“Electric and hybrid flights are a core part of the solution to making short-haul travel more sustainable, and less dependent on imported jet fuel.”
“Electric and hybrid flights are a core part of the solution to making short-haul travel more sustainable, and less dependent on imported jet fuel.”
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.