Heathrow 3rd Runway.

[Derek Smith]

p1stonhead said:

AAGR said:

So, where can I buy shares in Gatwick, which now looks sure to get approval for its second runway .... ?

If the government isn’t appealing, surely it means they won’t bother putting one anywhere?

I'm not sure that there's anything here against the third runway. All the decision states is that the climate impact should have been considered. Once it has been considered, back to the third runway and the desperate hope that Johnson will get run over by a bulldozer.

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

p1stonhead said:

AAGR said:

So, where can I buy shares in Gatwick, which now looks sure to get approval for its second runway .... ?

If the government isn’t appealing, surely it means they won’t bother putting one anywhere?

I'm not sure that there's anything here against the third runway. All the decision states is that the climate impact should have been considered. Once it has been considered, back to the third runway and the desperate hope that Johnson will get run over by a bulldozer.

Bingo. Redo plans taking into account climate necessities, expansion continues albiet not done within a Chinese working week.

[surveyor]

Reciprocating mass said:

Eric Mc said:

Or develop another airport.

Blackbushe develop yateley common hawley woods
As the defence review axe Gibraltar barracks,
Or develop the land between Aldershot fleet and expand farnborough airport tin hat etc
Still you never no lol

You think stating again with a new airport will be any easier or quicker?

[Shakermaker]

AAGR said:

So, where can I buy shares in Gatwick, which now looks sure to get approval for its second runway .... ?

https://www.vinci.com/vinci.nsf/en/item/shareholders-buying-selling-vinci-shares.htm#:~:text=To%20place%20an%20order%20to,execution%20on%20the%20stock%20market.

[Mrr T]

Eric Mc said:

Or develop another airport.

That's always being proposed but the problem is 30% of Heathrow passangers are just transiting. This is a figure Heathrow and BA want to increase and it does not work if you have to move between two airports.

[Reciprocating mass]

surveyor said:

Reciprocating mass said:

Eric Mc said:

Or develop another airport.

Blackbushe develop yateley common hawley woods
As the defence review axe Gibraltar barracks,
Or develop the land between Aldershot fleet and expand farnborough airport tin hat etc
Still you never no lol

You think stating again with a new airport will be any easier or quicker?

I guess you missed the joke smiley and the tin hat comment

[rxe]

Sam.M said:

Yes, as I pointed out, its about energy density vs weight. As you can cram more energy density into a lighter battery, battery powered planes become possible.

If you do a bit of googling you'll find declining cost and weight curves for batteries as well as increasing energy density.

Tesla is leading the way on this. April brings with it "Battery Day" when Tesla talk about their latest battery innovations, implementing Maxwells dry cell tech is likely to bring with it both increases in energy density and decreases in weight.

We're perhaps 5 years away from batteries both light and powerful enough to be used in planes. Bear in mind most of the energy used is getting airborne, cruise energy is minimal and batteries can be charged through controlled glide.

Edited by Sam.M on Thursday 27th February 11:03

bks.

Run the numbers on the amount of energy a 737 uses, and work out how many batteries are needed. It’s about 200 tonnes using today’s technology, assuming jets are about 40% efficient. There is no known technology to reduce the battery weight by an order of magnitude.

Yes, most power is used for take off, but take off and climb are a short period. Cruise power is not minimal, and when the plane is “gliding” (aka descending), it is still powered. If you attempt to “glide” an airliner, it will hit the ground in about 20 - 40 miles.

Anybody can design a light plane that runs on batteries for 20 minutes. Flying with 60 tonnes of passengers and luggage is a slightly different problem.

[Lotobear]

Sam.M said:

• Geniuses

Yes, China can do that because they're a centrally planned economy where life is cheap and workers are expendable.

If you're advocating for the kind of centralised authoritarian governmental structure that allows for this kind of rapid roughshod production then I'll consider your opinions to be somewhat lacking and pay little attention them going forward.

Of course that's not to say there aren't planning improvements that could be made here, but still.

Edited by Sam.M on Thursday 27th February 11:02

Genii?

[p1stonhead]

rxe said:

Sam.M said:

Yes, as I pointed out, its about energy density vs weight. As you can cram more energy density into a lighter battery, battery powered planes become possible.

If you do a bit of googling you'll find declining cost and weight curves for batteries as well as increasing energy density.

Tesla is leading the way on this. April brings with it "Battery Day" when Tesla talk about their latest battery innovations, implementing Maxwells dry cell tech is likely to bring with it both increases in energy density and decreases in weight.

We're perhaps 5 years away from batteries both light and powerful enough to be used in planes. Bear in mind most of the energy used is getting airborne, cruise energy is minimal and batteries can be charged through controlled glide.

Edited by Sam.M on Thursday 27th February 11:03

bks.

Run the numbers on the amount of energy a 737 uses, and work out how many batteries are needed. It’s about 200 tonnes using today’s technology, assuming jets are about 40% efficient. There is no known technology to reduce the battery weight by an order of magnitude.

Yes, most power is used for take off, but take off and climb are a short period. Cruise power is not minimal, and when the plane is “gliding” (aka descending), it is still powered. If you attempt to “glide” an airliner, it will hit the ground in about 20 - 40 miles.

Anybody can design a light plane that runs on batteries for 20 minutes. Flying with 60 tonnes of passengers and luggage is a slightly different problem.

I didn’t bother to respond but my thoughts were more along the lines of what you said. That it’s not even worth looking at right now.

[100SRV]

Sam.M said:

Battery powered planes will come, once the kg/kwh of batteries gets low enough. Musk has a design already with regenerative glide charging.

Following from the first law of thermodynamics no doubt.

[anonymous-user]

rxe said:

Sam.M said:

Yes, as I pointed out, its about energy density vs weight. As you can cram more energy density into a lighter battery, battery powered planes become possible.

If you do a bit of googling you'll find declining cost and weight curves for batteries as well as increasing energy density.

Tesla is leading the way on this. April brings with it "Battery Day" when Tesla talk about their latest battery innovations, implementing Maxwells dry cell tech is likely to bring with it both increases in energy density and decreases in weight.

We're perhaps 5 years away from batteries both light and powerful enough to be used in planes. Bear in mind most of the energy used is getting airborne, cruise energy is minimal and batteries can be charged through controlled glide.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 27th February 11:03

bks.

Run the numbers on the amount of energy a 737 uses, and work out how many batteries are needed. It’s about 200 tonnes using today’s technology, assuming jets are about 40% efficient. There is no known technology to reduce the battery weight by an order of magnitude.

Yes, most power is used for take off, but take off and climb are a short period. Cruise power is not minimal, and when the plane is “gliding” (aka descending), it is still powered. If you attempt to “glide” an airliner, it will hit the ground in about 20 - 40 miles.

Anybody can design a light plane that runs on batteries for 20 minutes. Flying with 60 tonnes of passengers and luggage is a slightly different problem.

You’re imagining existing planes retrofitted. I don’t see that as viable.

It’s simply a matter of energy density, which is improving exponentially right now.

I’ll let the man whose delivered on everything he’s promised so far make the case for electric planes

https://youtu.be/We7CZ0aw1HY

Would you care to place a wager?

£1000 Tesla/Musk electric plane by 2030?

[Robertj21a]

Mrr T said:

That's always being proposed but the problem is 30% of Heathrow passangers are just transiting. This is a figure Heathrow and BA want to increase and it does not work if you have to move between two airports.

Always a struggle to comprehend why we need to cater for 30% who are merely using us to pass through to somewhere else.......

[p1stonhead]

Sam.M said:

rxe said:

Sam.M said:

Yes, as I pointed out, its about energy density vs weight. As you can cram more energy density into a lighter battery, battery powered planes become possible.

If you do a bit of googling you'll find declining cost and weight curves for batteries as well as increasing energy density.

Tesla is leading the way on this. April brings with it "Battery Day" when Tesla talk about their latest battery innovations, implementing Maxwells dry cell tech is likely to bring with it both increases in energy density and decreases in weight.

We're perhaps 5 years away from batteries both light and powerful enough to be used in planes. Bear in mind most of the energy used is getting airborne, cruise energy is minimal and batteries can be charged through controlled glide.

Edited by Sam.M on Thursday 27th February 11:03

bks.

Run the numbers on the amount of energy a 737 uses, and work out how many batteries are needed. It’s about 200 tonnes using today’s technology, assuming jets are about 40% efficient. There is no known technology to reduce the battery weight by an order of magnitude.

Yes, most power is used for take off, but take off and climb are a short period. Cruise power is not minimal, and when the plane is “gliding” (aka descending), it is still powered. If you attempt to “glide” an airliner, it will hit the ground in about 20 - 40 miles.

Anybody can design a light plane that runs on batteries for 20 minutes. Flying with 60 tonnes of passengers and luggage is a slightly different problem.

You’re imagining existing planes retrofitted. I don’t see that as viable.

I’ll let the man whose delivered on everything he’s promised so far make the case for electric planes

https://youtu.be/We7CZ0aw1HY

Would you care to place a wager?

£1000 Tesla/Musk electric plane by 2030?

Making an electric car is nothing to do with making an electric plane. Musk isn’t god and can’t cheat physics. He’s made some electric cars but so have other people now they see it can make money.

[surveyor]

Reciprocating mass said:

surveyor said:

Reciprocating mass said:

Eric Mc said:

Or develop another airport.

Blackbushe develop yateley common hawley woods
As the defence review axe Gibraltar barracks,
Or develop the land between Aldershot fleet and expand farnborough airport tin hat etc
Still you never no lol

You think stating again with a new airport will be any easier or quicker?

I guess you missed the joke smiley and the tin hat comment

More aimed at eric. Gosh you need to be quick in this area of PH....

[anonymous-user]

p1stonhead said:

Sam.M said:

rxe said:

Sam.M said:

Yes, as I pointed out, its about energy density vs weight. As you can cram more energy density into a lighter battery, battery powered planes become possible.

If you do a bit of googling you'll find declining cost and weight curves for batteries as well as increasing energy density.

Tesla is leading the way on this. April brings with it "Battery Day" when Tesla talk about their latest battery innovations, implementing Maxwells dry cell tech is likely to bring with it both increases in energy density and decreases in weight.

We're perhaps 5 years away from batteries both light and powerful enough to be used in planes. Bear in mind most of the energy used is getting airborne, cruise energy is minimal and batteries can be charged through controlled glide.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 27th February 11:03

bks.

Run the numbers on the amount of energy a 737 uses, and work out how many batteries are needed. It’s about 200 tonnes using today’s technology, assuming jets are about 40% efficient. There is no known technology to reduce the battery weight by an order of magnitude.

Yes, most power is used for take off, but take off and climb are a short period. Cruise power is not minimal, and when the plane is “gliding” (aka descending), it is still powered. If you attempt to “glide” an airliner, it will hit the ground in about 20 - 40 miles.

Anybody can design a light plane that runs on batteries for 20 minutes. Flying with 60 tonnes of passengers and luggage is a slightly different problem.

You’re imagining existing planes retrofitted. I don’t see that as viable.

I’ll let the man whose delivered on everything he’s promised so far make the case for electric planes

https://youtu.be/We7CZ0aw1HY

Would you care to place a wager?

£1000 Tesla/Musk electric plane by 2030?

Making an electric car is nothing to do with making an electric plane. Musk isn’t god and can’t cheat physics.

So you’ll take my bet? Easy money for you, no?

[p1stonhead]

Sam.M said:

p1stonhead said:

Sam.M said:

rxe said:

Sam.M said:

Yes, as I pointed out, its about energy density vs weight. As you can cram more energy density into a lighter battery, battery powered planes become possible.

If you do a bit of googling you'll find declining cost and weight curves for batteries as well as increasing energy density.

Tesla is leading the way on this. April brings with it "Battery Day" when Tesla talk about their latest battery innovations, implementing Maxwells dry cell tech is likely to bring with it both increases in energy density and decreases in weight.

We're perhaps 5 years away from batteries both light and powerful enough to be used in planes. Bear in mind most of the energy used is getting airborne, cruise energy is minimal and batteries can be charged through controlled glide.

Edited by Sam.M on Thursday 27th February 11:03

bks.

Run the numbers on the amount of energy a 737 uses, and work out how many batteries are needed. It’s about 200 tonnes using today’s technology, assuming jets are about 40% efficient. There is no known technology to reduce the battery weight by an order of magnitude.

Yes, most power is used for take off, but take off and climb are a short period. Cruise power is not minimal, and when the plane is “gliding” (aka descending), it is still powered. If you attempt to “glide” an airliner, it will hit the ground in about 20 - 40 miles.

Anybody can design a light plane that runs on batteries for 20 minutes. Flying with 60 tonnes of passengers and luggage is a slightly different problem.

You’re imagining existing planes retrofitted. I don’t see that as viable.

I’ll let the man whose delivered on everything he’s promised so far make the case for electric planes

https://youtu.be/We7CZ0aw1HY

Would you care to place a wager?

£1000 Tesla/Musk electric plane by 2030?

Making an electric car is nothing to do with making an electric plane. Musk isn’t god and can’t cheat physics.

So you’ll take my bet? Easy money for you, no?

Ok then for charity. And if either of us are still on here in ten years. A commercial airliner (200 passengers say) run only by batteries and designed by Musk.

Deal.

And it can’t be £10k a ticket it has to be comparable to current pricing of flights.

[Eric Mc]

surveyor said:

Sam.M said:

Eric Mc said:

Why do you say that?

The usual PH extrapolation to an absolute from a single datapoint.

article said:

But the judges said that in future, a third runway could go ahead, as long as it fits with the UK's climate commitments.

Work it out genius's.

Some countries can get a hospital built in a week. Our infrastructure projects take a decade or more to get beyond the desk.

There's a balance somewhere - and we are on the extreme side.

Good.

It means we take our time before massively disrupting peoples' lives.

[rxe]

Sam.M said:

You’re imagining existing planes retrofitted. I don’t see that as viable.

I’ll let the man whose delivered on everything he’s promised so far make the case for electric planes

https://youtu.be/We7CZ0aw1HY

Would you care to place a wager?

£1000 Tesla/Musk electric plane by 2030?

That man is also going to Mars year after next. Apparently.

Light aircraft with short range - sure - airbus already have one.

Commercial passenger planes (flying wing or otherwise) - not a chance.

[anonymous-user]

p1stonhead said:

Sam.M said:

p1stonhead said:

Sam.M said:

rxe said:

Sam.M said:

Yes, as I pointed out, its about energy density vs weight. As you can cram more energy density into a lighter battery, battery powered planes become possible.

If you do a bit of googling you'll find declining cost and weight curves for batteries as well as increasing energy density.

Tesla is leading the way on this. April brings with it "Battery Day" when Tesla talk about their latest battery innovations, implementing Maxwells dry cell tech is likely to bring with it both increases in energy density and decreases in weight.

We're perhaps 5 years away from batteries both light and powerful enough to be used in planes. Bear in mind most of the energy used is getting airborne, cruise energy is minimal and batteries can be charged through controlled glide.

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 27th February 11:03

bks.

Run the numbers on the amount of energy a 737 uses, and work out how many batteries are needed. It’s about 200 tonnes using today’s technology, assuming jets are about 40% efficient. There is no known technology to reduce the battery weight by an order of magnitude.

Yes, most power is used for take off, but take off and climb are a short period. Cruise power is not minimal, and when the plane is “gliding” (aka descending), it is still powered. If you attempt to “glide” an airliner, it will hit the ground in about 20 - 40 miles.

Anybody can design a light plane that runs on batteries for 20 minutes. Flying with 60 tonnes of passengers and luggage is a slightly different problem.

You’re imagining existing planes retrofitted. I don’t see that as viable.

I’ll let the man whose delivered on everything he’s promised so far make the case for electric planes

https://youtu.be/We7CZ0aw1HY

Would you care to place a wager?

£1000 Tesla/Musk electric plane by 2030?

Making an electric car is nothing to do with making an electric plane. Musk isn’t god and can’t cheat physics.

So you’ll take my bet? Easy money for you, no?

Ok then for charity. And if either of us are still on here in ten years. A commercial airliner (200 passengers say) run only by batteries and designed by Musk.

Deal.

And it can’t be £10k a ticket it has to be comparable to current pricing of flights.

Good stuff.

[p1stonhead]

rxe said:

Sam.M said:

You’re imagining existing planes retrofitted. I don’t see that as viable.

I’ll let the man whose delivered on everything he’s promised so far make the case for electric planes

https://youtu.be/We7CZ0aw1HY

Would you care to place a wager?

£1000 Tesla/Musk electric plane by 2030?

That man is also going to Mars year after next. Apparently.

Light aircraft with short range - sure - airbus already have one.

Commercial passenger planes (flying wing or otherwise) - not a chance.

Join in. Free £1000 chap!