Every flight Every Day Destroying The Environment

[pullock]

It's fact that one of Australia's newest airlines is tankering return fuel out of major departure points even though it burns a LOT more fuel on the outbound sector to carry the return sectors fuel. Aparrently it's cheaper than paying the higher prices of fuel at out ports.

OK so business is there to make money, and we all know the environment and the airline industry don't mix, but should every person on the planet who don't fly be paying for the profitibility of the airline industry in general, who choose to tanker fuel in the sky all for the point of saving a few cents per litre ?

On the other hand, why is it cheaper for the airlines to purchase the fuel in major ports and air freight (tanker) it to outports for use on the next return flight. Road freight SHOULD be cheaper.

If this all means air freighting fuel is cheaper, then surely it should translate across the board to general air freight ??

Something is wrong here.

[Dehavillanddriver]

So what?

Tankering fuel is a well accepted practice.

Have a go at stopping smoking - you might do more good for the environment and people in general rather than bothering with about half a dozen (out of about 300) tankering sectors a day.

[404 Titan]

You are kidding aren’t you? I don’t know any airline or for that matter charter company in the world that doesn’t do this to some extent. I know of trucking companies that do this to avoid the higher taxes that are present on diesel in some states compared to others. It is quite right and responsible for any transport company to tanker fuel if they believe they can reduce their operating costs by doing so. If you take your analogy to its conclusion maybe we should stop people filling their petrol tanks up in their cars because you burn more petrol per/km than if you only had the fuel to do a one way trip to work or the shops etc. While we are at it maybe we should make it compulsory by law to car pool to work. The number of cars that I see with only one occupant in them is staggering.

[druglord]

yes pullock and are you driving around in a solar power car to save the environment? Until it becomes economical you're living in dreamworld or you may still be at uni.

[Capn Bloggs]

I don't normally like sledging fellow pruners (except RHS) but I think Pullock must be on something tonight, judging by this and his post on the ADL glass aerobridge thread!:p

[pullock]

Actually, domestic tankering to this extent is quite new.

Ask any refueller, or alternately go read your company policy.

So what you are saying so far is that it is environmentally better to transport many tonnes of fuel for every flight every day by air than it is to transport them by road/ship? Somehow this isn't bad for the environment? Every Australian Airline does it? Think Again. They Don't.

If it is cheaper and better for everyone to carry fuel by air then why don't we just air freight fuel between cities?

If I am on something, and it enables me to see the bad side of burning exponentially more fuel to save fuel cost, then I want more of what I am on, and I wish you too could see some side of reality other than the economic one.

Lets put it in simple terms - burn HEAPS more fuel to save a SMALL amount of dollars. The equation doesn't quite work for the greater good unless you are a shere holder.

Destroy the planet to make more money - when it's on such a large scale as an airline perhaps it needs regulation.

Why regulate small hydrocarbon users like backyard burning that might burn a few hundred kilograms per year when an airline tankering might burn tens of tonnes a day?

Each happens to save dollars - for the consumer its to save money per kilo taking rubbish to the tip, and for the airline it's to save money buying fuel at higher local prices and supporting local economies.

Back yard burning is bad yet airlines tankering fuel in the most inefficient manner possible at macro scales is good...........yeah now I know I have it wrong

Is the concept of CRF lost in the airline industry ???
:ok: :ok: :ok: :ok:

[Mr.Buzzy]

While we are at it. What about the companies that fly as fast as possible with no consideration to fuel burn?
I have even heard of the said company making a PA to inform of the "slower competitor out the left"
If the envornmental groups can dictate how much noise pollution we can make. How much longer before they wake up to this crowd burning an extra 200kg to save 1 or 2 minutes?

bbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Sunfish]

All of youse are making the assumption that the additional fuel burned by tankering fuel in the aircraft itself is greater than the fuel burned tankering it (by road, rail or sea), plus distributing it and then refueling the aircraft, plus losses in storage along the way.

I wonder if this critiscm is really justified?

[TIMMEEEE]

Pullock.

Like those tree hugging, bed-wetting, hanky-sucking bleeding heart greenies, they wont be happy until we are living in the stone age and getting about by horse and cart.
Even then they'll whinge about the methane produced by horse turds!!

Our local Council is run by the greens and its an unmitigated disaster.
They are trying to ban everything from runners using running tracks, cars using carparks, students using sports ovals for sports day, imposing levies on 4 WD's and want cinemas to be fined if they dont reduce the volume by about 30% !!!

I watched Senator Bob Brown on one of the last Burkes Backyard shows.
Guess what his house is made of..............WOOD !!
Guess what his boyfriend was burning in the fire............WOOD !!

Why is it that you always see a Combi van belching plumes of black smoke with either a Greenpeace or WWF sticker on the back?

Hypocrites and idiots!

Im all for recycling etc and reduced driving, less pollution but the post you made Pullock is just bollocks !!!

Ah, just bring me back to the good old days of the B727, the B707, the DC8 and Super VC-10.
Lots of noise, smoke and speed !!

[THREEGREENS]

Pillock,
Step back a few million years....we had the ice age when the earth was supposedly destroyed and all the dinasours etc etc etc became extinct.... this is evolution!
So the polar caps melt and we all drown (not that you and I will ever see it)....regardless of the cause, that too is evolution!
I say LET IT EVOLVE! It is just nature taking its course. No number of Bob Browns are going to stop it happening today, tomorrow or ever.
Just a question though, and answer honestly, what type of car do you drive? If you were genuinely serious about what you preach, the answer should be NONE!

[Uncommon Sense]

Pullock,

You are on a hiding to nothing here.

If you are a pro-howard, pro-bush, pro-iraq invasion, pro-lock up the refugees (queue jumpers!), burn as much oil in your jeep suburban, dig-it-up-and-ship-it-out economist, .... then you might get some sympathy from the more vocal neanderthal leanings of many of Jerry Springer set lurking this bandwidth.

Anything resembling a change in the Americastralian way of life...? Forget it.

Not to say there are not a majority of readers who do not agree with you.

[Uncommon Sense]

testimonium tyrannus :rolleyes:

[404 Titan]

pullock

I think you are living in fairy land if you think aviation is the polluter you say it is. Let’s look at the facts before one points the bone at aviation.

Total Energy Sector Emissions in 2002.

• Energy Industries = 53.8%
• Transport = 21.3%
• Manufacturing Industries & Construction = 11.7%
• Fugitive Fuel Emissions = 8.1%
• Other Sectors = 5.0%

Now let’s break down the transport sector to find who is the most polluting there.

Transport Emissions in 2002.

• Passenger Cars = 54.9%
• Other road Transport = 33.4%
• Aviation = 7.4%
• Railways = 2.3%
• Navigation = 2.0%

If we extrapolate this further for Aviation,

7.4% x 21.3% = 1.576%

In other word aviation account for no more than 1.6% of total pollution in 2002. The amount of extra pollution created by tankering fuel is negligible in the whole scheme of things. If you really care for the environment our efforts need to be directed at the Energy industries, Cars and other road transport. They are the real polluters and by far the largest consumers of energy in the world.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Boo Hoo Hoo, and a sob sob sob,..... (For the planet...)

Excuse please for a minute or three - I just have to go outside and plant a tree! Or 10,000 of 'em to really do any good!

Hey Pullock, how many trees youse planted today???? :yuk:

[Ultralights]

Listening to Dr Karl, On JJJ last week, he mentioned the existance of a Supernova, approx 12,000 Light years away. the supernova only lasted 15 mins in the night sky, but for that 15 mins it was the third brightest object in the sky, after the moon.

The radiation and heat released from this blast was on a level unimaginable!

the point is, if this happened to any one of the 250 stars within 1000 light years away from earth, it would have instantly destroyed every living thing on the side of the planet facing it, and the otehr half would have perished within a week!

so on the Bigger scale of life, there is NOTHING we can do on this earth to protectus us and prevent the events of ultimate reality.

also i rember recently, that it appears to be that the "greenhouse gasses" and associated haze in the atmosphere is actually helping to Cool!!!!!! the planet!!!!!!

this pheneminom was noted during the 3 days of aircraft free skies over the continental USA after september 11, when the average temperate of the USA rose 3 deg for those days! as the blanket of contrails didnt exist for those 3 days. this promted reasearch into the haze effect.

just imagne! the added pollution in the air could actually be Slowing the rate of gloabl warming!!!!

and Mr pollock, have you actually BEEN to China????

on a Good clear day, visibility is still limited to 10 Miles in haze!!!! so mr pollock, i hear a leaf falling and a tree in the middle of nowhere missing its fertalizer from another ferral!

[Uncommon Sense]

dissimolo universitas

[FlexibleResponse]

Or perhaps we'll completely exhaust the supplies of aviation fuel and then the Earth will be saved.

What did you do to save the Earth today!

[Blip]

also i rember recently, that it appears to be that the "greenhouse gasses" and associated haze in the atmosphere is actually helping to Cool!!!!!! the planet!!!!!!

Errrr.. You kinda got it half right.



Global Warming vs Global Dimming.

Airbourne particles associated with burning fossil fuels (smoke etc) is reducing the amount of sun's energy reaching the ground (from 9-30%) through directly blocking sunlight reaching the ground, as well as creating more nuclii from which clouds can form. More clouds mean more sunlight being reflected back in to space.

This was indicated by the reducing rate of water evaporation at meteorological weather stations around the entire globe.

This has meant that the effects of CO2 has been underestimated. The models up until now have not taken the effects of "Global Dimming" into account.

As emitions become "cleaner", such that the amount of visible airbourne particles associated with combustion reduce through better engine design etc while the levels of CO2 emmisions in the main don't, Global Warming is now expected to accelerate at rates no current atmospheric model would have predicted as global dimming was not a considered factor when measuring the current rate of global warming.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1325819.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

By the way does anyone understand why they call it "The Greenhouse Effect"?
The same question would be "How does a greenhouse work."

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/102spring2002_Web_projects/C.Levit/web%20page.html

so on the Bigger scale of life, there is NOTHING we can do on this earth to protectus us and prevent the events of ultimate reality.

So what are you saying. That we should all just carry on and not care about anything?

[divingduck]

Blip,
Yep, that is exactly what he is saying...

we as humans really do not have the abiity to influence the environment.

Volcanoes put out far more toxic waste into the atmosphere than humans...should we pass legislation banning them?

I was told recently that one minutes worth of eruption on Mt St Helens put more pollution into the air than the past 100 years of human efforts.

Think long term, the fossils you see probably thought they could change things too...but they died out 100's of millions of years ago.

When you can get two boffins to agree whether there really is global worming or not, then I'll listen to this doomsaying.

BTW I had a question posed recently. Here goes....

If, as we have all been told, the hole in the ozone layer is caused by CFC's being released.

Why then, when the major polluter is the northern hemisphere, is the hole over the southern hemisphere?

I would really like to know the answer to that one...even if you ignore the rest of my disjointed ramblings.

[Towering Q]

Ummmmm....because the CFC molecules are heavier and fall to the bottom of the world.??

[Blip]

we as humans really do not have the abiity to influence the environment.

Ha! For a moment there I thought you were serious. :)

But just in case you are...:uhoh:

Volcanoes put out far more toxic waste into the atmosphere than humans...should we pass legislation banning them?

I was told recently that one minutes worth of eruption on Mt St Helens put more pollution into the air than the past 100 years of human efforts.
Total Bull****e!

What toxic waste exactly are you talking about anyway? We are mainly concerned here with gasses that reduce the amount of infa-red electro-magnetic energy being radiated from the Earth's surface back into space.

Gases: Man versus the Volcanoes

Do we add more gases to the atmosphere or do volcanoes? It's a simple question with a complicated answer. Reaching a good estimate is important in guiding global policy for standards to reduce emissions from man-made sources of gases.

Carbon Dioxide

Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html


If, as we have all been told, the hole in the ozone layer is caused by CFC's being released.

Why then, when the major polluter is the northern hemisphere, is the hole over the southern hemisphere?
http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/

Well the process involved in the depletion of ozone IS happening over the North Pole! http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/tour_mpeg/anim_clono2.large.mpg


When you can get two boffins to agree whether there really is global worming or not, then I'll listen to this doomsaying.
So in other words until there is not one single "expert" representing some multi-billion dollar industy with a vested interest in discrediting the science of global warming for fear of adverse financial consequences, you will be happy to live your hedonistic ignorant life and continue to perpetuate their mis-information by repeating the half-baked truths someone tells you during some drinking session down at the pub.

Ignorance is not bliss, it just feels like it at the time!

:mad:

[Ultralights]

getting back on topic, basically its a fact that the aviation indusrty is adding FCUK ALL to the environment!!

Dont forget, electric cars, use electricity, created in a coal fired Powerplant! to charge them and keep em on the road!

the Only real NON gas relaeasing form of energy is NUCLEAR!

why we dont use it as the most popular source of energy is beyond me, oh, thats why, greenies! rather see tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere instead of clean nuclear energy!

[divingduck]

Dearest Blip and the rest of the "the end is nigh" treehugging fraternity,

Check out this link, as luck would have it, put out today on the Sydney Morning Herald.

As much as 2 billion tonnes of sulphuric acid into the stratosphere, makes all the CO2 look a bit tiny in comparison.



Read about it here (http://www.smh.com.au/news/TV--Radio/Nowhere-to-hide/2005/04/11/1113071905961.html)

We as humans have not the power to damage the environment, we could perhaps damage our ability to live in it.
Tectonic shifts, earthquakes, volcanoes, erosion etc have a far greater effect, just over a far longer time frame.

If it makes you feel good to ride your bike, recycle that glass and tin, never fly anywhere again or live in a cave lit by ambient light, covered by the furs of animals that you have hunted down and killed, go and do it!

[Ultralights]

no dont ride your Pushbike! it creates traffic problems on the major roads, and totally negates any good it might have done.

[Uncommon Sense]

I think I would rather deal with ways of burning the coal cleaner than have this clean nuclear energy (http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html) in my country.

Read the story right through - it is eery.

[Soopster]

Well I'n no tree-hugger, but I believe in what Pullock is saying. I think he is saying there should be a better alternative to tanking.

And come on diving duck, "we as humans really do not have the abiity to influence the environment." That's a great attitude to have. You obviously think the air quality today is the same as 100yrs ago?

We may not see our world blown away by a super nova in our day, but how long do ya think the world oil stocks will last at current consumption, 50, 100, 500yrs?

I heard someone say that in the days following 9/11 they took samples of air for quality testing when there were zero planes airborne. 'Parantly a lot less pollution. (Just backed up by another person here in the office!)

Bring on the hydrogen celled transonic passanger plane!!:ok:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0210/p14s02-sten.html supports both sides of the argument

[404 Titan]

Uncommon Sense

I think that is the understatement of the century. Power plants account for nearly 54% of all CO² emissions into the atmosphere. If we are all really serious about cleaning up the atmosphere, there is the first place to start. Unfortunately the down side to coal is it is a very dirty burning fuel. Trying to make the coal burn cleaner will mostly reduce the visible pollution that is produced but not the CO². We could try to make the power plants more efficient like we have with cars, trucks and aircraft but at the end of the day there is only so much that can be done to improve the efficiency of coal fired power plants. We are going to have to bight the bullet. Nuclear power and hydro are the obvious first steps. Other power sources are going to have to be developed. Maybe hydrogen is a possibility in the future. The only pollution produced will be H²O.

While aircraft do contribute to total CO² emissions, at 1.6%, I think our priorities need to be directed at the biggest contributors to global CO² emissions. If we don’t do this then we will never stop the damage that has already been done. Our efforts will be like trying to put out a high rise inferno by trying to piss on it when we should be trying to put it out with a fire hose.

Soopster
I think he is saying there should be a better alternative to tanking.
To give you an idea what sought of percentages we are talking about here. A flight from Hong Kong to Taipei in an A330 or A340 burns about 8000 kg of fuel each way. To carry return fuel over this distance costs us about 180 kg. This equates to about 1.1% of total fuel burn. In our total operation tankering would cost the airline less than 0.01% of total fuel burn. F**k all in the whole scheme of things.
I heard someone say that in the days following 9/11 they took samples of air for quality testing when there were zero planes airborne. 'Parantly a lot less pollution. (Just backed up by another person here in the office!)
The study you are quoting actually found that the average temperature went up 3°C. It made no mention of the total pollution level. Pollution may have gone down significantly around airports but in the whole scheme of things it wouldn’t have made a dent on total pollution. Infact it probably went up because people had to find alternative ways of getting home and road transport would have been the most likely alternative.