Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Not sure,about storage of Hydrogen.( believe it can be solidified???) but on efficiency front using hydrogen in cells to produce electricity are around 60% efficiency...burning it in ICE is down around 20%....so even allowing for some inefficiency in motors using hydrogen cells could be above 50%..but that does not mean power to weight overall could be better. Our current crop of Jet turbines might not be terribly fuel efficient but their power to weight is staggering..
Personally cant see e planes anytime soon for this reason. A car can operate very well with a poor power to weight. A plane cant,especially taking into account how many passengers they must carry to be cost efficient.
We are trying to balance fuel efficiency, power to weight and cost effectiveness. Hard to balance in the air only made more difficult with safety regs.
The fact we already have small, glider like e planes suggests to me we will never see large commercial passenger carrying ones. The planes currently need the high efficiency of high aspect wings and light weight. The efficiencies of all the parts involved ( fuel cell/ storage/motors) can only increase slightly, not of the order to build airbus type planes...
Personally cant see e planes anytime soon for this reason. A car can operate very well with a poor power to weight. A plane cant,especially taking into account how many passengers they must carry to be cost efficient.
We are trying to balance fuel efficiency, power to weight and cost effectiveness. Hard to balance in the air only made more difficult with safety regs.
The fact we already have small, glider like e planes suggests to me we will never see large commercial passenger carrying ones. The planes currently need the high efficiency of high aspect wings and light weight. The efficiencies of all the parts involved ( fuel cell/ storage/motors) can only increase slightly, not of the order to build airbus type planes...
Last edited:
I've just discovered that Evans Cycles branch in Croydon has gone. I've no idea exactly when but considering Croydon is London's largest borough by population at almost 370,000 population, that's a surprising loss.
The next nearest Evans Branches aren't conveniently close either, so they will lose any Croydon business.
.
This was one of the sources of the electric flight news
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/norway-aims-short-haul-flights-100-electric-2040-155938747.html
Hydrogen cannot be solidified per sec. it can be located and trapped by adsorbtion into a variety of substances ,including grapheme , so that the vapour pressure is significantly reduced say 2 atmospheres and quantities comparable with heavy steel bottles can be stored at very low pressures. It can also be liquified ,at very low temperatures and the effect is a storage level 1000 that of the same volume.. effectively 1000 atmospheres.
There has been little or no work on reducing the weight of fuel cells, which directly convert hydrogen and airborne oxygen into electricity. There has been no need to date.
A potential midway stance is to use electrically generated hydrogen to form methane or methanol, and use these in fuel cells or indeed in the simpler, lighter, gas turbine. Methane\ pentane\ butane mixtures can be readily handled by conventional engineering with reasonable energy densities. In this fashion the carbon is acting as a carrier for the hydrogen, which is what reacts.
As you have indicated the more efficient energy transfer by a fuel cell, will reduce the amount of fuel needed.
Other exotic fuels which might excite Tilson could include aluminium powder, which when mixed with oxygen, creates a lot of heat, efforts to make viable fuel cells not yet successful. ..... . The aluminium can be created from the oxides by electrolytic processes.
But this is a distraction, pleasant certainly, from the title of this thread, so perhaps we can set it aside,
They are getting carried away by their success with e-cars, half of all new registrations. But that's very easy to do in a country with such a small and fairly wealthy population.
The Scandinavan routes they propose for e-flights would environmentally be better served by high speed trains in almost all cases, and they'd be just as fast without airport hassle at both ends.
I see the article shows signs of backing down anyway, admitting hybrid and alternative fuel experiments will come first.
.
Getting carried away, exactly.
As a schoolboy, I remember reading about and looking at artistic drawing of predicted life in the year 2000. Mono-rail trains winding through our cities, flying cars as the mass mode of travel, hover scooters for local trips, robots delivering goods to our front doors. Of course, none of this happened, but like electrically powered airliners, it is possible but for one factor, the battery. We many have inched a tiny bit closer with battery technology, but there are still so many miles to go, we may as well forget it in our lifetime.
No, I,m not sure any of this changes anything.
Quote from OG's article.
After abandoning a project for 100-percent electric planes last year, Airbus decided to refocus its efforts on developing a hybrid model, inking a partnership with British engine maker Rolls Royce and German industrial group Siemens. The first flight is planned for 2020.
Other aspect you fail to take into account is the nature of thrust used in various modes of transport. Turbo fan/ Jet engines move massive amounts of gas by nature, perfectly suited to aircraft,an electric motor will have to be driving a prop or fan of some kind..In Jet engines its not just the fan giving thrust..the burnt gases also do.( as in rocket)
You are right about carrying less fuel with differences in efficiency but this is more than offset by superior power to weight of Jet engine to start with. ( Siemens claim upto 10kw/ kg..their current best rated tested on aircraft motor gives 5kw/kg. Turbo fan is capable of upto 13kw/kg for models already in use, and will surely match any improvements seen in electric motors)
The numbers as yet do not add up...otherwise we would already have one( passenger liner)We need further improvements in power to weight of cells and if poss even the motor. Yes, the current Siemens electric motors are much better power to weight than piston engines motors, as yet they can not compete with jets...even before taking fuel storage into account and less efficient propulsion.
I suspect Norway are being rather optimistic as is our govt in banning petrol/ diesel ICE from 2040.
Just to put it in perspective exactly what electric motors are competing with...lets assume siemens can build a motor to give 13 kw/kg ...its not a big improvement from the current 10 they claim .
The engines on Shuttle produce 138kw/kg which can be raised to 160kw/kg in emergencies. Jet engines in use can and will increase their power to weight when market demands it.
Last edited:
Yes, I remember all the predictions witn amusement, heightened by knowing my cynicism at the time ruled them out.
Even where such predictions are just about possible, they certainly aren't necessarily desirable. Like the fridge and freezer ordering replacement food as it gets used. I can just imagine the complaints from family members, " Not bl**dy shepherds pie again!"
,
we have a very strange situation:
- majority in Parliament are remainers
- majority in HOL are remainers
- all top 3 leaders would vote to remain if asked to vote again
- the electorate would vote to remain if asked to vote again
The right thing to do is a soft brexit.
and yet, MPs are too scared of the right wing media (be branded as enemies of the people) to put up a fight against charlatans like JRM.
All very true, but I still think we'll end up with a very soft Brexit.
Firstly the EU leaders are unusually united and implacable in saying they won't allow UK cherry picking. That means either we agree to most EU and present day conditions to maintain access and keep the Irish border open, or walk out with nothing.
And come the deadline, I think the leadership will be more scared of the possible consequences of walking out with nothing than they are of the right wing bogeymen.
.
for once I agree with Mr Corbyn on the single market. We have to get out of the single market for now and rejoin at a later date, possibly in the next generation. The British industrial base has been too eroded during our time in the EU. We'll need the freedom to buy back the old silvers, demolish the old base and build a new one, that will take maybe 20-30 years.
And simply won't happen, will it?
Our industrial base was already eroded before we joined the EU, and there isn't an economic reason that can be advanced convincing enough for predatory investors who can make a quicker buck elsewhere.
Which means either we go really Socialist and invest Taxpayers money in regenerating industry (Zlatan will throw his rattle out of the pram at that idea, and the Voters are not likely to buy into it)
Or it simply isn't going to happen, or alternatively to make it viable the factories will be so highly roboticised that no one is employed in them, and the money from them still goes into the pockets of the rich.
The benefits of Brexit...none for the Public
Last edited:
The right thing to do is cancel the whole bloody silly idea!
Although I agree with the rest, this part quoted isn't true. Our industrial and commercial decline was mostly between the 1940s and the early 70s when we joined the Common Market. During those years we lost all our vehicle industries, bicycle, motorcycle, car, truck and bus, train manufacturing, shipbuilding, most of our aircraft industry. Meanwhile we turned to our commerce, managing to lose our previously key place in providing international shipping and seamen to crew the ships we built and sailed. Some further decline came under Thatcher, but that was mainly industry of relatively little importance.
During the years since joining we've rebuilt parts of the motor and aircraft industries, albeit sometimes foreign owned or linked, and also become a major player in satellite design and construction. Our defence industry has also flourished since in recent decades, and that has helped revive some shipbuilding.
.
most of our industrial base is now owned by multinationals and we still don't have a plan (free market is not a valid plan). We are just a vehicle for American, Japanese, Korean companies to export to the EU.
I'd be happy that we buy them out after brexit.
I agree that's desirable, but fear that any buyback will be very limited due to a very soft Brexit.
P.S. You missed out India, Tata owned Land Rover/Jaguar.
.