Boeing 747 is More Fuel-Efficient than a Toyota Prius

Did you know that a Boeing 747 jetliner is more fuel-efficient than a Toyota Prius? It is explained further down in this commentary. And when you read the simple facts you will see another example of the reality that the “greenies” are desperate to keep from us.

And if you want to read over-the-top “green” weirdness and deception you can visit websites like Treehugger. It tells you how to build your own windmill from spare parts, live in an underground house, fuel your car with used cooking oil, etc. Fringe environmentalists have been repeating this crazy stuff over and over since the 1960s even though it is all patently absurd, and there are millions more of these extremist “green” kooks than you can imagine.

Here are excerpts on Treehugger from a guy called SG writing about his Nissan Leaf, an electric plug-in car. Each SG excerpt has a Nikitas3.com comment after it:

SG writes: I’m an Englishman married to an American. Consequently, I have a pretty horrible carbon footprint. however much I compost, walk, work from home or replace my lightbulbs, when I jet off to see my mum (and drink some delicious warm, flat beer), my conscience suffers a little tweak of guilt.

Nikitas3.com comment: So stay home and save the planet. Or have your precious “mum” move to the US. This is so typical. We know that these “greenies” are ultimately the biggest energy hogs of all. But to them it does not matter since their beliefs are “green” and they always have some bizarre way to hypothetically compensate for their energy consumption (i.e., I planted six trees before my trip, etc.).

SG writes: That said, I’ve always tried to repair some of the damage (of flying): making donations to a green charity, purchasing carbon offsets, shifting some of my savings to a community wind farm etc. Nikitas3.com comment: These people suffer from never-ending anxiety and guilt. This comes straight out of socialism and the environmental movement. It must be a horrible way to live.

This is all utopian nonsense. For instance windmills are grossly inefficient. They do not “save” the environment; these windmills are the worst affront of all to nature, particularly as they mar our mountaintops and farmlands, and kill millions of birds including endangered eagles in California. And they certainly are contributing to “climate change” by directly altering wind patterns and strength.

Windmills also are an economic disaster which is why they need endless taxpayer subsidies. That all explains why even many environmentalists now oppose windmills. Nuclear power is the answer to our electricity needs and increasing numbers of “greenies” agree including Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace, and James Lovelock, the ‘father’ of modern-day environmentalism.

SG writes: When I head overseas for any significant length of time I’m going to hand off my Nissan Leaf to someone with a gas car (in order to promote the “green” agenda). True, it would take an awful lot of road miles to make up for just one cross-Atlantic trip, especially for a family of four. But it saves the car just sitting in the driveway, and it also serves as an opportunity for someone else to try gas-free driving and see if it fits with their lifestyle.

Nikitas3.com comment: OK, folks, here is the fundamental truth about electric cars: They are much worse for the environment than gasoline-powered cars. Because cars are the ‘wrong use’ for electricity since electricity is a highly-refined and expensive resource that should be used sparingly for powering our computers, light bulbs, refrigerators, radios and other appliances that need small amounts of power where there is no alternative. Cars, on the other hand, need lots of power and have a great alternative – gasoline engines, which today are very efficient.

This is the basic reason that electric cars don’t sell. Period. End of story. Then there are many other reasons that they don’t sell (limited driving range, unreliable batteries, long charging periods, expense, etc.). Yet still the “greenies” promote them with bottomless taxpayer subsidies. Still they are not selling. Because ALL ‘green’ technology is fake. All of it. None of it works to provide anywhere near our power needs for a modern standard of living.

SG writes: I have noticed when I get in the car—even when the battery is fully charged—there can be a significant difference in estimated range, with the Leaf’s “guess-ometer” (as it has been sarcastically dubbed by some drivers) giving the total as anywhere from 65 to 83 miles depending on who last drove it, and whether it was driven on the highway or in-town.

Nikitas3.com comment: Those figures are not miles-per-gallon (MPG). Those figures mean that the car can only travel 83 miles maximum before needing a recharge, and less in cold weather when electric cars perform poorly, certainly less than 63 miles in very cold weather.

Yet these are the same “greenies” who throw a fit of rage over every molecule of energy content in a gallon of gasoline. And if that gasoline has one molecule less energy than the oil company claims they go berzerko and file lawsuits.

But when the estimated mileage range for an electric car is anywhere from 65 to 83 miles, or a whopping 33% discrepancy or more in cold weather they say nothing. This is how they constantly excuse anything “green” no matter how inefficient or ineffective it is.

Worse, the 2017 Nissan Leaf costs $30,000 and it is a tiny car that can only carry small loads and is dangerous in a crash. For the same money you can buy a fully-loaded and much safer 5-passenger Toyota Camry that gets 40 MPG highway. And you can drive the Camry indefinitely – just fill ‘er up (5 minutes per fill-up, 500 miles per tank of gas) versus 4 or 8 hours to recharge your electric car for another 70 miles or driving or maybe much less.

Now here is an amazing statistic. These “greenies” are always telling us how we should drive an underpowered ‘hybrid’ car (part electric, part gasoline) like the Toyota Prius to save energy. Yet one of the biggest jetliners in the world, the Boeing 747, which weighs 220 tons, is more fuel-efficient than a Prius. Here is the analysis from science.howstuffworks.com:

A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel (about 4 liters) every second. Over the course of a 10-hour flight, it might burn 36,000 gallons (150,000 liters). According to Boeing’s Web site, the 747 burns approximately 5 gallons of fuel per mile (12 liters per kilometer).

This sounds like a tremendously poor miles-per-gallon rating! But consider that a 747 can carry as many as 568 people. Let’s call it 500 people to take into account the fact that not all seats on most flights are occupied. A 747 is transporting 500 people 1 mile using 5 gallons of fuel. That means the plane is burning 0.01 gallons per person per mile. In other words, the plane is getting 100 miles per gallon per person! The typical car gets about 25 miles per gallon, so the 747 is much better than a car carrying one person, and compares favorably even if there are four people in the car. Not bad when you consider that the 747 is flying at 550 miles per hour…

And if the 747 is fully loaded its efficiency increases by 14%! These are the types of facts that environmentalists are desperate to keep from us so that they themselves appear to have all of the answers. Meanwhile the Toyota Prius needs a big taxpayer subsidy while getting 50 miles per gallon at 45 miles per hour with a go-kart engine. Big deal. Try driving your Prius from New York to London.

(It gets worse, by the way. Don’t believe the hype about the Prius. The Prius is a nightmare to drive. I know. I have driven one. The handling is awful and the visibility is frightening. The interior layout is very distracting. I would never buy one. I drove a friend’s Prius a few times. Horrible car.)

Here is another ‘greenie’ called LA writing on Treehugger about bicycles in Toronto, Canada. In case you don’t know it bicyclists are another increasingly vocal faction of extremists in the “green” mob. They ride in the road and in the street and act like they own them. They demand bike lanes in every city and town, and special rights for cyclists. They scream at motorists and make obscene gestures when they get cut off or have accidents, which are usually a result of their own behavior.

A bicyclist almost caused me to crash my car last year, and every single day we see cars swerving out, often into the opposite lane, to avoid bicyclists.

These bicyclists are like everyone else who is “green” – they are obnoxious and confrontational and they think that they are the center of the universe. Now here are excerpts from LA writing about riding his bicycle in Toronto with a Nikitas3.com comment after each:

LA writes: When riding my bike in Toronto, there is nothing that scares me more than to be stuck on a street with streetcar tracks and find that some big truck is parked, probably a construction vehicle with orange cones out, where cyclists are forced out into the streetcar tracks. Or turning left at an intersection where two streetcar lines cross; it is a mess of track spaghetti. I know many people who have got stuck in them and flipped off their bikes; a dear friend did it just last Thursday and is in bed now with a mild concussion, a shattered helmet and a few broken ribs.

Nikitas3.com comment: So who has been promoting streetcars and trolleys in cities for decades now? Answer: The same “green” fanatics whose bicyclist friends are crying about the trolley tracks. On the other hand Nikitas3.com has been speaking out against streetcars and trolleys for many years since they are extremely inefficient and expensive. Buses, running on the street on rubber tires, are much cheaper, lighter, more fuel-efficient and more flexible – for instance they can easily change routes – and there are no tracks to disrupt the smooth streets. Even cars can have a tough time with the trolley tracks when they are embedded in the pavement.

LA writes: Toronto has lots of streetcar tracks, and more and more cities in the US are installing them. Those cities should consider this recent study, … that looked at how cyclists and streetcar tracks interact, and it isn’t pretty. The study said: “We compared personal, trip, and route infrastructure characteristics of 87 crashes directly involving streetcar or train tracks to 189 crashes in other circumstances in Toronto, Canada. … The number of cyclists having track-related crashes is significant, roughly a third of reported crashes in the study period.

Nikitas3.com comment: So walk instead. Or ride the trolley. Bicycling is statistically dangerous to start with, even without streetcar tracks, and particularly in cities.

These bike nuts are typical environmentalists – they consider themselves to be perfect while every accident is someone else’s fault. Amazing.

(Please bookmark this website. And please recommend this site to all of your friends via Facebook and any other means. Let’s make Nikitas3.com the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. And if you would like to contribute to Nikitas3.com, please click the link at the upper right where it says “support this site”. Thank you, Nikitas)

This entry was posted in Current Events (More than 1,000 previous editorials!) and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.