mtrunz
delivered!
Digital Aviation/Meteo Analyst
Posts: 1,956
|
Post by mtrunz on Oct 16, 2019 12:59:17 GMT 1
|
|
shpeex
spotted unpainted on the Flight Line (waiting for painting)
Posts: 1,141
|
Post by shpeex on Oct 16, 2019 13:46:18 GMT 1
It makes sense. To achieve real reduction of fuel consuming, you should made hybrid- and then electroplanes. The automotive industry has been on this path for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by addasih on Oct 16, 2019 19:49:28 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by fanairbus on Oct 17, 2019 13:34:51 GMT 1
Fantastic! Onwards through upwards.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Oct 18, 2019 15:12:47 GMT 1
It makes sense. To achieve real reduction of fuel consuming, you should made hybrid- and then electroplanes. The automotive industry has been on this path for a long time. Well, any shift to electric energy actually increases global hydrocarbon consumption, if production of electricity is taken into account (except if produced by hydraulic or nuclear power plants).
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Oct 18, 2019 16:15:10 GMT 1
It makes sense. To achieve real reduction of fuel consuming, you should made hybrid- and then electroplanes. The automotive industry has been on this path for a long time. Well, any shift to electric energy actually increases global hydrocarbon consumption, if production of electricity is taken into account (except if produced by hydraulic or nuclear power plants). About 15 - 20% of Uk electricity is generated by wind turbines !
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Oct 18, 2019 16:16:06 GMT 1
And don't forget solar power aswell 😀
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Nov 9, 2019 3:22:13 GMT 1
It makes sense. To achieve real reduction of fuel consuming, you should made hybrid- and then electroplanes. The automotive industry has been on this path for a long time. Well, any shift to electric energy actually increases global hydrocarbon consumption, if production of electricity is taken into account (except if produced by hydraulic or nuclear power plants). Forgetting wind, geothermal, solar, wave, ocean currents and perhaps things men has not yet thought about. If a similar financial subsidizing effort would be put into renewable energy as in nuclear power, we could see faster results. The biggest problem with nuclear power today is simply cost. The electricity from a modern power plant, a plant build to today's safety standards, outpaces in cost every other generation of electricity, including renewable. In Germany they are still subsidizing coal in some areas, because of the effect on the workforce the demise of lignite production would cause, and had done it over years, with the Kohlepfennig, for black coal. Black coal mining in Germany stopped, when the Kohlepfennig, the black coal subsidy every private user of electricity in Germany paid with his electricity bill, was cut. If power stations using coal would need to pay 1) to clean up their pollution and 2) would need to pay for producing CO2, the question about providers moving to coal would answer itself. If we talk about pollution from coal, I do not talk only about air, but for example ash from the power plants, slurry pools from washing the coal after mining. Nobody for example knows what to do with the residue of coal slurry, black water, and it piles up in impounds behind often unsafe dams. Let coal mining pay for cleaning up their coal slurry and that industry would crash. So just removing coal from the equitation and moving to natural gas instead, would half that carbon imprint and remove the problems with coal slurry and ash, at least from electrical power production. If we look at power stations run on fuel oil, we will see that most of them drop out because of the running cost in regards to buying the oil, add pollution charges and the rest disappears in a blink. The best way to enough energy is energy conservation, there are countries with similar standard of living and vastly diverging carbon foot print. If we look at aviation, we see a gigantic effort in the reduction of fuel use per mile flown, but that is overwhelmed by the growth in aviation. Aviation must not only do more to conserve energy, because of the danger to the environment, a danger many are not prepared to accept, but because of the change of mood at the end customer, because of the nimby around airports, politicians that have to explain to their constituency what they do against pollution, no fly movements like in Sweden. Aviation will have to adjust and earlier is better. While we wait for new technologies, aviation has to cut down on waste, every unnecessary use of energy and also move to use renewable wherever possible.
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Nov 9, 2019 13:44:48 GMT 1
Back to the aircraft itself, it ferried from Toulouse to Cranfield UK on Friday 8th Nov 2019 Maybe Cranfield Institute of Technology (CIT) are going to do the mods ?
BAe Avro RJ100 3379 G-WEFX Airbus ferried 08nov19 TLS-EGTC, E-FanX demonstrator, filed with reg F-WWFX
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Nov 9, 2019 16:42:31 GMT 1
Back to the aircraft itself, it ferried from Toulouse to Cranfield UK on Friday 8th Nov 2019 Maybe Cranfield Institute of Technology (CIT) are going to do the mods ? BAe Avro RJ100 3379 G-WEFX Airbus ferried 08nov19 TLS-EGTC, E-FanX demonstrator, filed with reg F-WWFX If I look at the video of Airbus describing the project, the right inner turbine is replaced by a motor with a fan inside the pod, so I did assume that all change is internal. I have looked at that video again and read something, that I did overlook, first flight of the demonstrator in 2021. So the flights seen up to now, may well be just for collecting data from the unchanged frame and the conversion is now starting.
|
|