7 ms·

could we relax the security around electric planes, because they don't carry as much highly explosive material? that could make it much more convenient and app

could we relax the security around electric planes, because they don't carry as much highly explosive material? that could make it much more convenient and appealing as a travel method

hollow-moe 1mo ago
Nope, because we all know about the race to the bottom of all companies and the littlest crack or wiggle room will be used to save a penny and kill people.
SoftTalker 1mo ago
You don't see megawatt-hours of energy in batteries as potentially dangerous?
- datadrivenangel 1mo ago
  Jetfuel is dense and energetic.
  - SoftTalker 1mo ago
    Yes it is. And there's no getting around that, a battery is just chemically-stored energy, the same in that sense as kerosene.
- rootusrootus 1mo ago
  I'd be stunned if they put a MWh of battery on a plane. This plane in particular only has a range of 120 miles electric-only, so it probably has a pack roughly similar to a modern electric pickup. 200 kWh plus or minus. By comparison, a regular regional jet probably has around 40 MWh of energy in jet fuel.
  - SoftTalker 1mo ago
    [dead]
  - ooterness 1mo ago
    Megawatt-hours (MWh) are one billion times larger than milliwatt-hours (mWh).
    - rootusrootus 1mo ago
      Thank you for the correction.
  - xboxnolifes 1mo ago
    IF they end up the size of modern jets, 1MWh is underestimating the need for even an average domestic flight.
    - rootusrootus 1mo ago
      Agreed, a full size electric airliner is going to be a different beast entirely. On the bright side, by the time we crack that nut I hope we will be using battery technology with less combustion potential than even LFP.
      - SoftTalker 1mo ago
        I don't think there's really any avoiding the combustion potential of that much energy in a compact container. We can maybe hope to make it as safe as jet fuel.
toss1 1mo ago
Interesting thought, but I'm not sure the (admittedly flammable & explosive) fuel load is the main threat posed by a hijacked aircraft — the large mass at velocity can still to major damage and casualties wherever it is crashed. Plus, depending on the battery chemistry, that material could also create a serious fire; it is a lot of stored energy either way. So, I would not wait for it
Skwid 1mo ago
Total energy is going to be comparable for aircraft with similar ranges, I don't think a lithium fire is any less unpleasant than a Jet-A fire for for anyone nearby. Even if the batteries could be made entirely inert, the ability to deliver a plane sized slug of kinetic energy to a building of your choice retains most of the danger. Even if that could be avoided, a plane must remain operational enough throughout all flights to avoid falling out of the sky. It would take a large bomb to take out a whole bus load of passengers, a very small one to put safety critical systems of a plane out of action. As much as I would appreciate this happening, I don't think electric planes are going to make it happen.
- rootusrootus 1mo ago
  > lithium fire Nit: a lithium ion battery fire isn't a lithium fire, it's the electrolyte. Lithium ion batteries don't use elemental lithium. Thankfully.
toasty228 1mo ago
They cary the same amount of energy
whatever1 1mo ago
Jet fuel, like diesel are not flammable, let alone explosive. They are combustible. Gasoline on the other hand …
topkai22 1mo ago
Not due to them being electric. It's possible that being this small they could use FBO rules more like private jet/charter operators, but even then I doubt that would be the normal case. These seem to make the most sense as a last mile connector to regional airports, in which you'd want them inside the security boundary when making your connection. It would really suck to have to go through security after your first flight whenever you are connecting.
Mawr 1mo ago
Whether 25,000 pounds of mass hitting something at 500mph also explodes or not is irrelevant. Also, I'm not so sure the passengers involved would be thrilled at your suggestion.
rswail 1mo ago
The problem of the jets on September 11 is the use of the jets themselves as weapons. Even without the jet fuel on board, the destruction would still have been substantial. Whether the Twin Towers would have fallen without the fuel is not really relevant. Most of the security is security theater. The primary improvements to security have not been people taking their shoes off or emptying water bottles. It was locking the cockpit doors and passengers knowing that they cannot rely on the hijacker wanting to survive. Other than that, making sure passengers are on board if their luggage is has meant no more Lockerbies. All the other stuff is pretty much a waste of time.

could we relax the security around electric planes, because they don't carry as much highly explosive material? that could make it much more convenient and appealing as a travel method

hollow-moe 1mo ago

Nope, because we all know about the race to the bottom of all companies and the littlest crack or wiggle room will be used to save a penny and kill people.

SoftTalker 1mo ago

You don't see megawatt-hours of energy in batteries as potentially dangerous?

datadrivenangel 1mo ago
Jetfuel is dense and energetic.
- SoftTalker 1mo ago
  Yes it is. And there's no getting around that, a battery is just chemically-stored energy, the same in that sense as kerosene.
rootusrootus 1mo ago
I'd be stunned if they put a MWh of battery on a plane. This plane in particular only has a range of 120 miles electric-only, so it probably has a pack roughly similar to a modern electric pickup. 200 kWh plus or minus. By comparison, a regular regional jet probably has around 40 MWh of energy in jet fuel.
- SoftTalker 1mo ago
  [dead]
- ooterness 1mo ago
  Megawatt-hours (MWh) are one billion times larger than milliwatt-hours (mWh).
  - rootusrootus 1mo ago
    Thank you for the correction.
- xboxnolifes 1mo ago
  IF they end up the size of modern jets, 1MWh is underestimating the need for even an average domestic flight.
  - rootusrootus 1mo ago
    Agreed, a full size electric airliner is going to be a different beast entirely. On the bright side, by the time we crack that nut I hope we will be using battery technology with less combustion potential than even LFP.
    - SoftTalker 1mo ago
      I don't think there's really any avoiding the combustion potential of that much energy in a compact container. We can maybe hope to make it as safe as jet fuel.

toss1 1mo ago

Interesting thought, but I'm not sure the (admittedly flammable & explosive) fuel load is the main threat posed by a hijacked aircraft — the large mass at velocity can still to major damage and casualties wherever it is crashed. Plus, depending on the battery chemistry, that material could also create a serious fire; it is a lot of stored energy either way. So, I would not wait for it

Skwid 1mo ago

Total energy is going to be comparable for aircraft with similar ranges, I don't think a lithium fire is any less unpleasant than a Jet-A fire for for anyone nearby. Even if the batteries could be made entirely inert, the ability to deliver a plane sized slug of kinetic energy to a building of your choice retains most of the danger. Even if that could be avoided, a plane must remain operational enough throughout all flights to avoid falling out of the sky. It would take a large bomb to take out a whole bus load of passengers, a very small one to put safety critical systems of a plane out of action. As much as I would appreciate this happening, I don't think electric planes are going to make it happen.

rootusrootus 1mo ago
> lithium fire Nit: a lithium ion battery fire isn't a lithium fire, it's the electrolyte. Lithium ion batteries don't use elemental lithium. Thankfully.

toasty228 1mo ago

They cary the same amount of energy

whatever1 1mo ago

Jet fuel, like diesel are not flammable, let alone explosive. They are combustible. Gasoline on the other hand …

topkai22 1mo ago

Not due to them being electric. It's possible that being this small they could use FBO rules more like private jet/charter operators, but even then I doubt that would be the normal case. These seem to make the most sense as a last mile connector to regional airports, in which you'd want them inside the security boundary when making your connection. It would really suck to have to go through security after your first flight whenever you are connecting.

Mawr 1mo ago

Whether 25,000 pounds of mass hitting something at 500mph also explodes or not is irrelevant. Also, I'm not so sure the passengers involved would be thrilled at your suggestion.

rswail 1mo ago

The problem of the jets on September 11 is the use of the jets themselves as weapons. Even without the jet fuel on board, the destruction would still have been substantial. Whether the Twin Towers would have fallen without the fuel is not really relevant. Most of the security is security theater. The primary improvements to security have not been people taking their shoes off or emptying water bottles. It was locking the cockpit doors and passengers knowing that they cannot rely on the hijacker wanting to survive. Other than that, making sure passengers are on board if their luggage is has meant no more Lockerbies. All the other stuff is pretty much a waste of time.