Not just electric. Special allowances are made for whomever's project falls under the favored status.

Square the 100UL regulatory debacle with the fact that there are over 100 potential manufacturers of unmanned/optionally-manned aircraft and not a single one thinks that they'll be expected to comply with the same regulations as Boeing, Cessna, or Airbus nor that their pilots will be forced to comply with the same Part 91/135/121 requirements as every other pilot.

These sort of viewpoints often fail to balance themselves with a similar analysis of what our oil based energy demands cause in terms of needing materials. There's a sleight of hand to make the viewer assume the renewable stuff all needs new materials and the old energy sources don't, which is really not true.

For example, new oil wells are often in undisturbed wilderness areas like Alaska, or even off shore, and we've seen the environmental disasters those activities have already caused (for example, Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon).

No energy system is without effects that have to be considered, but solar and wind will be an increasing part of the energy landscape as time goes by.

We're doing better than many expect. In 2021, 12.2% of all US energy was from renewables, 20.1% of electricity was from renewables. That's a lot higher than the 3% number in the video. Maybe surprising to some, but wind generates almost 50% more electric power than hydroelectric dams now. Also surprising is that coal is down to 20.8% showing renewables are almost the same fraction as coal now. Renewables are higher than nuclear already.

US electricity generation in 2021:

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

Mike C.

My 2 cents:

As someone who oversaw multiple detailed studies on the viability of electric powered business and commercial transport aircraft (over an approximately 10 year period) for a large aerospace company, I can tell you that without an exponential step change in battery technology (i.e, power density), this technology will be nothing more than a niche market for small GA and drone aircraft for at least 50+ years.

However, using electric propulsion for short hops across congested areas (urban air taxis/shuttles), as a package delivery vehicle, or for primary training close to the base airport (reduced noise footprint/possible lower training costs) may be viable uses for this technology. Don’t hold your breath that an aircraft with the level of utility we expect will materialize in the foreseeable future.

Art

These sort of viewpoints often fail to balance themselves with a similar analysis of what our oil based energy demands cause in terms of needing materials. There's a sleight of hand to make the viewer assume the renewable stuff all needs new materials and the old energy sources don't, which is really not true.

For example, new oil wells are often in undisturbed wilderness areas like Alaska, or even off shore, and we've seen the environmental disasters those activities have already caused (for example, Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon).

No energy system is without effects that have to be considered, but solar and wind will be an increasing part of the energy landscape as time goes by.

We're doing better than many expect. In 2021, 12.2% of all US energy was from renewables, 20.1% of electricity was from renewables. That's a lot higher than the 3% number in the video. Maybe surprising to some, but wind generates almost 50% more electric power than hydroelectric dams now. Also surprising is that coal is down to 20.8% showing renewables are almost the same fraction as coal now. Renewables are higher than nuclear already.

US electricity generation in 2021:

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

Mike C.

The problem with "green' tech, is that it takes even more of the dirty tech to manufacture, than do our existing vehicles. You need massive amounts of diesel fuel to dig up ten of thousands of tons of earth to get the rare earths needed for the motors, batteries, and electronics. Then you need all that dirty tech to build a ten-fold bigger grid & new power plants to charge the EV's. Even diesel powered trucks haul the windmill parts, solar panels to the farms where diesel equipment is used to build them. Along with tons of concrete, which has its' own GHG footprint. Then you need all that dirty equipment to maintain, and eventually dismantle, recycle, or bury the expired "green" equipment, which has a drastically shorter service life than the dirty equipment. So you need extra capacity in dirty tech, to build the green tech. Make sense?

In aviation, electric planes are non-sensical. The 80 gallons (480 pounds) in a Bonanza fuel system require 1100+ pounds of batteries to equal the stored energy. Take out the 400 pound gas engine, replace it with a 100 pound electric motor, and you're still severely upside down on the energy density equation. Specific range and overall performance increases in conventional planes as fuel is burned off. In electric planes, it is the opposite, You're still hauling the same weight, but you have less energy to move that weight every minute the prop spins. And what does a fire look like in an electric airplane? Like the buses in France that melted to the pavement? If we have an electrical failure in a conventional plane, we turn off the electrical and keep going, and land. What happens in an electric airplane when the electrical system fails?

The Ford F150 Lightning is actually a good example of green hysteria at work. Although it has similar range to the gas version, it weighs nearly a ton more, because of the battery. That eats tires, reduces payload, and the truck costs $40K more than the gas version. The last sticker I saw was $94K, and it compares to a $54K gas version. And it takes 8 hours for a fill up, not 8 minutes. Sure, you can fast charge it, but it cuts the $$$$$ battery life by half.

I do a lot of work with alternative fuels. The very first calculation you do is determine the work required, and then you calculate the energy required. Then you determine the optimum energy source to use, based on costs, performance, and convenience. I compare liquid fuels, natural gas, hydrogen, and electricity. Electricity via catenary works best in applications like railroads if you have a cheap generating source such as nuclear or hydro power. Electric is worst when you have to use batteries. Electric motors are highly efficient, batteries are not.
There is no free lunch.

Exactly

Replacing the batteries bumps that line up again so, depending on the lifetime of the batteries and their additional carbon footprint, the lines may never cross. Or the car may be scrapped before they cross.

Out of curiosity, how many miles per year does your wife average on her Leaf? The average miles driven per year for electric cars in the US is less than the average for all cars, respectively about 7K vs. over 14K miles/year. Low usage makes it more likely an e-car will never reach the crossover point, in miles driven, before being scrapped.

This is the closest most reasonable mission profile for electric airplanes:

https://skiesmag.com/news/harbour-air-g ... ane-fleet/

Short flights and plugged in at the dock when not flying makes this work. It may only have , say, 30 or 40 minutes of flight time, but that's enough and in places like the PNW, there's a place to land (water?) all around you.

Another use case would be more personal, someone who commutes via airplane on a short route, say LA basin to some place 30-50 miles out. Charge over night, fly in the morning, charge during the day, flight home at end of day. That could work to change a 2-3 hour commute into 30 minutes by electric airplane.

Outside of those niche uses cases, a general purpose electric airplane is a dream.

Mike C.

This has been pretty much what my wife and I have experienced over the last three years of owning two Tesla’s. We maybe even drive more given the convenience of overnight plug-in fill-up. It is really convenient and nice not having to go to a gas station. In addition, my wife travels several times a year to Wisconsin and the East coast by herself with no issues regarding charging. She actually kind of likes the whole process. The location of Tesla charging stations throughout the U.S. is quite ingenious. The whole EV transportation experience is really an eye opener you won’t truly understand until you do it. By the way, I still have my F-250 and will not part with it… no way. It has it’s purpose.

By the way, I am not a tree hugger. Never have been. However, I am practical and responsible. That’s all anyone needs to be regarding the environment, or, anything for that matter. I also have a whole house generator that includes charging both Tesla’s. I don’t trust the grid and I’m not standing in line at a gas station. I have done that already.

she averaged 14K a year. we gave it to her parents earlier this year because the battery degraded to about 70 miles after 130K miles. Even being a first gen short range EV it still served here well. I would say 5-6 times a year she needed my car.

The problem is that "green energy" is flashy and the venture capitalist vultures have glommed onboard looking for the next round of suckers.

That drains capital away from legitimate projects that have actual projects of success.

Best,
Rich

It’s not that it’s flashy, it’s that “green” meets the ESG requirements being imposed by board rooms, governments and agencies providing grant money. Today it is hard to find any US bank that will touch a project involving fossil fuels even if it makes all the financial sense in the world, but there are hundreds of nonsensical CO2 capture and renewable projects that make zero sense even with heavy subsidies to financially support the model, but it’s as if you had sprinkled pixie dust on them as far as the PE firms and banks are concerned.

Source?

Tesla *IS* the average electric car. They have over 70% market share in the US in 2021, 75% in Q12022 even.

In order for Teslas to be 70% market share and be driven twice as much as the "average" electric car, the others would have be doing negative miles. So that "study" is obviously bogus.

It is sad how people believe stuff that aligns with their biases without checking it out.

Electric cars are not some lame plaything, they are real, practical, and have intrinsic merits that have nothing to do with the environment. My next car will be electric, and I'm not exactly Mr Green flying a Citation V around.

Mike C.