CO2 emissions question
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CO2 emissions question
Hi
Anybody help me out with some very rough figures on the Co2 emissions for the following fixed wing/rotary please?:
Rotary:
206B Jetranger
R44
Fixed Wing:
C172
Piper Seneca II
Just trying to do a quick comparison of which is more environmentally-friendly, just in a regular economy cruise.
Thanks in advance
Anybody help me out with some very rough figures on the Co2 emissions for the following fixed wing/rotary please?:
Rotary:
206B Jetranger
R44
Fixed Wing:
C172
Piper Seneca II
Just trying to do a quick comparison of which is more environmentally-friendly, just in a regular economy cruise.
Thanks in advance
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compare the fuel burn (in lb or kg per mile). The CO2 emitted is directly proportional to fuel burn - with some adjustment for AVGAS vs AVTUR although that's probably less than a 10% difference.
Last edited by barit1; 26th Sep 2009 at 18:36.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Savage_UK,
Sad to see that you too have been taken in by the "environmentally-friendly" cr@p...
Rather compare your examples with 38-tons semis spewing diesel fumes and particulates straight into your typical village main street...
CJ
Sad to see that you too have been taken in by the "environmentally-friendly" cr@p...
Rather compare your examples with 38-tons semis spewing diesel fumes and particulates straight into your typical village main street...
CJ
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since nobody has answered.. A bit of googling produced the following figures for fuel consumption and typical cruise speeds. Some sites gave very different figures for same aircraft so might be errors....
Rotary:
206B Jetranger - 30 gph, 110kts
R44 - 15 gph, 115kts
Fixed Wing:
C172 - 10 gph, 110kts,
Piper Seneca - 22 gph, 175kts
So looks like the C172 is probably the lowest.
PS: I estimate the lorry burns 7 gph and cruises at 48kts but obviously that's carrying 38 tons where as the above err don't.
Rotary:
206B Jetranger - 30 gph, 110kts
R44 - 15 gph, 115kts
Fixed Wing:
C172 - 10 gph, 110kts,
Piper Seneca - 22 gph, 175kts
So looks like the C172 is probably the lowest.
PS: I estimate the lorry burns 7 gph and cruises at 48kts but obviously that's carrying 38 tons where as the above err don't.
Last edited by cwatters; 27th Sep 2009 at 20:24.
a quick google
....not really in favour of all this carbon fetishism but anyway this might help
Calculating CO2 emissions
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
guidelines for calculating emissions inventories require that an oxidation factor be applied to the carbon content to account for a small portion of the fuel that is not oxidized into CO2. For all oil and oil products, the oxidation factor used is 0.99 (99 percent of the carbon in the fuel is eventually oxidized, while 1 percent remains un-oxidized.)[1.]
Finally, to calculate the CO2 emissions from a gallon of fuel, the carbon emissions are multiplied by the ratio of the molecular weight of CO2 (m.w. 44) to the molecular weight of carbon (m.w.12): 44/12.
CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline = 2,421 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 8,788 grams = 8.8 kg/gallon = 19.4 pounds/gallon
CO2 emissions from a gallon of diesel = 2,778 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 10,084 grams = 10.1 kg/gallon = 22.2 pounds/gallon
Note: These calculations and the supporting data have associated variation and uncertainty. EPA may use other values in certain circumstances, and in some cases it may be appropriate to use a range of values.
Calculating CO2 emissions
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
guidelines for calculating emissions inventories require that an oxidation factor be applied to the carbon content to account for a small portion of the fuel that is not oxidized into CO2. For all oil and oil products, the oxidation factor used is 0.99 (99 percent of the carbon in the fuel is eventually oxidized, while 1 percent remains un-oxidized.)[1.] Finally, to calculate the CO2 emissions from a gallon of fuel, the carbon emissions are multiplied by the ratio of the molecular weight of CO2 (m.w. 44) to the molecular weight of carbon (m.w.12): 44/12.
CO2 emissions from a gallon of gasoline = 2,421 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 8,788 grams = 8.8 kg/gallon = 19.4 pounds/gallon
CO2 emissions from a gallon of diesel = 2,778 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 10,084 grams = 10.1 kg/gallon = 22.2 pounds/gallon
Note: These calculations and the supporting data have associated variation and uncertainty. EPA may use other values in certain circumstances, and in some cases it may be appropriate to use a range of values.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all - thanks for your responses.
CJ - perhaps "environmentally friendly" was the wrong choice of wording there!!
The point of this really is actually to demonstrate exactly the point you mentioned in a presentation I am currently working on..... that there are more things to weigh up when choosing aviation as a method of transportation or aerial work (even at it's most basic level) than just Co2 emissions (time, cost, ease of use etc...). Not quite jumping on the green bandwagon just yet....
Mr Optimistic/CWatters/Barit1 - great info & links, thanks.
CJ - perhaps "environmentally friendly" was the wrong choice of wording there!!
The point of this really is actually to demonstrate exactly the point you mentioned in a presentation I am currently working on..... that there are more things to weigh up when choosing aviation as a method of transportation or aerial work (even at it's most basic level) than just Co2 emissions (time, cost, ease of use etc...). Not quite jumping on the green bandwagon just yet....Mr Optimistic/CWatters/Barit1 - great info & links, thanks.
You to can contribute to Al Gores little earner, the emissions trading scam...
Norways’ DNV....was suspended last December when it was caught selling carbon credits for projects it hadn’t checked......SGS has been caught and suspended because it couldn’t prove it’s staff had properly vetted projects either...
...It might be called a “carbon market”, but remember that no one actually trades carbon, they trade rights to emit air with less carbon, and it’s not even as physical as air with less carbon than it used to have (something we can measure). No, it’s worse than that: it’s air with less carbon than it might have had.
So it’s an underwhelming surprise that the top two auditors have both been caught selling “Credits for emitting air that might-have-had-more-carbon-in-it, which might-have-been-checked by people who might-have-been-qualified to check these things...
The carbon casino caught with its pants down (again) « JoNova
Norways’ DNV....was suspended last December when it was caught selling carbon credits for projects it hadn’t checked......SGS has been caught and suspended because it couldn’t prove it’s staff had properly vetted projects either...
...It might be called a “carbon market”, but remember that no one actually trades carbon, they trade rights to emit air with less carbon, and it’s not even as physical as air with less carbon than it used to have (something we can measure). No, it’s worse than that: it’s air with less carbon than it might have had.
So it’s an underwhelming surprise that the top two auditors have both been caught selling “Credits for emitting air that might-have-had-more-carbon-in-it, which might-have-been-checked by people who might-have-been-qualified to check these things...
The carbon casino caught with its pants down (again) « JoNova
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Savage_UK,
You may like this example......
Last week, we had a brushfire start on a nearby hill slope (everything absolutely bone dry at the moment). Probably somebody throwing a fag end out of a car window.
Within twenty minutes, we had three small aerial tankers (AgCat and Air Tractors), one helicopter and eight fire engines on the job.
Forty minutes later, virtually everything was out, the aircraft had left, and only about two or three fire engines remained to deal with the last few patches.
Final result, one hectare (2.5 acres) mostly a blackened mess.
Once the greenbats (or rather CO2bats) have their way, and tax local fire brigades and aerial fire fighting support out of existence, it would not have been one hectare, but about twenty (until the fire would have been stopped by roads, fire lanes and such, always assuming it wouldn't have jumped them).
Now here's an interesting sum....
What constitutes more environmental damage (and produces more CO2, for the believers) : 1 helicopter, 3 aircraft and 8 fire trucks for an hour, plus 1 hectare of burned shrub and trees....or 20+ hectares of burned shrub and trees?
The latter take two to three years to grow back significantly, so they don't absorb any CO2 in the meantime either.
CJ
You may like this example......
Last week, we had a brushfire start on a nearby hill slope (everything absolutely bone dry at the moment). Probably somebody throwing a fag end out of a car window.
Within twenty minutes, we had three small aerial tankers (AgCat and Air Tractors), one helicopter and eight fire engines on the job.
Forty minutes later, virtually everything was out, the aircraft had left, and only about two or three fire engines remained to deal with the last few patches.
Final result, one hectare (2.5 acres) mostly a blackened mess.
Once the greenbats (or rather CO2bats) have their way, and tax local fire brigades and aerial fire fighting support out of existence, it would not have been one hectare, but about twenty (until the fire would have been stopped by roads, fire lanes and such, always assuming it wouldn't have jumped them).
Now here's an interesting sum....
What constitutes more environmental damage (and produces more CO2, for the believers) : 1 helicopter, 3 aircraft and 8 fire trucks for an hour, plus 1 hectare of burned shrub and trees....or 20+ hectares of burned shrub and trees?
The latter take two to three years to grow back significantly, so they don't absorb any CO2 in the meantime either.
CJ
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To get things in perspective........
Imagine a column of atmosphere from ground level up to 1 Kilometer in height. Most of that is Nitrogen, Oxygen and a little Argon. The minute remnant includes Carbon Dioxide.
Taking ALL the Human UK output of CO2 in that 1 Kilometer column and you are looking at a slice not even as thick as a human hair! That is ALL Power Stations/Ships/Cars/Houses/Lights/TV/Computers/Aeroplanes combined.
Bit of a farce isn't it?
Imagine a column of atmosphere from ground level up to 1 Kilometer in height. Most of that is Nitrogen, Oxygen and a little Argon. The minute remnant includes Carbon Dioxide.
Taking ALL the Human UK output of CO2 in that 1 Kilometer column and you are looking at a slice not even as thick as a human hair! That is ALL Power Stations/Ships/Cars/Houses/Lights/TV/Computers/Aeroplanes combined.
Bit of a farce isn't it?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: united states
Age: 45
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm...
Being that C02, N20 and CH4 are trace gases and human emissions are increasing the levels of such trace radiative active, trace gases to such a high degree in a short period of time, no, this is not a farce. CH4 is a more efficient absorber per mole by about 25 times, and C02 absorbs IFR that is not absorbed by water vapor; water vapor is not in the drym upper stratosphere and more C02 accumulates there with a long atmospheric residency. C02 is a exerts a positive forcing upon H-0-H and in turn HOH is a potent positive feedback. CH4 adds to this exertion of radition absorption and thus changes the global heat budget equilibration rate.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jcbmack
Why bother? CO2 is not a poison or polluter. Without it, plants and humans will die. I grow tomatoes in an atmosphere of around 1000 ppm CO2 and they love it! We breathe out CO2 at around 40,000 ppm. Mankind's 3% CO2 contribution affects Mother Nature's 97%? Really?
And the band played "Believe it, if you like!" Maybe we should stop breathing.
BTW Your syntax needs sharpening up a little.
I remember driving down the middle of the River Thames in 1963 in my Mini Cooper 'S' and arriving at Runnymeade [1963] Party on the ice for 450 people. Braziers/barbecues, in late February. The papers were full of New Ice Age prognostications. All backed up with waffle not dissimilar to yours.
Let's have facts, not uneducated guesses based on hysteria.
Why bother? CO2 is not a poison or polluter. Without it, plants and humans will die. I grow tomatoes in an atmosphere of around 1000 ppm CO2 and they love it! We breathe out CO2 at around 40,000 ppm. Mankind's 3% CO2 contribution affects Mother Nature's 97%? Really?
And the band played "Believe it, if you like!" Maybe we should stop breathing.
BTW Your syntax needs sharpening up a little.
I remember driving down the middle of the River Thames in 1963 in my Mini Cooper 'S' and arriving at Runnymeade [1963] Party on the ice for 450 people. Braziers/barbecues, in late February. The papers were full of New Ice Age prognostications. All backed up with waffle not dissimilar to yours.
Let's have facts, not uneducated guesses based on hysteria.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Godzone
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since nobody has answered.. A bit of googling produced the following figures for fuel consumption and typical cruise speeds. Some sites gave very different figures for same aircraft so might be errors....
Rotary:
206B Jetranger - 30 gph, 110kts
R44 - 15 gph, 115kts
Fixed Wing:
C172 - 10 gph, 110kts,
Piper Seneca - 22 gph, 175kts
So looks like the C172 is probably the lowest.
PS: I estimate the lorry burns 7 gph and cruises at 48kts but obviously that's carrying 38 tons where as the above err don't.
Rotary:
206B Jetranger - 30 gph, 110kts
R44 - 15 gph, 115kts
Fixed Wing:
C172 - 10 gph, 110kts,
Piper Seneca - 22 gph, 175kts
So looks like the C172 is probably the lowest.
PS: I estimate the lorry burns 7 gph and cruises at 48kts but obviously that's carrying 38 tons where as the above err don't.
and the 172 might only be 2250lbs mauw, but i'd like to see the comparison on a 1 hour flight into europe, versus how long the truck would take to get to the same location, added with eurotunnel/ferry/road damage/tyre useage etc. a friend of mine drives a 500hp truck, when climbing a hill at 20mph it is at 2mpg, it's highway cruise at 55mph fuel burn is 5mpg.
...and thus changes the global heat budget equilibration rate...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The challenge our industry faces is that we are judged based on calculations of emissions that are incorrectly compared to other transportation modes. Specifically, we see total emission values for a trip from A to b regularly quoted or the hourly emissions of an aircraft in cruise compared to other sources. This is an apples to oranges comparison. If you "normalize" the data by comparing the emissions of transporting 1 passenger or 100 kg of cargo for 100 km, the results are very interesting - lower than the most efficient cars and certainly far less than those people travelling alone in their SUV's.
It is also worth noting that aviation has made great strides in improving efficiency, far better than other modes.
The last point is that in many cases the constraints that preclude us from achieving further efficiencies are beyond the control of the aircraft operators; they are the result of ineeficient airspace structures and air traffic systems that are further constrained by local airport noise and traffic restrictions.
It is also worth noting that aviation has made great strides in improving efficiency, far better than other modes.
The last point is that in many cases the constraints that preclude us from achieving further efficiencies are beyond the control of the aircraft operators; they are the result of ineeficient airspace structures and air traffic systems that are further constrained by local airport noise and traffic restrictions.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I beg yours?
Human emissions constitute only a small fraction of your trace radiative active gases (with H2O being conveniently neglected, as well).
no, no and still no, but thank you for stopping by
CJ
'The challenge our industry faces is that...' the public is scientifically illiterate and can be exploited by self-interested pressure groups who want to 'punish' those they are envious of or believe to be wrong-headed or selfish. Some people can't do 'sums' never mind objectively judge non-equilibrium heat transfer. Doesn't stop them having an opinion though, or voting.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: united states
Age: 45
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
~sighs~
CO2 absorbs more IFR at different bands than does water alone. Water vapor is not neglected in General Circulation Models, and neither are negative feedbacks from various derivatives from S04's (sulfates) which create temporary cooling effects due to dimming. CO2 has a far longer atmospheric life than various aerosols... CH4 is 25 times more efficient than C02 in absorbing radiation and trapping in heat. CH4 is not neglected in GCM's either.
In addition to GCM's there are numerous satellite data and observations of CH4 emitting in greater quantities in the Artic empirical in nature.
There is also the issue of sea level rise due to thermal expansion and other stearic considerations.
In addition to GCM's there are numerous satellite data and observations of CH4 emitting in greater quantities in the Artic empirical in nature.
There is also the issue of sea level rise due to thermal expansion and other stearic considerations.