This article, although writing primarily writing about small aircraft 'replacing' cars, tells also about possible future developments on larger aiwcraft.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...-in-our-cities

Personally, I don't believe this in the next two decades as I cannot imagine an electric aircraft to move 500 tons pax + cargo over 10000km within 12 hours. Jet-A1 has a much better energy density than the very best battery technology.

I rather believe in synfuel which is a Jet-A1 compatible fuel made chemically or biologically (with microbes) from exhaust gas (see www.steelanol.com), mostly water + CO2. The energy need to reprocess this will be mostly renewable.

That keeps aircraft running on high energy dense traditional fuel, which is however not 'fossil' anymore.

When fossil fuels like oil are gradually being phased out, there is a new potential for the also sunshine rich Middle East: produce synfuel using the copious amounts of solar energy available there.

Current technology batteries are pretty heavy in proportion to the available energy they can store. The ratio of inherent energy density to weight in Jet A is much better than current technology.

Until this ration gets much better for electricity storage media, I don't see much opportunity to move away from Jet A.

The world will change almost instantly when someone invents a better battery. Battery tech is holding almost everything back: electric car ranges, planes, effective solar, even mass energy production.

What we need is a chemically stable, deep charge battery that can run longer than current batteries by a factor of 100. They also need to be lightweight and smaller, and composed of materials that are not particularly difficult to obtain.

Other technology is way ahead of battery tech, and is just waiting for battery tech to catch up. We already have great electric cars, but their drawback is range and re-charge time...not to mention the weight.

Planes are perfect for electric technology because without carrying fuel they can massively increase their range and load capacity. I am sure both airlines and aerospace manufacturers are chomping at the bit to get a plane that is lightweight, long range and fuel free.

Battery technology has still very far to go.

Lithium-based batteries will probably never make their way into airplanes as the primary source of power/propulsion. A Samsung Galaxy Note 7 is dangerous enough to make airlines ban them altogether. Imagine, what would happen if the battery packs, powering a 747 over TPAC routes, would go up in smoke (or rather explosion).

With cars that's pretty much not a problem. In the case your EV starts bursting up in flames, you can stop and get out. Try that at >33,000 ft while flying at cruising speed.

The primary batteries for the B787 are lithium-ion batteries.

Maybe "eventually", but certainly not in 2 decades, or in our lifetimes, I suspect.

Yes, we need battery tech that is 100x better. Just like we need fully functional robots to do all of our work, infinitely clean air and water etc. I don't think battery tech is in any way "behind" - that assumes it "should" be somewhere way far ahead. Our knowledge of chemistry, physics, and the realities of both are what they are. I don't think anyone is slacking off looking for better batteries.

When I was studying Computer Science in the 80's the very idea that a passable video stream over a copper phone line was science fiction - both with bandwidth and the compression technology required at both ends.

Things have certainly changed, battery technology can't be so far behind.

No, there is no way this will happen. Not unless you significantly redefine what you mean by "passenger airplane" or "battery".

The energy densities of batteries (~1 MJ/kg) are simply orders of magnitude too low compared to liquid fuels (~50 MJ/kg). Perhaps they could get part of the way there by ejecting batteries out the back of the plane after they're used.

As green as I am, even I am quite pessimistic and skeptical of why airlines periodically try to experiment with biofuels - for publicity reasons or what not. Inevitably which get canceled after 12 months of halfhearted experiments. $23 per gallon doesn't make sense no matter how green you are.

I edited my post. I didn't mean electricity but power/propulsion.

I'd agree. No way unless/until denser energy storage as above come along. An it'll have to be denser than that as at least fuel is burnt off inflight and the a/c becomes lighter. Batteries weigh pretty much the same depleted or not.

The only other possibility is power generation in flight (think nuclear reactors). Not so far-fetched as some vision/variant of this idea has been around for longer than most people here have been alive (or even their parents).

That wil be a great safety hazard even more than a new nuclear power plant. The airspace full of potential nuclear bombs ? When the U-235 (with thousands of times more energy per kg than Jet-A1) reaches the critical mass when a plane crashes another Chernobyl accident might happen ?

Indeed, I am not the only one saying battery powered electric planes will not make it. Jet fuel is way denser.
That is why I am advocating synfuel: the non-fossil synthetic variant of jet fuel. Technically it is possible, but it requires mass production and much stricter laws regarding global warning by CO2 to make it feasible.

How's that different from stuffing aircrafts to the brim with batteries?

Batteries are not radioactive and that is the danger.

A nuclear explosion can't/won't happen. I'd imagine only nuclear fuel that will not result in a fission explosion will be used. What will more likely happen is contamination due to a crash and/or fire that sprays the nuclear fuel everywhere, or in your example, a reactor meltdown. Still pretty nasty so a reason why a nuclear aircraft is unlikely to ever be developed, let alone fly.

What is the cost, not just monetary but also energy, of making such fuel? I am not a physicist but I imagine you can't disobey the laws of thermodynamics or other laws of physics.

What is the energy density of liquid hydrogen or liquid ammonia compared to Jet-A?
Also, if you can find a way to store a lot of hydrogen/protons in a safe matrix at higher densities than the liquid itself, would be a breakthrough.