3 ms·

That's counterintuitive to me but to be fair I've never actually looked at the numbers. Does rail really not save much in fuel relative to planes?

bluejekyll 2y ago
Trains would be easier to electrify than planes, assuming the electricity can be sourced cleanly.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  What do you mean would be, India China Russia and most of Europe have nearly 100% electric trains
  - bluejekyll 2y ago
    While most commuter trains in the US are electric, that’s not the case for cargo or long-haul passenger rail. So “would be” refers to the opportunity to electrify those lines. Many of the tracks in the US are not electrified today.
    - bombcar 2y ago
      Decent amounts of short-haul US passenger rail is not electrified, those would be good places to start. Pacific Surfliner, Metrolink, Cascades, etc are all diesel powered and could be electrified for reasonable costs. The feds should get ahead of it and declare a rail electrification standard so that as it builds out it's all compatible. Electrifying a thousand miles of track in the middle of nowhere that sees one train a day is nowhere near as worthwhile as electrifying busy corridors.
bombcar 2y ago
It depends on what you compare it to. Electric trains powered by solar and wind? Sure, saves 90% fuel compared to planes (the trains still have support, lubricant, etc that will use some fuel, but sure, assume 100%). But globally it can't be more than about 12% of the total CO2 (see https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport ) - and that is GLOBAL, trains across the Atlantic are harder to build. And that's only 12% of total CO2 from transportation - which itself is less than half of the world-wide emissions. 6% of world-wide would be noticeable, but that is only if every plane is replaced by an electric train. The trillions that even attempting some of that would cost could be better spent elsewhere, likely.

bluejekyll 2y ago

Trains would be easier to electrify than planes, assuming the electricity can be sourced cleanly.

ClumsyPilot 2y ago
What do you mean would be, India China Russia and most of Europe have nearly 100% electric trains
- bluejekyll 2y ago
  While most commuter trains in the US are electric, that’s not the case for cargo or long-haul passenger rail. So “would be” refers to the opportunity to electrify those lines. Many of the tracks in the US are not electrified today.
  - bombcar 2y ago
    Decent amounts of short-haul US passenger rail is not electrified, those would be good places to start. Pacific Surfliner, Metrolink, Cascades, etc are all diesel powered and could be electrified for reasonable costs. The feds should get ahead of it and declare a rail electrification standard so that as it builds out it's all compatible. Electrifying a thousand miles of track in the middle of nowhere that sees one train a day is nowhere near as worthwhile as electrifying busy corridors.

bombcar 2y ago

It depends on what you compare it to. Electric trains powered by solar and wind? Sure, saves 90% fuel compared to planes (the trains still have support, lubricant, etc that will use some fuel, but sure, assume 100%). But globally it can't be more than about 12% of the total CO2 (see https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport ) - and that is GLOBAL, trains across the Atlantic are harder to build. And that's only 12% of total CO2 from transportation - which itself is less than half of the world-wide emissions. 6% of world-wide would be noticeable, but that is only if every plane is replaced by an electric train. The trillions that even attempting some of that would cost could be better spent elsewhere, likely.