682 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Right. So why bamboozle the public? Why always hype your way along rather than reveal new technology for what it is. You’ve already got the money from government and industry. Is step two to pressure clients to buy one or two of these things because consumers got the wrong idea from all the hype and now expect/demand their airlines to have them?

It’s like the Ballard buses of the 90s all over again.

[UserofVic]

I get that, but then say that.

They don’t need to hype it like they are. Be genuine.

Their path is the same path the green energy industry took, with hype hype hype, and now it’s a miserable mess because the hype never lived up to real world results.

That last paragraph seems pretty off base considering renewables have become cheaper than coal. That's a far cry from a "miserable mess" to me.

[Victoria Watcher]

Right. So why bamboozle the public? Why always hype your way along rather than reveal new technology for what it is. You’ve already got the money from government and industry. Is step two to pressure clients to buy one or two of these things because consumers got the wrong idea from all the hype and now expect/demand their airlines to have them?

It’s like the Ballard buses of the 90s all over again.

 

consumers and business sometimes make decisions based on environmental perceptions.  heck you can "buy" your home power from a "green supplier" even though it comes from the same line that delivers it to your neighbour for cheaper.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 02 June 2020 - 06:28 AM.

[Mike K.]

See, even more hype.

40 years of hype for these “renewables.” And neither you, nor I, live in a home powered by solar panels, drive a solar-powered car, or heat our homes through the use of tidal energy generators or wind.

But I do heat my home with a renewable, which turned out to be the renewable industry’s saving grace, but not until they renamed it biomass. That renewable is wood (aka firewood).

[Mike K.]

consumers and business sometimes make decisions based on environmental perceptions. heck you can "buy" your home power from a "green supplier" even though it comes from the same line that delivers it to your neighbour for cheaper.

That’s what I’m saying.

Hype.

[Victoria Watcher]

hype sells. 

 

that's why you pay $85 for your cologne and i pay $11 for mine.  why i pay $95 for my favourite wine bottle and you pay $16 for yours.

 

it's why coke costs more than the off-label bottled at the same plant.

 

it's why people pay $400 more for an apple laptop when it's worse-performing, for their use, than a cheaper windows model.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 02 June 2020 - 06:33 AM.

[Mike K.]

So we’re not even in disagreement any more, we’re now talking about cologne.

[UserofVic]

See, even more hype.

40 years of hype for these “renewables.” And neither you, nor I, live in a home powered by solar panels, drive a solar-powered car, or heat our homes through the use of tidal energy generators or wind.

But I do heat my home with a renewable, which turned out to be the renewable industry’s saving grace, but not until they renamed it biomass. That renewable is wood (aka firewood).

Actually your house is powered by 95% renewable energy as is, including some wind power. Did you know the North island is home to one of BC's wind farms? Now this high number is just luck with hydro, but for places without that luxury, wind power only became cheaper than coal within the last 5 years. Do you really expect a complete replacement of the power grid that fast? Fact is 17% of American power is already supplied by renewables and that number is quickly rising. Fact: New renewables are cheaper than existing coal power plants. That's no longer just hype, that's solid economics.

 

Technology can move fast, but it's not instantaneous. 40 years is nothing compared to how long some other inventions took.

Edited by UserofVic, 02 June 2020 - 06:57 AM.

[Mike K.]

Hydro has been around since your grandpa’s time. Right now the biggest threat from that sector is what to do with aging dams.

Coal power plants support those American renewables, because renewables (other than biomass/wood) are sporadic in their delivery and require coal as a constant back-up.

Anyways, I didn’t intend to highjack this discussion but c’mon, battery powered commercial aircraft are many years away from being feasible beyond trial runs or very limited uses.

[Victoria Watcher]

battery powered commercial aircraft are many years away from being feasible beyond trial runs or very limited uses.

 

that's what they are going for.  very limited uses like victoria to vancouver.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 02 June 2020 - 07:29 AM.

[Mike K.]

Those are high frequency flights. 35 minutes of operations at minimum each way, closer to 40 minutes.

[Victoria Watcher]

let's just say my new airline/airport is looking closely into the technology.  along with electromagnetic catapults.

 

we discovered quite early in our due diligence that one of the advantages of running an airport with only one outbound and inbound destination is our unique ability to use static propulsion systems to literally fling (or in our case, FLICK ES™) the aircraft away in the direction of their destination.

 

FLICK ES™ = Forward-Looking Inter-airport Catapult Kinetic Energy System

 

it also means we can operate with a shorter runway and quicker, quieter take-offs.

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 02 June 2020 - 07:55 AM.

[North Shore]

Those are high frequency flights. 35 minutes of operations at minimum each way, closer to 40 minutes.

 

But isn't that the point, though?  Im sure that no-one with any engineering nous whatsoever is thinking of Vancouver to Brisbane on batteries; Vic-Van Harbours, otoh, are perfect for a battery application - short run, known weather, predictable loads, and fuelling at both ends.  For a company like HA that is trying to reduce/eliminate its carbon footprint, I don't see how there's any downside..

[exc911ence]

let's just say my new airline/airport is looking closely into the technology.  along with electromagnetic catapults.

 

we discovered quite early in our due diligence that one of the advantages of running an airport with only one outbound and inbound destination is our unique ability to use static propulsion systems to literally fling (or in our case, FLICK ES™) the aircraft away in the direction of their destination.

 

FLICK ES™ = Forward-Looking Inter-airport Catapult Kinetic Energy System

 

it also means we can operate with a shorter runway and quicker, quieter take-offs.

 

That may be all well and good for Maverick or the Iceman but not so much for a Grandma with Osteoporosis sitting in economy. That mother holding her infant in her lap in row 10? Hmm. The 500lb professional eater with the seatbelt extension in row 30? He's going to end up in rows 31-35 when the catapult engages.

 

High-G loads on normal humans may not be the future.

[spanky123]

But isn't that the point, though?  Im sure that no-one with any engineering nous whatsoever is thinking of Vancouver to Brisbane on batteries; Vic-Van Harbours, otoh, are perfect for a battery application - short run, known weather, predictable loads, and fuelling at both ends.  For a company like HA that is trying to reduce/eliminate its carbon footprint, I don't see how there's any downside..

 

I think that the trip could be made to work from a technical standpoint, but does it make economic sense if you can only take 6 passengers and are just saving a few hundred dollars in gas. I am sure that Helps will spend taxpayer money to pay 2x the ticket price and save a few CO2 molecules but will others who have to spend their own money?

[Mike K.]

But isn't that the point, though?  Im sure that no-one with any engineering nous whatsoever is thinking of Vancouver to Brisbane on batteries; Vic-Van Harbours, otoh, are perfect for a battery application - short run, known weather, predictable loads, and fuelling at both ends.  For a company like HA that is trying to reduce/eliminate its carbon footprint, I don't see how there's any downside..

 

See, here we go: reduce its carbon footprint.

 

HA (full disclosure: I use it when I travel to Vancouver) is in the business of ultra-luxury travel. What they're doing with these battery planes is creating opportunities for positive press at a time when ultra-luxury travel is a bit of a political liability. I support them and don't blame them at all, but you can't run an airline with planes sitting around charging.

[Victoria Watcher]

That may be all well and good for Maverick or the Iceman but not so much for a Grandma with Osteoporosis sitting in economy. That mother holding her infant in her lap in row 10? Hmm. The 500lb professional eater with the seatbelt extension in row 30? He's going to end up in rows 31-35 when the catapult engages.

High-G loads on normal humans may not be the future.

we are in the early testing stages for sure. human trials are a ways off still.

[North Shore]

See, here we go: reduce its carbon footprint.

 

HA (full disclosure: I use it when I travel to Vancouver) is in the business of ultra-luxury travel. What they're doing with these battery planes is creating opportunities for positive press at a time when ultra-luxury travel is a bit of a political liability. I support them and don't blame them at all, but you can't run an airline with planes sitting around charging.

 

Otters and Beavers are 'Ultra-luxury'?!  I'm surprised that 'they' can get the smell of moosemeat and fish guts out of them enough to get passengers in there!

[Victoria Watcher]

I’d say pretty luxury. I have few friends that take them regularly or at all really. they consider them the high price ferry alternative.

[Mike K.]

Otters and Beavers are 'Ultra-luxury'?! I'm surprised that 'they' can get the smell of moosemeat and fish guts out of them enough to get passengers in there!

I don’t even know what this means.