What is Digg?Sponsored by Bing
Attack Of The Rhinovirus! view!
bing.com - Surprising advice for staying cold-free when everyone around you is sniffling & wheezing.
74 Comments
- trghpy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+28from wiki...
Fuel capacity of 126,903 Liters, we'll round down to 100,000 for simplicity sake...
Density of jet fuel aprox: 0.775 kg/L
JP fuel is 86% saturated carbons, we'll ignore the other 14% for simplicity sake...
Carbon in saturated carbons makes up aprox 40%
ok... now for the math...
100,000 liters * .775 Kg/L * .86 (saturated carbons) * .4 (carbons in saturated carbons) * 2.204 (convert to pounds) / 2000 (convert to tons) = 29.3 tons of carbon.
And all those numbers where "safe estimates"
So yes, the engines are easily spewing about 4 tons an hour on take off and getting to altitude, and probably about a ton an hour during standard cruse speeds.
*sigh* i miss chemistry... - trghpy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+21I sure hope those seats are more comfortable than they look.
I sure wish LazyBoy designed airplane seats instead of going with conventional ikea like designs.. - diggsuxxxx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12i hope there's a "making of" documentary for this plane, just like the 5 parts "making of" for the Airbus A380.
- strictnein, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Alright! Another excuse for a Boeing versus Airbus flame war!
- HappyScrappy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I don't mean to be a jerk, and I'm a HUGE 787 fan...
But the 787 was designed to save the airlines money (fuel money mostly, maintenance 2nd). The fact that this turns out to be environmentally better is just a happy coincidence. - LaughingMan11, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Typically, the seats you see in concept photography from Boeing or Airbus are not the ones that you'll see an airline like United use. Boeing sells an empty plane to the airline, and it's up to the airlines to add the seats. You'll probably be stuck with the same sardine-like Economy seat from the 777s that fly today.
- matdwyer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8I was talking to someone from Air Canada today, and they mentioned this and how it is going to change the industry. Time to put stocks in Boeing? possibly.
As far as those pictures go, my guess would be that when the airlines buy the planes, they will fit 1-2 more seats in the economy section, per row, and opt out of the extra "styling". - ToadLeg, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7To summarize: Jetliners like the 787 are HUGE. Although they are efficient, they need to use enough energy to lift 500,000 pounds IN THE AIR.
ps: I love your calculations trghpy - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6the a380 was a terrible investment, and the number of orders for dreamliners vs. A380s shows it. nobody can fill an aircraft with the number of people airbus is trying to stuff on that thing. what airlines need is a more efficient mid size aircraft to help cut costs and get back in the black.
- jasdf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I'll use some very rough numbers here...
We will say that the plane burns 18,000lbs of fuel per hour (2,600gph) and can fly at 500KTAS (575MPH) and can carry 300 people. That would be 175,000 seat-miles per hour, dividing that by 2600 gallons = 66 seat miles per gallon. Multiplying 66 by 4 (to equal the Prius) comes out to 265 which means that the Prius would have to do 265MPG with 4 occupants to equal the same fuel economy as the 787...Check my math(please).
This is based on really rough estimates, I have no idea what kind of fuel burn those genx engines get at cruse. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9another reason why environmentalists are idiots - on a full plane, the emissions per person is far less than that of a car. and you get there 10x faster. the dreamliner improves fuel economy further - not for the benefit of dumbass treehuggers, but so that our struggling airlines can pay for it.
Let's all buy hybrids, too, lead acid batteries are environmentally friendly! - trghpy, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8prototype?
This is the 21 century, prototypes exist only in the computer. - edebolt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4maybe someone can do the math but a modern airplane gets better mileage per person per mile than a Prius. Of course if you have 4 people stuffed into one of those Prius then better per person per mile.
- K3ITHK, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I loved that documentary, btw.
- Scruffydan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6also remember that fuel efficiency is a double edged sword. A more fuel efficient aircraft is cheaper to operate, thus plane tickets will probably drop,and as prices drop more people will travel by air.
I am not against efficiency though, but this wont solve the problem - mcmlxxii, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I think you'll find it's the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that environmentalists are concerned about, not the thick mass of carbon between your ears
- mcmlxxii, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3We're not talking fission here, whatever carbon you put in does indeed come out. Hydrocarbon + oxygen in one end, water + CO2 out the other + a lesser bunch of other crap depending on fuel quality / complete/incomplete combustion etc.
- yfph, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Umm, suicide won't make the resulting lifeless carbon clump go away. If we jettison those towards the sun, now you're talking!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The rollout of the 787 is today (7/8/07) at the Everett, WA factory. The aircraft won't be flyable (and in fact will have 1,000 temporary fasteners), but the airframe and engines will be intact and assembled. There should be pictures of the event later today on http://aeronode.com.
- kelpdip, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I wonder if you were to work that out for carbon emissions per person, would it be more or less than travel by boat or bus. I would assume rail travel is more efficient though.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I'm going to burn two tires for this one.
Buried as moronic and apologetic to morons. - aussieNickuss, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2BTW...Thats 26.5 Metric tons of Carbon. (or 26,500 kilograms)
- mriegger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Which hybrids use lead-acid? I've read that they are all nickel metal hydride.
- jacknorthstar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You suck. Lines rule! Planes are just lines with an extra added-on dimension.
- Hangender, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Man those images look like it was taken from Flight Simulator X
- grumpyrain, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3> maybe someone can do the math but a modern airplane gets better mileage per person per mile than a Prius.
A 747-400 drinks about 16.1L/km (avg consumption for 416 passengers). That is 0.0387 L/km per passenger. The reported improvement of 30% on economy coupled with the additional seating capacity may make this a lot better. A modern Prius drinks 0.0523 L/km (highway, and lets give them the benefit of the doubt and say this is 4 passengers). That is 0.0131 L/km per passenger.
So on simple math in your scenario, the prius wins (but by surprisingly little). But don't forget that planes can fly direct, where cars need to follow the road up and down hills and wind left and right eating into any advantage it has, get stuck in holiday traffic, etc. - traybucket, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22005 called. They want their investment idea back.
But you are right - airlines will want to pack as many passengers on the plane as possible. Everyone complains about the size of airline seats, but no one, me included, seems willing to pay extra for comfort. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Nothing to flame about. Airbus gambled on a HUGE airplane, and will most likely lose in the passenger market. Boeing gambled on the mid-size airplane and will probably win. I think the A380 will make a GREAT cargo aircraft, but not a passenger aircraft.
- LaughingMan11, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3This has been covered many times. Even though carbon is the basis of all life on Earth, it has certain properties that affect global climate change. What we as human beings are doing is effectively changing the distribution of carbon on this planet from sequestered in the interior of the Earth to into the atmosphere. We are gradually making the Earth much like it was in the age of Dinosaurs, which will not be as hospitable as the last few thousands years have been for mankind and our civilization.
Our existence on this planet depends on equilibrium and balance of the environment, carbon included. To think that all carbon everywhere is the same because we are carbon based lifeforms is foolish. - gwizyo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I have worked on the engine for the plane. Its called the GEnx. It is not made by Boeing, GE makes them. I think Rollys Royce makes a competing engine too. The emissions are reduced by improving the fuel air mixture in the combuster of the aircraft engine. Also noise is a big deal. Ive personally heard this engine numerous times go from "idle" power to "max" power. When its on idle you cant even tell that its on. So when ur sitting inside this plane, while the plane is taxi-ing on the runway or sitting still, it will be noticeably quiter than any other plane youve sat in.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2As you may have seen from the Daily Mail article yesterday, air travel is under heavy attack in Europe right now for environmental reasons.
- thingylab, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4This sounds a lot like Boeing PR to me.
First of all, aviation accounts for a tiny percentage of CO2 emissions. If progress is to be made, it is from coal-fired power plants. Aviation will probably account for a bigger share of emissions in the long run, but I think it should not be a main area of concern, except when it comes to PR, because some people try to make us guilty of flying.
Second, low emissions is probably more of a side-effect of low fuel consumption than a goal in itself. Carriers are keen on keeping their fares low in a highly competitive market, and that means fuel-efficient aircrafts. If boeing and airbus don't listen to that, they just won't sell so much aircrafts. - geminitojanus, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4First of all, it's only part of the solution. Every new plane that's more efficient than the last is an improvement.
Secondly, I call total *****. These companies are not in a position to lower prices, they're already hurting big time from the cut throat competition and the "resistance to fly" that has been built into the American psyche after 9/11. The reason they're buying these planes in the hundreds is because they can keep operating at current ticket rates while saving money on gas, increasing profitability (and in some cases, bringing their companies back into the black). The 787 is a drop in replacement to routes that would currently use 757s and 767s, trans-continental flights that are enormous fuel hogs. These new planes will cut 10,000 gallons of fuel from the planes while traveling the same routes and carrying more people (and being able to fly much, much longer routes if the airline needs it to do so). It's a win any way you look at it.
So yes, this is a huge step towards "solving the problem." - elhutcho, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Airline companies don't replace their whole fleet with a new plane when it comes out. Whoever buys these will have them mixed in with the whole lot. They aren't going to jack up ticket price when one of these plans happens to be the one flying you to your destination. No need to be so arrogantly pessimistic about this issue.
- flintmich, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The "fuel efficiency" argument is kinda nutty. Boeing has to cart the parts for these planes all the way from Japan and Italy on gas guzzling 747s to Seattle (Everett, WA). That's like having Hummers deliver the parts for hybrid or electric cars!
The airlines will save some $ because the 787 burns less fuel, while we choke on the heat and CO2 gas these things generate just to get built. Ask someone in Tuscon or Vegas how they feel about the weather right now. - figurearts, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3The bogus equation takes a percentage of the "saturated carbons" as if they are all 100% carbon in the first place, whereas only 1 atom of a complex linkage of atoms in each molecule may be carbon, or so. Carbon dioxide can only form around the single carbon atoms that combine with oxygen, what happens to all the other atoms in the "saturated carbons"? Atoms recombine into new molecules or stray atoms, etc, during this process known as "burning".
- Archimboldo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think you have it wrong. You used (MPG) * people = 66 seat miles per gallon for the plane, but then you took (plane MPG) * people * people and compared it with (car MPG), i.e. effectively comparing (plane MPG) * people with (car MPG) / people.
In reality. A Prius getting 16.5 MPG with 4 passengers would compare favorably with a plane with 300 passengers. - davenaff, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Actually, planes perform poorly when you consider that most cars have full families in them for long distance travel:
http://www.naffziger.net/blog/2007/07/03/driving-a-hummer-is-more-carbon-efficient-than-taking-a-flight/ - modemlooper, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1god shoot down the environmentalist! Nobody can do everything to prevent harm to the environment. We need to just help in as many ways as we can. Buy from local street markets over big chains that haul your cheetos from across the planet. The gas alone on those rigs is frightening.
- Mejogid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What? You think they go into full production based only on a computer simulation? I can't think of a single project of that size that hasn't had a physical prototype built.
- jahoBin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I intern at the company that writes the software for the A380 and the 787. It's pretty cool getting to see things/work on things throughout production.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Aviation accounts for 12% of carbon emissions (http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/18842/ ). That's far less than autos and powerplants, but it's still significant. Also, turbines are generally more efficient than reciprocating engines at higher altitudes, but less efficient at lower (less than 10,000') altitudes. It also depends on the throttle setting, whether it's a supercharged piston etc. But a car with a turbine would most definitely be less efficient (the M1A2 uses a turbine for power, not mileage). You can't really say turbines are "the most efficient," there are too many factors in play to compare them. They have different purposes.
- colifis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Boeing has hung the 787 Rolls engine off a 747 for testing
Pic: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1232203/M/ - nobogeys217, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This looks really cool. Hopefully they make economy seats bigger.
- bc181700, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I work on development for the GEnX engine program... once the engine and airframe get some flight time, I believe that a lot of nay-sayers will be impressed by the positive achivements made by both GE and Boeing in eco-imagination and cost savings. It's just a win-win for most people involved. Happy digging.
- Patrickdnj, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0First of all, the "big plane prototype" is called an Airbus A380, and it's not a prototype anyway, it has already been made.
- jasdf, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Yes, they are efficient, but they are also HUGE. For the amount of work that they are doing they are much more environmental friendly than the ICE in your care per seat mile.
- dankers, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1You sound like you are very mad.
Anyways there were only a couple incidents and lets not try to exaggerate the problem. - aramid00, on 10/26/2007, -0/+0i work for a boeing subcontractor and the discovery channel was there filming the other day so the docu is in the works!
- figurearts, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3The carbon atoms in the "saturated carbons" are but one component in complex, organic molecules. After the violent oxidation process known as "burning", how many of these carbon atoms are exhausted into the atomosphere? This "burning" process breaks apart these molecules into other substances; what are these substances? Something here does not add up, besides the idea that carbon itself is a "pollutant".
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is