Mind that long-range flights are also overall more efficient,[1] as they have a longer low-fuel-burn cruise-phase, as contrasted with take-off and climb, which consume tremendous amounts of fuel.
For ranges at which electric-powered aircraft are applicable, ground-based transport (e.g., electrified, preferably high-speed rail) are even more optimal, though there are cases (e.g., inter-island travel, remote low-population regions) which might not suit those. Those tend to be outlier and marginal cases already, however.
________________________________
Notes:
1. On a fuel/passenger-km or cargo-kg-km basis. Though the large overall distance makes for prodigious fuel burn regardless.
Yes, you can still enjoy your park.
Would most Americans be okay not being able to fly to see their families on Thanksgiving?
Or tax gasoline so heavily, food, clothing, electronics, healthcare all become expensive?
I really hope the policy answer is not a version of “forced covid” .
Now the issue really is how can we make those high density fuels from solar.
Do what naturally happened over 1000s of years in hours.
Gasoline at 45MJ/kg is 10x denser than batteries. It makes long distance aviation possible.
It makes cars, boats and ships possible for transport.
Moving things around the planet cheap and fast makes humans happy.
IMO the answer isn’t to reduce movement of humans and foods, but to figure out a greener, cheaper way to do it.
One problem with electrified aircraft is that longer ranges probably translate to much lower speeds. Total mass is absolutely critical, so two of the biggest areas of research are likely to be materials (lightweighting the entire airframe) and automation (removing pilots and flight attendants). Given that electrified aircraft are already likely to be small (I'm assuming anywhere from two to perhaps 20 or 40 passengers), eliminating anywhere from 50% to 10% of the total payload mass will be a major consideration.
But you're still looking at a slow flight in a small plane at lower altitudes (and bumpier air), with minimum cargo or carry-on allowances. If there's no alternative ground route, or schedule flexibility is of the essence, that might be an option, but not especially fast or comfortable.
Looking through proposed aircraft, I'm seeing models designed for anywhere from one to 186 passengers (the last is considerably more than I'd thought viable, Wright Electric with a 335 mi (540 km) range). More likely to me are the Zunum Aero (12 passengers, 700 mi / 1125 km range) and Eviation (9 passengers, 100--600 miles). From: <https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/electric-aircraft/index.h...>
Zunum's ceased operations.
Eviation appears to be ongoing. From Wikipedia:
With 260 Wh/kg cells, the 900 kWh battery capacity (3,460 kg, 7,630 lb) is initially estimated to give the design a range of 540–650 nmi (1,000–1,200 km) at 240 knots and 10,000 ft (3,048 m).[6] This is anticipated to increase as battery technology improves.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eviation_Alice>
(Again, somewhat better than my expectations.)
A prototype has flown, and there are orders for at least 167 aircraft. Colour me surprised.
Eviation Alice is the only electric aircraft listed by Wikipedia to give passenger numbers:
They are well funded and have customers lined up
Noting that the ES-30 claims 30 passengers and an all-electric range of 200 km, 20k ft. service ceiling. No top/cruise speed mentioned.