1000 Miles On two Tanks (Average Speed 71 MPH)

[FocusBoy58]

Originally Posted by breakspirit

Firstly, no one flies every single day. They drive 90% of the time at least. Second, JadeRaven made the claim that a person flying a jet one time creates more pollution than a person using a car for the entire lifespan of a car. I showed that this is nowhere near true and is definitely hyperbole. Did you not even click the article and read the first couple of sentences before posting? C'mon, man, use your head.

As you posted this over 500 airliners landed after a 4+ hour flight. Also yes it very much is true coming from my background in aerospace in pratt and Whitney our concerns are effiency not clean burning.

But what do I know I haven't made jet engines and turbo fans for the 6 past years.

No car I say car not anything else no car like ours will ever in its life produce enough emissions to trump a plane flying for more then 4 hours.

*sigh* maybe I need to start using the mobile app this atrix is fast but slows down so much when typing...

[breakspirit]

Originally Posted by FocusBoy58

As you posted this over 500 airliners landed after a 4+ hour flight. Also yes it very much is true coming from my background in aerospace in pratt and Whitney our concerns are effiency not clean burning.

But what do I know I haven't made jet engines and turbo fans for the 6 past years.

No car I say car not anything else no car like ours will ever in its life produce enough emissions to trump a plane flying for more then 4 hours.

*sigh* maybe I need to start using the mobile app this atrix is fast but slows down so much when typing...

You aren't understanding the argument here. I'm not saying that a car in its lifetime does not create more pollution than some jet flying x number of hours. Of course a gigantic jet carrying hundreds of people is going to use enormous amounts of fuel. I'm saying that PER OCCUPANT, the pollution difference is not all that strikingly different. Yes, it is several times more pollution per occupant than a fully occupied car, but it isn't hundreds or thousands of times more as JadeRaven claimed. Here's the juicy bit:

"...driving would generate about 104 kilograms of carbon dioxide (CO2)—a leading greenhouse gas—per typical medium-sized car, regardless of the number of passengers, while flying on a commercial jet would produce some 184 kilograms of CO2 per passenger. "

If you were an engineer at your aerospace company, this would all make perfect sense to you and you wouldn't need it explained. If you were the janitor, then I'll explain it better if you need me to.

[kelscar]

Originally Posted by breakspirit

Firstly, no one flies every single day. They drive 90% of the time at least. Second, JadeRaven made the claim that a person flying a jet one time creates more pollution than a person using a car for the entire lifespan of a car. I showed that this is nowhere near true and is definitely hyperbole. Did you not even click the article and read the first couple of sentences before posting? C'mon, man, use your head.

Yeah, I did. First paragraph quoted from the article you linked:

The simple answer is that driving in a relatively fuel-efficient car (25-30 miles per gallon) usually generates fewer greenhouse-gas emissions than flying. In assessing the global warming impact of a trip from Philadelphia to Boston (about 300 miles), the environmental news website Grist.org calculates that driving would generate about 104 kilograms of carbon dioxide (CO2)—a leading greenhouse gas—per typical medium-sized car, regardless of the number of passengers, while flying on a commercial jet would produce some 184 kilograms of CO2 per passenger.

Jaderaven's claim might be exaggerated but you missed the whole point. True stewards lead by example. The rest are no different than hair-slicked evangelists..all about the money and popularity.

[breakspirit]

Originally Posted by kelscar

Yeah, I did. First paragraph quoted from the article you linked:



Jaderaven's claim might be exaggerated but you missed the whole point. True stewards lead by example. The rest are no different than hair-slicked evangelists..all about the money and popularity.

So you're saying that a person concerned about the environment should NEVER EVER fly? What exactly do you think people should do then? Drive everywhere, even thousands of miles away?

[dan50]

As is not too uncommon, the discussion has veered a bit. I think the original reference to Nancy Pelosi was her preaching the gospel of global warming, etc. while flying more-or-less by herself in a jet aircraft, as apparently was her privilege as Speaker of the House. It's hard to argue this is not hypocritical, but it is also not typical of the population at large.

While modern aircraft are exceptionally efficient, I think it's true that an economical car, especially one with more than a single passenger, is more efficient on a fuel/passenger mile basis.

[breakspirit]

Originally Posted by dan50

As is not too uncommon, the discussion has veered a bit. I think the original reference to Nancy Pelosi was her preaching the gospel of global warming, etc. while flying more-or-less by herself in a jet aircraft, as apparently was her privilege as Speaker of the House. It's hard to argue this is not hypocritical, but it is also not typical of the population at large.

While modern aircraft are exceptionally efficient, I think it's true that an economical car, especially one with more than a single passenger, is more efficient on a fuel/passenger mile basis.

Agreed on all accounts.

[thejsx]

Originally Posted by FocusBoy58

...
Mods: 2.0 Duratec Obx Headers (Yes they fit...) with Custom 2.5" Flex Pipe (No Catalytic Converter) 2.5" Borla Exhaust. Removed K&N CAI (the one ive been testing) for stock Box and K&N Drop in. H&R 1.5" Lowering springs. Gapped Spark Plugs .060 instead of .044.
...

On a more interesting note than all the environment debate, so you're telling that prior years headers will fit 2012 engine? Any mod to them or fairly bolt-on?

Don't know much about focus yet, used to mod crown vics :P

[darkangelism]

did you have to do modding to get the headers to fit?

[LoganK]

Originally Posted by dan50

As is not too uncommon, the discussion has veered a bit. I think the original reference to Nancy Pelosi was her preaching the gospel of global warming, etc. while flying more-or-less by herself in a jet aircraft, as apparently was her privilege as Speaker of the House. It's hard to argue this is not hypocritical, but it is also not typical of the population at large.

I know I shouldn't jump into a political discussion, particularly with facts, but...

The Speaker of the House used to fly commercial until George Bush ordered that, as second in line to the President, they be required to fly in military aircraft when traveling on business (not that it matters, but Republic Dennis Hastor was Speaker at the time). When Pelosi took office, she happened to be from a district further away, but she also used the aircraft less frequently than her predecessor. Also, it was still a military flight and would be used for transport of other people and equipment. (All political and personal travel was still commercial.)

John Boehner was successfully able to convince the White House that the security concerns are not as great as previously assumed and the Speaker now flies commercial.

I do not know if actual studies have demonstrated that the loss of efficiency from a catalytic converter offsets the cleaner exhaust, but I am fairly certain that it exists to help with smog, not global warming.

[Richs10]

LoganK

Thanks for that post. Once you posted, I remembered when that happened. Sometimes the facts are so inconvenient to one's political argument.

And if anyone doubts we had serious smog problems in the 60's and 70's, just Google "Los Angeles Smog in 1970's". How soon we forget.

Rich