The future of flying - Electric planes or bans on flying?

[berneyarms]

Some way to go yet then. Hopefully that will eventually be sorted but maybe there will be a need for a temporary suspension of flights for a few years while we wait for suffiicently large battery powered aircraft.


Not just carbon but (probably) water vapour is (much) worse at altitude too.


That's a relief. I was concerned that contrails could be a result of the temperature difference between the air and the material the aircraft is made of (which sometimes causes puffs of steam/cloud to appear along the wings of aircraft).


Where are these results published?

mods note - split from this thread

I’m not sure whether the first part of this post is serious or not?

You do know that Dublin Airport has just opened a brand new runway to cope with the ever expanding demand for flights from Ireland?

The notion that the country is going to suspend connectivity off the island, and revert to us all using ferries again is farcical. That ship has long sailed.

I refer you to my post above (post #61).

There are 817 flights a week in either direction between Dublin and GB airports.

Most of those use 180 seater aircraft (Boeing 737 / Airbus A320), but a minority are operated using 72-seater turboprops.

I think that you really underestimate how important aviation is to our island.

 

[HSTEd]

Ultimately it is extraordinarily unlikely that a practical electric aircraft will be available in time to matter for decarbonisation.

All attempts are running into the same fundamental limits of physics that have pretended every other attempt.
Zero carbon aviation must inevitably rely on synthetic fuels that will have prices treble or quadrouple conventional ones.

If decarbonisation is to be achieved, aviation is going to become much more expensive.

Thatcherism might pretend that the market will achieve miracles, but even the market must give way to physics.

 

[Chester1]

I’m not sure whether the first part of this post is serious or not?

You do know that Dublin Airport has just opened a brand new runway to cope with the ever expanding demand for flights from Ireland?

The notion that the country is going to suspend connectivity off the island, and revert to us all using ferries again is farcical. That ship has long sailed.

I refer you to my post above (post #61).

There are 817 flights a week in either direction between Dublin and GB airports.

Most of those use 180 seater aircraft (Boeing 737 / Airbus A320), but a minority are operated using 72-seater turboprops.

I think that you really underestimate how important aviation is our island.

There are plenty of people who are entirely serious about banning flights. I have been told I shouldn't see my brother or that my girlfriend shouldn't see her family in previous threads. Our combined family is spread over three continents and thats apparently tough luck. I am fortunate that so far only France has tried to limit domestic flights, let alone international. At least Britain has a much larger popupation than Ireland and a fixed link to the continent. Ireland's economy would be on its knees if tried to rely on ferries. That of course ignores the elephant in the room of Northern Ireland. I guess connecting it to the rest of the UK is not important for environmentalists. I have visited the island five times and took the ferry there five times, returning four times by ferry and once by plane (no cabins left from Belfast). I would never support banning flights across the Irish Sea. Its not like Edinburgh / Glasgow - Manchester / Birmingham / London were the train is already a reasonable option.

Ultimately it is extraordinarily unlikely that a practical electric aircraft will be available in time to matter for decarbonisation.

All attempts are running into the same fundamental limits of physics that have pretended every other attempt.
Zero carbon aviation must inevitably rely on synthetic fuels that will have prices treble or quadrouple conventional ones.

If decarbonisation is to be achieved, aviation is going to become much more expensive.

Thatcherism might pretend that the market will achieve miracles, but even the market must give way to physics.

It depends on what routes you are talking about. The tech is basically ready to take over routes like Glasgow to Barra, Southampton - Alderney or Newquay - Scilly Isles. The question is how big the planes can get. My point about Dublin - Manchester / Liverpool, and the relevance to this thread, is that the range is already sufficient. The challenge to introduce electric planes between Northwest England and Dublin is a commercially viable capacity. I believe that is more likely to happen in the next 25 years than most passengers taking the train and ferry again.

 

[zwk500]

There are plenty of people who are entirely serious about banning flights.

Can you point to an elected official (i.e. somebody who has potential policy-making power) that has talked entirely seriously about banning flights between GB the island of Ireland?

 

[Chester1]

Can you point to an elected official (i.e. somebody who has potential policy-making power) that has talked entirely seriously about banning flights between GB the island of Ireland?

Fortunately none. I mean advocates amongst the general public, some members of this site and certainly green activists.

 

[HSTEd]

It depends on what routes you are talking about. The tech is basically ready to take over routes like Glasgow to Barra, Southampton - Alderney or Newquay - Scilly Isles. The question is how big the planes can get. My point about Dublin - Manchester / Liverpool, and the relevance to this thread, is that the range is already sufficient. The challenge to introduce electric planes between Northwest England and Dublin is a commercially viable capacity. I believe that is more likely to happen in the next 25 years than most passengers taking the train and ferry again.

Many of those electric aircraft have cruise speeds below 150 knots, some below 100 knots.

At that point your Dublin-Manchester flight might struggle to compete with surface transport solutions with far superior mass fractions, be they hydrofoils/hovercraft or more esoteric solutions like Wing-in-ground vehicles (ie. Ekranoplan), especially for long overwater flights. The reason air travel is so popular is because your A320 can cruise thousands of miles at 450 knots. If your aircraft moves less than 200 suddenly a lot of the shine comes off.

This study attempts to model an A320 class aircraft (~180-190 passengers) using electric motors and advanced batteries. Notably this study assumes a flight speed comparable to the fossil fueled airliner, although various differences in flight characteristics alter the optimum flight path.

Most of the cases assume batteries of 800Wh/kg an hour or more, but still have drastic increases in take off weight compared to the reference aircraft.

In the least advanced case modelled, 400Wh/kg (still double today's batteries) the aircraft takeoff weight climbs over 120 tonnes just to get to 200 nautical mile range. For reference the takeoff weight of a typical A320 is more like sixty for a range of 2500nm!

Forgive me if I am skeptical electric aircraft will ever approach the performance necessary to make them attractive to the bulk of today's aviation passengers. They certainly won't arrive in time to matter from a decarbonisation perspective.

 

[berneyarms]

Fortunately none. I mean advocates amongst the general public, some members of this site and certainly green activists.

More pointedly there are no significant advocates of this in any position of influence in Ireland. Even our Green Party Minister of Transport recognises the need for connectivity by air to and from the island.

It isn't going to happen.

 

[Trainbike46]

I think people are confusing a desire among ordinary people concerned about the climate crisis to strongly REDUCE the number of flights (say 70-90% reductions in flight emissions over the next few years, with the remainder then going over to synthetic fuels etc.) with a desire to fully ban all flights. The first case clearly has different implications than the second. For example, in the first case, flights that are relatively easy to replace wiht more sustainable methods, such as say London-Edinburgh flights, would end. But harder to replace flights, such as London-New York, could stay for occasional trips. In the second case both would disappear completely. I haven't personally met anyone arguing the second case, but I've met loads of people in favour of the first one.

UK-ireland flights are a funny one, because while they clearly could be replaced with alternatives (trains/ferries/coaches/etc.) it would be harder than the London-Edinburgh example.

Personally, as a person living in the North of Ireland who regularly needs to travel to Great Britain and mainland Europe, I don't fly because I don't feel like I can justify it, but for some people and some trips it may be justifiable (I cannot decide that for other people). What I can say is that the number of flights to and from the UK/Ireland/literally every other country in the western world needs to come down. And that means at least some of the current UK-Ireland flights will have to go, so improving alternatives, including ferries from Belfast/Dublin/Rosslare is a positive.

At the end of the day, we cannot sustain current levels of air travel without boiling the planet, so they question should be which flights we should retain. Personally, I think the reductions should primarily come from flights where (relatively) easy alternatives exist, such as London-Edinburgh/Paris/Amsterdam, but to me it also means reductions (not banning) in UK-Ireland flights.

Fortunately, the most socially necessary flights, such as those connecting the most remote Scottish Islands and ferrying hospital cases from the Isle of man and the channel islands are the easiest to electrify.

 

[Bald Rick]

I‘ve never met anyone who has suggested completely banning flights.

I have met quite a few who suggest that ‘we’* should reduce the number of flights to/from/in this country.

*’we’ being all the other people, and not themselves.

 

[Chester1]

I’m not sure whether the first part of this post is serious or not?

You do know that Dublin Airport has just opened a brand new runway to cope with the ever expanding demand for flights from Ireland?

The notion that the country is going to suspend connectivity off the island, and revert to us all using ferries again is farcical. That ship has long sailed.

I refer you to my post above (post #61).

There are 817 flights a week in either direction between Dublin and GB airports.

Most of those use 180 seater aircraft (Boeing 737 / Airbus A320), but a minority are operated using 72-seater turboprops.

I think that you really underestimate how important aviation is to our island.

I think people are confusing a desire among ordinary people concerned about the climate crisis to strongly REDUCE the number of flights (say 70-90% reductions in flight emissions over the next few years, with the remainder then going over to synthetic fuels etc.) with a desire to fully ban all flights. The first case clearly has different implications than the second. For example, in the first case, flights that are relatively easy to replace wiht more sustainable methods, such as say London-Edinburgh flights, would end. But harder to replace flights, such as London-New York, could stay for occasional trips. In the second case both would disappear completely. I haven't personally met anyone arguing the second case, but I've met loads of people in favour of the first one.

UK-ireland flights are a funny one, because while they clearly could be replaced with alternatives (trains/ferries/coaches/etc.) it would be harder than the London-Edinburgh example.

Personally, as a person living in the North of Ireland who regularly needs to travel to Great Britain and mainland Europe, I don't fly because I don't feel like I can justify it, but for some people and some trips it may be justifiable (I cannot decide that for other people). What I can say is that the number of flights to and from the UK/Ireland/literally every other country in the western world needs to come down. And that means at least some of the current UK-Ireland flights will have to go, so improving alternatives, including ferries from Belfast/Dublin/Rosslare is a positive.

At the end of the day, we cannot sustain current levels of air travel without boiling the planet, so they question should be which flights we should retain. Personally, I think the reductions should primarily come from flights where (relatively) easy alternatives exist, such as London-Edinburgh/Paris/Amsterdam, but to me it also means reductions (not banning) in UK-Ireland flights.

Fortunately, the most socially necessary flights, such as those connecting the most remote Scottish Islands and ferrying hospital cases from the Isle of man and the channel islands are the easiest to electrify.

How many of the 817 flights a week that @berneyarms quoted need to go? Who picks? I can't see a UK government rationing flights within its own territory to maintain more links with a foriegn country.

If Holyhead to Euston went via HS2 it would take at least 3 hours and with two transfers and the fast ferry it would take at least 6 and a half hours between Dublin and London city centres. It would be nearly six hours for Liverpool and Manchester.

 

[cle]

I don’t think GB (very dispersed) to Dublin flights are a realistic target for mitigating.

We’re best focused on London-Scotland, where rail is concerned. And tightening Amsterdam, which is the other truly big market.

 

[RobShipway]

How many of the 817 flights a week that @berneyarms quoted need to go? Who picks? I can't see a UK government rationing flights within its own territory to maintain more links with a foriegn country.

If Holyhead to Euston went via HS2 it would take at least 3 hours and with two transfers and the fast ferry it would take at least 6 and a half hours between Dublin and London city centres. It would be nearly six hours for Liverpool and Manchester.

I cannot see the Government rationing flights between Ireland, Northern Ireland to the UK. I can see the Government suggesting to airlines to be more environmentally friendly, whether that is with better environment fuels using existing jet engine/propeller engines or with using battery powered engines. This would also be the same with flights to Europe.

That it is just my belief, but if you where to be mitigating or banning flights between Ireland, Northern Ireland to the UK, then there needs to be more updates to the West Coast Mainline networks than building HS2 to cope with the demand that will be asked to carry those people. You will also have to be building an HS3 route along the North Wales Coast and HS4 to the South Wales Coast. Now given the time that it is taking to build HS2 from thought, design and build, is there really enough time for that to be done before 2050?

What people in these forums tend to forget is that time is money to many of the business people and unlike @Trainbike46 do not want to be spending a day or more travelling before needing to be at their location in either the UK or Europe or vice versa.

 

[Trainbike46]

I‘ve never met anyone who has suggested completely banning flights.

I have met quite a few who suggest that ‘we’* should reduce the number of flights to/from/in this country.

*’we’ being all the other people, and not themselves.

That's funny, most people I meet who argue for strongly reducing the number of flights don't fly themselves at all. I guess we meet different people!

How many of the 817 flights a week that @berneyarms quoted need to go? Who picks? I can't see a UK government rationing flights within its own territory to maintain more links with a foriegn country.

If Holyhead to Euston went via HS2 it would take at least 3 hours and with two transfers and the fast ferry it would take at least 6 and a half hours between Dublin and London city centres. It would be nearly six hours for Liverpool and Manchester.

There is various proposals floating around to reduce the number of flights by reducing demand; going from increasing Air Passenger Duty, to charging fuel taxes for planes at the same rate as for cars, to introducing a frequent flyer levy, where people who take more than 1 or 2 return flights per get charged (much) higher taxes. While hard to implement, I like the concept of a frequent flyer levy as it doesn't prevent people from seeing their family abroad while creating a strong incentive to limit flights.

I don’t think GB (very dispersed) to Dublin flights are a realistic target for mitigating.

We’re best focused on London-Scotland, where rail is concerned. And tightening Amsterdam, which is the other truly big market.

Fully agreed here. The easiest win routes are:
London-Glasgow
London-Edinburgh
London-Rotterdam/Amsterdam
London-Brussels
London-Paris

Some of these rail has already mostly cornered.

"We", where we means the UK and Dutch goverments and rail industry, should work on increasing capacity at St Pancras and Amsterdam stations (and avoid the nonsense of the Amsterdam route being suspended for a few months.

However, I don't think that means we shouldn't try to improve other routes, where of course the big winners would be North Wales, rather than passengers to Dublin

 

[eldomtom2]

I‘ve never met anyone who has suggested completely banning flights.

I have met quite a few who suggest that ‘we’* should reduce the number of flights to/from/in this country.

*’we’ being all the other people, and not themselves.

This is a vague and unpleasant accusation of hypocrisy.

 

[Chester1]

That's funny, most people I meet who argue for strongly reducing the number of flights don't fly themselves at all. I guess we meet different people!



There is various proposals floating around to reduce the number of flights by reducing demand; going from increasing Air Passenger Duty, to charging fuel taxes for planes at the same rate as for cars, to introducing a frequent flyer levy, where people who take more than 1 or 2 return flights per get charged (much) higher taxes. While hard to implement, I like the concept of a frequent flyer levy as it doesn't prevent people from seeing their family abroad while creating a strong incentive to limit flights.


Fully agreed here. The easiest win routes are:
London-Glasgow
London-Edinburgh
London-Rotterdam/Amsterdam
London-Brussels
London-Paris

Some of these rail has already mostly cornered.

"We", where we means the UK and Dutch goverments and rail industry, should work on increasing capacity at St Pancras and Amsterdam stations (and avoid the nonsense of the Amsterdam route being suspended for a few months.

However, I don't think that means we shouldn't try to improve other routes, where of course the big winners would be North Wales, rather than passengers to Dublin

A saw a think tank proposal a couple of years ago for a frequent flyer levy that I thought was quite reasonable. The gist of of was the first flight each year was at current levels of taxation, phasing up progressively so that the fourth flight of the year (and any additional flights) had a several hundred pounds levy + normal taxes. I would assume that employers would need a system to pay for any additional levy on their employees. If someone flew three times with work and then flew the fourth time for a family holiday they would be angry with paying several hundred pounds out of their own pocket.

I am not convinced North Wales main line electrification is justified on environmental grounds for the foreseeable future. I doubt Crewe to Holyhead and Llandudno electrification would cost under a billion pounds. There are 25+ low bridges between just Crewe and Chester. The funding and the engineering resources would be better spent elsewhere.

 

[cle]

That's funny, most people I meet who argue for strongly reducing the number of flights don't fly themselves at all. I guess we meet different people!



There is various proposals floating around to reduce the number of flights by reducing demand; going from increasing Air Passenger Duty, to charging fuel taxes for planes at the same rate as for cars, to introducing a frequent flyer levy, where people who take more than 1 or 2 return flights per get charged (much) higher taxes. While hard to implement, I like the concept of a frequent flyer levy as it doesn't prevent people from seeing their family abroad while creating a strong incentive to limit flights.


Fully agreed here. The easiest win routes are:
London-Glasgow
London-Edinburgh
London-Rotterdam/Amsterdam
London-Brussels
London-Paris

Some of these rail has already mostly cornered.

"We", where we means the UK and Dutch goverments and rail industry, should work on increasing capacity at St Pancras and Amsterdam stations (and avoid the nonsense of the Amsterdam route being suspended for a few months.

However, I don't think that means we shouldn't try to improve other routes, where of course the big winners would be North Wales, rather than passengers to Dublin

If the current issues at St P, and generally with our inward looking country improve again - I’d think we could maybe see:
London-Koln/Frankfurt (no stops after Brussels) - could be competitive

Next in terms of total flight frequency, year-round demand, leisure/biz mix (all per Amsterdam) - I would probably have eyes on Geneva. Bordeaux and SoF will always be more seasonal. Lyon just isn’t a big enough draw by itself sadly.

 

[Tetchytyke]

People don’t demand that all flying is banned, but they do rightly question whether the amount of aviation traffic is environmentally sustainable and whether steps should be taken to reduce it. And I don’t see hypocrisy on this.

Domestic aviation is one obvious example. The fact that domestic flights such as Birmingham-Edinburgh or Newcastle-Bristol are so popular is nothing more than a failure of our rail industry. And perhaps if domestic aviation was taxed appropriately- especially the aviation fuel- it might level the playing field a little. Although if we banned domestic flights the government would have to do something about CrossCountry, so I’m sure it will remain in the “too difficult” pile.

As for the aviation industry, they want to reduce emissions. Fuel is the biggest cost base for airlines and high emissions reflect high or inefficient fuel usage. They all want to use less fuel. I don’t agree with those who label the aviation industry as evil in this. It’s not in Ryanair’s interests to have inefficient planes. It’s no coincidence the low-cost carriers have the newest fleets.

The real environmental problem is private aviation, though. Private jets in particular. There needs to be a clampdown on private aviation, and the way to do that is through taxation. There is no need for anyone to fly privately, not with the quality of commercial aircraft now, its all about ego. I’m sure huge and punitive tax charges on companies which own or lease private jets till focus a few minds.

Many of those electric aircraft have cruise speeds below 150 knots, some below 100 knots.

And for short flights that’s perfectly fine.

The busiest air corridors from here are to Manchester and Liverpool. It’s less than 100 miles to each. EasyJet fly to Liverpool in about 20 minutes, so even if the electric aircraft is 50% slower that’s still only adding 10 minutes to the journey. I spend longer than that taking my boots off at airport security.

 

[HSTEd]

And for short flights that’s perfectly fine

The busiest air corridors from here are to Manchester and Liverpool. It’s less than 100 miles to each. EasyJet fly to Liverpool in about 20 minutes, so even if the electric aircraft is 50% slower that’s still only adding 10 minutes to the journey. I spend longer than that taking my boots off at airport security.

Dublin-Liverpool (I assume) the flight would end up barely faster than a battery electric hovercraft, let alone anything more esoteric like an ekranoplan!

A lot of the shine of conventional air travel will vanish with such slow platforms.

 

[berneyarms]

Dublin-Liverpool (I assume) the flight would end up barely faster than a battery electric hovercraft, let alone anything more esoteric like an ekranoplan!

A lot of the shine of conventional air travel will vanish with such slow platforms.

They’re not talking about Dublin as EasyJet don’t fly here.

I suspect that they are referring to the Isle of Man.

 

[Tetchytyke]

A lot of the shine of conventional air travel will vanish with such slow platforms.

I’m talking about the Isle of Man not Dublin, but the point still stands.

EasyJet’s A320 to here will cruise at about 310 knots. Loganair’s ATR72 to here will cruise at about 240 knots. The flight time difference between the two is negligible, about 5 minutes if that. So if an electric aircraft cruises at 200 knots it’ll add 10 minutes to a flight to Manchester compared to an Airbus and only 5 compared to an ATR72. I spend longer than that buying a bottle of overpriced water in WH Smith.

Dublin is about twice as far from Manchester as the Isle of Man is, so it’ll add 20 minutes to a Ryanair Boeing flight and about 10 minutes compared to an Aer Lingus ATR72.
Electric is perfect for these short hops. It’s long haul where the weight of the batteries will make it unrealistic.

For comparison, the Steam Packet’s fast ferry Manannan cruises at 30 knots and the conventional ferries cruise at 15-20 knots. So even an electric aircraft only doing 150 knots is still ten times faster than the ferry.

 

[HSTEd]

For comparison, the Steam Packet’s fast ferry Manannan cruises at 30 knots and the conventional ferries cruise at 15-20 knots. So even an electric aircraft only doing 150 knots is still ten times faster than the ferry.

But the comparison, once aircraft are reduced to 150 knots, is likely to be with hovercraft that will get you there almost as fast as the plane, but bring your car too!

At 60-70 knots it will take under an hour from Heysham, not much more from Liverpool

The same high performance batteries needed to make electric airliners even remotely practical also enable a great many other concepts!

 

[AHBD]

I wondered about
small scale modular Thorium reactor powered electric planes, but it seems Railwaymen(&women) don't need to worry about that yet I think...
Rolls Smr

 

[JamesT]

I wondered about
small scale modular Thorium reactor powered electric planes, but it seems Railwaymen(&women) don't need to worry about that yet I think...
Rolls Smr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft It’s been investigated in the past by the military. But you need so much shielding to avoid radiation that it becomes too heavy to be useful.

Which is the primary issue battery aircraft have, the energy density is just too low. I’ve seen figures of 8,000-12,000Wh/kg for kerosene, 270Wh/kg for the best batteries. Even taking into account the efficiency of a jet engine versus an electric motor (30-55% vs. 85%), it’s still a massive penalty.

If curbs are placed on commercial aviation, synthetic fuels seem the most likely route through as they are nominally carbon neutral. The added cost would be passed on which would naturally limit how many people took flights.

 

[Lucan]

I have been told I shouldn't see my brother or that my girlfriend shouldn't see her family in previous threads. Our combined family is spread over three continents and thats apparently tough luck.

So many people having relations spread around the world is a result of air travel having become cheap (for political and accounting reasons too complex to explore here), and of emigration/immigration for reasons which I will not explore further. I have a foreign GF myself (met in UK, her having visited by air) and living here FTTB she is back-and-forth to her native country by air every month or so to see her family, something I am not very happy with. Air travel itself results in the "need" for even more air travel. But with reduced air travel fewer situations requiring air travel would arise.

Not very long ago air travel was confined to a minority and life was not terrible because of that at the time. Now air fares have become cheaper per mile than driving a family car. I work with a guy who once a month flies with his wife to some city abroard for the weekend (New York, Rome, Dubai, Vienna etc), apparently just to do some shopping; this is ridiculous. There needs to be tapering in of a policy of financial discouragement if not outright manipulation of air travel by government - it is being done now in the UK with cars after all.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But the comparison, once aircraft are reduced to 150 knots, is likely to be with hovercraft that will get you there almost as fast as the plane, but bring your car too!

There aren’t any hovercraft that can do that though.

The passenger-only Hovertravel hovercraft are thirsty creatures, getting through 170 litres of fuel an hour at 45 knots carrying 86 passengers.

There’s a reason why the SR.N4 was never replaced.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2023 ==

There needs to be tapering in of a policy of financial discouragement if not outright manipulation of air travel by government - it is being done now in the UK with cars after all.

I’d start with private aviation. Given the quality of commercial aviation there is absolutely no reason why anyone needs to go by private jet, except ego.

Beyond that, air travel isn’t the first place we need to look at for carbon emissions reduction. 25% of emissions are from the transport sector in the UK, but a good 80% of that is the private car. Leaving the car at home and walking/using public transport is the real way to make a difference.

 

[HSTEd]

There aren’t any hovercraft that can do that though.

The passenger-only Hovertravel hovercraft are thirsty creatures, getting through 170 litres of fuel an hour at 45 knots carrying 86 passengers.

There’s a reason why the SR.N4 was never replaced.

There aren't really any commercially useful electric aircraft either and there is no real prospect of them existing soon.

The same batteries required to make electric planes practical passenger carrying vehicles will also allow an electric SR.N4 equivalent with sufficient range for this mission.
The battery advances cut both ways.

The real reason the SR.N4 was not replaced was that the Channel Tunnel came into existance. The Shuttle could operate just as fast, but more cheaply.

EDIT:
It is likely that an electric A320 on this route is going to consume a similar amount of charging electricity as an SR.N4. Something like 10MWh.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There aren't really any commercially useful electric aircraft either and there is no real prospect of them existing soon.

The same batteries required to make electric planes practical passenger carrying vehicles will also allow an electric SR.N4 equivalent with sufficient range for this mission.
The battery advances cut both ways.

That’s a fair point, and to be honest I wouldn’t mind if hovercraft technology moved on to allow it. Flying from a relatively small island is a necessity rather than a treat, especially as the ferry takes four hours to get to Heysham.

You wouldn’t get a hovercraft to Manchester though (well you could but you’d not be doing 40 knots down the Manchester Ship Canal).

 

[Bletchleyite]

That’s a fair point, and to be honest I wouldn’t mind if hovercraft technology moved on to allow it. Flying from a relatively small island is a necessity rather than a treat, especially as the ferry takes four hours to get to Heysham.

You wouldn’t get a hovercraft to Manchester though (well you could but you’d not be doing 40 knots down the Manchester Ship Canal).

Given how rough the Irish Sea can get, I doubt a hovercraft would be viable. The catamaran from IoM to Liverpool is the roughest sea journey I've ever been on, and I say that having just come back from the Scillies which has a reputation for it as it's a flat bottomed boat due to the shallow harbour at Hugh Town.

 

[PGAT]

Electric planes and banning flights both seem vanishingly unlikely, but on a smaller scale it wouldn’t be unreasonable to expect everyone to be copying France and banning some domestic routes

 

[Bantamzen]

So many people having relations spread around the world is a result of air travel having become cheap (for political and accounting reasons too complex to explore here), and of emigration/immigration for reasons which I will not explore further. I have a foreign GF myself (met in UK, her having visited by air) and living here FTTB she is back-and-forth to her native country by air every month or so to see her family, something I am not very happy with. Air travel itself results in the "need" for even more air travel. But with reduced air travel fewer situations requiring air travel would arise.

Not very long ago air travel was confined to a minority and life was not terrible because of that at the time. Now air fares have become cheaper per mile than driving a family car. I work with a guy who once a month flies with his wife to some city abroard for the weekend (New York, Rome, Dubai, Vienna etc), apparently just to do some shopping; this is ridiculous. There needs to be tapering in of a policy of financial discouragement if not outright manipulation of air travel by government - it is being done now in the UK with cars after all.

Its not just people flying around to see family, many countries economies now rely on people arriving on planes in their numbers every year with wallets stuffed with the local currencies. People who suggest that we could significantly cut air travel just don't get, or just ignore the reality that air travel is now a key part not only of so many world economies, but of the well being of many people. Being able to fly off from our crappy summers helps a lot of people, and at the other end of those flights many people's livelihoods rely on those people arriving. Banning flights is just not going to happen, and despite all the noise around aviation isn't going to be anywhere near the big hitters in having a positive effect on the environment and climate.

I do agree that some shorter flights could and possibly should be replaced by modes such as rail. But until we stop pratting around trying to make things like current battery tech work in aging trains, and actually start throwing up wires and improving the track infrastructure then flights will continue to be more attractive than the joke that is many inter city routes in this country.