Perhaps aviation biggest challenge....
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one except extremists are calling for a ban on air travel
- Aviation is already pouring billions into reducing its carbon foot print: aircraft and engine manufacturers are pushing the boundaries of science to reduce fuel burn and emissions (for cost reasons too of course, but interests coincide . . )
- There are thousands of research projects into the electrification of air transport flying but the technology isn't there . . .yet
- Air transport and, arguably, sea transport, are really the only industries using fossil fuels that, for the foreseeable future, cannot use anything else. EVERYTHING else: road, rail, industry, lighting, heating could, theoretically be powered by non-polluting means - so that's where the emphasis should be
- Civil air transport generates significant prosperity across the world: including for nations with little but tourism to sustain them
- Civil air transport is a huge contributor to the maintenance of world peace and the prevention of conflict: the more the peoples of the world meet and get to know each other, the less likely they are to want to kill each other (well, mostly)
And finally, if you are to reduce flying, how will it be done: most likely through taxation with the consequence that only the self-indulgent chatters will still be able to go for long weekends in Tuscany while the hoi polloi won't be able to afford their annual two weeks in the sun.
Everyone in this industry should start getting messages like these out there before it's all too late.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hydro electricity
It also provides 'just-in-time' delivery of a wide range of components for many industries which rely on this.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: South Pole
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more I have read about climate change, the more the scam is obvious. After 30 years, we still don’t know if doubling the level of CO2 produces a 1 deg increase in temp, or 5 deg. It makes a huge difference. We don’t know if sea levels have risen by 1mm per year, or 3. If you don’t know that info, how can you determine it’s caused by humans? You cannot show a climate model with and without the effects of man give the sea level rise happening now, because you don’t even know what that is....
Climate models are incapable of predicting the temperature pause that has occurred over about the last 20 years in the troposphere. They are incapable of predicting the ocean temperature oscillations - they have to be an input into the model. Have a look at the global warming policy foundation.
The science is so far from settled, it’s at a very basic level.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wideroe (Norway) has set up the goal to become 100% electric by 2030. Avinor (Norwegan airports operator) wants all domestic flights to become 100% electric by 2040. What are these vikings know which we don't?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more I have read about climate change, the more the scam is obvious. After 30 years, we still don’t know if doubling the level of CO2 produces a 1 deg increase in temp, or 5 deg. It makes a huge difference. We don’t know if sea levels have risen by 1mm per year, or 3. If you don’t know that info, how can you determine it’s caused by humans? You cannot show a climate model with and without the effects of man give the sea level rise happening now, because you don’t even know what that is....
Climate models are incapable of predicting the temperature pause that has occurred over about the last 20 years in the troposphere. They are incapable of predicting the ocean temperature oscillations - they have to be an input into the model. Have a look at the global warming policy foundation.
The science is so far from settled, it’s at a very basic level.
Scientists know climate change is happening. They know there is a general trend towards warmer temperatures. They know that various greenhouse gases increase temperatures and that the prevalence of these in the atmosphere is increasing.
Now, climate change models are extraordinarily complex. The only way to make such a model 100% correct is to build another Earth, so that's unlikely to happen anytime soon. The lack of such a model doesn't make today's models wrong: it just makes them less certain. If anyone wishes to deride them, they need to come up with a better model that fits the facts and is logical.
There is no reasonable doubt that man-made climate change is is occurring and that, left unchecked, it will have catastrophic consequences for humanity.
Furthermore, there is a lot that most people can do to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Eat less meat. Walk instead of using a car for short journeys. When you drive, drive economically. Buy a fuel-efficient car, or an electric one. Where feasible, buy locally produced goods.
And, yes, take fewer plane trips.
Widerøe has indeed stated that its under-50-seat fleet will be all-electric by 2030. That clearly excludes the E2s and (if they are still in service by then) the Q400s.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After 30 years, we still don’t know if doubling the level of CO2 produces a 1 deg increase in temp, or 5 deg.
Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?)
We don’t know if sea levels have risen by 1mm per year, or 3.
SEA LEVEL RISE
Climate models are incapable of predicting the temperature pause that has occurred over about the last 20 years in the troposphere.
Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998
Have a look at the global warming policy foundation.
Two secret funders of Nigel Lawson’s climate sceptic organisation revealed
I’ll take my facts from these 200 internationally recognised scientific bodies:
The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:
The science is so far from settled, it’s at a very basic level.
Is the science settled?
Climate change deniers. Climate change believers. Is there a place for climate change discussers?
Is what we are doing going to have any effect if big manufacturing countries do nothing?
Should we be planning for survival in the new climate?
Is what we are doing going to have any effect if big manufacturing countries do nothing?
Should we be planning for survival in the new climate?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However the "Real" culprit seems to be overpopulation of the planet by humans, so I would bet that unless there is a huge reduction in that regard (war, pestilence etc) we are hooped.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we have to restrict ourselves to periods in history when mamnals and particularly humans have developed.
indeed, we know the planet won't just explode, what climate changers claim is simply that life as we know it and in many locations it exists won't be possible.
others maintain that the climate may well 'trip' and jump toba new stable state considerably altered from the last few thousand years
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This sums up pretty well why electric aircraft are not going to work for the mainstream anytime soon:
https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/31/bj...he-hype-curve/
https://leehamnews.com/2019/05/31/bj...he-hype-curve/
On high density overland routes of up to 1000-km (maybe 800-km) high speed rail is the biggest challenge to aviation. That is the way that Europe and China are going, and I've done 1000-km by high speed rail in China when the plane was a no-show, and it was notable that the train was full. Why do you think the aviation (and automotive) industry works so hard behind-the-scenes to keep high speed rail out of the USA. The bad news for pilots is that railways don't use them. The good news for the planet is that trains can run off renewables. (https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=7457 )
There is another way to do long haul high speed transport, namely exo-atmospheric. See Space X (https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elo...p-spaceliners/) for various ways of using the BFR which seems to be economic in ranges of about 4000-km to 10-15000-km. That's methane/lox so better for the planet than kerosene (though many questions remain on the general matter of emissions effects) , and there may be carbon-neutral ways of producing the methane. The bad news for pilots is that there are none. The bad news for passengers is that origin/landing points will likely either need a handy coast, or a big empty desert, due to noise/risk issues, but given that most of humanity lives in the littoral that's not such a drag.
For very short range intermittent GA one can see electric aviation taking a fair nibble. I don't think it will be much more than a nibble due to physical realities, but I fully expect most of the next generation of pilots will get their PPL on electric trainers.
So as a direction of travel for an industry I'd be cautious about extrapolating the growth of the last 50-years forwards another 50-years. Put all the above together, add in increased automation leading to single pilot flying (or no-pilot-onboard flying), and add a carbon tax that curtails trivial travel, and you can see limits out there on the horizon. It is not difficult to conceive a future in which the role of 'traditional' commercial aviation is 1000 - 2000km only, and especially on the thin routes. For the richer people.
There is another way to do long haul high speed transport, namely exo-atmospheric. See Space X (https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elo...p-spaceliners/) for various ways of using the BFR which seems to be economic in ranges of about 4000-km to 10-15000-km. That's methane/lox so better for the planet than kerosene (though many questions remain on the general matter of emissions effects) , and there may be carbon-neutral ways of producing the methane. The bad news for pilots is that there are none. The bad news for passengers is that origin/landing points will likely either need a handy coast, or a big empty desert, due to noise/risk issues, but given that most of humanity lives in the littoral that's not such a drag.
For very short range intermittent GA one can see electric aviation taking a fair nibble. I don't think it will be much more than a nibble due to physical realities, but I fully expect most of the next generation of pilots will get their PPL on electric trainers.
So as a direction of travel for an industry I'd be cautious about extrapolating the growth of the last 50-years forwards another 50-years. Put all the above together, add in increased automation leading to single pilot flying (or no-pilot-onboard flying), and add a carbon tax that curtails trivial travel, and you can see limits out there on the horizon. It is not difficult to conceive a future in which the role of 'traditional' commercial aviation is 1000 - 2000km only, and especially on the thin routes. For the richer people.
Last edited by petit plateau; 31st May 2019 at 09:58.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hopefully this forum will be alive by 2030 so we can all laugh about 2019 electrical airplanes projects. And dont forget in order to keep Norway clean, the batteries need to be produced and utilised in China, Bangladesh or Burundi so we can report our success in making the planet better (for Norwegians)
And yes you’re allowed to use science, by scientists like NASA, not quacks funded by oil companies making videos in their bedrooms.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 51
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The future of the aviation industry does not rest with pilots, it rest with those holding the capital that funds new aircraft programs and new procurement and leasing programs for new aircraft fleets. In the main, those capital holders and their influencers/masters have no doubt about climate change occurring and being human induced. Seek out statements by parties such as BlackRock if your doubt this, That viable alternatives to hydrocarbons for aviation are few and far between and this is also largely uncontested, as is also the value of tourism and other aviation-oriented trade. The industry needs to be pushing for the rapid de-carbonisation of the stuff that is easier to address, so that aviation has "carbon headroom" to keep operating and delivering service and value. Arguing against climate change, or downplaying it, is not the long game for aviation. Even climate scientists like to fly, if somehow it can be made to fit into a sensible carbon budget. Much more delay, and arguing abut simple physics and meteorology, and we face tradeoffs and stark decisions that we really shouldn't have had to face.