Electric Planes

[Delvo]

That price comparison for a certain trip in New Zealand is deeply strange. It normally doesn't work like that anywhere else I've heard of. It makes me curious what special circumstances apply there to make it so odd.

San Antonio to Dallas is a more typical example of how the pricing usually works. For November 7, the cheapest flight is $104, leaving earlier in the morning than most people want to. At more normal times, the price goes up to $130. The most expensive option by bus is $43. If you're willing to go late in the evening/night or early in the morning, you can get it down to $28. It's $19 by train, although I'm pretty sure that's subsidized so it doesn't necessarily show how much money is actually spent to make it happen.

The fact that flying is almost universally the most expensive option, all else being equal with no interference from arbitrary outside forces like subsidies or maybe some really weird local geographical feature I can't even think of, is built in to the physical nature of the vehicles and how they work and their infrastructure & support systems. I thought that would be perfectly obvious, given the fact that holding the vehicle up in the air is extra work that non-flying vehicles don't need to devote any energy to at all, and/or the fact that if the fastest option weren't the most expensive then it would be the only option left because then the other options could not compete. The fact that both flying and non-flying options exist demonstrates the balance between time and price.

 

[Ziggurat]

Firstly, no-one has claimed an aircraft should be developed for a single route... that's just another of jeremyp's many "reductio ad absurdum" strawman arguments.

I disagree. Rather, I think that's a limiting argument. You can't do it for one, because you need some critical mass. Even a few routes won't be enough to support an entirely new plane. You really need a lot of potential routes. And not all the potential routes are actually going to use your plane no matter how good it is.

The Nelson <> Wellington example was just that, an example. And there are many others.

Are there? How many? How many potential passengers would fly those routes?

Secondly, Harbour Air (BC, Canada) are in the process of electrifying their DHC-2 seaplane fleet to fly many short routes in the area they serve.

We'll see if that succeeds, but electrifying an existing plane is a lot cheaper than developing a new electric plane like some of the examples in development listed earlier. It's also a lot cheaper to manufacture, since you still get the economies of scale on manufacturing much of the plane that's common with the combustion plane. I suspect performance may be compromised compared to a blank sheet design, but that's likely a worthwhile tradeoff as long as the ranges are sufficiently short.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

By weight or by volume? Aluminum is about 5 times denser than lithium, the other metals even more so. If that's by weight, then there's more volume of lithium than any other metal by a good margin.

In an airplane battery weight is far more important than volume. That's why RC model aircraft almost always use 'bare' lithium-polymer batteries with only a thin plastic wrap (no hard outer casing) to be as light as possible.

Weight is important for cars too, but so is volume. increased volume reduces passenger and luggage space. Increased weight reduces range and acceleration. Ideally you want as little of both as possible, however with the battery under the floor volume isn't so much of a problem (it just raises the floor height slightly).

Volume is more of issue when converting gas cars to electric because they don't have usable space underneath, so the batteries are often split up with some going in the boot and some in the engine bay or under the rear seat etc. A gas car converted to electric often ends up around the same weight, but loses some luggage space and only has 'modest' range.

Electric vehicles are hardly the only thing which could use higher energy density batteries, portable electronics have wanted that for as long as they've existed.

Most portable electronic devices use lithium-ion or lithium-polymer batteries. These have been optimized for high energy density and/or high power density, but not longevity.

Laptop computers and smartphones go out of date so quickly that there is little incentive to make the battery last more than a few years. Other devices like power tools and lawnmowers tend to wear out quite quickly too, and the batteries are easily replaceable by the user so lifespan isn't much of an issue.

While it would be nice if the batteries in consumer equipment had longer 'range', they are good enough now that it's not usually an issue. Lead-acid, Nicad, and Nimh were generally far worse. I replaced the Nicads in my power drills and the Lead-acid battery in my lawn mower with old Lipos that were were too tired to run my model planes. Much lighter, higher capacity, easier to charge and more reliable!

The biggest problem is often shelf life. Lithium batteries age faster when fully charged, and even faster again if they are warm. A laptop used constantly on the mains can degrade the battery in less than a year if it is kept fully charged.

Progress is being made, but I wouldn't count on any big breakthroughs in the "near future", unless you've got a really expansive definition of what counts as near.

Technologies generally advance incrementally, with the occasional big leap when something new is developed. Once it gets 'good enough' progress slows. That was the case with traction batteries for many years, but now there is huge demand for EV batteries with longer range, lighter weight and lower cost. So scientists and engineers are trying all kinds of things that nobody bothered to before.

This has happened before. Remember Edison and the electric light bulb? He tried thousands of filament materials before he found one that lasted long enough to be commercially viable. But that wasn't the end of it. Soon methods were developed to make it even better, until we got to the gas-filled metal filament bulbs of today.

Then the LED was developed and it also made great progress over the last few years. Early LEDs were already better than incandescent bulbs for indicator lamps, so for many years that's where they stayed - gradually getting more powerful and efficient. Then it was realized that they were now good enough to replace high power light bulbs too, and the progress made in that area was more rapid - first with hand-held torches, then room lights, and finally floodlights and car headlamps. What changed over that time was not the scientific theory behind LEDs, but the use of different materials and manufacturing techniques honed to produce higher light output with better efficiency and longer lifespan.

So it is with batteries. Only a small fraction of the possible materials that could be used in a battery have been tried so far. Some that were set aside because they had problems are being revisited in light of knowledge recently gained due to the demand for better EV batteries.

World’s largest battery maker announces major breakthrough in energy density

the world’s largest battery manufacturer CATL has announced a new “condensed” battery with 500 Wh/kg which it says will go into mass production this year.

“The launch of condensed batteries will usher in an era of universal electrification of sea, land and air transportation, open up more possibilities of the development of the industry, and promote the achieving of the global carbon neutrality goals at an earlier date,” the company said in a presentation at Auto Shanghai on Thursday.

CATL’s new condensed battery will have almost double the energy intensity of Tesla’s 4680 cells, whose rating of 272-296 Wh/kg are considered very high by current standards...

CATL said its working with partners on the development of electric passenger aircraft practicing aviation-level standards and testing in accordance with aviation-grade safety and quality requirements.

In addition to aircraft, CATL says it will soon launch the automotive-grade version of condensed batteries which it says will also go into mass production within this year.

Batteries with 500 Wh/kg will enable electrification of passenger aircraft

In 2020 Elon Musk said “electric flight starts to get interesting once you hit 400wh/kg”. At the time he predicted that this would become possible by 2023.

 

[Ziggurat]

Technologies generally advance incrementally, with the occasional big leap when something new is developed. Once it gets 'good enough' progress slows.

You say that like progress slows because it got good enough. I don't think that's generally the case. Rather, when a breakthrough happens (and it's never guaranteed when or even if it will happen), you get rapid initial advances and then it slows down as you asymptotically approach the potential of the breakthrough. It can't speed up again until you hit another breakthrough. But that's assuming that there even is a breakthrough within reach.

That was the case with traction batteries for many years, but now there is huge demand for EV batteries with longer range, lighter weight and lower cost. So scientists and engineers are trying all kinds of things that nobody bothered to before.

They have been trying for literally decades. You treat this like it's a new problem, but it isn't. We have ALWAYS wanted better batteries. And the feds have been pumping money into battery research specifically for cars since at least the 1990's.

World’s largest battery maker announces major breakthrough in energy density

CATL is a Chinese company, and China isn't exactly known for being on the cutting edge of technology. They're primarily a producer, not an innovator. When I go to their web page about this battery, their description sets off all sorts of alarm bells for bull ****:

To address the changes of the super high energy density materials resulting from electrochemical reactions, CATL's condensed battery leverages highly conductive biomimetic condensed state electrolytes to construct a micron-level self-adaptive net structure that can adjust the interactive forces among the chains, thus improving the conductive performance of the cells and in turn the efficiency of lithium ion transporting while boosting stability of the microstructure.​

Maybe this made more sense in Chinese, but it looks like a bunch of buzz words thrown together to sounds impressive without explaining anything. When I go to their Wikipedia page, it becomes pretty clear that it was written by fanboys. I don't trust their projections. And that's all this is: a projection. It isn't a demonstrated product.

 

[catsmate]

Never going to happen. The energy density of a battery is a physical property of the material it is made of. Lithium is already about the least dense material you can make a battery out of. You may get some small gains by improving the packaging and the efficiency of the motors, but you'll never get to the point where you can just take the fuel tanks out of a plane and replace them with batteries and have anything like the same performance.

Wrong. Gravimetric and volumetric energy density of currently experimental batteries are higher than Li-ion and LiPo. I suggest you study the results of the EU 'Battery 2030' programme.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

CATL is a Chinese company, and China isn't exactly known for being on the cutting edge of technology... I don't trust their projections. And that's all this is: a projection. It isn't a demonstrated product.

World's largest EV battery manufacturer vs anonymous poster on obscure 'skeptics' forum. Hmm, who shall I believe?

CATL

According to former Tesla battery supply chain manager Vivas Kumar, CATL "are seen as the leaders of lithium iron phosphate battery (LFP battery) technology". The company employs the cell-to-pack method to reduce the inactive weight of its batteries. It increases volume utilization rate by 15% to 20%, doubles the production efficiency and reduces the number of parts for a battery pack by 40%, while the energy density of a battery pack jumps from 140–150 Wh/Kg to 200 Wh/Kg.

According to Kumar, unlike competitors such as LG Chem or SK Innovation, CATL is more willing to adapt outside technology, as opposed to applying a full in-house design

In 2021 the company unveiled a sodium-ion battery for the automotive market. A battery recycling facility is planned to recover some of the materials.

Its M3P battery offers 210 Wh/kg. The battery replaces the iron in ts LFP battery with a combination of magnesium, zinc, and aluminum.

Here is a company that not only is producing 37% of the worlds EV batteries, but also is not afraid to innovate.

CATL Chief Scientist Wu Kai wins the European Inventor Award 2023

On July 4, Wu Kai, the chief scientist of CATL, and his team were awarded the European Inventor Award 2023 for the "Non-EPO countries" category for their contributions to lithium-ion battery safety at an award ceremony held in Valencia, Spain...

Launched by European Patent Office (EPO) in 2006, the European Inventor Award is a global, highly recognized innovation prize which celebrates the Tomorrow Shapers - inventors whose perseverance, ingenuity and creativity are paving the way to a brighter future. The "Non-EPO countries" category recognizes the work of outstanding inventors from outside the EPO's 39 member states who have been granted a European patent.

The European Patent Office, eh? What would they know about the cutting edge of technology?

Automotive INNOVATIONS Award 2023: CATL Honored as the Most Innovative Automotive Supplier in the “Drives” Category

On July 13 local time, Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Ltd. (CATL) was awarded as the Most Innovative Automotive Supplier in the "Drives" category at the Automotive INNOVATIONS Awards 2023 ceremony for its trailblazing Qilin battery. The ceremony was held in Frankfurt, Germany.

For its exceptional innovations in EV batteries, CATL stood out among 100 prestigious suppliers to win the award. CATL is the only Chinese company to win the award in all categories this year.

The jury for the Most Innovative Automotive Supplier prizes includes experienced individuals from industry, science, consulting and media. Based on the CAM vehicle technology innovation database, they surveyed manufacturers and suppliers to identify the most outstanding innovations in the automotive industry. This year, 300 innovations from 100 international automotive suppliers were evaluated.
It is the second time for CATL to win the Most Innovative Automotive Supplier. In 2021, for its outstanding innovation of “100kWh high-energy density battery technology," CATL became the first company in the world to receive the award in the “Drives” category.

But hey, Chinese right? Probably all lies and never happened, or they paid the judges to give them the award.

 

[Ziggurat]

World's largest EV battery manufacturer vs anonymous poster on obscure 'skeptics' forum. Hmm, who shall I believe?

You shouldn't believe anyone's product promises until they deliver. Right now, they're only promising, they haven't yet delivered.

 

[smartcooky]

I disagree. Rather, I think that's a limiting argument. You can't do it for one, because you need some critical mass. Even a few routes won't be enough to support an entirely new plane. You really need a lot of potential routes. And not all the potential routes are actually going to use your plane no matter how good it is.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...ort-haul-and-long-haul-flights_tbl7_267927654

Wilkerson et al (2010) estimated the proportion of short-haul flights to be 86%, of medium-haul flights to be 10%, and of long-haul flights to be 4%​

Short-haul is defined as flight duration less than three hours. The average flight time of these is about 1h 30min.

So all those $billions designing, developing and all those long range airliners like the Boeing 757, 767,777 and 787, and the Airbus A330, 340 & 350. was spent for.... 4% of the flight routes!

Now to be fair, flights in the longer end of those short-hauls are still beyond the range of electrically powered aircraft using current, commercially available and in-production battery technology , and maybe beyond the the next generation of solid state batteries currently under development, at least in the early stages of commercial availability.

However, to refine this a little more...

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/short-distance-flights-sense-nonsense-alexis-von-hoensbroech1

Lately, the debate around short distance flights gained a lot of political attention, including several proposals to forbid domestic and/or short distance flights and replace them with ground transportation, ideally by train. And as around 30% of all flights globally fly less than 500km, it sounds like a straightforward idea to save a lot of CO2. ​

Are there? How many? How many potential passengers would fly those routes?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/transportationj.53.4.0424?typeAccessWorkflow=login

The proportions of passengers are about the same as for flights. 86% of flights are short haul, and they carry 88% of the passengers. 30% of flights are less than 500km, and 31% of passengers travel on those flights... which makes perfect sense if you think about it. Long haul flight might have bigger planes that carry more passengers, but there are a lot less of them. What also makes sense is that the repeat customer market is far greater for very short haul flights than under 500km.

Now flights less than 500km is right in the area that will be suited for electrically powered aircraft, and 30% is a very large chunk of the air travel business... almost 10 million flights per year, carrying 31% of the global passenger numbers, about 1.1 billion passengers.

 

[macdoc]

good post

 

[Ziggurat]

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...ort-haul-and-long-haul-flights_tbl7_267927654

Wilkerson et al (2010) estimated the proportion of short-haul flights to be 86%, of medium-haul flights to be 10%, and of long-haul flights to be 4%​

Short-haul is defined as flight duration less than three hours. The average flight time of these is about 1h 30min.

A flight duration of 3 hours can easily exceed 1000 km distance. Even at 1.5 hours, you can be past the range of a lot of these proposed (not demonstrated) electric planes.

Plus, in economic terms, why would you normalize by the number of flights? You should be normalizing by the number of passenger miles, because that's essentially what people are paying for. A single long-haul flight is going to take more passengers a longer distance. So the economic share of long haul flights is a hell of a lot larger than the number of flights would suggest.

As for development costs, yes, something like a 787 cost a lot to develop. But there's also a lot fewer planes competing in the long haul category than there are in the short haul category, which makes it easier for any one design to hit the necessary volumes. And note that for the A380, a production volume of 254 aircraft wasn't large enough. The A380 was essentially a commercial failure because it didn't reach large enough volumes.

Now to be fair, flights in the longer end of those short-hauls are still beyond the range of electrically powered aircraft using current, commercially available and in-production battery technology , and maybe beyond the the next generation of solid state batteries currently under development, at least in the early stages of commercial availability.

No ****. That's kind of the point. Current and near future planes aren't really looking at the "short haul" category. They're looking at the ultra-short haul category. Which is why we were even discussing sub-100 km flights. There's a lot fewer of them, because once you start getting to those ranges, most of the time ground transportation is just as fast but a lot cheaper. There are exceptions like narrow waterways, but really, there aren't that many of those. They aren't represented by your 86% figure.

Now flights less than 500km is right in the area that will be suited for electrically powered aircraft

That remains to be demonstrated.

One of the problems that electric cars faced was that development projections about costs and performance assumed a certain rate of electric car advancement as well as stagnation among internal combustion cars. But it's very hard to accurately predict the pace of future development. Moore's Law was about the only case where we really pulled it off. Electric cars didn't advance as people thought 30 years ago, and internal combustion cars didn't stand still. It's taken a lot longer for electric cars to become competitive than its advocates thought, and even now it's still a niche market. Aviation is going to be a lot harder. We don't even have our GM EV1 equivalent, and chances are we're going to have to go through that before we can get to our first Tesla equivalent. And combustion engines in aviation aren't standing still.

 

[macdoc]

It's taken a lot longer for electric cars to become competitive

why would you ever assume it should be "competitive" ?

That's like saying cars without seat belts are cheaper...misses the point entirely.
Leigislation is there to REQUIRE lower carbon footprint just as it quite successfully REQUIRED more efficient ICE engines.

Boeing won on having a better plane to service the long range market and one that fit into the design of airports..
The A380 was a niche....the Dreamliner a winner.

The neat thing about evA is that it allows a ton of tinkerers as you don't have to spend big to develop an aircraft.

Given the potential, a number of startups are hoping to have small electric planes making relatively short trips before the end of the decade.

The aviation industry can hit its emissions goals, but it needs new fuels
Alternative fuels that barely exist today will likely be key in cutting emissions and limiting warming.
Heart Aerospace, a Sweden-based startup, is among the companies attempting to capitalize on the promise of batteries to commercialize electric planes. Their 19-seat planes will start flight tests in 2024 and could be flying commercially by 2026, according to CEO Anders Forslund.

“Our goal is to create the most affordable, fastest, greenest way of getting around the world,” Forslund says.

The company plans to start in niche markets—like hopping across fjords in Scandinavia. These routes are difficult to replace with ground transport, and in some countries, like Norway, they could be subsidized by the government.

Forslund says that these trips are just the beginning, though, and the goal is to expand regional flying globally. Even with current battery technology, the company claims, its planes could be able to fly about 400 kilometers, or 250 miles. That’s about the distance between New York City and Boston or Paris and London.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/17/1058013/electric-planes-taking-off-challenges/

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Now flights less than 500km is right in the area that will be suited for electrically powered aircraft, and 30% is a very large chunk of the air travel business... almost 10 million flights per year, carrying 31% of the global passenger numbers, about 1.1 billion passengers.

It also represents more than 30% of the airline companies, most of whom are flying shorter distances. They may be more interested in going fully electric, and then perhaps branch out as range increases. This could drive innovation faster than the big airlines do.

I can see a time when long flights are still using fossil fuels, but they are less frequent because customers are now being forced to pay the true cost. Businessmen and holidaymakers might think again when ticket prices are 3-4 times higher. Airline companies won't like it of course, but screw them. Nobody should be allowed to profit from polluting!

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Can we have Electric Hot Air Balloons?

I have an image in my mind of Ballooneers throwing their spent batteries out of the gondola to reduce weight...

 

[smartcooky]

In 1902, Simon Newcomb, professor of astronomy, applied mathematician, autodidactic polymath and Professor of Mathematics in the United States Navy and at Johns Hopkins University said: "Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.” . He wasn't alone in his skepticism, there were plenty of others who doubted the Wright Brothers, and thought they were engaged in a foolish endeavor that had no chance of success. And this pronouncement of Newcombe's aged very poorly because the very next year, 1903, the Wright Brothers flew their heavier than air Wright Flyer in their historical flight at Kittyhawk, and Newcombe was made to look like a fool.

Of course, this is being somewhat unfair to the mainstream scientific community. They understood well that powered flight was possible, but it was going to be very difficult from an engineering standpoint because engines of the required power-to-weight ratio had not yet been developed. Sound familiar? It should!

However, there were hundreds of other engineers and aviators working on the problem (and this should also sound familiar). In less than 30 years, aviation went from...

The Wright Flyer (1903) to the first commercial airliner (Boeing 247 - 1933).

16 years later came...

The first jet airliner (DHC Comet 1949) and five years later, the Boeing 367-80 (1954)
...the prototype shape of almost every airliner in service today.

Rocket science suffered the same failure of the imagination when, in 1924, Robert Goddard wrote an article in which he postulated how we could use rocket fuel to launch a ship into space, perhaps even all the way to the moon. His ideas did not meet with a warm reception in the media - he was ridiculed and mocked, yet 20 years later, Nazi Germany was firing sub-orbital rockets into space to rain destruction on London - and 20 years after that, humans were firing rockets at the Moon

We went from the historic first powered flight to the first commercial airliner in single human generation, and on to the first commercial jet powered airliners in another single human generation. And another single generation later, we put men on the Moon!!

The above examples teach us a valuable lesson... The frontiers of technology are the hard boundary of the possible... until they aren't.

 

[Pixel42]

Patrick Moore was fond of telling people that he'd met the first man to make a powered flight and the first man to walk on the moon.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Electric cars didn't advance as people thought 30 years ago, and internal combustion cars didn't stand still.

Actually they pretty much did.

CO2 emissions from cars: facts and figures

In the last 20 years there has been very little improvement in CO2 emissions, and progress appears to have stalled.

ICE engines reached their 'Moore's law' limit a long time ago. Now companies like Toyota and Mazda are making ridiculous claims about engines running on straight hydrogen or even ammonia(!), or peculiar designs that are supposedly far more efficient but probably unworkable - all to avoid the elephant in the room.

It's taken a lot longer for electric cars to become competitive than its advocates thought, and even now it's still a niche market.

In September 2023, 17% of new passenger car registrations in the UK and France were electric. Portugal was 20%. Germany was 23%. Sweden was 42%. Norway was 84%.

EV technology is advancing rapidly and has the potential to go a lot further. These advances are spilling over into electric aircraft. The main holdup will be regulatory - as new designs have to be thoroughly vetted to make sure they are safe.

I started building and flying electric radio control model aircraft in 1999. Back then we only had heavy Nicad batteries and brushed motors with peak efficiency of ~65%. A typical design would have 50% of the weight allocated to battery and 25% to the motor, leaving only 25% for the electronics and airframe (which had to be built as light as possible).

Then high power NiMH batteries arrived that cut battery weight to 30%, and brushless motors that were over 80% efficient and less than half the weight for the same power.

Finally Lithium-polymer batteries arrived, cutting total power system weight to under 25%. At first these batteries had much lower power density than Nicad and NimH, but this improved rapidly as Chinese companies tuned them for our market. Modern brushless systems are powerful enough to fly any airframe with power and duration equal to or better than typical gas-powered models.

The RC model market also pioneered the development of autonomous drones, with controllers and open-source software designed by electronics hobbyists. One example of a modern fixed-wing drone is the Applied Aeronautics Albatross, which has a wingspan of 3 meters, maximum flying weight 10 kg, range of 100 km, cruise speed of 40 mph and duration of up to 5 hours.

Full-size aircraft are only now starting to use technologies that I have had in my models for more than a decade!

The reason progress has been slower in the auto and aeronautics industries has been simple lack of will. Fossil fuels are cheap and do the job well, so why bother? Well now they will have to bother, or be fined for polluting or even banned from flying. The World is finally waking up to the urgent need to get off fossil fuels. Airline companies who don't get onboard will soon be ex-airline companies.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually they pretty much did.

The time span I was looking at was a 30 year horizon. Your graph only covers 10 years of data, and only shows improvements stopped in the last few years.

And it doesn't mean that internal combustion engine progress stopped. See that slight increase? Do you think that means combustion engines started getting a bit worse? No. That should tell you that something other than engine efficiency is playing a role here. Care to speculate on other possible factors involved in fuel efficiency besides engine efficiency? Because there's some pretty obvious ones, such as vehicle weight. If people are buying heavier vehicles, then that's going to drop fuel efficiency. Depending on how large those other factors are, fuel efficiency could drop even while engine efficiency continued to improve. And that matters because factors other than engine efficiency which make IC cars less fuel efficient are going to do the same thing to electric cars.

But your comparison is even worse than that, because it isn't even a graph of fuel efficiency, but of CO2 emissions. And from your source, that seems to include CO2 emissions from production. Buy a fancier car, and it likely took more emissions to manufacture.

ICE engines reached their 'Moore's law' limit a long time ago.

A long time ago? Hardly. The shift from conventional automatic transmissions to continuously variable transmissions has been a pretty recent change, and we're also seeing turbo engines head down market. They used to be available only on "performance" cars, but now you can find them in non-performance vehicles too. These significantly improve performance. The rate of advancement has slowed down, but again, I'm talking about what's happened over the last 30 years. The predictions made 30 years ago for how fast electric vehicles would enter the market were way, way off.

And remember, we're not really talking about cars. The purpose of that conversation was to illustrate how optimistic projections can fall far behind actual events, that commercial success can take a lot longer than you might think. This thread is about electric planes, and there's still significant improvements possible for combustion-powered planes. For example, geared turbofans have only been introduced very recently, but we can expect them to become quite popular over time.

I have no doubt that electric planes will eventually become a thing. I think you're way too optimistic about how soon that will happen.

 

[Roboramma]

You say that like progress slows because it got good enough. I don't think that's generally the case. Rather, when a breakthrough happens (and it's never guaranteed when or even if it will happen), you get rapid initial advances and then it slows down as you asymptotically approach the potential of the breakthrough. It can't speed up again until you hit another breakthrough. But that's assuming that there even is a breakthrough within reach.

I think a better model is just to apply Wright's Law. It will end up giving you the same S-curves, but the reason is pretty straightforward and can incorporate more than one breakthrough within that curve. Battery technology seems to be following Wright's Law pretty well so far.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I sometimes wonder if all the investment in lithium might eventually prove to be misplaced. Are there better alternatives ready to be discovered? How about:
Developer Of Aluminum-Ion Battery Claims It Charges 60 Times Faster Than Lithium-Ion, Offering EV Range Breakthrough

Testing by peer-reviewed specialist publication Advanced Functional Materials publication concluded the cells had “outstanding high-rate performance (149 mAh g−1 at 5 A g−1), surpassing all previously reported AIB cathode materials”.

The very latest news.

GMG moves novel graphene/aluminium batteries to “BTRL 4”

Brisbane-based, Toronto-listed Graphene Manufacturing Group has given an update on the Graphene Aluminium-Ion Battery technology being developed with the University of Queensland, sharing that it has made “significant” developments in maturing the electro-chemistry and assembly of prototype pouch cells.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I sometimes wonder if all the investment in lithium might eventually prove to be misplaced. Are there better alternatives ready to be discovered? How about:
Developer Of Aluminum-Ion Battery Claims It Charges 60 Times Faster Than Lithium-Ion, Offering EV Range Breakthrough



The very latest news.

GMG moves novel graphene/aluminium batteries to “BTRL 4”

Yes, those sound very interesting, however, they don't promise any reduction in weight, and it's hard to see why there should be one. For ground vehicles, this could be great. For house batteries, too. For aircraft, only in that it may keep lithium affordable, as other applications phase it out. Of course, that is something, too.

Hans