Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > Questions
Reload this Page >

Pollution by Big Jets - curious

Wikiposts
Search
Questions If you are a professional pilot or your work involves professional aviation please use this forum for questions. Enthusiasts, please use the 'Spectators Balcony' forum.

Pollution by Big Jets - curious

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 11th Feb 2005, 14:38
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question Pollution by Big Jets - curious

Please help.
I am interested to know where I might find out .... the precise truth about the pollution caused by Jet aircraft? I'd just like to know where to look for some pukka figures and maybe some comparisons to things such as car traffic and other industrial polluters. Thanks in anticipation
eden is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2005, 14:47
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I always find it a bit sobering to think that the 50 tonnes or so that a 330 will drink on a pond-crossing will keep an average family car going for about 25 years.

(Give or take a bit - calculation done very very roughly on the back of a fag packet - I expect that there are many far cleverer than me who could come up with something more accurate with regard to fuel burn and CO output etc - I just like the family car simile!)
gashcan is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2005, 15:57
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Try starting from the ICAO engine emissions databank which can be sourced through the UK CAA:

http://search2.openobjects.com/kbrok...ne%20emissions
brabazon is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2005, 16:07
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: U.K.
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The big problem with the pollution caused by jets is less to do with how much pollution is released relative to things like cars and industry, but rather where it is released. This is because the atmosphere is far less active (and wet) at high altitude and so the pollution, especially the particulates and water soluble compounds such as sulphur dioxide that are usually removed by rain, stay there far longer.

The particulates help nucleate high altitude ice formation and so reduces the amount of sunlight reaching the earth. This could be seen after 9/11, when temperatures across the US rose by a couple of degrees. Strangely, this means that in the short term aircraft slow global warming, but increase it in the long term through carbon dioxide emmisions.
GreatMe is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2005, 16:54
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: slightly left of you
Age: 43
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i can't remember the exact link but there is a paper written by HM treasury called 'Aviation and the environment using economic instruments' written in 2003 together with the department for transport. Has quite a bit of data in it. There's also a section in the aviation white paper on the environment. If you're looking for anything specific pm me. I've written a few papers around the subject (although not specifically on pollution but i do look at it a few times).

There was a programme about global dimming a few weeks ago on channel four, the topic Greatme talks about.
cortilla is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2005, 18:28
  #6 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,321
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Some info may certainly be derived from here .

Cheers,
FD
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2005, 20:28
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lightbulb

Roughly two tons of CO2 for every ton of fuel burnt - the same as a car! (or steam engine, diesel etc...). However, to achieve the same fuel economy as a car, you would have to run around with at least five people (and the modern jet does this as 500 MPH). When motorised transport is considered, ships are probably the most efficient, followed by trains, then us and along way behind, you family car.

And we also have to be careful about the the type of polution generated. All transport generates polution. Bicycles generate poo! Aircraft generate the same polutants as all other fossil burners but with the difference in so much that we dump it out at altitude. Apparently this has an effect as discussed earlier. And don't foget that an electric train can be run by nuclear energy!

It all depends what you want to prove and who pays for the research because I'm sure that anything could be proved.
Piltdown Man is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2005, 07:54
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cortilla Wrote:- i can't remember the exact link but there is a paper written by HM treasury called 'Aviation and the environment using economic instruments' written in 2003 together with the department for transport.
Link Here

(It is in Adobe Acrobat Reader .pdf format but if you haven't got it, you can download Acrobat Reader free from here
bealine is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2005, 14:59
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hey - thanks for the responses, much appreciated.

It gives me plenty to look into - All the best!
eden is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2005, 00:50
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One more thing to add are VOCs, a main cause of smog. The fuel used in aircraft is lighter than that used for a car and thus evaporates at a higher rate. These vapours (known as a type of Volatile Organic Compound) react with NOx compounds to create ground level ozone, a main component of smog (cars do the same but fuel is not as volatile). Not sure what the burn efficiency is low level, but it certainly doesn't help wrt pollution.

Add on to this the CO2 created at altitude being a contributor to Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, aviation causes pollution at several levels. Let's not even go into fuel dumping.

Sorry 'bout the chem mumbo-jumbo. Just wrote a paper and exam on it.
Salty123 is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2005, 06:49
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Earth (unfortunately)
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Salty123

One more thing to add are VOCs, a main cause of smog. The fuel used in aircraft is lighter than that used for a car and thus evaporates at a higher rate. These vapours (known as a type of Volatile Organic Compound) react with NOx compounds to create ground level ozone, a main component of smog (cars do the same but fuel is not as volatile).
Are you sure that the "fuel used in aircraft" (Jetfuel) is more volatile that automotive gas??? :

Did you already hand in that paper/exam???

palgia
palgia is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2005, 07:34
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: the pub
Age: 57
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Roughly 2 tons of CO2 for every ton of fuel burnt
Eh? Sounds like magic to me,or am I missing something?
one dot right is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2005, 08:55
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LIVT
Posts: 194
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Eh? Sounds like magic to me,or am I missing something?
You pay for the C in the fuel, but you get O2 free of charge from the air.
aerolearner is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2005, 09:09
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: the pub
Age: 57
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks for clarifying that for me!
one dot right is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2005, 12:23
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
but you get O2 free of charge from the air.
Don't let the government know - they'll want to tax it!
bealine is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2005, 13:25
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 56
Posts: 2,600
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I always love this little debate about aircraft pollution. The reality is that if you took one A330 with 300 pax and 75 cars with 4 pax each, and made them travel 9000 km, who do you think will burn more fuel. The A330 is going to take about 9.5 hrs to travel the 9000 km. At about 6 tonnes an hour it will burn 57 tonnes or 72900 ltrs of fuel. The 75 cars will each burn on average 1 ltr of fuel per 7 km's. Therefore over the 9000 km's each car will burn about 1285 ltrs of fuel or 96375 ltrs between the lot of them. This makes the cars 32% less efficient over the same distance or 32% more polluting than the A330.
404 Titan is offline  
Old 13th Feb 2005, 16:31
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Eden

You might like to read "Towards Sustainable Aviation" edited by Paul Upham, Janet Maugham, David Raper and Callum Thomas for a varied selection of views of aviation's effects on the environment, including emissions, noise and health.
ManAtTheBack is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2005, 05:53
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Earth (unfortunately)
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
but you get O2 free of charge from the air.
and

Don't let the government know - they'll want to tax it!

They DO know and they ARE taxing it!!!
Thats what you are paying with every gallon of fuel
And what corporations (should) pay when polluting the atmosphere
The problem is that the price is still too cheap...


palgia
palgia is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



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.