[SGVLUG] [OT]Hybrids and trains (was fuel prices and the dollar)

[Christopher Smith]

Dan Borne wrote:
> I applaud your letter, I think it is a good thing to say especially 
> since the only thing I hear about conservation of any sort is people 
> driving a Toyota Prius (which is a quite flawed method of 
> "conservation" when one considers that around 70% of the energy a car 
> produces is used to push the air past the front of the vehicle and it 
> has one of the largest drags thereof) .
I must say, as a bike rider, I find this super annoying. When you hear 
some people talk, you'd think it'd be better for me to get off my bike 
and ride in a Prius. :-(
> I am still confused thought how a plane is more efficient than a 
> train; doesn't a jet engine burn 10, 11 gallons of fuel a second.
Well in that second, the jet has covered like two and a half football 
fields!

In truth though, airplanes are much more fuel efficient than that. 
Modern aircraft typically get 3.5 litres per 100 passenger km, or 
roughly 70 miles per passenger gallon, which does seem like 10x worse 
than some of the more fuel efficient trains, but if you look at American 
rail systems, the fuel economy is much, much worse (I imagine partly due 
to low occupancy rates), so that might be how it balances out. In 
general, the jet has the advantage of less friction, although that whole 
"staying aloft" thing works against it a fair bit.

--Chris