Beam Global, a provider of sustainable technology for electric vehicle (EV) charging, reports it successfully set the world record for the longest flight in a production electric aircraft powered by off-grid, renewable solar energy, proving zero emissions aviation is here.
Starting in Fresno, California, the Pipistrel Alpha Electro aircraft flew 227 nautical miles over Central California with stops in Madera, Merced, Modesto, and Lodi before following the same flight path back to Fresno.
EV ARC electric vehicle charging equipment was rapidly deployed at several airports, and in some cases relocated to support the multi-leg flight, demonstrating that airports can support the electrification of aviation without construction, electrical work, or large utility charges, according to company officials.
“This historic world record marks the start of a new chapter for zero emissions aviation while breaking down the barriers to rapid adoption of commercially available clean aircraft. Our products make airport charging infrastructure available now, ushering in a new level of aviation access for rural and suburban denizens,” said Beam Global CEO Desmond Wheatley. “There are around 20,000 public and private airports across the U.S. and we want to put clean, impact free charging infrastructure in all of them.”
“I’m thrilled we accomplished our record-setting flight. This is a defining summer for sustainable aviation and for establishing the Central Valley as a forward-thinking region for propelling the electrification of aviation ahead at an accelerated pace,” said pilot Joseph Oldham, founder and CEO of New Vision Aviation. “Our goal with this accomplishment is to raise awareness of the urgent need for more clean transportation options — and show the world what is possible.”
Non-profit New Vision Aviation sees California’s Central Valley as an emerging innovation hub for the electrification of aviation and oversees educational programs for disadvantaged youth to inspire and train them for careers in clean aviation.
Look—they were beaming folks on/off the Enterprise back in the 1960s. Anything is possible; you just have to believe….
Elon will figure it out.
and…. when we can ‘beam’ folks anywhere, all other forms of transportation will be obsolete.
It won’t be as much fun as flying or driving, but it will be instantaneous. !
I always love the “zero emissions” claim. No one ever addresses the “emissions” necessary to create the charging stations, transporting them, battery manufacturing, etc,. I’m all for alternative energy sources but the total energy cost and environmental impact of all these alternatives must be evaluated.
Don’t know about how much extra pollution is generated when creating the batteries for an Electric Airplane, but probably similar to what is generated for each electric car’s battery – about 80,000 miles of driving worth of pollution.
I do wish them well, and if they get to be practical, I’d be first in line, but you’re fooling yourselves if you think they’re green!
It may prove impractical but swappable battery packs may be a solution. All charged up and ready to go at each airport.
I don’t think battery power is as clean as everyone wants it to be though. Battery packs have a lot of toxic metals and chemicals in them so what happens to them when they’re no longer useful? Are they going to create a toxic nightmare?
I love the technology, but you really need to look at the whole picture to determine what is the best power source. Sure electric is clean while it’s running, but the creation and storage may not be.
Solar charging is great in CA but what about cloudy and dank New England. July 2021 was a miserable month for sunshine. Nice idea and keep on pushing the envelope. Maybe someday we will see a breakthrough in the battery technology.
I always cringe a bit when reading the naysayers when a report is made on experimental efforts. Why can’t they recognize that a LOT of experimentation is required to move ahead in new fields such as electric powered aircraft and congratulate and thank the ones making the experiment? I for one thank them and look forward to the day that electric powered aircraft are common, as they will be some day. I stand ready to order one once they have been proved reliable and approved for use by qualified pilots.
There is currently no technology path to develop a very high capacity, low weight battery, or fuel cell.
If there ever is a 500-600 kWhr battery that weighs about 300 lb [ the energy in, and, what 50 gallons of gas weighs ], there is still the problem of the 10’s of hours to recharge it.
The current ‘demonstrator’ electric aircraft are very reliable for the hour or 2 that they can fly, and then require 3-4 hours to recharge .
There a long way to go before this is practical. This is a stunt for pr purposes and in no way a practical achievement . And how much fuel did they burn in the support/ moving facilities exercise? And sadly, they lied, there will need to be massdive investment in ibfrastructure to supoort realistic flight operations.
The horror is that we cannot continue with what we have been using i.e. fossil fuels. Therefore I hope they get many deep pocket investors.
It is true that the “Holy Grail” of future energy is nuclear fusion (not fission)) We would be wise to pray for success of the ITER (France) project and General Fusion (Canada) project and others.
We may already be past the “tipping point” beyond which we may not be able to survive.
The problem is accelerating at a stunning and increasing rate.
There will probably be wars and blood in the streets before this is over.
Reality can be harsh.
Nonsense. Batteries won’t power commercial aviation. The reality is that sustainable fuels are a better and far more capable choice. To that end, it’s entirely possible to generate fuel from the waste heat of nuclear reactors, by thermally disassociating hydrogen from water, pulling CO2 from the atmosphere or ocean and producing a tailored, synthetic hydrocarbon fuel.
This ‘event’ was more a demonstration and promotion of the Beam Global, portable, stand alone charging station. It is innovative, using 4+ kw of solar pv and a battery for storage.
I’ll assume that both the solar pv and battery can be used to recharge whatever electric vehicle it is made available to recharge.
Their website shows autos as well as the Pipistrel.
As far as the ‘record’ flight; taking 22 hours over 4 days , [ from their website news], is a poor demonstration of the Pip. Alpha.
The multiple stops each day were less about recharging the 20+ kWhr battery, than promoting the charging station. With only 4kw charge capability, they looked to spend about 2 hours at each stop, so it wasn’t getting much of a recharge.
I can fully appreciate the need to, at times, take a “crawl, walk, run” approach to developing and maturing new technologies. So, I generally applaud efforts like this that try to push beyond the accepted norm. That said, I’m struggling in this case to see the meaningful technical achievement, much less anything to crow about with a press release.
Quick plotting and the provided information indicates four legs at just less than 30nm per leg, just to complete one half of the total 227nm round-trip. Some searching on FlightAware (N197AM, if anyone is curious) seems to confirm this. It also reveals that their effort spanned almost 3 days (July 14-16), indicates about 30 minutes of flight time per leg (at less than 2000 ft), followed by (seemingly) about 2.5 to 3 hours of charge time.
My instinct here is that roughly 30nm is quite close to their maximum range with day VFR minimum reserves. If we factor in the required charge time, one would be hard pressed to manage just 3 flights per day. In that case, I don’t see any practical application for this. I mean, to use my club’s standard training scenario, we need that much range just to make a round trip to our nearest practice area. And it is not unusual for just one of our aircraft to have 3 or more flights a day. So, with its apparent performance, this aircraft wouldn’t even be useful for primary, local-area training flights in our case, and this is ignoring the altitude factor. Even if they manage to double, or even triple current flight performance, it would still be questionable in my mind.
Meanwhile, one of our tried-and-true, workhorse 172’s could probably fly that same round trip, non-stop, twice, with comfortable reserves, at a much more reasonable cross-country cruising altitude, and probably even pull it off before lunch.
Don’t get me wrong; I do wish them well in their efforts. But, I have to wonder how they see this developing into a real-world-practical option? Or, is this simply a scream for attention in the hopes of attracting additional investors?