CO2 emissions question

[Savage_UK]

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

[barit1]

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.

[ChristiaanJ]

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

[cwatters]

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.

[Mr Optimistic]

....not really in favour of all this carbon fetishism but anyway this might help




Calculating CO2 emissions

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/) (IPCC) http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/epafiles_misc_exitepadisc.gif (http://www.epa.gov/epahome/exitepa.htm) 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.] (http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm#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.

[Savage_UK]

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.

[Flying Binghi]

You to can contribute to Al Gores little earner, the emissions trading scam...:hmm:

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 (http://joannenova.com.au/2009/09/the-carbon-casino-caught-with-its-pants-down-again/)

[ChristiaanJ]

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

[jcbmack]

It is not Al Gore doing the research, presenting to peer review or going to the Artic and Antartic to observe the changes...

[aviate1138]

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? :rolleyes:

[jcbmack]

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.

[aviate1138]

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.

[toolowtoofast]

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.

the 172 is of course the lowest, and the slowest. plus you need transport to and from the airport, whereas the R44 is point to point.

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.

[Flying Binghi]

...and thus changes the global heat budget equilibration rate...

ah, yes...that explains why for the last ten years the global average temperature has shown a cooling trend...:hmm:

[Canuckbirdstrike]

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.

[jcbmack]

no, no and still no, but thank you for stopping by.:}

[ChristiaanJ]

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.My bold.

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 byFatuous and denigrating remarks from your part only reduce your contribution to the debate to nil.

CJ

[Mr Optimistic]

'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.

[Heliarctic]

Ok guy´s, i´m not big on science.. so here´s the question:
The more CO2 tax i pay the cooler the world gets? :E

[jcbmack]

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.

[cwatters]

>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?

Do the numbers yourself...

Not sure where you get your 3% from but CO2 levels have risen from 315ppm in 1960 to around 360ppm today (Source http://science.nefferport.com/image008.jpg) That suggests at least 100 x (360-315)/315 = 14% could be man made.

Without the atmosphere earth would be some 30-32C colder than it is (source Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect)). Water vapour accounts for 36-70% of that and CO2 from all sources is believed to account for between 9% and 26%. Huge uncertainty I'm afraid but lets assume CO2 accounts for 17% (average of 9-26).

So without any CO2 the earth would be 0.17 x 31C = 5.3C colder. Mans contribution is 14% of that or 0.14 x 5.3C = 0.7C

That appears to agree remarkably well with what the temperature record suggests. (Source http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/myth6_1.gif)

By the way that's the first time I've done that calculation. I didn't work backwards from the answer honest.

[Flying Binghi]

CO2 levels going up....

....and yet, the planet cools...:hmm:

[cwatters]

C02 isn't just "going up", in historic terms it's exploding...

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/20ky.JPG

>....and yet, the planet cools...

Due to El Niño...

Met Office: Myth 2: Drop in monthly global temperature means global warming has stopped (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/myth2.html)

Quote: In 2007-2008 the global climate was influenced by the cold phase of this oscillation, known as La Niña. The La Niña began to develop in early 2007, having a significant cooling effect on the global average temperature. Despite this, 2007 was one of the ten warmest years since global records began in 1850 with a temperature some 0.4 °C above average.

The La Niña strengthened further during early 2008 and became the strongest since 1988/89, significantly contributing to a lower January temperature in 2008, compared to recent years. In addition, global average temperature was influenced by very cold land temperatures in parts of the northern hemisphere and extensive snow cover.

January 2008 may have seem particularly cold compared to January 2007 - the warmest January on record and largely due to the warming phenomenon El Niño - but this merely demonstrates the year-to-year natural variations in our climate.

In future, while the trend in global temperatures is predicted to remain upwards, we will continue to see inherent variability of this kind.

End Quote.

If you were talking about the longer period of cooling read this..

The Ups and Downs of Global Warming | wltx.com (http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=78952&catid=306)

[aviate1138]

This seems more believable......

1 MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).
FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.

2 MYTH Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate.
FACT 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!

3 MYTH Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.
FACT A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What's more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.

Also I would like to know why the CO2 measurements are made near an active volcano.
I also find it hard to believe the CO2 levels are similar worldwide?

[tocamak]

If this forum reaches a concensus on the validity of human influence on climate change then it would probably be the first anywhere! All sides can put out the usual suspects as evidence both ways as witness the Myth/Fact posting previously and the sums on the effect of CO2 earlier. You only get the truth as it suits someones point of view or vested interest and nothing seems to give such entrenched opinions. For what it's worth I have followed (as best I can) the topic in New Scientist for some time and whilst they may of course have a vested interest (not sure why though) the story does seem that the concensus of most scientists is that climate change is happening and human intervention is having an effect.

One thing I do take issue with though is this "Save the Planet" message from the more extreme tree huggers; the planet will be fine without us and frequently does it's best to get rid of us in big numbers!

[cwatters]

This seems more believable......

So do little green men to some people. There are serious errors of fact in that..


1 MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).
FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.


Just because natural cycles exist it doesn't mean that man made GW doesn't exist. Should we raise C02 levels just to find out what happens?

2 MYTH Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate.
FACT 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!

Natural sources are indeed large BUT they are balanced by equally large sinks.

We should tax emissions from buildings more.

3 MYTH Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.
FACT A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise!

All perfectly true but so what? Increasing temperatures do indeed increase C02 levels. That's what worries scientists. Raise temperatures a little and the permafrost melts releasing C02 which increases temperatures which raises C02 etc etc. It doesn't matter which came first the chicken or the egg. Chickens make eggs and eggs make chickens.

What's more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.

The effects of water vapour and methane are very definitly NOT ignored. Do you really think climate models are that simple? As the planet warms more water vapour is produced and that in turn warms the atmosphere further. All that's in the models.

Nor is methane ignored. Recent examples suggest warming has already triggered the release of methane.. Warming Of Arctic Current Over 30 Years Triggers Release Of Methane Gas (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090814103231.htm)

Also I would like to know why the CO2 measurements are made near an active volcano.

Because it's remote. Measurements are adjusted for local outgassing from the volcano...

Mauna Loa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa)

We can be reasonably sure the data from Mauna Loa is ok because it shows clear seasonal C02 cycles whereas emissions from the volcano itself presumably aren't seasonal.

I also find it hard to believe the CO2 levels are similar worldwide?

But they aren't similar world wide. There is a wide variation particularly between cities and mid ocean. That's why having monitoring stations on remote islands is important even if some are near volcanos.

[cwatters]

New Scientist has an interesting article this week. It shows how temperatures around the world would change IF the world warmed by 4C on average whatever the cause.

Basically air temperatures over land would warm by much more than air temperatures over the sea. For example Australia would warm by 6C and North America by 7-10C. Parts of Russia and Africa by 15C. By contrast the southern pacific and would warm by only 1C.

The article begins..

"By 2055, climate change is likely to have warmed the world by a dangerous 4C unless we stop pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere the way we do now" ... "Even if we are lucky, we we are still likely to hit 4C by 2070."

[ChristiaanJ]

"Even if we are lucky, we we are still likely to hit 4C by 2070."

Oh shoot.... I won't be around any more to see all those doomsayers eat their hats.

CJ

[cwatters]

France won't be wanting EU money to fight forrest fires then :-)

peopleandplanet.net > forests > features > mediterranean forests are a burning issue (http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=3370#)

[Mr Optimistic]

I wonder how much unneccessary CO2 is generated by the olympics: all that building, training and then attending. Can I have my money back ?

[ChristiaanJ]

France won't be wanting EU money to fight forrest fires then :-)
peopleandplanet.net > forests > features > mediterranean forests are a burning issue (http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=3370#)Could you explain how you derive your statement from the link you posted??

CJ

[cwatters]

Well a 4C increase in global average means about 6C for france. Anyone not think that will increase the number of forrest fires?

[jcbmack]

Well a 4C increase in global average means about 6C for france. Anyone not think that will increase the number of forrest fires?

Drier land from higher temperatures more total solar insolation will make things less bearable.

[jcbmack]

I wonder how much unneccessary CO2 is generated by the olympics: all that building, training and then attending. Can I have my money back ?

During the Beijing olympics C02 emissions were actually reduced in anticipation of the event. Unfortunately, most of the farm water and water to villages was re-piped to Beijing for the event.

[Will Fraser]

jcbmack

Czech yur speling. You meen Solar 'Insulation' surely. 'Insolation' is what a cobbler duz wen he maeks shoos.

yur wilcom

Your solution to Global warming is elegant. We shall have Olympics year round everywhere. (Al Gore will be most upset, however)

[tocamak]

'Insolation' is what a cobbler duz wen he maeks shoos.


Well he might do but it also is a measure of the electromagnetic radiation received for a given area over a given time.

[Will Fraser]

cwatters

You use a y that carries 1,000 years in a quarter of an inch. The 1/8 inch where the CO2 spike resides shows a huge uptick, granted, but unimpinged by the last 150 years of the IR. Que paso?

Also, earlier you show a 45ppm increase over the last 50 years. At 3% manmade, that is a total ACO2+ of 1.35 ppm. In fifty years? It works out to .0270 ppm/year? Please do check my math.

[jcbmack]

jcbmack

Czech yur speling. You meen Solar 'Insulation' surely. 'Insolation' is what a cobbler duz wen he maeks shoos.

yur wilcom

Your solution to Global warming is elegant. We shall have Olympics year round everywhere. (Al Gore will be most upset, however)

'What is solar insolation?'
"The amount of electromagnetic energy (solar radiation) incident on the surface of the earth. Basically that means how much sunlight is shining down on us."http://www.apricus.com/html/solar_collector_insolation.htm
SOLAR INSOLATION
"Insolation (Incoming Solar Radiation) is the amount of solar radiation incident on any surface – for our purposes, we will be comparing insolation levels on the surface of the Earth. The amount of insolation received at the surface of the Earth is controlled by the angle of the sun, the state of the atmosphere, altitude, and geographic location."--http://www.solarpanelsplus.com/solar-insolation-levels/

Also read: RealClimate: Global Dimming II (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/global-dimming-ii/)

The solution to the issue is complex.

[Will Fraser]

cwatters

Mauna Loa site indexes local vocano emissions? You are kidding, yes?

Google is your friend, Loihi

Please do address my math re: CO2 (man made) percentage enhancements?

jcbmack

I had forgotten this was tech log when I posted a cryptic attempt at humour. I see you missed it, so I shant apologize.

I gave up Real climate when I found they were playing with science re: Hockey Stick, Mann et al. I gave up Climate audit when they became fixated on the Stick, and avoided Bristlecone proxies, and deleted my attempts to steer them to the problems with conifer program proxies for the obvious reasons.

Insolation in toto is a nice simple starting place. Please do try to steer the howling chimps to the Sun and its vagaries. Sunspots? Also see what you think of cwatters graph re: uptick conformity with 350 years missing of the last millenium. Good chap.

Cheers, Will

[cwatters]

> earlier you show a 45ppm increase over the last 50 years. At 3% manmade,
> that is a total ACO2+ of 1.35 ppm. In fifty years? It works out to .0270
> ppm/year? Please do check my math.

Who says only 3% of the increase is man made?

Lets say over 50 years 1 ton of natural C02 and 0.03 tons of man made C02 were released (eg 3%). In the past nature was roughly in balance so roughly 1 ton was also absorbed in that time. That means 100% of the increaseis man made even if man was only responsible for 3% of the release.

[Mr Optimistic]

Aren't the issues a) the burgoening population of developing nations b) multiplied up by the expanding consumerism there (900000 additional cars per annum in China plus vegetation loss throughout asia and S America.

Can't see that a few less holidays here, a bit more tax there or a few sluggish wind turbines will alter the prognosis. There is no cure, only adaptation and loss.

Still, back in the '70's a new ice age was the fear so probably a bit better than that.

[barit1]

Ever visit the fjords of Norway or NZ S. Island or B.C. or Alaska? Do you know how they were formed? Do you know when they were formed?

Now, tell me again about AGW, please. :}