5 ms·

It took them 2 hours and 40 minutes to complete the easter egg

by juliand 4y ago

alexose 4y ago
More cynically: Roughly 2.4 tons of fuel, equating to 16.8 tons of CO2 emissions.
- slyrus 4y ago
  Or the average annual carbon footprint for one person in the US.
  - culi 4y ago
    > The average US household produces 7.5 tons of CO2 equivalents per year. https://www.ccfpd.org/Portals/0/Assets/PDF/Facts_Chart.pdf https://www.ccfpd.org/Portals/0/Assets/PDF/Facts_Chart.pdf
    - slyrus 4y ago
      Or 15.52 tons according to worldometer. Not sure who's right here. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/us-co2-emissions/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/us-co2-emissions...
      - culi 4y ago
        Yeah good question. To add to the confusion, this paper published PNAS says "2.83 ± 1.0 t of CO2-equivalents per capita". Per capita is different from per household but might be a better metric It also states that using just national energy statistics (this study actually analyzed 93 million households instead) you'd arrive at 3.19 t CO2 per capita which falls in line with their results https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1922205117 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1922205117
    - slyrus 4y ago
      And, either way, this maneuver seems like it generated CO2 emissions roughly equal to those that would be saved by 10 people line drying their clothes for a year. Which 10 people are we gonna pick?
- usrusr 4y ago
  Yeah, this can't be some prank by a renegade flight crew, it can only be a farewell celebration act with a kick-off meeting, a budget and a dozen people who signed off. But I'm not criticising, by that measure we'd have to question any resource expenditure that exceeds the bare minimum for sustaining life.
  - ant6n 4y ago
    Well this admittedly cool looking stunt represents more than 5 persons worth of annual sustainable co2 budget (estimated at 3T/year), so I‘d say it’s a smidgeon above the „bare minimum for sustaining life”.
    - usrusr 4y ago
      That's why you don't do stuff like this for each and every subvariant. This is a once in half a century occasion, it absolutely pales in comparison to the amount of fuel the type has burned for trade show visits, photo opportunities and numerous other nonessentials. Arguably there isn't a single use case for jet aviation that isn't far out of the range of sustainable co2 budget.
- stanmancan 4y ago
  I have no clue what I'm talking about but this piqued my interest. If I ask WolframAlpha: Q:how many carbon molecules in 2.4 tons A: 1.092×10^29 molecules X molecules of pure carbon carbon would theoretically require 2X molecules of oxygen to turn into CO2 Q: how much does (10^29)*2 molecules of oxygen weight in us tons A: 5.827 tons So 2.4 tons of Carbon + 5.827 tons of Oxygen = 8.227 tons of CO2? Maybe? What am I missing to have 2.4 tons of fuel turn into 16.8 tons of CO2 emissions? I'm not doubting it, and I'm sure it's WAY more complicated than above, but just genuinely curious!*
  - undersuit 4y ago
    Kerosene(jet fuel) has between 6 and 20 carbon atoms per molecule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene#Properties_and_grades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene#Properties_and_grades Have fun with the math!
    - stanmancan 4y ago
      Hm, does that change anything? Atoms per molecule doesn’t seem important when we’re talking about the total weight. If anything jet fuel isn’t pure carbon so the math works out to create less CO2 than I calculated?
      - thayne 4y ago
        I don't think the number of atoms directly matters. However, the amount of energy that is released when kerosene burns has a _small_ impact. Because that energy was contributing to the mass of the kerosene (E=mc^2). But, that difference in mass will be tiny. Far surpassed by the mass of the non-carbon atoms in kerosene.
  - tonymillion 4y ago
    You also missed the carbon monoxide and water vapor that would be produced. Along with nitric and sulfur oxides. So it’s probably not as bad.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  I think you misplaced a decimal point on that fuel tonnage, they probably burned around 27 tons of fuel for that pattern. If my own napkin math and google searching is correct, the daily worldwide consumption of jet fuel is (in very round numbers) a million tons a day. A bit less than the total daily consumption of gasoline in the US.
  - alexose 4y ago
    You're absolutely right. I wish I could edit my post, but I'm too late!
- kelnos 4y ago
  I was thinking along those lines as well, but: 1. For context, this was the final delivery flight of a 747, ever. It's a pretty momentous occasion. 2. If we're going to criticize something like this, then we probably should be criticizing a lot more about the waste in our own lives. Everyone generates a lot of unnecessary waste, even if we don't think about or consciously acknowledge it.
  - ant6n 4y ago
    Arguably, the stunt is a symbol. Critizing it for also being a symbol for the inconsiderate waste of co2 budget is fair. …I mean, building a 747 in 2023 is really not a reasonable thing to do given our remaining co2 budget, even if some techies feel sentimental about that plane.
- shepherdjerred 4y ago
  That's equal to the average CO2 emission of one US citizen per year. I don't think this is particularly noteworthy. There is a cost to this celebration, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
- stubish 4y ago
  Fun is a good thing to spend some of our CO2 emissions budget on. We need fun. A joyless society isn't worth saving.
  - culi 4y ago
    some fun is more expensive than others. That's ~2.24 years of energy usage by the average US household
    - t-writescode 4y ago
      And a sendoff to the hard work of tens of thousands or more people. Oh. No.
  - bandyaboot 4y ago
    That’s a fair sentiment, but in this particular case the portion of society that will be aware that this even happened, much let get joy from it, is a rounding error above none of society.
    - klempner 4y ago
      And 17 tons of CO2 is a rounding error above none of society's total emissions -- the US alone is around 5 billion tons per year.
  - cute_boi 4y ago
    I, personally, don't believe this easter egg provides any valuable joy.
    - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
      I enjoyed it.
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    Exactly. It's why I have a truck, actually. Sure, I could drive an electric Nissan Leaf, but come on. Is that life worth living?
- culi 4y ago
  Or put in another way, the equivalent of ~2.24 years of energy usage by the average US household
- ekianjo 4y ago
  Do you also track the CO2 consumption of all the guys who want to save the environment by going with private jets to Davos?
  - elproxy 4y ago
    The only thing these people want to save is their class privilege, just so we're clear...
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  I wish to make a climate confession. I drove to the beach yesterday for recreation despite it not being necessary to keep myself alive and paying taxes to the climate gods. How many fraudulent carbon credits do I need to buy from rich people to absolve my sins?
- OneCommentMore 4y ago
  Yes. I agree. But it's a joke compared to what happened in Europe during the pandemic [0], when thousands of empty flights happened to secure their airlines landings slots. This could have been a checkmark in an Excel-sheet and did by far not draw the attention and ire of the public it should have last year. [0] https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-health-greta-thunberg-europe-46f83ff11edb3f866a581fcec515164f https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-hea...

It took them 2 hours and 40 minutes to complete the easter egg

alexose 4y ago

More cynically: Roughly 2.4 tons of fuel, equating to 16.8 tons of CO2 emissions.

slyrus 4y ago
Or the average annual carbon footprint for one person in the US.
- culi 4y ago
  > The average US household produces 7.5 tons of CO2 equivalents per year. https://www.ccfpd.org/Portals/0/Assets/PDF/Facts_Chart.pdf https://www.ccfpd.org/Portals/0/Assets/PDF/Facts_Chart.pdf
  - slyrus 4y ago
    Or 15.52 tons according to worldometer. Not sure who's right here. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/us-co2-emissions/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/us-co2-emissions...
    - culi 4y ago
      Yeah good question. To add to the confusion, this paper published PNAS says "2.83 ± 1.0 t of CO2-equivalents per capita". Per capita is different from per household but might be a better metric It also states that using just national energy statistics (this study actually analyzed 93 million households instead) you'd arrive at 3.19 t CO2 per capita which falls in line with their results https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1922205117 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1922205117
  - slyrus 4y ago
    And, either way, this maneuver seems like it generated CO2 emissions roughly equal to those that would be saved by 10 people line drying their clothes for a year. Which 10 people are we gonna pick?
usrusr 4y ago
Yeah, this can't be some prank by a renegade flight crew, it can only be a farewell celebration act with a kick-off meeting, a budget and a dozen people who signed off. But I'm not criticising, by that measure we'd have to question any resource expenditure that exceeds the bare minimum for sustaining life.
- ant6n 4y ago
  Well this admittedly cool looking stunt represents more than 5 persons worth of annual sustainable co2 budget (estimated at 3T/year), so I‘d say it’s a smidgeon above the „bare minimum for sustaining life”.
  - usrusr 4y ago
    That's why you don't do stuff like this for each and every subvariant. This is a once in half a century occasion, it absolutely pales in comparison to the amount of fuel the type has burned for trade show visits, photo opportunities and numerous other nonessentials. Arguably there isn't a single use case for jet aviation that isn't far out of the range of sustainable co2 budget.
stanmancan 4y ago
I have no clue what I'm talking about but this piqued my interest. If I ask WolframAlpha: Q:how many carbon molecules in 2.4 tons A: 1.092×10^29 molecules X molecules of pure carbon carbon would theoretically require 2X molecules of oxygen to turn into CO2 Q: how much does (10^29)*2 molecules of oxygen weight in us tons A: 5.827 tons So 2.4 tons of Carbon + 5.827 tons of Oxygen = 8.227 tons of CO2? Maybe? What am I missing to have 2.4 tons of fuel turn into 16.8 tons of CO2 emissions? I'm not doubting it, and I'm sure it's WAY more complicated than above, but just genuinely curious!*
- undersuit 4y ago
  Kerosene(jet fuel) has between 6 and 20 carbon atoms per molecule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene#Properties_and_grades https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene#Properties_and_grades Have fun with the math!
  - stanmancan 4y ago
    Hm, does that change anything? Atoms per molecule doesn’t seem important when we’re talking about the total weight. If anything jet fuel isn’t pure carbon so the math works out to create less CO2 than I calculated?
    - thayne 4y ago
      I don't think the number of atoms directly matters. However, the amount of energy that is released when kerosene burns has a _small_ impact. Because that energy was contributing to the mass of the kerosene (E=mc^2). But, that difference in mass will be tiny. Far surpassed by the mass of the non-carbon atoms in kerosene.
- tonymillion 4y ago
  You also missed the carbon monoxide and water vapor that would be produced. Along with nitric and sulfur oxides. So it’s probably not as bad.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
rootusrootus 4y ago
I think you misplaced a decimal point on that fuel tonnage, they probably burned around 27 tons of fuel for that pattern. If my own napkin math and google searching is correct, the daily worldwide consumption of jet fuel is (in very round numbers) a million tons a day. A bit less than the total daily consumption of gasoline in the US.
- alexose 4y ago
  You're absolutely right. I wish I could edit my post, but I'm too late!
kelnos 4y ago
I was thinking along those lines as well, but: 1. For context, this was the final delivery flight of a 747, ever. It's a pretty momentous occasion. 2. If we're going to criticize something like this, then we probably should be criticizing a lot more about the waste in our own lives. Everyone generates a lot of unnecessary waste, even if we don't think about or consciously acknowledge it.
- ant6n 4y ago
  Arguably, the stunt is a symbol. Critizing it for also being a symbol for the inconsiderate waste of co2 budget is fair. …I mean, building a 747 in 2023 is really not a reasonable thing to do given our remaining co2 budget, even if some techies feel sentimental about that plane.
shepherdjerred 4y ago
That's equal to the average CO2 emission of one US citizen per year. I don't think this is particularly noteworthy. There is a cost to this celebration, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
stubish 4y ago
Fun is a good thing to spend some of our CO2 emissions budget on. We need fun. A joyless society isn't worth saving.
- culi 4y ago
  some fun is more expensive than others. That's ~2.24 years of energy usage by the average US household
  - t-writescode 4y ago
    And a sendoff to the hard work of tens of thousands or more people. Oh. No.
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  That’s a fair sentiment, but in this particular case the portion of society that will be aware that this even happened, much let get joy from it, is a rounding error above none of society.
  - klempner 4y ago
    And 17 tons of CO2 is a rounding error above none of society's total emissions -- the US alone is around 5 billion tons per year.
- cute_boi 4y ago
  I, personally, don't believe this easter egg provides any valuable joy.
  - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
    I enjoyed it.
- renewiltord 4y ago
  Exactly. It's why I have a truck, actually. Sure, I could drive an electric Nissan Leaf, but come on. Is that life worth living?
culi 4y ago
Or put in another way, the equivalent of ~2.24 years of energy usage by the average US household
ekianjo 4y ago
Do you also track the CO2 consumption of all the guys who want to save the environment by going with private jets to Davos?
- elproxy 4y ago
  The only thing these people want to save is their class privilege, just so we're clear...
throwawaylinux 4y ago
I wish to make a climate confession. I drove to the beach yesterday for recreation despite it not being necessary to keep myself alive and paying taxes to the climate gods. How many fraudulent carbon credits do I need to buy from rich people to absolve my sins?
OneCommentMore 4y ago
Yes. I agree. But it's a joke compared to what happened in Europe during the pandemic [0], when thousands of empty flights happened to secure their airlines landings slots. This could have been a checkmark in an Excel-sheet and did by far not draw the attention and ire of the public it should have last year. [0] https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-health-greta-thunberg-europe-46f83ff11edb3f866a581fcec515164f https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-hea...