Another pointless thread

See, my theory is that this government and their media buddies blame things on "Europe" in order to avoid copping the political flak for stuff that they want to do, but they know we won't like.

Currently resisting the following ebay finds:

An ME SE, some scuffs on the chrome but they're not exactly common and I like the brown leather...

A Pentax-M 100mm macro, cheap by the standards of this lens but with "haze". Unfortunately it's a little bit too expensive by my standards to be worth buying with a view to stripping it and cleaning it!

Flying is one of the most efficient form of travelling so if they use an alternative it would not be good

Though it is only 1/365th of a year's CO2 and naughty stuff, so probably not a huge impact in the grand scheme of things.

I had to stop watching as the tension was to much. Can I take any more of this over the next weeks. I think not

Just wondered what 24 hours worth of non flyings worth of CO2 is. I value Stefan`s thoughts, I guess he might know what comes out of a jet pipe. Only a thought though nothing too serious.

Cedric

Jet engines may be relatively efficient, but they still burn a large amount of fuel and it is released straight into the middle of the atmosphere where there is nothing to absorb any of the exhaust gasses, so aircraft are a major pollution generator.

Anyone else start watching the "debate" tonight only to give the whole thing up as the prospect of watching any more of it was more terrifying than the deficit and the "ash cloud" combined?

Personally I'd rather watch the Icelandic volcano than the politicians. The volcano has yet to make any campaign promises that it won't keep.

Just more hot air and not from the volcano

My new paint is dry now, I watched it drying, it was more entertaining than ITV.

Have there been studies about this?

I also know that tires are quite polluting as well.

Have there been any studies showing planes more fuel efficient than trains, Stefan?

It depends on how you calculate that, per kg cargo, per passenger and is speed important?

Per person, per km, at normal intercity operating speeds?

The received wisdom is that rail travel is less oil-greedy, and I can't see any reason to doubt that moving from long haul holiday flights to more local holiday destinations reached by train or car, and moving from short haul business flights to rail journeys, would reduce energy consumption and emissions quite a bit.

An airplane can't fly efficient at those speeds, they are build to be efficient you talk about these numbers.

747-400 consuming around 2,6 litre of fuel per passenger for 100km depending on many other factors of course at cruise so that's around 900km/h at 1400km.

For trains 0,35 MJ/passenger-km and how fast do they go 140km/h?

Jet fuel kerosene is around 37,6 MJ/l so that multiplied by 2,6 litre and divided by 100km is 0,9776 MJ/passenger-km but he does bring you there 4 times faster but with 2,5 times more fuel.
It depends on what you call efficient.

A car does around 5,5 litre per 100km if you got a good car, that's around 1,914 MJ/km. If you are alone in a car it isn't efficient at all but with 4 persons it becomes reasonable.