Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Perhaps aviation biggest challenge....

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Perhaps aviation biggest challenge....

Old 23rd May 2019, 11:03
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,393
Originally Posted by dr dre View Post


Thatís quite a strawman. No one except extremists are calling for a ban on air travel.

What can be done is for more research and development in electric propulsion, alternative fuels, more aerodynamic airframes, fuel reduction methods, more efficient flight paths, less holding, etc.

Isnít that something to aim for?
It is an admirable endeavour, however the industry to date has actually done little other than grudgingly agree to an ETS that doesn't start for another eight years. In that period net emissions are supposed to be neutral, while 'technological advances' of unknown origin, as yet defined benefit are somehow to materailise and ensure the net emissions actually don't rise with the forecast growth in ASK.
Rated De is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 11:14
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,172
When the CFC crisis was recognised and the damage to the ozone layer realised, CFCs were banned and alternatives found. As a result, the ozone layer is slowly recovering.

So why not ban CO2 production? Well, obviously because we are currently too dependant on fossil fuels. But are ‘we’ being pro-active enough about alternate forms of energy? We could have had wind farms in the 1960’s - there is nothing particularly technological about a wind turbine driving an electrical generator, and think of all the coal that could have been saved.
Is enough being done in nuclear fusion research?
Hydrogen production and distribution?
Solar cell research - efficiencies are very poor at the moment.
Tidal stream generation?
Housing insulation and energy efficiency. It is possible to build extremely energy efficient housing, and modern regulations are addressing this, but more could be done. Heat pumps instead of gas/oil powered heating systems. We could ban fossil fuel home heating for all new builds.


People need to have realistic alternatives before they can change their behaviour. Why are electric cars so expensive? They have no clutch, no gearbox, no exhaust system, no catalytic convertors, no exhaust filters, no engine cooling system, no oil system - they just have a battery and a motor. They should be way cheaper than the fossil fuel equivalent. .

Why are modern cars having more and more energy using, heavy electric motors fitted to open and close doors and windows? The driver’s window does not need to be electric. Doors do not need to be electrically operated.

Why are most buses still Diesel powered? Most could be electric, with a brief top-up charge at each stop to keep them going around their route

Last edited by Uplinker; 23rd May 2019 at 11:28.
Uplinker is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 11:19
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Stockport MAN/EGCC
Age: 65
Posts: 784
Electric cars now. Electric aircraft to come?
What on earth are we going to do with all those toxic batteries when the current Ďgreení cars reach the end of their serviceable life ?
Just curious
Be lucky
David
The AvgasDinosaur is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 11:26
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,172
Hydrogen fuelled aircraft are probably more likely.
Batteries will get properly recycled.
Uplinker is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 11:27
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Originally Posted by The AvgasDinosaur View Post
Electric cars now. Electric aircraft to come?
What on earth are we going to do with all those toxic batteries when the current Ďgreení cars reach the end of their serviceable life ?
Just curious
Be lucky
David
answer: recycle them. Easier and cheaper than mining the raw materials.
msjh is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 11:36
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 225
There is just too many of us. I find it interesting that the state of the human population and the demands it puts on our one and only home is very rarely discussed. No one wants to touch the subject. As whether climate change is man made or not is a mute point. It will always change, the rate and degree will also vary. In the past, our ancestors had the opportunity to migrate. Why? It was because the population was minimal and the space and resources were available.

clark y is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 11:51
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,639
Originally Posted by Uplinker View Post
When the CFC crisis was recognised and the damage to the ozone layer realised, CFCs were banned and alternatives found. As a result, the ozone layer is slowly recovering.
Though somewhat more slowly than might have been hoped or expected: China factories releasing thousands of tonnes of illegal CFC gases, study finds
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 11:53
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 233
Tesla’s share price may be an indication that the electric cars time has not quite arrived. Maybe another twenty years or so ..
also statements like veganism has increased seven fold, whilst possibly true are , a tad misleading, if the number has gone from say 100k to 700k. It’s an irrelevant amount of people. Tho the direction of travel is of course valid.
Don’t forget to factor in the people who say they are vegan but enjoy a burger on the quiet, so knock 50% off the total ..
A bit like people who say they will vote Lib Dem or green then tick the brexit party box in the privacy of the booth ..

‘’Nuclear is the only real option if you want to produce a huge constant baseload of co2 friendly Leccy. Maybe dam up the Bristol Channel if you can get over the wildlife changes that will happen ..

I think that pollution, litter and destruction of natural environments are bigger problems than co2 at the moment.
Nuclear solves a lot of these. By condensing the pollution from power generation into much smaller amounts of highly toxic crap. There is no escaping it.. making the leccy required for the next century will involved making a crap by product. You can either spread it out over the whole planet or bury it somewhere handy. Like er. Scotland ��
SARF is online now  
Old 23rd May 2019, 11:57
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by clark y View Post
As whether climate change is man made or not is a mute point. It will always change, the rate and degree will also vary.


The point that every scientific body on earth is making is that itís that the current rate of change is concerning and critical. Best way to see it is this very long timeline chart explaining the rate of change of temperatures over 20í000 years. Scroll all the way to the bottom and youíll see why scientists are alarmed:

If This Timeline Doesn't Convince You Climate Change Is Real, Nothing Will

In the past, our ancestors had the opportunity to migrate. Why? It was because the population was minimal and the space and resources were available.
Some scientists like Stephen Hawking have called for terra forming other planets. Could it be considered a long term (2100) goal?
dr dre is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 12:45
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,172
Originally Posted by SARF View Post
Tesla’s share price may be an indication that the electric cars time has not quite arrived. Maybe another twenty years or so ..


20 years??? The technology (and the vehicles) exist today. It/they simply need to be made more avaialble


‘’Nuclear is the only real option if you want to produce a huge constant baseload of co2 friendly Leccy.
We will indeed need a source of climate friendly electricity to power our electric transportation. Notice I stated nuclear fusion, not fission. There is a big difference.

Maybe dam up the Bristol Channel if you can get over the wildlife changes that will happen ..
I said tidal stream , not tidal barrage. Tidal stream would be turbines underwater out in the sea, and does not require any dam or barrage. The tide happens four times a day, and is predictable years into the future, so you could schedule the operation of other power sources for the periods of slack tide.

I think that pollution, litter and destruction of natural environments are bigger problems than co2 at the moment.
Nuclear solves a lot of these. By condensing the pollution from power generation into much smaller amounts of highly toxic crap. There is no escaping it.. making the leccy required for the next century will involved making a crap by product...........��

I agree that pollution and habitat destruction need to be addressed. Habitat destruction might be contributing to climate change, by removing massive CO2 sinks in the form of forests and jungles.

Have a look at nuclear fusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power





Uplinker is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 13:23
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 142
Originally Posted by John Boeman View Post
May I suggest that as well as studying the writings of the IPCC you take a look over what the NIPCC produces....
Climate Change Reconsidered ? Climate Change Reconsidered

I have just read through some of that material. As I said in my previous post, none of the current climate models are fully convincing. This was true in 2011 when the NIPCC did their last overall climate assessment and it remains true to this date.
But the NIPCC is using this to toss out all climate models and any revelations that can be gleaned from the attempts to model the climate. The key revelation, as I said before, is that you cannot make a climate model that works without including human-generated (anthropogenic) CO2 as part of your model. None of the other factors have enough influence - and many of those other factors are pulling in the wrong direction (cooling rather than a net warming).

On the other hand, the NIPCC is very strong on a couple of the other points I made - that it may not be worth the economic expense to avoid some of the consequences - and that none of the measures proposed to "fix" climate change will reliably (or in many cases "likely") do that.
.Scott is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 14:21
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 966
it may not be worth the economic expense to avoid some of the consequences
A very neo-liberal attitude that puts a cash price to value. "It all makes perfect sense, expressed in dollars and cents, pounds shillings and pence" Roger Waters some years ago
beardy is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 14:26
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: London
Posts: 84
Originally Posted by bill fly View Post


No itís not but there are an awful lot of single occupant cars in the roads - realistically...
But realistically, they're not driving to Thailand.

Some aviation is necessary but I'd say most of the trips I've taken, long and short haul, have been luxuries. It wouldn't have killed me to miss that wedding in Boston or that party in KL. So it's not a case of car vs plane CO2. In a lot of cases, we just don't need to go at all.

Sure that's a bit less exciting but I'd like to keep this planet habitable if poss. Don't fancy Musk's option of moving to Mars thanks.
PerPurumTonantes is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 14:43
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 4,964
As Woody Allen put it in his 1979 'Speech to the Graduates':

More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.


https://www.nytimes.com/1979/08/10/archives/my-speech-to-the-graduates.html
Airbubba is online now  
Old 23rd May 2019, 14:54
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 966
Nietzsche was under the impression that only by facing and embracing despair and hopelessness could man find a way to overcome. Choosing comfort avoided facing problems and finding answers. He abhorred Nihilism.
beardy is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 14:55
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,007
[QUOTE=PerPurumTonantes;10477979

Some aviation is necessary but I'd say most of the trips I've taken, long and short haul, have been luxuries. It wouldn't have killed me to miss that wedding in Boston or that party in KL. So it's not a case of car vs plane CO2. In a lot of cases, we just don't need to go at all.
[/QUOTE]

Me thinks that saving the world at the cost of non-essential travel ban probably not worth it - letís keep it as is and we will see. I will start to believe all those climate models the day when a weather forecast for 14 days will become reliable (=never?)
CargoOne is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 15:14
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Spain
Age: 76
Posts: 47
Originally Posted by SARF View Post
Teslaís share price may be an indication that the electric cars time has not quite arrived. Maybe another twenty years or so ..
also statements like veganism has increased seven fold, whilst possibly true are , a tad misleading, if the number has gone from say 100k to 700k. Itís an irrelevant amount of people. Tho the direction of travel is of course valid.
Donít forget to factor in the people who say they are vegan but enjoy a burger on the quiet, so knock 50% off the total ..
A bit like people who say they will vote Lib Dem or green then tick the brexit party box in the privacy of the booth ..

ĎíNuclear is the only real option if you want to produce a huge constant baseload of co2 friendly Leccy. Maybe dam up the Bristol Channel if you can get over the wildlife changes that will happen ..

I think that pollution, litter and destruction of natural environments are bigger problems than co2 at the moment.
Nuclear solves a lot of these. By condensing the pollution from power generation into much smaller amounts of highly toxic crap. There is no escaping it.. making the leccy required for the next century will involved making a crap by product. You can either spread it out over the whole planet or bury it somewhere handy. Like er. Scotland ��
or the Lake District, perhaps Cornwall.

kkbuk is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 16:49
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 756
Originally Posted by bill fly View Post
Realistically a full aircraft presently uses less fuel than would be used if each passenger drove his car the same distance solo.

Sorry, catching up on an old post...

Realistically, an utterly fatuous statistic, if that's what it is. Each passenger is only travelling by air because the aircraft is available to the desired destination (possibly desired only because it's available). On long-haul there is no realistic alternative so he or she would stay at home if air transport is not possible. On short haul, he or she would probably find a better public transport alternative than the car if the journey were really necessary, or otherwise stay at home. Even if every passenger elected to use a car instead of going by air, the number of cars used is unlikely to be the same as the number of passengers, so the arithmetic is fatally flawed in any event.

I'm all for making a case for air transport vs other forms of transport, but nonsensical claims don't help.
old,not bold is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 19:30
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 72
Posts: 687
I wonder if there are old timers left who follow this forum. By old timers I mean those who plied their trade high up above the Northern Arctic routes. What would they now see below them, would there not be a remarkable change in the scenery below for them to gaze in sorrowful contemplation. That is of course clouds permitting. More and more of which seem to be rising in our skies with every season, inexorably merging into one, of floods and tempests.
Chronus is offline  
Old 23rd May 2019, 21:07
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The World
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by .Scott View Post
On the other hand, the NIPCC is very strong on a couple of the other points I made - that it may not be worth the economic expense to avoid some of the consequences -
All studies by actual scientific bodies (as shown in previous posts the NIPCC are a bunch of quacks funded by conservative political lobbyists) will tell you that not doing anything about climate change will cause even greater financial damage in the future.

When you think of farmers with failing crops, coastal cities subject to flooding, mass migrant caused by swamping if low lying areas etc transferring to renewable energy sources now is much cheaper
dr dre is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.