Preferences

Seeing this issue, I’m actually wondering what else might be replaced by batteries in the future… airplanes?

Anything but airplanes. Current airliners have a fuel fraction between 24 and 47%, so any decrease in energy density massively compromises performance. The energy density of jet fuel is two orders of magnitude higher than modern batteries, and jet engines have efficiencies of a few ten percent.
Nonetheless, folks are working the problem. Albeit most of the current designs look more like short-haul passenger craft or automated cargo drones to connect remote communities.
It feels like this would be a very tricky problem, seeing as it seems most large planes have "it's much lighter when landing than taking off" as part of the design constraints, seeing as maximum takeoff weight > maximum landing weight for most airliners (generally speaking, I think). It's probably not insurmountable, but it seems unclear how we fix this when takeoff weight == landing weight for electric planes.
Higher landing weight mostly just means you need stronger landing gear and wings (which adds weight, which reduces range...) It's an unfortunate cycle, but not insurmountable.

All commercial aircraft are capable of landing at takeoff weight (to deal with aborted takeoff, and other similar emergency scenarios). They just aren't certified to do so routinely, and doing so repeatedly may put a lot of stress on the landing gear and airframe.

And the breaks notably may melt besides the landing gear suffering irreparable damage (to where you need to replace the landing gear). That's planned for and to be handled by the required fire fighting truck coming out and hosing them down if they start any signs of starting a fire, even though that will shatter the brake discs that were still good. The certified landing weight is about what weight they can be and still take off with no maintenance needed and just a regular refueling and perhaps crew change due to shift limits. But nothing done to the plane besides refueling. And yeah, it's because the extra capacity is just for extra fuel for extra range, so it's not worth the spendings on landing it more than just safely once.
> Anything but airplanes.

Well, rockets are even worse, of course. :)

We might just replace aeroplanes altogether with ultra-high-speed maglev.

Although the cost calculation for this would be totally different—hundreds of billions up-front for world-crossing tunnels and infrastructure and rolling stock, but then nearly no running cost.

The Chuō Shinkansen will be an interesting small-scale experiment in proper high-speed maglev in regular, long-distance passenger service.

Unless we build giant bridges spanning the oceans, I think we'll sooner have electric jetliners than a global maglev network.
The thing we do technically know how to do just haven't yet because there are no economic incentives to even tackle the finer engineering aspects let alone the regulatory approval ones, is to put a large vacuum-insulated (like a thermos/dewar) liquid hydrogen tank in the middle of a jet or a more-spherical shape front and back of the wing; and then just adjusting the plumbing and combustion chambers and nozzles to work for hydrogen instead of regular diesel-like jet fuel. We have gas turbines running on hydrogen. They just work. We have tanks like it, just none tuned for the needs and wants of an airplane specifically. They are more range than a normal jet fuel tank, because hydrogen is just so much lighter per energy. The only issue is that the insulation needs and the sheer volume make it impractical to keep in regular jetliner wings. Thus the need for putting a more-spherical tank in the tube shaped fuselage body of the plane.

I think such a plane would be around 5x as expensive today to operate due to fuel costs, and have otherwise pretty comparable performance specs. There would probably be a separate front and rear cabin, though.

If you tax the CO2 enough you'd trigger such or similar to be put into production.

Considering the sheer number of commercial flight routes and travel demand worldwide, that actually sounds pretty promising.

This item has no comments currently.