PowerSwitch

http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/train-fares Take a look at this little film about the fight between train and plane. My nephew, Stig, built the train and the plane!

Nice film...and you've got a nephew called STIG! Is his first name "THE"?

Great video!

RenewableCandy wrote:Nice film...and you've got a nephew called STIG! Is his first name "THE"?

I know a man called Stig (actually spelled Steig) and he plays a weird guitar/bass instrument called a 'Stick'.

When is the sequel 'food vrs fuel' going to come out?

How efficient are planes?. The new A380 for example holds 68,200 imp gal of fuel and has a range of 9,400 miles. So it returns around 0.138 miles per gallon. In a 2-class configuration it'll take 644 passengers and therefore return 89 mpg per seat. That's similar to the best cars (assuming one occupant) available, the ones attracting environmental tax breaks. Cars sometimes have more than one person in them... but more often than not don't.

How does 89 mpg compare with trains?

This link says Amtrak's energy intensity was 2,935 British Thermal Units (BTUs) per passenger-mile. There are 166,560 BTUs in an imperial gallon of diesel so they are looking at 568 mpg per passenger.

Assuming the train is full. But even if the train is way off full that's a staggering difference.

There's a rather thoughtful article by Joe Moran about hitch-hilking in today's Grauniad: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ne-britain

clv101 wrote:How efficient are planes?. The new A380 for example holds 68,200 imp gal of fuel and has a range of 9,400 miles. So it returns around 0.138 miles per gallon. In a 2-class configuration it'll take 644 passengers and therefore return 89 mpg per seat. That's similar to the best cars (assuming one occupant) available, the ones attracting environmental tax breaks. Cars sometimes have more than one person in them... but more often than not don't.

How does 89 mpg compare with trains?

This link says Amtrak's energy intensity was 2,935 British Thermal Units (BTUs) per passenger-mile. There are 166,560 BTUs in an imperial gallon of diesel so they are looking at 568 mpg per passenger.

The above is probably rather optimistic as regards the fuel used by aircraft, I suspect that on average they are only half full, thus nearly doubling the fuel used per passenger mile.
Many aircraft fly on short routes when they are less eficient.
However the real problem with aircraft is not the fuel used per passenger mile, but the fact that the speed of air travel permits of much longer trips than would be feasible by road.
Airline trips of many thousands of miles are routine, very few people would drive that far.
There is no gain in relativly efficient aircraft if it results in people flying 5,000 miles (at say 80MPG) instead of driving a few hundred miles at 40MPG.

plus, the argument about nitrogen oxides pumped out at high altitude having a big boost to the greenhouse gas contribution of planes.

Reported today on the BBC site, planes are running about 74% full on scheduled flights. Last time I flew it was nearer 20%...

Major airlines are cutting about 5% of capacity and expect to lose $9B this year. I think that is optimistic.

I've flown 4 times in the last few weeks, if I had to guess I'd say they were 75% full.

Nice to see the video get's a plug in the latest Age of Stupid newsletter.