[thor]

The flying death trap A380 is a symbol of an industry that has no future in the post peak world. It's a waste of petroleum to put this thing in the air.

[Zardoz]

The flying death trap A380 is a symbol of an industry that has no future in the post peak world.

Exactly. And countless numbers of people who depend upon the tourism industry for their livelihoods also have no future in a post-Peak world.

[whereagles]

I don't think air travel will just evaporate. After all, we can keep producing oil at 10 mbd for a long, long time. That should still be enough to fuel a number of flights, say 15-20% of what we do now.

Of course, it would be bloody expensive and thus only the rich could do it on a regular basis. Others would have to take a long-distance train, or a ship if it's intercontinental.

Besides, wasn't Boeing building a giant flying-wing plane, with capacity for 1000 passengers and twice as much fuel economy as a regular liner? That could help as well.

And then there's the nuclear plane, a project binned in the 60s because of difficulties in controlling radiation, which might perhaps be revived in light of current tech.

[smiley]

The A380 makes sense. Last week I went to Italy, Icould choose between 4 carriers which flew the same route within a 3 hr time interval. That is about 600 people flying to the same destination at approximately the same time. So why not squeeze them in the same plane?

The problem is we have too many independent companies. I suspect that within the next 10 years we will see a lot of mergers and alliances, which paves the way for bigger aircraft. Peakoil will initially only aid that process as it kills the weak and inefficient.

Of course it is ultimately going to have an impact on overall passenger numbers, but it will take more than a few price rises to stop people from flying.

[SolarDave]

It really is unbelievable that we're making things like this when we KNOW we should be trying to stop air travel. And I'm only talking about climate change here, not even going into PO.

"Its' slightly less polluting than the old ones" just deosn't cut it.

On a per passenger mile basis the A380 is more efficient than most passenger cars.

-A

But cars have catalytic converters and jets do not. I do not know for sure what the difference in emissions is, but I suspect a "clean" jet would be a "gross polluter" if it were a car, regardless of the fuel efficiency.

[denverdave]

I think more fuel efficient air travel is a good thing. Jevon's paradox misses the point. We will keep using up oil as fast as we can until it's expensive no matter what. What matters is that when we have shortages and we run up against a wall, having more efficient planes, trains and automobiles will be a godsend. As we go down the other side of the hill we will use trains for overland travel and use the newer aircraft for crossing the oceans while the older aircraft are sold for scrap. Trains are great, but they can't cross the ocean. Ships may be efficient for freight. but for passengers you need a lot more space than an 18" wide seat for that amount of time.

[lorenzo]

It really is unbelievable that we're making things like this when we KNOW we should be trying to stop air travel. And I'm only talking about climate change here, not even going into PO.

"Its' slightly less polluting than the old ones" just deosn't cut it.

On a per passenger mile basis the A380 is more efficient than most passenger cars.

-A

Make that: European passenger cars.

American passenger cars are called tanks. Permanent war requires a tank for each family. The Abrams Family tank is my favorite.

[lotrfan55345]

that is exactly why the money should be going into better faster rail service. Both autos and planes are a stupid waste of precious petroleum

The A380 is designed for use for high-trafficked Asia - North America/ Asia - Europe/ Europe- North America routes, in which rail would be impossible. I agree within the continents, rail SHOULD be the primary route of long-distance transport, not air.

[Rincewind]

Wildwell

Jevon's analysis is based on the assumption that other than the efficiency gains nothin else is changing (i.e. eenrgy prices are not changing only the relative price is changing). Good old ceteris paribus. I am not sure that in a post peak world that this assumption will hold.

On a side note in the early years of air travel the plane would not leave until all the seats were full. The timetable was only a guideline (some may argue it still is). We may see a return to this approach.

Rincewind

[Specop_007]

The miracle of jet air travel is one of the things we'll miss the most, post-Peak.

The travel industry sustains millions worldwide. Many regions depend upon it for their very existence. The end of the jet travel era will result in enormous suffering for vast numbers of people.

I agree, 100%.

[Wildwell]

Wildwell

Jevon's analysis is based on the assumption that other than the efficiency gains nothin else is changing (i.e. eenrgy prices are not changing only the relative price is changing). Good old ceteris paribus. I am not sure that in a post peak world that this assumption will hold.

On a side note in the early years of air travel the plane would not leave until all the seats were full. The timetable was only a guideline (some may argue it still is). We may see a return to this approach.

Rincewind

Oh yes, regulars will know I’ve said many times JP doesn’t apply post peak or with rising prises. My point was, if prices to hold steady, this would be a classic example of where increased efficiency leads to a greater consumption of fuel and hence more pollution.

I think the main problem this plane will have is during a severe economic downtown is filling the seats. Planes need a fairly high seat load factor (usually north of 70%) to break even.

[PrairieMule]

Well once Airbus figures out how to strap people in standing up, the NWO will have a economical solution in a peak oil scenario to haul patriots and gun owners to concentration camps in bulk. I wonder if they will show a in-flight movie with Richard Gere explaining Jevon's Paradox to break our spirits.


No offence, just trying to keep the mood light..

But seriously, I agree with Pstar- rail is part of the solution.

[ohanian]

On a per passenger mile basis the A380 is more efficient than most passenger cars.

On a per passenger mile basis the A380 is more efficient than
most passenger cars that only carry one human.

[Wildwell]

Yes indeed, because of the radiative forcing effect of burning carbon at altitude, for every 1 tonne of Co2 emitted by a car, the equivalent is 2.7 tonnes of Co2 up in the air. So it’s sneaky airline spin talking about energy consumption, especially compared to cars that travel only a few miles per journey compared to hundreds or thousands of miles per flight. Moreover, international emissions are excluded from official figures, much like international shipping.

http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documen ... r_2004.pdf

http://www.rcep.org.uk/aviation/av12-txt.pdf

[Concerned]

Wildwell

Jevon's analysis is based on the assumption that other than the efficiency gains nothin else is changing (i.e. eenrgy prices are not changing only the relative price is changing). Good old ceteris paribus. I am not sure that in a post peak world that this assumption will hold.

The significance of Jevons is that with free markets we will hit the peak of oil and other fossil fuel productions.

Increased efficiency will not reduce total demand for energy.

Only nature/geology will force man's hand, at which point Jevons will be unable to hold as production can no longer be maintained or increased. Ergo total energy consumption will decline even with efficiency increases.

Jevons just means we are almost certain to hit the natural limits to growth.

My 2 coppers.

[Wildwell]

Planes also have an effect on global dimming

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ion%3Along

[gg3]

Nuclear fission is ideal for producing electricity on the ground, and a good solution for large oceangoing ships, but completely impractical for land vehicles and aircraft. The weight of the shielding required, is the engineering limit. The risk of releases is the practical limit. And oh what a tempting target for very bad people to shoot at.

I'll stick my neck out and say the Airbus A380 is a good thing.

If we're going to have airplanes they should be more efficient, etc. etc. But there's also something to be said for the value of engineering projects that stretch our capabilities: this is how we learn to do things better in the long run.

But, having built it, we should use it wisely, which means, as little as necessary. Large airplanes are pandemics on wings, though I suppose that's a good thing too in an overpopulated world. The CO2 factor cannot be dismissed. And the idea of just-in-time this that and the other thing, and self-important people who are paid to go to expensive lunches on the other side of the globe, is enough to make me puke.

By the way, did you ever notice the difference between "he is at lunch" vs. "he is at a lunch?" or "he is at dinner" vs. "he is at a dinner"...? When someone uses the indefinite article "a" before a word pertaining to a meal, it is not about eating food, it is about A Very Special Occasion for Very Important People.

That, too, is enough to make me puke. Pretentious bull sh--.

If it's about doing real business, it can be done via telephone, email, and at most, video conference. There is no need to smell your business associates, much less to taste them or touch them. Or conversely, if a business deal depends on smelling, tasting, or touching someone, it's not real business, it's more chimpanzee behavior akin to mutual ball-scratching, or doggies sniffing each others' rear-ends. Activities such as going overseas to inspect a product (where you have to put your hands on it to assess quality, or taste or smell it e.g. foods, spices, etc.) do not depend on just-in-time, and companies that try to last-minute those decisions deserve to be darwinized in the market.

Anyway, so about transport.

A reasonable design goal is, you can get to a destination within 14 hours, or 16 at most, or you get to an intermediate point where you can stop overnight for sleep. For rail that might mean about 1,000 miles. For air, about 6,000 to 8,000 miles.

Here's a prediction. Or two or three...

We are going to see hydrofoil and hovercraft designs for ocean-going passenger transport, to supplement airplanes. We are also going to see blimps or zeppelins coming into wide use for overseas passenger transport.

Any of these will be able to cross the Atlantic in a few days. And, it should be possible to provide reasonable (i.e. truly horizontal, and private & secure) sleeping accommodations at "coach" prices.

Re. airplanes on more relaxed schedules: Nice. Though we basically have that today. You can arrive at the airport as early as you like, go through security, and just hang out for a couple of hours until it's time to board the plane. Or hang out for the better part of a day, watching the takeoffs and landings and all the scurrying-about by workers and odd-looking machinery on the runways and terminals. In the future we might look back on all of this as miraculous.

As a generalization, travel has become too ubiquitous, too mundane, too devoid of the reality of Home and Away.

When I was a kid, taking a trip by airplane was a major event, something you did once or twice in your childhood (well, twice or four times, counting the round trip). I still recall bouncing through the clouds on a small turboprop, giggling about it while my mom worried; and the wonder of looking around the inside of an enormous 747 and seeing the world go by 40,000 feet below.

To this day, on the yearly trip back East to visit family at the usual time of year, I remark to anyone at the airport who grumbles about one thing or another, that it's a straight-up miracle to be able to cross three thousand miles in less than half a day, seated reasonably comfortably, with a clean bathroom and hot food and even a movie or television to keep busy when we're not composing telegrams (writing email) on our personal telegraphs (notebook computers) that have more power at our fingertips than launched Apollo to the moon.

Behold, as we, the multitudinous mortal gods, have become complacent in our omnipotence and ignorant in our omniscience. For that we shall fall, and having done so, will realize the sin of the lack of gratitude.

And to think, we could have kept it up nearly forever, if we just had the self-restraint to wear condoms and take pills.

[RdSnt]

The flying death trap A380 is a symbol of an industry that has no future in the post peak world. It's a waste of petroleum to put this thing in the air.

And did you see that whale struggle in the crosswind when it landed?
Just wait till the first full one hits the ground, no one will get on it again.

[whereagles]

1.
I'll stick my neck out and say the Airbus A380 is a good thing.

2.
If we're going to have airplanes they should be more efficient.

1. That makes two of us.. lol.

2. There's an easy way to do that: have them flying at half speed. That should mean about 1/4 power needed. I'm assuming airplanes have enough lift at half speed, though.