Flying still cheaper than trains on most EU routes, study finds
-
There is also a hidden cost from the tracks.
A rail track of 3m for 100km used for solar cells would generate enough electricity to transport 37500 passengers per plane.
Solar cells generate 2kWp per 10 square meters, which are 2MWh per year which is 5kWh per day.
300ksqm generate 150MWh per day.
4l kerosine per pessenger per 100km are about 40kWh.
150MWh are enough for 37500 passengers.
It's not renewable but influences the economics.
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here -
It's not like rails are in any significant way displacing solar panels.
If one were motivated, you could use the same land for tracks and for solar panels by raising the solar panels above the tracks and catenaries, making double use of the land at the expense of having to build platforms for the panels.
Finally, solar energy can't be used to transport passengers by plane since electric plane travel is not at a mass-market scale (nor is it even certain that they will ever be able to).
-
2 kWp means 2 kilo watt peak. It's the maximum they can produce and in no way the average.
You are right, I considered that.
The average per year is calculated from that number by roughly multiplying with 10 in Europe. I have looked that up and not multiplied by hours in a year.
-
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here -
It's not like rails are in any significant way displacing solar panels.
If one were motivated, you could use the same land for tracks and for solar panels by raising the solar panels above the tracks and catenaries, making double use of the land at the expense of having to build platforms for the panels.
Finally, solar energy can't be used to transport passengers by plane since electric plane travel is not at a mass-market scale (nor is it even certain that they will ever be able to).
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
No tax on airline fuel.
-
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.
The amortized savings of having the tracks outweigh any opportunity costs introduced by the tracks taking up space.
-
There is also a hidden cost from the tracks.
A rail track of 3m for 100km used for solar cells would generate enough electricity to transport 37500 passengers per plane.
Solar cells generate 2kWp per 10 square meters, which are 2MWh per year which is 5kWh per day.
300ksqm generate 150MWh per day.
4l kerosine per pessenger per 100km are about 40kWh.
150MWh are enough for 37500 passengers.
It's not renewable but influences the economics.
wrote last edited by [email protected]rail track is one of the worst places you can put solar panels. pressure differentials, oil spills, hot metal, and you can't angle them which means they can never produce their peak efficiency.
there is no reason to even consider ground-level solar until every rooftop and awning is covered.
what are you trying to say?
-
You are right, I considered that.
The average per year is calculated from that number by roughly multiplying with 10 in Europe. I have looked that up and not multiplied by hours in a year.
is that for angled or horizontal?
-
is that for angled or horizontal?
I don't know. I just picked the first number I got.
-
rail track is one of the worst places you can put solar panels. pressure differentials, oil spills, hot metal, and you can't angle them which means they can never produce their peak efficiency.
there is no reason to even consider ground-level solar until every rooftop and awning is covered.
what are you trying to say?
The idea is to put them there instead of tracks and let people fly instead. The numbers suggest that that would be a net benefit.
-
I don't know. I just picked the first number I got.
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.
-
There is also a hidden cost from the tracks.
A rail track of 3m for 100km used for solar cells would generate enough electricity to transport 37500 passengers per plane.
Solar cells generate 2kWp per 10 square meters, which are 2MWh per year which is 5kWh per day.
300ksqm generate 150MWh per day.
4l kerosine per pessenger per 100km are about 40kWh.
150MWh are enough for 37500 passengers.
It's not renewable but influences the economics.
That's the most idiotic calculation I've ever read since I came across the brain melting insanity of solar roadways
-
The idea is to put them there instead of tracks and let people fly instead. The numbers suggest that that would be a net benefit.
but is that taking into calculation that avgas is not taxed while electricity is? is it taking into account the relative efficiency numbers of turbofans? is it taking into account the cumulative amount of time lost sitting at airports, which is usually not counted into travel time?
-
The amortized savings of having the tracks outweigh any opportunity costs introduced by the tracks taking up space.
Do you have any numbers?
-
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.
how high are the maintenance costs compared to airports?
-
This post did not contain any content.
You need a study to find out that? Lol
-
That's the most idiotic calculation I've ever read since I came across the brain melting insanity of solar roadways
Could you explain why, please?
-
Could you explain why, please?
How many electrical planes have you seen?
-
but is that taking into calculation that avgas is not taxed while electricity is? is it taking into account the relative efficiency numbers of turbofans? is it taking into account the cumulative amount of time lost sitting at airports, which is usually not counted into travel time?
There are reasons to go by train. My point is that trains are not naturally more efficient. It takes cheap electricity and high volumes of passengers to make it profitable. Of course fair taxes help but prices weren't part of my calculation. The energy used for tracks is already so big that many lines are better served by plane.
-
There are reasons to go by train. My point is that trains are not naturally more efficient. It takes cheap electricity and high volumes of passengers to make it profitable. Of course fair taxes help but prices weren't part of my calculation. The energy used for tracks is already so big that many lines are better served by plane.
"the energy used for tracks"?
-
There are reasons to go by train. My point is that trains are not naturally more efficient. It takes cheap electricity and high volumes of passengers to make it profitable. Of course fair taxes help but prices weren't part of my calculation. The energy used for tracks is already so big that many lines are better served by plane.
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.
