|
Interesting article here about the Airbus 320 NEO (New Engine Option) and the risks that Airbus are taking by introducing an new engine option that apparently will reduce the fuel consumption by up to 15%.
It seems so counter-intuitive at first, but if I read it right, if Airbus bring in a new option, it will reduce the second hand value of current Airbus 320's and if Airbus do a total re-design of the A320 within the next 10 years, the NEO option will also have a lower re-sale value. Well according to the finance sector that is. Seems blooming daft to me. Once again the finance sector are looking at the most pessimistic option and trying to drag down seriously impressive advances because progress doesn't suit their own particular view of the world or the seemingly cock-eyed way they do things.
I would have thought that a 15% saving, that is achievable here and now is way more valuable to an aircraft manufacturer and their clients that the possibility that at some stage in the future a more efficient design will roll off the production line. Look at the mess both Airbus and Boeing have got themselves into over their latest aircraft, the Dreamliner and the A380. Both way over budget and huge delays.
I say go for the 15% saving and nuts to the bankers.
And while I'm here.......
another bit of 'economic nonsense' which is currently bugging me is solar panels and the massive subsidies they get for generating electricity.
Well, they aren't generating much now are they? Where is all the 'Green Energy' when we actually need it? They are paid to produce electricity at times when we don't really need it. France is expected to break consumption records tonight due to the cold and the contribution form solar panels will be zero. So that means that no generating capacity at all is going to be replaced, ever, by solar panel generated electricity because they need to be able to produce as much power as is required all the time. OK so you may be able to reduce the output of a few nuclear stations a little bit during the height of summer, but realistically, how green is that?
The green answer is not to waste 40 centimes per KWh producing electricity at times of low demand, but to subsidise the price of insulation, low energy lights and electronics and other products that will actually reduce the peak demand. Once you have reduced the peak demand, then you can close power generating facilities and call yourself green. This current nonsense is just a joke and an excuse for a few people to pretend they are eco-warriors.
And then there is bio fuel............... |
|