cramped pies

The previous post was getting on a bit so I left it there however there are a few other things I think are worth saying and in addition a few more examples of the potential range of electric planes would also be useful. On range I think the examples given in the last post were a bit rubbish. I chose the Cessna as there is a working prototype out there in the real world, but its not a great example for what could be possible in the near to medium future. So lets use a vehicle (class) that's currently one of the most popular for air travel, the Boeing 737. The current latest and greatest version, the 737 Max has a stated range of between 3700 and 4430 miles. Using the 'convert it' approach and current gen batteries, and the previously calculated 12 times multiplier, we might expect a converted-to-electric 737 to have a range of between 308 and 370 miles. This actually is close to the in development  Wright Electric commerical jet  that will have a similar payload c...

I just saw  this video  from the brilliant Minute Earth guys suggesting the future of aeroplanes is bio-fuel, and it inspired me to write a proper response. I've seen arguments like this before and their argument (and additional arguments from other places including this minute physics  video) against battery electric planes can be categorised as follows: Battery density is too low. Jet fuel has a very high energy density, batteries are much lower (over 2 orders of magnitude). A plane simply couldn't lift or fit enough batteries to fly. Batteries are too heavy and this will make the undercarriage of the plane break every time it lands (yes I've really seen this argument). Batteries are too expensive. Batteries take too long to refuel. On the face of it these arguments have some truth, however all of them lack context and vision. Please allow me to add some of both in rebuttal. Responding to the arguments against Battery density is too low. This argum...