Apologies if it's already been discussed, but activists managed to breach the perimeter at CDG and paint a 777 Green. This ain't just stupid and illegal, it's dangerous. It looks like they've painted over various sensors that will probably now need to be replaced.
https://mobile.twitter.com/greenpeacefr ... ance-groen

I am a big proponent of making our ways of life more sustainable and I am very worried about the future of our planet (rather humanity, planet will be fine). But this is a criminal act and actually will not "paint" greenpeace in a very good light.

Sure, wasting resources to destroy something is super ecological...

Really hope the AF’s lawyers will play hard with them!

It looks like F-GSPB, the second oldest 777-200ER in the fleet, 23 years old. Wasn't this one of the 777s they were going to scrap?





It looks like the Terminal 3 apron. I guess we are lucky they went for the 777 and not the nearby Concorde.

CWL757 wrote:

This ain't just stupid and illegal, it's dangerous. It looks like they've painted over various sensors that will probably now need to be replaced.

The aircraft is in storage with the sensors, probes and ports covered over, so they'll probably be fine. Will probably need to be stripped down and repainted however. They also put a ladder up on the wing and climbed onto the top of the fuselage, so who knows what sort of damage they caused up there.

BlueberryWheats wrote:

I hope that's ethically locally sourced organic vegan biodegradable green paint and they rode there on bicycles.

Or just the train or RER. Those are electric in France.

I hope they were wearing masks.

Was the paint a Broccoli or Asparagus based formula?

777 wrote:

Really hope the AF’s lawyers will play hard with them!

With the current business climate, this particular frame might (hypothesis) have just had it. If this "paintjob" is what actually pushes this airplane into retirement and scrapping, AF lawyers could actually staple a large bill to culprits. I wonder if Greenpeace would step up and pay it, or the individuals would have to pay themselves.

what kind of security do they have at CDG?

IMHO AF could be disruptive, take the high road, and engage with greenpeace to have a greenpeace logo jet to raise awareness.

I’m very supportive of the sustainability message that greenpeace has, and I think most airlines are, as sustainably and improved efficiency are hand in hand. Lots of airlines have carbon offset programs, you don’t see that when taking a taxi, bus, train.

In reality aviation is at the forefront of efficiency and innovation.

How is this supposed to help solve climate change again?

Have they been arrested by police or security forces at least?

So stupid.

Putting green on a non-green plane isn't going to make it more environmentally friendly.

Maybe they should have painted it black to show all the carbon it burns or brown because it's a crappy plane.

zeke wrote:

In reality aviation is at the forefront of efficiency and innovation.

In reality environmentalism is a huge threat to aviation so aviation highlights every tiny thing they can think of to try to greenwash themselves.

In reality aviation is an inefficient use of energy and is often used for superfluous activities so it should feel threatened.

Stuff like this scares them, and it should:



Ref: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566

I think AF has a massive marketing opportunity here. If they turn this into an opportunity by being more ambitious on the environment issue (they already are but they don’t communicate it well) and pardon the offendants as well as committing with Greenpeace on specific actions, it can have a great impact on French society (which are part of the owners of AF by the way.)

No need to say that to understand this it’s important to understand France first.

LOL 9 people got in with giant ladders in the middle of the day?? What kind of garbage security...

CWL757 wrote:

Apologies if it's already been discussed, but activists managed to breach the perimeter at CDG and paint a 777 Green. This ain't just stupid and illegal, it's dangerous. It looks like they've painted over various sensors that will probably now need to be replaced.
https://mobile.twitter.com/greenpeacefr ... ance-groen

Hyperbole, much? Why would it be dangerous? Guess an enormous green patch of paint will be quite visible during pre flight check. And, oh dear, sensors be replaced? You mean like as in an everyday occurence, where a mechanic changes a sensor?

You people get excited easily...

Revelation wrote:

In reality aviation is an inefficient use of energy and is often used for superfluous activities so it should feel threatened.

Stuff like this scares them, and it should:



Ref: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566

Aviation is very efficient, the graph is midleading as is it not normalised for distance covered.

Do numbers again on a per km basis aviation is very efficient, cars should be the most inefficient.

Come on folks, this was staged by Greenpeace and AIRFRANCE....

Revelation wrote:

So stupid.

Putting green on a non-green plane isn't going to make it more environmentally friendly.

Maybe they should have painted it black to show all the carbon it burns or brown because it's a crappy plane.

zeke wrote:

In reality aviation is at the forefront of efficiency and innovation.

In reality environmentalism is a huge threat to aviation so aviation highlights every tiny thing they can think of to try to greenwash themselves.

In reality aviation is an inefficient use of energy and is often used for superfluous activities so it should feel threatened.

Stuff like this scares them, and it should:



Ref: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566

That chart is misleading. There are WAY more cars and buses than there are airplanes. Seriously, look at what cars and buses emit and then think of how many millions more cars and buses there are on the road than planes in the sky.

N766UA wrote:

There are WAY more cars and buses than there are airplanes. Seriously, look at what cars and buses emit and then think of how many millions more cars and buses there are on the road than planes in the sky.

There are way more vehicles about, literally millions (around 100 million new vehicles a year, around 17 million new vehicles alone in the USA each year), compared to between 1000-2000 new airliners worldwide a year.

zeke wrote:

Aviation is very efficient, the graph is midleading as is it not normalised for distance covered.

Do numbers again on a per km basis aviation is very efficient, cars should be the most inefficient.

Sorry, but the chart says 'per passenger per km traveled' so it is normalized.

N766UA wrote:

That chart is misleading. There are WAY more cars and buses than there are airplanes. Seriously, look at what cars and buses emit and then think of how many millions more cars and buses there are on the road than planes in the sky.

True, but that doesn't give aviation a pass, it's still inefficient per pax/km and a lot of those trips are low priority activities.

It's surely enough to make the aviation industry feel threatened, which is my main point.

Revelation wrote:

zeke wrote:

In reality aviation is at the forefront of efficiency and innovation.

In reality environmentalism is a huge threat to aviation so aviation highlights every tiny thing they can think of to try to greenwash themselves.

In reality aviation is an inefficient use of energy and is often used for superfluous activities so it should feel threatened.

Stuff like this scares them, and it should:



Ref: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566

This chart needs some footnotes.

For one, domestic flights in the European context don't reach high altitude or spend only a small fraction of their duration up there. So the secondary effects are much more reduced than shown on this chart.

Second, the 6g of CO2 emission per pax.km achieved by the Eurostar is only that low because it's running mostly in France where electricity generation has already been near carbon-free for 40 years. Run the same train between Hamburg and Munich with the same load factor and it will emit close to 50g CO2 per pax.km. The same remark is valid for the domestic - non-HST - rail services.

Finally, the A220, the A320NEOs and the 737MAX are now becoming the new standard while the average seating densities are further increased, so the CO2 emission of the domestic flights in Europe will be getting closer to 100g per pax.km very soon. For the record, pre-MAX Ryanair is averaging at less than 70g per pax.km of direct CO2 emissions.

For those who want to limit their travel related CO2 emissions, the way to go is coach service. It's also the cheapest option of travel.

N766UA wrote:

That chart is misleading. There are WAY more cars and buses than there are airplanes. Seriously, look at what cars and buses emit and then think of how many millions more cars and buses there are on the road than planes in the sky.

On a per-trip basis, aircraft still emit massively more CO2 (and some other pollutants).

One return flight FRA-JFK emits ~ 3,500 t of CO2, per passenger, on average. That's equivalent to 10 years of a typical daily commute by car.

Aircraft only contribute 3% of the worldwide CO2 emissions but for an individual person, flying is one of the most polluting activities. It's just that 80% of all people have never stepped aboard an airplane, and even more have never taken a long haul flight.

You have to be rich in order to pollute.

So will this plane be retired, as it might require a whole repaint? I don't think AF would want to spend money on repaints, especially since they are retiring some 777-200(ER)s.

Revelation wrote:

Sorry, but the chart says 'per passenger per km traveled' so it is normalized.

Sorry there is something seriously wrong about the graph then, cars are inefficient because they are heavy for what they carry, engines are inefficient for the power they produce, they start and stop for traffic control, and they have the addition of road friction.

For as long as as I can remember cars use about twice as much fuel per passenger per 100 km.

Then there is the latent manufacturing inefficiency of the car itself, most would only travel 10-15000 km per year. A typical aircraft will fly 3 million km a year, fewer aircraft are built each year as a fleet they are used more efficiently, most cars sit around and do nothing 20 hours a day.

How on Earth were these people able to get airside?! I'm not sure what's more alarming, the act that they committed, or the fact that one of the world's busiest airports has such lackluster security. Fortunately this time it was these crazy environmental protestors with no ulterior motive. Shame on CDG.

Also, ironically that shade of green looks nearly identical to the color that UTA painted their doors. So that's kind of neat.

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Sorry, but the chart says 'per passenger per km traveled' so it is normalized.

Sorry there is something seriously wrong about the graph then, cars are inefficient because they are heavy for what they carry, engines are inefficient for the power they produce, they start and stop for traffic control, and they have the addition of road friction.

For as long as as I can remember cars use about twice as much fuel per passenger per 100 km.

Then there is the latent manufacturing inefficiency of the car itself, most would only travel 10-15000 km per year. A typical aircraft will fly 3 million km a year, fewer aircraft are built each year as a fleet they are used more efficiently, most cars sit around and do nothing 20 hours a day.

Please cite a source then.

flutter wrote:

I am a big proponent of making our ways of life more sustainable and I am very worried about the future of our planet (rather humanity, planet will be fine). But this is a criminal act and actually will not "paint" greenpeace in a very good light.

Correct. Apart from it being wrong in terms of vandalism, property damage etc, you can be sure that this event will be used to paint anyone who is remotely supportive of reducing CO2 emissions as an eco terrorist.

Also, as with any security breach event, it means that planespotters will be treated with more suspicion and derision by security.

CRJockey wrote:

Hyperbole, much? Why would it be dangerous

Exactly, its not as if AF is going to put it into service without a full maintenance checkup.

Think of all the Chemical Solvents used to Strip Paint and what that does to the environment. Not sure they thought of that when doing this. They may have just done more damage to the earth than a plane flying around......

Revelation wrote:

So stupid.

Putting green on a non-green plane isn't going to make it more environmentally friendly.

Maybe they should have painted it black to show all the carbon it burns or brown because it's a crappy plane.

Isn't the main point of this action to protest greenwashing? You pretty much said it yourself:

Revelation wrote:

In reality environmentalism is a huge threat to aviation so aviation highlights every tiny thing they can think of to try to greenwash themselves.

Greenpeace France posted this on their Facebook page:

Greenpeace activists broke into the tarmac at Roissy - Charles de Gaulles airport to expose the government's greenwashing on the air. ✈️
In the face of the climate emergency, air traffic needs to be reduced. However, as the Climate Bill arrives in the next few weeks, all measures to reduce traffic are largely insufficient.
Minister of Transport, promises us a hypothetical green plane. As we know, the green plane will not save the climate.

https://www.facebook.com/greenpeacefrance/

N766UA wrote:

That chart is misleading. There are WAY more cars and buses than there are airplanes. Seriously, look at what cars and buses emit and then think of how many millions more cars and buses there are on the road than planes in the sky.

How is that even remotely relevant? People need cars to go to work or shopping, they are vital to peoples lives. Distances involved are way shorter. The vast majority of airplane passengers can continue their lives perfectly fine without flying. As per the Lufthansa topic, only 30% of passengers travel for business. The auto industry is arguably taking bigger steps to reduce emissions. Fully electric vehicles have long since become a common sight. Aviation still has a long way to go.

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Sorry, but the chart says 'per passenger per km traveled' so it is normalized.

Sorry there is something seriously wrong about the graph then, cars are inefficient because they are heavy for what they carry, engines are inefficient for the power they produce, they start and stop for traffic control, and they have the addition of road friction.

For as long as as I can remember cars use about twice as much fuel per passenger per 100 km.

Aircraft waste energy just staying up. Cars only spend energy moving forward. Aircraft engines are inefficient because they aren't optimised for a single speed - they have to be overbuilt to ensure adequate safety in case of an engine failure. Starting and stopping for traffic isn't relevant in this comparison, aircraft don't compete with intra-city transportation.

SAS posts fuel consumption figures per kilometer. The A320neo has a fuel consumption according to SAS of 0,024 l/km per seat, or 2.4 liters per 100 km. A modern car will burn 4-5 liters per 100 km, so once you have more than 1 person onboard, the car will beat the plane. The best cars I can find are now pushing 33 km/l, so are starting to match the latest jets with just a single occupant. That is of course assuming every single seat on the jet is filled, which is far from certain.

zeke wrote:

Then there is the latent manufacturing inefficiency of the car itself, most would only travel 10-15000 km per year. A typical aircraft will fly 3 million km a year, fewer aircraft are built each year as a fleet they are used more efficiently, most cars sit around and do nothing 20 hours a day.

A relevant point, but I'm not sure it is in favour of aviation. The aircraft might last a long time, but components are readily swapped and scrapped. Most engines these days aren't even overhauled or stripped for spares. When it comes to major checks, they are sent to the smelter. Ditto for many of the thousands of other components found in aircraft.

VSMUT wrote:

Or just the train or RER. Those are electric in France.

Yes, but France generates most of its electricity with zero-carbon nuclear power plants, and Greenpeace hates those more than airplanes.

Antarius wrote:

Please cite a source then.

It’s difficult to cite one source as each airline typically will publish their results and no private car user will publish their results

From https://blog.openairlines.com/how-much- ... -consuming

“To put it into perspective with other means of transport such as cars, this indicator is often given in litres per 100 km per passenger. Therefore, the previous numbers would be around 3.2L / 100PK. However, in different environmental reports from major airlines we can see that overall numbers are higher ranging from 3.85L /100PK for Lufthansa to 4.2, 4.3L / 100PK for Delta or Emirates.

According to the United Kingdom Department of Transport, new cars are burning from 8L/100K (in 2000) to 5.4 L/100K (in 2016) which is higher than most airlines figures per passenger. Considering in addition, the average speed of an aircraft (1000 km/h), makes that difference even more interesting.”

How long did those idiots take to do that?
Did they get in the airport during security lunch hours?

Damn this is beyond embarrassing for CDG security heads.

Well you all complain about the euro white liveries!

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

In reality aviation is an inefficient use of energy and is often used for superfluous activities so it should feel threatened.

Stuff like this scares them, and it should:



Ref: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566

Aviation is very efficient, the graph is midleading as is it not normalised for distance covered.

Do numbers again on a per km basis aviation is very efficient, cars should be the most inefficient.

It doesn't take into account speed of travel either. Especially for medium to long haul, air travel is MUCH faster yet still pretty efficient per mile.

It also doesn't say what generation of aircraft they are using as each new generation uses 10-20% less fuel and thus emits 10-20% fewer emissions per km.

Aviation is the only transportation industry that was focused on improving fuel efficiency significantly without government intervention.

zeke wrote:

ranging from 3.85L /100PK for Lufthansa to 4.2, 4.3L / 100PK for Delta or Emirates.
new cars are burning [...] 5.4 L/100K (in 2016)

That matches well with the previously posted numbers, doesn't it? Per your numbers, cars use 1.3 - 1.4 times as much fuel. In the graph, cars emit 1.3 - 1.7 times as much CO2.
Of course only as long as there are no passengers in the car.

planecane wrote:

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

In reality aviation is an inefficient use of energy and is often used for superfluous activities so it should feel threatened.

Stuff like this scares them, and it should:



Ref: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566

Aviation is very efficient, the graph is midleading as is it not normalised for distance covered.

Do numbers again on a per km basis aviation is very efficient, cars should be the most inefficient.

It doesn't take into account speed of travel either. Especially for medium to long haul, air travel is MUCH faster yet still pretty efficient per mile.

It also doesn't say what generation of aircraft they are using as each new generation uses 10-20% less fuel and thus emits 10-20% fewer emissions per km.

It is per kilometer, not per hour.

planecane wrote:

Aviation is the only transportation industry that was focused on improving fuel efficiency significantly without government intervention.

Oh come on, the is disingenuous, and a downright lie. The auto industry has been improving for decades without government intervention. Elon Musk didn't kickstart the electrical car revolution because of government intervention. High speed rail was electric from day 1.

zeke wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Please cite a source then.

It’s difficult to cite one source as each airline typically will publish their results and no private car user will publish their results

From https://blog.openairlines.com/how-much- ... -consuming

“To put it into perspective with other means of transport such as cars, this indicator is often given in litres per 100 km per passenger. Therefore, the previous numbers would be around 3.2L / 100PK. However, in different environmental reports from major airlines we can see that overall numbers are higher ranging from 3.85L /100PK for Lufthansa to 4.2, 4.3L / 100PK for Delta or Emirates.

According to the United Kingdom Department of Transport, new cars are burning from 8L/100K (in 2000) to 5.4 L/100K (in 2016) which is higher than most airlines figures per passenger. Considering in addition, the average speed of an aircraft (1000 km/h), makes that difference even more interesting.”

So the figures you quote here are perfectly confirming the figures in this chart. The thing is, there is no point to debate on the respective emissions of the cars and aircraft. In the eyes of Greenpeace, they are equally bad in comparison with the French "nuclear" HSTs. That's where the environmentalist are brilliant: they quote the very best figures for the HSTs while these are only valid in France and probably Norway. This information is then repeated out of its context around the world while in reality, the emission of the non-French HSTs are worse than the good old coach services.

VSMUT wrote:

planecane wrote:

zeke wrote:

Aviation is very efficient, the graph is midleading as is it not normalised for distance covered.

Do numbers again on a per km basis aviation is very efficient, cars should be the most inefficient.

It doesn't take into account speed of travel either. Especially for medium to long haul, air travel is MUCH faster yet still pretty efficient per mile.

It also doesn't say what generation of aircraft they are using as each new generation uses 10-20% less fuel and thus emits 10-20% fewer emissions per km.

It is per kilometer, not per hour.

planecane wrote:

Aviation is the only transportation industry that was focused on improving fuel efficiency significantly without government intervention.

Oh come on, the is disingenuous, and a downright lie. The auto industry has been improving for decades without government intervention. Elon Musk didn't kickstart the electrical car revolution because of government intervention. High speed rail was electric from day 1.

The auto industry improved efficiency because (at least in the US), the federal government started imposing mpg standards that each manufacturer had to meet.

Elon Musk wouldn't have had a viable business plan to start Tesla if not for the US government electric vehicle subsidy that could make the initial models somewhat affordable. The push towards electric in general is an outgrowth of raising the minimum corporate average fuel economy (CAFE).

If a manufacturer wants to sell big profitable trucks and SUVs they've got to have a high enough mix of electric vehicles to bring up the average. You also have states like CA banning ICE sales after 2035. All of that is government intervention.

The aviation industry has been improving fuel efficiency voluntarily from early in the jet age. The motivation is financial due to fuel costs but it doesn't matter what the motivation is, the fact is that they did.

High speed rail is likely electric because of the increased fuel consumption to go faster. The early designers probably realized that using diesel would cost a lot more than electric. Since electric trains don't need to deal with expensive batteries and recharging there is very little downside. Pretty much just the cost of the electric distribution to go along with the tracks.

tomcat wrote:

zeke wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Please cite a source then.

It’s difficult to cite one source as each airline typically will publish their results and no private car user will publish their results

From https://blog.openairlines.com/how-much- ... -consuming

“To put it into perspective with other means of transport such as cars, this indicator is often given in litres per 100 km per passenger. Therefore, the previous numbers would be around 3.2L / 100PK. However, in different environmental reports from major airlines we can see that overall numbers are higher ranging from 3.85L /100PK for Lufthansa to 4.2, 4.3L / 100PK for Delta or Emirates.

According to the United Kingdom Department of Transport, new cars are burning from 8L/100K (in 2000) to 5.4 L/100K (in 2016) which is higher than most airlines figures per passenger. Considering in addition, the average speed of an aircraft (1000 km/h), makes that difference even more interesting.”

So the figures you quote here are perfectly confirming the figures in this chart. The thing is, there is no point to debate on the respective emissions of the cars and aircraft. In the eyes of Greenpeace, they are equally bad in comparison with the French "nuclear" HSTs. That's where the environmentalist are brilliant: they quote the very best figures for the HSTs while these are only valid in France and probably Norway. This information is then repeated out of its context around the world while in reality, the emission of the non-French HSTs are worse than the good old coach services.

The ICE in Germany runs 100% on renewables.

Electricity has some rather significant advantages, even if the electrical plant runs completely off conventional fossil fuels. Electricity through a copper wire is a much more efficient way of transporting energy to where it is needed. Electric motors are simpler, more efficient and lighter. They last an eternity. Electrical grids aren't limited to a single source (unlike planes). Even in Germany with all its polluting coal plants, non-renewables only make up 49% of the total energy produced. The other half is clean.

VSMUT wrote:

tomcat wrote:

zeke wrote:

It’s difficult to cite one source as each airline typically will publish their results and no private car user will publish their results

From https://blog.openairlines.com/how-much- ... -consuming

“To put it into perspective with other means of transport such as cars, this indicator is often given in litres per 100 km per passenger. Therefore, the previous numbers would be around 3.2L / 100PK. However, in different environmental reports from major airlines we can see that overall numbers are higher ranging from 3.85L /100PK for Lufthansa to 4.2, 4.3L / 100PK for Delta or Emirates.

According to the United Kingdom Department of Transport, new cars are burning from 8L/100K (in 2000) to 5.4 L/100K (in 2016) which is higher than most airlines figures per passenger. Considering in addition, the average speed of an aircraft (1000 km/h), makes that difference even more interesting.”

So the figures you quote here are perfectly confirming the figures in this chart. The thing is, there is no point to debate on the respective emissions of the cars and aircraft. In the eyes of Greenpeace, they are equally bad in comparison with the French "nuclear" HSTs. That's where the environmentalist are brilliant: they quote the very best figures for the HSTs while these are only valid in France and probably Norway. This information is then repeated out of its context around the world while in reality, the emission of the non-French HSTs are worse than the good old coach services.

The ICE in Germany runs 100% on renewables.

Electricity has some rather significant advantages, even if the electrical plant runs completely off conventional fossil fuels. Electricity through a copper wire is a much more efficient way of transporting energy to where it is needed. Electric motors are simpler, more efficient and lighter. They last an eternity. Electrical grids aren't limited to a single source (unlike planes). Even in Germany with all its polluting coal plants, non-renewables only make up 49% of the total energy produced. The other half is clean.

Please see the following figures of average CO2 intensity for electricity generation (2016):
France: 58.5 gCO2/kWh produced
EU average: 295.8 gCO2/kWh (= 5x France average)
Germany: 440.8 gCO2/kWh (= 8x France average, so the German HSTs are at 50g CO2 per pax.km)

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/co2-emission-intensity-5#tab-googlechartid_chart_11_filters=%7B%22rowFilters%22%3A%7B%7D%3B%22columnFilters%22%3A%7B%22pre_config_ugeo%22%3A%5B%22European%20Union%20(current%20composition)%22%3B%22France%22%3B%22Germany%22%5D%7D%7D

The thing is that unless one is off-grid, one doesn't get to choose the source of its electricity. One only gets the "average" electricity injected in the grid. Buying electricity from renewable producers doesn't change that reality. It will be the same for the aircraft when they will be burning synthetic fuels or hydrogen.

tomcat wrote:

The thing is that unless one is off-grid, one doesn't get to choose the source of its electricity. One only gets the "average" electricity injected in the grid. Buying electricity from renewable producers doesn't change that reality. It will be the same for the aircraft when they will be burning synthetic fuels or hydrogen.

No, that's not how it works. Your share is only what that producer you selected puts into the grid.

zeke wrote:

IMHO AF could be disruptive, take the high road, and engage with greenpeace to have a greenpeace logo jet to raise awareness.

I’m very supportive of the sustainability message that greenpeace has, and I think most airlines are, as sustainably and improved efficiency are hand in hand. Lots of airlines have carbon offset programs, you don’t see that when taking a taxi, bus, train.

In reality aviation is at the forefront of efficiency and innovation.

This stunt aside, what Greenpeace does very regularly in France, and has done for decades, is breach nuclear power plant perimeters to harp on about their dangers.

Nuclear being basically CO2 free...

The last few times they were saying on top of the potential for accidents that terrorists could get in, if they could. The answer was that gendarmes had them in the scope of their sniper rifles but didn't shoot since they saw it was clowns not terrorists...

VSMUT wrote:

Elon Musk didn't kickstart the electrical car revolution because of government intervention.

Tesla wouldn’t yet be profitable if it weren’t for government intervention. They make a large portion of their revenue from selling regulatory credits to less efficient automakers. Without that incentive, there would be little reason to operate the company... and it wouldn’t be profitable.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/03/fiat-ch ... tesla.html

Automakers who struggle to meet stringent CO2 emissions standards in Europe can buy credits from less-polluting auto companies to meet new emission limits, or to lower their penalties if they do not stay within the standards.

Selling these regulatory credits has been an increasingly important part of Tesla’s business as the automaker has pushed toward sustained profitability. In 2020, Tesla generated $1.58 billion in revenue from sales of regulatory credits, nearly tripling its 2019 figure of $594 million. That’s greater than the company’s profit of $721 million reported in 2020, which was its first profitable year.

It is almost all gone now



https://twitter.com/breakingavnews/stat ... 28/photo/1

VSMUT wrote:

tomcat wrote:

The thing is that unless one is off-grid, one doesn't get to choose the source of its electricity. One only gets the "average" electricity injected in the grid. Buying electricity from renewable producers doesn't change that reality. It will be the same for the aircraft when they will be burning synthetic fuels or hydrogen.

No, that's not how it works. Your share is only what that producer you selected puts into the grid.

So the ICEs don't run when there is no wind? What you describe is only a convention.

Again, what's important is to figure out what would happen if all the domestic and trans-continental flights were replaced tomorrow by train services. Unless they would be diesel trains, these train would run with the average electricity available accros Europe (295 gCO2/kWh) or more precisely, with the marginal electricity output that would be produced to satisfy this new demand. This electricity would come from gas- and coal-fed power plants at the moment (> 500 gCO2/kWh).

tomcat wrote:

So the figures you quote here are perfectly confirming the figures in this chart. The thing is, there is no point to debate on the respective emissions of the cars and aircraft. In the eyes of Greenpeace, they are equally bad in comparison with the French "nuclear" HSTs. That's where the environmentalist are brilliant: they quote the very best figures for the HSTs while these are only valid in France and probably Norway. This information is then repeated out of its context around the world while in reality, the emission of the non-French HSTs are worse than the good old coach services.

In France we also have degrowth advocates that hate high speed trains, as speed is bad and unnecessary. We should all travel on donkeys' backs. Well, we shouldn't travel at all, really.

This seems awfully fishy...a bunch of people with ladders and long extension brushes stroll onto the tarmac, climb up on top of a plane and have time to open up paint cans and apply to the aircraft before any security personnel show up? It defies belief - sorry I don't buy it

mxaxai wrote:

N766UA wrote:

That chart is misleading. There are WAY more cars and buses than there are airplanes. Seriously, look at what cars and buses emit and then think of how many millions more cars and buses there are on the road than planes in the sky.

On a per-trip basis, aircraft still emit massively more CO2 (and some other pollutants).

One return flight FRA-JFK emits ~ 3,500 t of CO2, per passenger, on average. That's equivalent to 10 years of a typical daily commute by car.

Aircraft only contribute 3% of the worldwide CO2 emissions but for an individual person, flying is one of the most polluting activities. It's just that 80% of all people have never stepped aboard an airplane, and even more have never taken a long haul flight.

You have to be rich in order to pollute.

3,500 tonne of CO2 per passenger???

Let's see, 1 gallon of Jet Fuel releases 9.57 kg of CO2 per gallon (source). So, 3,500 tonne would be 3,500,000 kg of CO2, i.e. 365,726 gallons of jet fuel per pax on a single flight... That's a lot of fuel in a single plane.

Let's say you meant to say 3,500 kg of CO2 per pax; that would be 365-366 gallons per pax; a widebody running FRA-JFK is most likely at least 250 passengers, so that'd be 91,500 gallons of Jet Fuel for a return trip, or 45,750 gallons per leg. Only the 777-300ER or 777-200LR/777F can carry that much (almost 48,000 gallons); the 787 carries "only" 33,000 gallons and the A350 "only" between 37,000 (A350-900) and 42,000 gallons (A350-1000). Using a 777-300ER or 777-200LR to carry 250 pax on a 3,350 NM trip is highly inefficient; there are better alternatives.

Your number is incorrect first (3,500 tonne - three thousand five hundred tonne), and even is "corrected" to 3,500 kg seems inaccurate.

FRA-JFK-FRA is 12,400 km by air (undoable in a car, but we'll allow it for the sake of argument - source); so, that'd be 95 hours of driving at 130 km/h, or 12 days driving 8 hours per day (actual driving, not including rest every 2 hours, lunches/dinners, refueling, etc). How much CO2 will be generated by 12 days worth of food, lodging, transporting fuel in various remote locations, road repairs, tire wear, etc?
Let's say your CO2 number for a plane is 3,500 kg per pax for a FRA-JFK return trip on a 250-pax plane: again, that would be 365-366 gallons per pax, or 1,400 L per pax. That'd be equivalent to 12 L / pax.100km; quite high for a 4-passenger car, but then again you'd have to add all the ancillaries needed to driving 12,400 km.

FYI, medium-haul flights such as FRA-JFK is around 3 L/100km per available seat (source), i.e. around 7.6 kg of CO2 per 100km per pax; or 940 kg per pax for FRA-JFK-FRA, not 3.5 tonne.

I'll be glad to be proven wrong...