Aviation Emissions. An argument unfairly made.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: california
Age: 66
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation Emissions. An argument unfairly made.
Aviation Emissions are becoming the priority for European Green movements. In my opinion this is destructive and unfair. Aircraft manufacturers are moving rapidly towards emissions free Planes but currently the technology for complete zero emission aircraft does not exist. On the other hand the technology does exist for zero emission cars and power on the ground therefore it would be more effective to encourage people to use only emission free options on the ground. By keeping the aviation industry low tax and continuing to grow the industry allows focus on removing the problem in the air.
Most Europeans use unclean petrol engines to drive at least 10,000 miles per year which is totally unnecessary (technologically) and more environmentally unfriendly than flying. Aviation has just become easy to attack for the Green Politicians as the family income of their electorate is not effected by aviation but it is effected by changes that could be made immediately.
Aviation will become Green and sustainable given reasonable time but stopping flying is clearly not the solution. Investment is the solution.
Most Europeans use unclean petrol engines to drive at least 10,000 miles per year which is totally unnecessary (technologically) and more environmentally unfriendly than flying. Aviation has just become easy to attack for the Green Politicians as the family income of their electorate is not effected by aviation but it is effected by changes that could be made immediately.
Aviation will become Green and sustainable given reasonable time but stopping flying is clearly not the solution. Investment is the solution.
IF you look at the same lobby movement they're using the 'vegan' lobby to target livestock farming to force us all to give up meant without looking at the facts . The fact is a rush to end fossil fuel use in the west will turn us into the third world poverty wise . Practical common sense moves can reduce the danger but not shutting our industry down and importing from other parts of the world . If this is pursued the global airline industry is finished.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've not got enough posts to include links, but there have been several news outlets in last few days reporting on SO2 emissions in port cities being much higher than those due to cars and you can also find articles on fines for ships exceeding allowable emissions.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ships emission are soon to be closely regulated. Ships are changing to LNG, fitting scrubbers where fuel change is not possible, buying low emission heavy oil etc. I think 2020 is all important date to have achieved change to lower emissions.
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: London
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Electric Powered Aircraft
Extinction Rebellion are threatening to shut down Heathrow Airport with drones
Perhaps aviation biggest challenge....
Summary:
- Hydrocarbons are miracle fuels, batteries will never match them for energy density
- (side note Even if battery technology advances, the more energy density you put into them, the more risk of catastrophic failure - think 777 LiPo problems)
- Electric powered aircraft may work for very short hops or trainers
- The sheer quantity of fuel required means that bio-kerosene is not viable
- Aircraft efficiency - we've picked all the low hanging fruit, big 10%+ gains eg high bypass etc. Now we're looking at marginal few percent gains here and there. Efficiency very unlikely to radically increase.
- The best jet efficiency we're getting is with a full O'Leary - and that's only as good as everyone in that jet getting in their own private car and driving there. Hardly outstanding.
- Aviation CO2 emissions are approx 3% of global total, but the problem is the rapid growth and the fact that, as above, it's hard to see how you replace Jet-A1
- Although it's "only" 3% that does not absolve the industry from doing anything about it. Your personal emissions are tiny in a global perspective. Does that mean everyone should do nothing?
- The argument about whether CO2 is causing global warming is over. The question is now what are we going to do about it.
- Shutting down Heathrow with drones is a bl**dy stupid idea, but you can see their point of view because nothing else seems to have an effect.
When was the last time you saw an environmental protest outside the docks?
On the other hand the technology does exist for zero emission cars and power on the ground therefore it would be more effective to encourage people to use only emission free options on the ground.
North America lags behind but they are getting there
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/30/1...climate-change
- Aviation produces 4% of the UK's CO2 and 2% of the world's CO2
- China alone produces 100 times the CO2 of the UK
- Last year China increased CO2 production by 6%
- population growth
- industrialisation of the far east
- deforestation, often due to corruption
The only answers are investment in technology by the West which is then used by / sold to the far east, reducing population growth and managing corruption. If the EU cant even stop its own members such as Germany and Poland ramping up coal burning then there is little hope.
Aviation Emissions are becoming the priority for European Green movements. In my opinion this is destructive and unfair. Aircraft manufacturers are moving rapidly towards emissions free Planes but currently the technology for complete zero emission aircraft does not exist. On the other hand the technology does exist for zero emission cars and power on the ground therefore it would be more effective to encourage people to use only emission free options on the ground. By keeping the aviation industry low tax and continuing to grow the industry allows focus on removing the problem in the air.
Most Europeans use unclean petrol engines to drive at least 10,000 miles per year which is totally unnecessary (technologically) and more environmentally unfriendly than flying. Aviation has just become easy to attack for the Green Politicians as the family income of their electorate is not effected by aviation but it is effected by changes that could be made immediately.
Aviation will become Green and sustainable given reasonable time but stopping flying is clearly not the solution. Investment is the solution.
Most Europeans use unclean petrol engines to drive at least 10,000 miles per year which is totally unnecessary (technologically) and more environmentally unfriendly than flying. Aviation has just become easy to attack for the Green Politicians as the family income of their electorate is not effected by aviation but it is effected by changes that could be made immediately.
Aviation will become Green and sustainable given reasonable time but stopping flying is clearly not the solution. Investment is the solution.
If you think that driving is totally unnecessary because of technology, what makes you so sure that aviation is still required? The same technology that you claim makes driving unnecessary makes flying even less necessary. Take the unnecessary business flights away and you probably don't have an industry, that's one sure way to be carbon neutral.
- Aviation produces 4% of the UK's CO2 and 2% of the world's CO2
- China alone produces 100 times the CO2 of the UK
- Last year China increased CO2 production by 6%
- population growth
- industrialisation of the far east
- deforestation, often due to corruption
The only answers are investment in technology by the West which is then used by / sold to the far east, reducing population growth and managing corruption. If the EU cant even stop its own members such as Germany and Poland ramping up coal burning then there is little hope.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
China has 99% of the worlds electric bus fleet
https://www.wired.com/story/electric...en-over-world/
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: california
Age: 66
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you think that driving is totally unnecessary because of technology, what makes you so sure that aviation is still required? The same technology that you claim makes driving unnecessary makes flying even less necessary. Take the unnecessary business flights away and you probably don't have an industry, that's one sure way to be carbon neutral.
At the same time invest in developing emission free Aviation. Stopping aviation though is ridiculous.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
China produces 25 time UK but difference is China is acting quickly to do something about it. Interersing that China since 1761-2016 has only produced twice what Uk did over that time
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
China has 99% of the worlds electric bus fleet
https://www.wired.com/story/electric...en-over-world/
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions
China has 99% of the worlds electric bus fleet
https://www.wired.com/story/electric...en-over-world/
China’s power industry calls for hundreds of new coal power plants by 2030 Under the proposal, the country could add a large coal power plant every 2 weeks for the next 12 years
China is not alone India is also building coal fired power stations.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Northern Territory Australia
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NIMBYism around Heathrow
As a LHR 3rd runway supporter I have found that there are none so deaf etc etc.
The argument about the 3rd runway concentrates on pollution levels around LHR but people refuse to believe that having an 8 lane motorway adjacent to LHR carrying in excess of 211000 vehicles per day (Govt. stats 2017) creates more of a problem than the (currently) fewer than 1400 daily aircraft movements.
In the UK, vehicle emissions are checked once a year, perhaps twice if the mandatory check and routine service are carried out at different times..
I believe more diesel powered trucks and vans pass the area in 15 minutes than total aircraft movement for a day. - There is the problem.
The argument about the 3rd runway concentrates on pollution levels around LHR but people refuse to believe that having an 8 lane motorway adjacent to LHR carrying in excess of 211000 vehicles per day (Govt. stats 2017) creates more of a problem than the (currently) fewer than 1400 daily aircraft movements.
In the UK, vehicle emissions are checked once a year, perhaps twice if the mandatory check and routine service are carried out at different times..
I believe more diesel powered trucks and vans pass the area in 15 minutes than total aircraft movement for a day. - There is the problem.
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: London
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2) Economic hell? Using less oil and gas in the UK would be a good thing economically and for national energy security - we became a net importer in 2004. Every journey made on this imported fuel is money shipped overseas, draining out of the UK economy.
3) Investing in infrastructure of cycle paths, cargo bikes, trams, trains, clean energy would cause suffering?
Source: gov.uk Volume_and_value_of_net_UK_oil_and_gas_exports_imports.jpg
We don't need to ban anything. Just stop expansion. No one in the industry needs to lose their job.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the OP is right that society should prioritise which uses of fossil fuels should be focussed on for reduction. Heating houses and running trains could both have easily been 100% carbon free in many (certainly most western) countries by now if we had had the will to build nuclear power stations, and without needing the expensive battery technology road transport needs. Perhaps if we were in that position then electrifying road transport might be a sensible next step. However I don't think the current lack of any taxation for aviation fuels is justified. It should at least be at a level comparable with taxes for fuels used by trains and buses and I cannot see any reason for the industry to plead it needs special consideration.
Moderator
This topic worries me. As I mentored a young lady flying her dad's 180HP PA-18 a few years back, I reminded her to enjoy it, 'cause one way or another, when she's my age, we just won't be burning 35 liters per hours of leaded Avgas to fly 90 MPH for fun - society just won't find that to be environmentally acceptable, and something is going to change. For my own piloting life since 1975, I look back, and think of the gasoline and jet fuel I have burned. I figure it's around 350,000 liters since 1975, 75% recreational/personal transport, and 25% "work". But that's a lot of pollution I've put out there. Doing that made me a very experienced pilot, and I got some work done, which someone wanted accomplished, but has it benefited society in proportion to the pollution I've put out there? I'm not so sure....
I can, and am, cutting back on flying, no more 200 liter weekend adventures in the plane, just some short flights, and business travel, combined with some recurrent practice on handling and emergencies. I keep my skills up, but don't just go out and burn fuel for no purpose any more. What worries me is how the industry need for light aircraft experienced entry level airline pilots will be met. It takes a lot of gasoline for a pilot to build the amount of solo flying experience we would like to see, to be confident in each pilot before the occupy right seat in a regional airliner. Yes, simulators will be very beneficial in taking on lots of the training needs with zero emission, but I opine that a pilot only gets to be truly "experienced" by venturing out solo a number of times, and scaring the heck out of themselves a few times, so they realize the importance of good decision making. Sure, we can send out four new pilots in a four place GA airplane, so they can learn together, but we hear from time to time about a poor decision resulting in four fatalities, and the need for true "solo" flight is really not met with four pilots collaborating on a decision/mistake .
But the notion of amassing a near thousand hours of solo GA piloting prior to that first right seat job (the norm, when I learned to fly) will be a self solving problem, as most aspiring pilots will simply be unable to afford it! These factors are going to combine to cause significant changes in commercial aviation. The industry will have to accept much less experienced entry level pilots, and compensate for much less "solo" experience to satisfy the demand for safety. Training can do it, but it's got to be different.
I think about my carbon footprint in life. I consciously consider if I can buy local products to reduce needless worldwide shipping. My most glaring and embarrassing error in this regard was my choice to buy the better part of a ton of "Product of Canada" hardwood floor for my house. I found out to my horror upon receipt of the last part of the shipment (which was late), that the wood grown a few Canadian provinces away from me, which could have been finished locally, was in fact sent as raw planks to China by sea, where it was finished and sent back to Canada for sale. That near ton of wood has crossed the pacific ocean twice, and not employed my fellow Canadians in a wood finishing mill! I'm paying a lot more attention to these things now, and only accept offshore products when there is no local equivalent, and, I actually need them.
Whatever happens, the 43 cents per gallon (10 cents per liter) lead free 80/87 I began building piloting experience on, is now at least 190 cents per liter (locally to me) leaded Avgas. I see that most new pilot cannot afford large amounts of this, money or environment. Aviation still a very small fraction of worldwide use, but it's going to become more publicly visible as time goes by, this will not go back into the shadows. We in aviation must apply our experience, and think proactively about reducing are carbon footprint wherever we can...
I can, and am, cutting back on flying, no more 200 liter weekend adventures in the plane, just some short flights, and business travel, combined with some recurrent practice on handling and emergencies. I keep my skills up, but don't just go out and burn fuel for no purpose any more. What worries me is how the industry need for light aircraft experienced entry level airline pilots will be met. It takes a lot of gasoline for a pilot to build the amount of solo flying experience we would like to see, to be confident in each pilot before the occupy right seat in a regional airliner. Yes, simulators will be very beneficial in taking on lots of the training needs with zero emission, but I opine that a pilot only gets to be truly "experienced" by venturing out solo a number of times, and scaring the heck out of themselves a few times, so they realize the importance of good decision making. Sure, we can send out four new pilots in a four place GA airplane, so they can learn together, but we hear from time to time about a poor decision resulting in four fatalities, and the need for true "solo" flight is really not met with four pilots collaborating on a decision/mistake .
But the notion of amassing a near thousand hours of solo GA piloting prior to that first right seat job (the norm, when I learned to fly) will be a self solving problem, as most aspiring pilots will simply be unable to afford it! These factors are going to combine to cause significant changes in commercial aviation. The industry will have to accept much less experienced entry level pilots, and compensate for much less "solo" experience to satisfy the demand for safety. Training can do it, but it's got to be different.
I think about my carbon footprint in life. I consciously consider if I can buy local products to reduce needless worldwide shipping. My most glaring and embarrassing error in this regard was my choice to buy the better part of a ton of "Product of Canada" hardwood floor for my house. I found out to my horror upon receipt of the last part of the shipment (which was late), that the wood grown a few Canadian provinces away from me, which could have been finished locally, was in fact sent as raw planks to China by sea, where it was finished and sent back to Canada for sale. That near ton of wood has crossed the pacific ocean twice, and not employed my fellow Canadians in a wood finishing mill! I'm paying a lot more attention to these things now, and only accept offshore products when there is no local equivalent, and, I actually need them.
Whatever happens, the 43 cents per gallon (10 cents per liter) lead free 80/87 I began building piloting experience on, is now at least 190 cents per liter (locally to me) leaded Avgas. I see that most new pilot cannot afford large amounts of this, money or environment. Aviation still a very small fraction of worldwide use, but it's going to become more publicly visible as time goes by, this will not go back into the shadows. We in aviation must apply our experience, and think proactively about reducing are carbon footprint wherever we can...
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation Emissions are becoming the priority for European Green movements. In my opinion this is destructive and unfair. Aircraft manufacturers are moving rapidly towards emissions free Planes but currently the technology for complete zero emission aircraft does not exist. On the other hand the technology does exist for zero emission cars and power on the ground therefore it would be more effective to encourage people to use only emission free options on the ground. By keeping the aviation industry low tax and continuing to grow the industry allows focus on removing the problem in the air.
Most Europeans use unclean petrol engines to drive at least 10,000 miles per year which is totally unnecessary (technologically) and more environmentally unfriendly than flying. Aviation has just become easy to attack for the Green Politicians as the family income of their electorate is not effected by aviation but it is effected by changes that could be made immediately.
Aviation will become Green and sustainable given reasonable time but stopping flying is clearly not the solution. Investment is the solution.
Most Europeans use unclean petrol engines to drive at least 10,000 miles per year which is totally unnecessary (technologically) and more environmentally unfriendly than flying. Aviation has just become easy to attack for the Green Politicians as the family income of their electorate is not effected by aviation but it is effected by changes that could be made immediately.
Aviation will become Green and sustainable given reasonable time but stopping flying is clearly not the solution. Investment is the solution.
It is worth noting that the industry (at least as represented by ICAO/IATA) have no plan for the replacement of hydrocarbon based fuel.
The ICAO narrative is;
- Technology will continue to provide improvements (at levels historically seen- this is not assured into the future)
- CORSIA in 2027. The ICAO ETS sets carbon price low enough to mean that no behaviour change is required by airlines.
- Efficiency improvements already embedded in new aircraft under construction will meet the ETS threshold without any change.
Contrast this to the maritime industry(IMO) whereby the industry will transition off carbon based fuel by 2100 at the latest.
Whilst the industry enjoys marketing green alternatives like bio-fuel the sheer expanse of land required to grow the fuel is enormous. Consider that to power 10% of the US Airlines ASK an area the size of Florida is required to grow it, bio-fuel technically is feasible, but commercially non-viable. Airlines like Australia's Qantas make a big announcement about a 'purchase' of biol fuel totalling 30,000,000 US Gallons. This is to be welcomed, however missing from the PR, is the fact that the fuel purchased could only power the pacific crossings of their increasingly fuel inefficient fleet for a matter of weeks. 30,000,000 gallons isn't much fuel when your aircraft consume at least 11,000 kgs (11 tonnes an hour) Likewise as far as battery technology has come, they are simply too heavy to store anything like the energy needed to cross the pacific. As for laminar flow and flying wings, perhaps all the concrete and construction required to build airports capable of accommodating needs diesel to power the equipment.
Perhaps if the industry targeted reduction in reliance rather than simply offsetting their increasing percentage of the production of CO2, then there may be incentive for airlines to change.