this is dumb we should have alrdy think about electric airplane for a long long fucking time maybe since we invent things that can use electric not gas.And i know its about the money for buying oil so you could get rich and i know people are selfish and if people cared about nature they should stop using gas cause it ruins the air ruins peoples life and electricity is not that bad and probably in the future we may use electricity for almost anything.
Sure, but it didn't look like it carried many passengers.
In any case, this needs to be implemented by the top flight colleges like Embry-Riddle or UND. Imagine the fuel savings if students used this technology.
@lCENSOREDI The thing about using wind and solar is that it's cost too much. Way too much. If people really want eletric planes and cars, they should to nuclear power, since it doesn't pollute and produces crazy amount of energy.
The problem with using nuclear power in cars is that every collision is a potential nuclear waste hazard, although I entirely agree on the idea of nuclear aircraft. A program existed shortly after WWII, and both the US and Soviet Union developed nuclear bomber technology. Unfortunately, both programs were scrapped and haven't seen the light of day since. It's depressing how fearful people are of nuclear technology.
@projectbaum Funny, since the 4th gen. (newer model) nuclear reactors don't produce nuclear waste. Still, people are to scared for no reason to see nuclear as the future.
I didn't mean nuclear waste as much as I was implying that a wreck could break the reactor and the uranium/plutonium/whathaveyou could irradiate the area. Truthfully, I'm not entirely sure of the dangers of radioactive material contaminating an area in this manner as I only study these things as a hobby. You seem to be more knowledgeable on the subject, so I can assume that there may indeed be none. If there truly exists no danger in nuclear cars, then by all means, let it be so.
not sure why you wouldn't mention this, but the scientist who designed the Pipistrel Taurus is not from the great nation of USA. It was developed by a ultra-light airplane company, owned by Ivo Boscarol, a Slovenian.
@JRP3 What abundant resource in this earth is silicon? sand? so we have deserts filled with it? and we can't make silicon for an insanely cheap price and mass produce it? i think we can.
I fly a King air 350i, well its turbine aircraft equivalent, the Premier, has 560 mile LESS range than the KA 350i, which costs less to both produce and buy.Here is the truth about passengers in aviation, they do not like to see propellers, especially on a large passenger aircraft, studies show that over 86% of these passengers believe that they have a larger chance of dying with a turboprop attached, so if we made a turbprop equiv. to a CF34 on a Boeing 747, we could change efficiency there too
where does the battery get its energy from? AND what if 75 people want to go from NY to LA, UH how long will the battery last , oh yes the battery that gets its charge from ...COAL BURNING ELECTRIC PLANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
@ricglos Coal-burning electric plants produce much less pollution than the fuels we currently use in planes and cars and such, and I suppose you also don't know how batteries work.
@ricglos The plants you get electricity from produce much less pollution than the fuel currently used on airplanes, and I also assume you don't know how batteries work
@ricglos As our electrical grid is set up now, yes, most of our electricity comes coal plants. But in some countries in Europe there energy comes from renewable resources, such as; Wind, Solar, geothermal, nuclear, etc.
So to imply your narrow minded about the future of energy is an understatement. If you want to think about the future you have to know about the present.
Oooo 45% is coal but 69% is still fossil fuel, so they take an indirect way of still using it, and with the power grid having issues as it is (brown outs, black outs) how are we going to be able to supply our transportation as well. Now if we switch to natural gas for our cars we would be better off. Honda showed that the exaust comming out of its cng accord was cleaner than the air going into the engine, so that is the way to clean the air and not put more strain on the entire electrical grid.
Electric cars, planes, ect should be called what they really are they are usually coal powered devices. since most of the electricity we get in this country is COAL.
@spicealley False. 45% of US power generation is from coal, which means 55%, most of it, is not from coal. Plus the fact that as the grid gets cleaner so do electric vehicles.
@JRP3 The Sun is an infinite and constant source of energy being constantly projected toward the planet, so why can't we convert that energy into an infinite and constant source of electricity?
but electricty is produced by turning a very large magnet and we do that usually by burning coal, is that not a fossil fuel...if not that those who work at the electrical plant, how do they get to work? by car and what does a car use? gas, enless they drive an electric car which in return would still use up some sort of fossil fuel making a never ending dependancy cirlce. solution, a green electrical provider until them saying somehting electrical "uses no gas" is simply not true.
@paintballwis i'm not sure how they would do that but there are ways of turning the magnet that use renewable resources like the hoover dam (it uses rapidly moving water) but those who work at those power plants will still problable use gas to power the car they use to get there, i just wanted to point out that anything you do now a days that unvolves moving large ecquipment even if it's electricaly powered, uses a fossil fuel.
@Shift4chizzle we can but we usually don't using coal is the most popular means of producing electricty, i know this because they grandpa worked with in an electric company for about thirty years.
A Boeing 747 has 467 seats. At at 400Mph, the jumbo jet is consuming .274 ounces of fuel, per person. Per minute that works out to 16.44 ounces per person. So in one hour, each person is responsible for 7.7 gallons of fuel. 400 miles in under 8 gallons is PRETTY EFFICIENT if you asked me. And Boeing just rolled out their 787 which is 20% more efficient than the jet it replaced.
We have the best minds in the world working on this problem, don't discount them.
I feel that todays planes aren't as inefficent as Hank would have us believe. Like you said, 400 miles/7.7 gallons/passenger is astonishing (or 200 miles/3.4 gallons/passenger as per the competition length). Who would want to fly in a plane that only goes 107 miles per hour anyway?
I wonder what the gallons/passenger/200 miles would be on a 747 going say maybe, 200mph...
@36Bananapies You use the obsolete imperial scale! A 747 cruises at 910 kM/h. It has a fuel consumption of 12 litres per kilometre - so in one hour it uses 910*12 (10,920) litres of fuel or about 11 tonnes of what is effectively kerosine. If it has a load of 467 people than each person in one hour is responsible for burning 23.38 litres of fuel or in the correct terms 2 litres/100kM per person. Your average car has a fuel consumption of 10 litres/100kM. We agree yes but I use metric not imperial
Me and some of my school friends have to make a really boring assignment about Eco-design, and to make it more interesting we came up with to use your video as inspiration. Your film about "Electric Airplanes for the Future!" was most appealing to our subject. We hoped to reach you and get some more information about it, especially how you got all your information .
If you have some time, it would me a great help for us!
This and CrashCourse should be those kinds of things on T.V. in between a show when people like you and John talk about science or history or whatever.
@gerbils56 In my opinion, these are the kinds of things that TV should be! This is waaay better than a lot of things on kids networks these days. As a gifted kid during a time where budget cuts got rid of any advanced programs in my school, I would've loved to have more shows like this when I was younger, would've kept me from being bored with the stuff I already knew in school, yknow? Would love to see Hank and John get a TV show for this stuff!
@ALSIGIU Who's going to pay to have this aired? The "media" is trying to make money by having advertisements. It would be unlikely for this idea to happen.
This is just a dumb premise, I appologise for being hateful, but it's moronville in here.
NASA just wasted 1.5 million on an idea that is dangerouse and stupid.
Kerosen is by FAR a better storage device for energy, and allways will be.
By the way, those rockets we are so fond of also use fuel,and I dont see you making comments about NASA hiding behind the word "fuel" the way you go on about airplanes.
@popceed Why do you thing $1.5 million even if it is only to make 2 hyper-effeteness person plans is a waist of money or effort. NASA and Google knew damn well they where not getting a new 787 type plane, as just to order an already designed 787 it costs ~$200 million with a project cost of $34 billion, so a $1.5 million prize was not funding that cost. Combustibility fuel does have better energy density, but electronically motors are lighter. So, if you only need the equivalent of 2 gallons...
Ok hippy..., your selling a bill of goods, and I aint buying it.
#1 the whole fuel to gas thing..., NOT funny,ironic, or witty.
Not sure what you where going for there, but if people dont realise that fuel and gas are the same thing...thier fucking morons.
#2 when stated in miles per gallon then YES the electric is more efficient, HOWEVER no electric plane is flying over weather, is carrying a payload, or providing enough energy to maintain cabin pressures at hi alt.
Where a plane like that may be a viable replacement for the sport pilot, it would be hard to imagine an inexpensive replacement for airliners. At least not for a while however engines are getting more efficient and I am curios whether that stat at the beginning comes from the 747-200 or the 747-8.
@XBLMastrodicasa The advantage goes to electronic plane when the fuel needs are very low and a significant percent of the weight would come from the motor. So a 747 has 40,000 gallon of gas and a motor set that weights 48,000 lb, but one gallon of gas weighs 8.3lb so the fuel weights ~8 times the motors. Even if the motors weight nothing in a 747, to change to even the best battery would over 4 times the weight, though some of that is returned in efficiency, but the weight is still more.
@invisigoth841 Take a drive through southwest Iowa at night, each one of those hundreds of blinking lights is a colossal windmill. In time, we'll be able to tap into the Earth's crust and harvest that heat for a nearly unlimited energy source.
@invisigoth841 Only part of our electricity comes from fossil fuels, there are substantial amounts from hydro power and nuclear, with the potential for much more from solar and wind, as well as advanced nuclear in the form of liquid fluoride thorium reactors, LFTRS.
@JRP3 Renewable are near as makes no difference to being limitless and free, we put virtually nothing in to get something out. Batteries on the other hand, cradle to grave, we are still putting more into them than we get out.
@tankd0g There are no renewables that we put nothing into and get something out and none are close to limitless. That's why most of the grid is nuclear, NG, coal, and hydro.
@tankd0g I don't think you understand that to convert that energy into something useful takes inputs that are not free or limitless. If it's so free and easy why is there so little of it in use?
@tankd0g In 5-7 billion years the sun will go out and without a sun, I am not sure we will have wind either, so it is not limitless. There is only a finite amount of energy in the universe, though it is an unbelievably large amount, it is still finite.
@thebestanthe3rd Energy can not be destroyed or created, but it does disparate. So, if we could turn off the sun and earth had no more sun energy, we quickly lose a great deal of energy to space, in the form of heat. Dropping to average by an estimated 50' F within a week. The earth would average -100' F after a year. And humans could not come close to producing the power needed to change anything.
@JRP3 true. but its far more abundant and far cheaper then patroleum. eventually well find a way to make it limitless and possibly free.(just think how many solar pannels this mofo would need to charge it in less then 3 months)
"Outside of the production of these plants... it's free, and practically limitless."
Which means of course that it's not free, since there will always be costs involved in their production, and maintenance, and not limitless since there will always be limits on what we can build. Other than that.....
@TheRumpletiltskin I see, so the technology to collect that energy from the sun, tides, and geothermal, is all free, donated and maintained by fairies?
@JRP3 it pays for itself (as of cost) but yes, if you want to get SUPER technical, the equipment does take energy to make, that when completely back traced, will require some form of fossil fuel, and will cost money.
Either way, it is still better to get off fossil fuels as much as possible than to say "well there's no free energy so why change?"
@TheRumpletiltskin It's not SUPER technical to point out the initial costs that are always involved, and are often substantial. There are also ongoing maintenance issues that involve costs. My insistence on pointing out the realities of energy conversion have nothing in common with the idea that "well there's no free energy so why change?" I'm all for change, but grounded in reality.
@JRP3 We all want a green world,but as gas today is 4 $ x gallon same thing is gonna cost the electricity one day...Ppl are just stupid and the gov take advantage of it...
@ALSIGIU Yes people are stupid. However electricity can be generated from many different sources, which means, unlike oil, no single source will have a monopoly, keeping costs lower. Also you can purchase solar panels to generate your own electricity, effectively locking in your fuel prices for 30+ years.
Did you know Pipistrel is from a little country that most of the people never heard of? And that little country is in Europe. It's called Slovenia, with around 2 million people :)
When I was reading the description before the video played, I read "Green Flight Challenge" and thought "Hank, you (and John) had a flight challenge? What?" I need to work on that problem. It happens a lot.
Hi Hank, I just wanted to mention that fully booked the 747 gets 100 miles per gallon per passenger, which is actually incredibly good, considering that the average vehicle gets about 25 mpg (not including big trucks for hauling).
I have been a huge fan of Pipistrel's aircraft since I first discovered them a couple of years ago. I'm currently studying Mechanical Engineering at the University of Victoria, and I am focusing on aeronautical engineering.
The one thing I noticed most from this video is that you Americans say "our great nation." Whereas us English tend to say "shitty cesspool of a country."
yay this is so awesome to know!! xD I want to fly in one soon! Although, I'm depressed to know that I'll never be able to do time travel in my life time :(
I was considering this the last time I took a reasonably long flight. If we ran out of dinosaurs to burn, the world would get much bigger quite suddenly. In a rather surreal way though. I mean, for electricity we could shift to alternate sources, in the hypothetical no combustible dinosaur universe the cost of solar electricity would suddenly become less burdensome. So we'd have the internet creating the illusion of a small world, while not being able to just get anywhere within like, 18 hours.
That's great and all, but it's still, freaking LIGHTYEARS away from being remotely able to replace a modern passenger Jet. Consider the volume a transcontinental plane can carry, at the speed that it does. To replace that kind of effectiveness with electric planes is just monumentally far away. Consider the effort it takes just keeping your cell phone charged for a DAY, and how heavy that battery is. It's mind numbingly complicated. Of course, all it takes is 1 unexpected breakthrough.
Gross fact: According to the show the Doctors , airplanes are germy and gross. Their can be fecal matter on the trays and semen on the seats,or worse...
As a pilot who is very keenly aware of the environmental damage of her passion, I found this video pretty amazing. I would totally volunteer myself to fly a prototype of an electric airplane.
As much as I love the idea it just isn't realistic (yet). Think of the amount of people taking off from for example Heathrow airport every day. Were you to replace the planes with electric ones you would need so very many. It may be "fuel effecient" per occupant, but it is not very practical not cost effecient if you think of how many pilots you would need to fly the damned things :P
Fingers crossed that they figure out how to make fast, effecient Boeing 777-300er's - because those are lovely :)
@nmr5035 But just burning it all there inside the plane isn't as efficient... and then after we switch the grid to green energy in 30 years(don;t quote me) it should be easier, because you wouldn't have to make all the planes from scratch...
You know, making things electric that normally run on petroleum isn't actually solving a lot of problems, because in America we get most of our electricity from generators powered by coal, so we're still releasing lots of carbon even with our electric cars and planes.
@StainlessSteelPolish Of course, but as Hank pointed out in the Solar Energy video, with a single big power plant we can easier control efficiency and pollution than lots of little ones. The same principle can be applied: even a single coal generator producing electricity which is transported to the cars and planes is going to be better than lots of tiny inefficient polluting things [citation needed].
It's very neat that they can do this, but isn't making them electric just transferring the fuel emissions elsewhere ( namely, to the place burning coal to make the power?) I don't think we can fix the pollution problem until we fix the way we supply all our energy- oil, electricity, etc. Ultimately, it has to come from somewhere.
Hank, I have to tell you about my dream. My family and I were going on this trip to somewhere, and there was this trailer out front. Only, there was a horse in there. This guy came out and told me it was my horse, gave me a certificate and the horse, and left. Her name is Sunflower. If you ever find a black horse with grey legs, let me know. Oh, good episode too. :D
I'm very excited about this! However the biggest challenge is for cargo planes, which make up some of the nastiest fuel consumption. The real victory will come when we see these same numbers for large planes that can deliver cargo loads to and from europe, asia, and america.
The pipistrel airplane was made in a town near me and I'm very proud of that! sLOVEnia!! <3 DFTBA! BTW, they just started ajourney around the world with this small little plane and hopefully, they will succeed :)
I like how Google is involved for some reason. If I worked for Nasa and was trying to figure out a way to decrease the amount of fuel used by airplanes, I don't think my first thought would be "Hey, I bet the guys at Google can help with this." Weird.
@Thndrcougrfalcnbrd i dunno, if i was working for nasa and needed to get something as expensive as this kind of research done id probably go to a really rich company that thinks its the future too :)
@Thndrcougrfalcnbrd The two founders of Google were and are very interested in solving issues with physical transportation. Which makes sense because they solved most issues with the transportation of information and data... via the revolutionary Google Search Engine. But one thing you might not know is that actually Google invented a self driving car. It supposedly works fantastically and only ever got into one accident. Which wasn't the car's fault according to the insurance claim.
this is dumb we should have alrdy think about electric airplane for a long long fucking time maybe since we invent things that can use electric not gas.And i know its about the money for buying oil so you could get rich and i know people are selfish and if people cared about nature they should stop using gas cause it ruins the air ruins peoples life and electricity is not that bad and probably in the future we may use electricity for almost anything.
king94713 11 hours ago
$1.35 million doesn't seem like a lot of money when it comes to constructing high-tech planes...
CheezyDrool 15 hours ago
SUBSCRIBE!!!
13kalind 1 day ago
Gasoline =/= gas
elos12 2 days ago 7
@elos12 I always assumed gas was just a colloquial shortening of gasoline, but it still always bugged me too...
GBeansauce 1 day ago
easy problem fixer comperess air in a large tank under the plane in a glider
coralfan1 3 days ago
Nuclear powered plane? Just putting it out there...
MrBelchinator 3 days ago
@MrBelchinator
It's been done, but people are dumb and afraid of nuclear power.
projectbaum 3 days ago
Sure, but it didn't look like it carried many passengers.
In any case, this needs to be implemented by the top flight colleges like Embry-Riddle or UND. Imagine the fuel savings if students used this technology.
lCENSOREDI 4 days ago
But you do realize that the electricity probably comes from fossil fuels, and that plane is just an electric biplane.
DonutSlayer99 4 days ago
@DonutSlayer99 Electricity was included in the fuel usage estimations. Also, electricity can be generated through wind and solar sources.
lCENSOREDI 4 days ago
@lCENSOREDI The thing about using wind and solar is that it's cost too much. Way too much. If people really want eletric planes and cars, they should to nuclear power, since it doesn't pollute and produces crazy amount of energy.
DonutSlayer99 4 days ago
@DonutSlayer99 *electric*/ *should look to*
DonutSlayer99 4 days ago
@DonutSlayer99 Oh, Ii agree, completely. I was just offering that there are other sources for electricity.
lCENSOREDI 4 days ago
@DonutSlayer99
The problem with using nuclear power in cars is that every collision is a potential nuclear waste hazard, although I entirely agree on the idea of nuclear aircraft. A program existed shortly after WWII, and both the US and Soviet Union developed nuclear bomber technology. Unfortunately, both programs were scrapped and haven't seen the light of day since. It's depressing how fearful people are of nuclear technology.
projectbaum 3 days ago
@projectbaum Funny, since the 4th gen. (newer model) nuclear reactors don't produce nuclear waste. Still, people are to scared for no reason to see nuclear as the future.
DonutSlayer99 3 days ago
@DonutSlayer99
I didn't mean nuclear waste as much as I was implying that a wreck could break the reactor and the uranium/plutonium/whathaveyou could irradiate the area. Truthfully, I'm not entirely sure of the dangers of radioactive material contaminating an area in this manner as I only study these things as a hobby. You seem to be more knowledgeable on the subject, so I can assume that there may indeed be none. If there truly exists no danger in nuclear cars, then by all means, let it be so.
projectbaum 2 days ago
not sure why you wouldn't mention this, but the scientist who designed the Pipistrel Taurus is not from the great nation of USA. It was developed by a ultra-light airplane company, owned by Ivo Boscarol, a Slovenian.
i4gtit 4 days ago
u know this guy is kinda cute <3
amber108948 5 days ago 3
@amber108948 He may be cute, but he is also married. See the ring on his finger.
Sonilyj 3 days ago
@JRP3 What abundant resource in this earth is silicon? sand? so we have deserts filled with it? and we can't make silicon for an insanely cheap price and mass produce it? i think we can.
knillink 5 days ago
did you know that cruise line ships use 12 tons of gas per hour
iGxFrankoharris 5 days ago
V scrolls down to comments section wanting to see interesting feedback gets that
iGxFrankoharris 5 days ago
Pretty sure Tesla was dreaming up electric planes, and ways to power them trough the air, but I suppose nobody cares anymore...
sdfaaae 5 days ago
I fly a King air 350i, well its turbine aircraft equivalent, the Premier, has 560 mile LESS range than the KA 350i, which costs less to both produce and buy.Here is the truth about passengers in aviation, they do not like to see propellers, especially on a large passenger aircraft, studies show that over 86% of these passengers believe that they have a larger chance of dying with a turboprop attached, so if we made a turbprop equiv. to a CF34 on a Boeing 747, we could change efficiency there too
codzomz 5 days ago
where does the battery get its energy from? AND what if 75 people want to go from NY to LA, UH how long will the battery last , oh yes the battery that gets its charge from ...COAL BURNING ELECTRIC PLANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
ricglos 6 days ago
@ricglos Coal-burning electric plants produce much less pollution than the fuels we currently use in planes and cars and such, and I suppose you also don't know how batteries work.
MadeOfCATS 6 days ago
@ricglos The plants you get electricity from produce much less pollution than the fuel currently used on airplanes, and I also assume you don't know how batteries work
MadeOfCATS 6 days ago
@ricglos As our electrical grid is set up now, yes, most of our electricity comes coal plants. But in some countries in Europe there energy comes from renewable resources, such as; Wind, Solar, geothermal, nuclear, etc.
So to imply your narrow minded about the future of energy is an understatement. If you want to think about the future you have to know about the present.
redschool 5 days ago
Where will they find extension cords for these?
Teriiqua 6 days ago
@Teriiqua they cant.What about the water??
ArticWind889 5 days ago
CAN'T. STOP. WATCHING. MORE. EPISODES.
JACgaming69 6 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I'm subscribing just because you have a tache
: )
MrIrishBilly 6 days ago
Aren't you a Vlog Brother?
Nice Tache
: )
MrIrishBilly 6 days ago
i cant believe 0:43, I mean, come on! You're talking about airplanes and miss a "Shirley, you can't be serious" joke.
classicalcritic 1 week ago in playlist Dose: Uploaded Tuesdays & Thursdays!
Oooo 45% is coal but 69% is still fossil fuel, so they take an indirect way of still using it, and with the power grid having issues as it is (brown outs, black outs) how are we going to be able to supply our transportation as well. Now if we switch to natural gas for our cars we would be better off. Honda showed that the exaust comming out of its cng accord was cleaner than the air going into the engine, so that is the way to clean the air and not put more strain on the entire electrical grid.
spicealley 1 week ago
Electric cars, planes, ect should be called what they really are they are usually coal powered devices. since most of the electricity we get in this country is COAL.
spicealley 1 week ago
@spicealley False. 45% of US power generation is from coal, which means 55%, most of it, is not from coal. Plus the fact that as the grid gets cleaner so do electric vehicles.
JRP3 1 week ago
@JRP3 The Sun is an infinite and constant source of energy being constantly projected toward the planet, so why can't we convert that energy into an infinite and constant source of electricity?
knillink 1 week ago
@knillink not infinite, just larger than we could ever need.
dango21192 1 week ago
@knillink And those mechanisms of conversion are free? Hardly.
JRP3 1 week ago
Now we can here the roar of electricity underneath us instead of burning of gas, I mean fuel.
minecraftion25565 1 week ago
Thumbs up for my country.. where the pipistrel was made! SLOVENIJA!! Oh ja, zmeraj najboljši!
ThePiaablabla 1 week ago
OHHHH! I'm feeling SO proud.. The pipistrel was made in Europe actually.. in Slovenia! Oh god I'm so proud..
ThePiaablabla 1 week ago
Heyyy I just watched Water for Elephants and I liked it D:
RiddleRavenness 1 week ago in playlist Dose: Uploaded Tuesdays & Thursdays!
Cool a one passenger planes more efficient that a 80-100 passenger 737...Thats bully!
StealthFire61 1 week ago
0:40 And don't call me Shirley.
TuckerMacMillan 1 week ago
Comment removed
TuckerMacMillan 1 week ago
I think a gallon was an archaic method of saying 3.78 litres but.... what's a mile again?
Shibi181 1 week ago
Start using "liter"... and "meter" X )
Kaaxe 1 week ago
@Kaaxe Litre and Metre. They are a form of measure invented in France now America. Only Americans spell it -ER and they don't even use it.
Shibi181 1 week ago
@Shibi181 We spell it that way in Norway too : P
Kaaxe 1 week ago
25 people that rode the yellow short bus to school. So sorry for you.
thejetdrvr 1 week ago
how much fuel was needed to charge the batteries for this plane?
clawedfish 1 week ago
what i did not understand that
beloitblazers1234567 1 week ago
Good video, my only problem is that I don't know what the F is a gallon xD LOL
msilvai 1 week ago in playlist Dose: Uploaded Tuesdays & Thursdays!
@msilvai its this breed of giraffe
Shift4chizzle 1 week ago
but electricty is produced by turning a very large magnet and we do that usually by burning coal, is that not a fossil fuel...if not that those who work at the electrical plant, how do they get to work? by car and what does a car use? gas, enless they drive an electric car which in return would still use up some sort of fossil fuel making a never ending dependancy cirlce. solution, a green electrical provider until them saying somehting electrical "uses no gas" is simply not true.
ilovesnuggleupagus 2 weeks ago
@ilovesnuggleupagus What if the magnet makes enough power to self-sustain? (Unlikely i know but still)
paintballwis 1 week ago
@paintballwis i'm not sure how they would do that but there are ways of turning the magnet that use renewable resources like the hoover dam (it uses rapidly moving water) but those who work at those power plants will still problable use gas to power the car they use to get there, i just wanted to point out that anything you do now a days that unvolves moving large ecquipment even if it's electricaly powered, uses a fossil fuel.
ilovesnuggleupagus 1 week ago
@ilovesnuggleupagus we can create electricity other ways....
Shift4chizzle 1 week ago
@Shift4chizzle we can but we usually don't using coal is the most popular means of producing electricty, i know this because they grandpa worked with in an electric company for about thirty years.
ilovesnuggleupagus 1 week ago
@ilovesnuggleupagus times have changed
Shift4chizzle 1 week ago
A Boeing 747 has 467 seats. At at 400Mph, the jumbo jet is consuming .274 ounces of fuel, per person. Per minute that works out to 16.44 ounces per person. So in one hour, each person is responsible for 7.7 gallons of fuel. 400 miles in under 8 gallons is PRETTY EFFICIENT if you asked me. And Boeing just rolled out their 787 which is 20% more efficient than the jet it replaced.
We have the best minds in the world working on this problem, don't discount them.
36Bananapies 2 weeks ago
@36Bananapies ...Thank you.
I feel that todays planes aren't as inefficent as Hank would have us believe. Like you said, 400 miles/7.7 gallons/passenger is astonishing (or 200 miles/3.4 gallons/passenger as per the competition length). Who would want to fly in a plane that only goes 107 miles per hour anyway?
I wonder what the gallons/passenger/200 miles would be on a 747 going say maybe, 200mph...
TheCaphits 1 week ago
@36Bananapies You use the obsolete imperial scale! A 747 cruises at 910 kM/h. It has a fuel consumption of 12 litres per kilometre - so in one hour it uses 910*12 (10,920) litres of fuel or about 11 tonnes of what is effectively kerosine. If it has a load of 467 people than each person in one hour is responsible for burning 23.38 litres of fuel or in the correct terms 2 litres/100kM per person. Your average car has a fuel consumption of 10 litres/100kM. We agree yes but I use metric not imperial
Shibi181 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear Hank,
Me and some of my school friends have to make a really boring assignment about Eco-design, and to make it more interesting we came up with to use your video as inspiration. Your film about "Electric Airplanes for the Future!" was most appealing to our subject. We hoped to reach you and get some more information about it, especially how you got all your information .
If you have some time, it would me a great help for us!
Thanks already
Stijn Belonje.
(email: flinstijns@hotmail.com)
FAMASjackPOD 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Random solar flare mid-flight?
STZK1127 2 weeks ago
@STZK1127 haha i would like to see that
Lime90333 2 weeks ago
where would you get the energy to charge an electric airplane?
Duk1013 2 weeks ago
One thing. Did you do the maths right for the electric plane compared to 747 because size an other factors matter too.
Ukid111 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
dear youtube,
there is a problem with this video.THERE IS A DISLIKE BAR!!!
cyberhen10 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from scishow
This and CrashCourse should be those kinds of things on T.V. in between a show when people like you and John talk about science or history or whatever.
Just a thought :)
gerbils56 2 weeks ago 34
@gerbils56 In my opinion, these are the kinds of things that TV should be! This is waaay better than a lot of things on kids networks these days. As a gifted kid during a time where budget cuts got rid of any advanced programs in my school, I would've loved to have more shows like this when I was younger, would've kept me from being bored with the stuff I already knew in school, yknow? Would love to see Hank and John get a TV show for this stuff!
saifirefly 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from scishow
@gerbils56 Are you serious? We need Tampax advertisements between shows...(stupid media)
ALSIGIU 6 days ago
@ALSIGIU Who's going to pay to have this aired? The "media" is trying to make money by having advertisements. It would be unlikely for this idea to happen.
redschool 5 days ago
these are the most amazing things ever.
but then again i'm high as fuck.
whatgrowsontrees 3 weeks ago 11
This is just a dumb premise, I appologise for being hateful, but it's moronville in here.
NASA just wasted 1.5 million on an idea that is dangerouse and stupid.
Kerosen is by FAR a better storage device for energy, and allways will be.
By the way, those rockets we are so fond of also use fuel,and I dont see you making comments about NASA hiding behind the word "fuel" the way you go on about airplanes.
Waste of money, and effort.
popceed 3 weeks ago
@popceed Why do you thing $1.5 million even if it is only to make 2 hyper-effeteness person plans is a waist of money or effort. NASA and Google knew damn well they where not getting a new 787 type plane, as just to order an already designed 787 it costs ~$200 million with a project cost of $34 billion, so a $1.5 million prize was not funding that cost. Combustibility fuel does have better energy density, but electronically motors are lighter. So, if you only need the equivalent of 2 gallons...
Loathomar 3 weeks ago
There will NEVER be international electricaly powerd passenger/cargo planes.
Let the hippy's build a derigable, and fly over sea's in em' if they want to save the enviornment, ill take the 747.
popceed 3 weeks ago
Ok hippy..., your selling a bill of goods, and I aint buying it.
#1 the whole fuel to gas thing..., NOT funny,ironic, or witty.
Not sure what you where going for there, but if people dont realise that fuel and gas are the same thing...thier fucking morons.
#2 when stated in miles per gallon then YES the electric is more efficient, HOWEVER no electric plane is flying over weather, is carrying a payload, or providing enough energy to maintain cabin pressures at hi alt.
popceed 3 weeks ago
the FAA took my electric ultralight because it doesn't carry any fuel.
datafreak667 3 weeks ago
Where a plane like that may be a viable replacement for the sport pilot, it would be hard to imagine an inexpensive replacement for airliners. At least not for a while however engines are getting more efficient and I am curios whether that stat at the beginning comes from the 747-200 or the 747-8.
XBLMastrodicasa 3 weeks ago
@XBLMastrodicasa The advantage goes to electronic plane when the fuel needs are very low and a significant percent of the weight would come from the motor. So a 747 has 40,000 gallon of gas and a motor set that weights 48,000 lb, but one gallon of gas weighs 8.3lb so the fuel weights ~8 times the motors. Even if the motors weight nothing in a 747, to change to even the best battery would over 4 times the weight, though some of that is returned in efficiency, but the weight is still more.
Loathomar 3 weeks ago
I'm out of videos from scishow! I NEED MOAR!!
Thatguywiththelaptop 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from scishow
Cool!
iugey 3 weeks ago
The numbers can always be big.
BruceLeefromthegrave 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from scishow
This is probably a stupid question, but what's the point of making our vehicles electric if we generate electricity by burning fossil fuels?
invisigoth841 1 month ago
@invisigoth841 Take a drive through southwest Iowa at night, each one of those hundreds of blinking lights is a colossal windmill. In time, we'll be able to tap into the Earth's crust and harvest that heat for a nearly unlimited energy source.
One step at a time.
AtreideSardaukar 3 weeks ago
@invisigoth841 Only part of our electricity comes from fossil fuels, there are substantial amounts from hydro power and nuclear, with the potential for much more from solar and wind, as well as advanced nuclear in the form of liquid fluoride thorium reactors, LFTRS.
JRP3 3 weeks ago
@JRP3 And you can use all that electricity to extract hydrogen or modify carbon chains to make diesel.
tankd0g 3 weeks ago
@tankd0g Yes, at very poor efficiency.
JRP3 3 weeks ago
@JRP3 If the electricity is limitless and free, 1% efficiency is still something for nothing.
tankd0g 3 weeks ago
@tankd0g Electricity is never limitless and free.
JRP3 3 weeks ago 40
@JRP3 Renewable are near as makes no difference to being limitless and free, we put virtually nothing in to get something out. Batteries on the other hand, cradle to grave, we are still putting more into them than we get out.
tankd0g 3 weeks ago
@tankd0g There are no renewables that we put nothing into and get something out and none are close to limitless. That's why most of the grid is nuclear, NG, coal, and hydro.
JRP3 3 weeks ago
@JRP3 I don't think you understand what limitless means. You think the sun is going to run out, wind stop blowing?
tankd0g 3 weeks ago
@tankd0g I don't think you understand that to convert that energy into something useful takes inputs that are not free or limitless. If it's so free and easy why is there so little of it in use?
JRP3 3 weeks ago
@tankd0g In 5-7 billion years the sun will go out and without a sun, I am not sure we will have wind either, so it is not limitless. There is only a finite amount of energy in the universe, though it is an unbelievably large amount, it is still finite.
Loathomar 3 weeks ago
@Loathomar not really energy can not be destroyed or created so you can use it all you want
thebestanthe3rd 3 weeks ago
@thebestanthe3rd Energy can not be destroyed or created, but it does disparate. So, if we could turn off the sun and earth had no more sun energy, we quickly lose a great deal of energy to space, in the form of heat. Dropping to average by an estimated 50' F within a week. The earth would average -100' F after a year. And humans could not come close to producing the power needed to change anything.
Loathomar 3 weeks ago
@JRP3 true. but its far more abundant and far cheaper then patroleum. eventually well find a way to make it limitless and possibly free.(just think how many solar pannels this mofo would need to charge it in less then 3 months)
jabadahut50 2 weeks ago
@JRP3 Wind power, Solar power, Geothermal, Tidal, and wave. Outside of the production of these plants... it's free, and practically limitless.
ConfuciousDragon 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ConfuciousDragon
"Outside of the production of these plants... it's free, and practically limitless."
Which means of course that it's not free, since there will always be costs involved in their production, and maintenance, and not limitless since there will always be limits on what we can build. Other than that.....
JRP3 2 weeks ago
@ConfuciousDragon Most of the electricity is made with fuel, as in fossil fuels.
EtioIatify 2 weeks ago
@JRP3 actually it can be, it depends where you get it from. Solar energy is free, tide power is free, geothermal energy is free.
TheRumpletiltskin 1 week ago
@TheRumpletiltskin I see, so the technology to collect that energy from the sun, tides, and geothermal, is all free, donated and maintained by fairies?
JRP3 1 week ago
@JRP3 it pays for itself (as of cost) but yes, if you want to get SUPER technical, the equipment does take energy to make, that when completely back traced, will require some form of fossil fuel, and will cost money.
Either way, it is still better to get off fossil fuels as much as possible than to say "well there's no free energy so why change?"
TheRumpletiltskin 1 week ago
@TheRumpletiltskin It's not SUPER technical to point out the initial costs that are always involved, and are often substantial. There are also ongoing maintenance issues that involve costs. My insistence on pointing out the realities of energy conversion have nothing in common with the idea that "well there's no free energy so why change?" I'm all for change, but grounded in reality.
JRP3 1 week ago
@JRP3 We all want a green world,but as gas today is 4 $ x gallon same thing is gonna cost the electricity one day...Ppl are just stupid and the gov take advantage of it...
ALSIGIU 6 days ago
@ALSIGIU Yes people are stupid. However electricity can be generated from many different sources, which means, unlike oil, no single source will have a monopoly, keeping costs lower. Also you can purchase solar panels to generate your own electricity, effectively locking in your fuel prices for 30+ years.
JRP3 5 days ago
Dude. the taurus is a bespin cloud car. O.o
TheEndOfIgnorance1 1 month ago
Did you know Pipistrel is from a little country that most of the people never heard of? And that little country is in Europe. It's called Slovenia, with around 2 million people :)
TubigGD 1 month ago in playlist More videos from scishow
When I was reading the description before the video played, I read "Green Flight Challenge" and thought "Hank, you (and John) had a flight challenge? What?" I need to work on that problem. It happens a lot.
stargleekwhofighter 1 month ago in playlist More videos from scishow
Hi Hank, I just wanted to mention that fully booked the 747 gets 100 miles per gallon per passenger, which is actually incredibly good, considering that the average vehicle gets about 25 mpg (not including big trucks for hauling).
I have been a huge fan of Pipistrel's aircraft since I first discovered them a couple of years ago. I'm currently studying Mechanical Engineering at the University of Victoria, and I am focusing on aeronautical engineering.
EpicTask 1 month ago
The one thing I noticed most from this video is that you Americans say "our great nation." Whereas us English tend to say "shitty cesspool of a country."
LifeOfCraig 1 month ago
What kind of efficiency would a boeing 747 get going 107mph, rather than 507mph?
TheCaphits 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
But the Electric is Madonna
volkerala 1 month ago
yay this is so awesome to know!! xD I want to fly in one soon! Although, I'm depressed to know that I'll never be able to do time travel in my life time :(
jeaniebaby001 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
That plane could hold 2 people, if that. Clearly electric is not the way of the future.
counterclockwise123 1 month ago
Keep us updated on the electric planes, please!
Datelesswonders 1 month ago
I was considering this the last time I took a reasonably long flight. If we ran out of dinosaurs to burn, the world would get much bigger quite suddenly. In a rather surreal way though. I mean, for electricity we could shift to alternate sources, in the hypothetical no combustible dinosaur universe the cost of solar electricity would suddenly become less burdensome. So we'd have the internet creating the illusion of a small world, while not being able to just get anywhere within like, 18 hours.
callinkirjo 1 month ago 2
That's great and all, but it's still, freaking LIGHTYEARS away from being remotely able to replace a modern passenger Jet. Consider the volume a transcontinental plane can carry, at the speed that it does. To replace that kind of effectiveness with electric planes is just monumentally far away. Consider the effort it takes just keeping your cell phone charged for a DAY, and how heavy that battery is. It's mind numbingly complicated. Of course, all it takes is 1 unexpected breakthrough.
callinkirjo 1 month ago
i fucking love this channel
droberts1111 1 month ago
Gross fact: According to the show the Doctors , airplanes are germy and gross. Their can be fecal matter on the trays and semen on the seats,or worse...
VictoryFire88 1 month ago in playlist More videos from scishow
I don't know if this was intentional... but there was a total reference to the movie "Airplane" at 0:40. I think it may be too good to be true =D
Clcarbo1st 1 month ago
As a pilot who is very keenly aware of the environmental damage of her passion, I found this video pretty amazing. I would totally volunteer myself to fly a prototype of an electric airplane.
Cinuilas 1 month ago
It's impossible for me to love NASA more.
CullTheLivingFlower 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if it uses 1/4 the energy and takes 6 times longer it's %50 less efficient. (747 goes like 600 miles per hour i think)
just saying
and like even electricity uses petroleum, so....fail? idk i'm not an expert.
devonriley415 1 month ago
Comment removed
devonriley415 1 month ago
As much as I love the idea it just isn't realistic (yet). Think of the amount of people taking off from for example Heathrow airport every day. Were you to replace the planes with electric ones you would need so very many. It may be "fuel effecient" per occupant, but it is not very practical not cost effecient if you think of how many pilots you would need to fly the damned things :P
Fingers crossed that they figure out how to make fast, effecient Boeing 777-300er's - because those are lovely :)
TheYuxiaodi 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
He sounds so much like CaptainSparklz
ChiefBada 1 month ago
Bahahaha on my last flight I was watching Water for Elephants! CREEPY
SivaniVlogs 1 month ago in playlist More videos from scishow
I am forever grateful for this SciShow venture you've taken up Hank
AMVGirl 1 month ago
And they were like "yieks, guiz"
firespirit94 1 month ago
You need something to say after "We hope you learned something." I'm sure the collective mind of Nerdfighteria could come up with something...
MrKaleidoscoPics 1 month ago in playlist More videos from scishow
gallons... in the SI you use m^3 or liters...
enrybono 1 month ago
I'm so glad you started this Hank. Its a perfect study break.
TriceratopsMP 1 month ago
I really like your videos.
ItsBeenOnMyMind 1 month ago
I actually did watch Water for Elephants on a flight from London to Boston. Ha
RaRaAshley 1 month ago
So instead of using gas we are using electricity, probably from coal...seems like a sideways move.
nmr5035 1 month ago
@nmr5035 But just burning it all there inside the plane isn't as efficient... and then after we switch the grid to green energy in 30 years(don;t quote me) it should be easier, because you wouldn't have to make all the planes from scratch...
Yackielot 1 month ago
You know, making things electric that normally run on petroleum isn't actually solving a lot of problems, because in America we get most of our electricity from generators powered by coal, so we're still releasing lots of carbon even with our electric cars and planes.
StainlessSteelPolish 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@StainlessSteelPolish Of course, but as Hank pointed out in the Solar Energy video, with a single big power plant we can easier control efficiency and pollution than lots of little ones. The same principle can be applied: even a single coal generator producing electricity which is transported to the cars and planes is going to be better than lots of tiny inefficient polluting things [citation needed].
aJanuary 1 month ago
My brain still wanted to add onto the ending... "That was today's SciShow Dose, hope you learned something, John, I'll see you on Tuesday."
g2theIrishPianist 1 month ago in playlist More videos from scishow 125
@g2theIrishPianist By the way his tone of voice ended, it sounded like he really wanted to say that too!
elephantsonparade321 1 month ago in playlist More videos from scishow
does anyone else think the opening song sounds like a song from a level from sonic?
babygirl32843 1 month ago
how can anyone have disliked this video?
vyvyanne 1 month ago
I am seriously considering staying home from my bio 101 class so I can stay and actually learn about the science world.
andiekahl 1 month ago
So how did they determine what amount of electricity is equivalent to what amount of gasoline?
Fawriel 1 month ago
SciShow and Vsauce should do a collaboration!
dearestnora 1 month ago 2
there are what? and don't call me shirley(;
starlove0043 1 month ago in playlist More videos from scishow
It's very neat that they can do this, but isn't making them electric just transferring the fuel emissions elsewhere ( namely, to the place burning coal to make the power?) I don't think we can fix the pollution problem until we fix the way we supply all our energy- oil, electricity, etc. Ultimately, it has to come from somewhere.
anjabeth04 1 month ago in playlist Dose
Hey what about doing one on geo- thermal power?
fun2run4 1 month ago
Hank, I have to tell you about my dream. My family and I were going on this trip to somewhere, and there was this trailer out front. Only, there was a horse in there. This guy came out and told me it was my horse, gave me a certificate and the horse, and left. Her name is Sunflower. If you ever find a black horse with grey legs, let me know. Oh, good episode too. :D
MayonatorxD 1 month ago
nice
F6022 1 month ago
Don't call me Shirley.
poehlerbear91 1 month ago 39
It's four times more efficient but would four of them carry as many people as the planes being used now?
JOemzish 1 month ago
@JOemzish I think he meant 4x more efficient per person.
Azraeille 1 month ago
I'll never get used to not hearing "Good morning, John!" in the beginnings of these videos -__-
StorybookDisneyDoll 1 month ago
Nasa café google... Interesting senario...
dob1997 1 month ago
I'm very excited about this! However the biggest challenge is for cargo planes, which make up some of the nastiest fuel consumption. The real victory will come when we see these same numbers for large planes that can deliver cargo loads to and from europe, asia, and america.
chibisven 1 month ago
Yay electric planes!
tuxxedomask 1 month ago
just made me feel a little better about the world :)
bobspianosbffl 1 month ago in playlist More videos from scishow
i WAS wishing i wasnt watching water for elephants the last time i was on a plane!!
I wonder how many people will forfeit leg room for higher efficiency??
JoyPhilpp44 1 month ago
The pipistrel airplane was made in a town near me and I'm very proud of that! sLOVEnia!! <3 DFTBA! BTW, they just started ajourney around the world with this small little plane and hopefully, they will succeed :)
travellingsuitcase 1 month ago
I like how Google is involved for some reason. If I worked for Nasa and was trying to figure out a way to decrease the amount of fuel used by airplanes, I don't think my first thought would be "Hey, I bet the guys at Google can help with this." Weird.
Thndrcougrfalcnbrd 1 month ago 158
@Thndrcougrfalcnbrd i dunno, if i was working for nasa and needed to get something as expensive as this kind of research done id probably go to a really rich company that thinks its the future too :)
xxiloveitallxx 1 month ago
@Thndrcougrfalcnbrd The two founders of Google were and are very interested in solving issues with physical transportation. Which makes sense because they solved most issues with the transportation of information and data... via the revolutionary Google Search Engine. But one thing you might not know is that actually Google invented a self driving car. It supposedly works fantastically and only ever got into one accident. Which wasn't the car's fault according to the insurance claim.
MrFlowers101 1 month ago