5 ms·

And the environmental impact is... what? Amazing that this is not a consideration, especially since we are now in emergency territory: http://www.theguardian.c

And the environmental impact is... what? Amazing that this is not a consideration, especially since we are now in emergency territory: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/21/global-warming-taking-place-at-an-alarming-rate-un-climate-body-warns http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/21/global-wa... It's great for you to leave SF in the morning, go to Sydney to watch the opera and be back in SF by midnight. But is the environmental impact of you doing that worth it for everyone else?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
oddeyed 11y ago
My first thought as well. The drop in the price of oil has discouraged airlines from investing in more efficient engines for their fleet, I assume there are similar economics at play here.
- justsid 11y ago
  That’s simply not true! Airplanes are developed over decades and then stays in service over decades, current low fuel prices won’t change decisions that are being made years into the future. All current in development airplanes (and I’m talking non-GA non military here), focus on increased efficiency and fuel consumption.
jondiggsit 11y ago
Absolutely worth it. We live in the future. If you can fly half way around the world to watch an opera and be home by midnight, do it. Riding your bicycle to work isn't going to save the planet, neither is reconsidering a flight. Environmental concerns should be that of multi-national corporations and governments. The 1% flying around the world isn't killing the planet. It's industrial output from cattle and energy production for electricity (coal, nat gas, oil) and fossil fuels burned for industrial use. I'm tired of the misplaced moral imperatives. Change needs to happen on a global, industrial scale, not in your decision to eat a locally-grown kale salad. Wake up people.
- oddeyed 11y ago
  Personally, I live in the present. Snarkiness aside, I think you're mistaken. You can't say 'industrial use' or 'industrial output' and absolve yourself of responsibility. The electronics that you wrote this comment on were all built with yucky industrial machines, running on yucky industrial oil which had to pulled out of the ground by yucky, messy drilling machines. And the kicker is that people did all of that because they knew that you would buy the resulting device. If no one bought them, they wouldn't make them! The industrial output is all there for your benefit. If we all decided that protecting the planet was more important and invested in making slower, more efficient travel more comfortable, then it would make a big difference. EDIT: Also the kale salad thing - since you bring up industrial output from cattle farming being a major pollutant then surely you have just made an argument for eating kale salad instead of a tasty burger?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - jondiggsit 11y ago
    Fully agree with you on the kale salad thing. It's delicious, don't get me wrong, and eating more kale and less burgers will contribute to a reduction in cattle rearing, reduction in methane gas / deforestation. My main point is it needs to be a national conversation, one the government is involved in.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- thescriptkiddie 11y ago
  Riding a bicycle to work arguably does a lot more to save the planet than flying on a more fuel efficient airplane, if for no other reason than the indirect benefits of taking a car off the road.
ohitsdom 11y ago
Definitely worth mentioning in the article, but not a big concern. Even if this plane actually comes to market and is successful according to their wildest hopes, it'll only be a very tiny fraction of the aviation market. This is due to many factors: small cabin, limited capacity, limited routes (only over water)...
- alex_duf 11y ago
  > it'll only be a very tiny fraction of the aviation market. So is everyone driving in the morning: a tiny fraction of the transport pollution. Add every tiny fraction and you get a significant fraction. To add to staceymakano's point: in the transport industry, I feel very uncomfortable when a a new alternative doesn't perform better on the environmental side.
  - Scramblejams 11y ago
    Add every tiny fraction and you get a significant fraction. Not even remotely true in this case. Aviation accounts for about 2% of carbon emissions, by my cursory Google search. Boom aircraft will, in the absolute best of outcomes, never account for more than a very small fraction of that number. And a small fraction of 2% is still, no matter how one tries to spin it, a very small fraction. In any event, power (P) required to increase velocity (V) is a cubic relationship (P=FV, where F is the drag force, which has as one of its components V^2), so doubling speed requires 8 times the power. There are ways to mitigate that increase -- fly higher to reduce air density, reduce drag by using specialized airfoils and reducing excrescence, take advantage of increasing engine efficiencies, etc. -- but I think it's safe to say that a supersonic aircraft will always require gobs more fuel than its subsonic cousins. By your logic then, one should probably never be manufactured. Full disclosure: I once worked as an aerospace engineer.
    - alex_duf 11y ago
      > By your logic then, one should probably never be manufactured. Correct. My nerd side tells me supersonic planes are the coolest thing on earth, my hippie side is telling me we'll live better without it. And I still disagree about the fact that a tiny fraction can be ignored. The main reason why climate change is a thing is because we consistently and repeatedly failed to acknowledge our impact on the environment and justified it by comparing it to other people's impact (and I include myself in that statement).
jessaustin 11y ago
I'm always intrigued to see what sorts of comments are so transgressive as to require green-bean HN accounts.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

oddeyed 11y ago

My first thought as well. The drop in the price of oil has discouraged airlines from investing in more efficient engines for their fleet, I assume there are similar economics at play here.

justsid 11y ago
That’s simply not true! Airplanes are developed over decades and then stays in service over decades, current low fuel prices won’t change decisions that are being made years into the future. All current in development airplanes (and I’m talking non-GA non military here), focus on increased efficiency and fuel consumption.

jondiggsit 11y ago

Absolutely worth it. We live in the future. If you can fly half way around the world to watch an opera and be home by midnight, do it. Riding your bicycle to work isn't going to save the planet, neither is reconsidering a flight. Environmental concerns should be that of multi-national corporations and governments. The 1% flying around the world isn't killing the planet. It's industrial output from cattle and energy production for electricity (coal, nat gas, oil) and fossil fuels burned for industrial use. I'm tired of the misplaced moral imperatives. Change needs to happen on a global, industrial scale, not in your decision to eat a locally-grown kale salad. Wake up people.

oddeyed 11y ago
Personally, I live in the present. Snarkiness aside, I think you're mistaken. You can't say 'industrial use' or 'industrial output' and absolve yourself of responsibility. The electronics that you wrote this comment on were all built with yucky industrial machines, running on yucky industrial oil which had to pulled out of the ground by yucky, messy drilling machines. And the kicker is that people did all of that because they knew that you would buy the resulting device. If no one bought them, they wouldn't make them! The industrial output is all there for your benefit. If we all decided that protecting the planet was more important and invested in making slower, more efficient travel more comfortable, then it would make a big difference. EDIT: Also the kale salad thing - since you bring up industrial output from cattle farming being a major pollutant then surely you have just made an argument for eating kale salad instead of a tasty burger?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jondiggsit 11y ago
  Fully agree with you on the kale salad thing. It's delicious, don't get me wrong, and eating more kale and less burgers will contribute to a reduction in cattle rearing, reduction in methane gas / deforestation. My main point is it needs to be a national conversation, one the government is involved in.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
thescriptkiddie 11y ago
Riding a bicycle to work arguably does a lot more to save the planet than flying on a more fuel efficient airplane, if for no other reason than the indirect benefits of taking a car off the road.

ohitsdom 11y ago

Definitely worth mentioning in the article, but not a big concern. Even if this plane actually comes to market and is successful according to their wildest hopes, it'll only be a very tiny fraction of the aviation market. This is due to many factors: small cabin, limited capacity, limited routes (only over water)...

alex_duf 11y ago
> it'll only be a very tiny fraction of the aviation market. So is everyone driving in the morning: a tiny fraction of the transport pollution. Add every tiny fraction and you get a significant fraction. To add to staceymakano's point: in the transport industry, I feel very uncomfortable when a a new alternative doesn't perform better on the environmental side.
- Scramblejams 11y ago
  Add every tiny fraction and you get a significant fraction. Not even remotely true in this case. Aviation accounts for about 2% of carbon emissions, by my cursory Google search. Boom aircraft will, in the absolute best of outcomes, never account for more than a very small fraction of that number. And a small fraction of 2% is still, no matter how one tries to spin it, a very small fraction. In any event, power (P) required to increase velocity (V) is a cubic relationship (P=FV, where F is the drag force, which has as one of its components V^2), so doubling speed requires 8 times the power. There are ways to mitigate that increase -- fly higher to reduce air density, reduce drag by using specialized airfoils and reducing excrescence, take advantage of increasing engine efficiencies, etc. -- but I think it's safe to say that a supersonic aircraft will always require gobs more fuel than its subsonic cousins. By your logic then, one should probably never be manufactured. Full disclosure: I once worked as an aerospace engineer.
  - alex_duf 11y ago
    > By your logic then, one should probably never be manufactured. Correct. My nerd side tells me supersonic planes are the coolest thing on earth, my hippie side is telling me we'll live better without it. And I still disagree about the fact that a tiny fraction can be ignored. The main reason why climate change is a thing is because we consistently and repeatedly failed to acknowledge our impact on the environment and justified it by comparing it to other people's impact (and I include myself in that statement).

jessaustin 11y ago

I'm always intrigued to see what sorts of comments are so transgressive as to require green-bean HN accounts.