Jump to content

United Airlines buying 100 Electric Jet Airliners


Recommended Posts

From the linked article:

Quote

The ES-19 could hit the market as early as 2026.

This is exactly what big car companies used to do with All Electric Vehicles before Tesla came along.  They dump a little money into some interesting startup, sign a meaningless, non-binding 'deal' for some number of units, and they get great press out of it and it makes it seem like they care... and then they continue business as usual. 

In this case Heart Aerospace seem to only have just received $35Million in Series A funding. 

Quote

Heart has made a full-scale prototype of its electric propulsion system, the core of its technical innovation. But the company still has to complete many steps along the way to its proposed date of commercial operations. Chief amongst these is actually assembling a prototype of the full aircraft, testing it and getting it certified with relevant authorities in the U.S. and Europe.

I'll make a not-so-bold-prediction that this will not fly in 2026 and United will never receive any planes. 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see it now.  

Ladies and Gentlemen I apologize for the delay, we have had lots of ground traffic during our taxi to the runway and have used a good deal of our battery power on the ground.  We are currently 25th in line for takeoff so we are going to head back to the gate to charge the batteries so we can actually make it to our destination.  We will set a new departure time of 8-10 hours from now.  Please remain in your seats during recharging.

Edited by Moby Ric
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Very cool stuff. Electric plane seats 19, travels 250 miles with no emissions. 

 

With apologies to Ron White, that sounds like just enough range to get to the crash site.

I think we are a couple of generations of battery and motor technology away from being able to make an electric airplane a commercially viable product.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Very cool stuff. Electric plane seats 19, travels 250 miles with no emissions. 



 

 

1 hour ago, Jerry Callo said:

And then falls out of the sky - with no emissions.  

 

1 hour ago, davidg said:

With apologies to Ron White, that sounds like just enough range to get to the crash site.

I think we are a couple of generations of battery and motor technology away from being able to make an electric airplane a commercially viable product.

jada pinkett smith that part GIF by Red Table Talk

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Also, I'm pretty sure there are gonna be some Tesla fanboi types that cream themselves immediately upon takeoff.

 

2 hours ago, BearMace said:

What if it's so quiet people can hear farts in the cabin? Isn't farting with impunity the real perk of air travel?

I think the Tesla fanbois masterbating in the corner may just provide the cover that you need. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

From the linked article:

This is exactly what big car companies used to do with All Electric Vehicles before Tesla came along.  They dump a little money into some interesting startup, sign a meaningless, non-binding 'deal' for some number of units, and they get great press out of it and it makes it seem like they care... and then they continue business as usual. 

In this case Heart Aerospace seem to only have just received $35Million in Series A funding. 

I'll make a not-so-bold-prediction that this will not fly in 2026 and United will never receive any planes. 

 

 

Yup. Complete horseshit and ill bet this company dissolves before 2025

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

And the electricity required to charge this plane's batteries comes from a plant powered by what sort of magical source?

This is definitely an empty contract. But the answer to your question if these planes were to end up being real is a power grid that, even if it were entirely natural gas based, would still be more carbon efficient than a typical plane engine. Scale matters when you're working for efficiency. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Compared to driving any flight of 300 miles or less is a waste of time, with ground travel and security and all that. 

When I was flying a lot for work at my old job, our informal rule of thumb was genrtslly to fly if driving would take more than 3 hours. Part of the reason was that was about the threshold for actually saving time and also to make sure we wouldn't be too tired from the drive for meetings/giving presentations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

When I was flying a lot for work at my old job, our informal rule of thumb was genrtslly to fly if driving would take more than 3 hours. Part of the reason was that was about the threshold for actually saving time and also to make sure we wouldn't be too tired from the drive for meetings/giving presentations.

Dallas-Houston is borderline IMO; Houston-Austin is drive all the way. And now they have those ritzy buses like Vonlane that's another option -- maybe the best, depending on where you need to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Dallas-Houston is borderline IMO; Houston-Austin is drive all the way. And now they have those ritzy buses like Vonlane that's another option -- maybe the best, depending on where you need to be.

I flew Dallas to Houston fairly frequently a few years ago. The Hobby-Love connection could definitely be done in under two hours of total travel time (door-to-door), making it much better than the drive, particularly if it was a day trip. I did drive more often if I didn't have something early and planned on being there multiple days. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cajun said:

This man gets it.

It is easier for us to drive down to SPI from Round Rock than it is to fly from ABIA to Harlingen, then get a rent car to complete the trip. It takes a couple of hours longer, but there’s no airport hassle and having to sit next to some asshole (except my wife still has to).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lost in all this craze is the fact that new geared turbofan models of the 737 and 320 burn a gallon a minute less fuel than their predecessors. 

I would think the logical intermediate step between them and electric planes would be something like having an APU provide power to two electric motors with battery back up like a diesel electric locomotive. Or have the apu top off the batteries as needed. 

They're obviously still  a few leaps in technology away from practical emission free travel. 

BTW, the navy did patent small fusion reactors recently. That would be a start if it ever reached fruition and battery and other electric tech took another step forward with stuff like graphene etc..

Edited by Bobby_Batronic
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Lost in all this craze is the fact that new geared turbofan models of the 737 and 320 burn a gallon a minute less fuel than their predecessors. 

I would think the logical intermediate step between them and electric planes would be something like having an APU provide power to two electric motors with battery back up like a diesel electric locomotive. Or have the apu top off the batteries as needed. 

They're obviously still  a few leaps in technology away from practical emission free travel. 

BTW, the navy did patent small fusion reactors recently. That would be a start if it ever reached fruition and battery and other electric tech took another step forward with stuff like graphene etc..

What would be the point of that? If the power is still coming from combustion, it doesn't seem like you're gaining anything unless planes can also take advantage of regenerative braking in some form. 

At any rate, we are a ways off from electric planes being practical, mainly due to energy storage limitations. Current battery isn't great for that purpose. Conceivably hydrogen and its higher energy density could better suited for planes. When it does become a reality, I think the big advantages are making planes mechanically more simple and removing combustion entirely from the pressured tube thousands of feet in the sky. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, NoRagrets said:

I’m surprised the air force hasnt developed a micro nuke plant for a plane that can fly indefinitely during a nuclear war.

 

Both we and the Soviets experimented with this back during the 1950s. Abandoned as impractical for lots of reasons, not least the issue of what happens if one crashes. A submarine or aircraft carrier sinks into the ocean, it doesn’t rain fallout on what would most likely be your own territory or an ally’s.

ICBMs, especially submarine based and better early warning made the whole concept irrelevant. The issue was always survivability for a second strike…not the need to operate indefinitely. Any nuclear war between the big boys will be SHORT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, davidg said:

With apologies to Ron White, that sounds like just enough range to get to the crash site.

I think we are a couple of generations of battery and motor technology away from being able to make an electric airplane a commercially viable product.

Sorry about that storm folks, we're gonna have to land in Huntsville, we ain't making it to Houston.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, bolverk said:

When I was flying a lot for work at my old job, our informal rule of thumb was genrtslly to fly if driving would take more than 3 hours. Part of the reason was that was about the threshold for actually saving time and also to make sure we wouldn't be too tired from the drive for meetings/giving presentations.

Here are the official travel method guidelines by trip length (that I made up just now):

0-2 miles: walk, fatass

2-20 miles: public transport, if available (disregard south of mason-Dixon); otherwise, drive

20-120 miles: drive

120-300 miles: bus/rail, if available; otherwise, drive

300+ miles: fly

Edited by Snake Diggity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Both we and the Soviets experimented with this back during the 1950s. Abandoned as impractical for lots of reasons, not least the issue of what happens if one crashes. A submarine or aircraft carrier sinks into the ocean, it doesn’t rain fallout on what would most likely be your own territory or an ally’s.

This. Besides contaminating everything behind you, it's ridiculously easy to track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

So I'm not allowed to have a Li-Ion battery the size of a deck of cards in my checked luggage due to risk of fire, but this bird is going to be powered by a giant bank of them...presumably in the hold? Okay...

Should we now google the apocalyptic lithium and cobalt mines, many being mined by children and workers sold into slavery.  These batteries are not without a cost....often a heartbreaking one

190115-rdcongo-mine.webp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Should we now google the apocalyptic lithium and cobalt mines, many being mined by children and workers sold into slavery.  These batteries are not without a cost....often a heartbreaking one

190115-rdcongo-mine.webp

Dude, shut up!!

s/

Nike, Apple, China etc etc etc

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Should we now google the apocalyptic lithium and cobalt mines, many being mined by children and workers sold into slavery.  These batteries are not without a cost....often a heartbreaking one

190115-rdcongo-mine.webp

Major manufacturers are either moving on from cobalt entirely or are re-sourcing their cobalt from better run mines. The problem is primarily with the Democratic Republic of Congo, which controls half the world's reserves of cobalt.  I'm not aware of the same allegations regarding lithium mining, which is much wider spread. Regardless, the US actually has huge reserves of lithium (#4 in the world). I know Tesla is looking to start sourcing its lithium from Nevada for instance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Major manufacturers are either moving on from cobalt entirely or are re-sourcing their cobalt from better run mines. The problem is primarily with the Democratic Republic of Congo, which controls half the world's reserves of cobalt.  I'm not aware of the same allegations regarding lithium mining, which is much wider spread. Regardless, the US actually has huge reserves of lithium (#4 in the world). I know Tesla is looking to start sourcing its lithium from Nevada for instance. 

Asked and answered.  "Better run mines" on paper sounds nice.  At first these Congolese mines were sold as "humane" and "better run" to get major corporations to entertain them.  As demand rises, and scarcity sets in, these mines will be revisited.  If not us, China and other countries won't bat an eye. 

The point being these batteries are not without a physical and human cost and leave massive scars in the landscape that will never recover (in our lifetime).  The brackish, contaminated water to the tune of hundreds of thousands of gallons per metric ton.  Not sure when NV is going to get 500,00+ tons of water per metric ton of lithium, even with it's reserves.  EPA will have a field day with them, hence the dependence on foreign mines.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Asked and answered.  "Better run mines" on paper sounds nice.  At first these Congolese mines were sold as "humane" and "better run" to get major corporations to entertain them.  As demand rises, and scarcity sets in, these mines will be revisited.  If not us, China and other countries won't bat an eye. 

That's why I said most companies were transitioning away from cobalt entirely for batteries. It isn't a necessary component and can be replaced.  e.g.,

https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/22/21451670/tesla-cobalt-free-cathodes-mining-battery-nickel-ev-cost

https://www.mining.com/cobalt-nickel-free-electric-car-batteries-are-a-runaway-success/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200716101612.htm

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/09/heres-what-tesla-will-put-in-its-new-batteries/

And, in case you are interested more generally, here is a good article on the advancements in batteries over the years:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/05/eternally-five-years-away-no-batteries-are-improving-under-your-nose/

Quote

The point being these batteries are not without a physical and human cost and leave massive scars in the landscape that will never recover (in our lifetime).  The brackish, contaminated water to the tune of hundreds of thousands of gallons per metric ton.  Not sure when NV is going to get 500,00+ tons of water per metric ton of lithium, even with it's reserves.  EPA will have a field day with them, hence the dependence on foreign mines.  

You could literally say this about pretty much anything done to gather resources for our modern life. I'm sure you have the same concerns about ground water contamination associated with fracking or the mining of other metals. The solution isn't to abandon development entirely, but rather to improve our processes to lessen human and environmental damage. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...