Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

What is your helicopter carbon footprint?

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

What is your helicopter carbon footprint?

Old 6th Oct 2007, 19:28
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KPHL
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The connection to helicopters is becoming more vague with every post, but the discussion is interesting.

I think that deep within most reasonable people, you will find that they all agree that the net effect of carbon emissions is not a good thing, although perhaps some may think it is not a bad thing either.

By looking for evidence that it is bad, we are waiting for an unacceptable result. We could put known carcinogens into school lunches, and observe cancer rates amongst the students and former students for 20 years, and conclude that (within statistical accuracies) the data doesn't support removing the carcinogens. This is what is happening with the carbon emissions. We are looking for hard evidence that ill effects are occuring, but that hard evidence is going to be when we find ourselves with an unrecoverable atmosphere. I don't want that to happen.

Instead, we should acknowledge that the current evidence may not be 100% convincing, but take action on it anyway and see if we can cause a trend towards improving the atmosphere. If we see improvement (even improvement at a higher derivative), then that will greatly support the current evidence.

Any steps we can take to reduce the emissions make sense. At this point, taking every possible step will have too much impact on our way of life, but there are savings that could be had almost everywhere that have little impact. I.e. don't go with a low emission vehicle that is 3 times too big for your needs, go with a low emission vehicle that is the right size. Works for helicopters too.

Matthew Parsons.
Matthew Parsons is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2007, 09:20
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 431
Received 19 Likes on 12 Posts
@whoateallthepies
Ahem ... did you BTW look at the vita of Dr Martin Keeley?
I would say, he is:
1. A geologist and not a meteorologist
2. An Oil Exploration Consultant

He could have the tendency not to be very neutral, regarding his clientele.

There we have the next case, where a title makes you believe everything a person says.
You should read "Kleider machen Leute" or "Der Hauptmann von Köpenick".
... and not believe everything people tell you, just because you like, what they say.
Rotorbee is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2007, 10:02
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,953
Received 12 Likes on 8 Posts
Good find, Rotorbee.


Here is Martin Keeley's homepage:

www.martinkeeley.net


And his CV/Resume:

http://www.martinkeeley.net/index_files/Page629.htm


Bravo73 is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2007, 10:46
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Oman
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Rotorbee
Wow! Now there's a bloke with a "vested interest". I must stop trusting the BBC to present impartial information. (Should have learned that years ago!). So I'll officially remove him from my list of sceptics (or skeptics for friends across the pond.)

BUT there are still many others who disagree with the consensus on man-made global warming. I do listen to both sides but still wait for the definitive proof of CO2s effect on natural global warming.
whoateallthepies is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2007, 13:53
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Helicopters - carbon footprint

I'm amazed, certainly at the start of this thread, that so many "professional" people have such a selfish attitude towards polluting their environment. Surely, anyone who believes that what humans have been burning since the industrial revolution has had NO effect on the atmosphere, must be living in cloud-cuckoo land?

Nick L (as usual), non-pc plod & others put valid points and there can surely be no doubt that, whilst climate change has been cyclical over many milennia, what appears to be happening now will (due to there being 6bn people on this planet) affect many more in a shorter time scale - certainly if we don't all take steps to mitigate our impact on the world. It is behoven upon everybody, and most especially in the developed nations, to be responsible with their use of resources - there has to be a balance between living (and s*d everyone else) and living sustainably.

Some months ago, I attended an event where my family's carbon footprint was calculated (11 tonnes per year - quite a lot lower than the average) but I subsequently calculated that the machine I fly has a footprint of nearer 800 tonnes! Difficult to rationalise the two until I resolve the fact that it's a necessary service we provide (& my job), and I ensure that I operate only where/when necessary and don't waste time=fuel=carbon on inefficient flying around in circles!

None of this addresses the problems of peak oil (where demand outstrips supply available) - which many in the oil industry reckon is already here, and that if the developed nations don't make significant efforts to converge with the developing ones, we're going to come to some almightly oil crunch sooner, rather than later. Whether anyone's flying helicopters at all in 20 years time will be the question - although I won't care, I'll have retired to a ground pump heated, solar-power enhanced, windmill . . . nearly said water-mill, but they'll probably all be underwater!
zorab64 is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2007, 15:14
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 431
Received 19 Likes on 12 Posts
@whoateallthepies
I saw that one coming. But since you are in Oman and we probably talking about the guys that pay your lifestyle.... you will be excused.
I am tired of arguing with you, because you bring always the same arguments... "<enter name here> has said" and I point always out, that you should stop believing what you like to believe. Do you really think I like the thougt that there could be a global warming? Acctually I would be more then happy to have a warmer climate where I live.
But we should change roles and then you would probably understand what I mean. Take my side and I take your side and then you'll see. And believe me, I am better prepared to argue against that global warming myth, than you.
@zora64
That is the argument that is always lost. The timescale. You are right. The problem we face is how fast the change will come.
Rotorbee is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2007, 16:10
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
rotorbee - I can't say I really mind about the timescale, it's the people who think this whole discussion has nothing to do with man, and that therefore they don't have any responsibility to change anything about the way they live their lives, for the consideration of the future of the planet, that I have problems with!

The chances are that most of us posting here will be dead by the time any serious changes to the environment start to affect humans in large numbers, but I believe that the Mad Max films may not prove to have been far off the mark - it's not if but when!
zorab64 is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2007, 16:44
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
zora and rotorbee,
You are right, the story is being written, and future generations will measure what we did and when. Our children are hostage to our malfeasance. The future will look at the words that George Bush and his cronies spout, and they will say, "How could they be so blind?"

The solution is not awful, but it is massive. Carbon is the problem, and uranium and hydrogen are the solutions. Cutting now is hard, because our economic system depends on energy, but replacement must start immediately. If cheap nuclear (not nucular, as the blind say it) were put on line quickly, and coal and oil plants equipped with CO2 scrubbers, and milage standards were imposed across the world, a big dent would be made.

It is not hard, the cost is less than we spend for explosives and armor plate world wide, (the US Navy has more reactors at sea than there are nuclear power plants!) but the effort must start.

Unfortunately, without adult leadership we are screwed. With no asteroid looming closer, and with no tidal wave coming, with no big noise photo opportunities, the start will never really come. Dolts of all sizes and shapes (like those on this forum who think the issue is still in doubt, because they didn't bother to read http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686) continue to slow the process.

The fools who say it isn't happening, fueled by oil money and right wing political pablum give us the same warm comfort that Mom gave us as she pulled the covers over our heads and said, "Don't worry, everything is all right."
NickLappos is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2007, 17:48
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Townsend,WA. USA
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nick,
The solution is nuclear.
But the global warming activists are not about to endorse nuclear since they are the same group that killed nuclear 30 years ago.

How can CO2 be scrubbed? I don't understand how coal can be burned into a gas that is perhaps a thousand times the volume of the coal and then stored. Is this possible?
slowrotor is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2007, 18:46
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,293
Received 609 Likes on 267 Posts
Nick, if you really believe the information you post links to (which by implication means you agree with their links and evidence) then you should be campaigning across the USA for people to sell their cars and travel by bicycle. One of the sources claims the US is 18 times more polluting in terms of CO2 from vehicles than Africa...what do you drive? Don't tax the airlines, tax the motorists, your duty on fuel is a tiny amount of what Europe pays, you have the biggest cars with the biggest engines.

The US had to be dragged kicking and screaming into Kyoto and promptly negotiated all sorts of get-out clauses and invented carbon-offset trading.

I agree nuclear is the way forward but, as has already been said, the Greens don't like it and the 'Global warming' bandawagon has given them a huge stick to beat people with - they have the power and nothing will convince them about nuclear energy.

The main problem with the 'evidence' of global warming is that the scientific articles are full of phrases like 'modelling sugests', 'CO2 levels might rise', 'The earth temperature may rise by 3 degC', 'Sea levels may increase' and 'analysis of the data suggests'.

The best computer modelling suggests that it might rain next week in England, or Ireland or possibly France and no-one claims to understand the complexity of the global sea currents so how can you put so much faith in some number-crunching (garbage in, garbage out) to come out with the answer - 'the earth's getting hotter and it was the humans wot dunnit guv'
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2007, 19:14
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
crab,
The US pollutes more in direct emissions because the US uses more energy to run its high lifestyle, the lifestyle that Asia and Africa are working hard to assume.

The indirect emissions are perhaps even more damning, because the release of CO2 from chopped down trees is almost as much a problem as are the direct emissions, and the loss of carbon fixing from those trees makes the "pollution" from rural, third world countries perhaps as bad as the big bad US. Furthermore, the release of methane from thawing tundra (a mode unrealized when the models were constructed) appears to be accelerating the problem.

All that being said, I must attack your illogical point "if you believe..." because this is not a religious festival, and your or my belief has nothing to do with the data. The Oil Pressure Caution Light is flickering on the Earth's Caution panel, and we have 928 technical papers by climate scientists who say it is, (and not one opposed) but Crab who says it is about models, and Lama who says it is the Scientist Mafia. I hear fiddling........

You can put your head in the sand and believe that these are nothing but discussions, and that "models" are what we are discussing. You can also find someone who is more to blame than you, so that means you must do nothing! You can also take a vote of the "beliefs" of those who you hang around with, and if the majority think it is no problem, than the data must be adjusted to suit. Let's vote on Gravity, too, while we are at it. The results will be as meaningful.

One of the great problems with aerospace safety is to get the user to see the net safety implications of his actions. Build stronger engines while we hit the dirt with CFIT is an example. This is the same. The data is there, but the ability of we collective fools to decide it isn't data, and that there is a nice word-pattern that makes it go away fuels our dreams.
NickLappos is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2007, 02:55
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have resisted the temptation to join this discussion because I simply do not believe that it is mankind and his life style that is totally responsible for climate change (are we talking good or bad CC?) and I know my attitude inflames a lot of people. But a couple of points:
I have some good friends who are desperately trying to convince me that mankind is stuffing the world. Yes, one of them drives a hybrid car - but the same is happy to leave lights on day and night and same same for the airconditioning. They burn wood fires when an extra jumper would do. The clothes dryer is used when God's own is blazing down outside. Computors, yes plural, run day and night even when the operator is overseas for three months! Should they read this I apologise for using them as an example of a large majority of the activists who are big on rhetoric but short on actual action,
The West loves the lifestyle and the emerging nations want and will have it!, and,
in my part of the world the Greenies will have no part of nuclear power.
GAGS
E86
eagle 86 is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2007, 04:33
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is there a chance to boil it back down from the big picture to our small (helicopter-) world for a second?

I have a honest question to all of our engineers and testpilots.

Maybe naive but here I go:
Does anybody suspect if there are any alternative ideas deep, deep in the drawers of GE, Rolls Royce, P&W e.g. how not to burn 100 gal of Jet A an hour and still call it "superior technology"?
I mean people suspecting car manufacturers of having plans for a 65 mpg (3 l/100km) car that is as powerfull as a Porsche 911 (a little exaggerated, ok )? ...and they are not using it because the Oil lobby is protecting their business?

Beeing 31 and having quite a few years to retirement, I'm just curious if there is a better plan than buying a hybrid family van for the ride to the airport, only to burn more than the payload of the aforementioned vehicle just during one day of work?

(anticipating the smartass answer: "buy a porsche!")
Phil77 is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2007, 05:24
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,293
Received 609 Likes on 267 Posts
Nick, the credibility of your argument would hold more weight if you were not doing what you accuse me of doing - if this isn't blaming others for polluting more than the US then what is?

Quote' The indirect emissions are perhaps even more damning, because the release of CO2 from chopped down trees is almost as much a problem as are the direct emissions, and the loss of carbon fixing from those trees makes the "pollution" from rural, third world countries perhaps as bad as the big bad US. Furthermore, the release of methane from thawing tundra (a mode unrealized when the models were constructed) appears to be accelerating the problem.' Unquote...just how much of that timber is destined for the US market?

And your justification is, Quote' The US pollutes more in direct emissions because the US uses more energy to run its high lifestyle, the lifestyle that Asia and Africa are working hard to assume.' Unquote........so it's the other guys fault again for wanting to be like you.

Get your own house in order before you start preaching. You want to be world leaders then lead from the front.

Aviation does have more to fear from the anti CO2 lobby because alternative technology doesn't appear to exist, whereas the carmakers are pushing electric/hybrid/hydrogen powerplants strongly - a more efficient jet engine isn't going to sway the greenies.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2007, 09:15
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Phil, for helicopters the problem boils down to three areas:
1. Fuel source.
2. Engine.
3. Aerodynamics.

For 1, i am not as convinced as others about hydrogen. The main reason is that it has lousy energy volume density (even as a liquid), although good energy mass density. Consider that the mighty Saturn V used liq H2/O2 combustion in it's 2nd and 3rd stages (J2 engines), but good old kerosine for the heavy lift 1st stage (F1 engine). CO2 + H2O + Energy can be converted into liquid hydrocarbons, but it will take some investment to develope the chemical engineering required. It is doable.

Where the energy comes from is the key. We get 1.4kW of power for every square meter from sunlight, so there is a start. Water turbines in the gulfstream look a more practical way for UK to capture this energy. Ultimately our power hungry civilisation will use fusion, which will be with us in 3 or 4 decades. Fusion is already here, for ~1min burst, but it takes time to commercialise these things.

For 2, the ultimate solution will be solid state energy conversion. There are some very interesting technologies using quantum mechanics to convert combustion directly into electrical power. They will probably work their way through the space industry first while they mature. Timescale probably similar to fusion, mostly due to market resistance. In the interim Rolls is doing a lot of materials research to push engines above 40% efficiency.

For 3, as Nick comments the heli industry (should that be helo? i've never been sure) will continue to improve their product with resulting benefits. I will be interested to see a Sikorsky of 2040, it may be suprisingly different...
Graviman is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2007, 17:32
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Crab said, " Get your own house in order before you start preaching. You want to be world leaders then lead from the front."

Considering the official US position re: Global Warming, we are guilty as charged. That doesn't mean every American agrees with the stated policy!
NickLappos is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2007, 18:10
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 431
Received 19 Likes on 12 Posts
Now it is the crabs turn again (why do I think about garlic and olive oil?)... will there be something sensible what we can acctualy discuss, or another excuse for continuing playing with toys like cars?
I don't think either, that hydrogen is the way to go, nor nuclear power. The later because storing the very dangerous waste for 10’000 years is just a bit silly and there is no endless supply of uranium either. Apart from that, the energy content is just great.
We must replace the fossil fuel power stations with something, this is clear. I think the idea of a huge high tension network all over <enter continent here>, is one important part in the big picture. By connecting wind, solar and hydraulic power stations (or anything else that does not pollute), we could produce the electrical power where the wind blows or the sun shines and use the surplus to pump water up in the reservoirs to store the energy for peek times.
Methanol would be the next piece in the puzzle, but only when we are able to produce it from the whole plants and not only from the grains.
Fusion is just too far into the future to count on it.
Rotorbee is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2007, 18:24
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,293
Received 609 Likes on 267 Posts
Nick, if there is not a groundswell of public opposition to your Govt's position, is it because this 'overwhelming evidence' just isn't that overwhelming?

If sea levels really are rising, why isn't the Eastern seaboard of the US underwater by now. If there really are going to be more 'extreme weather events', where are they because all the stuff we are getting at the moment is the same stuff as we have had for 100s of years.

Without some precise forecasts and some real proof that the climate really is changing and not just following a natural cycle, your countrymen are unlikely to trade in their Chevy's for Prius' and abandon that high lifestyle of theirs for something more modest and environmentally friendly. You guys voted him intwice

Over here the politicians are falling over themselves to win votes on the environmental issues and taxing the poor people who have to drive to work is the latest fad. Unfortunately, the CO2 emissions data that is now used to determine how polluting your car is and therefore how much vehicle tax you pay is inaccurate and misleading - the methodology is explained by Andrew English in Saturday's Telegraph motoring section.

The only reasons politicians are interested in global warming is winning votes and raising taxes.

Climate change is the new religion amongst the scientific community and evryone wants to be the Pope.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2007, 19:44
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Crab,
Every word in your last post indicates that you haven't read anything about global warming written by a climate scientist, yet you have amazingly strong understanding of the REAL issue! I have a good dentist who overhauls transmissions. Want his number?

Regarding political action for global warming, after the next election in the US, I think we will find a new awakening of non-political science, with climate, space and stem cell research all funded and active, as they should be.

Until then, we do have a good business professor who agrees with your science opinions. And a Dentist/transmission expert!
NickLappos is offline  
Old 8th Oct 2007, 23:41
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Rotorbee says:
And those who are the loudest, are most often heard.
I can't comment on what's happening in the rest of the world but, in the UK, that's a fair description of the 'green' lobby who'd have us believe the end of the world is nigh. Unfortunately, those who dare to challenge the basis of their claims, or even express scepticism, are given relatively little exposure because the media has jumped on the environmentlist bandwagon.

and
That reminds me of an old saying. If you are sure that you are right, argue, if you are not right, shout.
Applying that adage to this thread, it's interesting to observe which side has been doing the most shouting. And which side has been the most intolerant of those who dare to disagree with, or even be sceptical of, the other side's claims.

Unfortunately, in the UK, the government has jumped on the currently popular environmental bandwagon as a means of raising more tax revenue. Not for the purpose of raising more revenue, of course, but in the interests of the environment. Believe that if you will.

Am I concerned about the future? Yes.
I'm very concerned that we're going to pay even more tax in the guise of concern for the environment.
I'm very concerned about the practical consequences of the leaders of all the major UK political parties trying to outdo each other in pursuit of the 'green' vote. (I try to take comfort in the fact that they actively pursued the 'pink' vote not long ago, so I can only hope we'll have a respite when a bandwagon of a different hue eventually rolls along.)
I'm very concerned that some powerful politicians want Britain to lead the world in environmental issues. The thought that they might succeed in their aspiration worries me. I'd be relieved (delighted, even) if we were somewhere amongst the last wagons. Politicians are extremely adept at talking a lot about doing a lot whilst actually doing little or nothing - when it suits them. This is an area where I'd welcome seeing those skills put to good use so that we delay inconvenience and interference in our freedom of choice for as long as possible.

Aviation is one of the prime targets of the environmentalist lobby in the UK. It's an easy target. So let's make life more difficult for one of the few successful industries we have left. What a clever idea.
I accept entirely that the aviation manufacturing industry has to prepare for the future and, just as important, must be seen to be doing so.
In the meantime, the aviation industry as a whole should be embarking upon a massive PR exercise to defend itself against the attack, including correcting the false impression created by the green activists that aviation is a major contributor to global warming/climate change. And including using every devious trick in the spin doctors handbook, which reminds me of another old saying - by a good friend of mine: 'If you're in a fair fight, you didn't plan it properly.'
(Actually, not so old a saying. When did you first say it Nick? )

Do I care about the environment in the sense that word is used in discussions of this sort?
Yes, in theory; no, in practice.
ie Do I do anything/not do something out of concern for the future of the environment? No.
Those who claim to be so concerned are often shocked by that - until asked what they do. eg Do they forego a foreign holiday by air, walk/cycle/take the train instead of driving, actively minimise their leisure use of fossil fuels etc? The most the overwhelming majority come up with is having a recycling bin.
I'm not sure how long that freedom of choice will last. Throughout the history of mankind, zealots have forced their views on those they fail to persuade. Always for the 'greater good', of course.
That reminds me of another old saying. 'If you are sure you'll persuade, argue. If you're not sure, use force.'


PS. I'm all for other people choosing to use their cars less.


FL

Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 9th Oct 2007 at 07:00. Reason: Typos
Flying Lawyer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.