2 ms·
> It takes a lot less energy to move a big ship with 4000 people sideways on water at 50 MPH than to lift people into the sky in 20 groups of 200 at 600 MPH. I
by boomlinde 7y ago
> It takes a lot less energy to move a big ship with 4000 people sideways on water at 50 MPH than to lift people into the sky in 20 groups of 200 at 600 MPH.
In terms of CO2: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/739287/Flying-three-times-greener-than-cruising.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/739287/Flying-three-times...
- cm2012 7y agoThat is genuinely surprising and nasty. To be that much less efficient given the constraints, cruise ships must be using terrifyingly dirty fuel.
- MagnumOpus 7y agoAs a side-note, please be careful to distinguish between local pollution from dirty fuel (SOx emissions, particulates), and global pollution from _carbon emissions_. They are two wildly different things, and often there is a big trade-off where cutting one raises the other (c.f. the VW scandal). Cruise ships, as it happens, are horrible on both measures.
- boomlinde 7y agoThey are very large and heavy (much more weight per passenger), there’s additional drag and resistance, not to mention time, which I think accounts for some of the energy waste. In short, that spending a few hours on a thin metal aerodynamic cigar is more energy effective than a week spent on a bulky floating city doesn’t surprise me.
- noonespecial 7y agoThat's an understatement. If you saw this "fuel" you'd call it tar. They have to heat it with steam just to get it pumped to the engines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil#Bunker_fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_oil#Bunker_fuel