I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
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.
Or calculations for the UK's clapped-out ancient dual power car High Speed trains 125mph trains.
Each power car has just over a 1000 gallon tank, there's two of them, the train has a 1400 mile range (plus 20% margin), so that's 1.4 gallons (excluding margin) per mile for 480 passengers. Over 90 miles, that's 0.26 gallons per passenger for the 1 the Airbus is using and that's the most inefficient train on our network by a long way.
As someone said, the laws of physics dicates that a 450 ton plane travelling at 500 miles per hour several miles up isn't going to be green.
Joined: Oct 25, 2004 Posts: 378 Location: Southern California Desert
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:51 am Post subject:
Macsporan wrote:
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. ...
I'm pretty sure the work wasn't/isn't that Draconian.
In the world of post-peak, the concept of "getting things done and needing things yesterday" will have pretty much diminished.
Joined: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 483 Location: Cheshire, England
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:41 pm Post subject: Re: How else can commercial aviation continue without oil?
Chachi wrote:
I can see how alternative fuels can provide power for almost all types of transport, but how can a jet engine create thrust to propel a plane without jet fuel or another petroleum based byproduct?
Hi Chachi, welcome to PO.com.
Are you aware that you're asking an enginering question, not a peak oil question? PO isn't about having no oil.
Joined: Jul 25, 2004 Posts: 681 Location: Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:00 pm Post subject:
Macsporan wrote:
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.
Hi Macsporan! Hi Cammo 2004
"Oh, I've veen working on the raillllllroad...
All, the live-long dayyyyy!!!!"
Yup, swing that hammer! Shovel that ballast!
LOL, with mechanisation (yes, it really CAN be steam driven like it was in the Bad Old Days) the utterly back-breaking aspects need not be the awful chore they were - and "productivity" can be increased, too.
cammo2004 wrote:
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 electrifyin
Electrification adds huge costs to our rail - it's between $3 million to $5 million per km for a bog-standard railway line.
That's without electrification.
ADD about $7million to $13 million to each km for an electrified railway, which is why only the highest-trafficked lines get electrified.
Sure, the high-use lines probably will get electrified, but I'm trying to persuade people to go for steam - why? Because steam can burn any fuel.
Sure, I will readily admit that I have had zero success, but, still, there's no harm in asking people to think about steam locomotives.
And the MODERN ones can have efficiencies of at least 15%. More, if one does some sublte things which have been tried on stationary plants, but not (yet) locomotives.
cammo2004 wrote:
and standardising our rail network. And on getting a national rail system going, not 5 systems with a few commercial operators thrown in.
ACTUALLY, what's going to happen is the nasty lil road lobby's been quitely unpicking the threads that bind the railways in Australia together - by simply spending masses of money on anything BUT real rail projects.
If you live in Sydney, you're probably sick of trackwork right now...but how much money's being spent on the track & how much is being used as a hidden subsidy to BUS operators?
Have you never wondered why the trackwork never ends, in spite of how much money seems to be getting spent?
Quote:
EDIT: Oooh, I just had a thought! Trams will also make a huuuuge resurgence.
YUP, they had better, or we're gonna see the most impressive mass emigration away from our cities, probably over a period of time, but still, it'll be an interesting experieince to take one's horse & buggy and head through the McSuburbs after they've been deserted.
We've had some discussion on hydrogen powered aircraft in another thread. It might make sense, if we built enough nuke plants to produce the hydrogen. No idea what it would cost, or the safety factor.
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 6:10 pm Post subject: Aviation faces an economic collapse?
Quote:
Jet Fuel Rises to 26% of Airlines' Costs, Increasing Losses
June 2 (Bloomberg) -- Jet fuel has risen to 26 percent of airlines' costs from as little as 10 percent six years ago, undermining efforts by Air France-KLM Group and other carriers to increase profit with cost cuts and higher ticket prices, according to the International Air Transport Association.
``Airlines have made tremendous efforts on efficiency but the rising price of fuel is racing ahead of us,'' said Giovanni Bisignani, IATA chief executive officer, in an interview yesterday. Fuel costs will rise 20 percent to $110 billion this year, he said.
IATA, which represents 265 airlines, plans to increase its estimate of losses at the group's annual meeting June 5 in Paris. The organization estimated in March the losses would be $2.2 billion this year, based on a barrel of Brent crude oil costing $57, while forecasting a profit in 2007 as oil fell to $52. The average price of Brent has been $66 so far this year.
``They'll have to run hard to stand still,'' said Leigh Bailey, a credit analyst with Standard & Poor's Ratings Services in London. ``The big cyclical upturn in profits you'd expect with the level of demand seen today has been largely offset by the strong oil prices.''
Link _________________ "There was a time before reason and science when my ancestors believed in all manner of nonsense." Narim on Stargate SG-1.
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 6:45 pm Post subject: Re: Aviation faces an economic collapse?
Quote:
Air France has hedged 77 percent of its requirements for the year at $49 a barrel. Lufthansa, Europe's second-largest airline, has hedged more than 90 percent of fuel needs at $67 a barrel. British Airways, the region's No. 3 airline, has covered 58 percent of its needs at $58 a barrel.
Those hedges will expire in due course. When they do, consumers already pressed by other costs will face increased ticket prices. At some point, they must choose - I suspect they will choose not to fly.
I don't think I'd care to purchase any airline stocks. _________________ Dieoff. Fun to watch. Better with hot buttered popcorn!
Joined: Sep 30, 2004 Posts: 975 Location: On one of the blades of the fan
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:51 am Post subject: Re: Aviation faces an economic collapse?
Just one thing, Jack, or anyone else who can explain, please:
If the airlines "hedge" their fuel costs at below the current price, doesn't that mean that the fuel supplier will be selling at a loss?
e.g $49 to airline at $72.75 (yesterday's NYMEX price) means a loss of $23.75 to somebody, doesn't it?
Or am I thick? _________________ The other place that believes completely in the right to keep and bear arms, particularly to use against foreign invaders and tyrants is: Afghanistan.
Joined: Jun 26, 2004 Posts: 1191 Location: Madison,Wisconsin
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 6:39 am Post subject: Re: Aviation faces an economic collapse?
Your not totally thick, but you are wrong in that the supplier get's a loss. Remember those are oil Futures. As in contracts for the future oil supply. They don't buy oil Currents. So those suppliers already paid for the oil at a price they could afford to make a profit off the airlines. Probably when oil was a little farther down the price scale than it is now. So no, no one except the airline is losing money. But you can believe that those fuel costs will go up no matter what the price of oil does, if only because each contract get's closer and closer to the current price. _________________ Azreal60
Joined: Sep 30, 2004 Posts: 975 Location: On one of the blades of the fan
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 7:32 am Post subject: Re: Aviation faces an economic collapse?
Quote:
Your not totally thick
Thanks Azreal, for the explanation. I note the use of totally. Mind you, at least I know there's no apostrophe in "get's". _________________ The other place that believes completely in the right to keep and bear arms, particularly to use against foreign invaders and tyrants is: Afghanistan.
Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:15 pm Post subject: Carbon emission targets DON'T include Aviation
ever felt like you've been had?
99% of people simply do not know.
Quote:
International aviation is the UK’s fast-growing source of carbon emissions, and yet the government isn't even accounting for them.
If you’re reading this, you probably don’t need to be convinced about the urgency of climate change. If we are to keep within a temperature increase of 2°C, the UK needs to make cuts in its carbon emissions of 80-90% by 2050. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Research argues this case with great force and clarity.
These targets need to include emissions from all sources. Yet the Draft Climate Change Bill, the Government's flagship policy that proposes to set a legally-binding cap on our carbon emissions, excludes the fastest-growing source of all – international aviation. Emissions from aircraft are on course to take up our entire ‘safe’ carbon budget by 2050, and that’s before you account for the other climate impacts of aviation such as the effects of other exhaust gases at altitude, which make matters between 2 and 4 times worse.
Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:53 pm Post subject: Re: Carbon emission targets DON'T include Aviation
according to the ice core records ..
the change in CO2 lags about 800 years behind the change in temperature. Correlation does not prove causality !
Ever feel like you've been had ?
You can stop freaking out about the CO2 you breath out. The reason the politicians are pushing the man made CO2 garbage is because they want to setup a world government. Their solution is a global carbon tax.
Joined: May 22, 2004 Posts: 1428 Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:09 am Post subject: Re: Carbon emission targets DON'T include Aviation
dukey, I suggest you go to Realclimate.org and learn a bit more about the subject. The currnet state of climate science is currently the best explanation for our observations, the one you mention included.
To be brief, prehistoric climate changes were not caused by humans burning fossil fuels. In past global warming episodes the warming was caused by some factor (such as the sun) and then the CO2 positive feed back loop amplified the global warming. _________________ Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:20 am Post subject: Re: Carbon emission targets DON'T include Aviation
nero wrote:
dukey, In past global warming episodes the warming was caused by some factor (such as the sun).
So the sun does not drive climate change anymore ? Because right now solar output is higher than it's been for centuries.
According to NASA, mars and the other planets are heating up too.
Quote:
Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.
Joined: May 22, 2004 Posts: 1428 Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:47 pm Post subject: Re: Carbon emission targets DON'T include Aviation
Dukey, Of course changes in the solar radiation could be a factor in present day climate change. Fortunately there are some easy experiments to test this hypothesis. For this hypothesis to be valid we would need an increasing trend in solar radiation since 1980 to explain the increase in temperature in the past three decades. We happen to have direct satellite observations going back that far, and there isn't the required observable trend. Solar Variation wiki
I suppose you could suggest that there is a significant lag effect and that there was an increase in solar radiation before satellite records began that is only now causing the temperature to increase. If that is the case, your hypothesis must include the mechanism that causes this lag. Any suggestions?
With reference to mars I'll point you to RealClimate again for a summary of the state of knowledge about this:
Real Climate Again since we now directly measure solar radiation, this is all a moot point. _________________ Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
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
... 
