Re: !Re: Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity; Energy-Savers a Turnoff for Wives

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 06:42:40 -0400, "Robert Green"
<ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
<oc6dnZd8J-A-3PjbnZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@xxxxxxx>:
!Re: Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity;
Energy-Savers a Turnoff for Wives

>On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:05:18 -0400, Marc_F_Hult
><MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
><t6d8639fun26qgq44er19iivimk1lih6mr@xxxxxxx>:
>Re: Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity;
>Energy-Savers a Turnoff for Wives

>>On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 08:42:59 -0400, "Robert Green"
>><ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>><092dnYLZgpxBlfnbnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@xxxxxxx>:
>>Re: Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity;
>>Energy-Savers a Turnoff for Wives

>> >Where have you been, amigo?  Spain again?  How was the flight?
>>
>> How do you know I didn't catch the zeronetcarbon, "Farewell To The Gulf
>> Stream Sail" with a bunch of pre-nostalgic enviros in anticipation of
>> the abrupt change in that global heat conveyor belt ? ;-)
>
>I just know. ;-)
>
>So how much of your yearly carbon allotment do you think you burned up on
>the trip?  You're good at numbers.  That should be a cakewalk for you.

(BobbyG added the inconspicuous punctuation mark ! to the Subject which
will make these posts disappear from the original thread invisibly. What's
that all about, one wonders ;-)

Now it's taken BoobyG a while to get taken in by Dave's siren song and
repeated jibes on this theme. Moved by Dante's # 6, Dave plays BobbyG like
a violin. So let's treat them to the Surprise Symphony by playing BobbyG's
request ;-) All in good faith, good humour, and accurately to the best of
our abilities.

Delta airlines reports that the CVG --> GTW flight was 3982 miles each
way. Round it up to 8000 miles round trip (which is conservative in the
calculations that follow).

The Boeing 767 I was on was plumb full of passengers. As I recall, they
were calling stand-by's. It reportedly carries somewhere between 245-290
passengers. I use 240 passengers in the calculations that follow so as not
to have to quibble about the crew. (What level of purgatory do _they_ earn
for their carbon expenditure !? ;-)

Googling on < gallons/passenger mile B767 > and finding
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2628781/
I learn that the jet fuel consumption of a full Boeing 767 is reported as
	 4.25 gallons/mile and
	 0.0173 gallons/passenger-mile

Calculating the round-trip fuel consumption in units of
gallons/passenger-mile in the two different ways possible with this data,
we get:

At 8000 miles * 4.25 gal/mile * 240 passengers --> 141.1 gallons/passenger
At 8000 miles * 0.0173 gal/passenger mile      --> 137.8 gallons/passenger

This averages 139.4 gallons/passenger for this particular non-stop Midwest
US --> UK round-trip flight. But I'll round _up_ to 150 gallons to try to
head off the inevitable caviling.

So now consider that in the 35 years since I graduated from college, I
have walked, ridden a bicycle, and(or) used public transportation to
commute to work for all but 3 of those years. (Round _down_ to 30 years to
be conservative in the following calculation.)