this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2026
178 points (94.9% liked)
Today I Learned
29433 readers
464 users here now
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
...What's keeping us from having electric planes?
Weight. As you burn down fuel, the plane gets lighter, so requires less fuel/energy for the remaining distance.
With a battery powered plane, the battery is just as heavy all the time. It also has less energy density. This means wayyy less range with current tech.
Clearly the solution is lots of little batteries, so the plane can drop them as it flies.
Into the ocean, ideally. That way we spur growth in our mining sector to replace them all with new batteries every time. The shareholders are going to love us.
This might actually work? I imagine getting up to altitude is the most difficult and energy intensive step since the engines are operating at a higher power and the air is thicker.
Even if that's only 10% or 15% of the overall energy usage, being able to drop the battery and have it return to the airport on its own for reuse could be a cool concept. You could also optimize that particular battery for take off & climbing, and have the main battery for cruising.
It just needs to be able to pilot itself back to a landing / catching structure 😄
You made me smile, thanks
There is actually a rocket that does this (the Electron). Uses batteries to power the fuel pumps, drops them as it goes up.
Also there are planes that drop rockets. Do you think we can use them to make the environment more friendly?
Dropping them with guided parachutes doesn't sound crazy to me.
It does to me.
"Your flight has been cancelled on account of a moderate wind in the forecast somewhere between New York and San Francisco."
I feel something like this could be a way...
Overhaul Planes
What if we had smaller planes? You could end subsidies for plane flights under 1,000/1,500 km, as planes are less energy efficent below those distances than train. You can also abolish flights for planes that are heavier than a certain weight, and subside investing in green plane fuel research. To make the transition smooth, you'd have to do this in phases, and ensuring CEOs are on board with it without corruption.
With flying, the security and having to travel to the airport (the airport requires a lot more specialised infrastructure), a journey for 1,500 km would take at least 3 to 5 hours.
Trains
Train stations by comparison, take up much less space and thus occur more widely. Thus travel time to them is less.
Therefore, accounting for security and travel time towards the station, a train can be equally fast, and doesn't lead to ear pain for passengers. If they don't stray too far, scenic routes are also possible, which is beautiful. As you curve downward a valley, the Mont Blanc reveals itself to you. Driving along rolling hills, past rustic pines and beaches, floral meadows and fair lakes and cities...
They should be massively more subsided to reduce prices. Avoiding overcrowding (which decreases comfort) could be done by only allowing as many to board as there are seats available.
High speed rails could be ideal for daytime travelling. They should be frequent and between many mid-sized and large cities. That is, up until the journey would be longer than a plane flight and its preparations. With longer distances between stops, sleeper trains would be handier, especially if their comfort is seriously improved.
What would sleeper trains need?
Wifi, chargers. You could have cabins for 4 people as the standard, with:
Interior should be simple, hypoallergenic but 'cosy'. Not claustrophobic, unclean, or metallic.
A more luxurious option might be a private shower (as well baby diaper changing spot) and toilet, with more space. Breakfast served.
A direct journey thus would be handier for sleeper trains, or at the very least the time between transfers should be at least 10 hours (8 sleep, 2 for going to sleep and waking up). There could be transfer hubs for these sleeper trains where you have lounges that are for eating breakfast/dinner, letting children play, or for focusing.
Train stations require train lines between them, that's the crux of the issue.
There is research into electric/hydrogen planes.
Honestly pretty sure their comment is AI generated, so dont waste too much time analysing it
Technology, or rather, lack thereof. As others pointed out, planes need to bring their own energy supply and use additional energy for that. Weight is a very big factor for air transport's energy consumption. Fossil fuels have a very high energy density, which make them great for bringing along. Once light weight battery tech (without excessively large sizes) becomes available, it should be no issue to electrify planes. Alternatively, find another source of electricity. E.g. nuclear has a much higher energy density than fossil, but obviously has it's own issues, as do all other currently available tech options.
Fossil fuels also have the benefit of being weight that's shed (burned) as you fly, so an international flight will be much lighter when landing than it weighs when taking off. It's like the rocket equation but much less severe due to much less energy requirement