Aeroplanes to be outlawed

[Crossbleed]

Well ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, I've oft wondered when this moment might arrive and now it has. Lateline on ABC tonight have dared to go where no-one else has gone before and asked the question:
"how much pollution do we shove into the atmosphere with our aircraft and what should be done about it?"
There followed some data regarding the amount of carbon poo yer punter throws up doing a SYD-LHR. Answer? apparently about as much as the Ford commodore/Holden Falcon /Manaro or whatever, does in a year.!!!
Now, being a (sort of) conspiracy theorist, I say now is the time to fess-up about all that fabulous electro-gravitic propulsion technology championed by the late Townsend Brown (and flogged from the Germans post WWII), and stop using this positively medievil fossil-fuel burning technology to push these powered-gliders through the air and save some of the stuff upstairs that stops us getting a collective Hiroshima-tan courtesy of the sun.
Thoughts?
Over.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Yeah....most of what a jet puts into the atmosphere is water vapour....and global warming is a crock of ****.

[Crossbleed]

C'mon Chimbu, you can do better than that.
Besides, you're 2 hours behind me

[Capn Bloggs]

as much as the Ford commodore/Holden Falcon /Manaro or whatever, does in a year.!!!

Well that's about the time it'd take to get from SYD to LHR in one of the aforementioned vehickles, so what's the problem? :}

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Begs the question: What % of air travel is essential?

I would argue that medivac, medical clinic, fire-fighting, SAR, some survey ops, some maritime patrol, things along that line are..... but what about all those airliners....?

If you didn't have a vested interest (like me!) in it continuing to grow forever, what amount of those bums in those seats really need to be there? Tourism? "Business" trips? Military Transports to fly politicians around?... The Roulettes? Exporting live Crayfish? Importing Beef TO Australia? Transporting F1 Racecars or Racehorses from Dubai?

Put it this way - if oil gets to $150+ a barrell quickly, I guess the market may well determine it all for us.

How will the taxpayer then feel about a Government 737 flying John Howard, his advisors, and the Australian Press to Washington to get a farewell photo opportunity with ..... the guy who helped a great deal in getting the oil price so high!?

Perhaps the pure economics of flying may solve the environmental problem.

[Crossbleed]

Never mind that, what about electro-gravitics??
Ya DON'T need wings to fly.(note to self:now that outta do it.):}
By the way, that is PER SEAT, not the aircraft, sheesh.
Bloggs, ya must be drinking as much as I am.

[Chimbu chuckles]

it all depends what you consider esential....stop all non essential air travel and put about a billion people world wide out of work and onto the dole....that's the option....see how much political will there is when the real costs involved in saving what is demonstably not endangered are tallied up...then suggest the fluffy, lovey, tree huggers might just **** off.

Type 'Global Warming Desenters' into google and have read what scientists at MIT, NOAA and other such august centers of knowledge say about it....a non event.

After 3 hrs sleep in the last 30..and that in crew rest enroute Inchon before turning around and fly straight back home that's all ya get....2 hrs behind or not:ok:

[Crossbleed]

CSIRO notably absent from that list Chimbu.
I would posture that checking some of those referenced think-tanks is akin to logging into the Republican Party site and looking for weapons of mass destruction. Holy Sh#t, those Iraqi's really DID have 'em.
Global warming is fact. I don't wanna give up my petrol-burning terrestial-transportation device, but I'm beyond denial now.
So do you think the Chinese will give me a command soon?

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Chuck - true. (But my argument on what is essential is based on he cost of it - not the environmental impact)

However if oil gets to $150/barrel it will be more than a billion out of work. The sharemarket will have started to disintegrate.... in fact its such a doomsday scenario I dont really want to think about it. (I am not alone - none of the Western governments want to talk about it either)

As far as the environmental impact of air travel is concerned, any reduction in emissions would be voluntary along the lines of a Kyoto type protocol. Now with China due to receive 1600+ new airliners, I wonder if they will be signing up? And if they don't I wonder how voluntary the other signatory nations would be?

The question is rhetorical of course.

A lot of Asia stopped caring about air quality a long time ago anyway.

Whilst I lean towards the David Suzuki view on the worlds environment - I am not convinced that Global Warming is a fact - (I noted the not very recent public announcement that 2005 was no longer the hottest year - it has been renounced and 1998 is still in front). The data simply is not good enough (the error of margin is in excess of the trend). Nonetheless - anyone can see that continuously pumping all that crap into the atmosphere can't be sustainable.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Poke around here and see what you think.

http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm

I fly around a big portion of the globe...more often than not at night. What really has made me think is looking down at city after city after city burning MILLIONS, nah BILLIONS, of bulbs while the bulk of the populations is asleep.

India as just one example is almost a continuous sea of electric lights from coast to coast.

How much better off would the world be, on any number of levels, if cities went to minimum lighting between 2200 and dawn LT?

It is just BIZARRE how much energy is wasted globally on electricity....the vaste bulk of which is produced by coal fired generators.

[Crossbleed]

Your dead right there CC. But we can burn as many lights as we like provided the source is cleaner. Bulbs per se do little to chew ozone and warm the rock we live on.
The oil is running out, that's fact. Burning oil(and the search for the last few fields of it), is shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. The foreign policy adventures of the Dubya administration illustrates that starkly. Why go looking' fer something that's so insanely hard to get? (Lives don't count in this equation). These septic lunatics are throwing the baby out with the bath-water.
I say again; electro-gravitics.:E

Just had a squiz at that site. Who is the author? No glossary/bibliography/accreditation as far as I could see. Very Suss header page-title. Where d'ga find it?
Later: Had a good look now, that is a dodgey place my man. Viva la interobfuscationnet!

[Roger Standby]

Crossbleed we can't burn as many lights as we like. Chimbu is spot on the money. Coal is the major source of electricity around the world.

"According to Greenpeace, coal produces over 40 percent of the world's annual carbon emissions. It's hardly a sundown industry. Between 1973 and 1993, global coal use rose by 36%. Coal burning exploded in Asia during those two decades, expanding 162%. Analysts predict Asia's coal appetite, mainly fed by Australia, will grow by 14 percent a year"

from this sight (did not search too long but i don't think the figures would be far off).. http://www.ecoshock.org/2006/01/end-coal-now-or-earth-burns.html

Cheers,

R-S.

[Roger Standby]

By the way, I'm all for your idea of hover cars and any new technology that will bring improvement.

[boogie-nicey]

When they compare an airliner that travels half way across the world in terms of hours to a "further down the food chain" motor vehicle I just have to laugh :)

The car comparison is impractical as it's not designed to go great distances and even if it did it'd take about a year to get there anyway. Also the biggest factor here is many hundreds are transported by the aircraft and whereas a car will transport (inefficiently) a small handful of people at the most.

Air travel is efficient and all this global warming stuff is without substance. What is it that we've been shown or educated about with regards to this new trendy new phenomena. "Just take our word for it", it's happening but how, where and to what extent, etc ....

[404 Titan]

Crossbleed

I love it when this little gem of a debate sticks its head up because quite frankly it's rubbish. Aviation is the easiest of targets to pick on because it's so visible but the reality is it isn’t the polluter some would lead you to believe. To prove my point these are the official world wide air pollution figures for 2002.

Total Air pollution 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 words aviation accounted for no more than 1.6% of total air pollution in 2002. If we are to do anything about worldwide air pollution I think we should look at the energy industry first as it is by far the worst offender. Aviation is a piss in the ocean by comparison.

[Crossbleed]

Taking the broom to some of the last slopiness (my own):
Oooright; firstly comparisons between the family car and the 744 or whatever. Weight/time/distance equations yield a mathematical truth, in that the Jumbo is as efficient as a moped. Given, the entire population of Syd however doesn't go to LA everyday and therefore the economy(or lack thereof) of scale doesn't apply. We could, after all, get on the QE II and adjust our filofaxes/PDA'S accordingly, but that's unrealistic. Or is it? Aaah Fu#k It, let the next gebeartion sort that out.
Boogie-Nicey's point is obtuse, I'm talking about the fundamentals here: conversion of chemical potential energy into carbon unit (human) travelling a certain distance. Doesn't matter how. As for the legitimacy of the global warming phenomena, well, I wish I shared your conviction.
"It's hardly a sundown industry." Oh yes it is.
We all know burning the coal is no good.
Checkout book written by a staff writer of Jane's Defence Weekly, Title: "The Hunt for Zero Point".
You'll sell ya car and buy into wind-farms but quick.
(Note to self:that outta fire up the QF SO training-wheel intellects) hee ehehehehh
7.4x21.3 does not equal 1.576.

[itsbrokenagain]

but if the greenies banned flying how would they ever get to their protests!

I think once the greenies get a hold of this, it will be squashed . ( cant imagine them paddling all the way to china to protest the dam that was built can you ? )

[404 Titan]

Crossbleed
7.4x21.3 does not equal 1.576.
I didn’t say that. I will admit to a typo but my point stands. What I wrote was:

7.4% x 21.3 (not 21.3%, Typo) = 1.576

Sorry to shoot down your argument but they are the facts. Maths doesn’t lie.

[Fred Gassit]

I think one of the question marks over aviation pollution relates to its' release in the upper atmosphere directly and the relatively high proportion of NOx compounds, contrails etc. and whether these more than compensate for its small, albeit growing proportion of emissions.

[Howard Hughes]

...most of what a jet puts into the atmosphere is water vapour...
Sadly, this is not true, each tonne of fuel we burn creates 3 tonnes of greenhouse gases!!

Nobody is saying ban Aircraft, it is the responsibility of all people who live on this planet to take care of it.

Clearly as evidenced above, aircraft and other forms of transport are far from the worst offenders.

Obviously our biggest problem is with power generation. My opinion is that the sooner we move the majority of power generation to nuclear the better off we will be, the greenies are hypocritical being against nuclear power, when it is clearly the cleanest high volume option available a the moment!! I concede there is definately a problem with the waste, but surely an answer to that problem can be found...:ok:

[dinoburner]

We all need aircraft.

Turbines are getting more efficient (I still leave four whopping great exhaust trails, however... :eek: )

Aircraft are a fact of life, no matter what your bent or how bad your maths. :)

Burn more dinosaurs I say, just do it better (a regularly serviced thronomeister is essential). :}

[PLovett]

Gentlemen

It may be that aircraft are the only thing stopping the the whole weather thing from going into meltdown.

A scientist noticed that after the tragedy of the 11th September 2001, the weather across nearly the whole of the continental USA was clearer and warmer than normal.

This piqued his interest and he obtained the weather records from across the country which confirmed his suspicion. The only thing he could put it down to was that as nearly all aircraft had been grounded the sky was clear of the usual collection of contrails.

This has led a number of scientists to investigate further and they have come to the conclusion that the environmental measures that are being put in place (motor vehicle emission controls etc.) are making the atmosphere clearer but not reducing the real problem. As a result, more of the suns heat is now reaching the earth and making the whole shooting match much warmer.

More contrails I say. :ok:

[404 Titan]

PLovett

While I’m sure we are both in agreement with this atmospheric pollution debate, contrails and there effect on surface temperature is also a furphy. Contrails tend to be seasonal. They are much more prevalent in the winter months than the summer months. Most contrails are very short lived, i.e. less than 30 seconds. Generally over the US 0f A around early September each year contrails are few and far between and those that do form are very short lived.

It is true that there appeared to be a small increase in average temperature across the US for a few weeks after 911 but most scientists are divided as to its cause. The most plausible reason I have seen is because road transport increased dramatically after 911 because of the hundreds of thousands of people stranded all over the country renting cars to get home. Evidence supporting this is the huge increase in business car rental companies had the days following 911.

[Buster Hyman]

I hope John Travolta doesn't see this thread!

[MOR]

Also worth noting that the most recent research shows the ozone hole shrinking, not growing. There's one in the eye for the tree-hugger industry (and it IS an industry).

Greenpeace proved their ability to lie shamelessly if they think it will advance their agenda, in particular over the Brent Spar affair. They are as bad as they claim the oil companies are.

[king oath]

Back when Concorde was first built the doomsayers forecast that the exhaust gases left in the stratosphere would cause cloud blankets and global cooling. The end of the world was nigh.

But then academics love getting their name published. It sort of gives them street cred amongst their fellow egg heads. Also helps land that government grant to keep them employed for a few more years.The fact that its bullsh*t matters not. Just get your name in the media attached to your latest theory.

Well Concorde came and went and we are still here. Funny about that.

Now we are told its global warming to worry about. Warming, cooling I can't
sleep at night worrying.

[Over and gout]

My opinion is that the sooner we move the majority of power generation to nuclear the better off we will be, the greenies are hypocritical being against nuclear power, when it is clearly the cleanest high volume option available a the moment!! I concede there is definately a problem with the waste, but surely an answer to that problem can be found...:ok:

Just have a think for a moment what the consequences would be if there was a Chernoble type accident in England or Japan, both of which have alot of nuclear reactors.
Given the right circumstances it could render either of these islands completely uninhabitable.
The effects of an incident like that on the global economy and world political stability are staggering.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

That enviro protest against Concorde was payed for by Boeing.

[Farcome]

I would argue that medivac, medical clinic, fire-fighting, SAR, some survey ops, some maritime patrol, things along that line are..... but what about all those airliners....?
****su, I can assure you that alot of 'medivac' flights are totally unnecessary, unless you think that ingrown toenails and similar trivial medical conditions warrant burning a ****e load of jet A1 to attend to.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Do I really want to hear about that?, probably not ! I hope they don't have ME D 1 on the f p l ?

[Angle of Attack]

MOR - Yeah the Ozone hole is shrinking, but the ozone layer depletion and Global Warming are two completely seperate issues. CFC Use depleted the Ozone layer, which as you know were banned after the discovery of the Ozone hole. As such the Ozone layer is slowly recovering. But Carbon emmisions don't have any significant effect on the Ozone layer.

[Howard Hughes]

Just have a think for a moment what the consequences would be if there was a Chernoble type accident in England or Japan, both of which have alot of nuclear reactors.
Given the right circumstances it could render either of these islands completely uninhabitable.
The effects of an incident like that on the global economy and world political stability are staggering.
Mr Gout,

Nuclear power generation has come along way since Chernobyl and three mile island, whilst there will always be a risk, till now, no one has come up with a better mass power generation source!!

You yourself have said Japan and England already have a lot of Nuclear reactors, how long have these been running? What are their safety records like? Have they had a Chernobyl type disaster? Or even a small incident?

Cheers, HH.:ok:

[ResBunny]

Here's one random incident/accident from each country mentioned:
“The worst previous incident at a Japanese nuclear facility was at a uranium processing plant in Tokaimura, north of Tokyo, in September 1999, when an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction was triggered by three poorly trained workers who used buckets to mix nuclear fuel in a tub. The resulting release of radiation killed two workers and forced the evacuation of thousands of nearby residents.”
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/26530/newsDate/11-Aug-2004/story.htm
“Radioactive contamination detected at the Fairlie station where spent fuel flasks from Hunterston are transferred to flat bed railway trucks on their way to Sellafield. Caesium 137 levels were 30 times greater than the highest post Chernobyl concentrations and 100 times the levels found in Strathalyde where the station is located.”
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/accidents-1980%27s-09.htm
There's hundreds more...

[Over and gout]

Have they had a Chernobyl type disaster? :

Not yet.

My opinion is leave the Uranium in the ground forever where it belongs.

I was reading that a nuclear waste facility in the USA was trying to figure out what symbols to put on the caps of the nuclear waste dump to warn whatever civilization is here in 10000 years not to go near it.....:eek:

[boogie-nicey]

Lets not forget that many of these existing nuclear power stations are quite old. Any new nuclear installations will be very modern incorporating cutting edge technology, lets not shy away from that simple fact that the 'chance' is diminished with modern levels of technology. We have made great strides in near critical applications like laser technology and modern day computer systems (not the PC on your desk but REAL industrial strength computing ... an eye opener). So why can't we try and implement those advances into future plans for power generation. In the long term they are green because of their relatively lower emissions and can really help put us on the road to a better environment but cutting the biggest polluter of all by a long margin, power generators bruning fossil fuels.

Besides other up and coming nations are looking to nuclear power with great enthusiasm so why can't we? Can we really afford to fall behind in the global race and at the expense of our economy? We need to pull our finger out and get going, however I am not advocating some blind rush to nuclear but a very methodical and carefully planned long term vision of nuclear, how and why.

What about offshore with our numerous islands of the coast of Scotland or even more adventurous and utilise all the 'not long to go' North Sea oil rigs that can be resonstructed to form an artificial base in the North Sea.

By the way I love the environment and have an almost spiritual affection for it, after all it is life sustaining. BUT I am no fool and realise that all the self appointed green brigade are just moaning because they have little else to do in their lives and because Daddy didn't buy them a pony when they were younger. Practical and purposeful outlook .......

[Over and gout]

the self appointed green brigade are just moaning because they have little else to do in their lives and because Daddy didn't buy them a pony when they were younger.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[ennui]

All well and good navel gazing and arguing the future of the world.

Can't see a viable nuclear reactor on a 747-100, meybe we can use some of the surplus QLD sugar cane to make some methanol!

As a career aviator I reckon the last place to run out of the black oozy stuff will be the middle east.

Shame about the weather and sand though!

[Staggerwing]

404 Titan.

I notice that the total air pollution figures do not include natural pollution caused by volcanoes, earthquakes, rotting vegetation etc.. One atmospheric scientist I heard on radio a few years ago suggested that natural pollution accounted for something more than 95% of total pollution put in to the atmosphere.

[404 Titan]

Staggerwing

That’s because the article I got it from was dealing with man made air pollution and water pollution. In regards to pollution caused by nature, the problem I have with this idea is that the Earth can cope with natural pollution and has done so since its creation. The Earth though can’t cope with man made pollution and in some parts of the world neither can we. You have only got to be in Hong Kong when the prevailing winds are coming in from the North, bringing all the crap down from China to know what I am talking about.:yuk:

[MOR]

My opinion is leave the Uranium in the ground forever where it belongs.


Yeah just like we do with oil... :}

[boogie-nicey]

The world of theory and prayer and make no doubt that's exactly what some of the comments expressed in this thread are. If we don't pull our finger out what's to say other countries won't opt for Nuclear. This silly view of lets leave it in the ground is baseless, yes leave it there for others to mine and exploit whilst we stand there as a bunch of losers who missed the opportunity. We get health issues everytime we walk down a polluted street, or fill up our car at the garage by small dosages. If we can get to grips with nuclear as a longer term solution then we can surely begin to learn about the genie in the bottle from which we can proliferate knowledge in future for other applications too.

The human race has always had to be careful at each new technological step and sometimes learnt the hard way how to tame each new discovery so that man is the master. But we have nevertheless progressed and I cannot see how nuclear can be exempt from mainstay power generation. More fact less media speculation.