Wave goodbye to airplane tickets

7/8/2011 2:50 PM EDT

Completely incorrect. New technologies for airframes, engines and avionics will make aircraft cheaper than ever to operate. Vast new discoveries of hydrocarbons in North Dakota, Colorado, Canada, Alaska, Mexico and the Gulf of Mexico will ensure more than adequate supplies of fuel. Also the science behind environmental damage because of aircraft is suspect. Besides new hydrocarbons from algae will mitigate any potential environmental damage from aircraft.

The future in aviation never looked brighter.

7/8/2011 3:31 PM EDT

Nonsense. There is plenty of energy, only governments prevent its use; also, have you seen how much tax and "fees: are stuck on the airline ticket price by governments.

7/8/2011 11:06 PM EDT

I thought EEtimes readers were well educated engineer types.

Vast amount of new discoveries? You mean NG? Can't run planes on CNG and no LNG planes are even being developed yet (if ever).

All one needs to do is look at global energy discoveries (Google it) to know that petroleum (used to power 98 percent of transportation) discoveries peaked in 1964 and those tiny, yes tiny discoveries you hear about in the news don't even make a dent.

I suggest EEtimes readers hit TOD (The Oil Drum) and get the facts. The prices we see today are not because of speculators. We are in an energy crisis, whether you accept that or not.

7/9/2011 9:09 AM EDT

Just think of olden days 200 years back. Think now. Because of world wide web we are able to reach our goals with less travel. Earth is saved to that extent. But population increase is in many folds and we need the fuel more and more.So the cost increases because of more demand.At least hope the fuel is avialable till newer technology comes in.

7/9/2011 2:25 PM EDT

I do not think there is any alternative energy sources exist for the air planes at this moment. This is one area where there is lot of research has to be done to identify different fuels.

7/9/2011 7:23 PM EDT

Bristol to Milan for 28 quid. Yeah, that'll keep the great unwashed off airplanes http://www.ryanair.com/en/cheap-bristol-uk-milan-bergamo-italy-flights

7/10/2011 3:38 PM EDT

This discussion is presuming that travel by air requires lots of fuel - but it takes less fuel than driving alone. A full (409 passengers) 747-400 plane cruises at 576 mph, burns 3,378 gallons of fuel per hour which works out to 69.7 miles per gallon per passenger. Better than driving alone (to say nothing of the time savings for a long trip). [statistics from http://ask.metafilter.com/25722/Fuel-efficiency-of-airplanes]

7/10/2011 4:11 PM EDT

It is a good point that there really isn't a good alternative energy source for the air travel industry. It is a good opportunity for ingenuity.

7/11/2011 6:28 AM EDT

@DrQuine

Flying long distances may be more efficient than driving long distances but I am not able to drive from London to New York and back so we are not able to compare like-with-like.

7/11/2011 10:52 AM EDT

There is of course a lot of fossil carbon left - in tar sands, coal, shale gas. But it is a lot more expensive to access and the C02 emissions per unit energy used are high. The Fischer Tropsch method allows conversion of coal into liquids which then can be refined, but this is again expensive compared to the $20 barrel of oil seen a few years ago.

Biofuels may be 10% of the mix by 2050, but not much more without cutting down a lot of forests and starving a lot of people. Algae may help on some of this but will still only make about 10% of the mix.
Video conferencing and telepresence systems can help cut a lot of travel, especially when visiting your own company or established customers.

The air travel industry will struggle at $100/barrel - only the most efficient companies will survive at that level, and we can expect the price to stay at that level as the world economy tries to bounce back - of course the oil price itself will make the road to recovery rather rough and unpredictable.
The ways around this are to diversify energy sources, to be more energy efficient, and to work smarter.

Development of planes is pretty slow, and their deployment slower. Because they are so expensive, no one wants to phase out a $30m plane unless they are forced to OR the cost of fuel will pay back swapping to a better plane. The rate of improvement has really slowed - it is around 0.5% improvement in fuel consumption per passenger mile per year in the deployed fleet. Don't bet on a plane that can be 50% more efficient than what we have at the moment ever being deployed - physics is against it.

How bright is it to spend many hours flying to have a 2 hour meeting, when you could just do it by telepresence instead and do other work instead of flying?
Given the industry we are in - perhaps we should advocate these solutions rather than hoping for miraculous new planes?

7/11/2011 11:52 AM EDT

This may also affect outsourcing, as companies look at the cost of shipping parts/test sets/support personnel vs. doing the work in house or local-sourcing. I, for one, would love to not have to travel long distances by air on a regular basis!

7/11/2011 3:54 PM EDT

Ah, back to the good ol' days of coal fired steam engines, pullman cars, sleepers, . . . . and clipper ships.

7/12/2011 3:09 PM EDT

Jeremy pretty much covered everything I was going to say, but I'd just like to clarify that kerosene, home-heating oil, diesel, and jet-fuel are the same thing, just different qualities (and taxes). So bio-fuel is the obvious, easy solution, but availability and price are factors that will drive prices up higher (which will drive down demand). The jets will be competing for the same bio-fuel/dino-diesel mix as the serial diesel-electric hybrid cars of the future (the parallel gas-electric hybrids such as the Prius are a blip, as they are extremely expensive, both economically and environmentally).
So, you can be assured that while new planes and fuel-sources keep us flying, the prices will go nowhere but UP in the future.

7/12/2011 3:23 PM EDT

This whole thing sounds like an editorial run amuck - has nothing to do with electronics - maybe just a reporter stuck in an airport.

In 1974 people were pushing their cars down the road because they were OUT OF GAS and in line to get some. Those were gas-guzzlers. Our cars (and planes) are far more efficient now. Watch an old movie of a 707 taking off and see the smoke draping behind, or drive behind a 1960's classic car and you'll appreciate today's advanced engines.

The price of everything, except perhaps of transistors, is constantly going up. Maybe telephone calls are cheaper. My father bought a nice new 4 bdrm house for $14,000 in the 60's.

If you want to save the atmosphere, fuel, congestion, vast sums of money, and your health, leave your BMW or Prius at home and ride a bicycle. My observation is that 80% of cars have only one person in them. And he's late. Welcome to America.

7/12/2011 5:16 PM EDT

To bring it back to electronics - we still have some improving to do. Tele-presence has come a long way, but it's still not as ready as it needs to be.

My software engineers work at home two days a week. They still come in those other three days to see people in person and stay a part of the team.

It's not terribly difficult these days to put together a video conference, but it's not terribly practical to try and do so with a bunch of different people. (on software here, still not quite on electronics). The solutions available are close but not quite ready. For most of my video conferences, I end up using the computer for imagery and a separate voice telephone line for the voice. I just haven't had good luck combining the two. The same goes for combining screen conferencing with live video.

Likely those issues could be solved with increased bandwidth purchase and higher performance PCs. That still doesn't eliminate the need to pop over to someone else's cube. Bandwidth, higher performance PCs and improved software might solve that problem. Tele-presence robots might also solve that problem. I read a lot about this type of robot but haven't found a real-world (as in not a test or pilot program) example of their use.

Does anyone reading here use a tele-presence robot in a real-world day to day situation?

7/13/2011 11:06 AM EDT

I believe the rise in the oil price is a saviour for economies such as the US. You know oil is way too low when a company can afford to fly parts to Singapore, do an assembly operation, fly the assembly to Mexico complete the build and then fly it to the US for global distribution. I worked for a company that did this very thing. When Oil hits $150 a barrel we will still be able to afford to fly overseas on holidays once a year, it will just be a bit more expensive. The thing where it will be noticed more is in the daily commute which is an almost daily occurrence, and all of a sudden my opening example won't be a viable thing and local production will set in with all of the environmental and employment benefits. As others have said airfares aren't really expensive considering how infrequently most of us have to pay them. I also don't see how fuel costs render an airline unprofitable, if ALL airlines need fuel (I'm sure they do) they are all equally affected by that cost and can all pass that cost on. The price goes up a little, but it's still damned cheap compared to the 1970's when fuel was cents per gallon. Okay, so usage will drop, so their market will shrink somewhat but with local jobs opening up it will only represent a shift, not a collapse in employment.

7/13/2011 3:29 PM EDT

Air freight costs move heavy stuff to boats and Air people costs move unnecesary flyers to Live Meeting on web. Life adapts. Electronics moves from engine controllers to internet and moblie device controllers. Technology evolves faster than people. But oil is running out fast compared to demand, with crossover of curves by 2016 no matter what happens in new oil finds or biofuel or CNG substitution or fuel cells or nuclear power. Get ready for that.

7/14/2011 1:47 PM EDT

How about the idea that airlines are poorly run, and driven into unprofitability by the very same incompetent boardroom douchebags who regularily run previously profitable electronics companies into the ground,combined with a airport service infrastucture like a grasping, over-taxing government. Not much to do with the cost of fuel-IMHO-- today, I saw you can fly from London, UK to Rome or Barcelona for 80$. but Vancouver to Toronto- 800!!Go figure.

7/14/2011 3:32 PM EDT

I do not think the situation is as dramatic as the article portrays. Yes, air travel is getting more expensive but we will adapt to this trend with time. Alternative fuels will be developed and we will find more efficient ways to communicate and transport goods around the world. For example, I am not too keen on fruits and vegetables being flown away from the other side of the world to my local supermarket. This is a waste that could easily be avoided. Also, politicians should steer away from centralised schemes and a adopt a localisation agenda in every walk of life. If that is the result of the current energy crisis, then it would have been a blessing in disguise IMHO.

7/15/2011 11:04 AM EDT

Oil is still very cheap. In my local grocery store in Vancouver most veggies are from California, some like grapes or apples frequently come from far away places like Chile or New Zeeland. So we are far away from reversing the trend of globalization. Once I see local apples here it will start happening...and people will continue flying in higher numbers, adjusted for inflation the air ticket is cheaper than it was 20 years ago, again the ticket price will have to double in few years to reverse that trend, possible but not likely...Kris

8/15/2011 8:04 PM EDT

Hi Bill,

Stephanie was asked by me to send that email. We answer questions from customers all the time. However, we have never been recorded without our permission. That is what we had a problem with, not the fact that you were asking a question.

This is the description on Amazon:

This calibrated silicon solar cell is perfect for PV system installers, to test instruments or in the classroom. The factory has tested this 0.5volt, 2 x 4 cm cell in 1 sun conditions and written the output on the rear of the #2 size plastic case (2 1/4" x 1 3/8" for reference).Since a silicon cell is used, the current output is almost linear to the amount of light. Example: 1 sun = 250ma / 50% sun = 125ma.

I found this description of “1 sun” conditions:

The test condition 1 sun of AM1.5 represents the average situation for the U.S., but for some com­binations of locations and dates, this test con­dition may occur when the sun is too close to the horizon for making outdoor measurements. Given an AM of 1.5, testing outdoors may proceed only under a clear sky. A practical alternative is to perform PV measurements indoors using a solar simulator.

The factory we get these from, I believe uses a solar simulator for accuracy.

If you have other questions, feel free to contact me.

Thanks,

Ed

Ed Bender
President, Sundance Solar Products, Inc.
http://store.sundancesolar.com/
672 Currier Rd.
Hopkinton NH 03229
603-225-2020 v.
603-225-2022 f.

Us microcontroller hardware/software engineers
are suspicious of large scale solar generation of electricty.

http://www.prosefights.org/pease/sundance.htm#bender1