4 ms·

I don’t really buy the main counter arguments here. First, the current tech as stated in the article is short flights, like an hour. That’s actually a niche th

I don’t really buy the main counter arguments here. First, the current tech as stated in the article is short flights, like an hour. That’s actually a niche that’s already marketed—luxury flights to Martha’s Vineyard, Tahoe, Bar Harbor. People are already paying for these flights today. Second, the heat issue. Batteries do suffer from cold weather but if it’s an hour flight, with the batteries dumping their full charge, between thermal heating and simply insulating your battery it can stay warm.

aaron695 5y ago
> That’s actually a niche that’s already marketed So just for the rich, in luxury jets? I'm not sure you'd want such an expensive aircraft that can only do one hour, 20 mins. It's a crippled asset with a large cost. You need to chose, a plane for the people like a Cessna 172 or luxury jet style. Cessna 172 has the down time problem. 50 mins in the air. Hour to charge? (The article says 2 hours) These operations are pushing people through. You'd need two or three times as many planes. Luxury jet that's in part opulence, not sure who cares about making them electric. Going in the middle of these two is just a trick to make the situation hazy. But I also didn't get the heat issue or radio transmissions? Or why they couldn't Google a rubber band's specific energy. I do want a business model spec'd out. People say "flight schools", which is a bit like the disaster relief or for the military scam. Asset costs and labour and storage and down times to real life situations.
HuShifang 5y ago
I think this is the key here: conceptually, there may be some cognitive shear around the word "plane." In the near-term VTOLs aren't going to be airliners or, for that matter, flying cars. Cessnas and helicopters, though...
jeffreyrogers 5y ago
There's not really a viable path from those short flights to longer ones though and the hype of the industry is driven in part around electrifying airliners. And those short flights are a small fraction of airline emissions. I haven't run the numbers, but I don't think it can be more than a few percent. If a company or airline actually cared about reducing emissions from aviation they would look at using hydrogen like the Soviet Union did (I'm not talking about fuel cells, the jet engines used hydrogen as fuel).
- thehappypm 5y ago
  The path to bigger airlines depends heavily on battery advances, but it doesn’t mean it’s impossible, either. It just means the second market will be Philly to New York. Then New York to Boston. Maybe never across an ocean.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    I think there is a handful of airports like London City Airport which could utilize electric to lower noise. Now viable destinations from there is good question. There is probably some others as well, but it's rather limited market.
    - thehappypm 5y ago
      Consider how much cheaper it might be. The airplane itself would have minimal operating costs —- electricity can be quite cheap, and an electric plane has far fewer moving parts
  - mijamo 5y ago
    Shouldn't those short trajets be done by train instead? Any flight less than 2 hours should be a train IMO ( well except if it crosses a sea of course).

aaron695 5y ago

> That’s actually a niche that’s already marketed So just for the rich, in luxury jets? I'm not sure you'd want such an expensive aircraft that can only do one hour, 20 mins. It's a crippled asset with a large cost. You need to chose, a plane for the people like a Cessna 172 or luxury jet style. Cessna 172 has the down time problem. 50 mins in the air. Hour to charge? (The article says 2 hours) These operations are pushing people through. You'd need two or three times as many planes. Luxury jet that's in part opulence, not sure who cares about making them electric. Going in the middle of these two is just a trick to make the situation hazy. But I also didn't get the heat issue or radio transmissions? Or why they couldn't Google a rubber band's specific energy. I do want a business model spec'd out. People say "flight schools", which is a bit like the disaster relief or for the military scam. Asset costs and labour and storage and down times to real life situations.

HuShifang 5y ago

I think this is the key here: conceptually, there may be some cognitive shear around the word "plane." In the near-term VTOLs aren't going to be airliners or, for that matter, flying cars. Cessnas and helicopters, though...

jeffreyrogers 5y ago

There's not really a viable path from those short flights to longer ones though and the hype of the industry is driven in part around electrifying airliners. And those short flights are a small fraction of airline emissions. I haven't run the numbers, but I don't think it can be more than a few percent. If a company or airline actually cared about reducing emissions from aviation they would look at using hydrogen like the Soviet Union did (I'm not talking about fuel cells, the jet engines used hydrogen as fuel).

thehappypm 5y ago
The path to bigger airlines depends heavily on battery advances, but it doesn’t mean it’s impossible, either. It just means the second market will be Philly to New York. Then New York to Boston. Maybe never across an ocean.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  I think there is a handful of airports like London City Airport which could utilize electric to lower noise. Now viable destinations from there is good question. There is probably some others as well, but it's rather limited market.
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    Consider how much cheaper it might be. The airplane itself would have minimal operating costs —- electricity can be quite cheap, and an electric plane has far fewer moving parts
- mijamo 5y ago
  Shouldn't those short trajets be done by train instead? Any flight less than 2 hours should be a train IMO ( well except if it crosses a sea of course).