For transcontinental flights yes you are correct: fuel powered jets are the way and they will be for a while. However, right now we are the stage where trainer and small passenger planes can run all electric. Its inaugural Canadian flight happened last year in Campbell River, B.C.
For arctic, island and remote areas we have commercially viable technology at this moment to make planes that can take people around, but only if we let it happen.
It will soon scale to a 10-20 passenger flights, and propellers are fine for filling the regional jet niche. Porter Airlines has been doing that already in Canada with fuel-powered 160 person propeller planes, going to electric doesn’t seem too far-fetched in our near future and would be even quieter than their current planes, which would make island residents happier.
Na-ion is still not dense enough for aviation at this moment but if it could with some advanced it would solve much of the combustibility problem.
The conspiracy is about trying to impede on this progress by pretending if at one scale is currently impossible then it will never be possible, rather than trying to tackle it with whatever technologies are available or will become commercially available just over the horizon.
You’re making loads of wild, bold claims with zero proof.
Arctic flights with electrical engines, even though batteries perform even worse in cold?
There are loads of reasons why airplanes don’t fly on batteries and none of them are conspiracies.
Gram for gram, gasoline/kerosine is the most energy dense material we have tonpower machines. Batteries literally get to a fraction of that density. It’s the reason why electric cars still have 1000kg batteries vs the 50-60 liter gas tanks for cars, where cars with those gas tanks typically still get more range. Batteries have a fraction of the energy density.
Airplanes burn off fuel in flight, making them lighter and use less fuel. Batteries don’t have this advantage either, they stay the same weight
Fuel won’t burn by itself. It needs oxygen to do this and while in tanks, it won’t burn. This is why airplanes never spontaneously explode mid air. Compare this to batteries that have everything they need for spontaneous combustion right there inside. With an electrical car its easy enough to escape, at 10 kilometers high it’s an automatic death sentence. This is also the reason why fore departments have a beef with electric cars because fuel cars are relatively easy to put out where as electric cars simply keep burning until all the energy in the battery is gone. Imagine that in a plane?
Then take the sheer size of the batteries required for even moderate flights, little space and weight will be left for passengers in the first place. This is a pretty fundamental problem too. Gasoline is pure energy, you use all of it and half of the equation you don’t need to carry as air is everywhere for aircraft. Batteries, on the other hand, don’t have half the weight they can take from the outside air, they need everything inside. They are not pure energy, they have structures that don’t do anything but store the energy. You’re carrying all that around for nothing. This is amongst the reasons why batteries have only a fraction of the energy density of gasoline and this won’t change, barring some revolutionary new physics
There are loads of hard reasons why we don’t have battery aircraft, you don’t need to look into conspiracies for that
I will admit there is some speculation on my part of what will happen in the future. But the proof to my central claim of battery-operated passenger planes that are in operation today is linked right in my previous comment. I’ll link it again here in case you missed it:
And like I said I agree that fuel is more practical for most flights today, I’m not ignoring the current limitations you state. I do, however, believe that over time these can be overcome, to significant benefit, such as the $2/hr operating cost of the electric plane vs. $172. If you are most worried about airborne hazards, sodium ion batteries are far more stable than lithium and perform better at extreme temperatures, but the energy density does not currently surpass lithium so it’s not a practical for aviation yet.
What I want to say is: Just because it doesn’t work for most applications now (which you have made clear in your argument), don’t rule it out for the future.
For transcontinental flights yes you are correct: fuel powered jets are the way and they will be for a while. However, right now we are the stage where trainer and small passenger planes can run all electric. Its inaugural Canadian flight happened last year in Campbell River, B.C.
For arctic, island and remote areas we have commercially viable technology at this moment to make planes that can take people around, but only if we let it happen.
It will soon scale to a 10-20 passenger flights, and propellers are fine for filling the regional jet niche. Porter Airlines has been doing that already in Canada with fuel-powered 160 person propeller planes, going to electric doesn’t seem too far-fetched in our near future and would be even quieter than their current planes, which would make island residents happier.
Na-ion is still not dense enough for aviation at this moment but if it could with some advanced it would solve much of the combustibility problem.
The conspiracy is about trying to impede on this progress by pretending if at one scale is currently impossible then it will never be possible, rather than trying to tackle it with whatever technologies are available or will become commercially available just over the horizon.
You’re making loads of wild, bold claims with zero proof.
Arctic flights with electrical engines, even though batteries perform even worse in cold?
There are loads of reasons why airplanes don’t fly on batteries and none of them are conspiracies.
Gram for gram, gasoline/kerosine is the most energy dense material we have tonpower machines. Batteries literally get to a fraction of that density. It’s the reason why electric cars still have 1000kg batteries vs the 50-60 liter gas tanks for cars, where cars with those gas tanks typically still get more range. Batteries have a fraction of the energy density.
Airplanes burn off fuel in flight, making them lighter and use less fuel. Batteries don’t have this advantage either, they stay the same weight
Fuel won’t burn by itself. It needs oxygen to do this and while in tanks, it won’t burn. This is why airplanes never spontaneously explode mid air. Compare this to batteries that have everything they need for spontaneous combustion right there inside. With an electrical car its easy enough to escape, at 10 kilometers high it’s an automatic death sentence. This is also the reason why fore departments have a beef with electric cars because fuel cars are relatively easy to put out where as electric cars simply keep burning until all the energy in the battery is gone. Imagine that in a plane?
Then take the sheer size of the batteries required for even moderate flights, little space and weight will be left for passengers in the first place. This is a pretty fundamental problem too. Gasoline is pure energy, you use all of it and half of the equation you don’t need to carry as air is everywhere for aircraft. Batteries, on the other hand, don’t have half the weight they can take from the outside air, they need everything inside. They are not pure energy, they have structures that don’t do anything but store the energy. You’re carrying all that around for nothing. This is amongst the reasons why batteries have only a fraction of the energy density of gasoline and this won’t change, barring some revolutionary new physics
There are loads of hard reasons why we don’t have battery aircraft, you don’t need to look into conspiracies for that
I will admit there is some speculation on my part of what will happen in the future. But the proof to my central claim of battery-operated passenger planes that are in operation today is linked right in my previous comment. I’ll link it again here in case you missed it:
https://globalnews.ca/news/10567635/canada-first-ever-commercial-electric-flight-bc/
It’s not all a pipe dream.
And like I said I agree that fuel is more practical for most flights today, I’m not ignoring the current limitations you state. I do, however, believe that over time these can be overcome, to significant benefit, such as the $2/hr operating cost of the electric plane vs. $172. If you are most worried about airborne hazards, sodium ion batteries are far more stable than lithium and perform better at extreme temperatures, but the energy density does not currently surpass lithium so it’s not a practical for aviation yet.
What I want to say is: Just because it doesn’t work for most applications now (which you have made clear in your argument), don’t rule it out for the future.