4 ms·
> At Shanghai-NYC distances, that's 34,300 kg of fuel That's sounds very low for fuel burn at that distance for a 747. The 747-8 carries over 191,000kg of fue
by vonmoltke 7y ago
> At Shanghai-NYC distances, that's 34,300 kg of fuel
That's sounds very low for fuel burn at that distance for a 747. The 747-8 carries over 191,000kg of fuel, yet has a maximum range of only 14,320km.
As an aside, I wonder if using "carbon" as shorthand for "carbon dioxide" does more harm than good.
- dredmorbius 7y agoI've updated my comment to make clear that's a back-of-the-envelope calculation, and not based on actual performance data. Generally, if you're within a few powers of two with the approach, it's a good start, and empirical data trump rough estimates any day. The "carbon" vs. "fuel" vs. "CO2 emissions" terminology is legitimate -- these are all different real aspects of the phenomenon. Playing fast and loose between these, or simply confusing the terms (see also kW vs. kWh confusion in energy discussions) is far too common. I specifically called which of these I was using and how they're related. Much of this would benefit by more use of tables and graphs and sensible comparisons, so that people are at least familiar with appearances. Understanding might or might not follow, but the journalistic practice of "tell a story around numbers without using numbers or pictures" seems to me actively harmful.