Back to Squawk list

Airbus electric aircraft takes to the skies

Imagine taking a peaceful flight, gliding along without much noise or any fuel, effortlessly descending into the airport without a trace of emissions. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

A properly functional "Zero Emissions" aircraft is probably at least a decade away. If current battery technology only allows this small plane to remain aloft for 30 minutes, I don't see how it can be that much use even as a training aircraft - a flight school would need a fleet of several dozen just to accomodate flying time throughout the day. It's a great concept, but huge advancements in technology will be required to make it feasible.
FlightSeer 2
I agree with "zero emissions": it's simply emissions shifting to somewhere- and sometime- else. And with every energy transformation, there is some energy loss. The piece did mention that the cost is 2¢ per hour. It also mentioned that the batteries, good for 0.5 hour, have 60kw. That puts its use at 120 kw per hour. At our local average of about 11¢ per kwh, that puts the cost at around $13.20 an hour, not 2¢. It IS a lot less than av-gas, etc, but I hope whoever did these calculations didn't also engineer the plane!
Can someone explain how this plane or any electrical car can have zero emissions? Where does the electricity come from? Is it only solar powered?
sparkie624 6
It's all in the advertising and how it is perceived... There is no such thing as Zero Emissions... That does not exist...
Bob Howard 3
This may be closer than you think to zero emission. France produces most of its electricity with nuclear which is as close to zero emissions as you can get. As with solar, emissions are required to build the plant. At least nuclear provides the power at night when you want it for charging for the next day's flights.
Well that does make a better explanation. Too bad nobody is building nuclear plants.
Electricity can be generated in different ways like: hydro-electric dam, solar plant, wind generator farms... Yes its clean energy
Michael Smith 2
Uh, no it's not. You're forgetting the transportation costs to get it to the factory to install in the car (or plane). There's the cost to get raw materials to the battery factory. The nickel contained in the Prius' battery is mined and smelted at a plant in Ontario that has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the 'dead zone' around the plant to test moon rovers.

In 2007, a report commissioned by an auto industry trade group insisted that when you factor in the waste generated during production, the notoriously gas-guzzling Hummer is actually greener than the Prius

Jim Smirh 1
"zero carbon dioxide emissions in flight" Does that mean the occupant(s) hold their breath the whole time?! Or maybe they only exhale into big plastic, non-biodegradable bags that are then sent to carbonated drink factories running on non fuel-burning power... LOL!
sparkie624 0
They can't fart either!
Jim Smirh 0
But THAT would supply some 'fuel' for running a... wait, you're right, there'd be some of those 'carbon emissions' then. Dang! This problem is harder than I thought!! ;-)
Ivan Blakely 1
all good fun ...
as I understand it, farts are mostly the same gases as normal atmosphere (nitrogen & oxygen) plus some CO2 similar to normal breathing out, plus a small amount of flammable gases hydrogen and/or methane (apparently only about half of the population produces methane depending on the gut bacteria), plus traces of the smelly stuff punching above its weight. Now, if there was a market for cows travelling ....
sparkie624 0
We are not talking about free energy... We are talking carbon free emissions.. :) Of course, we could invent a plane that ran on farts, and have everyone's seat fitted with special vacuum devices in the seats and all passengers fed pinto beans and or chili 30 minutes prior to flight. You get credit on your ticket when you land based on how much energy you produce!
Michael Smith 2
Regardless of what the radical environmentalists, liberal politicians, misleading scientists, and other of similar ilk, carbon is not only a very small portion of the atmosphere (there's more water than carbon in air) but it is also a vital component to life. Were it not for carbon we would not have any plants and without plants we wouldn't have any animal life.
Ira Curtis 1
Misleading statmentes! There is no free meal, Really, there is no contamination during the flight, but in most cases there was during the production of the power needed to charge the plains batteries.Unless of course charger was a solar panel.
Gene spanos 1
For the collar communities.....that would be great not to hear
the 747-800-F's straining to stay up and get over our homes at
Be safe out there.
Michael Smith 0
They wouldn't anyway. There's no such animal as a 747-800-F (look it up!)
Michael Smith 0
I guess subtlety shouldn't be used here. It's a 747-8F NOT a 747-800F. There's no zeros (0) following the 8, regardless of what the You Tube poster stated. Here's the complete family of 747:

Not a single 747-800 in the whole list above, no siree!
sparkie624 1
The "00" is such a technicality... Everyone calls it the 800, everyone knew what he was talking about.. Most call it an 800 even if Boeing did not call it that way. Also, even note on boeings website it is referenced as ab 800F and was not corrected.
Michael Smith 0
The portion you are referring to in your link states "Your assessment of the 747-800F vs. the A380F is flawed. The A380 can fly MUCH further - 1400 nautical miles (or 25%) more range than the 747-800F so that makes up for the "dead weight" you speak of. Must do better! " This, my dear sparkie, was a direct quote from a reader of the blog, not Boeing. In the rest of the posting the aircraft is referred to as a 747-8F.

No, the "00" is not a technicality. The name of the aircraft is 747-8F, not 747-800F. I have the feeling you are the type that would call someone named Melissa Melicent because they sound similar.
Dolf Brouwers 0
and as long as Solar panels are produced in China in factories using conventional energy, they have a carbon footprint before being bolted to your roof !

Zero emission is a hoax !
loveaviation 1
They should be working on nuclear powered planes. For zero emissions. And those could fly for a long time, they just would need enough power to take a shitload of water to create the steam. LOL
sparkie624 1
You would not need a read beacon at night as I would be "Glow In The Dark"!
loveaviation 1
IR camera would work too.
gcvisel 1
Read Jim Mahaffey's two (really good) books on nuclear power (and accidents) for a description of America's nuclear airplane back in the '50s. Unshielded reactors spewed radioactivity across the US. "The History of Nuclear Power" and "Nuclear Accidents" are both engrossing reads! (No water used!)


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!