• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

All Hail Taylor Swift, Person of the Year!

arthwollipot said:
Bring back the golden age of sea travel!
Click to expand...

I doubt that is less CO2 intensive.

In fact I know it isn't.

The jet Taylor Swift travels on is fairly fuel efficient but it depends on how you look at it.

Taylor Swift owns a Dassault Falcon 900. It carries 12 to 14 passengers plus two pilots. It burns 303 gallons of fuel per hour. But it also flies at about 550 nautical miles in that hour.
That equals 631 miles on the ground. That is about 2 miles per gallon. But if she flies with 10 other people, that equals out to 20 passenger miles per gallon. This is better fuel efficiency than I get.
 
acbytesla said:
I doubt that is less CO2 intensive.

In fact I know it isn't.

The jet Taylor Swift travels on is fairly fuel efficient but it depends on how you look at it.

Taylor Swift owns a Dassault Falcon 900. It carries 12 to 14 passengers plus two pilots. It burns 303 gallons of fuel per hour. But it also flies at about 550 nautical miles in that hour.
That equals 631 miles on the ground. That is about 2 miles per gallon. But if she flies with 10 other people, that equals out to 20 passenger miles per gallon. This is better fuel efficiency than I get.
Click to expand...

Clearly the solution is to fly your car along the surface of the ocean, with at least twelve passengers at all times. This will be the most efficient and logical approach to travel from now on. You will need mermaid insurance, those things are like moose: hit one with your car and it'll total the car, while the mermaid walks away with only light bruises.
 
Try maintaining a worldwide touring schedule without polluting? Try doing anything without polluting? How much carbon does a recording session in a studio emit? That's a pretty energy-intensive process. How much carbon does lighting a stadium concert emit? These are things that cannot be changed while still maintaining a career. So carbon offsets it is, even though that is not a perfect solution.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Clearly the solution is to fly your car along the surface of the ocean, with at least twelve passengers at all times. This will be the most efficient and logical approach to travel from now on.
Click to expand...

Obviously a joke, but jets are woefully inefficient at low altitudes - they need to get high for best efficiency. And less mermaid collision risk.
 
Thermal said:
The Thunberg Effect is strong ITT.
Click to expand...

Why pick on Greta Thunberg? It's not like scientists all over the world haven't warned the world about climate change. Relying on ad hominem attacks on a teenager to address an existential threat to humanity seems fairly childish to me.
 
acbytesla said:
Yes, there are. But outside of sailing or a nuclear reactor, not really. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
Heck, even diesel is less polluting than bunker fuel. But bunker fuel is cheap, so it's what a lot of the really big ships use.

I think there's scope for smaller liners to ferry passengers exclusively from one part of the world to another. Biggest downside is the travel time. It wouldn't be good for business trips, but those are largely redundant in today's Zoom-enabled economy.

Anyway, I'm getting somewhat off topic here.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Obviously a joke, but jets are woefully inefficient at low altitudes - they need to get high for best efficiency. And less mermaid collision risk.
Click to expand...

That's why I said "car", not "jet". Fly the car along the surface, perhaps a foot or two up. Duh.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Clearly the solution is to fly your car along the surface of the ocean, with at least twelve passengers at all times. This will be the most efficient and logical approach to travel from now on. You will need mermaid insurance, those things are like moose: hit one with your car and it'll total the car, while the mermaid walks away with only light bruises.
Click to expand...

Fast Eddie B said:
Obviously a joke, but jets are woefully inefficient at low altitudes - they need to get high for best efficiency. And less mermaid collision risk.
Click to expand...

Not totally a joke. Planes are substantially more efficient at the altitude the monkey suggests. The Russian built Ekranoplan was designed to take advantage of ground effects. But as you pointed out, mermaids etc get in the way.
 
acbytesla said:
Why pick on Greta Thunberg? It's not like scientists all over the world haven't warned the world about climate change. Relying on ad hominem attacks on a teenager to address an existential threat to humanity seems fairly childish to me.
Click to expand...

Tune your radar in better. I'm not "attacking" Greta. I'm a little surprised at the thread drift direction.
 
arthwollipot said:
Heck, even diesel is less polluting than bunker fuel. But bunker fuel is cheap, so it's what a lot of the really big ships use.

I think there's scope for smaller liners to ferry passengers exclusively from one part of the world to another. Biggest downside is the travel time. It wouldn't be good for business trips, but those are largely redundant in today's Zoom-enabled economy.

Anyway, I'm getting somewhat off topic here.
Click to expand...

True, but even using diesel fuel, I think flying or driving is more fuel efficient. As for big container ships using bunker oil. I would prefer that they switch to nuclear reactors.
 
arthwollipot said:
Try maintaining a worldwide touring schedule without polluting? Try doing anything without polluting? How much carbon does a recording session in a studio emit? That's a pretty energy-intensive process. How much carbon does lighting a stadium concert emit? These are things that cannot be changed while still maintaining a career. So carbon offsets it is, even though that is not a perfect solution.
Click to expand...

Why does she need to maintain that career? She's worth between $800million to $1billion.

Unlike most humans she could spend the rest of her time on this planet trying to do the least harm to it as possible. Instead she does what so many other ultra-wealthy people do and uses her wealth to consume vastly more than a single person's fair share of the earth's resources.

What standard should we expect for people with such vast resources with regards to climate change?

But please, continue rooting for the anti-hero!
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Why does she need to maintain that career? She's worth between $800million to $1billion.

Unlike most humans she could spend the rest of her time on this planet trying to do the least harm to it as possible. Instead she does what so many other ultra-wealthy people do and uses her wealth to consume vastly more than a single person's fair share of the earth's resources.

What standard should we expect for people with such vast resources with regards to climate change?

But please, continue rooting for the anti-hero!
Click to expand...

She doesn't. Nor do a lot of wealthy people. But she enjoys what she does and a lot of people want to see her do it. I use more fuel per passenger mile commuting to work every day than she does flying herself and a few bandmates on her plane.

Compare this to Donald Trump in his 757. It burns more than ten times the fuel per hour than Swift's Dassault.

Now why exactly is Taylor Swift the anti-hero?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom