Airplane and rocket fuel emissions

[Tully_Beaver]

These contain CO2 right?

 

I was just going to use them an example of how hypocritical the attack on SUV drivers is, in respect to contributing to global warming.

[RyanJ]

These contain CO2 right?

 

I was just going to use them an example of how hypocritical the attack on SUV drivers is' date=' in respect to contributing to global warming.[/quote']

 

Most do but sometimes in rockets Oxygen is burned with Hydrogen that makes water and no pollution

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Klaynos]

It is far easier to build economical car engines than plane engines, making it an easier and far more likely source of cutting carbon emissions in the short term.

[silkworm]

The problem with SUVs is the "bang for your buck." Very few people need SUVs. SUV owners burn more gas to get to A to B than someone who drives a more effecient vehicle for their needs. The same thing can be said for people who leave their lights on, or the TV on all night, or waste energy in other ways. Most energy you use comes from fossil fuels and when you burn more fossil fuel than what is needed, this causes more pollution than what is needed, and raises the price to just live for everybody, which really hurts when you're one of the working poor (and causes a very unhealthy domino effect I don't want to get into here). Of course, the supply and demand system of gasoline is very flawed right now as is evident by the windfall profits of the oil industry over the past quarter.

 

Airplane fuel emmissions are less vulgar because they're generally transporting more than a soccer mom out to window shop. They still generally use fossil fuels, right? Rockets are a different story. Buses, which do not get good gas mileage, are also less vulgar because every bus on the road takes 40 cars off. Also, there's something like if every household in America would change a incadescent light bulb they use to a compact flourescent (which are better bulbs anyway, just a bit more expensive) it's the same as taking 1 million cars off of the road.

 

As for CO2, that's a greenhouse gas than can easily be put under control if we made the Earth look more like a greenhouse instead of the floor of a garage. If you drive an SUV, plant a tree (or plant a lot of trees), and you're okay in my book in terms of pollution although you could do better. But you're still screwing everyone else econimically if you don't need one, which would be meaningless if we weren't talking about energy.

[ecoli]

These contain CO2 right?

 

I was just going to use them an example of how hypocritical the attack on SUV drivers is' date=' in respect to contributing to global warming.[/quote']

 

 

I'm not sure on exact numbers, but I'm assuming that there are a lot more SUVs then rocket engines, though maybe not airplanes. Anyway, as was stated, its easier to redesign a car engine.

 

and, just because one problem may do more damage, doesn't mean we should ignore the smaller ones. Give them a higher priority? Maybe, but not ignore.

[Mokele]

Ok, as I understand it, all combustion of fossil fuels will produce CO2 and H2O. Now, if the combustion heat is too low, you also get CO, but if it's too high (and using air rather than pure oxygen) you get NO, NO2, etc (collectively referred to as NOX). There's no point that eliminates one without increasing the other; the best you can do is minimize both.

 

Airplanes use fossil fuels, but most rockets don't. IIRC, most rockets are liquid-fueled, and use just hydrogen and oxygen, meaning they only produce water as waste.

 

Also, SUVs are substantially less efficient than airplanes (even prop-driven ones). In order to match an airplane flight from point A to B with single-person vehicles, each vehicle would need to get over 60 miles per gallon. Some of the very large jet engines get 75 miles per seat-gallon.

 

Mokele

[Tully_Beaver]

But a person who truely raggs on an SUV driver would not travel by plane. By doing so would prove that they are a hypocrite.

[silkworm]

Good logic... ... ....

 

Not really.

[Tully_Beaver]

Good logic... ... ....

 

Not really.

 

You can't drive an SUV because it pollutes the atmosphere boo hoo, but I can travel via ariplane that puts out quite a bit more pollutant gases etc. when i could just as easily travel by SUV (if tavelling over land and out out less emissions) or travel by sail boat (if crossing water).

 

makes sense to me.

[silkworm]

Have you read your own thread?

[Mokele]

Could a person who travels by bus rag on SUV drivers? Why? Busses get crap in terms of miles per gallon.

 

The key is the number of people. A bus might only get 5 mpg, but if it trasports 20 people, that's the equivalent of each of those people driving a 100 mpg car if they drove individually.

 

Same thing with planes, just even more people. The actual miles-per-gallon isn't that great, but there's over 100 people on most decent-sized airplanes, sometimes over 200. As I mentioned earlier, that'd be like each of those people driving a 75 mpg car if they drove individually.

 

It's carpooling, just in the air.

[Tully_Beaver]

Have you read your own thread?

No. i haven't posted in it either.

[Tully_Beaver]

Could a person who travels by bus rag on SUV drivers? Why? Busses get crap in terms of miles per gallon.

 

The key is the number of people. A bus might only get 5 mpg' date=' but if it trasports 20 people, that's the equivalent of each of those people driving a 100 mpg car if they drove individually.

 

Same thing with planes, just even more people. The actual miles-per-gallon isn't that great, but there's over 100 people on most decent-sized airplanes, sometimes over 200. As I mentioned earlier, that'd be like each of those people driving a 75 mpg car if they drove individually.

 

It's carpooling, just in the air.[/quote']

But it's still putting the same crap into the atmosphere. if you disagree with that stuff going into the atmoshpere, by buying a bus ticket you become a hypocrite.

 

is it possible to travel by horse? Bicycle? Then what are you doing on a bus? Putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. If you disagree with putting green house gases into the atmosphere and you ride a bus, you're a hypocite.

 

If you disagree with killing, but keep a gun at you house to protect your family, you're a hypocrite.

[Mokele]

is it possible to travel by horse? Bicycle? Then what are you doing on a bus? Putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

 

You seem to be convientiently ignoring the fact that horses and humans *breathe*, thereby putting CO2 into the atmosphere. When any animal moves, it burns fuel (sugars, fats, protiens), and produces CO2 at a level above it's resting rate.

 

It's not a zero-sum game; there's literally no way to win unless you car runs on fusion.

 

In fact, even then you're *still* a hypocrite! Why? Because merely by existing you pump loads of CO2 into the atmosphere. So the only non-hypocritical thing to do is kill yourself. Except that'll give food to all the beetles and worms, who also breathe out CO2 (though they aren't as wasteful as mammals).

 

Mokele

[silkworm]

You seem to be convientiently ignoring the fact that horses and humans *breathe*, thereby putting CO2 into the atmosphere. When any animal moves, it burns fuel (sugars, fats, protiens), and produces CO2 at a level above it's resting rate.

 

This is beautiful Mokele. Don't forget about the methane too.

 

Tully_Beaver, it's all about what your getting and need. I'd say that travel is so life enriching that it is a need, but traveling by SUV is wasteful. It burns unneccessary fuel at an unneccessary rate, therefor not only releasing unnecessary amounts of pollution but also raising the price of fuel for everyone else. The only reason I can see that would work is if you have 10 kids to drive around, which is perfectly reasonable.

 

I guess you've made up your mind, because your drawing a very different conclusion than everyone who has posted here.

You seem to have already made

[jdurg]

If someone takes a plane from New York City to Los Angeles, they are travelling along with 100+ other people and are causing the emission of a scant amount of carbon dioxide. If someone takes an automobile from New York City to Los Angeles, they are putting out a LOT more carbon dioxide into the air thanks to their driving on twisted roads which don't connect the two cities in a straight line. (Therefore, the automobile winds up traveling a longer distance than the plane does and this results in a great deal more pollutants going into the atmosphere). Also, the travel on the roads causes pollution from the breakdown of tires, the failure of car parts, the litter the person will wind up chucking out their car window, etc. etc. In addition, that is just ONE or TWO people going in that car. So take the pollution caused by that one car and multiply it by about 100. Flying is a LOT less polluting, and more efficient way of traveling.

[swansont]

But it's still putting the same crap into the atmosphere. if you disagree with that stuff going into the atmoshpere' date=' by buying a bus ticket you become a hypocrite.

[/quote']

 

 

Unless your objection is to the amount of the crap being put into the atmosphere, as I suspect is the true objection.

 

How much greenhouse gas is put into the atmosphere when you burn a strawman?

[Ophiolite]

I was just going to use them an example of how hypocritical the attack on SUV drivers is, in respect to contributing to global warming.

It would only be hypocrisy if those attacking SUV drivers were not also attacking air transport.

[Tully_Beaver]

People who protest SUVs are protesting because they are unhappy with someone driving around in a car with such a big engine buring up fossil fuels and/or polluting the atmosphere contributing to global warming etc.

 

To pick on one demographic from a huge spectrum of fossil fuel users is hypocricy.

 

And to go jump on a plane and fly to some vacation destination after protesting that SUVs use too much fuel is hypocricy.

[Tully_Beaver]

If someone takes a plane from New York City to Los Angeles, they are travelling along with 100+ other people and are causing the emission of a scant amount of carbon dioxide. If someone takes an automobile from New York City to Los Angeles, they are putting out a LOT more carbon dioxide into the air thanks to their driving on twisted roads which don't connect the two cities in a straight line. (Therefore, the automobile winds up traveling a longer distance than the plane does and this results in a great deal more pollutants going into the atmosphere). Also, the travel on the roads causes pollution from the breakdown of tires, the failure of car parts, the litter the person will wind up chucking out their car window, etc. etc. In addition, that is just ONE or TWO people going in that car. So take the pollution caused by that one car and multiply it by about 100. Flying is a LOT less polluting, and more efficient way of traveling.

 

So, if my SUV was the size of a 747 and was propelled by jet engines, environmentalists wouldn't have a problem with me as long as I had a certain amount of people on board when travelling?

[Phi for All]

How much greenhouse gas is put into the atmosphere when you burn a strawman?

This would be my comment as well. While airplanes, rockets and SUVs are all used for travel, the kind of travel is completely different. Most people who travel by airplane are doing so because of time constraints. Most people who travel by rocket are doing so because the situation demands it. SUV travelers have choices not available to the airplane and rocket travelers

 

Trying to bring the emissions caused by airplanes and rockets into an SUV emission debate is a blatant strawman. You are not a hypocrite traveling 1000 miles by plane because your meeting is this afternoon and your Toyota hybrid can't get you there in time.

[swansont]

So, if my SUV was the size of a 747 and was propelled by jet engines, environmentalists wouldn't have a problem with me as long as I had a certain amount of people on board when travelling?

 

It depends on the environmentalist. Many, I suspect, would not have a problem with a vehicle that was getting 75 mpg per seat (to use Mokele's number). Some fraction probably would have a problem with it.

[Mokele]

And to go jump on a plane and fly to some vacation destination after protesting that SUVs use too much fuel is hypocricy.

 

No, it isn't. What's the point of you opening a thread and asking questions if you won't *listen* to the answers you receive (unless you can twist them into providing support for your goal of labeling those you disagree with as hypocrites).

 

Mokele

[Phi for All]

To pick on one demographic from a huge spectrum of fossil fuel users is hypocricy.

This is absolutely false. For one thing most environmentalists are picking on inefficient vehicles in general, and SUVs fall into that category. If someone is arguing against SUVs because they're inefficient, it's not hypocrisy, it's just targeting one example.

 

If there was a food shortage and a group of rich 500-lb obese people were arguing that, since they can afford more food and want more food, they should get more food than the average income average weight people, would I be a hypocrite by objecting just because I also consume food?

[Tully_Beaver]

To put an end to you all judging me. I have not stated my opinion on SUVs. I believe they are wastefull. It is pretty obvious.

 

As for the dividing mpg per passenger, what about private jets? Or even huge private motor yachts? These people can afford to pour fossil fuels down the drain.

 

No one is picking on these people. That is my problem.

 

I know it has bee explained to me that it's easier to make an SUV engine more econimc. Part of what makes an SUV an SUV in the first place is the power they have.