posted in Technology
First test flight of largest all-electric aircraft used just $5 of electricity
arstechnica.com/gadgets/2026/08/first-test-flight-of-largest-all-electric-aircraft-used-just-5-of-electricity/Replying to @FoxtrotDeltaTango@sh.itjust.works
I can understand a hybrid train because of certain sections of track electrification issues and the fact that diesel electric is how even trains that run entirely on diesel operate so you’re essentially just toting around a generator to operate your already electric engine. I understand hybrid cars with regenerative braking and range extension. I don’t really understand hybrid planes.
Like I can imagine electric is more efficient for takeoff because electric engines produce more initial power generally than what fossil can match per engine size(a big part of both hybrid trains and cars both using batteries for initial acceleration) and then you cruise with jet fuel. I’m just having a hard time imagining it is worth it from a defossil fuel perspective or from a straight efficiency perspective.
What if the worthwhile goal and priority were in fact to “defossil”?
What do you mean? I favor synthetic aviation fuel derived from hydrolysis which is very lossy on energy and would largely kill most current air routes in favor of trains. I think a 40x price increase on fuel is likely, but the actual implementation is proven since it’s essentially plug and play with existing infrastructure. I think the best way to make up for the subsequent loss of profitable air routes is electrified rail. This tech isn’t for getting off oil though, it’s for reducing use at best and if it actually does improve efficiency it would be used along with synthetic fuel.
Replying to @roguetrick@lemmy.world
i also prefer electrified rails, but i’m fine with decarbonizing aviation where rails aren’t feasible. rail construction has thresholds to meet in terms of travel density, frequency, and ground conditions.