Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by yodsanklai 3351 days ago
You're painting a darker picture than what it really is :) Most of the time, things go smoothly and flights are very affordable. I find it amazing that as a middle class person I can fly pretty much anywhere in the world. I can live with the inconvenience of being scolded by the TSA and US customs officers.

Actually, I wonder how much this will last considering that fossil energy will likely cost more and more and that more and more people from developing countries start to travel too.

6 comments

Eh I actually have developed this same attitude in the past few years. I'd rather drive NY to St Louis than fly because even though it's much shorter to fly, it's an uncomfortable reminder that the world is taken over by the lowest grade idiots and the highest grade capitalists. Probably nothing new, but somehow it feels different.
Gotta support the TSA make work program though, think of the poor, unemployed person who could instead be groping you in the name of security theater!

But seriously, flying sucks, I've driven 20+hrs to avoid it in the past. Usually worth it since I get to plan out stops and see old friends on the way down the west coast.

Count me as another in the "Americans who avoid air travel" bin.

I'd rather rent a car and book overnight hotels than buy a US-based airline ticket, to the extent that I have driven (with another driver) 50 hours on the road to avoid 12 hours in the air. And with the prices of airline tickets, even renting the largest passenger vehicle for a week plus two weekends and staying in mid-range hotels was less than half the money cost for four passengers. Also, we got to see Oklahoma in its "everything is on fire" season.

That is the extent to which air travel has fallen. I would rather drive across a state that is literally on fire than fly an airline in the US. I would rather piss at a New Mexico low-water-use rest stop than in an airliner's toilet. I would rather be surrounded by an entire herd of leather-clad hog-riding bikers in the middle of nowhere than put a laptop or decent camera in checked baggage. And if I ever get forcibly dragged out of my seat by some thug, I'd like the cops to be on my side.

A state that's on fire? A herd of leather-clad bikers? That actually sounds cool :).

But you know what sounds not cool: being in an environment where you have no rights, and as you put it, are at the mercy of thugs.

> But you know what sounds not cool: being in an environment where you have no rights, and as you put it, are at the mercy of thugs.

Which is why he drives... I'll show myself out.

> Actually, I wonder how much this will last considering that fossil energy will likely cost more and more and that more and more people from developing countries start to travel too.

When I was flying back from Paris, I sat next to an Airbus engineer who was working on retrofitting jet engines to run on a biofuel produced via fermentation rather than normal fuel.

No clue how far along that project is or how promising it is, but there are folks in the industry thinking about this problem.

Given that we have likely hit peak demand for fossil fuel (the theory being that the demand for fossil fuel has peaked before we have reached peak supply), this is unlikely. Oil prices are unlikely to ever reach the highs of $100+ ever again. Or so goes the theory..

In short, flight prices are unlikely to be severely effected by oil prices again.

> Oil prices are unlikely to ever reach the highs of $100+ ever again.

Since the oil price crash, investment in exploration has gone down dramatically, so I would argue the contrary.

When the current supplies start to dwindle, I would not be surprised to see oil prices strike $200 or more a barrel.

The oil crash removed the cost of exploration from oil prices, so current prices are no longer a indication of probable future supply.

There's a multi-year lag between exploration and crude coming to market. While futures/derivatives can cover that exploration for future crude extraction, there's a growing spectre of competitive alternative energy that will likely reduce the attractiveness of crude – i.e. there being higher risk of relative oil obsolescence, the anticipated return on futures diminishes, meaning less money going into exploration, even with what will be present-day high prices.

Given the lag in investment, I suspect that when the "spike" comes people will look as much to ramping up more immediate alternatives (solar, wind) than exploring for oil.

The above is all speculation of course, but the 5-10 year market forces at work are not pushing towards lower or even stable oil prices, but towards much higher ones – at least until demand drastically drops, which some figure is at least 15-20 years out.

Just my 2¢.

> "Since the oil price crash, investment in exploration has gone down dramatically, so I would argue the contrary...."

The fracking technology for oil and gas is still on it's Moore's Law curve and is getting cheaper and cheaper so in fact more and more fracking is coming on-line so that we're unlikely to see prices much above $50 per barrel.

Mar 21, 2017 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-21/big-oil-s...

April 12, 2017 https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-12/u-s-shale...

Good point. It just occurred to me that the spectre of shale that you highlight also counter-incentivises exploration, perhaps more so than alternative energy.
> Since the oil price crash, investment in exploration has gone down dramatically, so I would argue the contrary.

I keep http://oilprice.com/ in my RSS feed to keep tabs on the subject. It looks like the shale exploration is kicking up again (from the site and from friends working in the western part of ND).

and this helps http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Why-Breakeven-Prices-A...

$100 per barrel is still cheap. It had minimal impact on usage, and with most of the world trying to ramp up to a western lifestyle demand is unlikely to drop in the next 20 years.

PS: Oil is 53$ per barrel right now, 2x price spikes in commodity prices are fairly common historically.

> the theory being that the demand for fossil fuel has peaked before we have reached peak supply

Demand == Supply

And that's even more true¹ for stuff like oil, that has a low volumetric price. Do you really think demand peaked because people could not find more uses for the stuff?

Oil is in a peak production crash. The prices volatility is a natural consequence of it, and will always stay as high as consumers' budgets allows.

1 - That means, it's true for almost any misleading definition of those terms you can come-up with.

> I wonder how much this will last considering that fossil energy will likely cost more and more and that more and more people from developing countries start to travel too.

Actually I think the cost of fuel to fly a passenger from New York to London will be cheaper in 30 years, for two reasons: (a) Motor vehicles will no longer be powered by gasoline; and (B) planes will continue to become more fuel efficient.

>Actually, I wonder how much this will last considering that fossil energy will likely cost more and more and that more and more people from developing countries start to travel too.

On the other hand, planes may become electric, and the cost of solar power is rapidly falling. If this trend continues, it will likely become cheaper to fly in the future.

Even if planes don't become electric any time soon, other demand for oil may be displaced, lowering its price.

Is it possible to make something like a jet electric? If someone knows of one I want to see a picture. Sounds like something from one of my dad's old sci-fi novels.
I've seen a few articles about electric aircraft on HN. In addition to the Boeing plane, there's Wright Electric ( https://weflywright.com/ ). Light electric trainer aircraft have already been built, such as the Pipistrel WATTsUP. Not a jumbo jet, but pictures like you asked for: http://www.pipistrel.si/news/wattsup-the-new-2seat-electric-...
That Pipistrel airplane is very interesting. Not having fuel makes it better in a light crash I guess (no explosion).

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to piloting, but here on HN I've read other stories on light aircraft and training, and how forgiving it is and how it handles plays a very important factor in choosing an airplane as a trainer, no idea how that one does.

I imagine it wouldn't (need to) handle particularly differently. You can pretty much put a battery wherever you like. It seems that in the Pipistrel WATTsUP removable battery modules replace the mass of the engine block.

A nice advantage for a trainer is that unlike a combustion engine aircraft, a battery powered aircraft's mass isn't changing over time, so the learning pilot can expect a more consistent handling experience.

Yes, it's possible to make anything electric that currently runs on fossil fuel.

Making electric motors to spin propellers isn't that hard. We already do this for ships: any modern cruise liner has electrically-powered propellers (screws) that propel the ship. The challenge on a plane is getting the power to the motors. You could do a serial hybrid system, where a diesel generator makes power for the motors; this is what they do on cruise ships, but while it works well there for various reasons (including the variable-speed nature of running a cruise ship, and the usefulness of "azipods" for maneuverability), it's not likely to work so well for planes since planes in flight run their engines near full-throttle all the time (so you end up using more fuel, not less, due to conversion losses). So the idea is running the planes on batteries, like electric cars do now. The problem there is the weight of the batteries needed to store that much power is prohibitive. If someone invents battery tech that can store significantly more energy with the same weight, then the equation will change and we could very well see electric airplanes.

Is there any progress on electric aircraft that can match the durability and throughout of existing planes?