An Airbus A321 consumes less fuel than a Smart ForTwo or Prius

probe

Air France captains of late sometimes provide an environmental report on the flight if they have a moment to spare in the last few minutes before approach.

On a recent flight on an A321, the captain reported that there were 190 people on board and the fuel consumption was 2.95 l/100 km.

A Smart ForTwo has a typical highway consumption of 4.1 l/100 km. The sporty little Smart Brabus sucks in 4.4 l/100km. A Prius would consume 4.2 l/100 km.

The flying distance for the journey in question (CDG>NCE) is 690 km. On the road it is 1,089 km.

Deutsche Bahn provides an “environmental mobility check” option in their timetable at http://reiseauskunft.bahn.de in 9 languages – which shows the energy resource consumption, CO2, and particulate matter (PM10) emissions whether you you decide to use the train, drive or fly the route you have requested timetable info on. In the case of the rail option, these include the power station pollution generating the electricity to power the train on that route.

While one is not suggesting that one should fly rather than drive, in general public transport consumes much less energy than the private car.....


www.airfrance.ie
www.smart.com

astrofool

An A321 will use more than 2.95l/100km, the saving might be in the amount of people that make the journey.

djpbarry

astrofool wrote: »

An A321 will use more than 2.95l/100km, the saving might be in the amount of people that make the journey.

I was thinking that myself; I'm guessing it's 2.95L per km per passenger, probably assuming a full flight.

lostexpectation

mass transit you mean

Cookie_Monster

so if that's per person you can then

A Smart ForTwo has a typical highway consumption of 4.1 l/100 km

/4

=1l/100km

Though on the downside you have to drive a Smart:D

robtri

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so if that's per person you can then

/4

=1l/100km

Though on the downside you have to drive a Smart:D

ROFL

Húrin

probe wrote: »

While one is not suggesting that one should fly rather than drive, in general public transport consumes much less energy than the private car.....

Your figures don't take account of the radiative forcing effect of greenhouse gases emitted at high altitude. The IPCC estimates these to be about 2.7 times the impact of the emissions at ground level.

However, as long as western governments keep pretending to reduce fuel consumption while simultaneously maximising fuel supply, the whole argument is stupid.

Capt'n Midnight

Aeroplanes are the most efficient form of transport over LONG distances

how many people drive 1,000 Km ?

over shorter distances planes are less efficient as so much energy is used to get to crusing altitude. also you have to add in transport costs to / from the airport


It would be interesting to see how the air transport industry would cope if they had to pay the same taxes on fuel on as surface transport.

derry

Húrin wrote: »

Your figures don't take account of the radiative forcing effect of greenhouse gases emitted at high altitude. The IPCC estimates these to be about 2.7 times the impact of the emissions at ground level.

However, as long as western governments keep pretending to reduce fuel consumption while simultaneously maximising fuel supply, the whole argument is stupid.

The radaditive logic is failing.According to black body heat etc the suns rays will not interact with any gas until it hits the ground .Then the suns rays are absorbed by the ground.Then the heat is returned to the sky via infra red.As the infra red starts to go upwards in the first thirty feet most all the heat is trapped by the water vapour .
Water Vapour is sensitive to infra red of most all it spectrum and able to trap a lot of the infra red heat which it realeases to be refleced dwnwarrds to the surface again and this cycle gets repeated several times heat to the ground heat relected back from the ground to the air water traps and cycle repeats
The sections of infra red that are not caught in this section will be trapped at some point at heights less than 10,000 feet. The water vapour in the air or clouds etc which traps most infra red is due to the fact that water vapour traps certian sections of the infra red spetrum that CO2 doesnt trap and the amount of heat that water vapour traps is somewhere between 75% and 95% of all the reflective heat that can be trapped .

As it some remaining 5% to 25% of this infra red that water vapor cant trap it will pass through this section of heat trapping where water vpour is more abundant .CO2 which has a more narrow section of heat trap in the infra red spectrum and will be longer in the process to trap heat as it rises up due to its narrow heat trap window and the fact that there is so little of the trace gas CO2 make CO2 a bit player in thee global warming cyce.
When the infra red that CO2 can trap encounters that type of Infra red it will trap that heat and then realese it back down towards the ground giving the effect called greenhouse effect.

At 250PPM the CO2 gas will have effectivily trapped all the heat that can be trapped at heights estimated to be less than 10,000 feet.

All that happens when there is 380PPM or higher is the same heat will tend be trapped lowwer down as the heat will collide with the CO2 molicules sooner as there is more of them to collide with.However the total sum of heat in the atmosphere remains virutaly the same as the CO2 cant trap more heat than exists in the planet surface being reflected to it in the first place to be trapped.

Assuming that all reflected heat has been trapped at heights below 10,000 feet and aircraft are spewing CO2 at typicaly 35,000 feet it would have effectivly no effect as there would be no suitable infra red heat coming up from below to be trapped at a higher height .

This can be verified in that if the fact the CO2 was the big global warming boggie man they all claimed it was and the CO2 gas worked according to the CO2 forcing Psuedo science then temperature rises would be seen in large temperature rises at high altitudes.However no dectetetable rises in upper temperatures have been detected to date and most surface temperature rises are still suspect due to out right lies and distortion like putting temperature probes in hot locations beside the hot tarmac or similar stunts.

Typical examples of total scientific fraud is to be found from examples like Green peace head admiting on BBC TV HARDTALK PROGRAM they lied and distorted artic temperatures to hype up global warming

Short youtube vidio of the program
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC7bE9jopXE&feature=related
longer vidio part 1 and part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6phCQG25V8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcAajSQQn6E

written info of the Green peaceadmiting it distorted info
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/august2009/082009_fake_data.htm

propagandamatrix wrote:

Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold has been forced to admit that his organization issued misleading and exaggerated information when it claimed that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030, in a crushing blow for the man-made global warming movement.

In an interview with the BBC's Stephen Sackur on the "Hardtalk” program, Leipold initially attempted to evade the question but was ultimately forced to admit that Greenpeace had made a "mistake" when it said Arctic ice would disappear completely in 20 years.

The claim stems from a July 15 Greenpeace press release entitled "Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” in which it is stated that global warming will lead to an ice-free Arctic by 2030.

Sackur accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing "misleading information” based on "exaggeration and alarmism,” pointing out that it was "preposterous" to claim that the Greenland ice sheet, a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle that has survived much warmer periods in history, would completely melt when it had stood firm for hundreds of thousands of years.

"There is no way that ice sheet is going to disappear," said Sackur.

"I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” Leipold was eventually forced to admit.

However, Leipold made no apologies for Greenpeace's tactic of "emotionalizing issues” as a means of trying to get the public to accept its stance on global warming.

He also argued that economic growth in the United States and around the world should be suppressed and that overpopulation and high standards of living should be combated because of the perceived damage they were doing to the environment, eugenicist rhetoric which will be familiar to our readers and anyone who has watched Alex Jones' Endgame documentary.

Now if you want to talk about possible real issues like NO2 at high heights thats another issue but for me all CO2 global warming or AGW be it high or low is up there with Pseudo science and best expressed by a scientist Bellamy when he says CO2 AGW is a HOAX.

ON the issue of the planes in the skies MPG per pasenger seat there are special sites that tell you exactly what a A321 is rated at in liters per hundred kilometers per passenger seat or MPG per passenger seat

The industry standard measure is 80% load factor and when you look the averages for planes that seems reasonableas if a plane doesnt get this ratio they dont make profits eneogh so they either downsize the plane on the route to suit the load factor or dump the route completly.

Cars are rated at I think at 1.3 persons as thats the average amount that is in cars which travel with most cars 1 person and some cars 8 or less persons.
The majority of cars are closer to one person traveling in it.
Yes 4 people in car that that does 25 MPG makes 100 MPG per passenger seat and 5 people would be even better.
Those figures would be better than the new A380 which gets some 90MPG per passenger seat.But using the 1.3 rule the A380 is on average 3 times more fuel effient than the average 25MPG car.

Even the more humble smaller Boeing 737 is coming in at figues of at least 50MPG per passeneger seat but rumors are its closer to 70MPG per passenger seat maybe even more if its the newwer types the Ryan Air flies which suggests that each passenger from Dublin to London Flight would use some $10 or 6 euros of fuel per passenger for the trip.


Compared to trains like TGV which are fast these trains are working out not so good at figures of lot less than 100 MPG passenger meaning planes are not so bad and in some cases even better in MPG


Compared to fast ro ro ferries ships which are fast ships these are working out not so good at figures of lot less than 100 MPG per passenger seat. meaning planes are not so bad and in some cases even better in MPG than these fast ships.

Picking on aircraft which invest large amounts of money to use less fuel so as to carry more paying loads like people or cargo makes no sense.Its like the pot calling the kettle black.

If it is true that NO2 emmissions high up are bad these emmisions can be supressed using cleaner burning bio fuels or other solutions.


Recent reports about slow ships show they burn a fuel closer to tar than fuel basically the dredges of the refinery process and this emmits huge amounts of SO2 .which is a real enviormental problem, not like CO2 .The CO2 AGW story which is best I can figure a smoke screen to divert the enviormental movement away from the real pollutions like burning petrol inside of cities and giving city people Asmha etc

Derry,,,,,,, back with a bang

djpbarry

derry wrote: »

Derry,,,,,,, back with a bang

And you'll be gone again just as quick if you continue to overlook the charter, particularly the part about keeping replies on-topic.

This thread relates to the fuel efficiency of vehicles. Long-winded dismissals of the AGW theory are off-topic for this thread.

10-10-20

Air travel opens the availability of the 'masses' to long distance travel, impractical or impossible through the use of a motor vehicle.
To compare the CO2 output from air-travel to motor travel is only valid in situations where air-travel is a direct replacement to a journey in a motor-car for all passengers on the aircraft!
As this is rarely if ever true, therefore it's in invalid statistic and only serves to muddy the green debate.

Wants <> Needs.