[RTC List] Bringing Delta Airlines to the Eureka/Arcata Airport

Tue Dec 18 18:09:01 PST 2007

> Among the report’s more shocking statistics: A medium-sized server has a
> similar carbon footprint to an SUV achieving 15 miles to the gallon.
> John

That's interesting. All of our servers run 24/7, and cost less than $20
per month in electricity to operate. I wouldn't get very far with $20
worth of gas in my SUV. These days, you can easily run a server with a
quad core and full RAID array using less than 200 WATTS of electricity.
That's certainly better than "medium sized". Over the past four years, our
co-location facility has lowered its energy usage by almost 50%, which is
almost entirely attributable to improvements in CPU core design and
reduced heat that is emitted from them. Since the same science applies to
desktop and laptop computers, I would have to assume that the average
computer of today will use far less electricity than those of just a few
years ago.

-- 

William Van Hefner
President

Vantek Communications, Inc.
e-mail: vantek at sonic.net

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Aaron Antrim" <aaron at arcatacommunity.org>
> To: <vantek at sonic.net>
> Cc: <List at redwoodtech.org>; "Michael Winkler" <mlw9 at humboldt.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [RTC List] Bringing Delta Airlines to the Eureka/Arcata
> Airport
>
>
> As someone who occasionally flies, local business owner, as well as a
> sustainable transportation advocate, I am in a bit of a quandary over
> whether I personally support expanded service at ACV.  I certainly do,
> however, support everyone's right to make their own choice about
> whether or not to fly and/or buy into the travel bank based on their
> values, needs and available information.
>
> In that light, I feel compelled respond to William Van Hefner's post.
>
> Just because air travel is faster doesn't mean any less fuel is
> consumed.  On the contrary, modern jet aircraft get very roughly the
> same passenger-MPG as an efficient passenger car
> (http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/fuel-eff-20th-3.html#air_eff
> ).  However, load the same car up with 2, 3, or even 5 people, and the
> passenger car will offer 2, 3, or even 5 times the passenger-miles per
> gallon.  Greyhound buses average 167 passenger-MPG.
>
> Fuel efficiency isn't a direct indicator for comparing climate change
> effect, however.  Jet emissions are different than passenger car
> emissions in that they contain nitrous oxide and leave "con trails."
> These emissions, and the altitude at which they are produced,
> significantly increase the climate change effect of air travel.  Read
> more in this Christian Science Monitor article: "Air travel latest
> target in climate change fight:"
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0817/p01s01-woeu.html
>
> Currently, air travel accounts for 3% of greenhouse gas effects.  This
> will likely rise, as the number of air miles traveled is increasing at
> a rate of about 5% of year.  Also see this article from Science Daily,
> "Jet Contrails To Be Significant Climate Factor By 2050:"
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/06/990624080829.htm
>
> See also this article by HSU Energy researcher Michael Winkler,
> "Logging Global Warming:" http://www.green-wheels.org/node/164
>
> Of course, jets no longer fly out of ACV, so the climate change
> effects of prop planes must be considered differently.  I would
> venture to guess they consume more fuel flying at lower altitudes in
> thicker air, but that their per unit of emissions effects are less
> than the climate change impact of jets.  However, it is important to
> remember that most travel out of ACV is to connect to jet flights.
>
> I realize finding alternatives to air travel can be challenging, to
> say the least.  As I am sure many others will, I may continue to fly
> when there is no other viable option.  But I often opt to ride the
> Amtrak and Greyhound buses instead of fly, and see plenty of
> opportunity for their improvement if there was greater passenger
> travel demand.  One example would be making Wi-fi internet available
> onboard like some metropolitan public bus systems do, or providing
> power stations for laptops.  Another example would be offering better
> BART connector service for these buses in the Bay Area.
>
> I saw how bus travel can be different when I was in México and was
> surprised at the quality of the buses and stations — since middle
> class people rarely fly in México, they have frequent, high-quality
> bus service between cities, at several service levels.  Some service
> levels even include beverage service and meals, with seats that rival
> airlines' business class.  More in my article here:
> www.green-wheels.org/node/129
>
> --
> Aaron Antrim
> 707.633.4464
> Principal, Transit Information Solutions
> www.transitinfosolutions.com
> Outreach Director, Green Wheels
> www.green-wheels.org
>
>
> On 17 Dec 2007, at 11:14 PM, William Van Hefner wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>>
>> Perhaps if we all got together and booked flights on one of Al Gore's
>> private jets we could reduce the "carbon footprint" enough to
>> warrant air
>> travel for those of us in Humboldt that are not millionaires?
>>
>> Are you seriously suggesting that it is somehow more eco-friendly for
>> several people to spend 6+ hours driving to San Francisco than it is
>> for
>> 30+ people to fly there at once in a little over an hour? I'd really
>> like
>> to see the math on that one.
>>
>> Unless you are volunteering to drive everyone there yourself in a
>> 30+ seat
>> bus that runs on vegetable oil, I don't see how it is that stopping
>> people
>> from flying is going to help the environment. It is inevitable that
>> most
>> people will eventually need to travel to/from the area. Telling
>> everyone
>> to "telecommute" doesn't really help. It is easy to tell other
>> people what
>> to do without providing any type of relevant solution to the
>> problem. If
>> you believe so strongly in the subject, perhaps you should do
>> something to
>> create an alternative for people that is economically and
>> environmentally
>> feasible.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> William Van Hefner
>> President
>>
>> Vantek Communications, Inc.
>> e-mail: vantek at sonic.net
>>
>>
>>> Hi John. Not sure how you made that leap, but I will say this.
>>>
>>> Air travel is about as far as we can get from the sustainability
>>> that both
>>> businesses and the public must figure out how to achieve. It is a
>>> convenience choice which saves time, but at very large costs to the
>>> environment.
>>>
>>> It is not going to be easy, but we all must figure out how to correct
>>> human-caused climate change. Telecommuting goes a long way toward
>>> that.
>>> And voice- and teleconferencing can help as well.
>>>
>>> John Yolton wrote at 03:25 PM 12/17/2007:
>>>
>>>> In response to Michael. I moved back to Eureka in 2000 (from
>>>> Atlanta) so
>>>> I could enjoy our 'quality of life', I hope you are not
>>>> insinuating that
>>>> business travelers should be excluded from that enjoyment.
>>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> List mailing list
> List at redwoodtech.org
> http://redwoodtech.org/mailman/listinfo/list_redwoodtech.org
>
>