Follow this blog:
RSS

Future planes could go green with ‘engine-less taxiing’

By | March 4, 2012, 12:15 PM PST

While we know that most of the fuel burned by aircrafts occurs during flight, we often glaze over the fact that planes expend a substantial amount of energy while simply taxiing to and from a gate. And with abundant delays and last-minute gate changes, there’s no telling just how much fuel is being wasted while planes move about the runway.

To cut down on some of this waste, researchers at the University of Lincoln have proposed a method that would allow aircrafts to capture and reuse their own power. The saved energy would power trips to and from the gate, eliminating the need for jet engine use during the process. Researchers say the plan would save on fuel, slash emissions and reduce noise pollution.

The process would work by harnessing the energy produced by the plane’s braking system during a landing. The energy would then be converted into electricity by motor-generators built into the aircraft’s landing gear. From there, the electricity would be stored and later supplied to the plane’s in-hub motors in its wheels.

The research was part of an initiative set to discover the ways in which an aircraft could capture energy during landing. While many of the ideas were neither feasible nor cost-effective, scientists at the university believe that their idea is a breakthrough for “engine-less taxiing.”

“If the next generation of aircraft that emerges over the next 15 to 20 years could incorporate this kind of technology, it would deliver enormous benefits, especially for people living near airports,” said research leader Paul Stewart in a press release. “Currently, commercial aircraft spend a lot of time on the ground with their noisy jet engines running. In the future this technology could significantly reduce the need to do that.”

[via Eureka]

Photo: Abdallah/Flickr

Related on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Sarah Korones

About Sarah Korones

Sarah Korones was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2012 to 2013.

Sarah Korones

Sarah Korones

Contributing Editor

Sarah Korones is a freelance writer based in New York. She has written for Psychology Today and Boston's Weekly Dig. She holds a degree from Tufts University.

Follow her on Twitter.

Sarah Korones

Sarah Korones

Sarah Korones does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
14
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
-3 Votes
+ -
www.myvoguestore.com
CHEAPEST ALL OVER THE WORLD FOR FASHION GOODS
...L.V..www....|.myvoguestore.com ..N.I.K.E..|||"|""___
....U.G.G..|__________________|||_|___|)
..C.O.A.C.H.......www..|.myvoguestore.com .!(@)'(@)""""**!(@)(@)****!(@)
....???D&G???????????????./?????/)
???P0L0???????????????..,/??../
Ed.hardy????????????./???./
???????????? ./?????/?????????/??/`
?????????./???/???/???./???../??\
??????..(???(???????????????.??~ /???)
?????????\???????????????..???../
?????????.\??????????????????/
????????????\????????????..(



Believe you will love it.
we will give you a big discount
..L.V??????..{?} * {?} ..
..N.I.K.E..{?} * {?} * {?} ..SH0ES
??????E.D-HARDY ; {?} * ; * : ???free.shipping???..
???Bur.berry??????.;\ \ \\| / / /;????????????????
???G.U.C.C.I??????\\ \ Y/ / / ??????P.O.L.O??????.
..J.O.R.D.A.N?????????.`_\ |/ _??? ????????????.
???C0ACH?????????./ \\Y// \..
..C.H.A.N.E.L?????????.`_\ |/ _??? ????????????.
Chr1stian Aud1gier, Affl1ction
AND SO ON
don???t miss it
ww w myvoguestore c om
Posted by gogorose1
4th Mar 2012
+1 Vote
+ -
Breaking?
Yeah the added weight of that equipment would be breaking the heart of the airline's bean counters. I think you should train your spell checker that BRAKING is what occurs when a machine slows down
Anyway, the fuel used to haul that added hardware would probably be as much as that used in "walking" around the airport to the gate.
Posted by cfthelin
5th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
taxi-ing planes
Why don't they just tow the plane out to the runway with the trucks they use to tow aircraft? Simple. Also why not help the plane reach take off speed with a tow line, like they do with gliders?
Posted by kitemanmusic
5th Mar 2012
+1 Vote
+ -
Store energy in hub motors?
I think the writer blew a fuse there. Hub motors don't store energy, they can produce electricity or use it, but they can't store it.To store breaking energy you need batteries and they are costly and can be heavy, or is it possible the skins of a plane can somehow be used as a capacitor?
Posted by fasco
5th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Correction
Hi,

Thanks for pointing that out. The post has been corrected-- energy is supplied to the hub motors, not stored in them.

Sarah
Posted by skorones
5th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Reducing noise and fuel use
Some factories have a chain-driven assembly line, others have chain-driven delivery carts transporting parts bins, etc. Some form of a chain drive in pits could be used to tow jets with their engines off from the terminal to a take-off runway, and away, also, engines off, from the landing runway to the terminals. A retractable pin in the nose-gear would be the only requirement to add to the jets. Have a starting cart at the take-off staging for jets requiring assistance, and MANY gallons of fuel, and greatly DIMINISHED noise, would be benefits. Secondary benefit: aircraft would not taxi into each other, spacing would be determined by the chain. Also, a chain malfunction would NOT disable operation! You merely revert to old systems!

Now to another problem: power to drive air-conditioning, system electronics, while awaiting take-off clearance, with engines off, possibly for an hour, or more!
Posted by mogul264
5th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
European tug.
Back in the late 1080s several European airports were testing a new tug that grasp the front wheels of the plane instead of attaching to a tow point. It allowed for quicker one person operations.

They were looking at adding an automated imbilical cord that would attach near the nose gear to provide power for the items you mention. I never heard where it went in development.
Posted by Hates Idiots
5th Mar 2012
+1 Vote
+ -
That problem is already solved.
Most commercial jets already have an auxiliary power unit (APU) that provides the power for A/C, electronics, and for starting the engines.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
5th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Dynamic vs. Static
Fasco, my friend, the answer is no.
A capacitor stores a charge of static electricity, measured in coulombs. If my memory serves me, an ampere is a rate of current flow of one coulomb per second. An electric motor is a machine which converts electromagnetic energy into mechanical energy, a dynamo or generator is the inverse. The electromagnetism is created by a current flowing in a conductor, usually coils of wire. The movement of the rotor generates a back-EMF, electro-motive-force, measured in volts. A motor-generator can be designed, either to consume power when driving, or generate it when braking.
A capacitor of one Farad, charged to 100V, has 100 Coulomb of charge, but its energy is 5,000 Joules. (integral of x.dx from 0.0 to 1.0 =0.5)
So the only way to store even as little as 5 kilowatt-seconds (also called five kiloJoules) in a one-million-microfarad capacitor would be to reach a voltage of one hundred V. But in fact if you search the web for such a thing, you will find that capacitors are indeed reckoned in microFarad sizes, and anything that big won't sustain so big a voltage.
Posted by SmartAlbert
5th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Battery technology will have to come a long way before this is practical.
What you are actually describing is a kind of regenerative hybrid system like that already employed in cars like the Prius. The problem with such a system in aviation is the weight. Everything in aviation is about weight. A generator/motor capable of moving a 50-ton or larger aircraft would be considerable. And remember than plan landing is only decelerating on its wheels for a few seconds; not much time to capture that much energy with conventional technology; batteries simply cannot be charged that quickly. And the weight of conventional batteries alone make this type of system a non-starter. (Consider that the battery pack of a Chevy Volt weigh nearly a quarter of a ton by themselves) The energy savings employed by this would more than be consumed by the fuel required to haul this extra several tons of equipment through the air.

A more practical approach would be like mentioned above; ground-based tow vehicles that would move the planes to and from runways. (These vehicles are already very heavy, so the weight constraints of a hybrid system in them would not be an issue) These would also go a long way towards improving air quality on and surrounding airports.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 5th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
weight
I agree 100%. All that extra weight for the motors, batteries, electronics and other hardware would add considerable weight to the aircraft, weight that would require more thrust from the engines. Just like a truck, once you fill the bed up with parts (weight) or a trailer, the gas mileage drops considerably because of the added weight.
One cheap option they could use is to only run one engine for taxiing or holding, then when they're #2 for takeoff they can start the other engine and get it warmed up for departure.
Posted by Tinman57
5th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Not just weight...
...but mechanical complexity as well for a very nominal gain in efficiency, if any. It would have to save a lot of fuel to justify the complexity and expense, which I don't think it would.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
5th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Jet Planes GREEN?
A normal 747 from Sydney to Bahrain takes 14 hours and uses 60 tons of fuel.
A turboprop 747 from Sydney to Bahrain takes 17 hours and uses 25 tons of fuel.
TOO LONG FOR THE PEOPLE WHO RUN THE WORLD.
Stop bandaiding and attack the root of the issue. Barking around the edges will not change anything.
Reduce the carbon footprint of air transport in total by 60% using 1950's technology.
TOO SLOW!
Take a piston engined Caribou and put turboprops in it and reduce its range by HALF.
JET ENGINES and TOYOTA's PRIUS are environmental barbarism at its WORST.
But then, who cotrols the propaganda.
Posted by medusaman
7th Mar 2012
0 Votes
+ -
Huh?
How many turboprops are there that carry as many people as a 747? It's passenger seat/mile that is the relevant metric.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
8th Mar 2012
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!