Haakon
has an accommodating arse
This should be nice way to go to Germany and back http://www.traveller.com.au/the-flight-etihad-787900-business-class-h07o7m
Take the decimal point out of the offset for a start. Driving two people reduces co2 to almost 1/4 compared to flying. Obviously the boat is in a trip to Tas but that could be reduced by hiring a car Syd to Melb and not taking it on the boat. Impractical, time consuming and little price difference, even with my offset suggestion, makes it too easy to fly.I agree my $3.88 isn’t a lot or enough. So in the spirit of this thread what are you doing/recommending that is better?
Boat is pretty good on a passenger km basis. Probably better than driving that distance, and if you're on it as a passenger you may as well take the car anyway.Take the decimal point out of the offset for a start. Driving two people reduces co2 to almost 1/4 compared to flying. Obviously the boat is in a trip to Tas but that could be reduced by hiring a car Syd to Melb and not taking it on the boat. Impractical, time consuming and little price difference, even with my offset suggestion, makes it too easy to fly.
Many places to stop between here and there I've never ridden, would much rather take time and drive over a few days.* I did it by car/boat last time - I was feeling poor and flying/car rental was a lot more money....
Find a mate to keep you company in the car and you half your Co2, shouldn't be to hard to find someone to drag down to Tassie.Ok, so I decided to look at the plane vs car thing for my trip to Tassie:
CO2 per litre of petrol burnt is 2.392kg. I assume fairly similar for both fuels.
- Plane - Airbus A320
- According to Wikipedia around 2.2 L/100 km/seat.
- Now assume that it is only 75% occupied that goes up to 2.9 L/100 km/seat. (therefore my plane numbers are conservative)
- Distance 915km each way for two people.
- Estimated fuel usage 107 litres
- My Car
- Best fuel economy - 8 L/100km
- Distance by road 1,420km
- Estimated fuel usage 227 litres
Plane = 256kg of Co2
Car = 543kg of CO2
Seems a compelling case for the plane. Thoughts?
Two people in the car, two people in the plane calcs.Find a mate to keep you company in the car and you half your Co2, shouldn't be to hard to find someone to drag down to Tassie.
Correct. If you must travel short haul, flying emits less CO2 than driving if you are one-up.Ok, so I decided to look at the plane vs car thing for my trip to Tassie:
CO2 per litre of petrol burnt is 2.392kg. I assume fairly similar for both fuels.
- Plane - Airbus A320
- According to Wikipedia around 2.2 L/100 km/seat.
- Now assume that it is only 75% occupied that goes up to 2.9 L/100 km/seat. (therefore my plane numbers are conservative)
- Distance 915km each way for two people.
- Estimated fuel usage 107 litres
- My Car
- Best fuel economy - 8 L/100km
- Distance by road 1,420km
- Estimated fuel usage 227 litres
Plane = 256kg of Co2
Car = 543kg of CO2
Seems a compelling case for the plane. Thoughts?
I thought new growth is meant to suck up more carbon and old growth (so long as we don't burn the stuff) is equivalent to sequestration. Obviously other bio-diversity things at play but from an emissions perspective new trees are where it's at.We should stop clearing old trees. We are doing this at a biblical rate.
Is that polo number pre or post Volkswagen 'dieselgate' numbers?Correct. If you must travel short haul, flying emits less CO2 than driving if you are one-up.
If I was to drive the Polo (5.5l/100km) and there were two of us, driving would be better.
The VW saga wasn't about CO2 emissions, it was about NOx emissions.Is that polo number pre or post Volkswagen 'dieselgate' numbers?