“If Amory knew simply physics he would know wider wingspan increased [and made] more efficient lift. Ever see a glider?” “If Amory knew something about aviation then he would see these new technologies require wider wingspans….” As a physicist long active in aviation for the Pentagon and industry clients, I know that wider wingspans are a classical efficiency solution that many firms still validly pursue. But since 2020, it has not been the only proven solution: superlaminar aerodynamics can yield similar or better efficiency with shorter wings, and is clearly feasible for regional jets (or larger) fitting the existing ASE airfield. I’ve explained this to the BOCC, John Bennett, and others since successful 2018–20 flight tests were announced in Aug 2020. I’m mystified that the Coalition continues in four of its posted FAQs to mislead the public about modern aerodynamics. Please see Essay #5, pp 5–7, or for a deeper update, my 28 May 2024 Stanford lecture posted two items later on our Essays page. (Stanford’s Aeronautics and Astronautics Department Chair and his senior just-retired professor found no errors, and the Chair invited me to teach it in his sustainable-aviation class.) 

“None of [the] upstart companies” developing electric planes have [the] resources [needed]….” But four-fifths of the world’s top 25 aerospace companies are engaged. McKinsey in January 2024 found more electric than fueled planes on order worldwide ($118 billion worth) for at least 55 intending operators.

“Battery Energy Density needs to be about 10x what it is today to be useful for transport….” Not if the plane has very low drag and mass using proven technology: see e.g. the 2014 NASA Langley paper (Moore & Fredericks) in my 2024 Stanford lecture. As Kyle Clark’s excellent 19 June 2024 Volts interview emphasizes, too, it’s as important to look at economics as at power density: electricity is cheaper than fuel in the same proportion as batteries are heavier than fuel, and electric planes appreciate because a battery refresh can double range and quadruple city coverage every decade, vs fueled planes that get worse and depreciate from day one.

“We may see the electric air taxi start making progress but that…will [not] replace our regional service.” Major airlines have announced electric air taxi services at several large airports starting in 2025–26. Hundreds of electric or hydrogen regional jets are on order worldwide.

“In the ’70’s [Amory] convinced the Sierra Club to push for over regulation of nuclear energy. In order to favor coal over nuclear. Two generations later we are finally getting realistic about nuclear in order to combat climate change. We are now paying the price for his actions.” Every part of that statement is false. I don’t recall any Sierra Club conversations, particularly about nuclear regulation. I did not favor coal. Nuclear power continues its global commercial collapse (see worldnuclearreport.org). That’s good for climate, since nuclear power makes climate change worse: it costs many times more per kWh than efficiency or modern renewables, so it saves manyfold less carbon per dollar, and also per year. It’s such a minor distraction that global nuclear power, in good years when it increases output, adds only as much all year as renewables add every few days.