View Single Post
Old 04-28-2020, 12:49 AM   #18 (permalink)
JSH
AKA - Jason
 
JSH's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: PDX
Posts: 1,988

Adventure Seeker - '04 Chevy Astro - Campervan
90 day: 17.3 mpg (US)

Dieselgate - '14 VW Jetta Sportwagen TDI
90 day: 38.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 136
Thanked 1,146 Times in 778 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr View Post
Quote:
Never use air travel.
I'm sure it's more complex when it comes to aircraft with a pressurized cabin, but with smaller piston-engined aircraft it's often easier to keep control of emissions. The problem is more bureaucratic than technical. On the other hand, in some regions air travel is actually more cost-effective and with lower emissions than other forms of transportation.
Yes, air travel is more complex than it is made out to be. People that are against air travel should actually be campaigning against travel altogether.

Yes, flying is massively wasteful way to get from San Diego to LA but it is the ecological way to get from San Diego to NYC or Tokyo.

Air travel is more energy efficient than driving for long distance travel and way more efficient than ocean liners for transoceanic travel.

The paper below puts driving at 4200 BTU / passenger mile while flying is 2000 BTU / passenger mile.

It seem counter intuitive until you realize that planes are a form of public transportation and one that operates at near max capacity. A 777-300 ER carries 365 people and 7120 cu ft of cargo and takes 6 hours to get from SAN to JFK.

To move the same number of people you would need 91 sedans (with 4 to a car) + 2 semi trucks. That 2793 mile trip is going to take 3-5 days.

Quicker to fly / Cheaper to fly / Less energy intensive to fly.

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitst...=1&isAllowed=y
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to JSH For This Useful Post:
COcyclist (04-28-2020)