Slashdot Mirror
New Study Suggests Flying Is Greener Than Driving
New submitter Desert Leap writes: The Washington Post reports a new study that suggests it is more environmentally friendly to fly rather than to drive. Analysis from the University of Michigan Transport Research Institute found that driving uses 57% more energy than flying per passenger mile. This is largely due to the number of occupied plane seats increasing while passengers per car decreased. Of course, "results may vary" for individual trips depending on many factors, such as distance flown (long flights are more fuel efficient) and the kind of car, and how many riders. One factoid is interesting: it takes 4,211 BTUs per person mile to drive. This number will fall as we switch over to electric vehicles. For example, a Tesla Model S takes about 1,100 BTUs per vehicle mile. Will future aircraft be able to also make the switch to electric?
Will future aircraft be able to also make the switch to electric? Yes, of course. Electric driven propellers should do the trick.
Of course, the size of the batteries needed will preclude carrying any passengers or cargo.
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
Nothing really too new. If you take the bus and the bus is full you are more efficient for the work being performed.
Most of the energy goes into moving the actual machine, only a small fraction goes into moving its content.
That is why the Train shipping companies advertise 1 gallon of fuel, for 500 miles per Ton of goods.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Either compare flying a small plane to driving a car, or compare a huge bus to a plane.
Being Robbed by the TSA, Groped and Accosted, or Simply not allowed to fly at all because of your views on social media.
I'd rather drive or walk...
Show me the math for both ICE cars and Tesla, from well-head to road. Because generating electricity takes energy, and there are losses in the distribution system, and the charging systems are not 100% efficient either. Of course, getting oil out of the ground, refining it into gasoline, and moving the gasoline to refueling stations takes energy, too. Show me the end-to-end math, and then let's talk. A 4:1 advantage for the Tesla seems optimistic to me.
I have the same gripe with calling Teslas "zero emission vehicles". They are not. They are "displaced emission vehicles". Of course, it is easier to control pollution at a single point, and pollution controls scale up quite well, so the overall emissions are less for a Tesla versus an ICE vehicle. But don't claim the emissions are zero, they are just someplace else. (And I will grant that there are benefits to simply displacing emissions -- the Los Angeles valley, for instance, is a bowl, and so pollution tends to hang around in the air for a long time certain months of the year. Displacing the emissions outside the bowl has it's own benefits.)
Flying costs a lot more, and involves a period of being completely at the mercy of the no-background-check employees of the TSA.
I don't care if it is green. The TSA is horrible. Get rid of it, and I might fly again. Until then, I will spring for the road trip.
I also value my time, which I don't want to waste on a 200 mile trip waiting in line, and security theater
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
On average, buses are far worse than cars for energy efficiency because of the low average load factor.
On what data is this assertion based? I spent a few minutes seeing if such data exist. I could not find data to support your claim that buses are far worse.
I found the following. A bus fuel efficiency is about 5 mpg [1]. That is with fifty-five passengers, which is the maximum capacity and therefore our lower bound. In my county, the average load-factor over all of 2012 was 479 million passenger miles divided by 44 million vehicle miles, or 10 passengers per mile.
Our average fuel consumption over number of passengers then is 50 mpg, which is not far worse than cars for energy efficiency. In 2006, the average mpg of a private vehicle on the road was about 20 mpg. Even with two people in such a vehicle, the average-loaded bus is better.
I did not dig very deeply; I was more trying to find your data and stumbled into data that seems to paint a different picture. It's quite possible that my data paints the wrong picture and you were using much more sound data, but because you did not provide it, I must ask for a citation now.
Which data had you used?
[1] http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00o...
[2] http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am...
[3] http://www.project.org/info.ph...
I have the same gripe with calling Teslas "zero emission vehicles". They are not.
True, but unlike petrol driven cars they could be. Both renewable and nuclear power power are zero carbon methods of generating power and while renewable has issues with cost, limited locations and variability if it were supplemented by nuclear we could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact if you charge your Tesla in France then 75% of that power comes from nuclear so you might not be zero emission but you will be getting close.
Maintain an extra fleet of vehicles which need to be maintained and insured, at some % utilization. I'm not really sure this saves money.