Technological, economic and environmental prospects of all-electric aircraft


Ever since the Wright brothers’ first powered flight in 1903, commercial aircraft have relied on liquid hydrocarbon fuels. However, the need for greenhouse gas emission reductions along with recent progress in battery technology for automobiles has generated strong interest in electric propulsion in aviation. This Analysis provides a first-order assessment of the energy, economic and environmental implications of all-electric aircraft. We show that batteries with significantly higher specific energy and lower cost, coupled with further reductions of costs and CO2 intensity of electricity, are necessary for exploiting the full range of economic and environmental benefits provided by all-electric aircraft. A global fleet of all-electric aircraft serving all flights up to a distance of 400–600 nautical miles (741–1,111 km) would demand an equivalent of 0.6–1.7% of worldwide electricity consumption in 2015. Although lifecycle CO2 emissions of all-electric aircraft depend on the power generation mix, all direct combustion emissions and thus direct air pollutants and direct non-CO2 warming impacts would be eliminated.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Warming intensity of a projected first-generation all-electric aircraft and of a current-generation jet engine aircraft versus carbon intensity of electricity.
Fig. 2: Break-even electricity price for a first-generation all-electric aircraft.
Fig. 3: Global flight network in 2015 by distance band.
Fig. 4: Cumulative distributions of key operational variables by the global commercial aircraft fleet in 2015.

Data availability

The data that support the plots within this paper and other findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.


  1. 1.

    International Energy Agency World Energy Statistics 2017 (IEA, 2017)

  2. 2.

    International Energy Agency CO 2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2017 (IEA, 2017)

  3. 3.

    Lee, D. S. et al. Aviation and global climate change in the 21st century. Atmos. Environ. 43, 3520–3537 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Dorbian, C. S., Wolfe, P. J. & Waitz, I. A. Estimating the climate and air quality benefits of aviation fuel and emissions reductions. Atmos. Environ. 45, 2750–2759 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Brasseur, G. P. et al. Impact of aviation on climate: FAA’s Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI) phase II. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 97, 561–583 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    European Aviation Safety Agency European Aviation Environmental Report 2016 (EASA, 2016).

  7. 7.

    Yim, S. H. L. et al. Global, regional and local health impacts of civil aviation emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 034001 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Wolfe, P. J., Kramer, J. L. & Barrett, S. R. H. Current and future noise impacts of the UK hub airport. J. Air Transp. Manag. 58, 91–99 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Schäfer, A. W., Evans, A. D., Reynolds, T. G. & Dray, L. Costs of mitigating CO2 emissions from passenger aircraft. Nature Clim. Change 6, 412–417 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Airbus Global Market Forecast 2017–2037 (Airbus Commercial Aircraft, Toulouse, 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Boeing Current Market Outlook 2017–2036 (Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Seattle, 2017).

  12. 12.

    Bann, S. J. et al. The costs of production of alternative jet fuel: a harmonized stochastic assessment. Bioresour. Technol. 227, 179–187 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Stratton, R. W., Wolfe, P. J. & Hileman, J. I. Impact of aviation non-CO2 combustion effects on the environmental feasibility of alternative jet fuels. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 10736–10743 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Moore, R. H. et al. Biofuel blending reduces particle emissions from aircraft engines at cruise conditions. Nature 543, 411–415 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Caiazzo, F., Agarwal, A., Speth, R. L. & Barrett, S. R. H. Impact of biofuels on contrail warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 114013 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Brewer, G. D. Hydrogen Aircraft Technology (CRC Press, 1990).

  17. 17.

    Withers, M. R. et al. Economic and environmental assessment of liquified natural gas as a supplemental aircraft fuel. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 66, 17–36 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Drela, M. Power balance in aerodynamic flows. AIAA J. 47, 1761–1771 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Hall, D. K. et al. Boundary layer ingestion propulsion benefit for transport aircraft. J. Propul. Power 33, 1118–1129 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Datta, A. Commercial Intra-City On-Demand Electric-VTOL Status of Technology (University Maryland, College Park, 2018).

  21. 21.

    Lee, J. J., Lukachko, S. P., Waitz, I. A. & Schäfer, A. Historical and future trends in aircraft performance, cost, and emissions. Annu. Rev. Ener. Environ. 26, 167–200 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Hepperle, M. Electric Flight Potential and Limitations (DLR Electronic Library, German Aerospace Centre, Cologne, 2012);

  23. 23.

    Gnadt, A. R. Technical and Environmental Assessment of All-Electric 180-Passenger Commercial Aircraft. SM thesis, Massachusetts Inst. Technol. (2018).

  24. 24.

    Hornung, M., Isikveren, A. T., Cole, M. & Sizmann, A. Ce-Liner—case study for emobility in air transportation. In 13th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference (AIAA, 2013);

  25. 25.

    Delhaye, J. L. & Rostek, P. Electrical Technologies for the Aviation of the Future (Europe-Japan Symposium, Tokyo, 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Panasonic Lithium Ion NCR18650B (Panasonic, Newark, 2012).

  27. 27.

    Muenzel, V. et al. A comparative testing study of commercial 18650-format lithium-ion battery cells. J. Electrochem. Soc. 162, A1592–A1600 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Dever, T. P. et al. Assessment of Technologies for Noncryogenic Hybrid Electric Propulsion (NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Airbus E-FAN, The New Way to Fly (Airbus, Munich, 2015).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Bradley, M. K. & Droney, C. K. Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research: Phase I Final Report NASA/CR-2011-216847 (Boeing Research & Technology, Huntington Beach, 2011).

  31. 31.

    Bradley, M. K. & Droney, C. K. Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research Phase II: N+4 Advanced Concept Development NASA/CR-2012-217556 (Boeing Research & Technology, Huntington Beach, 2012).

  32. 32.

    Koh, H. & Magee, C. L. A functional approach for studying technological progress: extension to energy technology. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 75, 735–758 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Crabtree, G., Kócs, E. & Trahey, L. The energy-storage frontier: lithium-ion batteries and beyond. MRS Bull. 40, 1067–1076 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Sinsay, J. D. et al. Air Vehicle Design and Technology Considerations for an Electric VTOL Metro-regional Public Transportation System (12th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference, 2012);

  35. 35.

    Unger, N. et al. Attribution of climate forcing to economic sectors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 3382–3387 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Kim, H. C. et al. Cradle-to-gate emissions from a commercial electric vehicle Li-ion battery: a comparative analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 7715–7722 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Chediak, M. The Latest Bull Case for Electric Cars: the Cheapest Batteries Ever (Bloomberg, 2017);

  38. 38.

    Energy Information Administration United States Electricity Profile 2015. Table 1 (EIA, 2017);

  39. 39.

    Dray, L. M. AIM2015 Documentation (Air Transportation Systems Laboratory, UCL, 2018);

  40. 40.

    Sabre Market Intelligence Schedule and Passenger Database (Sabre, 2017);

  41. 41.

    Dray, L. M., Schäfer, A. W. & Al Zayat, K. The global potential for CO2 emissions reduction from jet engine passenger aircraft Transp. Res. Rec. 1-12, 18-04002 (2018).

  42. 42.

    Reynolds, T. G. et al. Modelling environmental and economic impacts of aviation: introducing the aviation integrated modelling project. In Proc. 7th AIAA/ATIO Conf. (AIAA, 2007);

  43. 43.

    Eurocontrol Experimental Centre Aircraft Noise and Performance (ANP) Database v2.1 (EEC, 2016);

  44. 44.

    Synodinos, P. A., Self, R. H., Flindell, I. H. & Torija, A. J. Estimating variation in community noise due to variation in aircraft operations. In Proc. 10th Eur. Congress Exposition Noise Control Eng. (European Acoustics Association, 2015).

  45. 45.

    Synodinos, P. A., Self, R. H. & Torija, A. J. A new method for estimating community noise changes due to aircraft technology variations. In Proc. 23rd Int. Congress Sound Vibration (International Institute of Acoustics and Vibration, 2016).

  46. 46.

    Synodinos, P. A., Self, R. H. & Torija, A. J. A framework for predicting noise-power-distance curves for novel aircraft designs. J. Aircraft 55, 781–791 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Synodinos, P. A., Self, R. H. & Torija, A. J. Noise assessment of aircraft with distributed electric propulsion using a new noise estimation framework. In Proc. 24th Int. Congress Sound Vibration (International Institute of Acoustics and Vibration, 2017).

  48. 48.

    Liu, C. X., Teng, J. & Ihiabe, D. Method to explore the design space of a turbo-electric distributed propulsion system. J. Aerospace Eng. 29, 04016027 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Synodinos, P. A. A New Framework For Estimating The Noise Impact Of Novel Aircraft. PhD thesis, Univ. Southampton (2017).

  50. 50.

    Huff, D. L., Henderson, B. S. & Envia, E. A First Look at Electric Motor Noise for Future Propulsion Systems. Oral/visual presentation GRC-E-DAA-TN31506 (NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, 2016).

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Torija, A. J., Self, R. H. & Flindell, I. H. A model for the rapid assessment of the impact of aviation noise near airports. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 141, 981–995 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Ager-Wick Ellingsen, L., Singh, B. & Hammer Strømman, A. The size and range effect: lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 1–8 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    FlightGlobal Ascend Fleets (FlightGlobal, 2017);

  54. 54.

    Howell, D., Cunningham, B., Duong, T. & Faguy, P. Overview of the DOE VTO Advanced Battery R&D Program (US Department of Energy, Vehicle Technologies Office, Washington DC, 2016).

  55. 55.

    Fancher, D. Defining Technologies for the next Millennium (GE Aircraft Engines, Evendale, 1999).

  56. 56.

    Hoelzen, J. et al. Conceptual design of operation strategies for hybrid electric aircraft. Energies 11, 217 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Schiferl, R., Flory, A., Livoti, W. C. & Umans, S. D. High-temperature superconducting synchronous motors: economic issues for industrial applications. IEEE T. Ind. Appl. 44, 1376–1384 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Haran, K. S. et al. High power density superconducting rotating machines—development status and technology roadmap. Supercond. Sci. Tech. 30, 123002 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Aircraft Commerce Maintenance and Engineering (Aircraft Commerce, 2017);

  60. 60.

    US Bureau of Transportation Statistics Air Carrier Financial: Schedule P-5.2 (2017);

  61. 61.

    Piano-X (Lissys, 2010);

  62. 62.

    Schäfer, A. W., Heywood, J. B., Jacoby, H. D. & Waitz, I. A. Transportation in a Climate-Constrained World (MIT Press, 2009).

Download references


Research underlying this work was made possible by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/P511262/1) and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (grant number 1122374). We thank M. Schofield, J. Sabnis and R. Gardner for discussions and K. Al Zayat for early contributions to this work.

Author information




A.W.S. led the overall study, the analysis of the results and the preparation of the manuscript. S.R.H.B. led the all-electric aircraft performance study and contributed to the analysis of the results and to the preparation of the manuscript. R.S. led the all-electric aircraft noise study and contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. A.R.G. carried out the all-electric aircraft performance simulations and contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. L.M.D. carried out the analysis of the results. K.D. and A.O’S. contributed to the analysis of the results. A.P.S. and A.J.T. contributed to the all-electric aircraft noise study.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas W. Schäfer.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figure 1.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schäfer, A.W., Barrett, S.R.H., Doyme, K. et al. Technological, economic and environmental prospects of all-electric aircraft. Nat Energy 4, 160–166 (2019).

Download citation

Further reading