4 ms·

Aviation is the one field where fossil fuels will stay around for a long time just do to the energy density and the fact that the plane gets lighter as you burn

by doikor 6y ago

Aviation is the one field where fossil fuels will stay around for a long time just do to the energy density and the fact that the plane gets lighter as you burn fuel. Almost any other industry can switch to mostly carbon neutral energy sources. So if we want to travel long distances fast there really isn't much of a realistic option. Though short flights (1 to 2h) should be replaced by rail when it makes sense (no sea to cross etc)

walkingolof 6y ago
Byproducts from the foresting industry (and other industries) can provide renewable aviation fuel soon. https://www.thelocal.se/20180313/swedens-forests-could-fuel-air-travel-researchers-say https://www.thelocal.se/20180313/swedens-forests-could-fuel-...
AlotOfReading 6y ago
That's not a realistic option outside Europe and parts of Asia. I'm in SF, the nearest major cities are LA (1h flight) and Seattle (1.5h flight). Those are 10h and 21h by train on a good day, respectively. On a bad day, double that. Additionally, trains are only 40% or so more efficient in terms of pollution. I suspect in most of the world you're far better off taking the plane and putting the fare difference into carbon credits.
- doikor 6y ago
  You just have a shitty rail system in most of US. The solution is to fix it not fly more. Also trains are a lot more then 40% more efficient in terms of pollution. Eurostar for example 6g per km traveled while airplane is 100g (long haul flights much worse for short ones). Though electric train powered by coal can get to around 40g per km and even worse for diesel trains.
  - AlotOfReading 6y ago
    We have the track, just not the companies doing passenger service. The ones we used to have all went bankrupt during the great depression and disappeared. A similar story played out across the Americas in Canada, Brazil, and Argentina, all of which have expansive rail networks, but limited passenger service. As for efficiency, I'll go by amtrak's numbers [1], which claim to be 36% better than domestic air. [1] https://www.amtrak.com/travel-green https://www.amtrak.com/travel-green

by doikor 6y ago

walkingolof 6y ago

Byproducts from the foresting industry (and other industries) can provide renewable aviation fuel soon. https://www.thelocal.se/20180313/swedens-forests-could-fuel-air-travel-researchers-say https://www.thelocal.se/20180313/swedens-forests-could-fuel-...

AlotOfReading 6y ago

That's not a realistic option outside Europe and parts of Asia. I'm in SF, the nearest major cities are LA (1h flight) and Seattle (1.5h flight). Those are 10h and 21h by train on a good day, respectively. On a bad day, double that. Additionally, trains are only 40% or so more efficient in terms of pollution. I suspect in most of the world you're far better off taking the plane and putting the fare difference into carbon credits.

doikor 6y ago
You just have a shitty rail system in most of US. The solution is to fix it not fly more. Also trains are a lot more then 40% more efficient in terms of pollution. Eurostar for example 6g per km traveled while airplane is 100g (long haul flights much worse for short ones). Though electric train powered by coal can get to around 40g per km and even worse for diesel trains.
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  We have the track, just not the companies doing passenger service. The ones we used to have all went bankrupt during the great depression and disappeared. A similar story played out across the Americas in Canada, Brazil, and Argentina, all of which have expansive rail networks, but limited passenger service. As for efficiency, I'll go by amtrak's numbers [1], which claim to be 36% better than domestic air. [1] https://www.amtrak.com/travel-green https://www.amtrak.com/travel-green