How then, do we move backwards? How does a society, with most of the people having no clue of future events, move from being dependent on a vast and intertwined network of goods and services produced by the indigenous people of whereever, to a local resource and renewable energy based society, and do so in the timeframe available (20-30 years using the most liberal extimates, 10-20 with resonable estimates, 5-10 with worst case scenarios), all the while prices on everything increasing, world politics getting more militaristic, governments continuously reducing civil liberties, shortages of goods on the market and weather patterns resembling bad Hollywood movies?
Joined: Feb 20, 2005 Posts: 2640 Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:35 am Post subject:
So if oil prices double, flying prices increase 20 %? I can live with that, especially since Ryan Air has lowered prices a lot more than 20 %. _________________ Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Please find the following interesting BBC article about aviation, oil prices, pollution and global warming, here.
It shows that our thirst for air travel won't end anywhere soon. Only peak oil will kill it. Or global warming.
Airlines sport their green colours
Every day at Britain's airports, hundreds of aircraft take off for destinations across Europe. Each churns out tonnes of carbon dioxide, a by-product of the jet engine and a likely cause of global warming.
Take just one flight. Ryanair's 800-mile (1,300km) flight from Stansted to Rome, using a Boeing 737, will produce 27 tonnes of CO2 as it goes.
Much of it will hang around in the atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse gases generated by air travel are tiny compared with many other environmentally damaging human activities.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates aviation contributes just 3% to total global emissions of CO2, compared with the 25% pumped out by power stations.
But there are predictions that this will rise to 15% because aviation is one of the few sources of greenhouse gases that are growing.
Air travel has been predicted by the government to triple in the next 30 years.
Airports are being expanded to cope with the extra demand, with extra runways planned at Stansted and Heathrow.
Now, enter the combined weight of the UK's aviation industry - with a strategy designed to show that airlines, airports and aircraft manufacturers are taking responsibility for what they admit are the "significant, detrimental environmental impacts" of our love of flying.
Economic contribution
The target is to make planes 50% more fuel efficient by 2020, compared with aircraft in our skies now.
That should reduce CO2 emissions by half. But can it be done - and what impact will it have on global warming?
For evidence that it is possible, the industry points out that modern aircraft are 70% more fuel-efficient than they were in the '60s.
Planes can be built much bigger. Airbus says its giant new A380 burns 13% less fuel than the ageing Boeing 747.
A380s are likely to be common at airports in 15 years' time.
Making the air traffic control system more efficient may help, too. Time wasted, on the ground or in the air, is paid for in aviation fuel.
But environmentalists doubt that building better planes with better engines can achieve the 50% target.
Jeff Gazzard, from the Aviation Environment Federation, said the strategy was "hopelessly optimistic, and over-reliant on technology. Real back-of-the-fag-packet stuff".
He believes a 25% reduction is possible, but says that will not be enough. If the government's estimates are to be believed, in the 15-year timescale of this strategy the number of flights will increase by 150%.
The aviation industry is also committed to a system of "emissions trading" which would allow airlines to buy the right to produce greenhouse gases from other industries that are producing less - such as power stations.
This "virtual pollution market", it is argued, would put a price on environmental damage, and encourage greener air travel.
But environmentalists believe none of these solutions will tackle the real problem: our growing desire to get on a plane and fly, whether on a business trip across the globe, or a cheap trip to a hot new holiday destination in Europe.
The only solution, they say, is to make flying more expensive, to persuade us to fly less.
The Aviation Environment Federation wants every passenger to pay at least £34 more for every 700 miles (1,100km) they fly.
The aviation industry hits back with figures showing air travel contributes £14bn a year to the British economy. And the debate continues.
One thing everyone's agreed on is that our love of the high life has an environmental cost, and it is a big problem that needs to be solved.
£14bn? I suppose it depends who you talk to, the green party reckon it's a net drain of £24bn lol Green Party
But aviation is the most interesting of the lot, it's going to be a real battle ground with environmentalists, people almost expect foreign vacations these days and it's going to take the biggest wack out of peak oil. Moreover, it's a very symbolic as part of the modern world and a lot of countries depend on the tourism it provides. If aviation goes down, the world will never be the same again. It'll be the point where people begin to wake up, far more of a tipping point that any newspaper article because globalisation will be gone in a puff of smoke.
So if oil prices double, flying prices increase 20 %? I can live with that, especially since Ryan Air has lowered prices a lot more than 20 %.
Ah no, because you will get a reduction in the economies of scale as there is demand destruction. And, unlike driving, there will be a drop in traffic to a far greater degree because 78% of flights are long distance leisure. People WILL spend extra on getting to work - because they have to - but they will vacation nearer home because they have less money to spend, or just work more and not take the time off or bother with a break.
So the airlines will have a lot of planes on lease doing nothing, the airport operators will have to change their charging schemes and they may have to start making staff redundant. Average loads fall - and capacity utilisation is the cream in all non-private transport. It's because the low cost model handles 70-90% loading it works. This is why there is cheap flights.
Ryan air make about £2.50 profit (average) per passenger on each flight NOW, doubling the fuel cost changes the economics completely, dropping the loads to 40 or 50% means they are no longer low cost. Goodbye cheap breaks. Aviation really is the canary in the mineshaft on this issue.
Seems to me like this one is a no-brainer. Take a bunch of that limitless hydrogen that's going to be available and use it to fill airships made out of nano-solar fabric that can drive electric motors. Problem solved! _________________ Civilization is a personal choice.
Seems to me like this one is a no-brainer. Take a bunch of that limitless hydrogen that's going to be available and use it to fill airships made out of nano-solar fabric that can drive electric motors. Problem solved!
You were saying? Airship
Here's the PO doomers one going up: Link
Of course, if you want to use a helium airship you start to encounter peak helium!
Helium Privitization _________________ Civilization is a personal choice.
Although I'm happy enough to travel on plain old trains with wheels, it's still interesting to note that before TGVs, the French came up with a fantastic (and relatively low power) idea, the Aerotrain. You can see some pictures here: Link
Basically, it's a hovercraft on rails. Actually, hovercraft (boats) were another fine idea that seems to have perished.
Another neat old technology that has (mostly) perished, and was really energy efficient, were blimps (dirigibles, or airships). I remember them when I was a kid - the US Navy used to use them for patrolling the coast, but they were scrapped in favor of helicopters. Some photos: Photos
Well, now with peak oil, maybe the blimps will be revived for air travel (I doubt it though).
Joined: Mar 28, 2005 Posts: 399 Location: Northern California, USA
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:16 am Post subject: Aviation won't be gone for a while
The A380 gets 90 mpg per passenger. This is a lot more fuel efficient than just about any other form of long distance travel besides sail boats. As gas gets really expensive I am sure even more fuel efficient but far slower aircraft could be designed.
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:30 am Post subject: Re: Aviation won't be gone for a while
abelardlindsay wrote:
The A380 gets 90 mpg per passenger. This is a lot more fuel efficient than just about any other form of long distance travel besides sail boats. As gas gets really expensive I am sure even more fuel efficient but far slower aircraft could be designed.
Another load of old spin by Airbus I'm afraid.
Carrying 260,000 litres if fuel divided by 8,000 mile range is 32.5 litre or 7.15 gallons per mile average. Which puts it firmly into the area of the most ineffeicent form of transport there is, except one person in a car, even divded by a full pasenger load.
The proof in the pudding is watching the airlines shoving up ticket prices every time the price of oil rises.
Joined: Jun 09, 2005 Posts: 581 Location: Australia
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:35 am Post subject:
As sure as God made little apples, after PO there'll be two ways to get about: train and horseback.
We'll melt down all the SUVs and lay thousands of miles of additional traintracks between and within the cities.
So, all you unemployed IT proles, real estate fat-cats, used car salesmen, lawyers and middle-level managers, get your Casey Jones railway engineer hats on and get ready to work like you've never worked before.
"For we are the navies who work upon the railways
Swinging our hammers in the hot blazing sun
Living on stew and drinking bad whiskey
Bending our backs till the long day is done."
--Gordon Lightfoot (Canadian Railroad Trilogy)
The A380 gets 90 mpg per passenger. This is a lot more fuel efficient than just about any other form of long distance travel besides sail boats. As gas gets really expensive I am sure even more fuel efficient but far slower aircraft could be designed.
I do not believe that statement. Even if true any way, that is not more fuel efficient than an intercity 50 seat Greyhound bus getiing 4 - 5 mpg down the interstate highway. That works out to be 250 pmpg or nearly three times the claimed efficiency of the Airbus. It is not better than a 5 seat Toyota Prius or even my Jetta TDI that gets 200 pmpg when occupied by 4 adults.
There is no way aircraft can or will ever approach the maximum possible fuel efficiency of surface transportation. Moving at 500 mph and staying 6 miles aloft takes a lot of energy. Simple laws of Physics. _________________ For ionizing radiation “…the human epidemiological evidence establishes—by any reasonable standard of proof—that there is no safe dose or dose-rate…the safe-dose hypothesis is not merely implausible—it is disproven.” Dr. J.W. Gofman 4
As sure as God made little apples, after PO there'll be two ways to get about: train and horseback.
We'll melt down all the SUVs and lay thousands of miles of additional traintracks between and within the cities.
So, all you unemployed IT proles, real estate fat-cats, used car salesmen, lawyers and middle-level managers, get your Casey Jones railway engineer hats on and get ready to work like you've never worked before.
"For we are the navies who work upon the railways
Swinging our hammers in the hot blazing sun
Living on stew and drinking bad whiskey
Bending our backs till the long day is done."
--Gordon Lightfoot (Canadian Railroad Trilogy)
lol. You're right on the trains. They'll definitely be around for a while yet.
This reminds me that Australia needs to get on to electrifying and standardising our rail network. And on getting a national rail system going, not 5 systems with a few commercial operators thrown in.
EDIT: Oooh, I just had a thought! Trams will also make a huuuuge resurgence.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
