Prius outdone in mpg...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dan-Wolfe @ Mar 20 2007, 11:05 AM) [snapback]409094[/snapback]</div>

Funny - I was actually thinking of posting that movie.... but did not want to bother finding the link (I have the movie on my PC).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(John in LB @ Mar 20 2007, 03:12 PM) [snapback]409097[/snapback]</div>

It's particulary impressive when you know that the guys who produced it did all the visual effects on home computers. Really quite something. And it's a decent short flick!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(John in LB @ Mar 20 2007, 01:55 PM) [snapback]409086[/snapback]</div>

Yes, your point is valid: I ought to worry about the energy embodied in using up the vehicle. I just think that's small relative to the energy in the fuel.

So while your point is right, I think your statement gets the magnitude wrong. Several good life-cycle studies have come to the same conclusion: almost all the energy used by a car is in the fuel, and only a small proportion (10 to 15%) is in the manufactur.

Here's a link to more than anyone would ever want to know about life-cycle energy use of cars, courtesy of Google answers:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=433981


But the point is well-taken. Assuming manufacturing energy was 20% of the total, I ought to cut the Prius MPG estimate by about a quarter to account for the capital consumption (ie, total gallons per mile = 5/4 of gas-in-the-tank gallons per mile). Then, if the plane is going to fly anyway, and if my other data are right, and ignoring the difference between jet fuel and gasoline, and so on., on the margin, it looks like I'd be better off flying than driving.

But either way, to within my tolerance for error, on the margin, I think I'm about indifferent between driving and flying from a C02 release standpoint.

 

Another way too look at the fuel consumption of this monster: one full Prius tank every 10 seconds or less...

 

I think some are too hard on the A380, but some good points made. Wouldn't you like to get that kind of fuel economy at 600mph? B) On the other hand, emissions in the statosphere are more damaging. Also, it needs to be full to realize that kind of economy.

What about the Boeing 787 and it's extensive use of carbon fibre? It has made Boeing the #1 airline manufacture again and they will expand their production as 787 orders have exceeded 500. Can't wait for their carbon fibre successors for the 737 and 747.

 

This certainly turned into a interesting conversation. And about 10,000 feet above my head.





(boo, bad pun, hiss)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(usbseawolf2000 @ Mar 19 2007, 03:44 PM) [snapback]408613[/snapback]</div>

Jet fuel is far below 100 octane: it's basically kerosene. If you put that into an automobile it won't necessarily destroy the engine, but you'll see the white smoke from miles away. Might damage the catalytic converter.

 

planes and cars... sigh.. why don't we have a proper rail system? a bullet train across the U.S. or down California... well.. California has plans for one but i figure they'll never do it unless they are pushed to.

I know planes are semi efficient and all but they still run off the same fuel cars do. An electromagnetic bullet train would help solve our oil addiction.

try competing car and plane technology to that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Mar 20 2007, 11:54 AM) [snapback]409127[/snapback]</div>

Excellent reference - and thanks for correcting my impression of the relative magnitude between energy of making a car versus driving the car. Your assumption that 20% of the energy goes to making it is reasonable.

Did you take into account all of the extra emissions due to all of the Happy Meals the family will have to eat if you drive? (just kidding... )


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(V8Cobrakid @ Mar 20 2007, 03:35 PM) [snapback]409241[/snapback]</div>

I have always thought the bullet train idea for California is a bad idea. My reasons are that it is so politicized that they will have stops everywhere between major cities. So, although the train is going to do 150 MPH... it still has to slow down and stop for 15 min to embark / disembark passengers all along the way. The end result is a trip from LA to SF will still take 6 or 7 hours.

In addition, have you ever tried taking the Amtrak... its a nice idea... but its unreliable as heck.

Bottom line, we all visualize a non-stop train ride between 2 major cities that will just take 2 or 3 hours. The reality is going to be a lot worse than that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(usbseawolf2000 @ Mar 19 2007, 11:42 AM) [snapback]408352[/snapback]</div>

Errr no. Avation gas, more costly yes, but jets run on what's tantamount to diesel oil. Jet fuel is no where near the same fuel tax rate as diesel fuel ... thus less costly. So much so, that on more than one occasion, mafia / organized crime has purchased re-done the books to large quantities of jet fuel, then it's sold as diesel ... pocketing the difference (non-taxed amount) and made a lot of $$$.