Electric cars?

[SirRumpole]

It will be interesting to see if Labor steps up to the plate on efficiency standards.

Electric vehicles are racing ahead overseas, so why isn't that happening in Australia?

Australia's position as a laggard in the global EV race is unlikely to change despite the election of a more clean-transport-friendly Labor government, say industry experts.

www.abc.net.au

 

[qldfrog]

It will be interesting to see if Labor steps up to the plate on efficiency standards.

Electric vehicles are racing ahead overseas, so why isn't that happening in Australia?

Australia's position as a laggard in the global EV race is unlikely to change despite the election of a more clean-transport-friendly Labor government, say industry experts.

www.abc.net.au

From abc..the great deceiver.
Back to reality, I went and looked at the MG PI hybrid...nice car BUT disappointed by the fact that there is not braking recharge of the battery ..WTH???
so you just charge it and when battery is empty run on gas..Better off buying the MG3 below 20K driveway as a second car.availability of the full EV will be end of year at best now as all shipped EV arriving soon are presold.
2y waiting list for some non MG model I also inquired about..no kidding..crazy, you purchase a new car with the latest colour and it is outmoded by the time you step in it...
no point changing efficiency standard or adding charger, you can hardly get a car delivered..even ICEs..the slow move to the Argentina-tion of Australia as I pointed 15y or so ago..we are getting there

 

[sptrawler]

2y waiting list for some non MG model I also inquired about..no kidding..crazy, you purchase a new car with the latest colour and it is outmoded by the time you step in it...

A mate ordered an ICE Hyundai i20N on the 9 December, when he ordered it they showed him a list of 5 available cars, he wanted white with white roof, the only white one had a black roof it was $1,000 extra but the cars are on the ship.
So he ordered it, now remember it was there on a print out on a ship, he received the car last week, so that is 9 December to mid June 6 months.
My guess, they are not building anything until there is an order, with a deposit.

 

[sptrawler]

Another article on real life range of various E.V's, I think these actual tests are much better indications of expected range, than the windscreen sticker numbers.

What's The Real World Highway Range Of Today's Electric Cars? We Test To Find Out

We take the most popular electric cars, fully charge them, and then drive them at 70 mph to find out just how far they will go. Which one goes the furthest?

insideevs.com

 

[Value Collector]

Yes, it is pretty stupid, but it' a forerunner to what's in store for EV owners there and here.

Governments have to replace the fuel tax revenue somehow, otherwise there have to be cutbacks in other areas.

Maybe you have some suggestions as to a fairer method of replacing fuel tax revenue ?

I am absolutely fine with an ev tax being addded “eventually” but it definitely shouldn’t be more than petrol cars pay, after all there is already GST on electricity.

Mean while I just got back from NZ, these fuel prices made me miss my Tesla while I was there.

 

[SirRumpole]

I am absolutely fine with an ev tax being addded “eventually” but it definitely shouldn’t be more than petrol cars pay, after all there is already GST on electricity.

Mean while I just got back from NZ, these fuel prices made me miss my Tesla while I was there.

View attachment 142990View attachment 142991

Ouch !

 

[sptrawler]

Ouch !

Yes and from a W.A perspective, tax by stealth, the W.A Govt ( who are saints ATM), are putting a 2.5c /km tax on E.V's for the loss of(cough) fuel tax.

But they own the electricity system, so they get the money from charging the EV's, and charge the EV's 2.5c/km for the loss of a tax they don't currently get.
Also they now get paid for the fuel people use, rather than the petrol companies, does it matter? Obviously not.

Oh well at least we can't blame the Feds anymore.

I bet that doesn't hit the media news, I'm old enough to be cynical.?

 

[JohnDe]

"If you want to see how technology and deglobalisation are changing the global economy, there are few better places to look than the car industry.....Big Auto wants to be more like Tesla, the world’s undisputed ev champion."
As Jim Farley, Ford’s current boss, recently declared, “The most important thing is we vertically integrate. Henry Ford…was right.”

How supply-chain turmoil is remaking the car industry
Learning from Elon Musk

If you want to see how technology and deglobalisation are changing the global economy, there are few better places to look than the car industry. Not only is it going through an epochal shift: away from the internal-combustion engine (ice) and towards electric vehicles (evs). Automobiles are also becoming, in effect, computers on wheels, running as much on processing power as the horse variety. And the pandemic has wreaked havoc on car companies’ complex global supply chains, most prominently of semiconductors. As carmakers electrify, computerise and refashion their supply chains for the new reality, the giant sector is undergoing the greatest transformation in decades.

Having outsourced much of the manufacturing process in the past half-century to focus on design, supplier management and parts assembly, car firms want greater control over their value chain—from the metals that go into ev batteries to the software those evs run on and the shops in which they are sold. And they want to turn their ev arms into tech startups.

In both respects, control and startupiness, Big Auto wants to be more like Tesla, the world’s undisputed ev champion. As with earlier examples of tailgating a rival that tries something that works, from Ford’s moving assembly line or Toyota’s just-in-time manufacturing, Teslafication of the car business will prove disruptive.

Doing everything under one roof is an idea both old and new. Tesla’s industrial system is at first glance an embrace of Silicon Valley’s “full stack”—internalising all aspects of production, and therefore all the profits. Elon Musk, Tesla’s opinionated boss, once claimed that his company was “absurdly vertically integrated” by any standard, not just the car industry’s. In fact, Mr Musk borrows heavily from carmaking’s past. Henry Ford often sourced raw materials, like rubber for tyres and steel for chassis, from plantations and blast furnaces owned by his firm. His River Rouge factory in Detroit was powered by coal from Ford mines.

In an echo of Fordism, Tesla has struck recent deals with lithium miners and graphite suppliers, and last month confirmed a deal with Vale, a Brazilian mining giant, to purchase nickel. The plan is to acquire most of its lithium, over half its cobalt and around one-third of its nickel directly from nine mining companies. It will use those minerals in its “gigafactories”, the first of which started making batteries in 2017 in Nevada in partnership with Panasonic of Japan. It plans to make more cells on its own at its three other gigafactories around the world.

Tesla has also pulled other bits of the powertrain in-house. It makes its own motors and a lot of its own electronics, giving it more control over costs as well as over the technology, says Dan Levy of Credit Suisse, a bank. Although rumours swirling last year that Mr Musk might buy his own chip factory have faded, Tesla designs its own semiconductors and has closer links than other carmakers with those who manufacture them. That has helped it weather the global chip shortage better than rivals. Tesla’s software engineers have created a centralised computing architecture to run on those chips, ensuring smooth integration with the four-wheeled hardware. Mr Musk has even ditched the dealership-based sales model, instead opening his own swanky Tesla stores.


Jealously eyeing Tesla’s market value of $724bn, which is roughly as much as the next nine biggest carmakers combined (see chart 1), other car bosses are desperate to emulate Mr Musk’s digger-to-dealership control. According to ubs, another bank, “integration represents a strong competitive edge in an environment of structurally tight supply chains.” As Jim Farley, Ford’s current boss, recently declared, “The most important thing is we vertically integrate. Henry Ford…was right.”

This reverses decades of outsourcing to big suppliers such as Bosch, Continental and Denso in order to concentrate on managing supply chains, integrating separate parts, design and marketing. Suppliers sold similar components to many customers using scale to keep prices low. This freed up capital for carmakers but put technological innovation at one step removed. Carlos Tavares, chief executive of Stellantis, an Italian-American giant (whose big shareholder, Exor, also owns a stake in The Economist’s parent company), has said that his cars are 85% “bolt-on parts”. Mercedes-Benz estimates its value-added split at 70-30 in favour of suppliers.

Established car firms now want their ratios to more closely resemble Tesla’s, which Philippe Houchois of Jefferies, an investment bank, puts at 50-50 and rising in favour of in-house. This starts with raw materials. As demand for battery minerals, notably cobalt, lithium and nickel, and processing capacity continues to outstrip supply, car firms are striking deals which would have Henry Ford nodding with approval. Getting their hands dirty by short-circuiting supply chains is, in the words of one former mining titan, “extraordinary”.

bmw said in 2021 that it had put $334m into an Argentine lithium project. Last year Stellantis and Renault each signed deals with Vulcan Energy Resources, and gm revealed a “multimillion-dollar investment” in Controlled Thermal Resources, in each case for lithium. In April Ford inked a deal with Lake Resources for the same mineral, while Stellantis and Mercedes entered an arrangement with Umicore, a Belgian chemicals giant, to supply cathode materials for acc, the two carmakers’ battery joint venture. A month earlier byd, a more Tesla-like Chinese firm that started out making phone batteries before turning into one of the world’s biggest ev-makers, announced a nearly $500m investment in a Chinese lithium miner. It is said to have bought six mines in Africa. The terms of such deals are as opaque as the sums involved are eye-catching. Car bosses agree that they will become commonplace.

Efforts to emulate Tesla’s battery gigafactories are also getting into gear. Carmakers are hoping to break the stranglehold of China and South Korea on battery-making, bringing production closer to home to keep costs in check and supplies reliable. Volkswagen (vw) is creating some in-house battery-making capacity. It has earmarked €2bn ($2.1bn) for its German factory, and says it will build six battery factories in Europe by 2030.


Plans for such fully fledged in-house battery units remain rare (see chart 2). Most companies still prefer to team up with specialist producers. Ford and sk Innovations of South Korea will stump up $7bn and $4.4bn, respectively, for three joint gigafactories in America. Last year gm unveiled an investment of $2.3bn for a battery plant in Tennessee built with lg, another South Korean firm. Sometimes, as with acc, rival car companies band together to share the cost of battery production. Stellantis and Mercedes (along with TotalEnergies, a French oil giant) will invest $7bn in acc factories in France and Germany. vw has a 20% stake, worth €1.4bn, in Northvolt, a Swedish firm that also counts Volvo as an investor.

Buying off-the-shelf electric motors is also falling out of favour. Hyundai and the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi carmaking alliance are mostly going it alone. bmw, Ford, gm, Mercedes and vw are planning to make more motors in their own factories.

Although no car boss is about to outdo Mr Musk and make the leap into chipmaking, the 7.7m cars in lost production last year as a result of the global semiconductor shortage has made the industry forge closer links with chip designers such as Qualcomm and Nvidia, which would once have sold chips to firms far down the carmakers’ supply chain. The car companies are also employing chip specialists to help them semi-tailor specifications and turn them into, as one car boss puts it, “smarter buyers”. vw is hatching plans to design its own custom silicon, as Tesla does.


Something similar is happening in software development. Last month vw’s boss, Herbert Diess, told a meeting of his employees that developing its “own software expertise is the biggest switch the automotive industry has to make”. Mr Diess’s fellow industry leaders share his analysis. In the next few years software is expected to become the biggest source of revenue for the industry. ubs reckons that worldwide car-software sales will bring in around $1.9trn annually by 2030 (see chart 3).

Small wonder that car companies want to appear more techie. In September Ford poached Doug Field, who had been in charge of special projects at Apple, a tech giant with its own long-rumoured automotive ambitions. Jim Rowan, who took charge of Volvo in March, is a former boss of Dyson, an electronics firm. Even Ferrari, an Italian sports-car brand defined by the roar of its petrol engines (which is also part-owned by Exor), has been run since September by Benedetto Vigna, recruited from stMicroelectronics, a Swiss semiconductor company.

In 2020 vw created a separate software arm, cariad, to sidestep its slow decision-making bureaucracy. Despite teething troubles with the programs for its id.3 hatchback that surfaced at the end of 2019, the firm has recently said that it aims to develop most of its own software in 15 years’ time, up from about 10% now. That includes plans for a proprietary operating system, something that Mercedes and Toyota are also contemplating. (Ford and gm are instead adopting Google’s Android operating system.) To that end, vw plans to invest around €30bn over the next five years. Stellantis wants to hire 4,500 software engineers by 2024. Several carmakers are setting up research-and-development centres in tech hubs, from Silicon Valley to Shanghai, in order to tap those places’ existing talent pools.

As for sales, the established giants have no intention of dismantling the time-honoured dealership system. It serves useful functions in servicing, for example—as Tesla’s long-running struggles in this area illustrate. Still, more car companies are shifting to an “agency model”, selling vehicles directly to motorists, as Tesla does, rather than through a third party. Charging fixed prices could boost margins. Direct sales also forge a closer bond with buyers who might go on to purchase additional services and upgrades.

If they really want to catch up with Tesla, let alone overtake it, car companies will have to “move at Silicon Valley speed”, as Barclays, a bank, puts it. That means simplifying not just their supplier networks but their corporate structures, which have become Byzantine and siloed. As long ago as 2019 Volvo and Geely, its Chinese parent company, merged their ice operation as a stand-alone business. That has allowed the Swedish marque to go full speed to becoming electric-only by 2030. In March Ford said that it would create an ev unit, Ford Model e, and separate it from the ice operations. Renault is considering doing something similar, also with a view to accelerating innovation.

All this amounts to a once-in-a-century upheaval for a globe-spanning industry encompassing thousands of companies, millions of workers and billions in sunk ice-age costs. Refashioning value chains will require spending lots of time and money, and comes with the risk of failure. For suppliers, it potentially means less business, as vertical integration makes them less central to carmaking—a prospect reflected in the sliding share prices of some, including large ones like Continental, in the past few years.

For car bosses, that means more headaches, as they consider how best to deploy their firms’ resources and skills, without provoking a backlash from governments and unions fearful of the loss of well-paying manufacturing jobs. As a result, the sector’s Teslafication drive will be uneven and fitful. But the direction of travel is unmistakably Muskian. ■

 

[mullokintyre]

Its not an electric car, but an electric plane.
From Swedish All electric aircraft

The ES-19 was specifically designed to meet the future demand on the market in the area. However, it turned out to be much more appealing for global players than it was expected. This led the young manufacturer to change its model’s EASA (European Union Aviation Safety Agency) certification specification from CS-23 to CS-25. What this means is that the aircraft design will be easier to adapt to the specific requirements of the global market, allowing it to operate in the U.S. as well, for example.

United is one of the major operators that are betting on this all-electric aircraft, having agreed to purchase up to 200 Swedish ES-19 units.

The 19-seater is equipped with a 400 kW electric motor and a lithium-ion battery pack. Heart Aerospace claims that this motor is 20 times less expensive than conventional turboprops of the same size, with maintenance costs that are 100 times lower. The current battery pack ensures a range of 250 miles (400 km), but it’s expected to grow over time as battery technology continues to evolve. The ES-19 also boasts a customized Garmin G3000 integrated flight deck, including lightweight, high-resolution flight displays.

The first Swedish all-electric ES-19 aircraft is set to enter service by 2026.

They don't say what size the battery pack will need to be, but it will be large.
At least the chargers only have to be in selected places (airports), and they will have to be BIG!
REX could replace their aging SAAB 340's with these and still do most of their regional flights.
The really interesting part is how the likes of FAA and CASA deem the "minimal fuel requirements" that are present for RPT aircraft.
Mick

 

[Value Collector]

Its not an electric car, but an electric plane.
From Swedish All electric aircraft

They don't say what size the battery pack will need to be, but it will be large.
At least the chargers only have to be in selected places (airports), and they will have to be BIG!
REX could replace their aging SAAB 340's with these and still do most of their regional flights.
The really interesting part is how the likes of FAA and CASA deem the "minimal fuel requirements" that are present for RPT aircraft.
Mick

This is an interesting video about electric planes and where they fit in to the grand scheme of air travel.

At least the chargers only have to be in selected places (airports), and they will have to be BIG!

Not really, if you look at the way planes are fulled at most air ports, I truck big pump truck with a big hose just turns up and connects to an underground pipe or tank and fills the plane up, it could be very similar e.g. some one just rolls up with a power cable, and plugs the plane into an under ground power circuit, and charges the plane, given that the plane is going to sit there for normally a minimum of 30 mins while it loads and un loads, the output of the charging circuit would only need to be about the same as Teslas Truck charger.

 

[JohnDe]

Its not an electric car, but an electric plane.
From Swedish All electric aircraft

They don't say what size the battery pack will need to be, but it will be large.
At least the chargers only have to be in selected places (airports), and they will have to be BIG!
REX could replace their aging SAAB 340's with these and still do most of their regional flights.
The really interesting part is how the likes of FAA and CASA deem the "minimal fuel requirements" that are present for RPT aircraft.
Mick

It will be a long time before we see viable flights of commercial EV planes.

"Over the past few years, the battery industry has largely focused on cars, yielding steady, incremental improvements to a particular scientific approach. This involves lithium ions that move between a cathode composed of a few metal oxides—including nickel, cobalt, manganese, and iron—and an anode made of graphite. This classic recipe has gotten pretty good. ​

​

But as they approach the theoretical limit of how much energy they can store, lithium-ion batteries remain well short of what’s required for most aircraft.​

​

The aviation industry has been grappling with this problem for a while. They need enough power for takeoff, then enough energy to safely cruise over long distances. It’s possible that it will never be practical—and that greener aviation will require other approaches, like hydrogen or synthetic jet fuel."​

What It’ll Take to Get Electric Planes off the Ground
The lithium-ion battery is good for moving cars short distances, but aviation requires longer-lasting power. Maybe we need to try other elements.

A FEW YEARS ago, while driving on a stretch of interstate between Pittsburgh and San Francisco, Venkat Viswanathan began to feel a little existential. His trip was going smoothly—almost too smoothly, he thought. He would hum along for a few hundred miles at a time, stopping briefly for meals or to take in the early summer scenery. It was the classic Great American road trip. And it was hardly remarkable at all that he was doing it in an electric car.

Viswanathan, a scientist at Carnegie Mellon University, is an expert in high-energy-density batteries—designs that are meant to pack a lot of juice into not a lot of space. At times, this involves chemistry that can feel almost fanciful; the unobtanium of battery tech. But after that summer being propelled cross-country by a totally obtainable battery, he began to consider a different application for his work. “I was like, ‘Wait, what am I doing with all these new batteries I’m inventing?’” Viswanathan recalls. “Who is going to need them?” There was another way to travel coast-to-coast, he realized, one that batteries were far from decarbonizing: flight.

Over the past few years, the battery industry has largely focused on cars, yielding steady, incremental improvements to a particular scientific approach. This involves lithium ions that move between a cathode composed of a few metal oxides—including nickel, cobalt, manganese, and iron—and an anode made of graphite. This classic recipe has gotten pretty good. Recently, lithium-ion batteries have pushed the range of passenger cars past 400 miles—about as good as many combustion engines, and enough to overcome the “range anxiety” that might make some drivers reluctant to go electric. But as they approach the theoretical limit of how much energy they can store, lithium-ion batteries remain well short of what’s required for most aircraft.

The aviation industry has been grappling with this problem for a while. The industry contributes about 2 percent of global carbon emissions—a relatively small figure, but one that is poised to grow sharply as more of the world takes to the skies. (Only about one in 10 people take a flight each year, and a 2018 study estimated that 1 percent of the world’s population is responsible for half of aviation emissions.) If those planes are going to go electric, Viswanathan believes, batteries will need a radical rethink. Even regional jets meant for relatively short hops require batteries that are light but sufficiently powerful. They need enough power for takeoff, then enough energy to safely cruise over long distances. It’s possible that it will never be practical—and that greener aviation will require other approaches, like hydrogen or synthetic jet fuel.

Or by rethinking some battery fundamentals. Last week, along with other battery and aviation experts, Viswanathan published in Nature what he considers a “wake-up call” to the industry to invest in basic science beyond moving around lithium ions. In particular, the authors advocate for new cathodes involving more exotic materials, some of which produce what are known as conversion reactions, which move more electrons and can potentially pack more energy. It’s stuff that people haven’t really considered since the 1970s, when cobalt started to win out. The US Department of Energy project has set a goal of building a battery that can hold 500 watt-hours of energy per kilogram. Viswanathan and his coauthors think that for a workhorse of the skies, like the Boeing 737, we’ll need to double that, and we’ll need new chemistries to get us there. “We’re trying to move the goalpost,” he says.

THE LITHIUM-ION BATTERY is a chemical love story. Lithium ions and electrons, once separated from each other by a charge, always seek to be reunited. The wandering of these electrons across a battery cell is what generates a current. But in that sense, lithium is limited because it has only one electron to give up. In theory, more electrons moving around would mean more energy, which is something other elements can potentially offer. Try iodine, maybe, or sulfur or fluorine, and you can get more electrons buzzing.

But there’s a wrinkle in this plan. A beautiful thing about current batteries is that lithium ions can move back and forth without causing a fuss. They’re caught and released by the cathode—a process called insertion—but once inside of it, the ions don’t react with the other materials and reorganize the atomic arrangements. For some other elements, that’s not the case. “We have new materials that weren’t there to begin with,” says Esther Takeuchi, a battery scientist at SUNY Stony Brook. Hence the term “conversion reaction.” These chemical reactions are complicated, and they result in electrochemical changes, as well as changes in volume. But perhaps the biggest problem is then getting these types of batteries to recharge. Once you’ve changed what’s inside a battery, it can be difficult to return to the materials that were there before.

For the kinds of batteries Takeuchi works on, recharging isn’t typically necessary. Her specialty is packing lots of energy into small spaces, like medical devices, that need to last a long time on a single charge—a lifetime even, because a recharge or battery swap might require surgery. One of her older designs, involving vanadium, is ubiquitous today in pacemakers. But since then her team has studied how conversion chemistries, like fluorinated carbon (referred to as CFx) or iodine, might work even better.

For planes, the same principle of space- and weight-saving applies to staying aloft over long distances. But a battery that has only a single life won’t work for a plane that needs to recharge with every leg. In the lab, researchers have had some success in reversing those conversion reactions, but only to face other problems. One of the contenders that’s furthest along is the lithium-sulfur battery—a highly desirable chemistry because of how cheap and plentiful sulfur is. The issue is that unwanted reactions can occur between the sulfur at the anode and in the electrolyte. This can create chemical buildup that means the battery loses its ability to recharge over time. Sometimes, those reactions form a pesky thing called a dendrite—a vein of material in the electrolyte that gradually extends and may eventually connect the anode and the cathode, causing a short-circuit—and a fire.

WHILE CONVERSION REACTIONS involve a lot of novel chemistry, Takeuchi points out that they do not totally ditch the path batteries have taken so far. Any new cathode chemistries will also depend on the success of nearer-term improvements to battery capacity, such as new anodes made of materials other than graphite.

One of those is lithium metal. While graphite was a good choice because of its stability, lithium metal has some improved electrochemical properties, and it simply takes up less space than conventional designs. Richard Wang, CEO of Cuberg, a lithium-metal battery startup recently acquired by Northvolt, a Swedish battery manufacturer, says its design gets a 70 percent boost in energy density. Wang decided to focus his startup on the aviation industry because it would place higher value on energy density improvements. The company’s idea is to power relatively small aircraft; they have partnered with startups that want to make vertical liftoff vehicles that can operate over a short range.

It’s possible those lithium metal anodes could be paired with more experimental cathode chemistries to power larger aircraft, but the path is uncertain, Wang says. It’s a classic pickle: Plane makers want certainty that big-leap technologies will work out, while the battery startups (and their potential funders) need assurances that their experiments will eventually have a use. The truth is that plane makers may find it less useful to electrify bigger planes, he says. They might decide to stop with batteries that handle short regional routes. For longer routes where existing batteries are less practical, there might instead be hybrid approaches, where a gas engine takes over between takeoff and landing, or greener jet fuels, or perhaps hydrogen, if the infrastructure gets sorted out along with a green way to produce it. No one is sure just yet where to place their bets.

George Bye, the founder of Bye Aerospace, calls that the “white space” of electric plane innovation. He draws a solid line of progress for lithium-ion batteries that power small electric aircraft, like the two- and four-seat training planes his company builds, and after that a dashed line of lithium-metal and other almost-there innovations, like solid-state batteries, that will stretch out the capacity and distance that electric aircraft can fly. Then, after that—who knows? White space. His own company has explored lithium-sulfur for larger aircraft, but found it not quite ready for prime time. “It’s a little bit behind,” he says; one partner working on the technology recently went bankrupt.

One silver lining, Bye says, is that the weight and balance benefit of replacing a complicated jet engine with an electric battery means the plane can be designed to move more efficiently through the air. That helps extend the range and passenger capacity. “It’s not apples to apples, as some people like to say,” he says. The company is also working toward FAA certification on its training aircraft, so that it can begin delivering the hundreds of orders it has received from flight schools and airlines. Among the challenges is proving that the plane can handle fire risks—a matter not just of chemistry, but the structural design of the battery packs—and still pull an emergency landing even if a battery blows.

Large electric planes with radically new batteries may be decades away. But Takeuchi maintains that there is “room for optimism” for battery-powered jets. “Sometimes people ask if this is even possible in our wildest dreams,” she says. “And when we look at the materials and we look at the numbers, we say, ‘Yeah, it is.’” She and her coauthors point out that the future of aviation was initially electric. In 1884, the first round-trip flight by an aerial vehicle—the airship *La France—*flew by the power of a massive zinc-chlorine battery. Nearly a century and a half later, she thinks electric is ready for a comeback.

 

[mullokintyre]

It will be a long time before we see viable flights of commercial EV planes.

​

I would not be so sure of that.
six years ago I flew an all electric two seater aircraft after the US Oshkosh air show.
The checklist is significantly smaller than a conventional piston engined plane, no engine runups to warm up oil etc, no cycling props, no mixture controls..
Just press the go button and the acceleration was more than surprising.
There are many advantages in using Electricity for planes apart from the big cost reductions in the engine and ongoing maintenance as mentioned in the article..
There are no limitations on the performance of the engine as altitude increases, there are no changes in C of G as there is no burn off of fuel, no expensive fuel dumps if an aircraft has to return to base.
Pilot workload would be much lower as there are significantly fewer engine management systems as well as fuel management to worry about.
The Maximum Take off Weight and Maximum Landing Weight can be the same, the decrease in exhaust noise helps overcome EPA regs and maybe even curfews.
The almost instant torque from the motors will provide good acceleration such that they expect to operate from runways less than a thousand feet compared to say a Dash 8 that requires 2700 foot runways.
it would help airlines offset their carbon emissions from the Avtur burning long haul aircraft and allow them a bit of virtue signalling.
And of course they would be tad cheaper to run.
Short hop freight traffic would be an ideal proving ground, without putting the RPT customers at risk as guinea pigs.
Scalability would be an issue, the ES-19 has four engines of 400 KW each, the equivalent of around 9 base model tesla model 3.
I can find no information on aviation websites as to the battery capacity of the ES 19 , but I can imagine it would be huge, and the weight significant.
Not to mention the size of the charging cable!
Of course all this is based on Vapourware, the aircraft has not even had a test flight yet.
I guess its a bit like the Tesla Cyber truck.
Mick

 

[JohnDe]

I would not be so sure of that.
six years ago I flew an all electric two seater aircraft after the US Oshkosh air show.
The checklist is significantly smaller than a conventional piston engined plane, no engine runups to warm up oil etc, no cycling props, no mixture controls..
Just press the go button and the acceleration was more than surprising.
There are many advantages in using Electricity for planes apart from the big cost reductions in the engine and ongoing maintenance as mentioned in the article..
There are no limitations on the performance of the engine as altitude increases, there are no changes in C of G as there is no burn off of fuel, no expensive fuel dumps if an aircraft has to return to base.
Pilot workload would be much lower as there are significantly fewer engine management systems as well as fuel management to worry about.
The Maximum Take off Weight and Maximum Landing Weight can be the same, the decrease in exhaust noise helps overcome EPA regs and maybe even curfews.
The almost instant torque from the motors will provide good acceleration such that they expect to operate from runways less than a thousand feet compared to say a Dash 8 that requires 2700 foot runways.
it would help airlines offset their carbon emissions from the Avtur burning long haul aircraft and allow them a bit of virtue signalling.
And of course they would be tad cheaper to run.
Short hop freight traffic would be an ideal proving ground, without putting the RPT customers at risk as guinea pigs.
Scalability would be an issue, the ES-19 has four engines of 400 KW each, the equivalent of around 9 base model tesla model 3.
I can find no information on aviation websites as to the battery capacity of the ES 19 , but I can imagine it would be huge, and the weight significant.
Not to mention the size of the charging cable!
Of course all this is based on Vapourware, the aircraft has not even had a test flight yet.
I guess its a bit like the Tesla Cyber truck.
Mick

Yes, for small single engine aircraft there is a nearby future.

However, for commercial passenger & goods aircraft there is an issue with the size & weight of the battery pack required. The battery is prohibitive to profit, especially for long haul transport.

 

[mullokintyre]

Yes, for small single engine aircraft there is a nearby future.

However, for commercial passenger & goods aircraft there is an issue with the size & weight of the battery pack required. The battery is prohibitive to profit, especially for long haul transport.

Yeah , but as the article said, they are targetting the short haul regional hop, where you spend a lot of energy getting to the flight levels and immediately have to start your descent.
These aircraft can fly efficiently at lower levels almost as well as flight levels.
Mick

 

[qldfrog]

For info
I visited the EV expo yesterday in Noosa.
Interesting, still believing not a financially sensible choice but technology was interesting.i liked the EV scooters and motorbikes.
Some beauties there at an affordable cost.
Was able to see first hand a polestar.
beautiful, and personally prefer to Tesla.
if i had to buy an EV today, i would go BYD but that is personal choice.
After talking to the owner of an Hyundai EV, he mentioned an interesting point which would be valid for MG ev as well.
If you buy an EV version of an ICE, a lot of parts..headlights etc are shared and changing these after an accident is not an expensive issue, whereas a new headlight for a Tesla is an expensive drama.
Otherwise, some of the price tags and waiting list time bringing tears to my eyes...

 

[sptrawler]

@JohnDe and @mullokintyre do yourselves a favour and see the latest Top Gun movie in the cinema, Im not a big movie fan, but if you are into planes, it is un bloodi believable.

 

[JohnDe]

@JohnDe and @mullokintyre do yourselves a favour and see the latest Top Gun movie in the cinema, Im not a big movie fan, but if you are into planes, it is un bloodi believable.

I watched it last weekend, very impressive.

 

[Telamelo]

Just heard that in Norway effective from 2025 people there will only be able to buy & drive an EV & nothing else.

 

[sptrawler]

Just heard that in Norway effective from 2025 people there will only be able to buy & drive an EV & nothing else.

Well I was there three years ago, it is an interesting place, it was more expensive to buy something with cash, than a credit card, so obviously they have a different set of parameters than most other countries.
I'm going back there next year, so I will let you know how it is progressing.

 

[qldfrog]

Well I was there three years ago, it is an interesting place, it was more expensive to buy something with cash, than a credit card, so obviously they have a different set of parameters than most other countries.
I'm going back there next year, so I will let you know how it is progressing.

A Reset model?