For aircraft and marine applications specifically (which was my focus), the energy density problem (60x worse than jet fuel) creates cascading inefficiencies as you need more battery weight, which requires more energy to move, which requires more batteries, and so on.

Electric cars have different economics than aircraft/boats and can make more sense in certain contexts. But my analysis was specifically about why lithium propulsion for aircraft and marine vessels faces fundamental economic and physics challenges that can't be solved with current technology.

The tires on an electric vehicle wear down about 20% faster because of the load bearing of the battery weight.

that's partially because the operating costs are very low, which is a good thing.

Grid transmission losses

what about the cost of shipping gasoline?

The tires on an electric vehicle[...]

this is part of what leads me to think your entire article is just anti-EV sentiment wrapped in a facade of being about planes, so you can point to the planes when people criticize it. most people here are not arguing that it makes sense to put batteries in planes, they're pointing out the very obvious inaccuracies in basic calculations like the $5/KWh the article leads with. and I also take issue with the un-cited sources (a link to a home page is not a cited source).

Ships benefit from the square/cube law: square the hull area -> the volume is cubed.

E.g. if you double the size of a ship, the drag increases 4x but it can carry 8x the weight.

So larger ships are more efficient than smaller ones (at carrying containers/bulk/etc at scale).

Here in northern Europe, we already have electrified car carrying ferries etc.

Ocean going vessels will take longer though.

https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/20...