Fuelly Conomy

[thermidorthelobster]

I took the truck into work for the last couple of days to publicise the Iceland trip I'm planning.

Got the usual "gas-guzzling" comments;  which made me think.

Assuming I get as low as 22mpg on the Iceland trip, then with me and 6 passengers I'm getting the equivalent of 154 passenger miles per gallon.

Compared that to going by moped, which I'm sure wouldn't raise any green complaints, and it's a pretty good rate - at least 50% more efficient.

The FAA estimate jet aeroplane economy as around 48 passenger miles per gallon, so it's also 3 times less polluting than flying the kids out there.

I'm getting quite quick to put people right when they make ill-informed comments, so I guess it's an educational tool after all.

[V8MoneyPit]

Nice one. I trust the aforementioned ill informed are no longer so.  :D

[thermidorthelobster]

This month's New Scientist points out that eating a bowl of breakfast cereal is responsible for about the same greenhouse gas emissions as driving 7km in your SUV.  Given I don't eat breakfast, that means I'm carbon-offsetting when I take it into school!

[waveydavey]

The FAA estimate jet aeroplane economy as around 48 passenger miles per gallon, so it's also 3 times less polluting than flying the kids out there.

Do you have a reference for that one at all? I would love to be able to use it but need to be able to justify it.

I worked out the Pax Mpg for QM2 - 1554! I can defend that as I have the figures so a  direct aircraft comparison would be very good.

[thermidorthelobster]

I got it here, but I can't see a link to an original source.

[waveydavey]

Cheers for that; I still can't find it on FAA but if you look up that max fuel of a 747-400 and the range the numbers work out about that.

I reworked ours as I knew they must be wrong; we are not as good but then we don't put the emissions at 30 000 foot!
And you don;'t get a weeks holiday on a 747!

[thermidorthelobster]

I reworked ours as I knew they must be wrong; we are not as good but then we don't put the emissions at 30 000 foot!
And you don;'t get a weeks holiday on a 747!

You mean the QM2?  I was under the impression that fuel economy per passenger on a ship was waaaay better than flying.

[waveydavey]

Most ships it would be but for the size we really don't have that many passengers so the per pax figure is not so good.

Certainly if we packed them in how they do on an aircraft there would be no comparison at all.

Also my numbers were based on a low occupancy whereas the jumbo was max; how often do they do that?

[Lucy1978]

Can't remember where we got the figures from but we worked outthe carbon footprint of the two of us driving to Morocco in the 101 (about 10mpg average) was smaller than flying. Not that we were going to fly anyway :)