Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming. (Read 4833 times) previous topic - next topic

A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.

Reply #30 –
Quote
Should we also try to clean up aircraft pollution (not very practical if you think about how a turbine operates),


The engines on the newest variant of the Boeing 747 are said to be 25% more fuel efficient than the ones on the first models...But as your reference shows that may not necessarily be a good thing.
-- 05 Mustang GT-Whipplecharged !!
--87 5.0 Trick Flow Heads & Intake - Custom Cam - Many other goodies...3100Lbs...Low12's!

A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.

Reply #31 –
Quote from: V8Demon;210163
80,000 or more pounds of gas for ONE transatlantic flight....Sometimes more depending on the aircraft type and cargo.
6.8 pounds to a gallon of aviation fuel.  The car industry has MANY more emission regulations.  Interesting isn't it?
A 747-400 has a range of 7260 nmi (8355 mi) with a fuel load of 57285 gallons. This comes to 0.1458 mpg. Seating capacity for a 2-class arrangement is 524 passengers, giving a mpg-person of 76. Seating capacity for a 3-class arrangement is 416, resulting in a mpg-person of 61.

A 30mpg station wagon with 4 people riding in it would get 120 mpg-person (30*4). A 50 mpg Prius with only a driver would get 50 mpg-person.

One can see how jetliners (at least full ones) don't do so bad wrt mpg-person. Especially considering they travel 10 times faster than automobiles and you can drink on them.

More examples:
Cessna 152  - 14.8 mpg (29.6 mpg-person)
Cessna 172 - 12.6 mpg (50.4 mpg-person)
747-100 - .1094 mpg (49 mpg-person)
737-100 - .4527 mpg (54 mpg-person)
737-500 - .5102 mpg (67 mpg-person)



The newer, more fuel efficient engines run leaner, thus generating more NOx. They don't have the benefit of catalytic converters.

A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.

Reply #32 –
you all are consistant in over compliating simple shiznit.

Take off only.
Aircraft type was stated-747

the smoke out the tail end is as black as a coal fired plant

forget all about that mile per person .

so,,,,,,,,,, lemme ask it again.

How many cars would it take to equal the pollution of one 747 take off only?

A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.

Reply #33 –
When a 747 takes off, it has to land.  That means it has to travel a distance in between.  Unlike a car a 747 isn't taken out for a smoky burnout or two only to be put away till the next sunny day.  I gave you the answer to what I knew as personal experience and Jeremy expanded upon that. 

As to you specific question I don't know.  Sorry for overcomplicating the issue.;)
-- 05 Mustang GT-Whipplecharged !!
--87 5.0 Trick Flow Heads & Intake - Custom Cam - Many other goodies...3100Lbs...Low12's!

A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.

Reply #34 –
...and I posted the average passenger miles per gallon for air travel compared to other forms of transportation - which would seem to be a significant number if we are talking the real world - doh - thanks for mentioning that! (not)

I also posted what air-travel contributes to overall transportation generated emmisions that can/may contribute to warming - which includes automobiles and all other transportation emmisions (trains, busses etc...). What else do you need to know?

Quote
"Flying creates 13 percent of transportation-generated carbon dioxide worldwide, accounting for 3.5 percent of all global warming emissions.
11.96 @ 118 MPH old 306 KB; 428W coming soon.

A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.

Reply #35 –
Quote from: jcassity
How many cars would it take to equal the pollution of one 747 take off only?

I didn't actually read the article but googled and found...
http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/acro_poltn.html
Quote
One two minute 747 take-off is equal to operating over two-million lawnmowers for 20 minutes. That is two states' worth of lawnmowers (Nitrogen oxides, Carbon monoxides, Hydrocarbons).

One DC-10 takeoff's pollution is equal to 21,530 cars.

A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.

Reply #36 –
Ok
Answer-
IT will take 2,400,000 pistons in operation for two min to equal one 747 take off of two min.
747 pollution range covers aboiut a 12-20 mile area during take off with pollution particles less than 1 micron (no filter available to date)
1 car's pollution covers about 60ft while driving with pollution particles greater than 40-150 microns, (filterable)

that means.............

there has to be 400,000 6cyl (average) vehicles running for a two min period to equal one 747 take off.

There are about 240,000,000 cars in the US (including those not sold yet at dealerships).,,or,,, 1,440,000,000 pistons in the US (including those cars not driven that day)

There are 34,444 US Civil aircraft and 5,778 commercial, total= @ 40,000 aircraft.

________________________
now lest examine the above info and compare it to a real time situaiton.
http://local.google.com/answers/threadview?id=584144

Situation- all take off's in a day of aircraft compared to car pistons in operation world wide.

inventory world wide:
 312,000    Active General Aviation Aircraft
  17,770    Passenger Aircraft
  89,129    Military Aircraft
  26,500    Civil Helicopters
  29,700    Military Helicopters.


Total Passanger aircraft in service=17,770 world wide

To be reasonable, lets assume 75% will execute 4 take off's per day.
Total take offs of about 13,000 x 4= 52,000 take offs per day world wide.

52,000 aircraft take offs per day
so.......
1 take off equals 400,000 6cyl cars in a two min time frame
400,000 x 52,000 =  20,800,000,000

SO,, it takes 20.8billion cars running at the same time for two min to equal all the worlds short 2min take off of  the worlds passanger aircraft.

Remember, this does not include all the time spent in flight, just take off time.





But,, according to the FAA in the following link, cars are the bad guy.  My thoughts are that the goverment is and always will need to be biased for the best interest of thier pockets.  The only thing remaining to blame is the consumer,, ie-since we do not have any lobyists.  I suppose it would be pointless to reasearch the below source to find out where they got thier data,,(:hick: I did and found that it was much more cost effective to illustrate small airports such as Roanoke va , lewisburg wv and tiny towns across the land). The results were a garranteed win for the report. 
Lewisburg WV btw has three flights a day,turbo prop only.

perhaps the chart on page 7 should be adjusted to something more realistic.  I think my numbers are way too under inflated but to say aviation represents only 0.4% tells you one thing,, the goverment knows the public is stupid.
  http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/media/aeprimer.pdf
 

A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.

Reply #37 –
Quote from: Cougar5.0;210308
...and I posted the average passenger miles per gallon for air travel compared to other forms of transportation - which would seem to be a significant number if we are talking the real world - doh - thanks for mentioning that! (not)

I had made a longer post up, but lost it to a power outtage.

That chart's numbers are about as real as Barney the Dinosaur.
Here's a link to a source page. [Link]
I'll use the automobile as an example.
2.3 is listed as the average # of passengers per car.
A link in his page shows the average was 1.63 in 2005. Also the average mpg was ~21 in 2005. One must derate it by ~10%, as the EPA has done because the original EPA sticker numbers are too high when compared to real-world mpg.  So 1.63*21*.9= 30.8 mpg-person. A difference of 112% from the number in the table. Very real, don't you think? :rolleyes:


Quote
I also posted what air-travel contributes to overall transportation generated emmisions that can/may contribute to warming - which includes automobiles and all other transportation emmisions (trains, busses etc...). What else do you need to know?

If you keep posting up stinknugget charts as you have, nothing. :D

In all seriousness, photobucket is blocked at work so I didn't see your original chart. As such, I wasn't trying to contradict your numbers because I didn't see any in the first place. I was simply trying to give a general idea of the upper bounds of flight mpg-person figures. That being said, IMO - those chart's numbers are worthless and no conclusions should be drawn from them.

A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.

Reply #38 –
Whatever - I'm done with this post. Every person has their own "correct" sources and everybody is mostly ignoring the other person and talking past them in order to make their own pet point. I knew this thread would be pointless to begin with and haven't put a lot of effort into it as it is clear that no person here is going to listen to another and nobody will change their basic beliefs which are shaped more by a person's personal beliefs and prejudices. This issue is way too complex to be discussing here anyway. Suffice it to say that we all seem to agree on 3 things 1) Global warming is a real phenomenon at this time though there is little agreement as to it's cause(s) 2) pollution is bad for people. 3) airplanes make a lot of pollution but nobody seems to acknowledge it's contribution to global greenhouse gas production (should we talk about coal fired plants next?). Anyway, it's time to move on before we start bickering like little girls.
11.96 @ 118 MPH old 306 KB; 428W coming soon.

A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.

Reply #39 –
no, your fine man and it was your sources that trigged my research on where the FAA cam up with thier sources.
i am not debating with you or anyone,, i was just curious of the take off only pollution.  I think the FAA link page 7 i posted is wayyyyyyyyyy wrong.

I just have a gut feeling without charts and soiurces that tell me aircraft should be near the top producer of pollution.

seriously though, are there really 20.8billion cars in the world and running at once to equal all the worlds 747 take offs per day?
(this excludeds aircraft flight time)

It was ironic this topic came up as my oldest son is in need of a subject to research for home school science and this subject came up,,then i find a topic about it here.
I would like to see someone elses view to shoot down what i have found because no one is perfect.  Besides, , the subject is a little gray as no real hard core research has been done on this matter that i can see.

A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.

Reply #40 –
Quote from: Cougar5.0;210353
Whatever - I'm done with this post. Every person has their own "correct" sources and everybody is mostly ignoring the other person and talking past them in order to make their own pet point.

I'm not saying what I have sourced is the be-all end-all. But the chart you posted is incorrect and cannot be used to compare automobile/airplane fuel efficiencies. One must have at least resonably correct data before one can interpreit it.

The quote saying "Flying creates 13 percent of transportation-generated carbon dioxide worldwide" is somewhat vague. However, if one assumes that the world statistics are buttstuffogous to the US (probably a bad assumption), then you can find that flying CO2 generation is out of line with total passenger-miles traveled. 2003 statistics show that flying attritubed to only 9.57% of total passenger-miles traveled. Still, the contribution from autos isn't given, so a comparison cannot be made. 15% is not minute, but still much smaller than the auto's contribution. It is easier to legislate a change where the same work will give 5X (just a guess) more results.

Quote
This issue is way too complex to be discussing here anyway.

Global warming in general is a very complex matter, but comparing the relative badness of flying vs. driving isn't if one takes the time to find the correct data to draw conclusions from.

A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.

Reply #41 –
Quote from: jcassity
I just have a gut feeling without charts and soiurces that tell me aircraft should be near the top producer of pollution.

seriously though, are there really 20.8billion cars in the world and running at once to equal all the worlds 747 take offs per day?
(this excludeds aircraft flight time)

 I don't believe anyone who has posted concerning this is in disagreement on that.

Quote from: JeremyB
A 747-400 has a range of 7260 nmi (8355 mi) with a fuel load of 57285 gallons. This comes to 0.1458 mpg. Seating capacity for a 2-class arrangement is 524 passengers, giving a mpg-person of 76. Seating capacity for a 3-class arrangement is 416, resulting in a mpg-person of 61.

Those #'s assume that every time a 747 takes off in that arrangement (class-2 or class-3) that it is in fact full.  I believe you elluded to that already though.  The last time I was on a plane was 2 years ago.  It was an MD-80.  There were 12 passengers on board...


Quote from: Cougar5.0
...and I posted the average passenger miles per gallon for air travel compared to other forms of transportation - which would seem to be a significant number if we are talking the real world - doh - thanks for mentioning that! (not)

My apologies.:sorry:

Quote from: Cougar5.0
Suffice it to say that we all seem to agree on 3 things 1) Global warming is a real phenomenon at this time though there is little agreement as to it's cause(s) 2) pollution is bad for people. 3) airplanes make a lot of pollution but nobody seems to acknowledge it's contribution to global greenhouse gas production

Pretty much hit the nail on the head.:burnout:
-- 05 Mustang GT-Whipplecharged !!
--87 5.0 Trick Flow Heads & Intake - Custom Cam - Many other goodies...3100Lbs...Low12's!

A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.

Reply #42 –
Quote from: JeremyB;210483
I'm not saying what I have sourced is the be-all end-all. But the chart you posted is incorrect and cannot be used to compare automobile/airplane fuel efficiencies. One must have at least resonably correct data before one can interpreit it.

The quote saying "Flying creates 13 percent of transportation-generated carbon dioxide worldwide" is somewhat vague. However, if one assumes that the world statistics are buttstuffogous to the US (probably a bad assumption), then you can find that flying CO2 generation is out of line with total passenger-miles traveled. 2003 statistics show that flying attritubed to only 9.57% of total passenger-miles traveled. Still, the contribution from autos isn't given, so a comparison cannot be made. 15% is not minute, but still much smaller than the auto's contribution. It is easier to legislate a change where the same work will give 5X (just a guess) more results.


Global warming in general is a very complex matter, but comparing the relative badness of flying vs. driving isn't if one takes the time to find the correct data to draw conclusions from.


jeremy,
you did this to yourself:D
I have a very finite and pointed question with plenty enough supplied information to come to one and only one end result.  This whole "miles per person" senerio is for the birds as it makes no contribution to any part of the original question.

I run into this all the time,, just last week someone tossing in extra assumptions costed my project an additional 40grand across two days in fines.  :hick:

the topic is very interesting and needs awareness though.

A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.

Reply #43 –
Quote from: jcassity;210563
jeremy,
you did this to yourself:D
I have a very finite and pointed question with plenty enough supplied information to come to one and only one end result.  This whole "miles per person" senerio is for the birds as it makes no contribution to any part of the original question.
Actually, I wasn't replying to your question.
My reply in post #32 was to Paul's statement in #29. 80,000 gallons is a lot of fuel (a 747's maximum capacity is <60,000 gallons and it can travel >8300 miles [2+ Atlantic crossing] on that amount) but it transports 100s of people, not 1 or 2. It is going to take more total fuel to move them. A viable metric to compare driving/flying efficiency is energy expenditure (mpg or btu) per passenger. If they were equal, then that means that flying uses the same amount of fossil fuels as a driving. If driving is twice as efficient as flying, then one would have the moral high ground on traveling via car.

Efficiency isn't the most important factor though. Total contribution is. Space travel is incredibly inefficient compared to other modes of transportation, but launches are so rare that its total contribution isn't very large, thus there isn't a large movement to reduce space-transportation related pollution.

 If flying made up 50% of all transportation related pollution, then it would be clear to say that the gov't needs to fix the problem with a quickness. If flying made up 1% of all transportation related pollution, then it would be prudent to focus on the largest polluter.

The Sierra Club was quoted saying flying generated 15% of transportation related CO2 in 2003
The FAA (using EPA data) said aviation generated ~10% of transportation related greenhouse gases in 2001.
Data from the EPA also says that on-road vehicles generated ~7.7 times a much greenhouse gases as aviation.
[source, pg 10]
Keep in mind the 2001 data was an aberration in aviation's favor due to the decrease in air travel after 9/11.

On-road vehicles generate the majority of transportation related greenhouse gas emissions, and are most harshly regulated. I think this is "fair". To a degree, aviation is self-regulating, at least wrt to efficiency. A fully loaded 747 is 40% fuel. A fully loaded Thunderbird (the car ;))is 3% fuel. Fuel efficiency is far more important to the bottom line of airlines than us, as they burn more of it proportionally. A more extreme example is a launch vehicle. The Delta-IV Heavy is ~89% fuel. A tiny improvement in Isp (engine efficiency) will result in large gains in payload to orbit. Thus rocket engine designers go to great lengths to eek out another 1% of Isp. An even more extreme example concerns interplanetary probes (which I used to buttstuffyze). The entire purpose of a science mission is to do, well, science. On a mission requiring a large amount of propulsion from the spacecraft, the science payload will be a tiny fraction of the spacecraft mass (and the spacecraft is a tiny fraction of the launch vehicle mass). Here, propulsion engineers will go to great lengths and spend millions to improve engine efficiency of the spacecraft by .1%.  The greater the importance propulsion has upon vehicle performance/cost, the greater the designers will seek propulsion efficiency.

A Car Guy's Take on Global Warming.

Reply #44 –
Quote from: 5.0willgo;210326
I didn't actually read the article but googled and found...
http://www.eltoroairport.org/issues/acro_poltn.html
That article is grossly incorrect. I'll use some concrete math to prove it.
My one assumption is that they are calculating and equalizing fuel usage between the two.

A 747-400 with 4 GE CF6-80C2B5F engines  (62100 lbf) puts out a total of 248400 lbf at a TSFC of .34 at takeoff.
2 minutes of takeoff power will consume 2815 lb of fuel.

A 22" Sears side-discharge mower puts out 3.5hp at a BSFC of ~.52.
It would take 4634 mowers to burn 2815 lb of fuel in 20 minutes.
It would take 46391 mowers to burn 2815 lb of fuel in 2 minutes.
It would take 1295 155hp SO 5.0s to burn 2815 lb of fuel in 2 minutes. (.42 BSFC)

The formula for TSFC is lb/hr/lbf.
The formula for BSFC is lb/hr/hp.