I hadn’t considered it before, but China pivoting to electric propulsion for aircraft makes a lot of sense. China is far behind leading nations with regard to jet engine manufacturing and large scale manufacturing of single crystal blades for high bypass turbofan engines.
However, China is far ahead of the rest of the world with mass production of high capacity battery technology. Additionally they have significant high performance electric motor design and manufacturing capabilities. If they put these two mature systems into developing electric aircraft engines, they’ll likely achieve results before anyone else in the world.
Couple this with China’s lack of fossil fuels and significant investments in wind, solar, and extremely high voltage long distance transmission, it could do very well to serve China’s domestic air cargo needs at a fraction of today’s cost.
imagine if we all worked together
If we did, its possible we might actually accomplish less actually. Frequently competition drives innovation. Its just how humans are wired, and I’m not sure we can do anything about that.
Edit: I see we have doubting downvoters. Why did the USA land on the Moon in 1969? Because they suddenly wanted to? No, because the Soviet Union was the first to space and first human in space. After the Apollo program ended in in 1972, how many times did we land on the moon? Zero. How any times did the Soviet Union land on the moon after the USA did? Zero.
Suddenly in 2005 the USA started to get interest in going to the moon again for the first time since 1972. The first Chinese astronaut made it to space in 2003. Is that coincidence? Currently the USA is trying to get back to a moon landing by early 2008 (they’re not going to make it then). China is scheduled for their first moon landing in 2030.
For giant leaps forward, humanity appears to need conflict and competition.
China isnt leading this.
Canada has been flying electric commercial aircraft for 7 years now
300 km/h, 400 km range, lifts 10 tonnes. Well, I’m not impressed at all. But it is electric. This part is cool.
Now compare it to e-vtol aircraft
From a performance standpoint, yes it’s lacking. From an energy efficiency standpoint it’s insanely well beyond fossil fuels.
For short, frequent hops, it could be practical depending the operating costs. The energy density of current battery tech is rough for aviation, but at least they’re trying.
Now I’m picturing small electric aircraft for smaller groups of people, similar to the prop planes Indiana Jones took in those movies.
One of the benefits of jet fuel based planes is that they get lighter as the journey continues as they exhaust their fuel, thereby increasing range. Obviously the weight of batteries never does so the current approach of battery powered electric flight will always have this burden with the only mitigation of developing batteries that weigh less.
I’m wondering if they solve for the high performance electric engines, they could pivot into liquid based fuel cells to provide the electricity. Direct Methanol Fuel Cell (DMFC) technology is well known today and not exotic. Methanol is one of the easiest hydrocarbons that can be created with electricity. Methanol is also energy-dense enough to be used as a good fuel too considering the space constraints on an aircraft. Using Methanol as a consumable would mean the jet would get lighter as it few just like jet fuel benefits.
My guess is the current barrier to this is the electrical yield of today’s DMFCs isn’t high enough to produce the power (energy in a moment) the electric jet engines would require. However, this means its another avenue for research that could make electric jets viable.
Wouldn’t hydrogen cells provide a solution? Very small hydrogen powered engines output colossal power proportionally to their size and weight.
Hydrogen is pretty horrible as a portable fuel. Its density is extremely low even in liquid form as it only has 2.4 kWh per US gallon (~8.5 MJ/L) of energy compared to a gallon of gasoline at about 33.6 kWh (130 MJ). Methanol is ~17kWh for that same gallon and is liquid at room temperature. That liquid form of hydrogen also requires extremely high pressures and cryogenic storage which means heavier containment. You also then have to contend with boil-off. The hydrogen molecule is so very small it can leak through fittings and valves. Lastly, hydrogen on flame is almost invisible in daylight.
If this were a stationary application where weight and space considerations don’t matter, hydrogen could be a better choice.
Hydrogen is cool but comes with significant issues. It leaks, it’s extremely reactive, it’s hard to store and transport, etc.
Hydrogen is cool
Well, liquid hydrogen is, anyway
Let’s try to avoid repeating the Hindenberg.
It’s a start. I mean, 5 of those tonnes are probably battery. But still…
deleted by creator
