All good thoughts. I agree that it's paradoxical that folks would look down their noses at SUVs and at the same time think nothing of commuting from Antioch to Silicon Valley. I don't think that SUVs actually end up having a higher passenger density overall, though. It sounds good, and it's certainly true that lots of soccer moms drive them. But much of the time, the mom is driving alone (groceries, bank, hair salon, Costco...). And of course then there are the Yuppies driving their SUVs the way they were INTENDED to be driven--as a SPORT/UTILITY VEHICLE, which means with low passenger density, and lots of skis, up a mountain for a fairly frivolous activity (not trying to dis the sport, BTW, just pointing out that in our country there is very little call for skill in downhill skiing on a day to day basis.)
Any thoughts on the relative evil of flying solo? How about commercial flights (assume a full plane) vs. solo car trips?
In my previous (now deleted) off the cuff answer, I figured it was worse than driving a car solo, although roughly in the same league. I also guessed it was worse than driving an SUV. Let me take a hypothetical trip to Tahoe for a frivolous activity:
Plane: Piper Warrior (why not? it's one I know about), 115kts, 8.8gph. Here to Tahoe as the crow flies (big factor!): 131.9 nautical miles. Flight time 1hr 8mins, fuel used 10.09 gallons. I think the 8.8 number is high -- I pulled it off a web page of a plane for rent -- but the real number definitely won't be as low as the car, below.
Car: Toyota Corolla, let's say 40MPG pretending the entire route is highway. Here to Tahoe on roads: 234 miles says Yahoo. 5.85 gallons used. Of course we won't get the highway mileage in the small roads up the hills, but I don't know what we WILL get. Maybe we'll use closer to seven or eight gallons than six. Still, the car wins.
SUV: previously mentioned Navigator, 16MPG highway. 14.625 gallons used, plus fudge factor for hill roads. The plane's better than that. Of course, the SUV carries skis better!
Then there are secondary factors such as the increased desire to go skiing if you know you can make it a day trip. ;-)
How about commercial flights (assume a full plane) vs. solo car trips?
Here the trip to Tahoe is an intriguing example, since I'd have to fly to Reno and drive back. This sort of factor occurs frequently with commercial flight. However, I really don't have good data on fuel usage by commercial airliners, nor is the fuel as easily comparable (does it take more crude to make a gallon of Jet-A or to make a gallon of gasoline?). So I can't give a really hard answer. My bet is that the airliner wins, even for shortish hops. If evil is measured purely in burning of fossil fuels, the airliner becomes even better by making trips inconvenient enough that people don't take them. There are lots of places I wouldn't go by airliner, if I didn't have the other options (car or small plane). Sacramento, for example. I just wouldn't bother. That saves fuel right there.
If evil is measured in terms of environmental impact, my gut feel is that airliners become less helpful because they quite simply fail to kill enough humans. Per year, cars are the best at that, far outpacing both general and commercial aviation. But "environmental impact" as a whole is a question far too broad for the application of my meager Google skills! :-)
Speaking of the distance making a difference... do we disdain people who commute by airliner? I've known some. I don't think I had the same reaction as I have had to people who drive SUVs solo around town. Some day I'd like to do the figures for a guy living in Seattle and working in Sunnyvale, renting (say) a Corolla for the local stuff, versus a five- or ten-mile daily commute in an SUV. I'd be interested in how that comes out.
For additional fun numbers, consider rail - the one anecdotal data point is that the turbine that runs the *entire* MBTA subway system is equivalent to one engine of a 727 :)
I've yet to find good numbers on pure-electric cars, or rather, fuel consumption per kWh at the head end. I have been dismayed at how I apparently can't buy one in any case, because they only build enough to meet the CAFE quotas (and I can't quite justify an acpropulsion.com t-zero...) It's also kind of sad the extent to which VW TDI-based cars get better mileage than US-market hybrids, not to mention the mileage some of the european mini-cars get (the Lupo 3L comes to mind.)
727 is a spurious example; the last one flying was just taken off the line not because it was too old to be safe but because it was the least fuel-efficient thing out there.
fuel consumption per kWh at the head end
I too am dismayed at the lack of readily-available data on this sort of thing. I wonder if people believe electricity is clean simply because when it is USED you don't see smoke. I find it easy to believe in economies of scale at the generating plant, but I'd still like to see information.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Equally Evil (unless you count resources to make it in the first place)
Any thoughts on the relative evil of flying solo? How about commercial flights (assume a full plane) vs. solo car trips?
Re: Equally Evil (unless you count resources to make it in the first place)
In my previous (now deleted) off the cuff answer, I figured it was worse than driving a car solo, although roughly in the same league. I also guessed it was worse than driving an SUV. Let me take a hypothetical trip to Tahoe for a frivolous activity:
Plane: Piper Warrior (why not? it's one I know about), 115kts, 8.8gph. Here to Tahoe as the crow flies (big factor!): 131.9 nautical miles. Flight time 1hr 8mins, fuel used 10.09 gallons. I think the 8.8 number is high -- I pulled it off a web page of a plane for rent -- but the real number definitely won't be as low as the car, below.
Car: Toyota Corolla, let's say 40MPG pretending the entire route is highway. Here to Tahoe on roads: 234 miles says Yahoo. 5.85 gallons used. Of course we won't get the highway mileage in the small roads up the hills, but I don't know what we WILL get. Maybe we'll use closer to seven or eight gallons than six. Still, the car wins.
SUV: previously mentioned Navigator, 16MPG highway. 14.625 gallons used, plus fudge factor for hill roads. The plane's better than that. Of course, the SUV carries skis better!
Then there are secondary factors such as the increased desire to go skiing if you know you can make it a day trip. ;-)
Re: Equally Evil (unless you count resources to make it in the first place)
Here the trip to Tahoe is an intriguing example, since I'd have to fly to Reno and drive back. This sort of factor occurs frequently with commercial flight. However, I really don't have good data on fuel usage by commercial airliners, nor is the fuel as easily comparable (does it take more crude to make a gallon of Jet-A or to make a gallon of gasoline?). So I can't give a really hard answer. My bet is that the airliner wins, even for shortish hops. If evil is measured purely in burning of fossil fuels, the airliner becomes even better by making trips inconvenient enough that people don't take them. There are lots of places I wouldn't go by airliner, if I didn't have the other options (car or small plane). Sacramento, for example. I just wouldn't bother. That saves fuel right there.
If evil is measured in terms of environmental impact, my gut feel is that airliners become less helpful because they quite simply fail to kill enough humans. Per year, cars are the best at that, far outpacing both general and commercial aviation. But "environmental impact" as a whole is a question far too broad for the application of my meager Google skills! :-)
Speaking of the distance making a difference... do we disdain people who commute by airliner? I've known some. I don't think I had the same reaction as I have had to people who drive SUVs solo around town. Some day I'd like to do the figures for a guy living in Seattle and working in Sunnyvale, renting (say) a Corolla for the local stuff, versus a five- or ten-mile daily commute in an SUV. I'd be interested in how that comes out.
Re: Equally Evil (unless you count resources to make it in the first place)
I've yet to find good numbers on pure-electric cars, or rather, fuel consumption per kWh at the head end. I have been dismayed at how I apparently can't buy one in any case, because they only build enough to meet the CAFE quotas (and I can't quite justify an acpropulsion.com t-zero...) It's also kind of sad the extent to which VW TDI-based cars get better mileage than US-market hybrids, not to mention the mileage some of the european mini-cars get (the Lupo 3L comes to mind.)
_Mark_
Re: Equally Evil (unless you count resources to make it in the first place)
fuel consumption per kWh at the head end
I too am dismayed at the lack of readily-available data on this sort of thing. I wonder if people believe electricity is clean simply because when it is USED you don't see smoke. I find it easy to believe in economies of scale at the generating plant, but I'd still like to see information.
Re: Equally Evil (unless you count resources to make it in the first place)
...if you use it correctly. Or rather, correctly and without the intent to produce smoke.
I'm sure you've heard about how electronic devices are actually powered by smoke. If you let the smoke out, they don't work anymore :-)