Hacker News Reader

Comment by ilovepeppapig | Hacker News Reader

Flying is environmentally friendly? That's a bold statement

Fuel is a huge airline expense so people are packed into an aluminum can at maximum density. It's public transit, except the seats are nearly full at every stop.

Fuel economy is about 75 mpg per passenger. This is nearly twice the average mileage as busses, and better than nearly any other realistic form of travel https://afdc.energy.gov/data/mobile/10311

(Other sources give 75mpg for airline average but this may be for a full plane)

It's a huge misconception that flying is a wasteful means of travel. It's practically the most efficient means there is

Interesting that buses are so "unfriendly". But it probably makes sense if most of the times they cruise with nearly no passengers.

Thanks for the info.

These data, and your broader argument seem to ignore that rail travel can be relatively easily converted to renewable energy, while flying (so far) cannot. Aviation alone would consume 25% of our 2050 carbon budget.

It can locally, but not economically in a huge country like the US. Electrified rail is a lot more maintinence.

For long distance travel were going to be using fossil fuel for a long time, at least until batteries double or so in density.

A car with two people can get over 75 mpg per passenger..

The right motorcycle with two riders can get over 120!

An SUV with 8 people can get 200 mpg/person. The link considers average occupancy. Planes are highly efficient because they're usually full

Average occupancy is only relevant from a system view. If I'm driving my own car, it's the actual occupancy that matters.

So yes, if I'm traveling solo, a plane beats car. But with multiple people, car wins.

This doesn't change flying being a more efficient means of travel. Despite many incentives to carpool and take public transportation, planes are still more efficient because the high travel speed makes being packed like sadines worth it

How are you defining efficient? Airlines are time efficient but obviously not environmentally efficient.

They are environmentally efficient, see the link I posted. They're one of the most fuel efficient means of transport

It's "not wasteful" if you assume that everybody is going to travel a fixed distance, regardless of the price and availability of flights. That's obviously not true. In an instance of Jevon's Paradox, the increasing efficiency of travel has increased the amount of travelling done, and vastly so.

Its also not the same fuel so comparing mpg is apples to oranges. LAX covers south LA in damaging small particulate pollution that you wont find anywhere not downwind of an airport.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com