https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport

that table is thoroughly fascinating. i mean all of them, there’s more than one table on that article

apparently walking is the most energy-efficient transport mode of all?!?!? apart from bicycles

what i find mind-blowing is that airplanes consume approximately the same amount of energy as cars and trains. I mean i can easily see cars and trains being on the same level, but i always thought that airplanes consumed like an order of magnitude more fuel than cars. considering how everybody keeps saying that “airplanes consume so much fuel” and such. crazy.

and also boats are less efficient than i thought? boats consume 16 L/100 km while cars, trains and airplanes consume 6 L/100 km?

  • hraegsvelmir@ani.socialEnglish
    1·
    6 days ago

    For long travel, like intercontinental level distances, it probably is pretty efficient with a full plane. I’ve always understood that the waste and environmental damages are more from a combination of the use of private planes, and short routes that really ought to be train trips with the infrastructure to make them a preferable option to flying.

    For example, if I suddenly found out that I needed to get from NYC to Boston by midnight tonight, without using a car, it should be a no-brainer to take Amtrak up there. Yet, even with fuel costs for airlines being quite high right now, there are exactly 4 trains leaving Penn Station for Boston that are cheaper than just catching a flight from JFK, and in the best of cases, they take about 4 times as long to cover that distance. It should really be significantly cheaper than flying in order to deter the majority, if not all of those people who do not expressly need to make that trip in just over an hour, for whatever reason, from taking those sorts of flights. Cheap enough that flying simply isn’t price competitive, and that people don’t mind the extra travel time.