333
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
333 points (96.6% liked)
Mildly Interesting
21442 readers
799 users here now
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
/c/fuckcars : "use some other form of transportation!"
Also /c/fuckcars: "No! Not like that!"
You won't commute with a plane like this lol.
Apparently the CEO of Boeing does
Link
Unless you live in an extremely remote place not served by roads. The arctic for example. It's not technically commuting as in going to and from your 9 to 5, but plenty of small northern communities are still completely dependent on small gravel runways or even bushplanes for things like going to the doctor or dentist, or really anything they need to go to a city for, which is a lot of things.
I actually thought this was a similar situation, that they're so out in the middle of nowhere flying is significantly more convenient than driving. But then I took a look at the map and realized that they're not far from Chicago and are within easy driving distance from nearby smaller towns, which makes this way harder to justify though still mildly interesting.
One of the first things my instructor told me was "I hope you're getting your license for fun or a job, and not planning on commuting. Eventually you'll get stuck somewhere due to the weather."
Heavy, powerful commercial jets have deicing systems. They also have the benefit of an entire team of air traffic controllers on takeoff and landing -- and they still get grounded by weather. Small planes are grounded by such inclement weather as "fog", "thunderstorms", "high winds", and "low cloud cover".
Why not? Less risk of being hit by a plane if they're in the sky and requirements for a pilot license are much stricter. In a plane crash occupants are more likely to die than innocent bystanders, compared to cars that are designed for safety only for those on the inside.
Why not? Probably because:
Bike pollution: .
Car pollution: oooooooooo
Plane pollution: OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO
(bike pollution is slightly more than nil just because of the CO2 we breathe out while riding)
Speak for yourself, I bike with a bag on my head to capture my emissions.
Don't worry, your body will release all that carbon when you die.
What about the emissions from the other end?
Technically, the CO2 animals exhale is carbon neutral because it's from plants you eat (or your food eats). Unless you're eating petroleum derived products of course.
I say technically because while the plants themselves are carbon neutral, modern food production and distribution, especially meat production, still has a large carbon footprint. So your breath is only truly carbon neutral if you foraged for food in the forest on foot.
So once again: return to monkee
Don't forget that many small propeller driven aircraft run on leaded gas, and it's a formulation of leaded gas that has 10x the lead that motor fuel used to.
But, didn't you hear the Midgey guy who invented TEL like 100 years ago? You can safely breathe it and even wash your hands in it! (said right after he got lead poisoning)
Then he went on to make Freon.
I gave up flying to have kids. Probably worse for pollution
But, do that people have light aircrafts or motherfucking Boeings 787?
as if rich people care about how much they pollute
I feel like it should be .. for the amount of gas I release while cycling.
Walking pollution: ...
That's right, bike pollution is less than walking (or running) pollution in terms of CO2 per mile travelled. Cycling typically burns ~⅓ of the calories compared to making the same journey on foot and there's a direct link between calories burnt and CO2 produced.
Cycling at 12mph takes roughly the same energy as walking at 4mph. You emit the same CO2 per minute, but get there in ⅓ of the time. Running at 12mph takes 3 times the effort of cycling at 12mph. You'll get there in the same amount of time, but breath out 3 times as much CO2. Bicycles are more efficient than our own two legs - how cool is that!
Plane pollution is not that much worse than a car. Depending on what metric you measure it can be better (planes are more fuel efficient and thus less CO2. Small planes like the picture generally use lead fuel and old engine designs that pollute more) on long trips.
I do love having heavy metals rain down on me from the sky so rich cunts can entertain themselves.
No, planes are not more fuel efficient, even driving alone a car. The reason why it costs more to go by car is due to many reasons, especially the higher cost of fuel at petrol stations.
Nearly all land near small runways and airports that fly planes using AvGas will have lead contamination. That’s because lead is still used in most aviation fuels a consumer plane would use. Runways are also required to have and use PFAS in firefighting foam for emergencies. Training and system tests will dump that stuff in the surrounding area.
Unless these fine folks have A380s they’re paying a hefty premium for lead exposure and PFAS in their water and soil.
You're only taking into account pollution and i bet you with the barrier of entry and cost accounted there would be less pollution from flying compared to driving.
... what?
I think they’re trying to say that less people would fly than currently drive due to the cost of flying. Although, if we subsidized personal planes at the same rate that we do personal vehicles I’m not entirely sure that flying would continue to be so expensive.
Flying is expensive and you need a license that's substantially harder to get than a driver's license.