The Green New Deal

There are already commercially available electrically powered light aircraft...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CS3isCH4bk

If we are to ever replace jet fuel powered airliners with electrically powered aircraft, we may have to settle for smaller aircraft with more flights.

They are currently looking at short haul flights for pure electric, but once the tech is settled and they are confident, I can't see that there would be too many issues with something like an electric/ethanol based hybrid 787 for long haul flights as well.
 
Here is something worth considering too.

A typical short-haul jet airliner is in the air for approximately 40,000 flight hours over a lifetime of 25 years or 220,000 hours. This works out to about one hour in flight for every five hours on the ground. This means that there will be plenty of charging time for aircraft between flights even beyond the possibility of switching out the batteries for a fully charged set in the event of a quicker turnaround being needed.
 
Here is something worth considering too.

A typical short-haul jet airliner is in the air for approximately 40,000 flight hours over a lifetime of 25 years or 220,000 hours. This works out to about one hour in flight for every five hours on the ground. This means that there will be plenty of charging time for aircraft between flights even beyond the possibility of switching out the batteries for a fully charged set in the event of a quicker turnaround being needed.

This would probably be the better idea. Design the planes so that the battery arrays could just be slotted in and out on the ground, so the plane lands and once at the gate, they open the wings, pull the battery arrays and take them to the hanger, hook them up to the charger and pick up the set of fully charged arrays, take them back to the plane, slot them into place, and you're ready to go. It would even allow you to replace the arrays later with more efficient ones which could give the plane a longer range.
 
They are currently looking at short haul flights for pure electric, but once the tech is settled and they are confident, I can't see that there would be too many issues with something like an electric/ethanol based hybrid 787 for long haul flights as well.


The all-up weight of a B787-8 is 506,000lb. About 220,000 lb of that is fuel, which would not have to be carried. Yes, there would need to be batteries, but there is no way that they would weigh anywhere the fuel weight. There there is the engine weight - the RR Trent 1000 weighs about 13,000lb, and there are two of them.

Take a look at he Wright Electric Airliner

WrightElectric2.png

WrightElectric1.png

NOTE: Looks remarkably reminiscent of one of the first commercial jet airliners

Construction of an airliner of that size would be radically different from how current airliners are made.

1. Wings that do not need to contain fuel tanks can be made lighter and stronger and be made of composite materials.

2. The centre tank would be replaced with a battery bank that could simply be designed to be dropped out of the bottom.

3. The 16 electric-jet engines built into the wings would likely weigh much less than two fuel-jet engines, would dramatically reduce drag, and bring their weight closer to CofG.

4. No hydraulics, all controls are fly-by-wire. Even internal and external lighting can be LED.

5. Much of the upper surfaces could be covered or partially covered with solar-electric materials to help extend the range.
 
Batteries are the part that disturbs me about switching from fossil fuels to other power sources. You pretty much can't make an electric vehicle much smaller than an aircraft carrier without them, but the chemistry they involve is nasty, and I don't just mean in case of a leak. The stuff they're made of needs to be mined, then they wear out, and then there's no good place to dispose of it. Maybe there will be a way to recycle them, thus cutting off both the disposal problem and the production problem... or maybe supercapacitors will take over... but we're not there yet.
 
Batteries are the part that disturbs me about switching from fossil fuels to other power sources. You pretty much can't make an electric vehicle much smaller than an aircraft carrier without them, but the chemistry they involve is nasty, and I don't just mean in case of a leak. The stuff they're made of needs to be mined, then they wear out, and then there's no good place to dispose of it. Maybe there will be a way to recycle them, thus cutting off both the disposal problem and the production problem... or maybe supercapacitors will take over... but we're not there yet.

Last time I checked there has been numerous navy ships that were smaller than an Aircraft Carrier and used nuclear reactors (the last cruiser was decommissioned in 1999, but there are still a ton of subs used by multiple nations worldwide.) I would also think that Hydrogen Fuel Cells would be perfect for ships.
 
Last edited:
Just like the motor car destroyed the economy by putting all the blacksmiths, cart makers and farriers out of business.

You are correct, it didn’t. There was a very gradual transition over much more than 10 years, with horses only being eliminated as a common method of transportation when cars became more economical. No government fiat was required, and the economy had time to adjust.

Maybe electric cars will one day replace the internal combustion engine, but they aren’t ready to do so now.

Moving to a non-fossil fuel based economy just means retraining people to do the jobs that will be needed creating the new technologies that will run the new economy.

This is delusional. Only a small fraction of the population is capable of creating new technologies, and they’re largely doing that already. And fossil fuels have inherent advantages that we aren’t even close to replicating with alternatives.

In a lot of cases factories can be retooled and workers retrained very quickly because the new tech is very similar to the older, in other cases it might require a lot of retraining, but that's how the world works.

No, that is not how it works. Not even close. Factory worker training isn’t the problem. Retooling is a bigger deal that you seem to appreciate, and what exactly do you think they will be retooling for?

The energy industries such as BP, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, and others have been preparing to switch to more green tech for over a decade. Doing so won't hit them as hard as you might believe.

Yeah, no. They have been preparing to make “green” energy a bigger part of their portfolio. None of them are prepared to stop using fossil fuels. And the problem isn’t what happens to them, the problem is what happens to their customers. Green energy can not satisfy the economy’s need for energy.

Likewise car manufacturers have been moving towards EV's.

Which are too expensive, suffer range limits, and require fossil fuels to charge them. Our electric grid cannot provide enough electricity to charge our cars if everyone switched, and that’s with keeping fossil fuel plants, AND ignoring whether we can get enough lithium, cobalt, and rare earth metals to produce all those electric vehicles. They are a niche product, and will be for some time.

Appliance manufacturers have been making more efficiency appliances.

Exactly: they are already doing that. No green new deal required. And there aren’t a lot more gains to be had without degrading performance, which is already a problem.
 
This would probably be the better idea. Design the planes so that the battery arrays could just be slotted in and out on the ground, so the plane lands and once at the gate, they open the wings, pull the battery arrays and take them to the hanger, hook them up to the charger and pick up the set of fully charged arrays, take them back to the plane, slot them into place, and you're ready to go. It would even allow you to replace the arrays later with more efficient ones which could give the plane a longer range.

Having worked in the aviation industry and in military aviation, I was more thinking of aircraft flying to smaller destination airports, where having "universal aircraft chargers" would be more likely and more practical, than having a supply of spare battery packs. Since aircraft spend that 5 to 1 ratio on the ground, it makes sense for airports to have built in chargers right there at the hard-standing. They could even have charging trucks which would trail out a mains power lead from the terminal.

However, that brings up a very important thought.... STANDARDISATION. Currently, the aviation industry uses a universal jet fuel, Jet A or Jet A-1, which is produced to a standardised international specification. Anywhere in the world that an aircraft lands, they can refuel with Jet A or Jet A1 dispensed either at the hard standing point, or brought out to them on a fuel truck. This must be made the same for electric aircraft. Very early on in development, if they hope to have a viable electric aircraft, the industry MUST make a decision to standardise their battery packs. This may need some kind of modular design to allow large packs for large aircraft to be assembled from small packs used on smaller aircraft. A situation where your Airbus A-320e arrived at an airport, only to find that they only have battery packs for the Boeing 727e and the two are not interchangeable would make an electric based aircraft industry untenable. Even a universal cradle and connection system would probably suffice.
 
Last time I checked there has been numerous navy ships that were smaller than an Aircraft Carrier and used nuclear reactors (the last cruiser was decommissioned in 1999, but there are still a ton of subs used by multiple nations worldwide.) I would also think that Hydrogen Fuel Cells would be perfect for ships.

A nuclear powered icebreaker...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Let_Pobedy
...one of nine that have been built, six of which are still in service, and a further two are under construction.

Also, there this one...

450px-NR-1_986.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_submarine_NR-1

A nuclear powered deep submergence vehicle, it only weighed 400 tons...
 
The all-up weight of a B787-8 is 506,000lb. About 220,000 lb of that is fuel, which would not have to be carried. Yes, there would need to be batteries, but there is no way that they would weigh anywhere the fuel weight. There there is the engine weight - the RR Trent 1000 weighs about 13,000lb, and there are two of them.

Take a look at he Wright Electric Airliner

The 787-8 has a range of over 7,000 miles. The Wright has a range of under 300 miles. These are not comparable aircraft. You cannot make an electric passenger plane that can travel 7,000 miles because the batteries would weigh far more than an equivalent amount of fuel. And so far, the Wright is just a design idea, so who knows when or even if they can get an actual working plane that performs like they claim. I wish them luck, and it would be cool if they can pull it off, but either it will work on its own and the Green New Deal isn't necessary to get it off the ground, or it won't work and the Green New Deal won't rescue it from failure.
 
No, we cannot.

So you're saying that we can increase the amount of heat in the atmosphere, but not reduce it? I don't think you'll find many experts to agree with you.

Of course we can STOP global warming. If we go pie in the sky, we can stop all emissions immediately, and it'll stop the warming. As for the warming we've already contributed to, we could sequester the carbon and methane over a certain amount of time, which would bring the temperatures back down. Now, I'm not saying that's politically feasible or easy in any way, but it's not impossible.

It won't accomplish much, and it will wreck our economy in the process.

Specifics.
 
Maybe electric cars will one day replace the internal combustion engine, but they aren’t ready to do so now.

There is no "maybe" about it.

In Sweden, electric cars will be 65% of the market by 2025 this is only six years away)

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/05/0...pike-electric-vehicle-market-share-in-sweden/

... and Volvo are going all-electric. They are ceasing the manufacture of internal combustion powered cars this year.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/824866/Volvo-cars-electric-from-2019

Other manufactures will follow, or die.
 
Last edited:
The 787-8 has a range of over 7,000 miles. The Wright has a range of under 300 miles. These are not comparable aircraft. You cannot make an electric passenger plane that can travel 7,000 miles because the batteries would weigh far more than an equivalent amount of fuel. And so far, the Wright is just a design idea, so who knows when or even if they can get an actual working plane that performs like they claim. I wish them luck, and it would be cool if they can pull it off, but either it will work on its own and the Green New Deal isn't necessary to get it off the ground, or it won't work and the Green New Deal won't rescue it from failure.

Even so, if the amount of fuel-jet flying can be reduced so that only long-haul international flights, with highly fuel efficient airliners use jet engines, and shorter commuter flights are almost exclusively electric powered, that will go a long, long way towards reducing the airline industry's contribution to emissions.
 
Having worked in the aviation industry and in military aviation, I was more thinking of aircraft flying to smaller destination airports, where having "universal aircraft chargers" would be more likely and more practical, than having a supply of spare battery packs. Since aircraft spend that 5 to 1 ratio on the ground, it makes sense for airports to have built in chargers right there at the hard-standing. They could even have charging trucks which would trail out a mains power lead from the terminal.

The problem with the 5:1 ratio is that a plane doesn't fly 1 hour and then spend 5 on the ground, it flies a whole bunch of 1-2 hour legs through the day with perhaps an hour between each at most, and the sits on the ground over night, and it does this day in and day out for 18 months, and then goes to maintenance where it is on the ground for several weeks before going back into service to rinse and repeat.

This really doesn't allow for 5 hours of charging to one hour of flight, so you want to be able to have the plane back ready to go afap for its next flight, and the best way to handle that is via the ability to swap in a fully charged pack and the charge the old one up and put it into a different aircraft when it's finished charging. Smaller air ports are likely to have less flights in and out, so it's quite possible that the next plane to visit would be the one you'd be putting the pack in.

If for example we look at the flights to my home town, we basically have one plane that flies from here to wellington at just before 7am, leaves Wellington to return here at 8:40am, then heads back to Wellington at 10am before servicing several other routes in the afternoon, then it returns here at 8:10pm where it stays over night. Flights are about an hour, and it stays on the ground at the airports from half an hour to an hour between flights. Trying to keep it charged all day would be a bit of a nightmare.
 
Even so, if the amount of fuel-jet flying can be reduced so that only long-haul international flights, with highly fuel efficient airliners use jet engines, and shorter commuter flights are almost exclusively electric powered, that will go a long, long way towards reducing the airline industry's contribution to emissions.

And it would be even better if those long hauls were using hybrid systems, and ethanol rather than A1.
 
Even so, if the amount of fuel-jet flying can be reduced so that only long-haul international flights, with highly fuel efficient airliners use jet engines, and shorter commuter flights are almost exclusively electric powered, that will go a long, long way towards reducing the airline industry's contribution to emissions.
Exactly. So often in discussions like this, people lose sight of partial solutions because the full solution is untenable. Home solar is fraught with this. So many people want to install home solar but lack the $$ to pony up the tens of thousand$ needed for full conversion. Instead, solar calculators should focus on reducing – not eliminating – a home's reliance on fossil fuels. Heck, just running an air conditioning unit or hot water heater on solar would help enormously to reduce a home's carbon footprint. A partial set-up like this would (I think) also negate the issue of the panels generating too much capacity on sunny days and having to account for that extra going into the grid.
 

Back
Top Bottom