Electric Mooney

[Blue on Top]

Interesting … Yes, Austin is the left coast of Texas (an hour east of Kerrville).

IF Elon does build in Austin or Tulsa, at least he's thought enough to move out of California.

What's going to happen to all this lithium when these batteries are overflowing the landfills?

Edited July 7, 2020 by Blue on Top

[MooneyMitch]

10 minutes ago, Blue on Top said:

Interesting … Yes, Austin is the left coast of Texas (an hour east of Kerrville).

IF Elon does build in Austin or Tulsa, at least he's thought enough to move out of California.

What's going to happen to all this lithium when these batteries are overflowing the landfills?

Falcon 9 to Mars!! Let’s get an early start on pollution there !! 

[mike_elliott]

1 hour ago, Blue on Top said:

Interesting … Yes, Austin is the left coast of Texas (an hour east of Kerrville).

IF Elon does build in Austin or Tulsa, at least he's thought enough to move out of California.

What's going to happen to all this lithium when these batteries are overflowing the landfills?

Teslas batteries are/will be repurposed as house batteries, then lithium recycled and used again at their closed loop plant

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1122631_tesla-launches-battery-recycling-at-nevada-gigafactory

Former Tesla Exec JB Straubel started Redwood Materials to do just this for his buddy Elon

 

Sort of like ICE cars, get squashed and shipped off to China for scrap steel.

[MooneyMitch]

2 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Teslas batteries are/will be repurposed as house batteries, then lithium recycled and used again at their closed loop plant

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1122631_tesla-launches-battery-recycling-at-nevada-gigafactory

Sort of like ICE cars, get squashed and shipped off to China for scrap steel.

Yes, and I just received some scrap metal from China in the form of this !!  

I wonder if this was from 1978 Chevy !! 

Chinese flugelhorn...... $240!! 

[cujet]

On 7/6/2020 at 11:32 AM, MooneyMitch said:

Question and thoughts........ at the current supercharging rate, would a Tesla be appropriate for a highway patrol vehicle due to the continuous use of the vehicle during a daily driving shift?

As you probably know, there are already a few local agencies with Tesla patrol cars. They are really good for that application as there is enough range to complete a shift. Initial cost is a factor as police cars are often competitively priced. The savings on fuel and maintenance costs do add up over time. Time will tell whether it actually evens out. Some of these areas don't have cheap electricity. 

One "internet" famous car chase had to be terminated because the battery died... but they failed to charge it before the patrol. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/299166-cops-abandon-high-speed-chase-when-their-tesla-battery-runs-down Kind of similar to starting patrol on an empty tank.  As always, the difficulty is that a quick "fill up" is not possible. 

In my childhood hometown of Westport, CT the cops have a Model 3 that they love. They found that the real world 240 mile range dropped to 170 in the winter. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2020/01/03/bargersville-chief-turns-heads-in-indianas-first-tesla-police-car/2606866001/ 

The Florida Highway patrol miles vary considerably. Some go 300 miles in a 10 hour shift and some do 40 miles. Much of it depends on where the patrol is and how far it is from the station. None of the Tesla cars can do 300 highway miles. The 400 mile range Model S and upcoming 400 Mile range Model 3 are predicted to be capable of 200 miles in "Highway Patrol" configuration (running the AC all day) . 

Edited July 8, 2020 by cujet

[MooneyMitch]

50 minutes ago, cujet said:

As you probably know, there are already a few Tesla patrol cars. They are really good for that application. One "internet" famous car chase had to be terminated because the battery died... but they failed to charge it before the patrol. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/299166-cops-abandon-high-speed-chase-when-their-tesla-battery-runs-down

Kind of similar to starting patrol on an empty tank. Ya just don't do that. 

In my home state/town of CT, the Westport cops have a Model 3. They found that the real world 240 mile range dropped to 170 in the winter. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2020/01/03/bargersville-chief-turns-heads-in-indianas-first-tesla-police-car/2606866001/ 

The Florida Highway patrol miles vary considerably. Some go 300 miles in a 10 hour shift and some do 40 miles. Much of it depends on where the patrol is and how far it is from the station. None of the Tesla cars can do 300 highway miles. The 400 mile range Model S and upcoming 400 Mile range Model 3 are predicted to be capable of 200 miles in "Highway Patrol" configuration (running the AC all day) . 

Thank you for this information.  Thank you for pointing out the aspect of highway patrol mission miles as being a variable. 

Another whoops this morning for me.........I just reread your article more carefully...............yes, I'm interested in how the " fill up" time with the Tesla vs. the gasoline fill up time is being dealt with.

Regarding the article of the failed car chase due to running out of battery power, I gave zero weight to the story, labeling it sensationalism only.  

[Blue on Top]

There is a really good article in Kitplanes this month about the electric NXT Next.  Real world numbers of what we can do in airplanes.  I'm not going to spoil the surprise on what it can do and for how long  

NXT Next Pg 43.pdf NXT Next Pg 44.pdf NXT Next Pg 45.pdf NXT Next Pg 40 (1).pdf NXT Next Pg 41 (1).pdf NXT Next Pg 42.pdf

[MooneyMitch]

https://www.avweb.com/features/inside-the-electroflight-rolls-royce-electric-racer/?MailingID=390

Possibly you've already read this article on the Electroflight/Roll Royce electric aircraft.  Super interesting!

Whoops!  Double post on this................sorry Ron!

[cujet]

Walter Extra's EA-300 electric stunt plane set a world speed record of 210 MPH. 

We operate a "conventional" Extra 300L, with a BPE engine and an experimental 4 bladed MT prop (wider cord 3 blade blades on a 4 blade hub). It's top speed at sea level is an indicated 182Kts. Or 209.3 MPH. I'm impressed that the electric version of the plane can actually match our speeds. Of course, the electric plane can do it for 5 minutes and we can do it for 2 hours. 

 

Edited July 8, 2020 by cujet

[gsxrpilot]

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone mention Bye Aerospace here in Denver. They seem to be pretty far down the road towards an all electric trainer.

And the Mooney connection is... Their Chief Engineer is Tom Bowen from Mooney who has actually posted here on MooneySpace in years past.

[aviatoreb]

28 minutes ago, cujet said:

What a gorgeous paint job! I have always loved ruby red.

[gsxrpilot]

I'll bet a tank of the old fashioned blue stuff, that none of us or none of us humans ever get to make the choice of what is the best propulsion option for airplanes. The AI will be here before then, it will make the decision and we'll all just go along with it as it will be the only option.

[MooneyMitch]

12 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone mention Bye Aerospace here in Denver. They seem to be pretty far down the road towards an all electric trainer.

And the Mooney connection is... Their Chief Engineer is Tom Bowen from Mooney who has actually posted here on MooneySpace in years past.

Super interesting information.  I’ll look!

+1 Tom Bowen. 

[aviatoreb]

36 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

I'll bet a tank of the old fashioned blue stuff, that none of us or none of us humans ever get to make the choice of what is the best propulsion option for airplanes. The AI will be here before then, it will make the decision and we'll all just go along with it as it will be the only option.

I'll take that bet, and I'll spot you two to one odds.

[Blue on Top]

1 hour ago, gsxrpilot said:

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anyone mention Bye Aerospace here in Denver. They seem to be pretty far down the road towards an all electric trainer.

And the Mooney connection is... Their Chief Engineer is Tom Bowen from Mooney who has actually posted here on MooneySpace in years past.

Bye is definitely doing their thing.  They are also going the certificated route.  Many hurdles to be cleared, but they are doing it.  But, aero is well aero, cooling is well cooling and batteries are well not energy dense as fuel.

In addition to Tom B. being there, so is Scott Wilson, former head of Avionics and Electrical at Mooney-Chino.  Scott is leading their low voltage team.

[Blue on Top]

I just finished listening to a webinar put on by Aviation Week entitled, "Electrification: Dead End or the Future of Aviation?"  Obviously it was slanted toward the "Future of Aviation" point of view.  It brought up several valid points of where we are going … by 2035 at the earliest.

1. Is the future one source or more likely a mix of hydrogen, electric, hybrid, synthetic fuel, etc.

2. Currently (without subsidies) electric is 3-4X more expensive than current fossil fuels.

3. The progress of biofuels has been much slower than anticipated.

4. Synthetic fuels are being worked on, but they are only in the early stages.

5. Hydrogen has storage and airframe integration issues, but these issues are only engineering issues (LOL … from an engineer).

6. It was noted that this movement is going to make airplane aerodynamic designs more efficient, which is where most of the gain will come from.  These changes can also be accomplished on current airplanes.

7. Airbus states their next, single-aisle, airline will be 30% more efficient … 20% coming from the propulsion and 10% from the airframe design.   The head of Rolls-Royce stated that the 20% from propulsion is more than extremely aggressive.

8. The real answer could be a combination of all of them.  For example electric power boost on takeoff is possible.

9. Lots of talk about airlines with much shorter range which would need to include a different business model.  In other words, a true regional airplane that wouldn't have the capability of flying the longer range missions (200-300 mile range).

10. The TRL (Technical Readiness Level) of all of these new technologies (with the exception of battery electric) is between 0 and 2 and ALL have a long ways to go.

Just my top 10 … that I can remember with my notes.  The webinar is planned to be posted online within 24 hours.

Right now there is a beautiful bicycle anxiously waiting for me to put another 30 miles on her.  Not emissions free, but only a small portion of a horsepower required. 

It's a new day, it's a new dawn and I can once again be fully emotional  

[cliffy]

Didn't someone PEDAL across the English channel in an airplane?   :-)

[aviatoreb]

7 minutes ago, cliffy said:

Didn't someone PEDAL across the English channel in an airplane?   :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Daedalus

I knew - and still know - one of those cyclist pilots who flew in those 1980s' Daedalus projects.  They recruited national team cyclists for the fact that it takes a lot of watts/kg - meaning lightweight and also high power - so great heart-lungs - people to pull it off.  Then they put those few guys through basic pilot training through a ppl.  The fellow I knew after that went to grad school where I was - UC Boulder - and also served as the cycling coach on the team I was a bike racer on.  I exchanged emails with him just a few weeks ago - he's doing great and he's still posting some pretty cool strava pictures on some great rides.  But not flying anymore since then.

Here's crossing the channel.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1979/06/13/pedal-driven-plane-flies-channel/3f6fedfb-47b9-41e3-9225-a28d907c271b/

 

[Austintatious]

Hate to be debbie downer... But from what I understand, we pretty much KNOW the best combo of chemicals for storing/producing electricity.

THe problem is, we cannot use just those chemicals because they are too unstable.  And even if we COULD figure out how to do it, the increase in energy density would not be significan enough to make electric aircraft able to compete with dino fueled aircraft.

 

Edit" I said chemicals... I meant elements.... So until we discover NEW naturally occurring elements, we are likely at 90% or better of the best battery density possible on earth.

[Blue on Top]

@Austintatious  Interestingly, and now that I think about it, there was no mention in the Aviation Week webinar today about batteries.  The Rolls guy was very knowledgeable about everything Rolls and everything Airbus are doing.  He didn't mention the NXT, either.  Hummmmmm??????

Edited July 10, 2020 by Blue on Top

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

On 7/5/2020 at 4:54 PM, Blue on Top said:

@aviatoreb replied:

Does anyone here know the actual total power draw of all the cars in the USA car fleet and how any kilowatts that draws?  Is this an issue to the power grid or is it still relatively small and the current or slightly upgraded version fo the power grid might easily absorb it?

While working in the basement of the Pentagon on the night shift, we would often explore similar, esoteric questions.  At the time, (about 10 years ago), replacing gasoline with wind-created electricity for all vehicles in the US would cost the entire economy, about $15T, to build enough wind turbines.  Since wind is unreliable, you would also have to build coal, gas, or nuclear plants adding a little less to that price as well.  So, what do you think?  $30T to replace the petroleum system we already have in place?

In the same vein, replacing gasoline with ethanol would require adding the entire areas of Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio to corn production.  Just another absurdity that shows how good oil production and distribution really is.

[aviatoreb]

1 minute ago, Ah-1 Cobra Pilot said:

While working in the basement of the Pentagon on the night shift, we would often explore similar, esoteric questions.  At the time, (about 10 years ago), replacing gasoline with wind-created electricity for all vehicles in the US would cost the entire economy, about $15T, to build enough wind turbines.  Since wind is unreliable, you would also have to build coal, gas, or nuclear plants adding a little less to that price as well.  So, what do you think?  $30T to replace the petroleum system we already have in place?

In the same vein, replacing gasoline with ethanol would require adding the entire areas of Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, and Ohio to corn production.  Just another absurdity that shows how good oil production and distribution really is.

There is one thing in the power grid that is used, I am not sure how widely, to store energy when it is abundant and release it when it is need, for sporadic energy sources like wind or solar in particular, but other sources.  I do not know how widely it is used - but simply pumping water uphill in a higher reservoir and then releasing it as needed to the lower reservoir with a turbine in between - cleverly simple.  It is current practice I hear, but I don't know how widely.  Did you account for that?

Edited July 13, 2020 by aviatoreb

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

On 7/5/2020 at 7:27 PM, N201MKTurbo said:

All these person hauling quadcopters, while certainly electric aircraft, probably scale similar to photo drones. They don’t have spectacular range or endurance. 

Of course they are spectacular; spectacularly shitty!

[Blue on Top]

10 minutes ago, Ah-1 Cobra Pilot said:

Of course they are spectacular; spectacularly shitty!

This is just funny as the Wright brothers as young children with a toy "helicopter", given to them by their father, learned that scaling didn't work.  They tried unsuccessfully too.

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

33 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

There is one thing in the power grid that is used, I am not sure how widely, to store energy when it is abundant and release it when it is need, for sporadic energy sources like wind or solar in particular, but other sources.  I do not know how widely it is used - but simply pumping water uphill in a higher reservoir and then releasing it as needed to the lower reservoir with a turbine in between - cleverly simple.  It is current practice I hear, but I don't know how widely.  Did you account for that?

No. 

I first heard of that method of energy storage about 45 years ago and could not believe it then.  I found an estimate of the conversion efficiency of about 75% for the energy production.  I would estimate it a little better for putting the water back into the reservoir.  That means you are already down to 50-60% of what you put in, or about 40% back out.  Pretty crappy battery, but at least it is large-scale and relatively cheap to implement.