Or chemical / physical hurdles.
Not to be argumentative but there were some pretty significant chemical and physical hurdles overcome in the Manhattan project. E.g., separating U235 from U238 in quantity, lensing/focusing shock waves with shaped explosives, etc. And done with early 1940's technology. But like you, I am pessimistic about the practicality of batteries as the energy source for aviation, in my lifetime. The whole energy density argument seems pretty solid. I tend to think that "sustainable/green" power for aviation will come from a combination of technologies, not just chemical charge storage and electric motors.
Didn't require changing the laws of physics though.
I think it's the other way around. We knew TNT's limits were more or less reached and math showed theoretical potential for the Manhattan project, so it was pursued..
But that's because there has always been a better, cheaper, more economical, easier solution to the things that needed energy. Steam / Coal / gas / etc., was always simply easier and cheaper than trying to build electric cars, electric Wright Flyers, electric ships..
I'd hazard a guess that there was also a considerable performance benefit from the introduction of brushless motors and the necessary controller hardware and firmware.
FWIW: But in reality this is only a 1st world/developed country issue where regulations are used or enforced. Same with climate change initiatives. So when you get out of those developed countries and areas, on a larger geographical scale, concern for EV and fossil fuel use drops to zero. Regardless, without some sort of usable superconductor, electric technology will not eclipse the internal combustion engine well beyond several lifetimes.
It's good if you own an EV manufacturing company. It's always good for everyone when the government chooses the winner.
Tax dollars at work. Saving the earth, one lithium mine at a time...
It won't make a difference since most 2nd/3rd world countries either have in-country vehicle OEMs or are networked to those that do. Plus I seriously doubt Toyota will stop making Hiluxs for those world markets even after Japan goes EV.
And thats the thing. Only countries like Norway and certain parts within similar countries will be able to make the EV switch. The African continent for the most part won't/can't. Same with most of South and Central America, Indonesia, SE Asia, etc, etc. Even areas like Alaska and the NWT in our 1st world continent would be near impossible to make that type of switch.
Something will need to force our hand, be it regulations or physically running out of fossil fuels. I'm not saying it's not possible, but all the empirical evidence out there suggests that for the first time in our history we'll be taking a step backwards, at least with regards to how quickly we can send a number of people great distances at once. An environmental argument can be made, but jet engines already burn pretty 'clean' and lithium ion is not cheap or environmentally neutral process.. free lunches and all that
The irony is definitely quite glaring
FYI: In my limited knowledge on the subject, between the known and "unknown" global petroleum reserves there is plenty to last until some smart group develop a usable superconducter even at our current oil usage rates.
It is happening with UAM. Once the regulatory flood gate opens this will be the benchmark for most "modern" urban areas and once established will set the foundation for the future once technology catches up.
There are replacements (actually mixtures) but you run into what is first... the chicken or the egg equation when it comes to regulatory issues. On the land based side, hydrogen fueled ICE turbines will probably be the main ticket to moving things to the next level. Personally, I think hydrogen will be the game changer until a superconductor is developed. After all it "powered" air mobility prior to airfoils, lift, and Charlie Taylor.
FYI: they're already flying turbine helicopters with 100% sustainable fuel plus I think there is a jet as well. I would expect in the near future the current 50/50 blend regulatory requirement will be slowly changed until 100% is permitted in civilian ops. Unless something unforeseen happens.
True about the mines. Oil has it’s own issues however!Tax dollars at work. Saving the earth, one lithium mine at a time...
True about the mines. Oil has it’s own issues however!
Government giving incentives... I'm sorry but the libertarian in me can't help but translate that for you. ...government reducing their tax burden... there you go.
Yikes indeed.
United Airlines has been using biofuel for a while now, but in limited quantities. Their SST is supposed to use biofuels.
The problem with hydrogen is it has a terrible energy density, even as a cryogenic liquid. People here said batteries have poor energy density, hydrogen is worse. It's only advantage over batteries is that it can be refueled faster, at a similar rate to gasoline or diesel.
Again, it's a political statement to use a 200+ year timeline. There was very little effort invested to improve batteries until recently. It also takes time to make a new product into reality. I invented a method to calculate gradients for chromatography 6 years ago. It was so simple that it was originally implemented on a Excel sheet. It took 3 years for my employer to put that simple bit of code into any of our chromatography systems, and our competitors are finally doing it after 6 years. Just for a simple piece of software.
