Sometimes I find an article that is supposed to be about science or technology and I can't help but wonder what the point of bringing up the subject was.  A recent LiveScience article entitled "Rising Fuel Costs Could Help Make Electric Planes A Reality" is just such a piece.

Within the first three sentences the following statement is presented,
"...for the most part the idea of an electric airliner is regarded as fantasy in aviation since batteries are so heavy..."
From here it is followed up by some facts that demonstrate just how impossible electric power is for replacing jet fuel.  After which we are provided all the "benefits" of this non-existent technology.

"Besides avoiding concerns over emissions, electric motors are far more efficient than combustion engines."

"Since electric motors would not generate supersonic streams of exhaust, they would be quieter as well, he added."
HELLO! .. of course it would be more efficient.  You can't actually go anywhere!

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not blaming the researchers for this, but rather the journalists that clearly want to report on something that isn't actually happening.  With a headline that isn't true.

Oh, and the point about rising fuel costs?
This is because jet fuel supplies a lot of energy for its weight — technically, some 11,900 watt-hours per kilogram — while those batteries offer about 200 times less.

However, in light of rising fuel prices and concerns about the environmental impact of fossil fuel use, researchers are taking the concept more seriously.
So, I guess if the price of jet fuel goes up to about $200/gal. then perhaps this becomes viable.  Of course at those prices, airline tickets would be so expensive, that alternative modes of long-distance travel would have long supplanted it.

Sometimes you just can't win.