Flying still cheaper than trains on most EU routes, study finds
-
This post did not contain any content.
Here's what we should do:
-
This post did not contain any content.
Here's what we should do:
-
This post did not contain any content.
Here's what we should do:
-
This post did not contain any content.
Here's what we should do:
-
This post did not contain any content.
Here's what we should do:
-
This post did not contain any content.
Here's what we should do:
-
This post did not contain any content.
Here's what we should do:
-
No tax on airline fuel.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
The costs of the platforms would significantly reduce the efficiency of the solar cells.
My point is that planes have the advantage of not needing tracks which come with costs. There are the maintenance costs and the costs of not using them otherwise. We shouldn't be surprised if trains can't compete on many connections.
Well, airports are not free
-
But why though?
Rail is very expensive to build, operate, and maintain. Rail is far more heavily subsidised in Europe than air travel and it’s still more expensive. It also doesn’t respond well to changes in demand. Tracks can’t be easily moved. Flights can easily be redirected. As technology and efficiency improves, flights become cheaper every year. Not rail, however, because most of the cost of operation and maintenance has nothing to do with energy efficiency. This gap will continue to widen. Further, rail has an inherent logistical limitation: all cars share limited lines. They are all limited by the slowest car. They are all stopped when an issue occurs with another car (or tracks). Planes can fly around damage to the network.
-
Do you have any numbers?
In France, airfrance stopped to fly some routes since they cannot make them cheaper than a TGV
-
This post did not contain any content.
It is absolutely not OK that there still is a tax exemption on any flight whatsoever.
That and the shameless dynamic pricing of trains.
-
Hell, it’s cheaper and faster to fly from Zurich or Munich to Hamburg via Barcelona, London or Dublin.
Cheaper maybe, but I don't bet on faster for the passenger. Train station normally are in the city center (or really near), airport are relatively far from the city.
-
right, so that's most likely optimal placement, with peak efficiency being reached for a little while each day as long as the weather is good. if they lie flat, you can lose as much as 90% of that energy, and that's still with proper maintenance. flat panels also don't self-clean, so maintenance would be even higher.
basically, you can probably skip the multiplication altogether.
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
-
how high are the maintenance costs compared to airports?
The equivalent would be railway stations. In both cases the minimum is not much more than a roof.
-
Well, airports are not free
Neither are railway stations.
-
In France, airfrance stopped to fly some routes since they cannot make them cheaper than a TGV
Of course there are connections where trains are more efficient. It's just not all of them. An analysis should try to identify which connections should be cheaper but are not. Listing them all destroys any meaningful critique.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]You've convinced me: rail should be subsidised more and air travel should get nothing (unless there is no equivalent train route e.g. across the sea) .
-
How many electrical planes have you seen?
wrote last edited by [email protected]How is that relevant? The article was an economic comparison, not an ecological one.
For an ecological comparison half the numbers. Synthetic fuels are only twice as expensive as fossil jet fuel which should mostly be caused by the needed energy.
By 2019, fossil jet fuel production cost was $0.3-0.6 per L given a $50–100 crude oil barrel, while aviation biofuel production cost was $0.7-1.6, needing a $110–260 crude oil barrel to break-even.
-
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.
Conservatives sure like to stick up for the worst polluters. You could just tax the fuel like any other industry.
