Screen shot 2011-07-23 at 10.56.05 AM

Move Over Electric Car, The Electric Airplane is Coming

Several years ago, when the auto industry faced government pressure to minimize its environmental footprint by reducing fuel consumption and tailpipe emissions, manufacturers turned first to hybrid-electric and then battery-electric powertrains that now move Chevy Volts and Nissan Leafs.

Today, confronted with substantially the same environmental mandates, the aviation industry has begun gearing up to use those same green power plants to propel aircraft.

The electric car is so yesterday; electric airplanes are coming.

EADS (European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company), the parent firm of Airbus, for example, has been flying a battery electric-powered ultralight aircraft for the last year, and at the recent Paris Air Show it introduced a series-hybrid motor glider as well as an ambitious future concept for an all-electric, 50-seat passenger plane powered by superconducting drive motors. Last fall, Boeing released details of a NASA-funded effort to use a hybrid battery-electric/gas turbine propulsion system to power a future 737-class commercial transport. A few months earlier, at the 2010 Oshkosh event, both Cessna and Sikorsky announced plans to fly some time this year electric-powered demonstrators—respectively, a light plane and a light helicopter.

Boeing's SUGAR Volt (Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research) twin-engine future concept airliner. The 737-size transport would be powered by hybrid propulsion system that would combine gas turbine and battery/electric motor technology. Courtesy Boeing

A slow transition to electric

But just how practical are electric aircraft? After all, powering a car down the road is different than powering an airplane through the air, and the electric automobile is still struggling to find its niche.

Aviation experts say that ultra-green aviation technology will take a good deal of time. The necessary technical advances are still speculative. On the other hand, they add, aerospace engineers can see the path to eventual success, if not the actual stepping stones along the way.

“Next-generation aircraft will feature more and more electronics,” said Dale Carlson, Executive for Advanced Engine Systems at GE Aviation, but “the last thing to convert to electric power will be the power plant. This is because the batteries that would be required to supply the amount of electricity for large commercial aircraft, weigh a lot.” (General Electric is the sponsor of this magazine) The power capacity of battery technology, he continued, would have to grow by “at least a factor of four before we are near where we need to be to accomplish this.” Larger electric airliners would need hundreds of thousands of horsepower.

Last year EADS Innovation Works modified a French Cri-Cri single-seat ultralight aircraft by replacing its two piston engines with four electric motors that are each driven by a lithium polymer battery. Courtesy EADS

Johannes Stuhlberger, head of the Global Innovation Network, Power and Flight Propulsion at EADS, agreed with this assessment. “The development of electric aircraft not only depends on the speed at which battery technology improves, but also how fast electrical equipment—the motors—get better.” Electric motors would need efficiencies of around 95 percent, he continued. “We will need tremendous improvements in the power-to-mass ratio of the entire propulsion system, while still keeping it affordable.”

“Game changer”

Still, many researchers can already envision how the switch to electric will take place. Electric propulsion will be a “game-changer and transform aeronautics in the next 20 to 30 years,” predicted Mark Moore, an aerospace engineer and conceptual design expert at NASA Langley Research Center. The first breakthroughs will occur with small aircraft, according to Moore, perhaps personal air vehicles that could replace the car on some trips. He envisions electric-powered unmanned aerial vehicles first transitioning from military to civilian use, followed in time by much more environmentally responsible commercial transport planes.

The changeover to fully electric propulsion will be assisted by the adoption of hybrid-electric drive trains, Stuhlberger noted. “Hybrids, which can implemented more easily, provide a way to compensate for the high masses of batteries and so afford a way to improve the power-to-mass ratio” in the interim. Carlson speculated that at some point “we’ll probably see a hybrid engine that combines fuel cells with turbines—where the turbine technology would be there for takeoff and the fuel cells utilized during cruise.”

Who knows what’s really possible? Just last week, Scaled Composites, the innovative engineering firm founded by famed engineer, Burt Rutan, tested a two-seat, hybrid-powered aircraft that might prove to be a practical solution to the long-held dream of a flying car. Dubbed the Model 367 BiPod, the novel vehicle features removable wings, stabilizer and tail tips to enable rapid conversion into a road vehicle.

Top image: The VoltAir all-electric airliner concept, which was developed by EADS Innovation Works, feature next-generation lithium-air batteries which feed electricity to two ultra-efficient superconducting electric motor

Steven Ashley is a contributing editor at Scientific American magazine, where he writes and edits articles on general science and technology topics. Ashley’s work has been published in Popular Science, MIT’s Technology Review and Physics Today, among others.

Related Txchnologist Articles

Comments

  1. alan

    The concept is wonderful. How soon we can get away from the dino-source is questionable but this option is worth the efforts.

  2. rshol

    “dino-source”

    So what are you thinking will generate the mega watts needed to power these things? Fission? Everybody but the Iranians (who’s nuclear program is solely for energy) and the North Koreans (ditto) are bailing post the Japanese tsunami. Wind energy? (major joke, and the turbines are always blocking somebody’s view or killing birds or something that makes it objectionable) Solar? (Please) Hydro-electric? (kills fish, destroy’s rivers), Geo-thermal? (when, where). Fusion? (Science fiction at this time) In short, dino-juice will be around powering our civilization for a long, long time.

    • Javier

      Maybe not U-238 fission, but the thorium fuel cycle could provide abundant energy with far less risk than existing reactors.

      • Wade

        uh, U-235…U238 is a reactor poison (grabs neutrons, does nothing really well). Then there is the end of life issue. Just how do you keep something safe for 5000 years? (and that is a VERY conserative length of time)

        • Landrenitis

          You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

        • Robert thomas

          I have always wondered why we don’t send all that (spent) stuff to the sun. Just need unmaned rockets to send on a one-way trip.
          All nations could help defer the cost and transfer of same.

        • Peter

          Do you know how much depleted uranium weighs?

    • wow

      @rshol
      Wow, you are wrong on every single account…. kudos for being flawlessly wrong. I would point out each one out to you in an itemized way, but I have a strong suspicion it would do you know good. What’s interesting is that I work with some very senior executives in the oil industry and even they disagree with you… on every single point.

    • Bill Dale

      Rshol: your grammar, punctuation and spelling are so horrid it’s nearly impossible to understand what you’re trying to say. You attack new technology rabidly, even if your arguments and criticisms are groundless, and though the petroleum you think will sustain us is quickly running out; we must have something to repace it with. We are buying hundreds of billions of dollars a year in foreign oil from OUR ENEMIES, and that alone should be enough reason to look for alternatives! Unlike funiture and appliances we buy from countries such as Korea and Viet Nam, which those people use for proper and sane things such as food and housing, look what Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lybia and Syria do with our money– they build atomic weapons, they suppress and terrorize their own people, they build huge gaudy monuments of self-glorification, and they fund the terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. It was Saudi oil money that funded the attack against the World Trade Center!

      You dismiss solar as if it’s a joke! You’re nothing less than a Luddite! The Germans are installing more than $100 million in solar panels on their homes and businesses every year, and already get 20 percent of their energy from renewables. California has huge solar installations and continue to build more, and hundreds of homes receive solar roofs every week here. It lowers our cost of living and allows us to breathe cleaner air. If solar was such a joke, you’d be seeing reports on 60 minutes about all the disgruntled homeowners and others that were disillusioned, but that’s not the case! Like the owners and drivers of electric vehicles, you will see people are quite happy with what we have.

      Like hundreds of others, I converted my BMW to electric power– the video of my car burning rubber, sshowing how powerful it is, is on YouTube with lots of other similar cars, and we all love them for their quietness, efficiency and convenience.

      Sure, there are some people that are too close to windmills don’t like the noise, but compare that to the thosands of residents of beautiful Appalachian towns that were strip-mined into oblivion and now suffer from associated diseases. Compare that to the damage done to the Gulf of Mexico due to BP’s recklessness. Compare that to the much greater noise and the pollution millions of people are subjected to daily from gas guzzlers on our roads and highways. If you live within 500 feet of an Interstate, the closer you live, the lower your life expectancy, IQ and state of health, and the higher your likelihood of asthma, emphysema, heart disease and other syndromes. EVs cause no such problems.

      I could continue to point out what idiocy your statement is, but if you haven’t got the message by now, you never will.

      • Edward K. Rodgers

        Did you ever stop to think that the diatribe sounds or resembles something akin to what would be expected from a,stock holder, or beneficiary?

      • Tony S

        DUDE, whats with the BS about the guys spelling and grammer. You didnt do to well yourself.

        The world has more then enough oil for a long long time. YES we do need to find other means to power our cars, homes, planes, and bussiness’s. YES YES YES. I feel that it is coming and it is coming at the right pace. Last time I did the research (which was about 2 years ago) only 38 percent of every barrel of oil goes to make ALL fuels. The rest is used to make almost everything else in this world. It takes more oil to make Asphalt and PLASTIC, then it does to make a gallion of gas. Hey isnt that computer you were typing on made out of a lot of plastic ???
        AS for your other commments about Iran and all the other fun places in the world with waco leaders, WE GET THERE PRODUCTS BECAUSE BIG BUSS. IS USING THEM TO MAKE CHEAP CRAP SO THEY CAN MAKE HIGHER PROFITS WHEN IT SEL IT TO US. BIG BUSS. IS THE PROBLEM IN THE WORLD, why because it no matter what they do it doesnt effect them. They make to much money fo it to effect them. We need to work togeher in everything and for everybody.

        • Gary Lee

          It is true that we use petroleum to produce moch more than fuel. In the long run we might well regret the loss of petroleum for feedstock much more than losing a fuel source, and look back on this period as incredible idiocy. However, while we cannot easily replace the complex molecules in petroleum as an efficent source for all of the plastics and other sues, we have many many choices for alterntive ways of producing energy. We seem to forget that we are not only running out of gasoline for our cars but also running out of feedstock for thousands of materials from which our product are made. We aren’t going to replace everything we now get from petroleum with rayon stock from bamboo. And with multiple countries now climbing well above 10% of their energy needs from renewables it is demostrated as practical and scaleable.

          In the meantime I have myself seen electric plane prototypes at Oshkosh, from student groups using fuel cells in 2003 to tremendous advances this year. This isn’t comic book science fiction, this is real engineers doing real work with real prototypes. Give it ten years, maybe less, and we will see commercial product in the air. Add in the consideration of military applications for a quieter non-combustion by-product emmitting drone, and it probably won’t be that long at all.

        • Tortoisehead

          Actually 70% of oil goes into fuel for tranportation.

        • AgentDuke

          @Tony S “DUDE, whats with the BS about the guys spelling and grammer. You didnt do to well yourself.”

          You didn’t do ‘too’ well yourself for correcting his correction. Thats called being a hypocrite.

        • Fedupintx

          Tony,

          Dude, you didn’t do so well yourself. Over thirty errors in your reply.

          I’m just sayin’…

      • aviator

        Feel better now?

      • T. Clar

        You and others conveniently fail to discuss that to charge those high tech expensive batteries require that some hydrocarbons be burned in th vast majority of cases. A battery is not a power source it is a power storage source only. The batteries as stated in the article are WAY short of the power density needed to fly or even power a car to market standards thus we have government agencies bribing us with our own money to get us the use technology not ready for prime time. I am a geologist and I can tell you that the supply of natural gas, oil and methane hydrates(check it out)will assure that we will NEVER burn out of carbon to claenly burn and wind and solar will never become economically productive. Read it and weep thems the facts! TC

      • ML

        Bill, stop getting trolled. Notice the flame wars. Wash your hands and walk away.

      • CoCowboy

        Solar IS a joke… After a half century, they’re no further along in developing this tech than they were… Except now, they’re wasting MY taxpaying money on it, to which I OBJECT…

        Further… JUST EXACTLY WHAT are they going to do with the nuclear waste they create if they use that? And FURTHER… JUST WHAT, are they going to do with all of these TOXIC batteries???

        NOTHING – NOTHING, is GREEN… GET OVER IT…

        • Greg

          You are a taxpayer. What happens to it after you pay those taxes is decided by the people you elect. If you stop electing people who aren’t trying to solve the problem, we would be much further along down the road. The technology to do all of this is viable but requires substantial investment of the governments revenue to make it viable. There is a huge difference in the viability of a technology and its marketability. Gasoline powered cars weren’t viable during the days of horse and buggy until there was sufficient government and industrial push to make them viable and the same thing must happen here.

        • Kompulsa.com

          That’s a lie, or you have no clue what you’re talking about. The cost of solar panels was halved in the past five years, so yes, they are coming along. Their efficiency improves substantially every single year. I know this because I am a journalist that writes about these improvements many times per year. Many little improvements like these add up. Fossil fuels, however, are getting expensive and causing global warming (and lung cancer) at a much faster rate. It is time to cut back on that.

          The point of starting to adopt electric vehicles is that you have to start somewhere. Electricity will come from cleaner sources including natural gas, nuclear, solar, hydro, wind, geothermal. My second point is that electric vehicles are typically 6-7 times more efficient than gasoline powered vehicles. This is because electric motors are 80%-95% efficient and gasoline engines don’t even approach 40% efficiency.

      • Mike

        Folks, I don’t think anyone disputes the desire for cleaner air, water, and environment. However, for the foreseeable future we willbew using fossil fuels. At least for the entirety of my lifetime. My suggestion is to be pragmatic about it. Move the auto industry to diesel (phase out gasoline engines 10% a year over 10 years), build Coal to Liquid refineries (10 of the largest coal producing states are ones that are in the rust belt) thus creating jobs. This would allow us to remove ourselves from the Middle-East and though close to what we are already paying, those monies would stay here in the U.S. Plus we aren’t as influenced in fluctuations in the commodoties markets. That kind of stability returns us to a AAA+ credit rating. Further, we don’t need to spend large sums of revenue to keep a carrier battle group in the Middle East to ensure the viability of the sea lanes. Coal to liquid technology produces about 85% diesel and 15% naptha. The diesel fuel generated is far cleaner than gasoline and traditional diesel (something to do with its chemical make-up). Yet diesel engines are far more efficient than gasoline (thermodynamically speaking). And best part….the infrastructure to deliver it is already in place. We can take all those rocket scientists that got laid off at NASA and put them to work designing more efficient diesel engines and working to create alternative energy sources. But thermodynamically solar and wind just can’t power our economy.

    • Dave

      While a bit futuristic, the space tether has ability to turn the earths rotation into heat then microwaves, which you could beam at a certain location for all planes to take off or individually tracked and fed with computer assist. They have tried it but it keeps burning up. The application of this technology goes far beyond just this concept, space elevators, asteroid killing microwaves, filtered microwaves that kill red tide, possible hurricane disruption by microwaves, lol alien defense, long range microwave space travel, it just goes on and on. No anti-matter, dams, nuclear plants, coal, corn, and bad politics.

    • james jefferis

      i agree. all and all, coal isstill the answer. to many people out of work. mine that coal boys.

      • James

        The Germans used coal to make fuel for their tanks and airplanes during WW II. It has possibilities with clean coal technology

    • Yaniv

      Well before you go bashing everything green, there are several designs for wind energy (google vertical wind turbines, they are more efficient, quieter, and don’t spin as fast, never need to rotate to catch the wind)
      There is solar, yes the panels can only collect sun during the day when it is not raining, but the tech today allows it to get energy from rain and wind (basically anything that can cause even the slightest strain on the metal frame can be converted to electricity)
      Geothermal basically anywhere….
      you can also use water, turn a turbine upside-down and bam electricity.

      So before you go bashing great ideas (that they are saying will take 20-30 more years) please read up and also understand that technology is growing at such a fast pace (especially the green tech, because no one wants to support terrorists) that these things are already possible today, but just not affordable and that is what they are working on

      Have a great day

    • William

      “the Iranians (who’s nuclear program is solely for energy)”

      As much as I hate the mixture of politics and science, this one statement in your post is enough to destroy your credibility. No one creates underground bunkers and smuggles uranium (even years before sanctions were being considered) just for an innocent energy project. Now the UN says there is credible evidence for an Iranian nuke program after years of trying to avoid taking that position.

      • Dr. Jonas Moses

        William, respectfully… while s/he may be over-simplifying a great deal, I suggest we bestow a little “benefit of doubt” that @rshol was attempting to be ironic (however poor the effort), when making the statement about the Iranian nuclear program being “solely for energy.” Really, now…

    • Lucius Junius Brutus

      That’s patently “a load”. Hydrocarbon use continues because of the enormous amounts of money invested in continuation of primitive combustion technologies. The years from before the 20th century, throughout the war years, completely embedded the idea of combustion in our technological thinking. In reality it has caused us an unending series of international headaches and wars, literally fueled by and for “oil”.
      In the late 20th century, after the few idiot disasters of first generation plants run by Homer Simpson clones, fission technology has moved into it’s second and third generations and we would be in serious difficulty without it to back up the “dino-juice”. The only things preventing the nearly complete conversion to saner and cleaner fission, are big oil and gas companies, and all the technology and hence, money, that hangs upon that evil and sad tale.
      Few people are even aware that were it not for continual fission in the earths interior, that there wouldn’t even be a human race to exploit the dino-juice, much less make an effort to use fission and then even cleaner energy.
      But only a fool who flunked math in school would posit that humans ought to give up fission and keep on truckin’ on our coal and oil. Such trhinking makes me despair of all intelligent hominids.

    • The Dude

      Vast areas of the Western US have geothermal energy production potential. Geothermal beats wind and solar…..Since it can operate 24×7 and very evenly. The newer geothermal designs eliminate many of the first generation issues, like scaling of pipes.

    • irwing

      I have the solution …design an extra–long extension cord and plug it into an electric outlet…and pronto you got electric propulsion for airplanes..

      • Matthew Van Dusen

        Get thee to the patent office, post haste!
        Ed.

      • GOOD OL’ BAD GUY

        Irwing,

        I tried that; a flight from San Francisco to New York cost 39 cents. The only problem was the extension cord cost six billion Dollars…..

    • Alex

      Dear rshol:

      #1-The ‘Magical’ thing about electric motors is that although they may be powered by dino-source today, they can be powered by any new technology tomorrow. A gas powered engine will always need gas.

      #2 – Think about moving energy from one place to another: what’s greener: a Tanker truck/boat/pipeline or a powerline?

      #3 – you only need one catalytic converter/muffler/air cleaner at the plant instead of millions on each vehicle. – so even if we still use dino-fuel, electric is still better.

      #4 – how much does Big Oil pay you to troll around spreading general doubt and cynicism? They are the only industry that loses from our getting off carbon based fuels, and they have lots of money to spend,

      • Maxentius

        My vehicle doesn’t have “millions” of “catalytic converter/muffler/air cleaner”s.
        It is an older vehicle though.
        Maybe it’s just an out of date smog-monster.
        Can you suggest an after-market source?
        Millions of UPS packages piled on my porch is going to get some comment from the neighbors, but I get a greenie’s gotta do what greenie’s gotta do.

    • jesse James

      For real dawg? That is scandolous!!!!

    • Dave

      Dino juice WON’T be powering our society for a long time, because peak oil production has passed us by (2007-2008). Basically we’re using up the dregs at this time .. at an ever faster rate too. We can probably get by for another 20 or 25 years before fossil fuels become too expensive for almost anyone except maybe “the 1%”. Funny thing is that demand is still increasing!

      I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, need to get with it, or we’ll be back to the stone age.

      If you’re skeptical about peak oil production, you can always read the Wikipedia article about it.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

      As for why is not big news, can you imagine telling your entire customer base that your product is only going to become rarer and far more expensive before it runs out altogether? Its worth paying off the media or whatever to keep that under wraps! What’s more natural gas (almost 25% of our energy use) peaked around 1960, less and less is being discovered each year. Natural gas is also very difficult to transport in large quantities. As for coal, the dirtiest possible fuel, estimates vary widely, from 2010 to 2200.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_gas
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_coal

    • A Hu

      Pessimist !

  3. ChrisHF

    Hybrid cars exist to buffer the engine from changes in the amount of power that the driver requires. Planes don’t have very much variation in the amount of power required (no stoplights, traffic, etc). So it’s a dumb idea for actual production.

    • Erik Hofman

      The amount of energy that electric cars recover from stopping is completely lost when pulling up again. In fact that requires a bit more energy to reach the same speed again.
      So your argument is void.

      • An Engineeer

        Your argument is nonsensical.

        If it takes 2 units of energy to get to speed, and you can recover 1 unit of energy when returning to a stop, the total cost of that operation was 1 unit.

        If you do not recover the energy, it would have cost you 2 units for that operation.

        The purpose of hybridizing road vehicles is two fold: 1) To reduce the inability of an engine to provide optimal efficiency across a wide operating range and 2) To recover energy that would otherwise be wasted.

        In an airplane, most of the operation is at steady state so point #1 above does not apply. And for point #2, arguably the ability to recover lost energy would not out weight the cost of an electric system.

        • An Engineer As Well

          The statement that it is a net operation of one unit for a start-stop operation may be correct, but that does not account for the fact that you are assuming the vehicle will start back up again. The plane will get to speed, and stay there until landing, at which point it will stop. Total value, two units.

          The car will get to speed, stop, get to speed, stop. Assuming the driver leaves the car on for a period of time after arriving at the destination to recover the one unit, then the car still nets two units. If the driver does what common sense says, he/she would turn the car off upon arriving, not recovering that last unit, and therefore the car would actually net THREE units. Thus, Erik’s argument is sensical.

          If the car operates as the plane does, in that it gets to speed and then doesn’t stop until it’s destination, it will not recover that one unit of energy, and therefore still nets two units. If you intend to compare the operation of an automobile and an airplane, then they need to be compared using a full scenario each.

          However, it does not change the point that hybridizing an airplane would not make as much sense as hybridizing an automobile for the purpose of recovering energy. However, I still believe it would make sense to hybridize an airplane due to the fact that you could then power it from other renewable resources (solar, wind, etc.) to recharge it, with the hybrid part accounting for the enormous amount of thrust required for takeoff and climb. The electric motor alone could then takeover in cruise, and especially descent, where the necessary thrust is much lower (and, ideally, non-existant in descent, though typically it will require at least a small amount). Just because a hybrid system would not allow the plane to recover energy in flight, it doesn’t mean that it can’t help to alleviate the dependance on jet fuel, not only helping the environment, but also alleviating costs for airlines. And airline can spend easily 80% of their operating budget on fuel alone. Any way we can help reduce that means reduced fares for consumers as well.

        • Nicholas Mezey

          The fastest and cheapest way way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is to mandate our car companies to produce more efficient cars. We use 8 million BLS a day of fuel to power our cars, and if our cars would be as efficient as European cars, our consumption would drop by one-half, saving 4 million BLS.. Every government has applauded this possibility for the last 30 years, except the previous one, which provided fast depreciation for buyers of Hummers.

  4. Ben Gildenstein

    You all should really check out ElectraFlyer, that has had an electric ultralight for years and has been improving on it quite impressively:
    http://electraflyer.com/electraflyerc.php

    Certainly a good deal before the EADS model featured in the article.

  5. rey

    Excellent!, Too bad the investment in these technologies, specifically the personal air transport isn’t even being consider by the bozo’s who run the US government. We’ll spend billions (if not trillions) on keeping our road system up to snuff, but we wouldn’t have to if we’d just invest in a future infrastructure of battery technologies for personal flying machines. Heck if we’d just try it would only be a matter of time before even small air freight transports would replace traditional trucking. We need to start thinking like Doc, who said, “Roads? Where we’re going we don’t need roads.”… Of course some investment in ZPE would be ideal. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

  6. Mike O’Connor

    rshol: Solar thermal? It’s a simple, proven base-load renewable energy source.

  7. Jojo Mcbean

    In the future, we will approach a Type 1 civilization on fthe Karashev scale, where we will use solar power with efficient solar panels to charge our cars. I’m not sure about planes though, we’ll have to wait and see I guess…

  8. George Reitsma

    What I’m missing here is hydrogen. Why is that not an option? It’s easy to turn electricity into hydrogen. Although less efficient as batteries, so for cars not desirable. But for planes where weight is a critical, and they’re flying at very low temperatures (helping hydrogen storage), that might actually be not so bad at all. Liquid hydrogen has the highest energy/mass ratio of all non-nuclear fuels, and could probably drive even yet engine, if you design it carefully.

    • Bob rip

      It takes more energy to make hydrogen than you get back out of it, if you count losses. Also it takes a lot more space to store hydrogen for the same energy as gasoline. Hence bigger tanks.

  9. Dan

    Already on the market:
    http://www.pipistrel.si/plane/taurus-electro/overview

  10. flnca

    @rshol: Solar cell technology is constantly being improved. Numerous geo-thermal power plants already exist (I’m actually living not far from one). Wind power plants are also being improved … — Pretty much everywhere across the globe, alternative energy sources are not only being used in large quantities, but they’re already very effective as they are. Even countries like the USA have been doing a lot in this regard … also, plastics recycling provides a great way to save oil … what’s even more important is that green power and technology is a huge market, with endless employment opportunities and money to be made. Oil is still an important factor, but it will not be in the future.

    I think electric airplanes are the future … in my opinion, Zeppelins (which have a large surface area) could be powered by solar cells. Helium can be mined from other planets in the solar system if not available in large enough quantities on Earth. That’d be some incentive for commercial space travel … billions of dollars to be made …

    There need to be future markets to be established and exploited for the world economy to flourish, and green airplanes and commercial space travel could bring us centuries of rewards.

  11. Crunchy Steve

    Lets not forget that 80% of the world’s electricity is generated by coal. Electric vehicles don’t reduce CO2 emissions, they only relocate them. Photo-voltaic solar is less sustainable then the dino-economy, so that’s not going to make this viable, either, although nuclear energy might, but who wants that?! The only solution is biofuel derived from farm waste (waste, not virgin crops. Waste, understand? Sorry to harp on but people often ignore the “waste” criterion.) Electric propulsion is a surprisingly filthy source of motive power when you dig more deeply than the fuel cap v. the plug.

    • Al Roderick

      That idea is on its face true, but keep in mind that it also concentrates the load and the pollution into one big engine and tailpipe that you can put wherever you want, and that doesn’t need to carry its own weight, instead of a million little ones attached to the cars. Since power plants don’t need to worry about power-to-weight ratios, they can implement pollution controls and efficient engine types that are impractical for mobile power plants. Steam engines in power plants deliver better rates of conversion from fuel to mechanical work, and combust their fuel more completely without needing catalysts, but aren’t used in cars because of the bad power-to-weight ratio. And while we might at some point be able to sequester or scrub smokestack emissions, it’s completely impossible to do it for a fleet of little tailpipes. You also don’t need to change the cars from region to region depending on the optimum local fuel source, charge it with what you have.

      I think the best solution is going to end up being electric cars with 50-odd miles of battery range and a compact turbogenerator. It’ll run on just about anything, but you only need to fill the tank when you need to drive out of town.

  12. John Carpinelli

    I think electric aviation is the future, but we will launch aircraft with long cables and winches instead of batteries. The Navy is already using catapults to launch fighter jets. We just need to scale up the concept. Circling tow aircraft will be powered by electricity from the grid and used to lift aircraft silently from the airport to high speeds and velocities. Search for “electric takeoff” to learn more about the concept.

  13. Rick Zepp

    I want one

  14. HOWARD ROBERTS

    Slowly I turned, step by step, inch by inch . . . that’s how advances in the electrification of transportation will be made. Every idea that is being tried is a good idea at this early stage of this technological revolution. The only bad idea is the one that is rejected before it is tried.

  15. Trent Allen

    I think this hype is all a bunch of crap. Locomotives have been using this technology for the last 30+ years. The tecnology already exists, and is not being utilized. Trains are some of the most efficient machines that we know about. Trains dont use batteries like our current cars do, they dont need to. They produce electricity as it is needed. Airliners could use the exact same technology, except instead of pulling a million tons, they would only have to lift a million pounds. No big deal, just take a locomotive (2 stroke diesel engine technology) and size it down to 1/2000ths (2000 lbs = 1 ton) and there you go! You have a mini locomotive for an airliner.

    If we think that we dont already have the technology for this purpose, we are kidding ourselves. Blame it on the oil companies if you want. Blame it on the Government. Blame it on the car companies being in co-hoots with the oil companies, but dont think for one second that we dont have the technology to produce an aircraft that cant do exactly what we want it to, RIGHT NOW!!

    Prove me wrong!

    • sunny

      Oh God Trent,

      What a bull waste….. A diesel engine will run on diesel in the end… People are trying to make a end-to-end vehicle which can run on electricity.. Where that electricity comes from, surely is a debate..

  16. Dave

    The coal / pollution / electric cars are just as bad or worse argument is just plain wrong.
    Read about it here:

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

    http://truecostblog.com/2009/01/04/electric-vs-gasoline/

    http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motor-efficiency-d_655.html

    Cars (ICE vehicles – that is internal combustion engines) are at the very best, 25 percent efficient and more typically about 15 percent efficient. Electric motors are 90 percent efficient. When all, that is ALL things are considered – transport, refining, power production, power transmission line loss, oil drilling energy required, electric cars are more that twice as efficient as the best internal combustion production cars. That means less pollution from the use of electric cars. These are scientific facts and are on the conservative side, the actual savings is likely to be much more. Deal with it.

    • Spencer

      Question: Electric motors may be 90% efficient but how efficient is the process that produces the electricity?

  17. John Breza

    Some of the most advancements (flight time)to date in electric aircraft have been made by Erik Raymond in his Sunseeker serious of PV powered electric motor gliders. http://solar-flight.com/europetour/
    There is an event this Sept. hosted by CAFE (Comparative Aircraft Flight Efficiency) to promote electric flight
    http://cafefoundation.org/v2/gfc_main.
    Yuneec a company that is producing electric aircraft had a fatal crash in May that killed the test pilot.
    http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-05-19_yuneec.asp

  18. JOHN

    I am not an engineer, so a lot of this stuff is out of my pay grade! I do know that it will take a lot of very smart people, with a lot of money for research, to achieve these laudable objectives!! One suggestion, to obtain the huge amounts of research monies; we need to stop wasting $10 BILLIION a month on two worthless, degenerating, treasury draining wars! To say nothing about the loss of young lives! Stop wasting human resources, as well as monetary resources, and spend these monies on worthwhile advances like these!

  19. james Bond

    and.. the battery runs out and the plane crashes!

    No thanks

    • What Haveyou

      Or it runs out of gas and the plane crashes. Your point?

      At least you can measure remaining battery power somewhat reliably, regardless of the plane’s orientation. The fuel gauges on small planes don’t even work; pilots base their remaining-fuel estimates on time only, which obviously leaves room for error.

  20. Federico Aguilar

    Que no es posible mezclar la generación aeolica con la fotovoltaica, para que no se deje de generar electricidad

  21. John Genius

    Why can’t flight take advantage of gravity kinetic energy? In other words, instead of cruising on a flat plateau, you cruise in a “sine wave” pattern, with the downward cycle using gravity (wind speed) to recharge the batteries? This is a similar idea to using the braking energy in a car to recharge the batteries? Theoretically, couldn’t this vision create a perpetual motion machine?

    - Just call me genius… I’m broke… you have the funding… make it happen.

    • Evan

      When you have a theory that results in “Perpetual motion is possible,” it’s time to re-examine your theory. Or, to quote Arthur Stanley Eddington:

      “If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

  22. Charlious

    How often will it have to land to recharge.? How far will it fly before recharge is necessary.? Will it even fly? How many batteries will it need and how much will they weigh??

    • William

      The best candidates to replace with green technology are the short-distance routes which use up more petrol and pollute much more than the long-haul flights across the Atlantic. If they can get a 737 set up to do 4 hour flights carrying 200 people, they would eliminate 85% of gas-guzzling aircraft worldwide. That’s an amazing feat.

  23. Dr. James

    It is unfortunate that the bigger and heavier an aircraft is the greater its safefy, because the heavier an aircraft is the more energy is needed to merely lift and propel its own collossal bulk (instead of our bodies and our possesions, the only things we actually care about getting from Point A to Point B). There is probably some reasonable “middle ground” where an aircraft big enough to safely transport commercial passengers a fair distance can be made light enough and reliable enough to work, but of course this would require subsidation to be shifted from the existing petroleum & transport industries to newer, greener industries. We then discover that Politics can and does violate the Laws of Science all the time . . .

    • Al Roderick

      Not quite true. The aircraft obeys certain laws relating to scale. Mass increases as the cube of length, as does fuel or battery capacity, but drag increases as the square of length, much smaller. So a 747 uses less fuel-per-pound to fly than a 727 that’s shaped almost the same, and the 747 is faster with a smaller power-to-weight ratio. So, the big 747 uses less fuel per passenger or pound of freight than a fleet of 727′s carrying the same collective load. The fraction of the mass of the plane taken up by structure and engines as opposed to paid cargo is also smaller. Now, that’s not to say that there aren’t savings to be made in shape and engineering to save more drag and weight, but the benefit to a big plane will be greater than the benefit to a small one. This is why trucks and trains are so efficient, they use a lot of fuel to go a mile but they carry a big load while doing it.

    • Terry Brookman

      Hybrid cross of helium bags in a better air frame with diesel turbine hooked to a generator would give a big advantage in lift with electric powered props for lift and forward motion. Increase in lift of just fifty percent with bags in double hull conventional air frame would go a long way, needing battery’s and generator you would still have a lot of interior space that is lost in a blimp. This is not well stated but you get the idea. If they get the nano tube/graphine battery’s up and produced on a chimerical level battery weight would go down by seventy percent and charge would go up three hundred percent or more, They have made them small scale and it is just a matter of time and money to get full production up. If they ever start using Mitsubishi ceramic in turbines the weight would come down by sixty percent, they have been siting on that for thirty years. Mitsubishi developed a four, six and eight cylinder gas engine made of their cold cast ceramic. It is designed on the structure of a Abalone shell and is the strongest ceramic in the world, all engine parts were made of it, even the cam, crank and bearings. Production cost is very low as it needs no machining and no heat to cast. I guess the military bought their design and is keeping it under wraps, I saw one article and one video of it and then nothing.

    • Terry Brookman

      Everything we need is already made in nature, we are surrounded by energy. I we could tap all the energy from sunlight falling on one acre of land in a hour it would be enough power to supply Manhattan with energy for a year.

  24. Mike Massey

    Multi-fueled planes. Planes that can run on petroleum, bio-fuel, natural gas as well as solar electricity with a hybrid system will have the resilience needed for the future

  25. Robert Malouf

    I think the fist design looks the best, and that is because it looks like the plane that is going to afford the passengers more LEG room, which is and should be everyone’s first and utmost concern.

  26. C Hear

    Aviators face situations where they would give a large amount of money for just one more gallon of fuel. This is the most critical shortcoming of electic/battery powere vehicles.

  27. steve

    Solar doesn’t work? Many thousands of households in Hawaii live off the grid using solar, and half their days are rainy/cloudy. The key is combining passive solar design (free light, hot water) with mounted cells for electricity production, and of course some of the most expensive on-the-grid electricity rates in the country (motivation).

  28. Serge Ngatta

    The future is definitely in Advanced Manufacturing. All I can picture reading this article are Electrical planes, and flying cars, hybrid powered factories, Biodiesel powered tractors and trucks, Natural gas powered city buses, Solar powered roofs, Hydrogen Fuel cell powered cars, appliances, homes, buildings, plants… and I’m not even scratching the surface of possibilities. Imagine the cities of tomorrow. 5th element or Akira?
    There are so many ways to power so many opportunities. I’m so looking forward to 2030!

  29. Francisco Leme galvão

    Electric airliners will be propelled by electrofans (electric motors replacing turbines
    in turbofans) using the electricity produced by direct bio-fuel cells such as DEFC
    converting bio fuels such as ethanol chemical energy into electric energy with
    twice the efficiency of presnt internal combustion turbo fans

    read more in http://papers.sae.org/2007-01-2957

  30. oryina igoil

    These are creative and innovative approaches, that are bound to contribute greatly to reduction of GHG emissions to the atmosphere. Hence, contribute effectively to reduction of ozone layer depletion. To reduce the plane mass superconductor drives should be utilized. Surely, the concept is achievable. But, it will need a lot of creativity, innovation and research.

  31. ALEJO HARUS

    IF YOU TRY WITH SOLAR PANEL IN THE ELECTRIC AIRPLANE TO RECHARGE THE BATERY…?

  32. Pankil Agarwal

    this approach is inovative and i think this is possilble but safety has to be their main concern and solar panel possibly use to charge the battery and we can suerly get it very soon

  33. blkshoe

    Must have one heck of a long extension cord

  34. Matt

    It was mentioned that the power capacity of battery technology would need to increase by a factor of 4, but that is not necessarily true. There is one other way that we could power something requiring a large level of constant power, much beyond that required by a mere car. That way would be a significant advance in ultra compact power production. I think that is actually more likely than getting much further than we already have with battery technology. I am not suggesting just what this next generation ultra compact electric power plant technology will actually consist of, but I think there is probably a way to do it.

  35. Bob Austin

    What happens when the extension cord is not long enough.

  36. Geo Thomas

    The idea will be a starting point to new way of transportation.

  37. Futurist Engineer

    The Electric Airplane will (eventually) result from the convergence of four major technologies:

    Structures: Building the craft from lighter materials (Plastics, fiber reinforced materials, high efficiency motors.
    Energy Generation: light-weight energy conversion, such as fuel cells, high-efficiency hydrocarbon-fueled motors.
    Energy Storage: Batteries, Compressed gases, kinetic storage, phase-change materials, meta-stable chemical compounds, capacitive storage.
    Design/ Control: Aerodynalically efficient shapes and surfaces, such as low-friction surfaces, low-drag designs, materials-efficient shapes, computer stable/aerodynamically unstable designs.

    Each of these areas offers incremental as well as revolutionary change in in the final product. It would be foolish to assume that the new aircraft will result from simple evolutionary change.

    Let me provide you with one possible combination of characteristics: A large flying wing, designed to operate in ground effect, with a top surface consisting entirely of high-efficiency,light weight solar cells. Materials of the design include a skin made of a tri-phasic materials, consisting of a high-density surface, oriented internal fibers, and a high-void fraction matrix,and a nominal specific density of 0.5. Incorporated in the skin surface are fine-detailed patterns and air-flow channels, allowing top-surface blowing to create lift, while reducing drag. The internal wing structure include very high capacity capacitive storage, equivalent to mega-watt hours of storage. Pre-charged before take-off,the initial storage allows high speed takeoff. On-board hybrid power generation provides continuous propulsion,using a variety of fuels for energy. The high volumetric efficiency allows the use of low density fuels, such as Hydrogen.

  38. Charles Spencer

    Yes, the electric airplane will come and sooner than many think. In fact in some regards, it’s here already.
    The prototypes use extreme ground effect and null fuel tanks to achieve it. Coming innovations will be using super-streamlining technologies (non-virtual vacuums) to achieve ultrahigh efficiencies. A person will simply take an elevator down to the airport and board an “airplane”. It will then enter the flight tunnel, accelerate until you reach deceleration time or 32 thousand mph (limited to avoid excess weight gain). After this is installed work will begin on a short stub to a larger vacuum tube called outer space!
    Fuel tanks, landing gear and internal engines are actually unnecessary.

  39. William

    From the article:

    “The power capacity of battery technology, he continued, would have to grow by “at least a factor of four before we are near where we need to be to accomplish this.”

    ________________________

    If battery technology advances to this degree, then I could see electric replacing fossil fuels, but I still can’t picture fossil fuels being completely replaced for electric generation until Solar advances 10 fold, or more.This is my uneducated opinion.

    I know a homes in Hawaii (and just about anywhere else) can run on solar. We can now easily charge cell phones, toys, laptops, etc. off of solar, but to create enough electricity to power fleets of electric powered commercial aircraft, cars, trains, and buildings? We would still require nuclear, coal, or oil electric generation for quite a bit longer.

  40. Michael

    I find all of this very interesting. Now I’m no engineer but I am an avid fan of aircraft propulsion and engines. One thing that I have not seen talked about is how a modern Turbofans develops its thrust, Not all comes from the fan, I’m not sure on my numbers but I think its 70% thrust from the hot expanding gases, velocity from the main jet and 30% from the ducted fan. Turbojets, of which there are not many used save older Boeing 727′s and 737′s and other makes, and the military are 100% thrust from hot expanding gases, velocity from the main jet. There has been experimentation on large unducted fan jets, that derive more thrust from the fan. The most powerful in current use is the High bypass turbofan GE90-115B at 127,900 lb of thrust. This engine is used only on the Boeing 777. There is plenty of information on line info on this engine. It developes the equivalent of 100,000 Hp, two per 777 means 200,000 Hp aprox. 149,200,000 watts. This is an incredible amount of power to be developed by electric motors, usually rated in thousands of volts, these are constant rpm motors. I know that by variable HZ some motors can be adjusted for rpm. Or adjustable inlet vanes. This flexability would be needed on aircraft. Or these could be regular propeller aircraft. The Russien Bear uses counter rotating props quite effectively There are so many issues to be worked out to get to electric powered commercial jet travel that is reliable and practical. i’m not saying it can’t be done, but right now I say it’s in dream land for now.

  41. Miguel White

    The people stating oil and gas will still be required for the majority of electrical power generation are 100% accurate. Those pitching the alternative power schemes are either the uneducated, feel good green crowd or lobbyist/shareholder/owners of some of these companies.

    While the oil and gas companies are investing and researching alt energy, they are doing so to position themselves for the long term, and as long as people want to power their myriad toys and homes and businesses – that electricity will be generated primarily by oil, gas and yes coal for many years to come.

    Don’t think that is the case – that these companies are looking forward? Exxon-Mobil is part of a partnership that developed thin film seperator technology that is essential to mass produce large LIo battery arrays that can power things like vehicles. Now why would they care to do this unless it made business sense for them?

    Anyone who thinks the big O&G companies plan to be left behind when fossil fuel is not as viable anymore (think another 50 years or more) has not understanding of energy (or general) business.

  42. Joe Kuhns

    I may be ignoring most of the comments in this article, but what about the most abundant element in the universe, hydrogen.

  43. What Haveyou

    “Burt Rutan, tested a two-seat, hybrid-powered aircraft that might prove to be a practical solution to the long-held dream of a flying car.”

    Hello, the Terrafugia has been test-flown several times and is approaching market. It already has FAA approval as a light-sport aircraft and it received a DOT exemption from certain requirements for weight.

  44. Dick Ovens

    You Can’t Fly 100MPH for 200 miles on electricity at 403 MPGallon/passenger with 4 passengers! Wrong old petrobreathe, …sorry for stealing Johnny Carson’s retort!
    Astounding Final Results from the Green Flight Challenge Sponsored by Google

    The 2011 Green Flight Challenge sponsored by Google marks an historic achievement in aviation—the first demonstration of practical, cross-country emission-free flight. Team Pipistrel-USA.com’s winning 4 seat, electric-powered aircraft, the Taurus G4, flew nearly 200 miles non-stop while achieving 403.5 passenger MPG! Its astounding efficiency was more than twice that of the piston-powered aircraft in the competition. Equally promising: Team e-Genius won the Lindbergh Prize for Quietest Aircraft, with a peak take off noise of just 59.5 dBA at a 250 foot sideline. This achievement heralds the real transformative potential unique to electric powered aircraft—the capability to be quiet enough to land very near dwellings and businesses.

    Years from now, these first Green Flight Challenge team members will be recognized as the pioneers of the Age of Electric Flight. CAFE is already discussing plans for GFC II and will publish more on that here soon.

    The complete CAFE results for the 2011 Green Flight Challenge sponsored by Google.

  45. Michael

    I like it when everyone keeps up the dream, and it is a dream right now of electric powered commercial flight. Talking about 4 passenger planes, ultralights etc is nice conversation. But lets get real, lifting 766,800 lbs MTOW Boeing 777-200LR or the Airbus A-380-800F MTOW 1,300,000 lbs into the air is not going to happen in my or your life time, if ever with electric motors. And if I concede for a moment electric motors are developed with the power to weight ratio needed the power requirements for these motors to fly on average of 6,000 miles to 8,000 miles non stop, some further and some shorter depending on load / fuel factors. So tell me how we are going to make these quantum leaps, and I mean quantum leaps in technology to fly hundreds of people around the world withh pure electric motors???????? I’ll throw in some humor here, lets build a electric rocket booster to match the Rocketdyne F-1 @ 1,522,000 lbs Thrust, the last generation of this engine never used developed 2,000,000 lbs thrust.. So folks keep dreaming.

  46. Ben Sammons

    The energy wasted to charge batteries would eat up the cost effectiveness. Last time I checked a battery could only use a maximum of 50% of its energy for its load, otherwise it is operating under short circuit conditions and overheating itself to destruction. Nuclear steam turbine powered aircraft make more sense.

  47. Bryan

    On Wade’s issue of safely disposing spent nuclear fuel for 5,000 years, there is a simple answer. After it’s used to power these aircraft, put the spent fuel in regular luggage and check it with the airline. They will lose it and it will never been seen again. A simple answer to a complex problem.

  48. Vijay

    Sir,
    The above write ups are very interesting. Though I have been contemplating on the idea of electric airplane,but I have my own doubts about its reliability points. With my common knowledge I think that when fuel burns it gives enormous thrust and energy to run the engine. and in turn run the air plane to take off land etc. Can a electrical or solar battery operated plane give the same thrust and energy to run the engine /motor of the airplane etc.Will some one tell me how. ?

  49. Ran

    Nice work GE on the site! i think, leverage leverage leverage have You heard about the star cutter device? It’s a electromagnetic ball inside another electromagnetic ball inside another electromagnetic ball this is repeated 500 times when the final outside ball started to spin the thing started float pretty impressive stuff.

  50. Mr Andy

    The real “Stealth” plane.
    How anybody detects an electric plane without the approval of its crew?

  51. steve zhir

    It’s impractical. I can’t imagine all of us trying to take off going somewhere,especially in NYC. Our houses will have to be rezoned, no more row houses. They must be acres apart. Unless vertical take offs are built into the eplanes.

  52. Matthew

    why don’t designers use solar panels to charge the batteries just build into the wings there are light weigh cells it would pay for it self in 1-2 years

  53. Dani

    This looks pretty interesting, but will they be able to pull it off?

  54. Tom

    Maybe if they put stationary bikes in place of seats they could power the plane w/ pedal power!

  55. Lee

    So someday, anything is possible. Fine.

  56. Kevin

    I want my carplane now.

  57. Ian

    Here’s an idea.
    The first thing the anti-coal anti-gas,anti-nuke Gore minions need to do is lead by example.
    Where do you think the power for those I-pods and laptops come from? Magic unicorn farts ?
    If the anti energy people stopped driving and sold their cars, turned off the laptops, stopped flying all over america to attend “occupy” moments or driving to the hood to score a bag we’d save the planet a whole lot sooner.

  58. fsilber

    Take an old turbo-prop airplane. Replace half the propellers with wind turbines that generate electricity and use that electricity to power the remaining propellers. Use the latter to power the airplane, and you fly for free — no batteries needed except for when the wind stops blowing!

  59. dino

    So…it’s a coal powered airplane?

What do you think?

Your comment needs to be approved by the site owner before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, please read GE's Blogging Policy.