UK To Run Jets Without Fuel

London’s Heathrow Airport is the busiest airport in the world, and by the year 2050 planes which take off and land there will apparently not use fuel.

“Jet Zero Strategy Delivering net zero aviation by 2050”

Jet Zero Strategy: delivering net zero aviation by 2050

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to UK To Run Jets Without Fuel

  1. Joao Martins says:

    ” UK To Run Jets Without Fuel “: they will be made levitating through the powers of the mind. Pilots are already specializing by following intensive courses taught by Tibetan monks.

  2. arn says:

    Well,it would be a little bit to hoenest to say that
    flying for the peasant will be outlawed within the next 28 years.

    It’s a little bit like saying “there was 4K of colleteral”
    instead of “We killed 4000 people “

  3. MGJ says:

    Trust the Science!

  4. Eli the Pit Bulldog says:

    So what happens when the plane catches fire in flight?
    Ford is recalling 200,000their EV or batter assisted hybrids because they suddenly catch fire. Until a permanent fix is found, Ford recommends parking the vehicle away from things that burn, like the garage….

  5. D. Boss says:

    Maybe that is why they want to ban fertilizer from farms – ’cause the govmnt has walking talking manure spreaders! (spewing bullschist from their mouths and off their typing fingertips)

    I skimmed the PDF – and what a load of bollocks – they literally have a “Minister for Transport Decarbonization” named Trudy Harrison!

    I saw a similar load of crap on an Aviation discussion site about some or another [big] aircraft engine maker touting an hybrid system, saying they have accomplished a 1MW electric motor. (again pissing in a hurricane would do more good – that is a meager 1,350 HP, and turbofans on big jets make 30,000-50,000 HP)

    Let’s look at a real world example (I’m a pilot and very fluent with all things aviation – these are real numbers)

    A 737-800 at cruising altitude, burns about 2,495 kg/hr of Jet A fuel. Jet A contains a net energy of 15 MJ/kg. (it’s 43 MJ/kg, but the engines are only 35% efficient, so use the net extractable thrust energy of 15 MJ/kg)

    So to cruise 1 hour, the 737-800, with about 80% seats filled and gross takeoff weight of 59,000 kg takes 37,425 MegaJoules of energy to provide the thrust to fly at roughly 465 knots ground speed.

    Now the best batteries can hold 0.5 MJ/kg. Lithium ion. To achieve the needed thrust to propel this 737-800 at cruise, you would need to discharge 74,850 kg of batteries, per HOUR to equal the thrust from the CFM-56 engines on the 737.

    Since the max weight of a 737-800 is around 73,000 kg, you have a problem! Max fuel load of the plane is around 14,000 kg, so that is about the max battery weight you could take without reducing the passenger or cargo carrying capacity.

    Electrifying aviation is a non starter by the numbers. Nor is some dumbass idea of making “green” jet fuel, or using hydrogen. Granted there are a few ultra light sport or general aviation electric planes – but they don’t compete with ICE powered planes. (Internal Combustion Engine) (video link at the end compares an actual certified electric vs it’s Avgas powered twin)

    Here are two no nonsense analyses of the state of the art for electric airplanes: (Why Electric Airplanes Face Such a Tough Haul: Joby Edition) (Pipistrel Velis Electro: Cool, But Not For The U S Market)

    the second video link above, shows the ONLY certified electric airplane and analyzes it’s merits and flaws. By the way it only has a 20 minute flight time! (regulations say you must have 30 minutes of reserve fuel, thus you can only use 50-60% of the battery capacity to “fly”)

    And it’s same airframe has an Avgas powerplant version, which carries more useful load, and has a 5.5 hour endurance range with a 30 minute reserve!

    The UK’s Ministry of Aviation Decarbonization is smoking something, but it’s more like delusion inducing wacky tobackie.

  6. Coeur de Lion says:

    Prof Kelly in his paper for the GWPF said he was unable fully to address aviation, shipping, forestry and agriculture. I don’t think he mentioned road transport – the mass of roaring twelve wheel artics that keep our civilisation going. To be run on batteries? It’s so ridiculous that I’m at a loss to express my utter contempt for the lying members of the CCC. Prof Kelly and others seem to concentrate on electricity generation. As I write UK windmills are producing one point four per cent of demand and it’s like that across Europe. Will that charge my daughter’s Nissan Leaf or will it be gas?

  7. toorightmate says:

    I can’t wait to fly on a fuel-less pane.
    Ooops – I just changed my mind.
    I will NEVER EVER fly on a fuel-less plane.

  8. Rockwood says:

    Interesting “beautiful” document filled with hope, mandates, word salad and science fiction. Thanks for the link. Wow, looks like the first step towards net+zero is SAF. So aircraft will consume fuel blends with “sustainable” feedstock. In other words, organic material that might be better used to feed humanity. Electrification will initially be at small scale because the E=mc2 technology required for larger aircraft does not yet exist. The diversion of money to these hair-brained schemes is a crime in my opinion and truly fails because it is the government and they are here to help….. OMG!

  9. j/k says:

    They are currently developing very large and thick rubber bands.

  10. Richard says:

    SAME SHIP different day- they just keep pushing goal posts back
    since 1970 first earth day we have heard 50,000 end of days predictions, 1000s of zombie movies – a brainwashing program by lefties

  11. GWS says:

    Are they saying they have found the holy grail of energy?
    Or are they just bloviating — again?
    Doing what all good liberals do —
    Con you into giving them your money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.