for wind turbines is now estimated to be less than a year. Ie the energy used to make and install the turbine is offset by the energy generated within the first year. The turbines have a life expectancy of +25 years.

(see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261916309990 ).

Also these numbers do not take into account the significant opportunities to recycle a lot of the material used to build the turbines.

On the other hand there is no energy payback time for fossil fuels...the number just gets worse and worse.

TiredTom
Tom Bruce 0
all good points that are ignored....

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
This site has traditionally been for serious discussion so if your just going to call names and insult other peoples opinions may I suggest Facebook or Twitter?
TiredTom
Tom Bruce 3
LeftlySC
Stephen Leftly 1
And yet, you, without knowing anything about me or my background, felt free to say:

"You obviously know nothing about the fossil fuel industry and are regurgitating the radical anti everything crowd’s propaganda."

"Kettle....meet pot".
jimsarushfan
Huck Finn 0
Randy I don't think 'backwards' is 'progress'. I could be wrong but for now gas and coal are doing a great job!
waypoint66
David Rice 8
Neither gas nor coal fuel my airplane, and that is what the article is about...fueling airplanes. Perhaps discussions of natural gas or coal consumption should be had elsewhere.
LeftlySC
Stephen Leftly 0
Gas and coal are doing a great job .....except for the damage they are doing to the planet, damage to people's health etc..

Given the "business as usual" projections many parts of the planet will be unlivable by the end of the 21st century. That is not fear mongering it is just rational projection from today.
SmittySmithsonite
SmittySmithsonite 1
I had asthma in 1973. Guess what? I STILL have asthma in 2022. Lots of good the green movement has done for me.
TimDyck
Tim Dyck -1
Will the land be unlivable? That is just fear mongering and any time politicians or others use fear to drive an agenda is when they cannot convince people with actual data and logic.
So let’s look at all this damage you claim oil and gas will do. Were did the oil and gas come from? It comes from the ground were organic material was buried millions of years ago when the atmosphere had higher levels of CO2 then it does now and even higher the the fear mongers predict it will be. At that time the entire planet was warmer, a lot warmer then the climate change crowd predicts will kill us all but at the time the planet was warmer the land was covered with rainforest like conditions and life thrived on it. Also the seas were warmer and full of life. So how can anyone think the planet will be unlivable when the geological record shows the opposite? Quit buying the fear, it’s just being used to drive an agenda. When someone is pushing fear based ideology when the evidence clearly shows it is wrong then you should be fearing the ones pushing the fear.
steerts
Ron Streetenberger 1
I'm still trying to figure out how the power is going to be generated for total electric cars and trucks.
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 2
That will be a challenge especially with the resistance of cheap sources of power like coal.
Petefottler
Peter Fottler 1
Sounds like electric planes are making great progress.
dmboss1021
Dan Boss -1
This is pie in the sky hogwash! You might as well say you are going to power transport aircraft with unicorn farts! Let's get real people - 500 WH/kg is 1.8 MJ/kg. (1 watt is 1 Joule per second, ergo 3600 J is 1 Watt-Hour - therefore 500 x 3600 = 1.8 million Joules per Watt-Hour)

Jet A has 45 MJ/kg. And a gas turbine is 60% efficient, so bring that down to 27 MJ/kg useful output energy so you can compare with battery power. (electric motors from batteries are 95% efficient) So Jet fuel and turbofan engines are at least 13x more energy density in useful terms than would be these lithium-air batteries.

So a 777-300 with a max range of 6000 Nm, would only have a range of 460 Nm with these batteries, and would need 135000 kg of batteries to fly under 400 miles with reserve!

That is one humongous problem with this wishful thinking. But the bigger problem is lithium mining and production, and second biggest problem is how you gonna generate the electrical power in the first place to charge every ground and air vehicle in use now? Solar panels and windmills? Do the numbers - not only are they unreliable and costly and in fact damaging to the environment - but to electrify the US (everything from housing, industry and transportation) without fossil fuels you would need to build a new 10 GW nuclear plant every 2 weeks for the next 30 years.
LeftlySC
Stephen Leftly 3
While some of the points you make are valid, but a bit overstated.

However I don't think the numbers for the number of reactors is correct. Firstly I am not aware of anybody has built, or is even thinking about, building 10GW reactors. Most are close to 1GWe.

Also even without any efficiency gains from using electricity the ENTIRE US energy use ( ie generation, transportation, heating, manufacturing etc.) is < 100 Quads. Your numbers would put the total capacity above 200 Quads (1 Quad -1 Quintillion BTUs). For a good understanding of US energy flows see https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/charts/Energy/Energy_2020_United-States.png

However long distance air travel IS a significant problem to get to zero. Sugar coating that fact does not help.

dmboss1021
Dan Boss 1
Ok, I was going from memory on the equivalent nuke plants from a valid analysis, but I didn't look it up. Still if it's only 100 Quads, then halve my nuke plant every 2 weeks figure - the point is that reaching 100% electric generation is "unobtainium" and a fools errand.
LeftlySC
Stephen Leftly 3
With efficiency gains we are probably looking at a number around 50 to 75 Quads for US energy demand.

The issue is: what are the alternatives? We simply can not keep pumping CO2 into the environment as we have been doing.

We (the world) need to move much faster in removing fossil fuels from our energy mix. The good news is that renewable energy is now in many parts of the world the cheapest and is still dropping in price.
dmboss1021
Dan Boss 2
You seem like a rational person, with some actual knowledge about physics and science. Science is not about consensus, it is about being skeptical. You were quick to be skeptical of my claims and challenged them. Why haven't you done that with the constant propaganda being fed to the masses regarding CO2?

When Einstein produced his general theory of relativity, 100 scientists penned a letter of consensus that it is false. Albert replied that it does not take 100, but only 1 person with real data to falsify his claim! There are mountains of data refuting the CO2 as climate control knob. But here is one really good one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z5FdwWw_c&t=38s
LeftlySC
Stephen Leftly 3
Yep being skeptical is key in science. Thus when I hear people say that climate change is not real and it is not being caused by greenhouse gases I am equally skeptical of those claims too.

What I find is that the anti-climate change group seems to use outdated information which has long been disproven or so cherry pick the data that they use that it is effectively meaningless. Additionally from the denier camp I see a lot of actual data fabrication. For instance there was a chart being circulated that supposedly showed that the Hansen's 1988 data was wrong. What they did on this chart was to take the lowest 95% percentile of the 1988 temperature and the highest 95% of the year in question projection and came up with an increase rate of so many degrees per year and then used the highest 95th percentile as the starting temperature and the lowest 95th percentile of the ending year and then stated that Hansen's numbers were vastly overblown. If you didn't actually go to the source data and research how they came up with the number they did it would appear that Hansen was way off base...which he wasn't, they were just distorting his numbers.

As for Einstein the story is much more complex than you make out. However within a very few years (<5) there was basically no debate left about Relativity. We are now into the second century of climate change research and 35 years since Hansen's testimony before Congress. In that time the EVIDENCE on climate change has all been in one direction..we are heating up the planet.

As for the video... look at who is speaking and who funded the whole thing GWPF a fig leaf of the fossil fuel industry headed up by Nigel Lawson who surprise, surprise, has absolutely no scientific background.

So yes be skeptical of but of both sides of a argument not just one.

dmboss1021
Dan Boss 1
Interesting. You cannot refute the data and assertions made by Patrick Moore in that lecture, which he has given to half a dozen other venues; but you can manage to use ad hominem attacks. Or change the subject to Hansen. Looks more like you have imbibed of the kool-aid rather than checked the data.

Try these for objective analyses of Hansen's predictions, data tampering by the true believers, etc:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Hansen

https://realclimatescience.com/?s=hansen

Or since you are on an Aviation site, do you discount METAR data?

http://temperature.global/?fbclid=IwAR1mhZfsFG7WnZYOjTznx_Yvy-_MguXETmvV-cioDlJGGsEqNoWppwAMrUo

But the most impactful data tampering is by NOAA, instigated by Hansen:

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/USHCN-FINAL-MINUS-RAW-TAVG-Vs-Year-1900-2020-At-All-US-Historical-Climatology-Network-Stations-Red-Line-Is-5-Year-Mean-USHCN-FINAL-MINUS-RAW-TAVG-vs-Year-1.png

And if you plot these temperature record "adjustments" against CO2 the graph is very telling of the underlying reason for the adjustments: (this cannot be a coincidence)

https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/USHCN-FINAL-MINUS-RAW-TAVG-Vs-CO2-1900-2020-At-All-US-Historical-Climatology-Network-Stations-USHCN-FINAL-MINUS-RAW-TAVG-vs-CO2.png

And there are these 350 peer reviewed papers too:

https://notrickszone.com/2022/01/31/105-more-non-global-warming-non-hockey-stick-temperature-records-added-to-the-database-in-2021/

"Since 2019,there have been over 350 peer-reviewed scientific papers published showing no warming in the modern era and/or much warmer temperatures than today when CO2 levels ranged from 180 to 280 ppm (Holocene, Pleistocene)."
LeftlySC
Stephen Leftly 1
Actually I evaluate the presenters qualifications... Patrick Moore was not a climate scientist and has not published any real research on the subject. He was a fun, if somewhat eccentric, presenter of astronomy on British T.V. Being English his BBC astronomy program "The Sky At Night was a fixture of any child in the UK that had an interest in science - including me. However being a good TV presenter and good amateur astronomer (which he was) sadly does not necessarily mean that he is competent to evaluate climate science.

As for your other references it is interesting to compare the screaming headlines at sites such as you reference and the actual papers. There is a large discrepancy between what the headlines say and the conclusions of the papers actual authors. Additionally there is a conflation of facts. The website authors present a false dichotomy. Yes some parts of the planet were warmer than was previously understood but that does not mean to say that the whole plant was. For example we now know that the "Little Ice Age" was not a worldwide event but a local event in the European northern hemisphere. This, and the papers you reference, actually make my case in that to properly understand out climate system is a lot of work. Also the temperature 50,000 years ago in one part of the world is but one issue. Climate change research does not rely solely on historical records from 50,00 to 100,000 years ago. Again these site are cherry picking papers to fit a preconceived position and implying facts not in evidence from the papers themselves. If you look at the overwhelmingly massive amount of research done by literally thousands of researchers that confirms the (a) the planet is getting hotter and (b) it is being caused by humans it is really hard to support the conclusion that the mainstream climate scientists have gotten the science wrong. It is just not creditable.

And then there is the Hansen issue...When we look at the analysis done at wattsupwiththat.com website we see the same cherry picking of data to support their argument. They smoothly make statements as to x or y while the data they are using to support those statement does not actually support their argument. Hansen was not that far off and given how much better our data is today it is quite impressive how close he came to what has happened since 1988. See https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

But all this rather gets away from the article above. While I would think it would be wonderful to have electric motor airplanes that emit no CO2 at 500Wh per Kg it doesn't look feasible. Even 6 times that number it still looks tough. That being said for many other applications the strides being made in battery technology in recent years is rapidly expanding what is possible to electrify. The goal of an electric automobile with 1,000 mile range, 1,000,000 mile battery life and 200 mile charge in 5 minutes now seems distinctly possible before 2030. 10 years ago that was inconceivable.
df1sp
HP Baumeister 2
Turbofan efficiency is „approaching“ 40%
https://www.nap.edu/openbook/23490/xhtml/images/p-51-1.jpg
Reference for your 60% claim?
dmboss1021
Dan Boss 2
You are correct, I was using a rule of thumb for gas turbines, of which GE and Siemens both have ones that get 64-65% efficiency. But aircraft turbofans are around 40%. My point is as indicated in the following write up:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/02/net-zero-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-2050-requires-a-new-nuclear-power-plant-every-day/
LeftlySC
Stephen Leftly 2
Two things:
(1) As I stated in another post Pielke ignores the significant gains in efficiency in moving to electrical power. For cars energy consumption per mile will drop by 70 to 80%, for many homes energy consumption from the transition from fossil fuel to heat pumps will drop energy consumption by 75% too. Most of our house building standards are just a joke from an energy usage factor and can easily be modified to reduce the total energy required by 50% with an upfront cost less than $10,000 (of course retrofitting older homes is a lot harder to do so the sooner tougher standards are in place the better). Our current society (especially here in the US) uses energy very inefficiently so just extrapolating existing trends forward is not a good estimation tool.

If we take Germany for example from 1990 to today its raw energy consumption is almost flat. However in that same time period its GDP has increased over 50% and its CO2 emissions are down nearly 60%. This completely blows a hole in Pielke's numbers which would have you assume something of the order of 1.5% increase in energy consumption per year which would have put energy consumption increase since 1990 at about 60% higher not 0%.

(2) Having read Pielke's book "The Climate Fix" all I got out of it was condemnation of other peoples numbers (note: it is sitting on my bookshelf 2 ft from my head right now). He presents no real solution to the problem. It would be so much more constructive to actually provide suggested pathways forward. It is so easy to throw rocks at glass houses if you don't have to build anything. The transition is going to be difficult and expensive BUT not as difficult and expensive as not doing anything. This is the point that most climate change deniers fail to understand.
steerts
Ron Streetenberger -1
We could use blimps. Hummmmm, wonder what a 300 passenger electric blimp would look like? It would probably be, at least, a thousand feet long and not very fast, but Biden would like it.
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
Maybe not Blimps but Airships. I think an Airship could be used for tourism, set up like the cruise industry with ports of call and traveling over spectacular land features there could be a market. But raising the money to get them built and the fees needed to run them profitably would be the biggest issues faced.
jimsarushfan
Huck Finn -6
I heard about the fuel out now and fully available that can be safely hauled in present existing aircraft that powers engines strong enough to lift and sustain heavy loads for long distances: Aviation fuel.

تسجيل الدخول

ليس لديك حساب؟ سجل الآن (مجانا) لتستمع بمميزات مخصصة، وتنبيهات الرحلات، وغير ذلك الكثير!
يستخدم موقع الويب هذا ملفات تعريف الارتباط. باستخدام موقع الويب هذا وعمل المزيد من عمليات التنقل خلاله، يعني هذا قبولك لملفات تعريف الارتباط.
استبعد
هل علمت بأن خاصية تتبع الرحلة التابعة لـFlightAware مدعومة بواسطة الإعلانات؟
يمكنك مساعدتنا بالإبقاء على موقع FlightAware مجاني بدون مقابل من خلال السماح بالإعلانات من موقع FlightAware.com. نحن نعمل بكل كد لجعل إعلاناتنا ملائمة ومناسبة وأن تكون هذه الإعلانات غير ملحوظة من أجل إنشاء تجربة رائعة. يمكن بكل سرعة وسهولة السماح لـإعلانات القائمة البيضاء الموجودة على FlightAware، أو الرجاء مراجعة الحسابات المميزة الخاصة بنا.
استبعد