In article ,
Vaughn wrote:

On 12/31/2012 12:45 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
There are still major chemical limitations on energy storage/weight
issues that preclude them from being a viable power source for aircraft
-- and cars.

It's time to wake up and smell the kilowatts Orval. "Preclude" is a
pretty daring word to use when you consider that electric cars and
aircraft are on the consumer market today.

Electric cars are here. That simple fact was driven home to me last
week when I visited California, where electric cars and their charging
stations are becoming a regular sight.

I have read your arguments here many times, and I agree with you that
the case for electric airplanes is harder to make. We especially agree
about that "new electric 172". (Can something that hasn't even been
built truly be considered "new"?) Still, recent improvements in the
technology is making special purpose electric aircraft look tempting.
Glider launch is an early application that is quickly gaining traction
in the marketplace.

In short; in the face of an improving technology, only a fool uses words
like "never" and "preclude".

All you have to do is run the engineering math. The "200 mile-range
electric car" is one of those "100 mpg economy run" type situations
where all systems are shut down, except the drive train; temperature is
optimum; no stops; -- in short, not applicable to the real world.

Practical range for electrics is on the order of 40-80 miles, with 4-8
hour recharging.

Since you are carrying ALL the energy needed to run, the weight climbs
out of sight (15:1 air:fuel ratio + storage medium).

In short, electric vehicles are a pie-in-the-sky wet dream of
environmental extremists or electric vehicle scam artists.