|
|
|
|
|
|
by taneq
2307 days ago
|
|
|
"Sustainable" doesn't mean "optimized for minimal energy usage", it means "we can keep doing it without running out of anything." If we can make jet fuel out of atmospheric CO2 using solar power without crippling the rest of our industry, it's 'sustainable' even if we just use that jet fuel for Nitro Circus antics. Also, 'efficient' doesn't mean anything without saying what you're optimizing for. Slow, lightly loaded aircraft might be 'more efficient' in the sense that they use less jet fuel, but if your business involves a lot of air travel, it's going to be 'more efficient' in the sense of time and money to use a faster aircraft. |
|
|
The article is truly disingenuous in this part because it starts with the sustainable claim, then goes on listing pollution as the biggest problem of the Concorde alongside two noise issues, as if building up to take them down one by one. Then it's taking down only the noise issues and calls it a day. In fact it even has to admit that the new plane will be just as range-limited as the Concorde was. This hints at the fuel issue definitely not being solved, given the 60 years (!) of engine advancements between them. (it isn't a sized issue, even business jets can reach quite impressive ranges)