Flying still cheaper than trains on most EU routes, study finds
-
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.
-
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.
