Summary: Electric Aviation Won’t Kill Jet Fuel - But It Could Take the Best Routes First
Aviation is often assumed to be one of oil’s most secure markets — in 2026, airlines will burn roughly 104 billion gallons of fuel, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) remains under 1% of use, and nearly all commercial aircraft still run on liquid hydrocarbons. But the article argues this view mirrors the mistake oil made with cars: focusing on the existing fleet rather than the technology now competing for new routes.
Electric aircraft have moved past the experimental stage. The Pipistrel Velis Electro was EASA type-certified in 2020; Safran’s ENGINeUS 100 motor platform (certified 2025) is designed to scale up to 19-seat aircraft; Heart Aerospace’s 30-seat ES-30 targets certification in 2031; and Archer’s Midnight eVTOL completed a piloted Salinas–Monterey test flight on July 30. None of these will replace long-haul jets, but like road transport, aviation electrification is expected to proceed unevenly — starting with training flights, short cargo runs, island hops, air taxis and regional routes where energy needs are bounded and aircraft return to known charging infrastructure.
The economic case is strengthened by efficiency (electric propulsion can exceed 98% efficiency) and by insulation from oil-price shocks — relevant given IATA’s 2026 jet-fuel price estimate of $152/barrel, up ~70% on 2025 and adding roughly $100 billion to industry fuel costs.
The key constraint remains battery energy density: NASA modelling suggests a 19-passenger electric aircraft would need around 600 Wh/kg at cell level for a 250-nautical-mile mission, more than double current lithium-ion capability. This is why SAF still matters for long-haul flying, even though global SAF supply in 2026 is projected at just 2.4 million tonnes (0.8% of aviation fuel demand) and remains costly. The likely split, the article argues, is batteries for short/regional routes and SAF/e-fuels for longer-haul flying.
Fleet turnover will slow near-term impact — the global order backlog exceeds 18,000 aircraft, average fleet age is a record 15.2 years, and most aircraft on order still burn jet fuel. Certification, charging infrastructure and airspace/vertiport logistics (an area the FAA is actively researching for eVTOLs) will further slow adoption. Still, the long-term arithmetic is notable: electrifying just 1% of 2026’s expected 6.8 million barrels/day aviation fuel demand would displace about 68,000 bpd; 10% would displace roughly 0.7 million bpd. The piece concludes that oil markets should watch regional electric aviation closely, since batteries don’t need to conquer all of aviation — only the routes they can already reach.
“But range! But range!”, say those who think no flight is less than 1000 km.
Most flights of less than 1000km would be better on a train. Better as in faster, cheaper, and less polluting. Above 1000km airplanes start to make sense. Unfortunately most places those better trains don’t exist even though the few places that have them prove the numbers should work out for the rest.
Silly goose, we don’t invest in infrastructure that might contribute to the common good. Regular people might reap some benefit from that! We can’t abide freeloaders. The only people worthy of autonomy are the wealthy. Private transport preserves exclusivity and makes our culture of inequality a material reality people have trouble arguing against.
Electric planes and eVTOLs allow trips that trains do not. There are some competing scenarios, but also come gaps for each of them to fill.
For farmers and people who live in the rural communities that server farmers, miners, campers, and other activities that can’t be done in a big city. I’ll also grant cities on an island getting to the next island. Most people live in a city large enough that it can support trains to other nearby cities - and significant portion of those live in a very large city that can support high speed trains to other very large cities less than 1000km away.
Right, if you have many people going on similar trips, and enough investors and permits for a train track, that’s a good case for electric trains. For remote places, more personal route customization and scheduling flexibility, and less infrastructure, electric planes and eVTOLs can fill in.
I’ve been waiting decades for new train tracks in Canada and it hasn’t happened. I can vote for it, but I’m not holding my breath for it to happen. Via rails is subject to CN, CP Kansas City, and their industrial clients.
In short politics is the problem. I agree with that take.
This is why SAF still matters for long-haul flying, even though global SAF supply in 2026 is projected at just 2.4 million tonnes (0.8% of aviation fuel demand) and remains costly. The likely split, the article argues, is batteries for short/regional routes and SAF/e-fuels for longer-haul flying.
I’m cautiously hopeful that we will be able to expand e-fuel production through overcapacity in solar panels, with chemical manufacturing soaking up excess energy generation during the sunniest parts of the day. It’s not cost competitive with fossil fuels yet, but in markets where grid energy occasionally drops to negative prices, fixing electrical grid energy into chemical bonds could be both a useful price stabilizer and an affordable drop-in replacement for fossil fuel uses in places where electrification is still not feasible, like most aviation today.
For now, though, most SAF still relies on biological feedstocks, so we’re still talking about growing plants to feed into biofuels, rather than absorbing the sunlight much more efficiently and turning it into the same hydrocarbon chemical bonds. Maybe if electric power gets cheap and plentiful enough (at least during the sunny daytime), that will encourage more e-fuel investment.
My only concern would be safety since they are pretty new planes and new technologies but again Boeing doesn’t care either
