Aren't turboprop aircraft far more energy-efficient?
No. The "comfortably greener" Bombardier Q400 NextGen, "the most technologically advanced turboprop in the world," according to its manu-
facturers [www.q400.com], uses 3.81 litres per 100 passenger-km (at a cruise speed of 667km/h), which is an energy cost of 38kWh per 100p-km. The full 747 has an energy cost of 42kWh per 100p-km. So both planes are twice as fuel-efficient as a single-occupancy car. (The car I'm assuming here is the average European car that we discussed in Chapter 3.)
Is flying extra-bad for climate change in some way?
Yes, that's the experts' view, though uncertainty remains about this topic [3fbufz]. Flying creates other greenhouse gases in addition to CO2, such as water and ozone, and indirect greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxides. If you want to estimate your carbon footprint in tons of CO2-equivalent, then you should take the actual CO2 emissions of your flights and bump them up two- or three-fold. This book's diagrams don't include that multiplier because here we are focusing on our energy balance sheet.
The best thing we can do with environmentalists is shoot them.
Michael O'Leary, CEO of Ryanair [3asmgy]
energy per distance (kWh per 100p-km)
Car (4 occupants) 20 Ryanair's planes, year 2007 37 Bombardier Q400, full 38
747, full 42
747, 80% full 53 Ryanair's planes, year 2000 73
Car (1 occupant) 80
Table 5.3. Passenger transport efficiencies, expressed as energy required per l00 passenger-km.
Was this article helpful?
Hot-Tips! From Great Low-Cost Airline Tickets To Today's New Travel Rules This Ebook will give you tips and techniques for planning your Discount Travel Plan for your Vacation. There are a TON of things to think about, but this Guide will begin to walk you through the steps.