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?

  • testaccount372920@piefed.zipEnglish
    3·
    10 days ago

    Technology, or rather, lack thereof. As others pointed out, planes need to bring their own energy supply and use additional energy for that. Weight is a very big factor for air transport’s energy consumption. Fossil fuels have a very high energy density, which make them great for bringing along. Once light weight battery tech (without excessively large sizes) becomes available, it should be no issue to electrify planes. Alternatively, find another source of electricity. E.g. nuclear has a much higher energy density than fossil, but obviously has it’s own issues, as do all other currently available tech options.

    • Trainguyrom@reddthat.comEnglish
      2·
      10 days ago

      Weight is a very big factor for air transport’s energy consumption. Fossil fuels have a very high energy density, which make them great for bringing along.

      Fossil fuels also have the benefit of being weight that’s shed (burned) as you fly, so an international flight will be much lighter when landing than it weighs when taking off. It’s like the rocket equation but much less severe due to much less energy requirement