Today I Learned@lemmy.worldbygandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
10 hours

Energy efficiency of various transport modes

English

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport

that table is thoroughly fascinating. i mean all of them, there’s more than one table on that article

apparently walking is the most energy-efficient transport mode of all?!?!? apart from bicycles

what i find mind-blowing is that airplanes consume approximately the same amount of energy as cars and trains. I mean i can easily see cars and trains being on the same level, but i always thought that airplanes consumed like an order of magnitude more fuel than cars. considering how everybody keeps saying that “airplanes consume so much fuel” and such. crazy.

and also boats are less efficient than i thought? boats consume 16 L/100 km while cars, trains and airplanes consume 6 L/100 km?

36
    • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      2 hours

      I’ve always thought that a 60 passenger bus with 2 people on it is never going to be as efficient as a car with 2 people. Probably closer to 2 cars with 1 each. And that’s a strikingly common situation in North America because they won’t buy a smaller bus and electric busses are still a dangerous concept for so many transit managers.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.caEnglish
      3 hours

      The bicycle vs velomobile (latter is more energy efficient in chart) is based on high speed. velomobile is heavier, and uses more energy at low speed and stop and go traffic. Parking the dam thing onto a sidewalk is an ordeal that takes energy.

      It’s unclear that food energy used for exercise should count the same as fuel. Implies Wally lifestyle is bestest.

      “On demand” is taxi-equivalents? Transit scores low with low occupancy busses. Air is optimized for most perfect economy, and chart likely created by that industry.

    • pet the cat, walk the dog@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6 hours

      Buses seem to be shafted in that comparison by the fact that no one uses them in the US. Where I am, a bus gets just seven passengers only in the middle of the night. At other times, buses would be easily at the top of the table if not for the fact that our trains also move more than twenty people per car.

      • birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        4 hours

        Urban sprawl, zoning laws, lack of dedicated bus lanes with safe and walkable stops, low frequency, comfort (seat, space, aircon/heat, chargers), and prices.

        Comfort and frequency are the easiest to solve, prices, urban sprawl, zoning laws, and the like less so. Not to mention that labour rights must be improved for bus drivers.

      • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4 hours

        Maybe it’s the same for commuter rail. It’s weird seeing average 33 passengers, when they were always standing room only while I was riding

        • pet the cat, walk the dog@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2 hours

          Yeah, I’ve lumped them together in my mind, because subway is typically not called ‘train’ in my language. But the situation is about the same. Just looked it up: a subway car here has the ‘full capacity’ of over 300 people, commuter cars around the same, but probably less in practice. And the numbers sure push toward that during rush hour.

      • acockworkorange@mander.xyzEnglish
        5 hours

        That’s because mass transit is, with very few exceptions, absolutely ass in the USA. People only use it as the absolute last resort. That skews the table a lot against any public transit.

        • pet the cat, walk the dog@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4 hours

          That always sounded to me like a chicken-egg problem. People don’t use buses and subways, because buses and subways are populated by weird dirty hobos. Well guess what…

            • pet the cat, walk the dog@lemmy.worldEnglish
              2 hours

              Oh suuuure. Except maybe you haven’t noticed, but I can read English, and peruse US-dominated social media. In the threads on mass transit it’s always “truly these are complex and multifaceted problems”, and then outside that thread it’s “I had to use subway today with all the masturbating weirdos like a peasant”.

              • acockworkorange@mander.xyzEnglish
                2 hours

                They are just not related. The crazies on the street are not disappearing if people all decide to use transit. How is that a chicken and egg problem?

                • pet the cat, walk the dog@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  20 minutes

                  Explain then how it is that there are no dirty smelly masturbating crazies on buses and subways in my country.

                  Crazies hang out doing crazy stuff in spaces that are conducive to such behavior. If normal people ride public transport because it’s expected that public transport accommodates normal people, then crazy behavior isn’t tolerated on public transport.

      • blackbeans@lemmy.zipEnglish
        5 hours

        Also the data seems to be from 2018. More than 50% of all new purchased city passenger buses in Europe are zero emission (usually electrified). And that number is higher in some other countries, with China being ahead of everyone.

    • f314@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10 hours

      For modes using electricity, losses during generation and distribution are included.

      They should do this for the fossil fuel modes as well and see what that does to the numbers!

        • klankin@piefed.caEnglish
          1 hour

          Distribution throughout the vehicle would be laughibly trivial, and calling using batteries ‘generation’ is weird, but they are still like 99% efficient.

          Probably means the efficiency loss burning gas (in power plants much more efficient than cars) is counted for electric vehicles, but ignored for gas vehicles through some crazy mental gymnastics.

          Its also a US study published in 2018, so this is an expected bias.

    • FishFace@piefed.socialEnglish
      7 hours

      Our World in Data has more useful figures that attempt to be comparable. In short, it very strongly contradicts that table.

    • cub Gucci@lemmy.todayEnglish
      10 hours

      what i find mind-blowing is that airplanes consume approximately the same amount of energy as cars

      The same logic could be applied to spacecrafts. The energy efficiency of a spacecraft travelling to Mars is approximately 10-50MJ/100km - between a car and a bicycle. Should everyone take a ticket to Mars rather than driving their SUV to work?

      • testaccount372920@piefed.zipEnglish
        9 hours

        Planes and trains are also quite close to each other and in many cases cover the same routes. However, planes run 100% on fossil fuels, trains are often electric.

          • Nighed@feddit.ukEnglish
            9 hours

            Weight. As you burn down fuel, the plane gets lighter, so requires less fuel/energy for the remaining distance.

            With a battery powered plane, the battery is just as heavy all the time. It also has less energy density. This means wayyy less range with current tech.

            • birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
              3 hours

              I feel something like this could be a way…

              Overhaul Planes

              What if we had smaller planes? You could end subsidies for plane flights under 1,000/1,500 km, as planes are less energy efficent below those distances than train. You can also abolish flights for planes that are heavier than a certain weight, and subside investing in green plane fuel research. To make the transition smooth, you’d have to do this in phases, and ensuring CEOs are on board with it without corruption.

              With flying, the security and having to travel to the airport (the airport requires a lot more specialised infrastructure), a journey for 1,500 km would take at least 3 to 5 hours.

              Trains

              Train stations by comparison, take up much less space and thus occur more widely. Thus travel time to them is less.

              Therefore, accounting for security and travel time towards the station, a train can be equally fast, and doesn’t lead to ear pain for passengers. If they don’t stray too far, scenic routes are also possible, which is beautiful. As you curve downward a valley, the Mont Blanc reveals itself to you. Driving along rolling hills, past rustic pines and beaches, floral meadows and fair lakes and cities…

              They should be massively more subsided to reduce prices. Avoiding overcrowding (which decreases comfort) could be done by only allowing as many to board as there are seats available.

              High speed rails could be ideal for daytime travelling. They should be frequent and between many mid-sized and large cities. That is, up until the journey would be longer than a plane flight and its preparations. With longer distances between stops, sleeper trains would be handier, especially if their comfort is seriously improved.

              What would sleeper trains need?

              Wifi, chargers. You could have cabins for 4 people as the standard, with:

              • banks that can be turned into comfortable beds
              • a foldable table
              • rubbish bin
              • storage space

              Interior should be simple, hypoallergenic but ‘cosy’. Not claustrophobic, unclean, or metallic.

              A more luxurious option might be a private shower (as well baby diaper changing spot) and toilet, with more space. Breakfast served.

              A direct journey thus would be handier for sleeper trains, or at the very least the time between transfers should be at least 10 hours (8 sleep, 2 for going to sleep and waking up). There could be transfer hubs for these sleeper trains where you have lounges that are for eating breakfast/dinner, letting children play, or for focusing.

              • Nighed@feddit.ukEnglish
                3 hours

                Train stations require train lines between them, that’s the crux of the issue.

                There is research into electric/hydrogen planes.

                • klankin@piefed.caEnglish
                  2 hours

                  Honestly pretty sure their comment is AI generated, so dont waste too much time analysing it

            • MurrayL@lemmy.worldEnglish
              9 hours

              Clearly the solution is lots of little batteries, so the plane can drop them as it flies.

              • AstralPath@lemmy.caEnglish
                4 hours

                Into the ocean, ideally. That way we spur growth in our mining sector to replace them all with new batteries every time. The shareholders are going to love us.

              • Nighed@feddit.ukEnglish
                7 hours

                There is actually a rocket that does this (the Electron). Uses batteries to power the fuel pumps, drops them as it goes up.

                • cub Gucci@lemmy.todayEnglish
                  6 hours

                  Also there are planes that drop rockets. Do you think we can use them to make the environment more friendly?

                • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  4 hours

                  It does to me.

                  “Your flight has been cancelled on account of a moderate wind in the forecast somewhere between New York and San Francisco.”

      • gasgiant@lemmy.mlEnglish
        8 hours

        My guess is taxis and things like Uber.

        Something you have to call up/book to get anywhere