News and information from Europe πͺπΊ
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)
Isn't the better option still electric (catenary; not battery) trains? I'd imagine the emissions from the batteries (that would need cells replaced / new batteries when airplanes are replaced) would outweigh the ecological impact of the train tracks installation.
Yes but flying is fast and convenient. Having a replacement for fossil fuel operated planes that provide the same functionality to consumers instead of asking them to somehow compromise is the key to success here.
Don't get me wrong, I love trains. I just took the train from central Germany to Glasgow this week. But it took about 14 hours, we had to change trains twice and almost missed one of the connections. Friends, on the other hand, who flew the same route arrived within ca. 3h and had basically an entire extra day here.
and almost missed one of the connections.
SΓ€nk you for trΓ€welling with Deutsche Bahn.
aaaaactually
the DB train was the only one that departed on time (although we still arrived in Bruxells with a slight delay).
the Eurostar left almost an hour late because the UK border authorities had issues with their IT
We therefore might have missed the connection in London, which only did not happen as it was also delayed and ultimately cancelled. Had to take the next one.
Well yes, but who wants the best solution that is already there if you can sell a new solution for lots of money?
That is very much a "it depends". Tracks are narrow, but very long: they have a much larger ecological impact that a runway. However tracks can handle a lot more people than a runway or two.
If the tracks are between two large cities (and the smaller cities on the way) then they are the much better option. This is the most common case by far - most people live in a large enough city to support high speed rail.
However building tracks to every small town for the few passengers that would use them is an ecological disaster and so planes like this running a few times a day to a large city (where you can then get on the trains) is the better ecological choice.
Of course in reality high speed trains are around 300km/h (world record is around 600km/h - but at those speeds the aerodynamics of altitude make the airplane better). I didn't find a speed in the article, but I would make an educated guess that they are planning on 600-700kmh speeds. Which sounds fast, but if there is tracks the train wins because a station is likely to be closer than the airport plus there is no arrive one hour before your flight rule.
The article didn't say capacity, but the picture suggests around 100 passengers. Either your town is too small for this, or your town is large enough to build tracks. In the first case you want 25 passenger airplanes. In the second case this is an ecological disaster - just build the tracks to the city.
No, it it not an 'it depends'. There is absolutely no discussion that for these distances a train is a greener solution.
I live in Ireland, so no.
Finally build that tunnel to GB!?
Where? The shortest distance between the two islands is between Northern Ireland and Scotland. If the UK can't even build a bridge or tunnel between two parts of itself (to make its kingdom actually united), how on Earth will that become any simpler by adding another country to negotiate every detail with?
Also the UK doesn't seem overly eager, right now, to add new avenues for immigrants to arrive through.
Yes, but it is not always an option. Europe has plenty of islands and also large bodies of water making flying party a lot faster. For example Mallorca, Sicily and Ireland as islands and also going from Athens to say Naples or Riga to Stockholm might be possible with trains, but the journey will be much longer.
High speed trains are usually better on flat ground. Every month I take the train to go to the headquarter of my company. Half of the trip takes just 50min. The other half takes 4 hours.
There's a flight that only takes half hour and usually costs less than the train. But I usually take the train anyway
An electric flight would be perfect for me.
In Spain there are a lot of electrified tracks, and all high speed tracks are, but many tracks are electrified near urban areas, and not electrified in vast rural areas. Intercity trains are Diesel electric, running on electricity when they can, and switching to diesel for the rest. I've wondered why they don't replace the diesel engines with batteries, to be charged while running on catenaries, to run the trains on the non electrified segments.
I'm all in favour of decarbonisation.
Still, the physics mean aviation will never be as energy-efficient as high-speed rail.
Governments and others should overwhelmingly invest in the latter. It has higher RoI.
The counterpoint to this is already stated in the article; the main benefit is on routes where rail does not currently exist, or where a rail link will likely never exist (think crossing mountains or bodies of water).
The article does not mention mountains. Mountains are often more suited to trains than planes, cf. Switzerland.
The article does quote Anna Hughes of Flight Free UK, who echoes my sentiments: "The reality of decarbonising travel will inevitably be travelling a lot less, investing heavily in rail, and only then electrifying the flights that remain."
France's short-haul flight ban is excellent and more countries should adopt it.
As for "counterpoint", no-one here disagrees with decarbonising island routes rail can't serve. Still, I'd favour sail or electric fast ferries over aircraft where possible.
Air travel could be effectively decarbonised if green electricity cost were close to zero. When electricity does not cost a thing you can make synthetic fuel from water and atmospheric CO2.
There is no way to replace burning fuel to power long haul flights, but the fuel does not need to come from fossil oil.
For short haul electric planes can be a good solution when trains are out of the question.
Eh, they can have that one. We are 2 or 3 major electoral wins for the left away from banning short-haul flights and definitely more than four years. Better rich fucks fly their electric planes not giving a fuck about the environment than flying their fuel-powered planes around, not giving a fuck about the environment.
Please fix international rail!
I know this is Europe but as a US Westerner I hope to see this excel. Over here the difference of a 300 mile flight vs a drive is hours. Quick turn around with minimal maintenance would be huge for us.
I disagree. I will drive regardless for a 300 miles trip because then I have my own car when I get there. No worry about trying to rent a car. Don't forget that by the time the airplane takes off I've already driving 1/3rd of the way there (half an hour to the airport, which I arrived at an hour early for security). By the time I get my rental car and get where I want to be - my personal car is only 10 minutes behind. I also used a lot less fuel in my car than the ticket price and we haven't even paid for the rental car (or taxi)
Those who don't have a car have different considerations, and this is aimed at Europe where that is more common. But then anyone who doesn't have a car in Europe should live close to a high speed rail station (note that I said should - large parts of Europe need to get their act together and build better rail)
The decision to use the train has seldomly anything do with having a car or not in Europe. It has to do convenience, arriving in the city centre directly, avoiding traffic jams, or not having to park the car for a week.
You have so much opportunity for rail!
Aren't Loganair already rolling out e-planes on some of their island hopper services in Scotland? Obviously fixed links are better but this is still a win.
It's humbling to see just how many companies are putting out planes all across Europe.