Yep. And I opine some of the future battery technology would be fine for a C-172 type plane, but not something much larger or faster, where drag and energy requirements increase quickly. Tecnam has done some real work, I take their experience seriously.
Lol. Never give up. Never surrender.
Why assume there are no limits? ICE engines have also improved dramatically, but there are limits to their efficiency and output per pound of engine and fuel. Same is true of batteries. There is most certainly a physical limit, and to assume we are nowhere near it yet is ignoring the facts IMO. You can’t ignore physics just by wanting things to be true. Sure, a lot of things from Star Trek have developed, but far more of them have not.
I'm not an engineer, but doesn't the cell type dramatically affect energy density? Look at the durability and output of Li-ion batteries vs Ni-Cd batteries, for example.
), yeah, it would power a 375hp twin for, ohhhh, 4 minutes. It might get 1000 cycles on its design life, and that's using 800W/hp which is somewhere near ideal efficiency. 
Isn't that solid state batteries?
Evolve, yes, but to reach the type of weight vs storage vs output needed for useful aircraft? Nope...
There are some interesting developments with high energy densities and fast charging in the lab. They would work fine for a C-182 or smaller. But they need to leave the lab and get into production.
Which batteries? There's different chemistry that hasn't been tested, or just beginning to be tested such as multivalent ions. There are limits, but we are a long way from reaching them.
Any second now. As always.
Today's basic research is being done in China. They already have practical sodium based batteries in cars because of the environmental impact of lithium. They don't have the "can't be done, too expensive" mindset that you and @Salty have.
That's one technology.
And that thinking is why the Chinese are so far ahead of us in batteries.
Oh wow. May as well stop all research in battery technology. What other science has reached its limits?
That's really why these industrial companies need to stop staffing their R&D labs with Hollywood scriptwriters.
The Chinese are ahead in batteries (whatever that means) because some guy on the internet points out that some other guy in the internet has been saying any minute now for year after year?
Bold statement. What about batteries with 10x the energy density? Do you think that's enough?
I'm sorry. I don't understand your question.
And any second now that’ll mean something real. For the last couple decades. Im still waiting.
What do you mean? Batteries are vastly better than they were a couple of decades ago.
We will have to disagree. If a score of 100 is what is needed for using batteries for any sort of productive flight, we’ve progressed from about 3 to 5.
Seems pretty scientific.
Tesla doesn't make real cars? The first delivery was 2008. Newer cars have more range than that original. I don't know what you are expecting, but some of the current cars have the same range as an ICE vehicle.
Just as scientific as saying the next generation will work for planes, and saying it for 20 years with a straight face.
You say we've gone from a 3 to a 5 on a scale to 100 in the last 20 years.
Again, this doesn't make sense. Who has been saying this?
Define productive flight.
Government mandates explain that far more than technology improvements. And no, there are not any practical electric aircraft. Tecnam says it, after dumping god knows how much into it, but still people swear it’s right around the corner.
There are exactly zero practical aircraft powered by electric. I’m not opposed to experimenting. That’s fun. It’s not practical. There has not yet been an electric aircraft capable of making more than its operational costs.
Who says that it's right around the corner? I'm responding to people saying that it's not even on the distant horizon, or not possible, and comparing it to Star Trek.
Because, just as fuel contains a finite amount of energy, so does a battery. And the fact that with fuel you are consuming vastly more potential by breaking down the fuel completely rather than just moving electrons back and forth means it’s pretty safe to assume it will never come close.
Lol
Again, what is a practical aircraft? If you can't define it, you can't say whether you reached a goal. An ultralight airplane is fun, but it isn't practical for most of us.
Define a practical aircraft. I've yet to see a government mandate that improves a car's range like we've observed the past few years.
Well it's a good thing that planes don't need infinite energy!
Weird that you claim that I stated something that I have never stated. I chose my words carefully. Read them.
It's obvious you don't know chemistry. ALL chemistry involves the movement of electrons, whether electrons moving between ions or electrons moving between covalent bonds.
No, you didn't read the sentence as I intended. There's a spectrum between current battery technology (20% of the way there) to new work such as solid state and multivalent batteries that will get us to 60%.
