6 ms·
Last I read, flying takes twice as much energy as driving, which takes twice as much energy as taking a train. Maybe there are other considerations?
by fourthark 8y ago
Last I read, flying takes twice as much energy as driving, which takes twice as much energy as taking a train.
Maybe there are other considerations?
- Klathmon 8y agoSo there's a Wikipedia page about this, but it seems to have conflicting information or I'm reading it wrong... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_transport https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_tran... The table seems to agree with you, however the text below it doesn't (at least not entirely). After trying to decipher how they keep switching units (kg/km per passenger vs kg/mile per passenger), it seems as if the text shows .18 for long flights, .35 for average cars, .08 for long distance busses, and .19 for long distance trains (all units I put here are kg of CO2 emissions per passenger per mile). And that doesn't take into account manufacturing or the impact of roads, but I don't necessarily think that changes the discussion at all. I'm also not sure if those numbers are average capacity or peak capacity (planes are very often mostly full in my experience, while trains are not, and busses even less so, but that's all based on my own memory). So I'm leaving this discussion with more questions than I started with, but my first statement was absolutely wrong!
- maccard 8y ago> planes are very often mostly full in my experience, while trains are not, and busses even less so. This is going to be very dependent on the route/times. I've flown transatlantic flights where I've had entire rows to myself (on multiple occasions). Trains are regularly running at capacity, especially on commuter lines.