6 ms·

Given the current emissions of air travel I find fairly repulsive to spend that much money designing a new airplane going completely in the wrong direction in t

by Tuxer 8y ago

Given the current emissions of air travel I find fairly repulsive to spend that much money designing a new airplane going completely in the wrong direction in terms of fuel efficiency. There is no way ( regardless of altitude, unless you’re going in LEO ) to avoid the huge drag losses of going supersonic, so most of that ticket price is going to go towards fuel. If this ever flies and there is a kerosene carbon tax, that plane is dead.

wbl 8y ago
Biomass gasification plus GTL.
notahacker 8y ago
In the scope of aerospace $100m is pocket money. It's the lack of fuel efficiency which has killed off various other exploratory supersonic flight programmes from ever going anywhere. Ultimately to be successful they have to convince airlines the extra speed will convince passengers to pay for the extra fuel. I think that's unlikely in the near future, and Boom will have to raise a lot more to convince people otherwise.
- astrodust 8y ago
  It's not pocket money, it's pocket lint.
  - colechristensen 8y ago
    It is on the order of the cost of a single aircraft. Comparable would be Tesla raising $100,000
    - ryacko 8y ago
      Single aircraft plus development costs.
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
      Minus R&D, facilities build out. And even then we're still talking a smaller body - 737, 757, not so much a 777/787.
stcredzero 8y ago
Is that necessarily so? Esterised vegetable oils? It seems like a bit of an extreme knee-jerk to me. Basically, we're all supposed to be "disgusted" at any application of combustion? I think such issues need a bit more thought and nuance than that. "Disgust first, ask questions later," is 180 degrees in the wrong direction for improving public discourse. I urge you to reconsider, then lead by example.
- Tuxer 8y ago
  Well if you're investing a lot in newer plane tech, yeah I'd like them to think about the externalities of what they do and find alternative solutions. For example on high-flying airliners (I expect this plane to, like concorde, fly around FL550) you could potentially go with a hydrogen propulsion at least in cruise, since the outside air temperature wouldn't result in H2 boil.
  - njarboe 8y ago
    Once a new supersonic jet is built and flying then these changes can be done, by others if necessary. Don't you think building a supersonic jet is a hard enough problem already? We are still burning oil in 99% of cars and you are worried about burning oil in supersonic jets?
jws 8y ago
Recovering the externalities on jet fuel would only add about $0.19/gallon¹ with jet fuel going for >$4/gallon today, so say a 5% tax. I think they'd survive just fine. In fact, if I were them I'd voluntarily and ostentatiously pay that on every drop of fuel… supersonic and green. Or without a carbon tax… 200 gallons of jet fuel makes 1 ton of CO2 and costs ~$800. Current state of the art in CO2 capture is $94/ton. For a self imposed 12% fuel surcharge they could be carbon neutral. ␄ ¹ http://www.rff.org/blog/2017/calculating-various-fuel-prices-under-carbon-tax http://www.rff.org/blog/2017/calculating-various-fuel-prices...
- jonas21 8y ago
  This doesn't change your argument too much, but FYI jet fuel is currently around $1.60/gal. https://www.iata.org/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/Pages/index.aspx https://www.iata.org/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/Pag...
  - jws 8y ago
    I think we are looking at different ends of the market, I'm using a search of the retail price at airfields near me in the last 30 days. (My parameters don't get reflected in the URL, you will need to choose some to get results.) I suspect at "airline" scale there is a large discount over the full service pump prices I'm seeing. This might change the percentages to 10% and 25%. It's also possible I'm seeing the "putz price". That made up price that "no one really pays", unless you are that guy who doesn't know better and does. https://www.airnav.com/fuel/local.html https://www.airnav.com/fuel/local.html
    - Tuxer 8y ago
      Jet-A at airfields isn't a valid measure of how much airlines. I read that most airlines pay around 1.10$/gal for Jet-A.
      - njarboe 8y ago
        42 gallons in a barrel of oil. So the bottom price is going to be about (oil price)/42. Lots of complications in converting a random quality oil into jet fuel at an airport, but at scale you might add 10% to 20%. With current oil prices this does work out to around your $1.10/gal price.
gingerbread-man 8y ago
It's worth noting that commercial airlines are exempted from paying any taxes on fuel worldwide by treaty. [1] While this may eventually change, in the short term, airlines probably have less to fear about carbon taxes than any other industry. [1] https://www.markey.senate.gov/GlobalWarming/files/LTTR/ACES/IntlAirTransportAsscn.pdf https://www.markey.senate.gov/GlobalWarming/files/LTTR/ACES/...
yinyinwu 8y ago
The TL&DR I'm getting from the thread is that everyone should stop flying because it's so bad for the environment.

by Tuxer 8y ago

wbl 8y ago

Biomass gasification plus GTL.

notahacker 8y ago

In the scope of aerospace $100m is pocket money. It's the lack of fuel efficiency which has killed off various other exploratory supersonic flight programmes from ever going anywhere. Ultimately to be successful they have to convince airlines the extra speed will convince passengers to pay for the extra fuel. I think that's unlikely in the near future, and Boom will have to raise a lot more to convince people otherwise.

astrodust 8y ago
It's not pocket money, it's pocket lint.
- colechristensen 8y ago
  It is on the order of the cost of a single aircraft. Comparable would be Tesla raising $100,000
  - ryacko 8y ago
    Single aircraft plus development costs.
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    Minus R&D, facilities build out. And even then we're still talking a smaller body - 737, 757, not so much a 777/787.

stcredzero 8y ago

Is that necessarily so? Esterised vegetable oils? It seems like a bit of an extreme knee-jerk to me. Basically, we're all supposed to be "disgusted" at any application of combustion? I think such issues need a bit more thought and nuance than that. "Disgust first, ask questions later," is 180 degrees in the wrong direction for improving public discourse. I urge you to reconsider, then lead by example.

Tuxer 8y ago
Well if you're investing a lot in newer plane tech, yeah I'd like them to think about the externalities of what they do and find alternative solutions. For example on high-flying airliners (I expect this plane to, like concorde, fly around FL550) you could potentially go with a hydrogen propulsion at least in cruise, since the outside air temperature wouldn't result in H2 boil.
- njarboe 8y ago
  Once a new supersonic jet is built and flying then these changes can be done, by others if necessary. Don't you think building a supersonic jet is a hard enough problem already? We are still burning oil in 99% of cars and you are worried about burning oil in supersonic jets?

jws 8y ago

Recovering the externalities on jet fuel would only add about $0.19/gallon¹ with jet fuel going for >$4/gallon today, so say a 5% tax. I think they'd survive just fine. In fact, if I were them I'd voluntarily and ostentatiously pay that on every drop of fuel… supersonic and green. Or without a carbon tax… 200 gallons of jet fuel makes 1 ton of CO2 and costs ~$800. Current state of the art in CO2 capture is $94/ton. For a self imposed 12% fuel surcharge they could be carbon neutral. ␄ ¹ http://www.rff.org/blog/2017/calculating-various-fuel-prices-under-carbon-tax http://www.rff.org/blog/2017/calculating-various-fuel-prices...

jonas21 8y ago
This doesn't change your argument too much, but FYI jet fuel is currently around $1.60/gal. https://www.iata.org/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/Pages/index.aspx https://www.iata.org/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/Pag...
- jws 8y ago
  I think we are looking at different ends of the market, I'm using a search of the retail price at airfields near me in the last 30 days. (My parameters don't get reflected in the URL, you will need to choose some to get results.) I suspect at "airline" scale there is a large discount over the full service pump prices I'm seeing. This might change the percentages to 10% and 25%. It's also possible I'm seeing the "putz price". That made up price that "no one really pays", unless you are that guy who doesn't know better and does. https://www.airnav.com/fuel/local.html https://www.airnav.com/fuel/local.html
  - Tuxer 8y ago
    Jet-A at airfields isn't a valid measure of how much airlines. I read that most airlines pay around 1.10$/gal for Jet-A.
    - njarboe 8y ago
      42 gallons in a barrel of oil. So the bottom price is going to be about (oil price)/42. Lots of complications in converting a random quality oil into jet fuel at an airport, but at scale you might add 10% to 20%. With current oil prices this does work out to around your $1.10/gal price.

gingerbread-man 8y ago

It's worth noting that commercial airlines are exempted from paying any taxes on fuel worldwide by treaty. [1] While this may eventually change, in the short term, airlines probably have less to fear about carbon taxes than any other industry. [1] https://www.markey.senate.gov/GlobalWarming/files/LTTR/ACES/IntlAirTransportAsscn.pdf https://www.markey.senate.gov/GlobalWarming/files/LTTR/ACES/...

yinyinwu 8y ago

The TL&DR I'm getting from the thread is that everyone should stop flying because it's so bad for the environment.