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?
Using the same logic, using a but or going by train is also more efficient since the many seats versus a couple is also true.
Any forms of travel from point A to point B should be valid for study. If I have to travel alone 800 miles it's good to know the options for energy efficiency. Do I rent a fuel-efficient car? Do I simply fly? Do I hop on a bus? It doesn't nothing for me to only study the difference between vehicles of the same size.
I would think it also depends on when the plane is flying. If it's entire trip is during daylight hours, and it's above the clouds as most larger aircraft flights are, then you may be able to use solar panels in place of the majority of the batteries. Plus you won't have to carry the weight (as much) in fuel.
It's probably not a practical solution currently. But as efficiencies increase, it's at least feasible it may be at some point in the future.