I got the number from wikipedia. Following the references, the number came from a BP datasheet about Jet A-1, where it is listed on a typical properties table, and the number is the net specific energy, which means it accounts for the inefficiency of the engines. Or at least that's my assumption.
All the weights listed were operating empty weight. The battery planes will be even smaller than the planes I listed for comparison.
Weights of planes vary in flight, so I picked the one that disadvantages the point I'm trying to make in the interest of fairness.
Trains don't need to store the energy at all. Pantographs are a mature technology. High speed renewable long haul transportation is a technologically solved problem for all overland routes, it just requires infrastructure investment.
The plane in the article is a 4 ton airplane, they mention plans to make an 8 ton commercial aircraft.
The Learjet 31 is 4.4 tons. It seats 8 passengers. The Cessna CitationJet CJ3+ is right around 4 tons with a maximum of 9 passengers.
The future 8 ton aircraft is around the size of the 10-ton Dash 8 Q200 with a maximum of 40 seats.
There are commercial uses for aircraft this small, but these jets are significantly smaller than most commercial aircraft.
For context jet fuel is around 9,720 Wh/L. However, energy density(energy per volume) is less important in aviation than specific energy(energy per mass) as weight is far more likely to be the limiting factor.
A standard lithium ion battery has 100-265 Wh/kg
The article claims 500 Wh/kg in this new battery.
Jet fuel has around 12,000 Wh/kg.
Though this is a major improvement in battery tech, batteries are unlikely to ever improve to the point to even approach the energy storage of liquid fuels.
Batteries cannot run commercial aviation as it currently exists. Battery planes will need to fly slower and shorter. There is no other way.
No iron clothes is a lie. They say no iron on the label in the store, but they tell you to iron in on the care label.
Vandalizing cybertrucks before delivery is cool. Laws are not the arbitor of coolness.
But symphony 45 really was written to resolve a labor dispute. That is true.
Surely a fruit filled biscuit is another possibility.
There is direction in space. Space is not a formless void there is order and structure to the universe.
The solar system is shaped like a disk. Most planets orbit and revolve to the same axis as the solar system.
When a star trek ship is seen in orbit, like the opening to TOS it is usually shown orbiting with the up of the ship facing the north of the planet, making a left turn with the planet off the port side.
Having a consistent orientation, like up=north would make sense for navigating a solar system. Federation ships in orbit are always shown rotating to face the direction of travel while in orbit. That's not at all needed to remain in orbit, but having consistent orientation seems important to the federation.
The carbon comes from the fuel. Burning a ton of jet fuel will release the same amount of carbon regardless of the plane that burns it.
Taylor Swift's plane is a Dassault Falcon 7X. It weighs around 17 tons and seats 12 to 16 passengers.
Her plane burns 60% less fuel than a 737 MAX 8. However, her plane holds 9% of the passengers of the MAX 8, so its far less efficient per passenger than typical commercial aircraft.
Private planes are not a huge contributor to carbon emissions in comparison to others. They're bad, obviously. But there are far more commercial airplanes, and they fly much more frequently than private jets.
Private jets get people's attention. One person being directly responsible for that much carbon is notable is unconscionable. But it's the scale of transportation overall that is the issue.