Energy consumption EP Train vs Car

Transport and new transport: energy, pollution, engine innovations, concept car, hybrid vehicles, prototypes, pollution control, emission standards, tax. not individual transport modes: transport, organization, carsharing or carpooling. Transport without or with less oil.
laurent_caen
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 113
Registration: 07/05/06, 12:41

Energy consumption EP Train vs Car




by laurent_caen » 11/07/11, 21:59

Hello,

I did a little exercise to compare the primary energy consumption of a train and car journey to the maximum of their respective capacities. Why to the maximum of their capacity: to assess their intrinsic potential. I deliberately reason in terms of primary energy consumption and not of CO2, not wishing to arbitrate between greenhouse gas emissions and radioactive waste ...

Take as a car a Peugeot 407 1.6 HDI consuming according to the manufacturer's data 4.6 l / 100 km. Let's be wide and take 6 l / 100 km because the manufacturers' data is often optimistic and does not reflect driving on the highway for example. This car has 5 seats.
Reminder: 1 l of diesel = 10.6 kWh (source: http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/cut-carbon ... ctors.aspx )

For the train, let's first consider a “network” TGV, a classic 1-level TGV. According to http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89miss ... ples_types its consumption is 1800 kWh / 100 km and its capacity is 377 seats (I found very little data on the electricity consumption of trains on the internet and am a taker if someone has more info).

The yield of electric production is around 33% while that of petroleum is around 90%, which means that to consume 1 kWh of final energy of electricity (the one that we consume at home by example), it was necessary to produce 3 kWh of primary energy, while to consume our kWh of diesel, it was necessary to produce initially about 1.11 kWh (source: http://www.manicore.com/documentation/equivalences.html ).

For a 100 km journey, this therefore gives respectively:
Car: Consumption = 6 x 10,6 / (5 x 0,9) = 14,1 kWhep / passenger
Train: Consumption = 1800 / (377 x 0,33) = 14,5 kWhep / passenger

Energy consumption per passenger is ultimately very close and the car wins by a short head.

Let's optimize cars and trains and take:
Car: Peugeot 308 1.6 HDI SW; this car can have up to 7 seats and is given for 4.5 l / 100 km. Again, let's round to 6 l / 100 km for the same reasons as earlier and especially since a roof box may be necessary if the 7 passengers have luggage…
Train: 2-level "duplex" TGV; consumption identical to 1800 kWh / 100 km but 545 places

For a 100 km journey, this therefore gives respectively:
Car: Consumption = 6 x 10,6 / (7 x 0,9) = 10,1 kWhep / passenger
Train: Consumption = 1800 / (545 x 0,33) = 10,0 kWhep / passenger

Again, the results are almost identical between the train and the car, even if this time the train wins by a short head. However, it would be enough for the car to consume only 0,2 l / 100 km less for victory to come back to it…

Now compare a classic train (TER type) to this same car:
According to the same link, the electric consumption of this type of train is 650 kWh / 100 km and the number of seats equal to 160.

Consumption = 650 / (160 x 0,33) = 12,3 kWhep / passenger

Train consumption here is slightly higher by train than by car. When we know that the average occupancy rate of this type of train (always according to the same link above) is 26%, a family of 7 who would choose this train rather than the car to go on vacation would generate a energy consumption 5 times higher than it would have been in a car!

In short, all this to put into perspective the creed that the train is necessarily preferable to the car… It is far from being as simple since it is highly dependent, whether in the case of the train or the car, the occupancy rate.

Thus, for regional or even national journeys, the comparison is undoubtedly more flattering for the car (we rarely go on vacation alone) than for the train (low occupancy rate, except for TGVs because of "yield management" ", See wikipedia link). For urban journeys, on the other hand (metro or bus vs car), the comparison should be more flattering for public transport given their high occupancy rate (long live crowded metros ^) whereas we rarely go to work with many in the same car ...

Thank you for reading me and hoping that this will have interested you, I await your remarks, comments…

Good night
Last edited by laurent_caen the 12 / 07 / 11, 00: 35, 1 edited once.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 11/07/11, 23:21

Bravo it deserved to be said!

A first remark on the form: the links are HS ...

Basically, ok I would not have done better, it may be necessary to refine the occupancy rates and consumption ...

See all the same this "official" document from Ademe which contradicts these conclusions: https://www.econologie.com/comparatif-ec ... -3492.html

Topic to relay once you have corrected the links.
0 x
laurent_caen
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 113
Registration: 07/05/06, 12:41




by laurent_caen » 12/07/11, 00:52

Christophe wrote:Bravo it deserved to be said!

A first remark on the form: the links are HS ...

Basically, ok I would not have done better, it may be necessary to refine the occupancy rates and consumption ...

See all the same this "official" document from Ademe which contradicts these conclusions: https://www.econologie.com/comparatif-ec ... -3492.html

Topic to relay once you have corrected the links.


Voila, the message is edited, I hope the links will work better.

Regarding the ADEME approach, it is not similar since it considers average occupancy rates (which it takes care not to communicate) while in my calculation, I take into account the capacity and therefore the potential of each mode of locomotion.

On the other hand, the ADEME study resonates in terms of FINAL ENERGY and not primary energy, which is obviously artificially very advantageous for the electrical sector !!! It is moreover astonishing that such an organization allows such approximate comparisons. Moreover, in their graph, this is particularly telling p7, with the train-coach comparison: with the same energy (oil), consumption per passenger is systematically higher with the train than with the bus, while for electric trains, the bus is supposed to consume more; However, by reasoning on primary energy, the electricity consumption of trains would have to be multiplied by almost 3, while that of buses running on petroleum would only have to be multiplied by a factor of 1,1. Thus, by reasoning in primary energy, the consumption of the trains would be systematically higher.

Similarly, the car-train comparison would be much less flattering for the train than displayed, especially since I would be curious to know the assumptions taken for the car (filling rate, consumption), having seen in some studies a hypothesis of consumption of 10L / 100km for a megane type car or 307 diesel, while the train was considered to be 100% full of passengers ... In short, I tend not to take the various studies carried out for cash ...

Another thing that is not mentioned: the train does not allow you to go door to door, unlike the car (we do not always make a trip from city to city) and this requires to borrow an additional means of transport to departure and / or arrival, which I have never seen mentioned in any study.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 12/07/11, 09:25

Links work.

Yes for the capacity, see my 1st answer.

Average occupancy rates are not that different: in public transport it is between 30 and 40%.
In a car it is between 1.3 and 1.6 passengers, that is to say for a 5-seater car: 26% to 32%.
By plane it is much more and we can obtain consumption in 100km. Passenger less than 4L / 100.
This is what I have in mind and it dates from early 2000, should be found to confirm.

It seemed to me that the Ademe also reasoned in EP ... thin ...

Last thing: the average speed of a TGV is still much higher than the speed of a car this also partly explains these very similar results ...

Now we agree on the substance: a train is not at all that clean, much less than marketing wants us to believe ...

This is why I "rebelled" against the completely bogus eco comparator of the SNCF when it was released (I don't know if it has since been corrected) cf: https://www.econologie.com/l-ecocomparat ... -3220.html
et
https://www.econologie.info/index.php?20 ... de-la-scnf

The subject: https://www.econologie.com/forums/ecocompara ... t2475.html

Physically, the load factor (useful mass / total mass in displacement) largely overwhelms the train!

To properly do the complete eco-balance sheet of the train, maintenance would also have to be taken (which must be more expensive for the rail than the road). The social benefits of sncf cost the environment ...

Other related topics:

- Crazy prices at SNCF and another https://www.econologie.com/forums/transport- ... t5551.html

-Train: energy and CO2 (which clearly shows that the SCNF does not care about our mouths in its energy or CO2 balance sheets)

- Car plane comparison
0 x
User avatar
stipe
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 224
Registration: 07/01/11, 14:36
Location: Oise (60)




by stipe » 12/07/11, 11:31

Informative comparison,

It would perhaps be offset by an analysis of the complete cycle, I imagine that the age of the French car fleet is less (by half?) Than that of the trainsets ...

How is the recycling of a train set compared to that of a car? I have never seen a "broken" train with mountains of stacked wagons ...

A comparison of the area covered by train lines VS expressways / motorways would also be interesting.

In the same way, we hide an argument that is put forward in discussions about the electric car: the displacement of pollution outside the cities.

In short, I am the defense lawyer for SNCF and others, but as in all pseudo-economic analyzes, the situation is often difficult to analyze as a whole ...

To add a layer, I wonder if the consumption of cars loaded "to block" also consume can ....

When the benefits of SNCF employees, what do they represent compared to the benefits of TOTAL, or Vinci? it is of the same order or there is a difference, and on which side?
0 x
"the goal of every life is to end" !.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 12/07/11, 13:43

It is true that such a study deserves to exist: the overall SNCF eco balance sheet!

Before talking about recycling, let's talk about the costs of infrastructure, especially stations which are generally real energy chasms! I do not hear about the SIMPLE improvements that could be made at this level (it is much easier to reduce the consumption of a station than a train ...).

I passed this morning at Sedan station: the interior lights in the Hall are on all the time when the station is open ... (and there is no technical reason to do so, natural lighting is sufficient when it is day ...) what does a switch or even a twilight sensor cost?

Let's not talk about Strasbourg station, the HAA Giant cotton which is an energy aberation, because I was already "angry" at the time: https://www.econologie.com/forums/gare-de-st ... t6797.html

When I was talking about social benefits, it was, for example: that work identical to the SCNF is done in 8 hours where in the private sector it is done in 5 hours ... and that has an ecological cost! (it will make more than one scream but I sign! Even if that changes and that the sncf begins to put a little more "realistic" objectives ...)
0 x
laurent_caen
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 113
Registration: 07/05/06, 12:41




by laurent_caen » 12/07/11, 22:58

Christophe wrote:Links work.

Yes for the capacity, see my 1st answer.

Average occupancy rates are not that different: in public transport it is between 30 and 40%.
In a car it is between 1.3 and 1.6 passengers, that is to say for a 5-seater car: 26% to 32%.
By plane it is much more and we can obtain consumption in 100km. Passenger less than 4L / 100.
This is what I have in mind and it dates from early 2000, should be found to confirm.

It seemed to me that the Ademe also reasoned in EP ... thin ...

Last thing: the average speed of a TGV is still much higher than the speed of a car this also partly explains these very similar results ...

Now we agree on the substance: a train is not at all that clean, much less than marketing wants us to believe ...

This is why I "rebelled" against the completely bogus eco comparator of the SNCF when it was released (I don't know if it has since been corrected) cf: https://www.econologie.com/l-ecocomparat ... -3220.html
et
https://www.econologie.info/index.php?20 ... de-la-scnf

The subject: https://www.econologie.com/forums/ecocompara ... t2475.html

Physically, the load factor (useful mass / total mass in displacement) largely overwhelms the train!

To properly do the complete eco-balance sheet of the train, maintenance would also have to be taken (which must be more expensive for the rail than the road). The social benefits of sncf cost the environment ...

Other related topics:

- Crazy prices at SNCF and another https://www.econologie.com/forums/transport- ... t5551.html

-Train: energy and CO2 (which clearly shows that the SCNF does not care about our mouths in its energy or CO2 balance sheets)

- Car plane comparison


Agree to emphasize that the TGV is much faster than a car; however, except for very important journeys for which the TGV takes a definite advantage in terms of journey time, for average journeys (say 200 to 400 km), when we add the time to get to the station (d 'the more if you live in the countryside), the more the margin of safety that you give yourself, the more time between the arrival station and the place of destination, the total time is not always so far from the one made by car. Conversely, it can be emphasized that the time spent by train is not lost and that one can take care of it usefully. By car, it is a priori possible for non-driver passengers, but it is nonetheless more complicated.

For the rest, I fully agree, the eco-comparator is very simplified (euphemism) and reasons voluntarily in terms of CO2 and not EP energy consumption to display low emissions. In particular, he never says that each tonne of CO2 saved is an additional radioactive waste ...

Still agree on the fact that the weight / passenger ratio is deplorable by train, which greatly saps its energy balance. I would also add, if I'm not mistaken, that the friction forces are also very important. I am surprised by the fact that the trains are so high, because given the speed at which they run, the aerodynamic drag must represent a very important part which could be reduced with a more measured height.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 13/07/11, 10:40

laurent_caen wrote:For the rest, I fully agree, the eco-comparator is very simplified (euphemism) and reasons voluntarily in terms of CO2 and not EP energy consumption to display low emissions. In particular, he never says that each tonne of CO2 saved is an additional radioactive waste ...


You can make this remark and link this subject here in the one dedicated to the eco comparator: https://www.econologie.com/forums/ecocompara ... t2475.html

(would have to see if and how it has evolved since, I have not taken the time to do it ...)

For friction: with air the Cx of the TGV must be much better than a good number of cars (for locos with a design from the 60s
For wheels, the steel / steel coefficient of friction is low ... provided that it has a certain mass.

There are far fewer losses in a steel wheel than in a tire (up to 20% of the traction energy !! See these files: https://www.econologie.com/forums/petite-his ... 10764.html )

Remember the image of steam trains that "spin" when starting ...

Speaking of old loco, who knows the Kitson Still hybrid diesel steam years ... 1920!

Image
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 14/07/11, 01:49

About the eco balance sheet of the SNCF, we will soon be fixed since it is mandatory since ... Tuesday precisely!

Details: https://www.econologie.com/forums/bilan-carb ... 10970.html
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Energy consumption EP Train vs Car




by sen-no-sen » 14/07/11, 12:02

laurent_caen wrote:In short, all this to put into perspective the creed that the train is necessarily preferable to the car… It is far from being as simple since it is highly dependent, whether in the case of the train or the car, the occupancy rate.



Hello!
I hope that this demonstration was not intended to justify the use of the car at the expense of the train!

Regarding the occupancy rate, TER, in large cities are often well filled (see to the brim), however, almost 70% of cars only carry one passenger ... the results are quick fact.
In addition, the trains are not subject to traffic jams, and their maintenance is less than on a car (no obsolescence programmed! Certain power trains are 40 years old!).

The most "efficient" trains in terms of consumption are the Corail, the RER and the old TER.

It would be wise to also calculate the energy balance of the construction of a highway ...
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "New transport: innovations, engines, pollution, technologies, policies, organization ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 217 guests