|
|
Musings Report 2020-2 1-11-20 Which Is Easier on the Environment, Airliners or Cars/SUVs?
You are receiving this email because you are one of the 800+ subscribers/major contributors to www.oftwominds.com.
For those who are new to the Musings reports: they are basically a glimpse into my notebook, the unfiltered swamp where I organize future themes, sort through the dozens of stories and links submitted by readers, refine my own research and start connecting dots which appear later in the blog or in my books. As always, I hope the Musings spark new appraisals and insights. Thank you for supporting the site and for inviting me into your circle of correspondents.
Thank You, Contributors!
Many of the most stalwart supporters of my work renew their support at the beginning of the new year. Thank you, Bill B., John D., Robert S. and John D'A. for your renewing your extremely generous support of my work, and welcome new patron / subscriber Robert T. --thank you very much!
Which Is Easier on the Environment, Airliners or Cars/SUVs?
It's rare to find a comparative analysis of environmental impact that isn't designed to support a conclusion drawn at the start.
So much of what's presented as "analysis" is cherry-picked data served up to support a conclusion that serves the interests of the author/sponsor.
As an experiment, let's ask "which is easier on the environment, airliners or cars/SUVs?" and explore the question without preconceptions.
First, let's separate air freight from passengers. As per this source, air cargo is "600 times less energy efficient than large cargo ships (30,000 / 50), 50 to 120 times less efficient than trains, and 7.5 to 15 times less efficient than trucks."
Even this simple calculation is rendered more complex once we look at deliveries via air cargo of perishable goods and time-sensitive material like air mail. But for the sake of simplicity, let's set air cargo aside and consider passenger travel.
It's not that easy to find airliner fuel consumption statistics, but this data set seems to align with other sources:
New York (JFK) to Los Angeles International (LAX): This popular transcon flight uses an estimated 5,325 gallons of jet fuel at an estimated price tag of $10,757. (current cost of jet fuel is around $2/gallon)
The type and seating configuration of the aircraft isn't specified, and that's problematic, as airliners typically carry between 200 and 300 passengers--a wide range. For the sake of this analysis, let's assume a smaller aircraft comparable to the Airbus 321 that carries around 200 passengers.
I want to apply this data to a route I frequent and a specific aircraft, the Airbus A321neo, which is considered a very fuel-efficient aircraft, comparable to the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.
The shortest distance (air line) between JFK and LAX is 2,470.23 miles
The shortest distance (air line) between HNL and LAX is 2,553.47 miles
Clearly, these are comparable distances.
The Airbus A321neo configuration flown by Hawaiian Airlines seats 189 passengers.
So 5,325 gallons per flight / 189 passengers = 28 gallons per passenger to fly 2,550 miles.
2550 miles / 28 gallons = 91 miles per gallon per passenger
(A half-empty airliner would be much less efficient, of course, but empty seats are a rarity on routes I frequent.)
As a comparative data point, the 787 Dreamliner is considered the most efficient long-haul airliner, at 40 passenger kilometers per liter of jet fuel.
Converted to miles/gallons, this is 94 passenger miles per gallon of jet fuel. Given that the Airbus a321neo model is credited as being 16% more fuel-efficient than previous models of comparable airliners, this data confirms that 90-95 passenger miles per gallon of jet fuel is a reasonable data point for the most efficient airliners.
The total fuel cost for one passenger is 28 X $2 = $56. The total cost of the flight, including all operating and overhead costs, including staff wages, maintenance, management, marketing, airport fees, profit, etc. is about $250 per passenger in Coach class. (This is a mid-range estimate.)
Now let's consider the costs of one individual driving a car, pickup truck or SUV the same distance (2,550 miles).
I keep close tabs on the fuel consumption of our Honda Civic, a compact car. With the tires properly inflated and following 65-MPH speed limit, the car gets between 38 and 42 miles per gallon of gasoline on the highway. let's say that 40 MPG is about the best that a conventional ICE (internal combustion engine) car can achieve traveling across the U.S.
So 2,550 miles / 40 MPG = about 65 gallons of gasoline. At an average price of $2.75/gallon, the total fuel cost is about $180.
Given the popularity of pickup trucks and SUVs, a more realistic estimate of mileage/fuel would be 25 miles per gallon:
So 2,550 miles / 25 MPG = about 100 gallons of gasoline, and a total fuel cost of about $280.
Operating the vehicle costs a lot more than just fuel. Standard estimates of total costs per mile are $ 0.46 per mile, so 2,550 X .46 = $1,176 as the estimated total cost of the trip.
Let's say a frugally operated and maintained vehicle only costs $ 0.23/mile. That's still $586 for the 2,550 mile trip.
Now let's consider the time and risks. The airliner passenger doesn't have to fly the aircraft; the flight time of roughly 5.5 hours is leisure time.
The driver of the 2,550 miles must stay alert and focused for several days, and they are unable to do much work other than hands-free phone conversations. Time is money, so the cost of the time spent driving is significant.
Traveling by airliner is statistically much less risky than driving.
Then there's the infrastructure required for each mode of transport. Airports are extensive, expensive facilities, but the cost of airports pales compares to the costs of building and maintaining thousands of miles of highways.
How much fuel is required to operate airports vs. thousands of miles of highways? That analysis is complex, but the scale alone suggests maintaining highways dwarfs the costs of airports.
How much pollution is generated by each mode of transport? This is also a complex analysis, but we can start with fuel consumption, as the less fuel burned, the lower the output of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.
The airline passenger burns 28 gallons of fuel, considerably less than the single-passenger vehicle that burns between 65 and 100 gallons of fuel.
So let's say two people travel in the vehicle. The two airline passengers consume 56 gallons, still roughly half the fuel consumed by an SUV carrying two passengers 2,550 miles.
As for cost, even with two passengers, the lowest-cost, most frugally operated compact ($586) still costs more than two airline seats ($500), while the more conventional vehicle costs roughly double ($1,100) the airline seats ($500).
And this is not counting the cost of the time lost to driving multiple days.
There are many other complexities in this question. Even though the airline passenger consumes roughly one-fourth the total fuel of the SUV, do airliners at 35,000 feet do more damage than autos burning four times as much fuel? That question is beyond the scope of this brief analysis.
Is cost a reflection of total environmental impact? As a generality, the higher the cost, the more energy and materials used in production. So in this sense, cost is a reflection of total lifecycle costs.
There's one final wrinkle to this analysis. A barrel of oil breaks down in refining into a spectrum of products, from propane to gasoline to kerosene (jet fuel), diesel, fuel oil, motor oil, etc.
While kerosene can be blended with diesel, the reality is that there's X amount of kerosene generated by refining oil, and it has to be used somewhere. Roughly 6.3% of all oil ends up as jet fuel, a relatively modest percentage compared to vehicle fuels (gasoline and diesel) at 50%.
I've noticed a recent spate of articles decrying airline travel as the most environmentally damaging mode of transport. Perhaps this is true, but it begs the question, how can a mode of transport than consumes one-fourth the fuel of equivalent vehicle miles per passenger be more environmentally damaging?
It seems that we take the staggeringly costly infrastructure and fuels required to operate 150 million vehicles as a baseline that can't be questioned, much less reduced, while airliners are the object of skepticism.
Where are the biggest reductions in consumption and pollution available, in the sector consuming 6%, or the sector consuming 50%?
Clearly, there are trade-offs in every analysis of environmental impact. Reducing total fuel consumption is an obvious way to reduce the environmental impact of burning hydrocarbons.
But total lifecycle costs and external costs can change the conclusions we reach. For example, some analyses have concluded that hybrid cars such as the Prius consume far more materials and energy in their production and lifetime than ICE compacts such as the Civic.
Are passenger miles via airliner less impactful than passenger miles in vehicles? A full accounting of all infrastructure, lifecycle and external costs would be remarkably complex. Without such data at our fingertips, we're in effect guessing what's less impactful.
I'm wary of drawing conclusions from the sketchy data available to us. Without total lifecycle, infrastructure and external costs (pollution, etc.), we can't place much confidence in any simplistic conclusions.
One last data comparison. Flying four times on a 2,550 mile route consumes 4 X 28 = 112 gallons of fuel for 10,200 miles traveled. Even a frugally driven and operated compact car consumes 270 gallons of fuel to travel the same distance. Over 100,000 miles, the totals are even more striking: 1,120 gallons per airliner passenger and 2,700 gallons for the single-passenger compact.
Lifecycle and external costs would have to be extraordinarily lopsided to make up that enormous difference in fuel consumption.
Highlights of the Blog
Just a Friendly Heads-Up, Bulls: The Fed Just Slashed its Balance Sheet 1/11/20
The Fed Can't Reverse the Decline of Financialization and Globalization 1/10/20
Is This "The Top"? 1/6/20
Best Thing That Happened To Me This Week
Green shoots on a recently planted avocado seedling that I'd given up on.
From Left Field
Responding to collapse, Part 15: shortages of diesel fuel
A Future with No Future: Depression, the Left, and the Politics of Mental Health
Neoliberal Economics Destroyed the Economy and the Middle Class
Females & Births, As Rudimentary As We Can Get -- demographics are destiny...
Credit and Credibility: Risks to China’s Economic Resilience
Total Surveillance Is Not What America Signed Up For
An interview with historian James Oakes on the New York Times’ 1619 Project
A Conversation with Ece Temelkuran on How to Lose a Country, in 7 Steps
The Truth About Health Care--an overview of all that's verboten....
Tales From the Teenage Cancel Culture--never heard of it, of course....
Twelve Million Phones, One Dataset, Zero Privacy-- bu-bu-but Big Tech said my privacy was secure!
How Amazon Gains Control & Domination
"None of us want to be in calm waters all our lives." Jane Austen
Thanks for reading--
charles |
|
|
|
|
|
