6
Energy efficiency of various transport modes (discuss.tchncs.de)
submitted 1 month ago by gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de to c/til@lemmy.world
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Jiral@lemmy.org 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This table is heavily biased against transit. First of all it is based on data from places that have by far and large underinvested inefficient underused transit in cities built for cars and not for transit. Secondly MJ/passenger/ distance is itself heavily biased against transit. Distance travelled is of no value in itself. Getting to places of interest is of value. Transit journies are on aversge shorter because transit oriented corridors allow for more compact urban layouts. Having to drive twice as far because cars need so much space, adds no value to going to the super market.

[-] quick_snail@feddit.nl 2 points 1 month ago

This is misleading.

Airplanes are worse not because of energy consumption per person, but because of carbon equivalent units are magnitudes higher when nitrogen oxides are burned at a high altitude.

[-] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 1 points 1 month ago

Also average load of the bus being only ~8 people? Like yeah that seems about right when I've ridden the shitty bus before but that's a number that can really be improved upon

[-] f314@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

For modes using electricity, losses during generation and distribution are included.

They should do this for the fossil fuel modes as well and see what that does to the numbers!

[-] FishFace@piefed.social 1 points 1 month ago

Our World in Data has more useful figures that attempt to be comparable. In short, it very strongly contradicts that table.

[-] Alberat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

yeah just looked this up. why the difference?

https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint

[-] Dyf_Tfh@piefed.zip 1 points 1 month ago

Airplane got a huge correction because emissions at high altitude is worse for the climate.

This part is a fairly new consensus, at some point air travel was even maybe beneficial for the climate due to formation of cloud cover.

Energy efficiency is not equivalent to CO2 emissions.

[-] vatlark@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I didn't expect that a train would be more efficient than biking. I guess the efficiencies of scale are hard to beat, but still.

I'm tempted to think the minimal biking infrastructure would help bikes, but infrastructure amortises nicely so probably not.

[-] Alberat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

yeah idk if infrastructure is accounted for here... also maybe if youre vegetarian or something biking is more efficient

[-] vivalapivo@lemmy.today 0 points 1 month ago

what i find mind-blowing is that airplanes consume approximately the same amount of energy as cars

The same logic could be applied to spacecrafts. The energy efficiency of a spacecraft travelling to Mars is approximately 10-50MJ/100km - between a car and a bicycle. Should everyone take a ticket to Mars rather than driving their SUV to work?

[-] testaccount372920@piefed.zip 0 points 1 month ago

Planes and trains are also quite close to each other and in many cases cover the same routes. However, planes run 100% on fossil fuels, trains are often electric.

[-] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 month ago

...What's keeping us from having electric planes?

[-] Nighed@feddit.uk 1 points 1 month ago

Weight. As you burn down fuel, the plane gets lighter, so requires less fuel/energy for the remaining distance.

With a battery powered plane, the battery is just as heavy all the time. It also has less energy density. This means wayyy less range with current tech.

[-] MurrayL@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Clearly the solution is lots of little batteries, so the plane can drop them as it flies.

[-] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

Into the ocean, ideally. That way we spur growth in our mining sector to replace them all with new batteries every time. The shareholders are going to love us.

[-] otter@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This might actually work? I imagine getting up to altitude is the most difficult and energy intensive step since the engines are operating at a higher power and the air is thicker.

Even if that's only 10% or 15% of the overall energy usage, being able to drop the battery and have it return to the airport on its own for reuse could be a cool concept. You could also optimize that particular battery for take off & climbing, and have the main battery for cruising.

It just needs to be able to pilot itself back to a landing / catching structure ๐Ÿ˜„

[-] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I feel something like this could be a way...

Overhaul Planes

What if we had smaller planes? You could end subsidies for plane flights under 1,000/1,500 km, as planes are less energy efficent below those distances than train. You can also abolish flights for planes that are heavier than a certain weight, and subside investing in green plane fuel research. To make the transition smooth, you'd have to do this in phases, and ensuring CEOs are on board with it without corruption.

With flying, the security and having to travel to the airport (the airport requires a lot more specialised infrastructure), a journey for 1,500 km would take at least 3 to 5 hours.

Trains

Train stations by comparison, take up much less space and thus occur more widely. Thus travel time to them is less.

Therefore, accounting for security and travel time towards the station, a train can be equally fast, and doesn't lead to ear pain for passengers. If they don't stray too far, scenic routes are also possible, which is beautiful. As you curve downward a valley, the Mont Blanc reveals itself to you. Driving along rolling hills, past rustic pines and beaches, floral meadows and fair lakes and cities...

They should be massively more subsided to reduce prices. Avoiding overcrowding (which decreases comfort) could be done by only allowing as many to board as there are seats available.

High speed rails could be ideal for daytime travelling. They should be frequent and between many mid-sized and large cities. That is, up until the journey would be longer than a plane flight and its preparations. With longer distances between stops, sleeper trains would be handier, especially if their comfort is seriously improved.

What would sleeper trains need?

Wifi, chargers. You could have cabins for 4 people as the standard, with:

  • banks that can be turned into comfortable beds
  • a foldable table
  • rubbish bin
  • storage space

Interior should be simple, hypoallergenic but 'cosy'. Not claustrophobic, unclean, or metallic.

A more luxurious option might be a private shower (as well baby diaper changing spot) and toilet, with more space. Breakfast served.

A direct journey thus would be handier for sleeper trains, or at the very least the time between transfers should be at least 10 hours (8 sleep, 2 for going to sleep and waking up). There could be transfer hubs for these sleeper trains where you have lounges that are for eating breakfast/dinner, letting children play, or for focusing.

[-] Nighed@feddit.uk 0 points 1 month ago

Train stations require train lines between them, that's the crux of the issue.

There is research into electric/hydrogen planes.

[-] klankin@piefed.ca 1 points 1 month ago

Honestly pretty sure their comment is AI generated, so dont waste too much time analysing it

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Speed is the problem for boats

this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2026
6 points (100.0% liked)

Today I Learned

29864 readers
164 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**

Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.

Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Rooki@lemmy.world
_MoveSwiftly@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
DriftingDeep@lemmy.world
ericisshort@lemmy.world
Decoy321@lemmy.world