Flying still cheaper than trains on most EU routes, study finds
-
You have to build and maintain them. That costs energy which is driving costs.
compared to airline infrastructure though?
-
The equivalent would be railway stations. In both cases the minimum is not much more than a roof.
have you ever been to an airport that's just a roof?
-
It's not the most optimal. It's for a 20% panel slightly south of England:
However, in Michigan, which receives only 1400 kWh/m2/year,[3] annual energy yield drops to 280 kWh for the same panel. At more northerly European latitudes, yields are significantly lower: 175 kWh annual energy yield in southern England under the same conditions
okay, so revise the numbers.
-
I'm just here to applaud the mods... (See the deleted comments/spam)
Oh god this looks like a massacre
-
Flying receives far lower subsidies and infrastructure spending than rail. The EU subsidises air travel (including said avgas tax exemption) to the tune of around €30–40 billion annually depending on what you include and what you consider to be a “subsidy.” Using similar criteria, rail is subsidised to the tune of €40–75 billion per year. So rail gets a lot more investment despite it serving 16% fewer travel kilometers per year in the EU than air travel.
"16% fewer travel kilometers", meaning trains are used massively more often since they typically don't cover nearly as many kilometers. People would probably chose to take the train more often even if it meant traveling to less distant destinations if the planes were more expensive.
-
This post did not contain any content.
That's really unfortunate.
-
I'm just here to applaud the mods... (See the deleted comments/spam)
I wish it were easier to find actions on specific posts in some instances. Piefed even harder to use from my experience so far.
-
I'm just here to applaud the mods... (See the deleted comments/spam)
Removed by mod
-
I'm just here to applaud the mods... (See the deleted comments/spam)
Wow, that's crazy. I just saw the same thing at the news channel.
-
okay, so revise the numbers.
I have calculated conservatively. The result is the lower bound. With optimal conditions twice the energy could be generated.
-
I'm just here to applaud the mods... (See the deleted comments/spam)
What happened?
-
I have calculated conservatively. The result is the lower bound. With optimal conditions twice the energy could be generated.
it's not though, because we've already shown that it was overstated by a factor of 10.
-
it's not though, because we've already shown that it was overstated by a factor of 10.
No, you thought that I had inflated numbers and thus reduced the factor but that reduction is not necessary. There is even another underestimation because the land for the tracks is wider than three meters.
-
No, you thought that I had inflated numbers and thus reduced the factor but that reduction is not necessary. There is even another underestimation because the land for the tracks is wider than three meters.
i gotta ask, is this a devils advocate thing? because your responses are all so incredibly off that i can't realistically believe that you believe what you are saying.
-
i gotta ask, is this a devils advocate thing? because your responses are all so incredibly off that i can't realistically believe that you believe what you are saying.
There is nothing to believe. Trains only make sense with more than 37k daily passengers. You have the Wikipedia pages for the numbers and you can do the multiplications for yourself.
I have just stopped caring about downvotes. This is not the first time the hive mind is off but I rarely see facts being ignored this strongly.
I prefer trains because planes are loud. But that's not relevant for the economics. If people want trains they should push for trains where they make sense, and not everywhere.
Trains make sense for high volumes of passengers. A highspeed train has to pay about $8 per km. So for a 100km trainride with 800 passengers, one passenger has to pay $1 whereas the plane burns kerosine for $2,40.
-
I'm just here to applaud the mods... (See the deleted comments/spam)
They're late because the train is delayed
-
There is nothing to believe. Trains only make sense with more than 37k daily passengers. You have the Wikipedia pages for the numbers and you can do the multiplications for yourself.
I have just stopped caring about downvotes. This is not the first time the hive mind is off but I rarely see facts being ignored this strongly.
I prefer trains because planes are loud. But that's not relevant for the economics. If people want trains they should push for trains where they make sense, and not everywhere.
Trains make sense for high volumes of passengers. A highspeed train has to pay about $8 per km. So for a 100km trainride with 800 passengers, one passenger has to pay $1 whereas the plane burns kerosine for $2,40.
it's because your arguments are not sourced properly and your comparisons don't apply
-
it's because your arguments are not sourced properly and your comparisons don't apply
wrote last edited by [email protected]Whereas everybody else sources their arguments. Which number of mine is not sourced by now?
However I didn't expect that I had to source basic solar cell numbers in a post that is vaguely about renewable energies.
Why do the comparisons not apply?
-
Which is cheaper:
- lift 50 tons of metal off the ground burning 20,000 liters of fuel
- make 50 tons of metal run over the ground using electricity
How is this obvious?
If you ever traveled in Europe, you just know
