Ecocalculator SNCF

[nonoLeRobot]

Yes indeed, it does not work anymore for Germany which has 5 times more CO2 per kwh but good coming from the sncF one could suspect it.

As for planes, Jean Marc Jancovici's calculations are much less optimistic for the plane (that said, we don't really know how he counted either, and it's based on Ademe too) http://www.manicore.com/documentation/aeroport.html


In any case for the train, and the bus, there is no photo that there is advantage CO2 issue.

[jlvx]

Even a short trip by plane, provided it is a "small" plane, like ATR42, can produce less CO2 than the train.
in fact already the km-plane, even if everything does not take place in a straight line, are lower than the km-train (most of the time)
et
.... provided that the fillings are different (it's fine public service, but trains, often diesel in the corners lost, by the way ... which fill at 25/30%, when the planes are close to 75%)
... and on condition that, as already said, electricity is not produced in Germany, that is to say essentially from coal (ah well, they did well to ban nuclear, GHG side our first cousins )

That said, overall it's on that planes produce more CO2 than trains (especially in France ).
on the nuclear side (very) long-term waste (the grandchildren say thank you ) there is no photo

Result walk, pedal ... without eating too much, it produces CO2

[Castor]

er ...
It seems that the Germans are the biggest producer of photovoltaic electricity in Europe, are you sure it runs on coal?
if you know the proportions, I'm curious ...

[Christophe]

er ...
It seems that the Germans are the biggest producer of photovoltaic electricity in Europe, are you sure it runs on coal?
if you know the proportions, I'm curious ...

Ah, ideas received die hard ... https://www.econologie.com/l-exemple-all ... s-435.html

Yes the figures that I quoted above are realistic: 1 German electric kwhe produces 6 times more CO2 than a French kwhe ... which are particularly low ... To be anti nuclear is to be green to what seems no ?

The fact that they are, in absolute terms, the largest photovoltaic producer means nothing at all when it comes to their average discharges because it is necessary to take into account the proportion of photovoltaic (which remains largely minority) ...

Example, look at Denmark: more than 30% of wind power and one of the worst European CO2 classification ... 840 g / kwhe !!

Well I was wrong, it's not 460 g but 600 g / kwhe for Germany .... (460g is the European average

France is at 90 g / kwhe ...

Source of these figures: This book

[Christophe]

Even a short trip by plane, provided that it is a "small" plane, of the ATR42 type, can produce less CO2 than the train indeed already the km-plane, even if everything does not take place in a straight line. less than train-km (most of the time)

Uh that's not what the figures on this page give:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATR

We are at best, at 7L / 100km. Passenger ... or 16 kg of CO2 for 100km ...

On the contrary, the bigger the plane and the further it goes, the better the "efficiency" ...

[nonoLeRobot]

Good an article which speaks about the subject, AIr France which complains, I hallucinate

Link

[jlvx]

O great moderator Christophe, my message continued with several "AND", which you did not include ...

(including the average filling which can make switch "on the other side of the mirror", the trains between corners lost in diesel without DPF)

Yes, brought back to the seat, the bigger the plane, the less it consumes, but for a "short" trip you have to be realistic, there will be no A380 between Paris and Limoges ...)
On the other hand, the ATR42 is a tubopropellant, which means that this plane consumes less than a jet offering the same number of seats. (that puts many things into perspective)

and good side nuclear waste, the plane remains a winner

Finally, I am against the railway lobby in the series "everyone is handsome, everyone is nice".

[Christophe]

Finally, I am against the railway lobby in the series "everyone is handsome, everyone is nice".

So you're going to love this little nasty blow:

https://www.econologie.info/index.php?20 ... de-la-scnf

Otherwise yes for the difference between the turboprop and the turbojet ... that's why I quoted the A318 AND ART on the blog ...

Nevertheless regional aviation knows how to do better than the car, the dieselis light aircraft in diesel is 3,5L per 100 for 2 people ...

ps: in the same subject, https://www.econologie.com/forums/cout-energ ... t2507.html

[Christophe]

Copy / pasted from blog post:

For a few days the SNCF has been offering an Eco-comparator making it possible to compare the costs and CO2 emissions of 3 means of transport: the train (recess), the plane and the car. You can test it here.

If the basic idea is commendable and even very good, the results unfortunately seem commercially oriented, worse they give false ideas to uninitiated consumers ... Here are some brief analyzes.

1) The CO2 emissions taken into account for the train are not corrected according to the European countries.

We can reasonably suppose (to orient the results to the "benefit" of the SNCF) that it is the French discharges, that is to say among the most favorable in Europe ("thank you" to the French nuclear power plant), which are taken into account. account.

The proof in pictures with 2 European routes and one national route:

1) Paris-Berlin (about 1050km):


2) Paris-Madrid (about 1300km):



3) Lille-Marseille (around 1000km):



For information and according to this book, the CO2 emissions to produce an electric kwh are respectively:

* Germany: 600 grams.
* Spain: 480 grams.
* France: 90 grams.

The pictures above speak for themselves ...

2) Aircraft CO2 emissions seem to be largely underestimated.

Indeed, if it is true to speak of equivalent CO2 emissions, see less, to the car for long-haul journeys in wide-body aircraft such as the A380 in full load as this article shows, this reasoning is not no longer applicable for short haul and regional flights.

According to Wikipedia, an ATR (regional aircraft from the 1980s) and an Airbus A318 (modern medium-haul aircraft) consume, in the best cases (full load and longest passable distance), more than 7L per 100 per passenger, or roughly 16 at 17kg of CO2. The CO2 values ​​estimated by the SNCF for airplanes are therefore not only ideal (best case) but also lower than the car ...

The engineer Jean-Marc Jancovici wrote an article about the figures for air transport (local and long distance) which you can read here.

3) The emissions (and therefore consumption) of the car seem to be overestimated.

Far from us to defend the use of the private car nevertheless the CO2 emissions of the "average" cars of the SCNF seem exaggerated to us. Indeed, according to the combustion equations: 1L of burnt gasoline releases 2,3 kg of CO2 and 1L of diesel releases 2,6 kg of CO2. Let's compare a Paris-Strasbourg journey from the eco-comparator.

It is good to specify that the SNCF would seem to use Mappy for its car calculations since the journeys always have the same duration (to within one minute), we will therefore base ourselves on the detailed data of Mappy and "study" a Paris-Strasbourg journey with an average car from the manufacturer "MapSNCF".

The average car of the manufacturer "MapSNFC" would therefore consume: 98 / 2,3 = 42,6L of gasoline or 37,7L of diesel for 488 km or 8,7L of gasoline and 7,72L of diesel.

This is a lot considering the current engine evolutions: our 2002 twingo, consumes a maximum of 5,5L of gasoline per 100km (and it is not uncommon to reach 4,2 to 4,5L on short journeys of countryside) and most modern diesel vehicles rarely exceed 6,5L per 100 on long journeys.

Conclusion.

To conclude very quickly, if the original idea seemed very interesting to raise awareness, it is finally good to remember that the purpose of the SNCF is to sell train and ... plane tickets.
This "eco" comparator is therefore perhaps not that impartial ... Can we speak of marketing abuse under the guise of ecology and eco-citizen behavior? Nothing is less certain ... Anyway in other circumstances, some would evoke false advertising or deception but with the environment we know how to be tolerant ...

I do not know if the tool has been corrected since (the writing of this ticket is more than 4 years old!) To be checked ...