In my specific case, I was looking into travels between Beppu (Japan) and Osaka. There is a direct ferry line, but other routes exist of course (also trains).
I wonder how a ferry and a plane would compare
In my specific case, I was looking into travels between Beppu (Japan) and Osaka. There is a direct ferry line, but other routes exist of course (also trains).
I wonder how a ferry and a plane would compare
With a ship, buoyancy carries the weight for free (energy wise) unlike a plane so if all you’re focussed on is air pollution then ships are far better for the environment.
In theory I guess, but in practice we have diesel engine ships and all sorts of dynamics with pollution (e.g., using more dirty diesel that’s forbidden but not in international waters etc).
I’m fairly sure air travel is still more polluting. The energy needed to fight gravity is immense.
You mean bunker oil not diesel. First, it is what is left over from fracking so in itself isn’t polluting much extra in production. Then, as a ship is buoyant, it burns much less fuel per ton-km so it pollutes exponentially less than any other form of motorised transport. Planes are at the other end of the scale.
Actually air is buoyant too, and water has much higher resistance. I still don’t know what the answer is, and I’m guessing “it depends”, like so often.
If a boat travelled as fast as a plane the extra resistance would likely make it less efficient. And the whole shape would be designed to be most efficient at speed, so you couldn’t carry that much in the first place.
For an aircraft to travel as slow as a ship it would also need to be radically redesigned, and would likely be a lighter-than-air design since low speed makes reliable lift hard.
Zepplins, derigibles, blimps, and balloons are fairly efficient per surface mile. (Less so depending on how they achieve buoyancy…)