At the current state of play, batteries cannot store enough energy to replace kerosene for a long time.In the long term, I don’t see the capacity much bigger either. 1 kilo of kerosene (or gasoline) contains much more energy than a battery of one kilo.
Hydrogen could possibly, but also less energy can be tanked with it.Nuclear energy is too risky in connection with precipitation and solar energy is also insufficient.
Other aeroplanes could possibly be.A zeppelin could fly on a combination of batteries and solar energy. However, the speed is a lot lower. Also, you might be thinking of launching planes with huge catapults. Most fuel is now used at the start.
Finally, there may be a future in tunnels where projectiles shoot under vacuum as super-fast trains.
We are already doing this, with some drones.Those do not transport passengers naturally.
In itself it is already perfectly possible today, but the autonomy would be particularly bad.The main problem is the energy density of the energy source, which is very high in fossil fuels.
Batteries are definitely not nearby.It seems to me not unthinkable that batteries will significantly improve, but the difference is really gigantic.
Hydrogen is much more promising in that respect, but its production is currently not profitable.If hydrogen can be produced in an energy-efficient way, I really do see hope for ‘ noiseless ‘ planes. For the sake of clarity, this can be said in principle, even if it is not profitable, so no society would want to use it.
So yes, technically it is definitely “really possible”.What is technically possible, however, does not determine in itself what is actually happening. We have seen this with the Concorde: Supersonic flies were possible, but turned out to be just too expensive. People did not want to fly fast , but cheap.The question is not (only) whether it will be technically possible, but also whether it will be profitable.
It seems to me to be very silent, but we can get it as a feather that geuis of meat is no longer a problem.
Emissions have long been fixed for 2069 under the knees.Biofuel or syntetic fuel. It will, of course, still produce CO2, but that is compared with the inclusion of CO2 in fuel production.
Yes.This is absolutely possible.
I do not base my answer on technical knowledge or insight into the electric vehicles industry, but simply on the history of scientific developments.
After the discovery of the fire it took millions of years for the wheel to be invented, around 4000 BC.About 6000 years later, in 1886, the car was invented. Only 120 years after that, they are no longer out of the street image to think away.
Another example, even better perhaps: In 1903 flew the first airplane, the Wright Flyer of the Wright brothers.The flight lasted 12 seconds and at that time Orville Wright completed 120 metres. Just over 30 years later, in 1934, the Gloster Gladiator could fly a little more than 400 km/h.
6 years later (1940) the Bf-109 F-2 flew over 600 km/h.
4 years later (1944) the P-80 Shooting Star flew 965 km/h.
20 years after (1964) the MiG-25 Foxbat flew 3000 km/h.In just 30 years, planes could fly 7.5 times as fast. But even better: three years for the MiG-25, in 1961, the Soviet union first launched a human space: Yuri Gagarin.
Incredibly.In less than 60 years, one of the first small baby steps of aviation went to space.
What my story comes down to: jumps in the technique were first measured in millions of years.Then in tens of thousands. Then in hundreds. Then in some years.
Now in months.
In 50 years time we can achieve so much that silently and without emissions are actually a very small dream. We might be drinking a beer on Mars by this time.Who knows. I hope in any case of it though.
I hope and would like to continue to increase investment in order to continue to develop environmentally friendly alternative technologies.It is not that we should be up to 2069 and can wait to come up with alternatives, which already exist and must already be deployed now.
Such electric planes have existed for a long time, just not on the size of the big jets.See also: Electric aircraft-Wikipedia
Against noiseless flies the aerodynamics resist, also gliders are not noiseless.Flying without emissions is now possible, with biofuels. Those are just 3x as expensive as kerosene. In Germany and France this is happening since eternity with the E10 fuel for automobiles, where 10% ethanol is assisted. In The Netherlands one does not want to. Soon it is no longer possible at Schiphol to buy kerosene without the biofuel being mixed. It is about 2%. The kerosene becomes more expensive, after all, there is no need to do anything with tax rebates like E10.
‘, ‘ Certainly is.But it is tricky with the current techniques. The main problem lies in the relationship between the mass of the fuel and the energy efficiency. This means that electricity with heavy batteries and solar energy already fall out. The best option is a hybrid airplane with all that. Hydrogen for the flight phase, fossil fuel for the take off, solar energy in the flight phase, wind energy to drive electrical systems on board. The catapult is not an option because of the high acceleration and the uncontrolled take off. In aviation, fossil fuels will not be completely banned, but can be greatly reduced. That’s not very bad either. Aviation contributes relatively little to CO2 production compared to industry and households.
“,” I don’t believe completely silently, because all motion makes sound, even walking.But that the tax on the environment at that time is minimal, I believe it is.
This is possible by pulling planes with trains on the ground.
So technically it is possible.
Practically it is probably not.
There must be a lot of land to be used to make the trek trains.
Another idea is to get only the flow from the ground.
You have to ask yourself why you still want to go through the air if you are so stuck to the ground.A tube that sucks vacuum is then probably much more efficient.