> The energy density of gasoline does not matter at all.
Well if we're talking about commercial aviation, we're talking about jet fuel not gasoline. Regardless, it obviously matters a lot. A fully loaded 747 freighter has somewhere around 200 tons of jet fuel and a max payload of about 130 tons. They already need more fuel than cargo, and that's with the excellent energy density of jet fuel. Furthermore, traditional planes get lighter the longer they fly as they burn off their substantial fuel loads. The last 20% of the fuel goes a lot further than the first 20%. Batteries don't get this advantage at all. (Dropping batteries from the plane with parachutes is a terrible idea, but I've lost count of the number of times I've seen it proposed..)
> We are not anywhere near the theoretical limits of battery energy density.
This doesn't jive with what I've read. It's my understanding that we're already near the limits of what electrochemistry can give us, and future advancements are likely to come from improved electrode designs, with maybe 2-3x better performance possible if we're lucky.
> Well if we're talking about commercial aviation, we're talking about jet fuel not gasoline. Regardless, it obviously matters a lot. A fully loaded 747 freighter has somewhere around 200 tons of jet fuel and a max payload of about 130 tons.
You only need giant quantities of kerosene for transoceanic or transcontinental travel. The lilium business model requires a range of a few 100 km, which is possible with today's batteries.
Very long distance air travel is impossible with today's commercially available batteries, but is possible with exotic chemistries (see below) or with hydrogen fuel cells.
> This doesn't jive with what I've read. It's my understanding that we're already near the limits of what electrochemistry can give us, and future advancements are likely to come from improved electrode designs, with maybe 2-3x better performance possible if we're lucky.
There are several battery chemistries such as lithium sulfur or lithium air that have extremely high energy densities. But cycle life remains very low, which makes them uneconomical.
There has been decent progress made in improving cycle life, but it is still too low to be economical. There are military applications where a low cycle life is acceptable.
> a range of a few 100 km, which is possible with today's batteries.
Not with a meaningful amount of cargo it isn't; look up the electric planes that are actually flying today (and it's certainly not for want of trying, this is a very trendy field.) I can think of only a few niches where very light but expensive cargo needs to go somewhere close-by, but faster than is possible with a truck. Organs for transplant, and rich people.
Lilium's quoted range goal is not possible with today's batteries--not by a long shot. This is why in part there is an investor lawsuit agains the company.
The only company touting range achievable with today's battery tech is Archer, and their range, when you factor out reserve and inefficiencies, is about ~40 miles (~65KM.)
Dropping batteries from the plane with parachutes is a terrible idea, but I've lost count of the number of times I've seen it proposed
Perhaps, but there is also the middle-ground solution to use a booster rocket assembly similar to what the space shuttle uses. The booster can use its own battery packs and if needed its own additional engines, and when the plane has reached cruising altitude, the booster can decouple and return to the airport of departure.
Well if we're talking about commercial aviation, we're talking about jet fuel not gasoline. Regardless, it obviously matters a lot. A fully loaded 747 freighter has somewhere around 200 tons of jet fuel and a max payload of about 130 tons. They already need more fuel than cargo, and that's with the excellent energy density of jet fuel. Furthermore, traditional planes get lighter the longer they fly as they burn off their substantial fuel loads. The last 20% of the fuel goes a lot further than the first 20%. Batteries don't get this advantage at all. (Dropping batteries from the plane with parachutes is a terrible idea, but I've lost count of the number of times I've seen it proposed..)
> We are not anywhere near the theoretical limits of battery energy density.
This doesn't jive with what I've read. It's my understanding that we're already near the limits of what electrochemistry can give us, and future advancements are likely to come from improved electrode designs, with maybe 2-3x better performance possible if we're lucky.