Flying still cheaper than trains on most EU routes, study finds
-
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.
-
Can't wait to send 400000 tons of pig iron by a plane. You are missing the cargo trains (that mostly use the same tracks and are rail company's bread and butter) in your calculations.
The comparison should use highspeed trains which have their own tracks.
-
"the energy used for tracks"?
You have to build and maintain them. That costs energy which is driving costs.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'm just here to applaud the mods... (See the deleted comments/spam)
-
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.
