6 ms·

Hard to tell. I have a frequent route that takes me ~ 2 hours of flight (13 liters/hour, 26 liters in total) or ~ 10 hours to drive with around 50 liters of gas

Hard to tell. I have a frequent route that takes me ~ 2 hours of flight (13 liters/hour, 26 liters in total) or ~ 10 hours to drive with around 50 liters of gas. Flying means burning 50% less gas. But for others there may be better driving, how to calculate that?

echoangle 2y ago
What kind of plane are we talking about here? A Cessna 172 is cruising at about 200 km/h, so your route would be 400 km. You’re not driving 10h for that, right?
- AdrianB1 2y ago
  560 km, almost no highways, a lot of driving through the mountains at 50-60 km/h. Flying is an almost straight line of 320 km. Ikarus C42, cruising 160 km/h.
limitedfrom 2y ago
50% seems very unreasonable here, if not in the wrong direction overall. Ikarus C42 at about 86 knots will use 13 L/hr, for a two-hour flight, it's 26 L fuel and 8.31 kg CO2/gal avgas[1], this comes to 57 kg CO2 to cover 320 km (and this is assuming it immediately starts covering flight distance and not using gas for climbing/approach, etc.). An average new car in the EU uses 6 L/100 km in 2019[2]. To drive 320 km, this comes to 19 L of gasoline (8.1kg CO2/gallon finished motor gasoline[1]), which is then 41 kg CO2. Even if you had to make the auto trip 400 km because roads aren't as direct, this comes to 51 kg CO2. Nevermind that airports are rarely your final destination, nor in the city centre like train station would be, which adds significant distance to your overall trip. [1] https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php [2] https://www.iea.org/articles/fuel-economy-in-the-european-union https://www.iea.org/articles/fuel-economy-in-the-european-un...
- creshal 2y ago
  > Even if you had to make the auto trip 400 km because roads aren't as direct, this comes to 51 kg CO2. What if there's a sogging great mountain range in the middle and I literally do need to drive 2-3x as far, because (rail) tunnels take something between 2 and 3 decades to build and won't be finished before 2040, if any are even planned to begin with?
  - AdrianB1 2y ago
    That's exactly the case. Driving from Bucharest to Vatra Dornei, Romania. No highway yet, the one in construction (A7) is still going around the Carpathian mountains for 370km, it will make the drive faster but not shorter. Also driving highway speed takes more gas.
    - yunohn 2y ago
      > driving highway speed takes more gas Hmmm, in my experience, highway speeds are conducive to ICE efficiency and use less gas than city traffic stop and go results in. It also disperses pollution outside the areas people work/reside in.
      - creshal 2y ago
        There's three speed categories as far as the EU is concerned: - highway - not highway, not city - city The 90-110km/h limits of regular roads tends to hit the sweet spot of engines more reliably than the 130+ of highways, a lot of smaller European car engines are uncomfortably close to redlining at 130+, especially older ones.
      - sdeframond 2y ago
        Air resistance is not linear, which makes it difficult to be more efficient at higher speed, even if the engine is tuned for this. In my personal experience with both my current and previous cars, the sweet spot is constant speed about 65 to 80kph. It does feel slow though.
    - 2y ago
Aachen 2y ago
The solution for most people is not to have frequent trips to a destination that's 10 hours' driving distance or to use high speed rail. Comparing rocket fuel to airplane fuel may look one option look favorable but that's not the whole picture
- AdrianB1 2y ago
  It is not something I do for the fun of driving, it's my father's house and I need to help there. There is no high speed rail, train takes 9 hours too. As I said, there are situations and situations, cannot draw conclusions too fast.

echoangle 2y ago

What kind of plane are we talking about here? A Cessna 172 is cruising at about 200 km/h, so your route would be 400 km. You’re not driving 10h for that, right?

AdrianB1 2y ago
560 km, almost no highways, a lot of driving through the mountains at 50-60 km/h. Flying is an almost straight line of 320 km. Ikarus C42, cruising 160 km/h.

limitedfrom 2y ago

50% seems very unreasonable here, if not in the wrong direction overall. Ikarus C42 at about 86 knots will use 13 L/hr, for a two-hour flight, it's 26 L fuel and 8.31 kg CO2/gal avgas[1], this comes to 57 kg CO2 to cover 320 km (and this is assuming it immediately starts covering flight distance and not using gas for climbing/approach, etc.). An average new car in the EU uses 6 L/100 km in 2019[2]. To drive 320 km, this comes to 19 L of gasoline (8.1kg CO2/gallon finished motor gasoline[1]), which is then 41 kg CO2. Even if you had to make the auto trip 400 km because roads aren't as direct, this comes to 51 kg CO2. Nevermind that airports are rarely your final destination, nor in the city centre like train station would be, which adds significant distance to your overall trip. [1] https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php [2] https://www.iea.org/articles/fuel-economy-in-the-european-union https://www.iea.org/articles/fuel-economy-in-the-european-un...

creshal 2y ago
> Even if you had to make the auto trip 400 km because roads aren't as direct, this comes to 51 kg CO2. What if there's a sogging great mountain range in the middle and I literally do need to drive 2-3x as far, because (rail) tunnels take something between 2 and 3 decades to build and won't be finished before 2040, if any are even planned to begin with?
- AdrianB1 2y ago
  That's exactly the case. Driving from Bucharest to Vatra Dornei, Romania. No highway yet, the one in construction (A7) is still going around the Carpathian mountains for 370km, it will make the drive faster but not shorter. Also driving highway speed takes more gas.
  - yunohn 2y ago
    > driving highway speed takes more gas Hmmm, in my experience, highway speeds are conducive to ICE efficiency and use less gas than city traffic stop and go results in. It also disperses pollution outside the areas people work/reside in.
    - creshal 2y ago
      There's three speed categories as far as the EU is concerned: - highway - not highway, not city - city The 90-110km/h limits of regular roads tends to hit the sweet spot of engines more reliably than the 130+ of highways, a lot of smaller European car engines are uncomfortably close to redlining at 130+, especially older ones.
    - sdeframond 2y ago
      Air resistance is not linear, which makes it difficult to be more efficient at higher speed, even if the engine is tuned for this. In my personal experience with both my current and previous cars, the sweet spot is constant speed about 65 to 80kph. It does feel slow though.
  - 2y ago

Aachen 2y ago

The solution for most people is not to have frequent trips to a destination that's 10 hours' driving distance or to use high speed rail. Comparing rocket fuel to airplane fuel may look one option look favorable but that's not the whole picture

AdrianB1 2y ago
It is not something I do for the fun of driving, it's my father's house and I need to help there. There is no high speed rail, train takes 9 hours too. As I said, there are situations and situations, cannot draw conclusions too fast.