[thow-01187]

Planes are actually surprisingly fuel efficient. The short haul flights in Europe are often served by Airbus A320 or A321 Neo, with fuel consumption per seat at 2.19 L/100 km. A mid-sized petrol-powered car consumes three times as much. And that figure ignores that planes take a straight route - taking that into account, the emissions are close to a single-occupant electric car

[ajuc]

> A mid-sized petrol-powered car consumes three times as much.

Average ICE bus consumes order of magnitude less per seat than planes. The only reason planes win vs cars is that cars aren't public transport and planes are. So you divide by many more seats.

[dzhiurgis]

Try taking 1000km trip on a diesel bus once and tell me if that metric matters to anyone.

[pacificmint]

> fuel consumption per seat at 2.19 L/100 km. A mid-sized petrol-powered car consumes three times as much.

It seems like you are comparing fuel per seat for planes with fuel per vehicle for cars. At five seats, that would be equivalent to 11 l/100km, which almost all modern cars should beat. Even if you only count four seats for the car, it would still be 8.8 l/100km, which many cars can beat.

[HWR_14]

I would expect planes to be usually almost full. I would expect passenger cars to average 2 people per car.

[lmm]

But what's the average occupation rate of the plane and the car?

[jstsch]

That figure excludes take off and landing, which adds quite a bit on short haul flights.

[dredmorbius]

Air-travel fuel consumption is typically given as a per-trip total. That's averaged over a range of trip lengths.

Though yes, take-offs add considerably to the consumption. Landings don't, as aircraft are typically gliding in at or close to idle thrust.

Efficiency for very-long-range flights is actually reduced as total take-off weight (TOW) must be reduced, exchanging payload (passengers) for fuel.

For very short flights, fuel burn is about 10l/100km-passenger. At intermediate ranges, that falls to about 3l/100km-passenger. See:

https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/arbeiten/TextBurz...

[LegitShady]

why does landing take more fuel?

[selectodude]

No it doesn’t. Landing is far more efficient.

[maigret]

The thing is that the chemical effects involved at the altitude airline planes fly is way more greenhouse impactful that the same consumption for a car, so you can’t compare that way. Also, trains are way better than this. French trains drive you around on nuclear energy.

[usrusr]

But that increased impact is a short term difference, right? The changes to air composition we cause by digging up in a few decades what had been sequestered off in millions of years are forever changes.

[jokoon]

using air travel is like driving a small individual car to reach the same destination. the car will travel slower, but the carbon stays the same.

not really efficient.

[rbanffy]

> the emissions are close to a single-occupant electric car

I'd imagine the emissions would be infinitely greater than an electric car. For an ICE car with two people, you'd be closer.

[hollerith]

>the emissions would be infinitely greater than an electric car.

Not if you include the emissions caused by generating the electricity.

[pilsetnieks]

I think they mean the emissions from generating all that electricity, which isn't always clean. You'll get a lot of hydro and renewables in some countries at some times but then also coal and gas at other times.