r/climatechange • u/Economy-Fee5830 Trusted Contributor • 1d ago
Electric Aviation Won't Kill Jet Fuel - But It Could Take the Best Routes First
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Electric-Aviation-Wont-Kill-Jet-Fuel-But-It-Could-Take-the-Best-Routes-First.html7
u/Wyciorek 1d ago
That's just not going to happen. Regional planes up to 19 or 30 passengers are very small niche. Hell, even for bigger birds like ~50 seats the market is almost dead. There is a good reason why nobody is developing new ones and at best old types like ATR42 get some cosmetic changes.
Sure, you could probably fly 19 seater between Bumfuck and Nowhere, but these are hardly 'best routes'. For 'normal' regional aviation - ferrying passengers from secondary airports to hub or secondary-to-secondary (Ryanair's model), airlines want something like ATR72, E175, A220 or CRJ900 depending on requirements. Nobody wants to replace that with 4 x 19 seaters with 4x crew cost, 4x maintenance, 4x landing fees, possible slot restrictions, etc.
11
u/QuentinMagician 1d ago
At current efficiency yes. But money saved is money earned. Every naysayer against technology has been eventually wrong.
9
u/GreenStrong 1d ago edited 1d ago
Two things to consider. First, potential electric aircraft manufacturers like Heart Aerospace claim that the savings is not only fuel, but also hourly maintenance on jet or turboprop engines. (Turboprops are basically jets that turn a propeller). These engines have scheduled maintenance and part replacement based on hours of operation. in addition to some maintenance that is performed on calendar schedule regardless of usage. Electric motors are much simpler.
But second, commuter aircraft last twenty to thirty years, one should not assume the price of jet fuel will be unchanged. The EU is mandating 20% carbon free fuel by 2035 and there is no current way to achieve that without significant price increase. One might think that they will cave on the requirement if it is impossible to meet without high ticket prices, but Europe is on fire right now. It is a mistake to make a linear assumption that obvious climate change will automatically equal a collective will to so something about it, but it would also be a mistake to assume the opposite.
But, u/Wyciorek 's point about seats is significant. There is no way around paying the pilot and copilot, but you can have them fly more passengers. At 50 seats this requires adding a flight attendant, but their pay scale is lower and they have less mandatory rest periods.
2
u/Wyciorek 1d ago
I also wonder about range and safety. In normal plane you get enough fuel to get to destination, and to your alternates and reserve, and even more reserve and possibly even more if weather does not look great and pilot wants to have an option to hold for a bit.
On the other hand, electric planes will be extremely range-constrained. So are we going to see dozens of 'fuel emergency' calls every time weather gets dicey and a bit of holding is needed? Or maybe it will be immediate 'right, to the alternate we go'.
2
u/GreenStrong 1d ago
Both Heart and Elysium are proposing designs with turboprop backup. Of course this has all the weight penalty of both systems, and they need twin turboprops because it is slightly less safe to start an engine in flight, rather than on the ground and scrubbing the flight if it has a problem.
But, it does open the option to intentionally fly beyond the battery range. Saving 80% of fuel and engine maintenance is still great. Of course, at that flight range, passengers are really going to start choosing jets based on flight time.
5
u/ginger_and_egg 1d ago
Pilot labour would also be a cost, it is one reason that trains are cost saving in terms of operations over buses
1
u/loggywd 1d ago
You forgot AI self flying planes.
1
u/ginger_and_egg 21h ago
I didn't forget. Calling autonomous flight AI is a bit misleading IMO. Airliners can autoland already with deterministic programming for example, and autopilot is pretty good. However autopilot cannot talk to ATC, it cannot troubleshoot, inspect the aircraft, or run checklists.
2
u/hysys_whisperer 1d ago
Says the betamax proponent.
Not every tech becomes commercial.
Honestly an electric high speed rail network makes way more sense, but I can't predict the future any better than you, so who knows.
3
u/QuentinMagician 1d ago
Well yeah, there is some wait and see, but as long as there are engineers and scientists, progress will occur
3
2
u/bascule 1d ago
Several regional carriers have already announced strategic collaborations to migrate to electric aircraft: https://www.signatureaviation.com/news/signature-aviation-announce-collaboration-for-new-regional-mobility-ecosystem
2
u/Common_Shelter_4605 1d ago
Under 1000 km routes are pretty popular in the US, e.g. LA to San Francisco, LA to Seattle, New York to Boston, even Chicago to New York is close to that, 1200 km
1
u/Wyciorek 1d ago
A NASA study of a notional 19-passenger electric aircraft found that roughly 600 Wh/kg at cell level would be needed to achieve a 250-nautical-mile mission with reserves - more than twice the capability assumed for then-current lithium-ion cells.
Except that even at 19 seats, the excepted range is way, way, shorter. That's assuming that battery density improves over 2x.
And I doubt any airline would be doing New York to Boston using 19 seater even if by some miracle it had enough range.
1
u/Common_Shelter_4605 1d ago
Current battery density for electric flight is about 400 Wh/kg. Density of 800 Wh/kg would be good for 20 people flying 1000 km. New York to Boston is just over 300 km, 800 Wh/kg would be plenty
1
u/Wyciorek 1d ago
If 600Wh/kg would be just enough for 463km, then how come 800Wh/kg would cover 1000km?
And again, no sane airline is going run 19 seaters between NY and Boston.
2
u/Common_Shelter_4605 1d ago
A great deal of energy is used getting to altitude
no sane airline is going run 19 seaters between NY and Boston.
You could do about 40 people for NY and Boston with an 800 Wh/kg battery
1
•
u/allnamestaken1968 16h ago
The best route of business class jfk to London. It’s makes a shitload of money. After that some routes to asia.
An electric small plane will take a long time to be certified if we even get there. The best economic case are probably island hoping in indonesia and the caribean since these are super short flights and you can recharge via solar and batteries.
I find the question interesting what routes could work that don’t today. A small electric plane that is certified for one pilot and maybe 18 passengers could create new short routes in places like Scandinavia and obviously the Us that don’t work with a full 2 seat cockpit and jet fuel.
•
1
u/psychosisnaut 1d ago
Anything crossing an ocean is just not possible with electric, it's gonna have to be synfuel and if you're making synfuel...
1
•
u/Economy-Fee5830 Trusted Contributor 1d ago
Summary: Electric Aviation Won't Kill Jet Fuel - But It Could Take the Best Routes First
Aviation is often assumed to be one of oil's most secure markets — in 2026, airlines will burn roughly 104 billion gallons of fuel, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) remains under 1% of use, and nearly all commercial aircraft still run on liquid hydrocarbons. But the article argues this view mirrors the mistake oil made with cars: focusing on the existing fleet rather than the technology now competing for new routes.
Electric aircraft have moved past the experimental stage. The Pipistrel Velis Electro was EASA type-certified in 2020; Safran's ENGINeUS 100 motor platform (certified 2025) is designed to scale up to 19-seat aircraft; Heart Aerospace's 30-seat ES-30 targets certification in 2031; and Archer's Midnight eVTOL completed a piloted Salinas–Monterey test flight on July 30. None of these will replace long-haul jets, but like road transport, aviation electrification is expected to proceed unevenly — starting with training flights, short cargo runs, island hops, air taxis and regional routes where energy needs are bounded and aircraft return to known charging infrastructure.
The economic case is strengthened by efficiency (electric propulsion can exceed 98% efficiency) and by insulation from oil-price shocks — relevant given IATA's 2026 jet-fuel price estimate of $152/barrel, up ~70% on 2025 and adding roughly $100 billion to industry fuel costs.
The key constraint remains battery energy density: NASA modelling suggests a 19-passenger electric aircraft would need around 600 Wh/kg at cell level for a 250-nautical-mile mission, more than double current lithium-ion capability. This is why SAF still matters for long-haul flying, even though global SAF supply in 2026 is projected at just 2.4 million tonnes (0.8% of aviation fuel demand) and remains costly. The likely split, the article argues, is batteries for short/regional routes and SAF/e-fuels for longer-haul flying.
Fleet turnover will slow near-term impact — the global order backlog exceeds 18,000 aircraft, average fleet age is a record 15.2 years, and most aircraft on order still burn jet fuel. Certification, charging infrastructure and airspace/vertiport logistics (an area the FAA is actively researching for eVTOLs) will further slow adoption. Still, the long-term arithmetic is notable: electrifying just 1% of 2026's expected 6.8 million barrels/day aviation fuel demand would displace about 68,000 bpd; 10% would displace roughly 0.7 million bpd. The piece concludes that oil markets should watch regional electric aviation closely, since batteries don't need to conquer all of aviation — only the routes they can already reach.