How electrical propulsion will change the world | Nikhil Sachdeva | TEDxLondonBusinessSchool 

Maybe. Ion propulsion wasnt even a consideration of mine. I probably dont have the imagination you have.

Same! Then it took a left turn at Global warming. I remember when the whole scam was created.

I was soooo excited man. :/

I was precisely looking for that, after having almost consumed all relevant videos related to Nuclear Thermal Propulsion.

Yep these questions were so ridiculous haha

His whole approach is dishonest. Freeze frame at any point in this video, look at the dude and ask yourself “does this look like an honest presentation”. He’s also taking about specific technologies to integrate aircraft, which is different from what he’s claiming the talk is about. You get the impression you’re being sold something. You can see in the mannerisms and the eyes it’s all about the money. Microsoft and Adobe.

Lol.: awesome

Theres oceans of lithium, literally. Everything has an environmental cost it's just going for the one with the least. Batteries can be recycled. Until recently I lived in an area with many wind turbines they didn't ruin the view at all. The death rates on wind turbines of birds is greatly exaggerated.

@@turningpoint4238 Ok did not know this my friend

@@turningpoint4238 wind turbines are a waste of time. death rates they do on birds, I don't care. But a single nuclear powerplant can replace many more turbines. Thing is, we're using uranium, and thorium would be MUCH better.

@@swisstraeng As someone that used to work in the nuclear industry I'm not against nuclear. As long as it's done well (which it is not today) and economic which it is not at all. As for thorium, commercial reactors are probably a couple of decades if investments are made away, everything in the nuclear industry takes an age (the internet makes things look easy).

Specific Energy density is one metric. Aerospace batteries will need power, discharge cycle, specific density, volumetric density, physical integrity, safety, charge speed, temperature tolerance, ease of manufacture. We need to solve all of these. This is not an easy problem.

TEDx (as opposed to TED) can get a bit out there.

Yes, the point is to reduce fuel usage to 0%. The tech is out there, it's just a matter of time.

That is true hhhh

thanku...

Ryt

*Short explanation: Propel = move.* Propulsion is simply what propels something in a given direction. For instance: you use your muscles to propel (move) you forward, backward, or to either side, usually walking, running, jogging, rolling, and or up and down by jumping, flipping or climbing etc. Another example is: a sailboat uses wind to propel it forward. A snake winds it's body back and forth to propel itself. Propulsion is the thing that makes that happen.

PlanetSurfer 🤣 u dont watch news often boy

90% of accidents are human error. We are talking about driverless cars, flying cars and a billion people have dirt floors , no washing machine, no birth control... Priorities? We laugh at priorities.

Wow really buses are subsidised transport for poor people the reason money is invested is due to profit potential in those new ideas because of there efficiency gains

Absolutely. You just can't decouple the turbofan and the jet engine.

No. The fan of a modern high bypass turbofan provides an overwhelming majority of the total thrust-on the order of 75%

Yesss

ShadowInTheSky2 Aren't flying cars already a reality.?

@@niftyrosa1958 nope, those are airplanes and helicopters.

@@niftyrosa1958 These can exist, we can make them. But safety? Nah, they can't be safe.

Dan Sullivan Is there a limit on how high a plane can reach?

@@niftyrosa1958 My point is that you cannot substantially increase the air traffic without a new control system costing billions, plus moving the ground traffic to the air only means more things will fall from the sky. Aircraft limits are based on material science and cost.

Dan Sullivan ok so you do agree that it can be achieved but at what cost? Got it.

Dan Sullivan - shut up! You’re one of those people who probably said: “ if man was meant to fly he’d have wings like a bird”. You don’t know what cutting edge science and technology is ready to be introduced tomorrow. The consciousness of the universe is changing, and in the infinite eternal depth of universal consciousness, you don’t know the possibilities, probabilities, or potential of its wonders! So please just shut up!

Adolph Dooley I agree, but I have said that if man was meant to fly, we'd have wings. Meaning flying without the help of aviation.

The cost of electricity per unit of energy is cheaper.

Exactly. While fuel systems might generally run as low as 20% and as high as 34% conversion of energy to thrust, this has been calculated into the system. Sure, electric Motors are very efficient, running from anywhere as low as 90% to as high as 99% conversion of energy to movement. But they've been this efficient for a few decades now, so the technology is nothing new. He's not talking about an Electrical Plane, but a hybrid. There's a fuel tank, fuel system to generate electricity, a battery to store that electricity, and an Electric Motor to proper the craft. What this Accountant is thinking of, but not taking into consideration, is the battery. Larger batteries are more dangerous. And to store enough electricity from the generator to power the electrical motors requires a large battery. The battery size/capacity isn't really the issue. Because there is low Energy-Density with current Lithium-Ion battery technology, it means the battery itself becomes too heavy. This has constraints on the rest of the aircraft. And you guessed it, fuel consumption and fuel weight. Now since the early 2000 year to now 2020, in that rough 20 years, we have seen about a x10 increase from the rudimentary Lithium Polymer cells to current day Lithium Ion cells. That's enough improvement to have some aircraft designs based around Solar Powered Aircraft, Full-Electric Aircraft, and Hybrid Fuel-Electrical Aircraft. However, it isn't that great actually. So its going to take a further x10 increase in Battery Density for the designs this man is proposing for them to become realistic (so that the battery doesn't become too heavy/cumbersome). So maybe with 50 years and Graphite Battery, this Ted vision may be feasible. And just for reference the best battery density for energy is about x100 less than the best fuel energy density, this is partly because fuels are energy rich, and they do not carry the oxidation agent (oxygen) since its freely available in the atmosphere. To completely replace fuel aircraft with an electrical counterpart you would need to increase the density by x30. This is actually theoretically possible if you use a "battery pack" which also uses Oxygen to chemically react to Lithium. You're looking at upto x100 theoretical increase, but practically you would hit a limit at around x30 due to Lifespan issues. You could hot-swap the batteries in the airport/hanger. Whilst the used up pack can be converted back into reusable Lithium-Air "battery" using electrolysis, essentially recharging them. Although at this point, you might instead consider Renewable Fuels instead. And manufacturing them efficiently by building factories that use Water and Electricity to convert CO2 into Oxygen and Renewable Fuel. And the electricity can come from a renewable source like Solar and Wind. And so using this Renewable Fuel from that factory, essentially means your plane is using Solar power/renewable energy. Or an even more realistic solution would be to plant more trees, monitor the planet, and continue using fossil fuels.

@@ekinteko Altough I don't think solar and wind are the way to go, especially due to storing their energy. Only option for me right now, would be nuclear energy. and if we can make it happen, fusion.

It's about 860 million tones per year. 2% of total emmisions. No idea what time period he was taling about. Since the onset of commercial aviation perhaps.

A billion perhaps.

@@theharper1 Exactly, he says trillion!

@@shahuni repeatedly, so either the slides are wrong, or he's using the wrong word. Either way, it's a lot of fuel that is being used, and being able to save up to half of it would be a great improvement.

@@theharper1 The slides have 1000 mn on them so there is no problem with the slides. I think his tongue slipped from b to t. Anyway, you're absolutely right that the fuel is huge and anything to curb that would be extremely helpful to humanity! No doubt about that...

This spent the whole talk ignoring and omitting pretty real engineering limitations. Most of the talk is a load of manure.

How about flying pilotless electric aircraft to deliver mass amounts of packages, deliveries and maybe passengers at some point?

Only in your head 😉

Wrong. Less than 10% of thrust comes from the hot gases. So if we replace the turbo with an electric engine we still have 90% thrust...

GunnarLof I stand corrected! Looking it up, up to 75% can come from the fan...

As do I. 90% was for turbo-props. 75% is more correct for turbofans.

Kerosine mixed with drying agents -

Coal's on the way out, solar and onshore wind are cheaper.

It is neither impossible nor a bad idea, but it is not cost effective. Collecting and transforming CO2 into something useful is harder than just switching to electric vehicles in the first place.

Elon musk pitched this to Tony stark in Iron man 2

@@Tazman55x yaa yes

what hes talking about is absolutely impratical. He is assuming his crowd is full of morons. You dont need to be an engineer to know that generators generate friction, reducing efficiency. the only reason it helps in automobiles, is because you use the friction produced by the generator to help slow or stop the vehicle, and generate electrical energy at the same time. It's a win-win. But Airplanes only brake on the runway while landing.....

NidgeDFX apparently, you skipped the class on probability and statistics....

No not really, because there's a gas engine that's supplying power to the batteries.

There are taxes on jet-a1, and this will not stop people from taking the plane. All you have to change is us, educate people not to take the plane for a 2 days trip.

yes he does and it's taken into account.

Combustion engine peak efficiency of 30%, electric motor peak efficiency of 99% am I right on that figure? Yes I am. This is why electric cars don't only have 20% the range of diesel cars. In all seriousness though, I'd say hydrogen cars are the almost perfect solution since you combine a highly power dense zero emission fuel with the 99% efficiency of electric motors.

@@loukask.9111 Yes, but that electricity needs to be made somewhere. Yes electric cars don't have 20% the range of diesel cars, however, significantly more space is taken by the battery, and so is the weight. When you're driving on the ground, weight is not an issue. But for aircrafts, weight is everything.

Yes.. Close enough for arguements sake.. Keep in mind that the lions share of that power potential is lost in the form of heat. The energy density of fuel is always going to be higher then a battery.. And that fuel will also have a high power potential because the fuel can be consumed instantly (or nearly instantly). When we talk about efficiency of fuels we need to include the waisted power potential lost in the form of heat. Look under your cars hood. The actual part of the engine containing the detonation of fuel is proportionately small to the total area under the hood. Half of your car is made to deal with the heat created.. On the flip side it makes electrical motors easier to manage because heat is the only thing you need to look for.. Elecfrical motors gain efficiency the faster they spin. And there power output is throughout the curve so theres no nedd for a gearbox etc.. But theres not going to be any planes flying folks with our idea of lith-ion batteries.. With graphene ultra capacitors maybe? But batteries are still heavy..

It's the only way in terms of aviation. Better idea?

Neutral co2 fuels, microalgae fuel can power everythig whitout change the world, but the production is to expensive compared to oil. Remember that biomass (or syntetic hydrocarbons) is the only way to make bioplastic and all oil related material... we need some billion tons of this..

Everyone knows

Lanson Mat I didn’t

I think he based himself on the futur, let's say batteries will get more efficient, then what he says will make sense. but for sure, we cannot do much change now, or maybe improve things by 20%.

@@swisstraeng Indeed. He was imagining a future far advanced. How quickly technology will advance is impossible to predict. It's like the weather, the near future is more accurately predictable, the further ahead in time the less accurate predictions become. Thank you for your comment.

Wrong! They are already in use. Pipistrel have sold many of their electric trainers to flight schools, as have others. The Eviation Alice 12 seat electric aircraft with 1000 kilometre range is about to have its test flight this year.

Yeah that pesky water, lets ban it.

Thats not a problem.

@@turningpoint4238 I don't think that's not a problem. It's not one today, but if the whole world runs on batteries?

@@swisstraeng It actually gets more efficient and cheaper the larger the scale.

We do have electric planes....