Synthetic fuels are great for airlines which is the only realistic solution for long-distance travels (cryogenic hydrogen containers would be heavier and a significant hazard, batteries are only feasible on shorter routes), but the allure of EV isn't just because it's cleaner but also it's significantly lower maintenance versus an ICE car. Maintaining an ICE car is no joke, and while EVs do still require some maintenance it is only a fraction of ICE vehicles.
That or we go the aircraft carrier route and make them nukes, which isn't feasible at the scale that international shipping operates.
For cargo, maybe, but I really doubt passengers would accept a significant slowdown on air travel.
Won’t journey times be much longer? Where are you going to get the passengers, and all the staff? Where are you going to land them?
Again, super simple engine, massively overengineered drivetrain, cheap and plentiful bits. Plus running it on propane makes it a lot cheaper and cleaner!
But electric motors still have an inherent advantage that they have very few moving parts, much lower heat levels, almost no vibration, can be hermetically sealed, don't need complex transmission, etc.
The 787 has over 200,000 pounds of fuel.
IIUC, SMNR currently can produce ~300MW weighing 1.4M pounds. Naively, it seems reasonable in 30 years or so we could produce one that weighs 140,000 pounds and produces ~30MW (not even a gain, just a smaller reactor) - which could power a current 787. Naively, I imagine they'd have more efficient plane designs in 30 years, too.
And Fusion actually does seem less than 30 years away now. But who knows.
There are Prius taxis in NY clocking 500k miles or more.
On the other hand Hyundai Veloster is fun to drive but literally breaks down after 30k.