Electric Mooney

[EricJ]

On 7/10/2020 at 10:13 AM, aviatoreb said:

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/

 

When I was a young engineer I was working on an experimental (DARPA project) airborne imaging radar system that was installed in a Gulfstream G1.   MIT Lincoln Laboratory was the investigating agency and I was supporting initial delivery (and engineering, as it didn't work yet) to their flight center at Hanscom AFB.   The Daedalus 88 was built and operating out of the same hangar and it was very cool to see everything they were doing.   They had a pedal dynamometer simulator that you could pedal that would simulate the effort required during a flight, and it was brutal.  The guys that flew it were world-class athletes and the achievements they made were amazing.   The airplane was surprisingly fragile to keep it light.   That was some extreme engineering and human achievement rolled into one project.

Edit:  BTW, Daedalus and Gossamer Albatross were separate projects.   Daedalus was MIT and Gossamer Albatross was Paul MacReady, who was an engineering legend. 

Edited July 13, 2020 by EricJ

[aviatoreb]

10 minutes ago, Ah-1 Cobra Pilot said:

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.

Right - it is a pretty crappy battery for efficiency but as I understand it, it is very simple and cheap and on site.  So in a scenario where say you have a wind turbine farm, and it just makes energy whether it is needed at the moment or not, it gives you a place to put it reliably an inexpensively.

[cliffy]

56 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Right - it is a pretty crappy battery for efficiency but as I understand it, it is very simple and cheap and on site.  So in a scenario where say you have a wind turbine farm, and it just makes energy whether it is needed at the moment or not, it gives you a place to put it reliably an inexpensively.

Inexpensively? Hmmmm

How about we factor in the life cycle cost of the turbine, the higher hours of operation and maintenance requirement to keep it running for those extra hours and then the fact that there will never be another large scale dam/reservoir ever built in the US so we are stuck with what water storage we have right now. With that where do we place the "wind farm" to power the pumps to drive the water up hill? 

How about providing the electricity without the Federal subsidies for turbines? Does that pencil out financially?  Let's also factor in the cost of those subsides to the cost of electrical production. They are not separate items. Its all in the cost to produce the electricity. NONE of the wind farms anywhere would pencil out financially without the deductions to cost that the subsidies provide. The general tax paying public still has to bear the complete burden financially in some way. 

Right now no one can provide a clear picture of the financials of any wind farm because nothing is published. I have looked and asked for years on how to investigate wind farm investments and can't find who owns what windmills, who owns what farm project, what the daily, weekly, monthly and yearly tracking of generation is down at the individual turbine level, what the maintenance burden is or even a charting of how much and when the windmill(s) are actually developing enough electricity to sell to the grid. 

My question has always remained the same-  Who's making the money in wind and solar?  Who's actually paying that "profit"?  

Is it the farm itself or Joe Taxpayer with his funding of the subsidies?

Wind and  solar ain't "CHEAP" or "INEXPENSIVE" by any metric!

 

 

[aviatoreb]

Just now, cliffy said:

Inexpensively? Hmmmm

Well I don't know anything about the cost of any of that.  But the energy storage by pumping water idea is a very simple idea.  It is clearly a simple idea - whether it gets lost in the weeds of details I don't know.    And I have no idea what the total bottom line is relative to the over all cost, or how payment will work relative to taxes vs the direct payers of energy kwhr.  Anyway, this pumping water uphill is one of the storage devices at the disposal of a planner.

Edited July 13, 2020 by aviatoreb

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

47 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Right - it is a pretty crappy battery for efficiency but as I understand it, it is very simple and cheap and on site.  So in a scenario where say you have a wind turbine farm, and it just makes energy whether it is needed at the moment or not, it gives you a place to put it reliably an inexpensively.

The problem is hydro power only accounts for 7% of total production.  You would need lots more hydro in the same location as the wind turbines.  How much land would be flooded to create these?  Probably more expensive than batteries in total cost.

The ingenuity of certain systems is amazing, and the economics must make sense even though they cannot be great.  For example, some generating plants produce ice during off-hours in order to cool the air input for gas turbine generators to make them more efficient.  The fact that there is no 'ice lobby' pushing these solutions to the contrary of reality is what makes them great.  What makes me sick to my stomach is all the tax payer subsidies for so-called solutions that just make things worse, such as wind and solar energy and premature electric propulsion nonsense.

[N201MKTurbo]

2 hours ago, Ah-1 Cobra Pilot said:

relatively cheap to implement.

Sense when are major dam projects cheap?

[aviatoreb]

34 minutes ago, Ah-1 Cobra Pilot said:

The problem is hydro power only accounts for 7% of total production.  You would need lots more hydro in the same location as the wind turbines.  How much land would be flooded to create these?  Probably more expensive than batteries in total cost.

The ingenuity of certain systems is amazing, and the economics must make sense even though they cannot be great.  For example, some generating plants produce ice during off-hours in order to cool the air input for gas turbine generators to make them more efficient.  The fact that there is no 'ice lobby' pushing these solutions to the contrary of reality is what makes them great.  What makes me sick to my stomach is all the tax payer subsidies for so-called solutions that just make things worse, such as wind and solar energy and premature electric propulsion nonsense.

I didn't know they made ice with excess energy.  I had never heard of that or thought of that.

A throw back for an excuse to post historical pictures- ice used to be a natural substance only.  All around right here where I live.  They used to ship ice around the world, eg to India, on sailing vessels with ice holds down below.  Today ice harvesting is purely a fun activity, and near here at Saranac Lake they make a big ice castle every year, and every year a new shape.

[bonal]

3 hours 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?

Search PGE Helms power plant,  been in operation for over 30 years.  Nut shell is that it takes significantly more energy to pump up hill than it produces when generating.  Purpose is to pump during low demand and generate during peak loads.  One aspect of electricity that is rarely discussed when people talk of efficiency is line loss.  A quick charge for an electric vehicle demand is about 17kva when I was engineering distribution systems I could serve four medium size homes with a 15kva TX based on consolidated load unless someone had a 5 ton AC.  Typically when someone purchased a Tesla they would upgrade their 200amp main to a 400 and we would have to upgrade the TX in many cases. Since most people would typically recharge their EV at night and if everyone had an EV there would be no off peak period.  This creates a big issue during hot weather since the transformers would no longer have a cool down period leading to more failures.  No such thing as a free meal

[cliffy]

The Iceman Cometh    (O'Neill)   :-)

Saranac Lake? I lost a couple of very good friends in a Jetstar crash at Saranac Lake decades ago. 

Dams are built in the mountains and wind farms are built in the plains  Kind of in-congruent

[EricJ]

5 hours ago, Ah-1 Cobra Pilot said:

What makes me sick to my stomach is all the tax payer subsidies for so-called solutions that just make things worse, such as wind and solar energy and premature electric propulsion nonsense.

History is filled with such things, especially when it comes to technology.   I'm also dismayed every time a nuke plant closes early or doesn't get built.   I was saddened when Germany decided to abandon their nuke infrastructure.
 

[Blue on Top]

2 hours ago, EricJ said:

Germany decided to abandon their nuke infrastructure.

What is wrong with nuclear?   I thought the containment issue had a known solution.

[aviatoreb]

7 hours ago, cliffy said:

The Iceman Cometh    (O'Neill)   :-)

Saranac Lake? I lost a couple of very good friends in a Jetstar crash at Saranac Lake decades ago. 

Dams are built in the mountains and wind farms are built in the plains  Kind of in-congruent

I was unaware of that Jetstar crash but I found it quickly. 1972?

[cliffy]

6 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

I was unaware of that Jetstar crash but I found it quickly. 1972?

Yup  Warren Merchant and Bob Jones were the pilots. Snowy night and they tried to sneak in

Used to eat dinner with them at a club meeting every month. 

[EricJ]

42 minutes ago, Blue on Top said:

What is wrong with nuclear?   I thought the containment issue had a known solution.

Fukushima gave strength to a lot of anti-nuclear pressure on the basis of safety.   The decision to move away from nuclear seemed to have been made quickly, but they're sticking to it.

[Herlihy Brother]

Not for me....My surveyor says that Lithium ion batteries are like pitbulls, they love you until the day they kill you.

[N201MKTurbo]

I recently drove past the wind farms by Palm Springs CA. I was surprised at how many turbines were in poor repair or appeared to be abandoned. 

I would imagine taking one down and disposing of it costs as much as putting one up. They should have a regulation that you need to put enough money in escrow to remove it when its life is over, but then that would make them even less economical.

I hate to be a cynic, but aren't they just mechanisms for the wealthy and connected to extract money from the government?  (US)

[aviatoreb]

Here is an electric airplane project underway.  They are claiming 3 hrs endurance.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/bye-aerospace-secures-10-million-in-funding/

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

21 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I recently drove past the wind farms by Palm Springs CA. I was surprised at how many turbines were in poor repair or appeared to be abandoned. 

I would imagine taking one down and disposing of it costs as much as putting one up. They should have a regulation that you need to put enough money in escrow to remove it when its life is over, but then that would make them even less economical.

I hate to be a cynic, but aren't they just mechanisms for the wealthy and connected to extract money from the government?  (US)

What always kills me is to fly over fields of idle wind turbines on the hot, calm days when everyone runs his air conditioning at full blast.

You do not have to be wealthy or connected, just willing to take the tax breaks and other incentives that, (only then), make the ridiculous things economically viable.  I have no doubt there will be government incentives to take them down when that time comes.

[aviatoreb]

29 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I recently drove past the wind farms by Palm Springs CA. I was surprised at how many turbines were in poor repair or appeared to be abandoned. 

I would imagine taking one down and disposing of it costs as much as putting one up. They should have a regulation that you need to put enough money in escrow to remove it when its life is over, but then that would make them even less economical.

I hate to be a cynic, but aren't they just mechanisms for the wealthy and connected to extract money from the government?  (US)

About 2 months ago, I met a fellow at the airport who just flew in from Maine.  He is a "Maytag repairman" - he specializes in maintaining and trouble shooting those large wind turbines.  We have a large wind turbine farm near here and he was in to work on it.  He came in a small Cessna and he was picked up at the gate in a municipality car.

[Blue on Top]

9 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Here is an electric airplane project underway.  They are claiming 3 hrs endurance.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/bye-aerospace-secures-10-million-in-funding/

It may have been in the Electric Mooney thread, but a couple ex-Mooney engineers are at Bye.  Tom Bowen is their Chief Engineer, and Scott Wilson is their Manager of low voltage electronics.  George has been at this for years ... well decades.  He promised everyone at Cessna that we'd all be flying electric Cessna 172s with solar panels on the wings by 2010.

According to the press, they recently received two more $5M investments to build "production" prototypes.  That should put a dent in the $100M+ it will take to certify.  It's costly and time consuming enough to certify a new airplane but now add in a new technology (electric propulsion, distribution and storage), a composite airframe with high voltage running around and regulations/compliance yet to be written.  I wish them all all the best.

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

14 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Here is an electric airplane project underway.  They are claiming 3 hrs endurance.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/bye-aerospace-secures-10-million-in-funding/

Well, the best batteries of today, lithium or silver-zinc, have an energy density of 460 kg/kJ.  The supposed aircraft will do 135 kts and have a 3-hour endurance and a payload of 450 lb..  For simplicity's sake, we will presume motor of about 100-hp, even though a C-150 never made that airspeed except in a dive. 

100 hp = 74.6 kW. 
Presume 50% power for best endurance.
74.6kW x 50% x 3hr x 3600s/hr / 460kJ/kg = 875.7kg = 1930lb of batteries.
(1930 + 450) x 3 = 7142 lb TOGW.

Does this seem like reality or bullshit to you?

[cliffy]

38 minutes ago, Blue on Top said:

should put a dent in the $100M+ it will take to certify

Divide that out into production numbers (you pick the number built) and see what the burden cost is in dollars per airframe on top of production and insurance (@40%) costs and then factor in a profit number and see what the selling price will be!

(This would be the same issue for any completely new airplane design built today so everyone speculating a NEW Mooney you can divide it out also and see if you can produce anything new for even $500,000/copy under current certification rules.)

I predict they (2) will never be certified,  My bet is $50

Until the energy density of batteries equals that of dinofuel and the refill is somewhere near the time required to refuel dino  powered airplanes it will be "pie in the sky" thinking that the general pilot public will embrace the idea enough to make it a financial reality. Nice idea, I really do like the idea but just not feasible yet.

The electricity has to be generated somewhere by some means to refill the batteries   By what and how does it get there?

One item missing in all the postulations on "quiet" flight is the noise of the propeller which is the main noise generator on small single engine airplanes. No one wants to address that little issue yet either. 

Most of this is just nice engineering studies. Good but not practical. Sorry if I burst some bubbles. 

[aviatoreb]

I absolutely don't think the bye project is bullshit.  It is as far as I am concerned, fundamental research.  You simply cannot go from the technology of today to the technology you want which may be 6 passengers, electric, 1000nm of range, in one step.  The way our r&d mechanisms work, it is often done in stages. Build what you can, push the boundaries.  Sometimes big huge advances happen.  Sometimes you get there in incremental steps. I had a very big cell phone about 20 years ago, and it didn't do much.  If I needed a cell phone that would also be a computer and have the power of an iPhone 10 20 years ago, I would say that those steps taken 20 years ago were far from bullshit.  They were stepping stones.

I don't read that article about the bye and think, well there it is, there is exactly the airplane that I will buy when it is certified.  I think, there they are, building what they can, and with that success, they will get further funding and the next round will be better.  And maybe that company will end up in 5 years with the technology of that day, building the airplane that will  get certified and I will buy that.  We shall see.  But I am emphatically supportive that this process has what has allowed us to enjoy all these technologies that are dramatically better today than they were 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 50 years ago, and so on.

The pessimistic counter point (which I am not pessimistic on this - but giving voice to that pessimistic counter point) story - my dad went to MIT in the early 60s.  When I was in college in the late 80s and I worked at Lawrence Berkeley Labs and "we were..." working on technologies that I was optimistic would contribute to fusion (hot fusion classical magnetic containment plasma vessels) I told him how the word on the street was that fusion was "just 10 years away", and he told me that when he was in college, the word on the street was that fusion was just 10 years away.  Well - here we are yet another 30 years since then (geesh am I that old?!) and I still feel as if fusion is 10 years away.  I don't know.  But I do know....we keep working on these things.

And let us not forget - what were some of the great outcomes of the man on the moon project.  We got, silicon chips - (powering my iPhone 10), and velcro, and tang....

Anyway, with all of our theoretical discussions of electric airplanes, clearly the bye project is a specific effort in this direction whether or not the airplane in the picture of that article will ever be anything you can buy, as you see it in the picture, and I am sure it won't be that as you see it.

I am amazed, and enthused and supportive of this kind of research.  Another such story - since the 1980s there have been massive efforts to make an AIDS vaccine.  Clearly none have succeeded.  But I have been reading that in many ways, top to bottom in the process, from lab processes, manipulations, theoretical understanding, human testing protocols and statistical sampling (mathematics) methods, all advanced dramatically in those failed attempts, and these are allowing us to proceed at dramatically faster speeds to develop a COVID19 vaccine that I hope to have shot into my arm within 6-8 months.  Being optimistic.  We can put a man on the moon.  A needle in my arm.  A cell phone to my ear.  An electric airplane in my hangar.  An octocopter hovering device on my ride share app beckon, velcro on my shoes, gps (general relativity and all in the timing plus quantum mechanics in the electronics) in my panel, hybrid bio engineered animals or better yet lab grown meat materials in our grocery stores, and on and on.  The ingenuity of the human brain is absurdly amazing and just as amazing is our ability to work in massive groups and build on technology that no single human can do alone.  I have full faith in our ability to innovate this too and I am emphatically supportive of these efforts to push this boundary.  

(forgive my from the mountain top speech - I sort of do this kind of I am excited and you should be too thing as a living...)

Edited July 17, 2020 by aviatoreb

[MooneyMitch]

Sorry, I draw the line at Tang !!  

[N201MKTurbo]

Have anybody seen an electric airplane fly into Oshkosh from somewhere? That's the first place I'd expect to see a real one.