Study shows High Speed Trains emit less carbon than planes
Despite what some people claimed (and fueled a polemic here at ABG), a study published recently shows that High Speed Trains are more efficient than planes, in terms of CO2 production at least. Their impact on the land might be a different story.
The statement was made by the former President of GIF (Gestor de Infrastructuras Ferroviarias, or the Spanish Rail Network) who said that a passenger that travels from Madrid to Seville on the AVE (the Spanish High-Speed Train system) emits 9 kg of CO2 compared to the 60 kg produced when making the same trip on a plane. For your calculations, it's about 450 km (300 miles). The study was signed by Alberto García Álvarez and published in a specialist magazine called "Anales de Mecánica y Electricidad". For the almost-finished Madrid to Barcelona line (about 650 km, or 430 miles), the difference is 14 kg for the AVE and 70 kg for the plane (this route is claimed to be the busiest air connection in the world).
What's even more interesting is that this route is almost as efficient as conventional trains and coach buses. Conventional train between Madrid and Seville produces 12.7 kg, the same trip on a coach emits 14.5 kg and a private car 54 kg, whereas the figures for the Madrid to Barcelona route are 17.1, 13.9 and 63 kg respectively.
However, the study had some other interesting points, which I'll get into after the break.
[Source: Energías Renovables]
[Edited: Thanks to Chris for the correction]
First of all, some considerations need to be made: High Speed Trains usually run on specific tracks which need to be more "straight" than conventional train, thus reducing distances (this is very evident in the Madrid to Sevilla route). Then we have to take into account that while conventional trains run on DC, High Speed Trains run on AC, which is more efficient. What's even more, when braking, these trains can give back part of this energy to the electric network. The fast trains also carry more passengers, which distributes the CO2 impact better among all users.
The Spanish Association of Car Manufacturers (ANFAC) claimed that the CO2 figures for private cars were exaggerated and stated that bigger benefits would be obtained if biofuels were considered in the equation. The Spanish section of WWF/Adena also agreed with this report and stated that despite the higher electricity consumption, HSTs carry more people. What WWF/Adena considers is that High Speed Train lines should be only built between large cities but not across the whole country and called for more investment in conventional and commuter trains, as well as making the rail freight services adequate (there is a great deficit in Spain)
The picture above is one of the units that will serve the Madrid to Barcelona route, reaching speeds of 350 km/h (200 mph). This speed promises to keep link the two cities in 2h 35 min. The route was scheduled to be open next weekend, but some incidents that affected the commuter train lines and a subway line during the final bit of construction have postponed the opening until further notice.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mike Z 9:18AM (12/21/2007)
Overall the report means nothing by itself, after all what really matters is the source of the electricity. The real varible in that study is the nature of the grid that powered the train in the study. Esp if it was something clean like Wind or Nuclear.
Reply
jcwinnie 12:55PM (12/21/2007)
@Mike Z. - Go wash your mouth out with Strontium.
Reply
Chris A. 4:00PM (12/21/2007)
"...17.1, 14.5 and 63 kg respectively."
Shouldn't that read "...14.5, 17.1 and 63 kg respectively."? Or does the coach have a magic engine? :)
Reply
Dad 8:36PM (12/21/2007)
"High Speed Trains are more efficient than planes, in terms of CO2 production at least."
Wow, next time I go to Korea I will take the train. Why didn't I think of that before?
Reply
jake 12:34AM (12/22/2007)
@Dad
I don't think that was the point of the post. It was in response to a previous arguement that HSTs aren't a good option because they used as much energy per person as a plane when running above 200mph. This shows a pollution comparison between trains and planes.
Reply
JS 3:01AM (12/24/2007)
There are plenty of studies that show the real-world efficiency of
high speed rail is many times that of aircraft. Basically, in
U.S.-friendly-speak, high-speed rail achieves on the order of 300-500
passenger-miles-per-gallon equivalent, whereas efficient jets manage
60 to 80 passenger-miles-per-gallon. You can see links to a number
of studies and associated calculations at
http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html
Example: 1997 EC study of TGV Duplex service Paris-Lyon with 3
intermediate stops: 18.0 kWh/train-km, or roughly the equivalent of
1.16 mpg for a train with 545 seats. Actual average occupancy is
80%, giving a real-world 506 passenger-mpg.
http://www.inrets.fr/infos/cost319/MEETDeliverable17.PDF
Example 2: Swedish Railways X2000, 11.87 kWh/train-km, even with an
average load factor of only 55% that's still 310 passenger-mpg
equivalent.
http://www.kth.se/fakulteter/centra/jarnvag/publications/Energy_060925.pdf
There are lots of studies of aircraft efficiency - Boeing even touts
commercial aircraft efficiency because it looks good compared to
typical car usage. (But not compared to car usage where the car is
actually mostly full!) The current limit - which seems unlikely to
be pushed much - is in the range of 70 passenger-mpg. You can
double-check such figures fairly easily by doing actual fuel burn
calculations, or looking at the annual report of an airline operating
a homogenous fleet. e.g. JetBlue, 2004 annual report: 18,911,051,000
available seat miles, 83.2% load factor, 241,087,000 gallons JetA
consumed -> approx 58 passenger-mpg. (Yes, it's 78.4 mpg JetA with all seats filled, but multiply by .832 to get 65.26mpg JetA, then multiply by roughly 32 MJ/L over 36 MJ/L to get gasoline-equivalent for comparison with cars.)
Reply