• JasSmith@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Flying receives far lower subsidies and infrastructure spending than rail. The EU subsidises air travel (including said avgas tax exemption) to the tune of around €30–40 billion annually depending on what you include and what you consider to be a “subsidy.” Using similar criteria, rail is subsidised to the tune of €40–75 billion per year. So rail gets a lot more investment despite it serving 16% fewer travel kilometers per year in the EU than air travel.

      • trougnouf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 days ago

        “16% fewer travel kilometers”, meaning trains are used massively more often since they typically don’t cover nearly as many kilometers. People would probably chose to take the train more often even if it meant traveling to less distant destinations if the planes were more expensive.

      • Gsus4@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        You’ve convinced me: rail should be subsidised more and air travel should get nothing (unless there is no equivalent train route e.g. across the sea) .

      • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        Conservatives sure like to stick up for the worst polluters. You could just tax the fuel like any other industry.

  • plyth@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    It’a apples to oranges. Pricing policies are different. Only few get the cheapest airline tickets.

  • plyth@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    There is also a hidden cost from the tracks.

    A rail track of 3m for 100km used for solar cells would generate enough electricity to transport 37500 passengers per plane.

    Solar cells generate 2kWp per 10 square meters, which are 2MWh per year which is 5kWh per day.

    300ksqm generate 150MWh per day.

    4l kerosine per pessenger per 100km are about 40kWh.

    150MWh are enough for 37500 passengers.

    It’s not renewable but influences the economics.

    • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make here -

      It’s not like rails are in any significant way displacing solar panels.

      If one were motivated, you could use the same land for tracks and for solar panels by raising the solar panels above the tracks and catenaries, making double use of the land at the expense of having to build platforms for the panels.

      Finally, solar energy can’t be used to transport passengers by plane since electric plane travel is not at a mass-market scale (nor is it even certain that they will ever be able to).

      • plyth@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        The costs of the platforms would significantly reduce the efficiency of the solar cells.

        My point is that planes have the advantage of not needing tracks which come with costs. There are the maintenance costs and the costs of not using them otherwise. We shouldn’t be surprised if trains can’t compete on many connections.

    • Loui@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      2 kWp means 2 kilo watt peak. It’s the maximum they can produce and in no way the average.

      • plyth@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        You are right, I considered that.

        The average per year is calculated from that number by roughly multiplying with 10 in Europe. I have looked that up and not multiplied by hours in a year.