ballaughbiker Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Well we seems to basically agree that all hydrocarbon use is bad, waste is very bad and ultimately (of course) the stuff likely run out one day at present useage rates. Where I cannot agree is your assertion that all flying is the most inefficient use of fossil fuel. It ain't. The most inefficient use I believe is the private car. Whilst I agree there's too much flying and £10 prices to far flung Europe is an abomination it might be helpful to consider : Over the past 40 years emissions of hydrocarbons from aviation have been reduced by 90% In the same time CO production from the same source has been reduced by 50% An aircraft today is 70% more fuel efficient than its equivalent 50 years ago (and 75% quieter than 30 years ago) (yep, BALPA again) Does anyone know the fuel burn/hr of the Manannin btw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Well we seems to basically agree that all hydrocarbon use is bad, waste is very bad and ultimately (of course) the stuff likely run out one day at present useage rates. Where I cannot agree is your assertion that all flying is the most inefficient use of fossil fuel. It ain't. The most inefficient use I believe is the private car. Like I said, I'm not really about making a comparison for which is the worst, I'd rather reduce all trips. I did find this (which I acknoledge is from the 90's) that says cars are about double as efficient as airliners per passenger: http://www.nativeaccess.com/ancestral/navigation2.html The US Transportation Energy Data Book states the following figures for Passenger transportation in 2006: Airlines 35 mpg per passenger Cars 33 mpg per passenger Roughly the same, but then you don't drive your car to Miami, so not really fair. And for freight: Air: 6,900kj per tonne Sea: 370kj per tonne Trucks: 2,426kj per tonne So air's hugely inefficient for freight. I take your point on efficiencies, but other transportation methods have also improved in line. There's definitely a lot of misconceptions about transport efficiency. You see 'shop local' brought up a lot, but local food supply can be very inefficient compared to a centralized transport network operated by a huge outfit like Tesco. Might sound daft to have a cabbage shipped from yorkshire to birmingham then to here, but if you do it with enough cabbages it's more efficient than loads of little trips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 There's definitely a lot of misconceptions about transport efficiency. You see 'shop local' brought up a lot, but local food supply can be very inefficient compared to a centralized transport network operated by a huge outfit like Tesco. Might sound daft to have a cabbage shipped from yorkshire to birmingham then to here, but if you do it with enough cabbages it's more efficient than loads of little trips. Does this apply to long haul flights? Can I have a trip to Brazil once a year instead of lots of little trips over to the UK and Europe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Does this apply to long haul flights? Can I have a trip to Brazil once a year instead of lots of little trips over to the UK and Europe? No, you can have one or two little trips to the UK and be grateful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karellen Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I'm signing. We need less tax and less government interference in our lives, not more. I take a dozen or so long haul flights a year, and coupled with flights off the island means I'm paying thousands and thousands of pounds in tax. And for what? To pay for political wars against stone-age primitives in far off countries, or to pay for workers to dig holes in the road and then fill them again. You only live once. If you want to go to Barbados, then go. Whats the worst that can happen? The plane is going with or without you. Take off that hair shirt and enjoy life while you have it. So we might have global warming, it might be man-made, it might be the earth's natural cycle. Who knows. If change happens then embrace it and seize the opportunities that it creates. Why are people so afraid of change? Everyone alive today will be long dead before the isle of man is submerged by rising oceans, and even if that happens our descendants will adapt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I'm signing. We need less tax and less government interference in our lives, not more. I take a dozen or so long haul flights a year, and coupled with flights off the island means I'm paying thousands and thousands of pounds in tax. And for what? To pay for political wars against stone-age primitives in far off countries, or to pay for workers to dig holes in the road and then fill them again. You only live once. If you want to go to Barbados, then go. Whats the worst that can happen? The plane is going with or without you. Take off that hair shirt and enjoy life while you have it. So we might have global warming, it might be man-made, it might be the earth's natural cycle. Who knows. If change happens then embrace it and seize the opportunities that it creates. Why are people so afraid of change? Everyone alive today will be long dead before the isle of man is submerged by rising oceans, and even if that happens our descendants will adapt. Not quite sure how I plan to embrace my house being under 50ft of sea-water. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 So we might have global warming, it might be man-made, it might be the earth's natural cycle. Who knows. If change happens then embrace it and seize the opportunities that it creates. Why are people so afraid of change? Everyone alive today will be long dead before the isle of man is submerged by rising oceans, and even if that happens our descendants will adapt. Why would you embrace catastrophic change if it's preventable, even if it is for future generations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I'm signing. We need less tax and less government interference in our lives, not more. I take a dozen or so long haul flights a year, and coupled with flights off the island means I'm paying thousands and thousands of pounds in tax. And for what? To pay for political wars against stone-age primitives in far off countries, or to pay for workers to dig holes in the road and then fill them again. You only live once. If you want to go to Barbados, then go. Whats the worst that can happen? The plane is going with or without you. Take off that hair shirt and enjoy life while you have it. So we might have global warming, it might be man-made, it might be the earth's natural cycle. Who knows. If change happens then embrace it and seize the opportunities that it creates. Why are people so afraid of change? Everyone alive today will be long dead before the isle of man is submerged by rising oceans, and even if that happens our descendants will adapt. Not quite sure how I plan to embrace my house being under 50ft of sea-water. S Invest in some scuba gear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Invest in some scuba gear Jeez - don't listen to him for investment advice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarbunny Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 So we might have global warming, it might be man-made, it might be the earth's natural cycle. Who knows. If change happens then embrace it and seize the opportunities that it creates. Why are people so afraid of change? Everyone alive today will be long dead before the isle of man is submerged by rising oceans, and even if that happens our descendants will adapt. Why would you embrace catastrophic change if it's preventable, even if it is for future generations? Assuming it is preventable of cause, and its not too late, and we don’t all get killed by swine flu, or aliens, or thermo nuclear war. I’ve never liked the “do it for your great grand children” argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah 01 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 'Why would you embrace catastrophic change if it's preventable'.........and just what if, after all, it's not preventable? Preserve the environment (and that includes by not covering the landscape in high cost, low 'in the great scheme of things' output eyesores that are wind turbines), make use of (sensible) reusable resources, stop draining the earth's resources and recycle as much as possible, strive for cleaner air and environment, strive for less polution......sure, nobody can argue against such laudable aims. However, to shut down civilisation as we know it 2009, as many would have us do, is just not on. If the taxes levied by governments were going directly into environmental projects then the case for them might be made but we know that the monies raised are doing nothing more than disappearing into the fiscal abyss. APD is a stealth tax and should be abolished at the earliest opportunity. Unfortunately, it has become one of the many 'stealth' taxes that government now relies on - and don't think our town councillors are any different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Sorry Slim an afternoon at the dentist interrupted my flow. To answer your assertion that all air travel is hugely inefficient, let's take a local example. This is real life stuff, not data from 20 years ago. The Dash 8 Q400 (round figures) burns 1 tonne/hr. If the sg of JetA1 is say 0.8 = 1250 litres per hour. It can cruise at 400 mph max but lets use 350mph in this example. So a flight from Southampton to IOM, say 290 miles, will take 50 minutes. That equates to a burn of 1040 litres. Anyone still awake, no? OK, I'll continue on my own. Let's say it's 3/4 full = 55 passengers. That's a burn of 18.9 litres per passenger or 4.15 gallons. If they were each driving a car all the way using the mythical bridge from Liverpool, the car would have to be doing 70mpg to equal the Dash 8's burn and it would take forever. Even if there were two per car instead, the car would still have to do 35 mpg to break even. Ok, it's the best example I can come up with and doesn't include going round the hold a few times when its busy etc. However I trust it shows that certain aircraft that are reasonably loaded (and we haven't even included the 1 tonne of bags that these 55 might have) are nothing like as bad as the Plane Crazy lot would have us believe. Of course the faster you go, the worse it gets (as in simple terms wind resistance increases as a square of the speed increase) and the likely load factor will drop too. However, my example is still reasonable for the type of aircraft that come here. The uk government care much more for the profit they will make than the environment they pretend to want to protect. Edited for bad maths - it must be the anaesthetic wearing off.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Not quite sure how I plan to embrace my house being under 50ft of sea-water.S If it will be under 50 feet of seawater in future it must be under about 40 feet right now. I'd maintain the same kind of embrace you use at present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Sorry Slim an afternoon at the dentist interrupted my flow. To answer your assertion that all air travel is hugely inefficient, let's take a local example. This is real life stuff, not data from 20 years ago. The Dash 8 Q400 (round figures) burns 1 tonne/hr. If the sg of JetA1 is say 0.8 = 1250 litres per hour. It can cruise at 400 mph max but lets use 350mph in this example. So a flight from Southampton to IOM, say 290 miles, will take 50 minutes. That equates to a burn of 667 litres. Anyone still awake, no? OK, I'll continue on my own. Let's say it's 3/4 full = 55 passengers. That's a burn of 12.12 litres per passenger or 2.66 gallons. If they were each driving a car all the way using the mythical bridge from Liverpool, the car would have to be doing 109mpg to equal the Dash 8's burn and it would take forever. Even if there were two per car instead, the car would still have to do 54 mpg to break even. Ok, it's the best example I can come up with and doesn't include going round the hold a few times when its busy etc. However I trust it shows that certain aircraft that are reasonably loaded (and we haven't even included the 1 tonne of bags that these 55 might have) are nothing like as bad as the Plane Crazy lot would have us believe. Of course the faster you go, the worse it gets (as in simple terms wind resistance increases as a square of the speed increase) and the likely load factor will drop too. However, my example is still reasonable for the type of aircraft that come here. The uk government care much more for the profit they will make than the environment they pretend to want to protect. Awesome maths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I was correcting whilst you posted you got me by 3 minutes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.