cross-posted from: https://piefed.zip/c/energy@slrpnk.net/p/1799048/solid-state-battery-hits-381-wh-kg-as-taiwan-mass-production-begins
cross-posted from: https://piefed.zip/c/energy@slrpnk.net/p/1799048/solid-state-battery-hits-381-wh-kg-as-taiwan-mass-production-begins
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t this be great for electric commercial flights?
Every percent gain in battery weight compounds insanely for commercial flight.
It is the same problem as with rocket fuel. You have to store the energy to carry the capacity to store the energy. And that’s even worse for batteries because at least the rocket gets lighter as it uses its fuel. Whereas a loaded battery is basically the same weight as a loaded one.
For this reason, green hydrogen is likely the best bet for air transport
Biofuel is a possibility too.
Removed by mod
But that has the same emissions issue as the current fuel
That’s a whole different debate. I tend to agree that they are less ideal, that their proponents say, but they are actually renewable. They don’t add durably CO2 in the atmosphere from fossil sources. It is a very different thing. The CO2 they emit is part of a cycle. Ideally, that’s also a type of emission that we cut, but it is possible to include them in a sustainable society.
Biofuel is a dead-end technology. Synthetic fuels from direct air capture of CO2 are about 3X as efficient in terms of energy in -> energy in fuel, while also avoiding wasting all the extra nutrients (phosphorus, potassium, nitrogen - some of which are scarce) needed for the plant to grow that give nothing in terms of energy storage and must be recaptured.
A bunch of solar panels and some direct air -> methanol plants uses far less land than corn fields for bioethanol, while also providing easy avenues to switch energy from feeding the grid to filling the tanks depending on conditions.
I have a very hard time believing it to be true, but I am always opened to an unexpected good news. Do you have a specific tech/source in mind for that claim?
CO2 is not the only emission and pollution in the high atmosphere is even more damaging than on the ground.
Which pollution are you thinking of?
Well incomplete combustion, which is unavoidable, produces carbon monoxide, VOCs, soot, and unburned fuel. All which would be dumped into the high atmosphere.
I realise that. I’m reading that energy densities will have to be around 800wh/kg for planes to rely entirely on battery power, but there are shorter distance planes already using battery power. With how quickly solid state batteries recharge, I don’t see why planes couldn’t just stop more often. It’s a small price to pay for zero emission flights.
There are many ways in which planes can be different.
Smaller plane going shorter distance at a slower speed can also mean that there are more lines and lines avoiding big hubs. If a plane goes slower but closer to your destination, you may not mind!
The cost equation changes a lot if fuel is much cheaper.
Sigh…instead of short plane flights, just take a train.
Unfortunately, train tickets are often more expensive than plane tickets. So you pay more and it takes longer.
This sounds absolutely insane to me, which country do you live in?
Germany lol.
Ah, it appears you got Deutsche Bahned.
You’re right, so much about our world revolves around how cheaply we can put…fucking…smoke into the air. It’s maddening, but you’re right.
I don’t know if oil will get cheaper though, do you think it will?
By fuel, I was meaning electricity. Electricity is much cheaper than oil and I think will remain so.