Posted on 11/13/2007 4:19:25 PM PST by cicero2k
A bold effort by the European Union to impose caps on aircraft emissions received a lift today when legislators voted to raise the costs for airlines and to include international flights sooner than expected.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
This is being lauded by the NYT as "bold". In reality, it is a misguided attempt to reduce an ecological threat that in the end is perhaps; counter productive. In the meantime, you and I are less free to move about.
Jets, even military jets, have much cleaner exhausts than they used to. Noise is way down, too. It is probably due to finder greater efficiency in the engine, but it is getting better all the time.
Well, there will be less people coming to Europe, then.
~~ AGW™ ping~~
They’re trying to cut down on all that flying by the low fare airlines that follow the Southwest model. You know, the ones all the vacationers on a budget use. Now the skies will be returned to the elite. /s/
/Bah
I wish I’d kept an article I read a few months ago from a UK newspaper, maybe the Guardian. In this article, a eco-freak had the audacity to actually outline the steps necessary to cut greenhouse emissions to acceptable levels. He called for a 90% reduction in flights from/to England.
In additiona, all country homes to be abandoned to minimize transportation. No homes over 1000 square feet to be occupied. No fuel for winter heating.
I thought the guy was owed a round of applause for being honest enough to actually admit what would be required and not try to sugar coat his prescription. I think if more people actually were exposed to what would be required to meet these absurd goals, the global warming theory would be quickly abandoned by most people who think they can save the earth by buying a different brand of light bulb.
It's properly what's called a tax increase. If they were really interested in jet travel emissions they would instead order airplanes to fly at half speed. That would also double employment for flight crews. But really they just want the money, in $50s and $100s, thank you very much.
Aviation is the most fuel efficient mode of transportation ever invented. It blows trains and everything else away. It's just that if you speed up the airplane from 250mph to 500mph it's going to require 4 times the fuel.
on reaching altitude, cut one engine.....
IMO, the EU will be part of the cause of the next European Civil War.
No wonder they see a “tax opportunity”...:^)
IIRC a 747 burns about 4000 gal at cruise, industry average occupancy rates 60%(?)... My GMC Suburban 350 ci gas will average 20 mpg @ 60 mph with 100% occupancy (the dogs get a seat each!) We averaged 19.7 Alaska and back.
Do you have any data on your speculation?
Southwest can change routes. Try that with a train track.
If you ran your GMC truck at 500mph your fuel use would exceed the 747s. The cost per passenger mile of a 747 going at 500mph is lower than the cost to operate an automobile at 50mph.
That is, by law electricity is pegged at $0.21/KWh for a fixed 20 years period. Electric companies are required by law to purchase electricity from independent suppliers at fixed rate of $0.50/KWh over the same 20 year period.
Ahh... but the environmental do-gooders are always telling us that trains are a more efficient method of transportation... </sarc>
Per the replies I did some research on discount airline’s costs and came up with this example:
http://sec.edgar-online.com/2005/04/27/0001193125-05-086404/Section7.asp
It seems in the quarter they burned 58 million gallons of fuel to produce 3.5 billion seat miles of travel. My calculation yields 60 seat miles per gallon. Even at their load factor of 70% it’s 42 seat MPG. Much higher than I thought.
Yes the bullet trains are expensive. In France the Paris to Strasburg run would have been 480 euros for two. So we rented a car.
C2K
Airlines usually take extra cargo and mail which decreases their miles per gallon. To get a true mileage comparison you have to fly the airplanes at their best glide speed which would push up their MPG tremendously.
Now that the military has developed robotic aircraft you may see flying freight trains in the future. Robots don't mind working slow, taking 24 hours to fly a route a human wants to do in 4. A robot freight train would use much less fuel than a conventional train running at a similar speed on the ground. The only reason this is not possible now is the employee costs.
IF??
IF we approach the speed of light the fuel consumption would become infinite, SO WHAT?
Boing says that a 747 uses five gallons a mile.
Chicago to Denver 1000 miles, 5000 gal fuel, 400 passengers.
100 suburban’s Chicago to Denver with nine passengers each 900 passengers and the same 5000 gal fuel. MORE LEG ROOM AND BETTER FOOD!!!
NOT EVEN CLOSE!
Donot forget the passenger load factor.
Boeing: Commercial Airplanes - 747 Fun Facts
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_facts.html
A 747-400 that flies 3,500 statute miles (5,630 km) and carries 126,000 pounds (56,700 kg) of fuel will consume an average of five gallons (19 L) per mile.
United reports highest ever September passenger load factor Airline Industry Information - Find Articles
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CWU/is_2005_Oct_5/ai_n15676139
The airline said that it had achieved its highest-ever September passenger load factor of 80.2% while the total scheduled revenue passenger miles
Based on one of the charts jets currently get a real world 49 mpg at 500mph. This is factoring in the empty seats. They would get about 200 mpg if they slowed down to 250mph.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.