Green Energy Tycoon To Launch UK's First Electric Airline (theguardian.com) 69
Dale Vince, the green energy tycoon and founder of Ecotricity, is planning to launch Britain's first electric airline called Ecojet. The Guardian reports: Ecojet, styled as a "flag carrier for green Britain," will launch early next year with a 19-seater plane traveling on a route between Edinburgh and Southampton. The planes will run initially on kerosene-based fuel for the first year, before being retrofitted with engines that convert green hydrogen into electricity. The airline will launch with several green-striped 19-seater planes capable of traveling for 300 miles. Vince hopes to expand the number of routes out to cover all of Britain's big cities. Staff will wear environmentally friendly uniforms, and serve plant-based meals.
A second phase, 18 months later, will result in 70-seater planes capable of flying to Europe being introduced. The company is in the process of applying for a license from the Civil Aviation Authority and securing takeoff and landing slots at airports. However, the process of launching an airline is regarded as slow, and Ecojet will not launch as an electric plane operator, starting by using kerosene-based fuel instead. [...] Vince said Ecojet would "price match" existing airlines on air fares and was intended to attract a mass market, beyond environment-conscious consumers. He said he would invest one million pounds initially but plans to raise further funds next year.
A second phase, 18 months later, will result in 70-seater planes capable of flying to Europe being introduced. The company is in the process of applying for a license from the Civil Aviation Authority and securing takeoff and landing slots at airports. However, the process of launching an airline is regarded as slow, and Ecojet will not launch as an electric plane operator, starting by using kerosene-based fuel instead. [...] Vince said Ecojet would "price match" existing airlines on air fares and was intended to attract a mass market, beyond environment-conscious consumers. He said he would invest one million pounds initially but plans to raise further funds next year.
So Jet Fuel? (Score:5, Interesting)
It will initially start with "kerosene based fuel." Isn't Jet A basically the same thing as kerosene? They seem to be creating a conventional short haul airline with hopes and dreams about electric or hydrogen airplanes coming around some day. Delusions of grandeur about being a "flag carrier" (basically saying they are planning on replacing British Airways) doesn't help their case.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
coming around some day
Wow, nitpicking again?
"Some day" means eventually never.
They explicitly said: in one year.
Why the fuck all that hostility towards people who actually DO something?
Re:So Jet Fuel? (Score:5, Informative)
Why the fuck all that hostility towards people who actually DO something?
Not hostility. Just skepticism.
"Green hydrogen" isn't very green and has a long history of being promoted by charlatans.
Re: (Score:2)
Either it is green hydrogen or it is not.
The other types are blue and grey.
Re:So Jet Fuel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Either it is green hydrogen or it is not.
"Green hydrogen" is made by electrolysis using electricity from renewable sources, such as wind and solar.
But that is an inefficient process, and for most schemes, is worse than feeding the renewable energy into the grid where it offsets fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
But that is an inefficient process, and for most schemes, is worse than feeding the renewable energy into the grid where it offsets fossil fuels.
His usual tactic is to charge a bit of a premium, and use the extra money to invest in more renewable generation. So that energy may be better spent flying if it leads to more renewables on the grid, with a lifespan of 20+ years.
At this stage he is trying to prove that such an airline is feasible, and that people might even pay a little more to use it. In the UK it is not uncommon to have emissions factored into the bidding process or negotiations for contracts. Being able to spend a few quid extra to get a
Re: (Score:2)
At this stage he is trying to prove that such an airline is feasible, and that people might even pay a little more to use it.
The article explicitly states: "Vince said Ecojet would “price match” existing airlines on air fares and was intended to attract a mass market, beyond environment-conscious consumers."
This is the part I think is just wishful thinking. Negative externalities have to be paid at some point, and price matching existing airlines fares will not achieve that.
And by the way, those flights wouldn't even be net zero... you would only get zero emissions from burning hydrogen, but you still get emissions fr
Re: (Score:2)
And by the way, those flights wouldn't even be net zero...
But they could be a LOT less than other flights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I don't personally think he can pull it off. Developing the aircraft will cost a crapload of money and there's no existing hydrogen infrastructure at any airports. Who's going to pay to install it?
Re: (Score:2)
But they could be a LOT less than other flights.
Given the poor efficiency of hydrogen production (through electrolysis, as we are talking about green hydrogen), the CO2 costs of electricity production (even renewables generate CO2, on-par with nuclear by the way), the CO2 costs of manufacturing the planes, and the CO2 costs of the related infrastructure, not that much. And certainly not enough to make flying compatible even with a +4C scenario, in which flying will be the least of our concerns anyway.
Again, this is the same story as for EVs. EVs emit abo
Re: (Score:2)
EVs emit about half the CO2 emissions of an ICE vehicle over their lifetime
That is complete nonsense. Would not even be remotely true if their power came from coal plants.
Lol, just lol. How stupid are you?
Re: (Score:2)
That is complete nonsense. Would not even be remotely true if their power came from coal plants.
A lot of recent (and not so recent) studies show that. Like the one linked in this article [visualcapitalist.com]. As you can see from the infographics, over 16 years and 240k kms:
- an EV will generate about 39 tons CO2eq
- an ICE will generate about 55 tons of CO2eq
That's 30% less, so not even half, as I originally said. I will save you some time (or you can read the actual Polestar and Rivian pathway study [kearney.com]): this is by using the carbon intensity of the global average electricity mix (worldwide). Something like 460g CO2eq/kWh. A
Re: (Score:1)
- an EV will generate about 39 tons CO2eq
- an ICE will generate about 55 tons of CO2eq
And that is obviously wrong.
So, what is your point?
To stupid to see that the link you gave is wrong?
If 100% of the power for the EV comes from coal, it still only produces < 10%, probably only about 5% of the CO2. Because: it is that much more efficient than a gasoline car. Facepalm.
Re: (Score:1)
Either it is green hydrogen or it is not.
"Green hydrogen" is made by electrolysis using electricity from renewable sources, such as wind and solar.
But that is an inefficient process, and for most schemes, is worse than feeding the renewable energy into the grid where it offsets fossil fuels.
Green hydrogen is inefficient if you use electrolyzer stolen from some kid's science fair stand, after unhooking it from his potato battery. Modern, industrial scale electrolysis can be done close to 90% and still improving. We already have periods where due to overcapacity energy price is negative, and this will only get worse as share of renewables increases, so just run your plant only when energy is cheap and you don't even have to care about efficiency. And guess what, "feeding that energy into grid" w
Re: (Score:2)
"for most schemes, is worse than feeding the renewable energy into the grid where it offsets fossil fuels"
The "for most schemes" clause is doing a lot of work, especially when the topic is specifically an energy consumer that cannot be connected to the grid while in use.
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing inefficient in it.
It is as it is.
And if you need/want hydrogen: where is the efficient gain if you feed your electricity into the grid?
As far as I can see: efficiency drops to ZERO if you do that.
Ah, you mean the electric plane that flys on hydrogen, should instead hang down a wire following train tracks and draw power from there? Makes sense. If it flies low, it can use the electricity directly without a fuel cell. Might be tricky in an emergency. But the efficiency gain might be worth it!
Re: (Score:2)
On my grid my solar power seldomly gets pushed onto the grid because there are too many solar panels in my neighbourhood, and I'm like 100m from a 150kV substation. The inverter gives up and I only end up pushing power at dusk or dawn.
I know, I know, I could install a battery but it's a fairly expensive solution... Maybe I'll go there once my inverter goes tits up. It would be a lot better if the electricity company would just convert all that extra power into green hydrogen and either sell it off to cars o
Re: (Score:2)
A 1kWh battery is not expensive. ...
Not even a 10kWh is
But perhaps you are an edge case were a battery makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Dale Vince has a track record of delivering. He created a green energy firm because it was fashionable, and invested the profits back into building even more renewable energy. He build the first EV charging network in the UK, and kept his promise to be at every motorway service area. It was even free for many years.
I'm pretty confident he will deliver on this too. He doesn't seem to be the sort of guy who makes wild promises that he isn't sure he can fulfil.
Re: (Score:2)
They explicitly said: in one year.
Yep. Sure. They will retrofit a kerosene-based airplane, which is basically... an airplane like we all know today, to use hydrogen, in one year. Good luck with that, but anyone who had a look at hydrogen-based airplanes knows the timing is sketchy. The guy looks nice and good-willing though. He does not take flights himself actually, even though he intends to with his new airline (although he doesn't say if that is when it will burn hydrogen, or while it will burn kerosene).
Also, from his interview: "at the
Re: (Score:2)
And what has your rant to do with it?
If they are not starting to retrofit in a year, then you can rant ...
talking about a x2 or x3 increase compared to what we use today. ... which is operating in a niche market. The amount of electricity they need is completely neglect able.
We are talking about a single airline
And you want it to be from low-CO2 emitting sources, like solar, wind, nuclear, hydro.
Yeah, strange that the airline is placed in an area that is full with: wind and hydro, and actually has solar, to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably less of an issue for an aeroplane that is not using batteries but hydrogen, which has a energy mass density greater than kerosene.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares about the energy density of batteries in Airplanes ?? Which do not run on batteries?
Only idiots who are not able to read the summary or the article ... welcome idiot.
We need a drastic leap forward in energy storing tech BEFORE this is a thing, not after.
We made that 50 or 70 years ago: 200atmosphere and more *plastic* tanks holding hydrogen. I mean: it is literally in the article. And how hydrogen storages works, you read up, in case you spent the recent 50 - 70 years under a rock.
We have the year
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So Jet Fuel? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's because electric jets are a bit infeasible except in very narrow regions of flights. Harbour Air in BC, Canada, can operate electic aircraft because most of its flights are around 20 minutes of flight time and they're only flying a set schedule, so charging in-between flights is feasible.
Flying is difficult for electricity because unlike cars, flight requires a constant high powered engine setting. Your car may have a 400HP engine, but other than short bursts, it's likely only producing about 10-20HP as you cruise along at a constant speed - the engine is only providing power to overcome the losses.
An aircraft though will often have engine settings that rely on higher power settings for hours. For example, the engine may be rated at 150HP and you'll fly at 70% cruise power setting, that's running at 105HP coninuously. This requires far more engineering to be reliable for hours at a high power setting. This also means the batteries will be drained at a far higher rate - after all, if you're running at 105HP that's whats your battery is being drained at.
It's the same reason that makes hybrid aircraft equally unsuitable - hybrids rely heavily on the fact the car engine is rarely running at its most efficient region and thus can either run the engine in its efficient zone and supply or soak up the excess energy as well as getting energy back via regen. But none of that happens in aircraft - you don't spend much time in the inefficient regions of operation, at least not enough where you might make a meaningful contribution.
Unless there's some form of mega breakthrough in battery technology, I don't see electric aircraft as anything more than short-hop ultra short haul services.
Re: (Score:1)
I would assume a business man who is actually in the hydrogen business, has a better plan how he wants to run his business than your moronic attitude. Actually: he knows stuff. You don't. You make stuff up.
E.g. This also means the batteries will be drained at a far higher rate - after all, if you're running at 105HP that's whats your battery is being drained at.
No, your batteries are drained at 105HP 'rate' which is _lower_ than the 150HP rate. A no brainer.
The rest of your post makes no sense either. I wou
Re: So Jet Fuel? (Score:2)
They are using planes with a range of 300 miles, the same as most EVs, and will run on Kerosene Neil they can retro-fit their planes with engines still under development.
Why not wait the year and avoid the expense of retro-fitting the engines on their planes?
Are there really that many people that want to fly between those two cities? (I simply have no idea)
How does cost compare with other, conventional, airlines for similar flights?
That 300 mile range is really short, esp if you subtract a portion of the ra
Re: (Score:2)
He needs a viable set of routes to make buying and retrofitting the planes worthwhile.
And to get and hold a set of routes, he needs a set of aeroplanes.
And to use the planes he needs a set of routes with hydrogen infrastructure.
Classic bootstrap problem. Solution. But carbon intensive planes to get the routes, then retrofit them over time, while also developing the infrastructure in places that you have the routes to supply the hydrogen. Otherwise, you have to do it all at once.
300 miles is city to city in
Re: (Score:2)
On top of Phillips explanation: the two cities in question have no direct flight route connection. Going by train is routed on a detour via London.
As we are talking about Scotland: a road trip might be pretty elongated and curvy.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you're not ready for our electric plane. Maybe it's more of a Shelbyville idea.
Re: (Score:1)
Except that local grid couldn't handle this, so EVs were recharged from portable diesel generators. So these were least environmentally friendly cars on the road.
Now, did they use fossil fuels to run the generators, or did they use bio-diesel from waste vegetable oil? That would be pretty carbon neutral if they did.
Re: (Score:1)
Except that local grid couldn't handle this, so EVs were recharged from portable diesel generators. So these were least environmentally friendly cars on the road.
Now, did they use fossil fuels to run the generators, or did they use bio-diesel from waste vegetable oil? That would be pretty carbon neutral if they did.
No it wouldn't. We generally don't have a surplus of biofuels, so even if they bought biodiesel, it means some other guy somewhere else had to burn regular diesel instead of bio. But of course they do get to feel smug about it.
Re: So Jet Fuel? (Score:2)
Now, did they use fossil fuels to run the generators, or did they use bio-diesel from waste vegetable oil? That would be pretty carbon neutral if they did.
I thought the carbon footprint of diesel or bio-diesel was defined by the emissions from the burning of the fuel, not the source of it... Do bio-diesel fuels burn without producing greenhouse gases, do they produce less greenhouse gasses, or are they on-par with 'regular' diesel?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So Jet Fuel? (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe it's not all about the appearances ? Maybe these people are genuinely trying to do something better ?
If they wanted to do something better then they'd do the research on what works rather than follow what is popular. Electric vehicles are popular but they don't work. By "not work" I mean they don't reduce CO2 emissions, not that we can't make them move people and cargo. We've seen demonstrations of electric trucks moving cargo but when the CO2 emissions are added up there's no real benefit over moving cargo by diesel trucks.
The claim is that this is an "electric airline" but in the description we find out they are actually using hydrogen fuel. Is the hydrogen produced by electricity? Perhaps that is how they get to "electric airline". If the hydrogen is made by electrolysis then they will lose money, electrolysis is not efficient. What may prove viable is hydrogen from a thermal-chemical process, something that needs very high temperatures to work, temperatures that concentrated solar thermal cannot reach and would be impractical from windmills and hydroelectric. It sounds like they plan to use fuel cells so the hydrogen produced electricity on the plane, and that might also explain "electric airline". If this is the case then they will lose money. Fuel cells are complicated, delicate, and expensive. Not only that but hydrogen is very difficult to store, and if they figured out a practical means to store hydrogen as a fuel on a converted turboprop airplane then choosing to burn the hydrogen as fuel in a turboprop engine would be far more practical than fuel cells and electric motors.
These people are likely seeking investment by playing "buzzword bingo". If they actually believe this will work then they are quite ignorant of the engineering troubles they face. I suspect that they do know this won't work, but they will see how long they can string investors along so as to collect a salary and hide away as much money as they can to keep paying themselves after this all falls apart.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You could read where the air line is operating.
I mean in terms of Geography.
If the hydrogen is made by electrolysis then they will lose money,
No, how can you lose money if you use free energy and onyl need to store and transport hydrogen, which you use up yourself?
temperatures that concentrated solar thermal cannot reach
That is fortunately: plain wrong
Fuel cells are complicated, delicate, and expensive
That is also plain wrong. They are basically the most simplest way to produce DC after a child made pota
Re: So Jet Fuel? (Score:2)
If an electric car has the same CO2 emissions as a petrol or diesel car, itâ(TM)s still a massive improvement. Especially in a city like London that suffers immensely from the local pollution caused by internal combustion engines.
Re: So Jet Fuel? (Score:2)
They chose to meet in-person, which required travel, which increased their carbon footprint.
Were Zoom meetings not an option?
Re: (Score:2)
It will initially start with "kerosene based fuel." Isn't Jet A basically the same thing as kerosene? They seem to be creating a conventional short haul airline with hopes and dreams about electric or hydrogen airplanes coming around some day. Delusions of grandeur about being a "flag carrier" (basically saying they are planning on replacing British Airways) doesn't help their case.
Yep, the spokesmoron was basically spewing terms they which they had no idea what they meant.
Reading the article, the plane is a hybrid, burning fuel to produce electricity to spin the fan-like thingies that make thrust. The problem is this is no doubt going to cost a premium and Loganair pretty much have the SOU - EDI route buttoned up. Even BA barely bothers competing. More over, this is a 19 seat propeller driven craft that looks like the bastard offspring of a skyvan and a crop duster, it's not going
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you are correct.
Their first planes will burn conventional jat fuel, just like any other jet.
If their planes can easily be retrofitted to burn hydrogen instead, then why can't everybody else's?
Re: So Jet Fuel? (Score:2)
First, the engines have to be designed, built, tested, and certified for use on commercial passenger-carrying planes... They don't exist right now, but they feel a great need to add their little (19 seater) plane on these sub-300 mile routes RIGHT NOW.
Re: (Score:1)
Why would anyone wishing to make a electric plane first make the plane with a regular fuel engine first? Y We will end up unnecessary design to cater to a regular engine with all its piping/controls/sensors etc. Even with cars companies are redesigning the chassis to properly accomdate a electric motor and battery and charger etc. For a plane, weight and unnecessary structural items are of even more importance. So, the story line sounds unreasonable.
Re: So Jet Fuel? (Score:2)
Are they re-inventing the airplane, or are they hoping to retro-fit new engines on a currently available commercial air frame? I suspect the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they can fool investors, but not anyone who has ever had to build something in a highly regulated industry. There is no way they are going to take a type-certified passenger aircraft and retrofit their completely novel propulsion system into it and expect to carry passengers anytime soon. Trying to re-engineer the aircraft is crazy. It would probably be a better idea to just design a new aircraft for their propulsion system.
Let the train take the strain (Score:3)
It is possible to travel by train from (central) Edinburgh to (central) Southampton - https://www.thetrainline.com/b... [thetrainline.com]
The major hassle is that the majority of the trains go via London. Even so, the trains carry more than 19 people and are electric for much of the route.
Re:Let the train take the strain (Score:5, Informative)
Transport systems need multiple options. The exact locations of stations and airports, journey timings, price, and individual needs and preferences will determine whether any given passenger would be better off going by plane, train or car. Having a quick look at a booking site, Edinburgh to Southampton by rail is typically 7 hours plus, with 1-3 changes, so basically you're spending a whole working day travelling, whereas a direct flight is 1.5 hours, so I'm guessing for most business travellers, flying would be a no-brainer.
Re: (Score:2)
The changes are a PITA, unfortunately London seems to be the only hub that the train operators consider.
I would dispute your estimate for travel time, though. First, you have to get to Edinburgh airport, which is outside the city centre, then you have to check in and go through security, both of which will add time to your journey. Once you get to Southampton airport, which is actually in Eastleigh, you then have to take a shuttle into Southampton itself. All of this adds time to your journey.
You have to co
Re:Let the train take the strain (Score:5, Informative)
That's assuming your starting point is the city centre close to the rail station. A lot of journeys are going to start from other locations, some of which will be closer to the airport.
Plus you have to consider waiting time for both options - checking in early for the flight, arriving at the station early for the train, and waiting for your connecting trains.
Plus the train travel time of 7 hours vs the flight time (around 45 mins) leaves a lot of extra time even if the airport is further away from your start/end points.
Re: (Score:2)
That's assuming your starting point is the city centre close to the rail station. A lot of journeys are going to start from other locations, some of which will be closer to the airport.
Plus you have to consider waiting time for both options - checking in early for the flight, arriving at the station early for the train, and waiting for your connecting trains.
You'd need both airports to happen to be on the right side of the departure and destination cities. My local airport is 15 minutes away from me because I live on the outskirts on north-west of the city, but if I lived on the other side of the city, it would be an hour to get there.
For EU flights I usually show up an hour before the flight, for trains you can do like 10-15 minutes if you know the train station and don't have to run around it like a lost tourist.
Obviously the current sate of rail is a mess so
Re: (Score:2)
Transport systems need multiple options. The exact locations of stations and airports, journey timings, price, and individual needs and preferences will determine whether any given passenger would be better off going by plane, train or car. Having a quick look at a booking site, Edinburgh to Southampton by rail is typically 7 hours plus, with 1-3 changes, so basically you're spending a whole working day travelling, whereas a direct flight is 1.5 hours, so I'm guessing for most business travellers, flying would be a no-brainer.
Edinburgh to Southampton doesn't really need an air route though. It just needs a non-fucked HSR but that might be too much to ask from the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
The major hassle is that the majority of the trains go via London.
No the major hassle is that the majority of the trains are in the UK. So they will cost 5x as much as flying and be just as slow as driving even with M1 afternoon traffic taken into account.
I train everywhere. Have trained all over Europe. My experience in the UK is the only one that makes eastern Poland look good, but at least Poland was cheap.
The UK needs to really pull it's finger out when offering train services.
Re: (Score:3)
No the major hassle is that the majority of the trains are in the UK. So they will cost 5x as much as flying and be just as slow as driving even with M1 afternoon traffic taken into account.
I live north of Edinburgh, my two daughters live in London and Manchester. Good luck getting to either faster than the train.
The UK needs to really pull it's finger out when offering train services.
Agreed, we have had a car culture since the time of Thatcher, who never travelled on a train. We need to include energy costs within the cost of travel and decide what we want to do in terms of moving towards a zero-carbon economy. Almost certainly, this means increasing the capacity oh the railways, and making it more affordable.
Unfortunately, the ongoing HS2 debacle shows how bad we
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck getting to either faster than the train.
Errr plane. London definitely faster (and cheaper). Manchester is definitely a win by train and Transpennie (I misspelled that I'm sure) is far more reliable than LNER.
We need to include energy costs within the cost of travel and decide what we want to do in terms of moving towards a zero-carbon economy.
We need to, but we won't. No one does. Until the externalities are priced into the ticket itself people will continue to work in their own self interest. That's why laws such as the ones France pushed recently banning ultra short flights are so important. Although in some cases airlines are starting to come around (KLM no longer fly Shiphol
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, the London-centric nature of the rail system is a problem, especially because changing involves faffing about on the tube, but on the whole, the UK's rail service is pretty average for Europe [bcg.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Looks like there is no direct train, you have to change at least once and up to 3 times on some routes. It also seems to take around 7 hours which basically means dedicating a whole day to travel. For a journey of that length you're also going to want to eat at some point, which means the limited selection and inflated prices of food available on the train.
Also 19 is very low capacity for a commercial aircraft, something like an airbus a320 or boeing 737 which is what a traditional airline would use for a r
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible to travel by train from (central) Edinburgh to (central) Southampton - https://www.thetrainline.com/b... [thetrainline.com]
The major hassle is that the majority of the trains go via London. Even so, the trains carry more than 19 people and are electric for much of the route.
Honestly, if I were going from Southampton to Edinburg, I'd consider driving. Even with my old 3L German motor it would probably be just as cheap as flying or taking the train. The problem with the train is that you're changing in London, so you'll need to get between London Paddington where the train from Southampton arrives and probably Kings Cross to get the one to Edinburg.
Re: (Score:1)
Green Energy Tycoon would invest one million pound (Score:2)
"Green Hydrogen" (Score:2)
What is 'green hydrogen?' Is it different from regular hydrogen?
A: Hydrogen is hydrogen, and you can't tell what it was produced from by inspection.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends upon the production method.
Green hydrogen - produced via green processes, IE Electrolysis using solar/wind energy, or similar.
Brown hydrogen - made via gassification of coal.
Blue hydrogen - natural gas via steam reformation.
Etc...
"Staff will wear environmentally friendly uniforms (Score:2)
What? Not nude?
Launching the UK's first electric airline (Score:1)