American gasoline money funds this stuff!

[FinanceDude]

zz...

 

[saluki9]

In a 4 cyl camry 5 speed 36 mpg. Less fuel than a plane? Right?

Wrong, your car would need to get 50mpg or greater to be more efficient than a modern jet airliner.

 

[dumpster56]

Wrong, your car would need to get 50mpg or greater to be more efficient than a modern jet airliner.

I am getting on a plane using the 1200 dollars the govmint is sending me in may and enjoying two weeks in the california wine country.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

I am getting on a plane using the 1200 dollars the govmint is sending me in may and enjoying two weeks in the california wine country.

Thats the spirit Newguy! Make sure you take the Napa Valley wine train. Pretty fun experience.

 

[saluki9]

I am getting on a plane using the 1200 dollars the govmint is sending me in may and enjoying two weeks in the california wine country.

You'll have a great time. And you aren't going to have to put up with any annoying conservatives there. Heck, in Northern California you're like Barry Goldwater.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

You'll have a great time. And you aren't going to have to put up with any annoying conservatives there. Heck, in Northern California you're like Barry Goldwater.

Dont remind me im in Hell..

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

churches used to build the largest, tallest structures. then finance towered over the steeples, each time business building a little higher to outdo the rest.

if built, this outdo seems built to last, for a long time to look down upon the rest. this monument to a fossil.

 

[clifp]

Wrong, your car would need to get 50mpg or greater to be more efficient than a modern jet airliner.

Not generally true. The airline industry averages about 50 SEAT miles per gallon. A 35 MPG Camry with 4 people in it get 140 seat MPG, even just a husband and wife going together is 70 seat MPG. It is actually more fuel efficient for a family of 4 or 5 to travel in a SUV than hop a plane.

In essence traveling at 540 MPH requires a lot more energy than traveling at 65 MPH.

 

[saluki9]

In essence traveling at 540 MPH requires a lot more energy than traveling at 65 MPH.

That has nothing to do with it (until you can fit 100+ people in your camry)

also, once you put 2,3, or 4 people in your camry, it no longer gets 35 mpg

 

[chinaco]

OK. let me guess.

It is either:

Is it a huge inter-planetary nuclear missile that presents a threat to the US. WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction). [-]Looks kinda like a missile in the chart.[/-]

or is it

The manifestation of the huge drain on our economy that is ruining us [-]oil[/-] WMD (Weapons of Monetary Destruction)

or

I suppose a third option could be that this guy has some sort of complex and is comparing size.

 

[jambo101]

Wrong, your car would need to get 50mpg or greater to be more efficient than a modern jet airliner.

Whether you go by fuel efficient car or plane train or bus or try to buy non oil based products those Arabian oil cartels are laughing all the way to the bank on the worlds dependence on oil and from what i see there's very few people trying do anything to turn that trend around,Eg try telling some one to slow down to save fuel or buy a more fuel efficient car or live closer to where they work and all you will get is some interesting rationals as to why that wont work.

 

[clifp]

That has nothing to do with it (until you can fit 100+ people in your camry)

also, once you put 2,3, or 4 people in your camry, it no longer gets 35 mpg

Yes the speed that you travel directly impacts how much energy you consume moving from A to B. If you double the speed something travels the drag increases by a factor of 4, which is why you get better gas mileage at 45 than 65.

Obviously it is more fuel efficient to put a couple hundred people in a vehicle than one, but slower is better.

If we want to save energy as country we need to encourage people to travel more energy efficiently. People make a big deal about SUVs vs Prius, while ignoring the #2 use of oil for transportation, airlines. For <500 mile trips airlines are an oil intensive way of moving people especially when you add in the typical 4 trips to the airport @20 miles each way.

The most efficient ways are
1. Ship*
2. Train
3. Bus
4. Multi passenger car
5. Airline
6. Single passenger car

*I could be wrong about ships vs trains.

So if newguy is traveling with a family he is supporting our Arab "friend" a bit less by driving than flying, which is opposite of what you said.

 

[samclem]

The most efficient ways are
1. Ship*
2. Train
3. Bus
4. Multi passenger car
5. Airline
6. Single passenger car

*I could be wrong about ships vs trains.

Barges are more fuel efficient per ton/mile than trains (so if you include them as "ships" your order is correct).
Motorcycles would be about tied with airlines for fuel efficiency. General aviation aircraft burn more fuel than cars (again, largely due to the velocity^2 = drag), but a small plane with four people aboard can be more fuel efficient than a car with one person. Corporate-style jets (approx 8 pax) are fuel hogs and would be at the very bottom.

 

[jambo101]

It would be environmentally and financially advantageous to just try to maximize the the economy of the vehicle we are driving at the moment as some people just dont have an option right now to drive a more fuel efficient vehicle,or have the money to spend on upgrading their house to be more energy efficient.
However when i'm out on the interstates it seems like no one cares as the average speed is 80 to 90mph and the average auto is a cross between a mini van,pick up and Suv.