this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
74 points (97.4% liked)

Technology

34928 readers
175 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 28 points 4 months ago (2 children)

For context jet fuel is around 9,720 Wh/L. However, energy density(energy per volume) is less important in aviation than specific energy(energy per mass) as weight is far more likely to be the limiting factor.

A standard lithium ion battery has 100-265 Wh/kg

The article claims 500 Wh/kg in this new battery.

Jet fuel has around 12,000 Wh/kg.

Though this is a major improvement in battery tech, batteries are unlikely to ever improve to the point to even approach the energy storage of liquid fuels.

Batteries cannot run commercial aviation as it currently exists. Battery planes will need to fly slower and shorter. There is no other way.

[–] sexual_tomato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

What's the efficiency for turning jet fuel into mechanical work? I'd suspect the efficiency is somewhere around 45% for liquid fuel where it's nearly 100% for electric. So you're really trying to reach the equivalent of 5500 Wh/kg.

[–] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I got the number from wikipedia. Following the references, the number came from a BP datasheet about Jet A-1, where it is listed on a typical properties table, and the number is the net specific energy, which means it accounts for the inefficiency of the engines. Or at least that's my assumption.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Energy density has been the number one most important factor since humans started using metal. Wood is good enough to smelt bronze, and with some refinement can get your iron, but not good enough for steel. Steel requires coal, and with some refinement steel is what our world is built on.

Fossil fuels allow cars, planes and more efficient trains and boats. Unless we somehow start utilizing uranium and transuranics electric airplanes are for grifters. Uranium and it's derivatives are the only thing we have harnessed that even approaches the energy density of fossil fuels.

[–] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Trains don't need to store the energy at all. Pantographs are a mature technology. High speed renewable long haul transportation is a technologically solved problem for all overland routes, it just requires infrastructure investment.

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago

Sure high-speed rails with HVDC lines powering them from coast-to-coast I'm here for it.