What is your helicopter carbon footprint?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Age: 52
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For every 1,000 litres of Kerosene you put in you will produce 2.52 tonnes of CO2
Unless they are counting all the emissions used in the process of refining and transporting the fuel, in which case I would like to see if they are distributing the emissions costbetween all the products the refineries produce (petrol, fuel oil etc).
It's the same sort of confusing figure I've seen of "On a round trip from New York to London (...) a Boeing 747 spews out about 440 tons of carbon dioxide". If we assume it's a 747-300, then the 12,000km round-trip matches the plane's range, which means it uses all of it's fuel capacity of approx 200 tonnes of fuel.
If we carry on generating mass at this rate, surely global warming is the least of our troubles. If the mass of the Earth increses we'll pull the moon down onto us . . .
Does anyone have the breakdown of how these figures are calculated? I've yet to see anything that quashes my natural scepticism.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone have the breakdown of how these figures are calculated? I've yet to see anything that quashes my natural scepticism.
There's no net change in mass, the air got 'lighter' when its oxygen was stolen. Jet A1 will be a mix of hydrocarbons so they will have taken a representative mix and performed a similar calculation.
On the quantitative side, one needs to be careful with the the metrics, carbon vs carbon dioxide, and as all aviators know mass vs volume. (There is another factor that i forgot; other gases with a greenhouse effect. I cannot recollect an example, but it's possible that for convenience of a single metric, these gases may be converted into an equivalent CO2 amount.)
Newsnight on BBC2 had a good running report on lower carbon lifestyles in the form of Justin Rowlatt and his family's investigation into reducing their environmental impact.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ht/4741392.stm
Here's his blog, generally very interesting reading and he has some genuine experts go through some of the thornier issues (if you feel the need to comment on the first issue, i'd suggest confining it to his blog comments not here):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight...ustin_rowlatt/
Last edited by FairWeatherFlyer; 13th Nov 2007 at 22:41.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The Woodlands, Texas
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They've test the Hairy Koos
Careful lads. If we talk about this carbon footprint stuff to much relative to helicopters, the next step is testing pilots for their daily constitution output and chalk that into the total number. Next thing you know we'll be taxed for that as well.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lakeland, FL
Age: 50
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't feel quite as bad about my carbon footprints now that I heard British Airlines fly their birds from NY to London Empty sometimes! Talk about leaving a carbon footprint! The amount of carbon one flight puts into the atmosphere is equivilent to running 300 cars cross country multiple times.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't feel quite as bad about my carbon footprints now that I heard British Airlines fly their birds from NY to London Empty sometimes! Talk about leaving a carbon footprint! The amount of carbon one flight puts into the atmosphere is equivilent to running 300 cars cross country multiple times.
On earlier aspects of this thread, for those interesting in the macro view, someone's done a bit of maths on uk population's total consumption:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....climatechange
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FairWeatherFlyer,
One of my pet gripes is that the auto industry treats aerodynamics as a styling inconvenience. Would i chose an otherwise similar car with 1/2 the Cd - yes. I suspect most others are the same. Apart from some pretty poor attempts at city cars no one has really made any effort to produce a tandem seating car with aerodynamics optimised for high speed commuting.
Lets do a simple calc: A K21 glider seats 2 in comfort, and will glide at 50KIAS (25.7m/s) at 34:1 lift:drag. It weighs 365kg, so lets allow 2 pilots and lots of "baggage", to bring the all up weight to 565kg. This means it requires a "power" of
25.7m/s x 565kg x 9.806m/s^2 / 34 = 4.188 kW or 5.61 BHP
My little diesel VW tops out it's little 64SHP (47.7kW) engine at Vh (
) cruising of 100mph. So at Vy ( ) of 50KTS or 57.5mph requires
64HP x (57.5mph / 100mph)^3 = 12.2 BHP
It requires ~2 times the power to do the same job! It does not suffer induced drag from any wings, which any aerodynamicist will tell you well outweigh the fuselage drag. Basically the stylist did most of the aerodynamic calculations with a blunt crayon!
You can see why i get annoyed when the guage reads bingo...
Edit to say:
Thanks for the correction, D3 - one of my "Doh!" moments.
Fortunately the calc still shows my point.
If every car had half the Cd, which is a realistic target, then you could have a serious impact on the CO2 produced by the transport sector.
One of my pet gripes is that the auto industry treats aerodynamics as a styling inconvenience. Would i chose an otherwise similar car with 1/2 the Cd - yes. I suspect most others are the same. Apart from some pretty poor attempts at city cars no one has really made any effort to produce a tandem seating car with aerodynamics optimised for high speed commuting.
Lets do a simple calc: A K21 glider seats 2 in comfort, and will glide at 50KIAS (25.7m/s) at 34:1 lift:drag. It weighs 365kg, so lets allow 2 pilots and lots of "baggage", to bring the all up weight to 565kg. This means it requires a "power" of
25.7m/s x 565kg x 9.806m/s^2 / 34 = 4.188 kW or 5.61 BHP
My little diesel VW tops out it's little 64SHP (47.7kW) engine at Vh (
) cruising of 100mph. So at Vy ( ) of 50KTS or 57.5mph requires64HP x (57.5mph / 100mph)^3 = 12.2 BHP
It requires ~2 times the power to do the same job! It does not suffer induced drag from any wings, which any aerodynamicist will tell you well outweigh the fuselage drag. Basically the stylist did most of the aerodynamic calculations with a blunt crayon!
You can see why i get annoyed when the guage reads bingo...
Edit to say:
Thanks for the correction, D3 - one of my "Doh!" moments.
Fortunately the calc still shows my point.
If every car had half the Cd, which is a realistic target, then you could have a serious impact on the CO2 produced by the transport sector.
Last edited by Graviman; 16th Dec 2007 at 09:39.
Passion Flying Hobby Science Sponsor Work
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Belgium
Age: 68
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graviman
Check your math,
I think it should be power 3 and not power 1/3. The result is also not intuitive: you don't need 53 BHP to drive 50!!
So the difference with the glider will be less...
Using power 3 will also be too optimistic for scaling down to zero, some lower harmonics will come into play (linear frictions etc)
Cheers, d3
I think it should be power 3 and not power 1/3. The result is also not intuitive: you don't need 53 BHP to drive 50!!
So the difference with the glider will be less...
Using power 3 will also be too optimistic for scaling down to zero, some lower harmonics will come into play (linear frictions etc)
Cheers, d3
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MS Beaufort and its SkySail
Source:Supplied, www.skysails.infoPublished:Sunday, December 16, 2007 12:50 AEDT
The coastal vessel MS Beaufort flies its SkySails kite propulsion system in an undated photograph. The SkySails system purports to be able to lower a ship's annual average fuel costs by between 10 and 35 per cent
another concept?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kings Caple, Ross-on-Wye.orPiccots End. Hertfordshire
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hot Air Perhaps?
Ah Global warming ... climate change.
How I'd like to believe everyone, but one can't help being suspicious of any authority that makes money by touting theory after theory.
I haven't been able to read all the scientific papers out there, but as an ex graduating Geologist, actually a Geomorphologist, I tend to look around me, and reflect on known facts.
In Geological terms, as has been mentioned on this thread, our planet is presently in its fourth interglacial period ... ie things will be warming for the next few thousand years until we turn the corner and the fifth cold cycle returns.
Not so long ago, the English channel was frozen over, but it melted long before any humans were around to crank up their gas guzzling cars, or began pumping oil from the middle east.
The coal that was mined in Nottingham, Wales and Kent, was laid down in the carboniferous period and originated when the area we now inhabit was a tropical jungle, certainly a good tad warmer than even the worst forecasts for this part of the globe suggest, so on that basis one might feel that in the longer term, temperatures have been getting lower.
We all know about the frost fairs that were held on the Thames in the 1600s, something not seen since, and once again there has been little carbon emission from the eighteenth and nineteenth century Londoners.
Neither have I heard anything from the experts about the sea of plankton that can be seen from space and which contribute some 25% to the oxygen content of the atmosphere.
Indeed, I have to say that I take the view that only a creature as conceited as man could really believe he can have any significant effect on the natural temperature cycle that has been taking place on this planet for the past four or five billion years.
Nevertheless, as has been said here ... it can't do any of harm if we make efforts to reduce our pollution simply on the basis I like the area where I live to look clean and tidy.
Best wishes to all heli men.
Dennis Kenyon.
How I'd like to believe everyone, but one can't help being suspicious of any authority that makes money by touting theory after theory.
I haven't been able to read all the scientific papers out there, but as an ex graduating Geologist, actually a Geomorphologist, I tend to look around me, and reflect on known facts.
In Geological terms, as has been mentioned on this thread, our planet is presently in its fourth interglacial period ... ie things will be warming for the next few thousand years until we turn the corner and the fifth cold cycle returns.
Not so long ago, the English channel was frozen over, but it melted long before any humans were around to crank up their gas guzzling cars, or began pumping oil from the middle east.
The coal that was mined in Nottingham, Wales and Kent, was laid down in the carboniferous period and originated when the area we now inhabit was a tropical jungle, certainly a good tad warmer than even the worst forecasts for this part of the globe suggest, so on that basis one might feel that in the longer term, temperatures have been getting lower.
We all know about the frost fairs that were held on the Thames in the 1600s, something not seen since, and once again there has been little carbon emission from the eighteenth and nineteenth century Londoners.
Neither have I heard anything from the experts about the sea of plankton that can be seen from space and which contribute some 25% to the oxygen content of the atmosphere.
Indeed, I have to say that I take the view that only a creature as conceited as man could really believe he can have any significant effect on the natural temperature cycle that has been taking place on this planet for the past four or five billion years.
Nevertheless, as has been said here ... it can't do any of harm if we make efforts to reduce our pollution simply on the basis I like the area where I live to look clean and tidy.
Best wishes to all heli men.
Dennis Kenyon.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wakefield
Age: 58
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some great comments.................
I wonder how concerned the Chinese are about their "Carbon Footprints"........ Britain is just a little blob on the globe, and what sticks in my throat it this "politically correct" society we live in...... its been summed up by so many of your comments......those three magical letters "TAX". I smoke, a run a 5ltr engine car, I have a R44 Copter, and like a gallon of vodka now and again so yes, I WANT TO pay more green taxes....... coz I don't pay my share as it is!!!!!!!....... "my arse" is all this green crap, and I think alot of you agree.
Didn't I read a few weeks ago in Sunday Times that the ozone hole is closing up...... explain that one you greenite boffins?
I liken all this political "green issue" crap to the crusade of super rich pop-stars (like Bono and co.,) who started all this xmas "feed the world" sh*t 25 years ago.........has it made the slightest difference to the plight of the starving, and dying in Africa............?????????? NOOOOOOO!!!!!!! But it makes the Pop-Stars look so "superior and caring". And thats why the Politicians are all jumping on the "Green" Band-Waggon!!!!
I rest my case.
AndrewTaylor
Didn't I read a few weeks ago in Sunday Times that the ozone hole is closing up...... explain that one you greenite boffins?
I liken all this political "green issue" crap to the crusade of super rich pop-stars (like Bono and co.,) who started all this xmas "feed the world" sh*t 25 years ago.........has it made the slightest difference to the plight of the starving, and dying in Africa............?????????? NOOOOOOO!!!!!!! But it makes the Pop-Stars look so "superior and caring". And thats why the Politicians are all jumping on the "Green" Band-Waggon!!!!
I rest my case.
AndrewTaylor
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Whitstable, UK
Age: 53
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CO2 warming model... right/wrong
I have done some research on this and yes we still are below a 3000 year average temperature. A dip in temp was caused by volcanic activity (Krakatoa) that caused the mini ice age (Thames ice skating era) from which we are recovering now... What I also found was that an essential part of the CO2 heating model is not matching reality. If CO2 is causing the temp rise, then average temperature rises at the surface, should be matched in the lower troposphere where CO2 hangs out... (please correct me if I am wrong)Apparently this is not happening in reality. So I am not sure I believe the model as presented.... how exactly is CO2 warming us...? and to what proportion compared to reflective cloud cover/vapour content levels/sunshine. Considering night/day and seasonal temperature fluctuation.. I suggest the SUN is the essential factor... Especially when you consider the following:
The earth has gone through huge temperature cycle changes without CO2 as a cause/effect. Plus the earth cooled/froze once CO2 levels were high... many times before.. so something else must have caused that... it's certainly reversable...
E.g what process put all those hydrocarbons underground in the first place?
I agree reducing pollution/litter is a nice/safer idea.. but not to the detriment of human economic and social stability. That is not safe for us... it's like stopping breathing to save oxygen.....
And dont forget... it was only in the late 1970s that we all thought the globe was going to freeze....
The way I see it... man has always made the mistake of thinking he is at the centre of things... no change now...My analogy is.. We are trying to forecast what the lay of the land is like at the other end of England by looking at a grain of sand on our local beach.........
But... having said all that.. you can understand the political motivation to reduce usage globally, considering there is a finite supply of oil..... the oil era will come to an end sometime.
The earth has gone through huge temperature cycle changes without CO2 as a cause/effect. Plus the earth cooled/froze once CO2 levels were high... many times before.. so something else must have caused that... it's certainly reversable...
E.g what process put all those hydrocarbons underground in the first place?
I agree reducing pollution/litter is a nice/safer idea.. but not to the detriment of human economic and social stability. That is not safe for us... it's like stopping breathing to save oxygen.....
And dont forget... it was only in the late 1970s that we all thought the globe was going to freeze....
The way I see it... man has always made the mistake of thinking he is at the centre of things... no change now...My analogy is.. We are trying to forecast what the lay of the land is like at the other end of England by looking at a grain of sand on our local beach.........
But... having said all that.. you can understand the political motivation to reduce usage globally, considering there is a finite supply of oil..... the oil era will come to an end sometime.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"my arse" is all this green crap, and I think alot of you agree.
The particular taxation issue referred to is VERY easy to solve - write to your MP/government representative and ask for all environement targeted taxes to be implemented as 'revenue neutral'. Some politicians are starting to understand this is required to deflect the cynicism but not all of them.
As for the pseudo-experts, please STFU if all you can cite is the european ice ages. I have a friend who has a phd in met, works in a related research dept. and he knows that he's not informed enough on this issue to make any definitive comments. Moral of the story, know your limits, both N1/Tq/TOT and elsewhere
Thread Starter
What exactly is "revenue neutral" when its at home?
I am opposed to any further taxation of any kind to feed fat politicians and civil servants in order to live the super-annuated lifestyle they demand.
Your friend may be right considering himself to be unable to make any kind of determination regarding this issue, but this hasn't stopped Fatty Gore, a "concensus of scientists", various politicians, all kinds of whackos, an entire political movement and the UN to hop on the bandwagon.
No wonder that independently thinking individuals take exception to having this bollocks rammed down their throats.
I am opposed to any further taxation of any kind to feed fat politicians and civil servants in order to live the super-annuated lifestyle they demand.
Your friend may be right considering himself to be unable to make any kind of determination regarding this issue, but this hasn't stopped Fatty Gore, a "concensus of scientists", various politicians, all kinds of whackos, an entire political movement and the UN to hop on the bandwagon.
No wonder that independently thinking individuals take exception to having this bollocks rammed down their throats.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether we believe global warming theories or not, it is in everyone's interest to be more prudent with the use of the Earths resources. It is accepted by the major players in the Oil Industry that we are already past "Peak Oil" - here's just one random result of a google search which brings up many articles with the same basic message:- Peak Oil: Life After the Oil Crash
The separate FACT that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is the highest it's ever been in the history of the planet, and no-one knows how this will affect the world, makes more interesting food for thought.
"Not giving a damn" might be an option but the following song from Flanders & Swan (popular enterainers in late '50s) would sum up this attitude succinctly:
Oh, Ostrich consider how the world we know
Is trembling on the brink.
Have you heard the news, may I hear your views,
Will you tell me what you think.
The Ostrich lifted its head from the sand,
About an inch or so;
'You will please excuse, but disturbing news
I have no wish to know.'
(Chorus)
Peek-a-Boo, I can't see you,
Everything must be grand.
Boo-ka-Pee, they can't see me,
As long as I've got me head in the sand.
Peek-a-Boo, it may be true,
There's something in what you've said,
But we've got enough troubles in everyday life,
I just bury me head.
Then I noticed suddenly where we were,
I saw what time it was.
Make haste, I said, It'll be too late,
We must leave this place because....
He stuffed his wingtips into his ears;
He would not hear me speak,
And back in the soft Saharan sand
He plunged his yellow beak.
Oooh, Peek-a-Boo, I just . . . .etc
....
I just bury me.... (BOOM)
From a sheltered oasis a mile away
I observed that dreadful scene.
And a single plume came floating down
Where my Ostrich friend had been.
Because he could not bear the sound
Of these words I had left unsaid;
'Here in this nuclear testing ground
Is no place to bury your head!'
The separate FACT that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is the highest it's ever been in the history of the planet, and no-one knows how this will affect the world, makes more interesting food for thought.
"Not giving a damn" might be an option but the following song from Flanders & Swan (popular enterainers in late '50s) would sum up this attitude succinctly:
Oh, Ostrich consider how the world we know
Is trembling on the brink.
Have you heard the news, may I hear your views,
Will you tell me what you think.
The Ostrich lifted its head from the sand,
About an inch or so;
'You will please excuse, but disturbing news
I have no wish to know.'
(Chorus)
Peek-a-Boo, I can't see you,
Everything must be grand.
Boo-ka-Pee, they can't see me,
As long as I've got me head in the sand.
Peek-a-Boo, it may be true,
There's something in what you've said,
But we've got enough troubles in everyday life,
I just bury me head.
Then I noticed suddenly where we were,
I saw what time it was.
Make haste, I said, It'll be too late,
We must leave this place because....
He stuffed his wingtips into his ears;
He would not hear me speak,
And back in the soft Saharan sand
He plunged his yellow beak.
Oooh, Peek-a-Boo, I just . . . .etc
....
I just bury me.... (BOOM)
From a sheltered oasis a mile away
I observed that dreadful scene.
And a single plume came floating down
Where my Ostrich friend had been.
Because he could not bear the sound
Of these words I had left unsaid;
'Here in this nuclear testing ground
Is no place to bury your head!'
Last edited by zorab64; 15th Feb 2009 at 18:50.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some further reading to engross all the 'independently thinking individuals' out there. The (fairly obvious) consequences of shifts to some non-fossil fuels (including some comments on nitrous oxide, page 3, which can be fun but is also a greenhouse has with a high carbon equivalent factor) :
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefi...ng_or_fool.pdf
from here,
http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/biodi.../biofuels.html
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefi...ng_or_fool.pdf
from here,
http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/biodi.../biofuels.html