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?

19 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. What about a bus? by dunkindave · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:What about a bus? by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was about to ask how many seats you have in your butt.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:What about a bus? by mrsquid0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      This depends where you are. In many cities buses run full regardless of the time of day. Even when ridership does decrease the reason that bus companies do not switch to minivans is that the most expensive part of operating a bus is the driver. Switching to smaller vehicles does not save a transit authority enough money to justify the logistical nightmare involved in changing vehicles while a route is in operation.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    3. Re:What about a bus? by dunkindave · · Score: 4, Informative

      The comparison between planes and other modes of transit would be for longer-haul routes since planes do not provide inter-city transport. For longer routes, buses normally run fairly full. And for those that say buses aren't always full, I have been on a 737 plane between cities 1000 miles apart where there were only four passengers, including me, and on a flight to the far east where I had a row of five seats on a 747 all to myself for 12 hours.

    4. Re:What about a bus? by praxis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

    5. Re:What about a bus? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 3, Informative

      I remember some years back that the Ford Excursion Diesel was rated one of the top most fuel efficient vehicles. The caveat was that you had to fill all 9 seats with people. If you did that, your economy per passenger was better than just about every car out there, even a Prius with a full passenger load. Of course, I would usually only see one or two people in them on the road so the real world figures weren't as good as that. But the point being made was that bulk transportation of people was more efficient than individuals driving cars.

      But that also underlines another point..

      We really didn't need another very expensive study to tell us the very obvious. Of course flying is more efficient than driving, so long as everyone is going from the same origin to the same destination on a direct flight.

      One of the things I'm pretty sure they didn't factor in was how far people had to travel to get to the airport before the flight and how far they had to travel to get to their destination afterwords, not to mention what type of transportation they used. Certainly, if you're driving from one airport to another the model holds true. But the farther away from the airport you are before and/or after your flight, the more the numbers can skew. And I'm pretty sure they don't factor in when you have to fly through a hub airport that takes you hundreds of miles out of your way. So if you got a deal on a United ticket and you have to fly from Iowa through Denver's hub on your way to Orlando, I'm pretty sure any fuel efficiency you would have gained on the airplane is negated by the fact that you're going something like 1,500 miles farther than you would have on the drive.

    6. Re:What about a bus? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maintain an extra fleet of vehicles which need to be maintained and insured, at some % utilization. I'm not really sure this saves money.

    7. Re:What about a bus? by bored_engineer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Fair enough. I was working from memory, couldn't remember where intercity busses fit in the mix and was too lazy to try to find it. I stand corrected. The TRBs TCRP 79 reports the average energy consumption for intercity buses as 713 BTU/(passenger mile). As such, the revised hierarchy ought to be:

      1. 1. Bicycles,
      2. 2. Walking,
      3. 3. Intercity passenger busses,
      4. 4. Planes,
      5. 5. Long-haul passenger trains,
      6. 6. et c.
    8. Re:What about a bus? by speederaser · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bicycles and walking are powered by very non-green energy sources. An engine that spews CO2 from one end and methane from the other end.

      I don't know if you're being funny or serious, but that's a common misconception so I'll assume you're being serious. The CO2 and methane that we animals spew all came directly from the atomsphere through the food chain or through breathing. It's a closed cycle - plants and animals take CO2 from the atmosphere, store it a short while, then release it back into the atmosphere. That closed cycle is the gold standard of sustainability, pretty much the opposite of "non-green".

  2. Masstransit is more energy efficient than personal by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  3. This is stupid by pem · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Either compare flying a small plane to driving a car, or compare a huge bus to a plane.

  4. Now Factor in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  5. Re:With REALLY Huge Fans... by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's not very forward looking....

    People said the same thing about cars & range.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  6. Re:With REALLY Huge Fans... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  7. Show me the math on the Tesla. by dbc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.)

  8. Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. BTUs is one thing by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!”
  10. Re:With REALLY Huge Fans... by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Funny

    Please direct your attention towards the front of the cabin as our flight attendants demonstrate the safety features of this craft.

    In the event of pressure loss, an oxygen mask will drop from the overhead compartment. Please pull the mask to extend it completely and start the flow of oxygen, then place the mask over your nose and mouth and place the strap around your head to hold it in place. Put on your mask before helping children or others in need of assistance.

    In the event of power loss, bicycle pedals will extend from the floor of the cabin. Please pedal as if our lives depended on it

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  11. Renewable and Nuclear Power by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.