|
I fill my car with petrol once a fortnight. Perhaps I should just put enough in, each day, for the trips that day. How much tankering is there in 30 million UK cars. Perhaps that may help to put some perspective on this.
I'm not a pilot, just SLF, but this sort of "outrage" gets my goat. In my mind it represents a total failure to think an issue through |
Originally Posted by flight_mode
(Post 10617229)
I wonder how much CO2 would be saved if we didnt need to fly around, rather than over France several times a year.
I wonder how much CO2 would be saved if we didnt spend 30 minutes drawing race tracks over London. I wonder how much CO2 would be saved if we didnt have to drive aircraft from Polderbaan across the Netherlands to the terminal, then wait another 20 minutes for a gate. I'll spell it out for you: "TOO MANY AIRCRAFT". |
Originally Posted by Ian W
(Post 10617791)
There are no observations in the real atmosphere that show that CO2 has any impact on atmospheric temperature. The adiabatic lapse rates are not affected by CO2 and these are repeatedly confirmed by balloon sondes..
|
Originally Posted by Slfsfu
(Post 10618340)
I fill my car with petrol once a fortnight. Perhaps I should just put enough in, each day, for the trips that day. How much tankering is there in 30 million UK cars. Perhaps that may help to put some perspective on this.
Unless you have a car that does 550 mph at 35,000 ft, that is. :O |
Yeah, but think about number of cars doing this daily.
& |
Originally Posted by old,not bold
(Post 10617004)
Yes, it does, doesn't it, but I left it there because that's what the ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator (also linked in my last post) produced for an A320 family LHR-MUC. Or maybe I misinterpreted it; I put the link in so that people could check. (Hint............................. and when you have done that, please let me know if you get a substantially different figure.)
|
Why doesn’t the United Nations offer all the carbon offset taxes it’s raising/raised since this (ponzi) scheme was introduced to anyone or any organization that can design a massive scale carbon sink that can capture atmospheric CO2/methane etc so we can use our human ingenuity to solve the problem rather than transferring cash around. You can’t buy your way to heaven and also I have an unformed opinion about the carbon credit scheme and the way it’s set up. If you’re setting caps per head of population and making polluting countries buy cap space of relatively low polluting countries it’s a neat way of transferring wealth from the first world to the third world..not enough questions about the purpose of the system are being asked |
Can I also make a valid point here. As everyone is moaning about the effects of flying on the earth etc, I haven’t seen anyone from the eco-society make a fuss regarding Qantas’ LHR-SYD flight today, as part of an ‘experiment’! So the snowflakes aren’t happy when an Airline tankers to save fuel, to keeps cost low. But when it comes to experiments and p1ssing away profits, that’s totally fine! Talk about hypocrisy at its finest! OMAA |
Originally Posted by OMAAbound
(Post 10618895)
Can I also make a valid point here. As everyone is moaning about the effects of flying on the earth etc, I haven’t seen anyone from the eco-society make a fuss regarding Qantas’ LHR-SYD flight today, as part of an ‘experiment’! So the snowflakes aren’t happy when an Airline tankers to save fuel, to keeps cost low. But when it comes to experiments and p1ssing away profits, that’s totally fine! https://simpleflying.com/qantas-london-project-sunrise/ |
Originally Posted by Luke SkyToddler
(Post 10615977)
Airstripflyer makes the relevant point
If you tanker fuel to a place like the Seychelles or Kathmandu because it's expensive, that fuel has ALREADY been tankered there in trucks and boats. Which are less efficient than planes in the first place. If you tanker fuel from a place like Jeddah because it's cheaper than LHR - well guess where the fuel in the pumps in LHR came from? |
Originally Posted by wiggy
(Post 10618939)
Your point might not be completely valid..AFAIK it's the second leg of the delivery flight, so unless they were going to ship the hull from Seattle to Sydney it was going to have to be flown there anyway.. (though I accept routing via LHR my be somewhat suboptimal from an environmental POV)
https://simpleflying.com/qantas-london-project-sunrise/ Haven’t heard anyone from #TeamEco beating Qantas about doing such a irresponsible thing! OMAA |
To be fair, if you're doing 150T for SEA-LAX-LHR-SYD - over 30 hours in the air, that is bloody good efficiency in comparison to the older types!
The 787 probably does LHR-PER with less fuel than a 747 from LHR-MIA. These efficiency improvements are conveniently forgotten by the eco mob. |
Originally Posted by OMAAbound
(Post 10619161)
Not entirely, they’ve flown it SEA-LAX-LHR-SYD and in the process burned well in excess of 150 tonnes of fuel. All in the name of an experiment. Haven’t heard anyone from #TeamEco beating Qantas about doing such a irresponsible thing! OMAA In fact the head of Qantas basically said that as aviation globally only contributes 2% of the CO2 , Its a non issue. |
Originally Posted by aerodestination
(Post 10616211)
The reason why fuel is way more expensive at some places is because of the costs to get the fuel to that place.
|
Originally Posted by TURIN
(Post 10619299)
You need to get out more. The environmental impact was ALL they talked about on every news feed I saw on this story.
In fact the head of Qantas basically said that as aviation globally only contributes 2% of the CO2 , Its a non issue. As a skeptic in the whole global warming campaign, and most of us have stated already on here, Aviation contributes a minor part to it, and the minor part to which it contributes is worthwhile. The pharmaceutical supplies my cargo company just delivered, the numerous thousands of aid workers airlines carry around the world, the food it’s supplies, the water it carries, the clothing it supplies... The list is endless. This thread has slightly drifted, but, tankering will continue as long as airlines continue to operate! Period! OMAA |
Originally Posted by ETOPS
(Post 10615898)
Most mornings over Heathrow there is a queue of aircraft holding as they wait for the 0600 curfew to end. At times this builds from around 0545 and often involves 12 or so aircraft. I did it myself for a couple of decades so tried to calculate my "extra" carbon emisions based on average air holding times - I ran out of zeros on my calculator.
This holding is far more damaging than tankering and I did try to avoid it by slowing down en-route but arriving at the back of that queue still brought the dreaded " take up the hold at Lambourne - maintain FL 160 - at least 20 mins delay".......... We should be doing much more as an industry, we should be highlighting the efficiencies we continue to make. We should emphasise the efficiency of moving (E.g.) 62,000 tonnes of payload from Mumbai to LHR in ten hours at a cost of about 72 tonnes of fuel. Compare that with a cruise ship I was on recently which carried 568 pax for 17 days burning 75 tonnes of Bunker oil per day while she was sailing. Aviation needs to blow its trumpet much more loudly, and emphasise that one pax’s fuel/mile in a B777-300ER is vastly more efficient than two pax’s fuel/mile using a typical family car in the UK. Vasco (Retd BA 777s) |
Originally Posted by Vasco dePilot
(Post 10619332)
I second that, as can every BA pilot. Whenever I am challenged by a person who is anti LHR third runway, I tell them about the huge amount of fuel wasted in holding patterns.
Having said that, how can you be sure that if and when LHR build a 3rd runway, airlines won't add routes and schedules up to the point where the airport is back operating at 99% capacity, but now with 1½ runways' worth of arrival holding ? Or are you suggesting that the airport should operate 24/7 ? |
LHR
Dave, we can speculate it could lead to same holding plus extra for third runway. Your guess is as good as mine. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10619362)
Having said that, how can you be sure that if and when LHR build a 3rd runway, airlines won't add routes and schedules up to the point where the airport is back operating at 99% capacity, but now with 1½ runways' worth of arrival holding ?
|
We should be doing much more as an industry, we should be highlighting the efficiencies we continue to make. We should emphasise the efficiency of moving (E.g.) 62,000 tonnes of payload from Mumbai to LHR in ten hours at a cost of about 72 tonnes of fuel. Compare that with a cruise ship I was on recently which carried 568 pax for 17 days burning 75 tonnes of Bunker oil per day while she was sailing
Edit: If you actually meant 62 tonnes there was no need for decimals.. |
Originally Posted by 172_driver
(Post 10619529)
You're not shifting 62000 tonnes of payload for the price of 72 tonnes of fuel. Maybe 62 tonnes. And that's pretty poor bang for the buck compared to shipping (unless time is cruicial) Edit: If you actually meant 62 tonnes there was no need for decimals.. |
Originally Posted by Fire and brimstone
(Post 10619923)
Do you know how many trees you have to plant to offset just your cruise?
On edit: Using the available metrics, the air transport industry would need to plant out one million acres every year. In one state of Australia alone more than that has burned in bushfires and we are only a third of the way through fire season. |
1 tonne of carbon is surely not equivalent to 1.8 tonnes CO2.
Molar weight of carbon = 12 g. Molar weight of CO2 = (12 + 2 * 16) g = 44g. This implies 1 tonne carbon is equivalent to 4.4 tonnes CO2. |
Pipelines to LHR. I had meant to reply earlier, as well as the Southern pipeline, there is a feed from the North. The fuel storage and distribution at Buncefield, Hemel Hempstead feeds direct. This gives the airport diversity of supply. Needed when Buncefield went off line for an extended period following an explosion in December 2005.
|
Later today I will be flying an international football team back from a match they're playing in Southern Africa to their home city in West Africa (a flight time of approx 9 hours in each direction) and thereafter ferrying the aircraft back to base in Northern Europe (a flight time of 6 hours, devoid of passengers, in each direction)... therein a grand total of 30 hours of flying (requiring only +63 tons of fuel... it's a VIP config 737 with only 56 seats - ergo it's rather light and therein 'frugal' ) all in order for them to be able to play a 90 minute football match. Next week I'll be ferrying down to southern Spain to collect a premier league team and fly them to Russia for them to play a match, thereafter take them back to Spain and then ferry back to base. Oh how I laugh when I go into a UK supermarket and am required to spend 5p to obtain a plastic bag.
|
Originally Posted by marchino61
(Post 10620118)
1 tonne of carbon is surely not equivalent to 1.8 tonnes CO2.
Molar weight of carbon = 12 g. Molar weight of CO2 = (12 + 2 * 16) g = 44g. This implies 1 tonne carbon is equivalent to 4.4 tonnes CO2. You've made two conversions to make one. Plus not entirely sure what the obsession with weight of "carbon" is, surely it's the volume of CO2 that is the issue. I've never even weighed dry ice. Only reason to work out a molar mass to volume is to work out partial pressure. |
The customary units for carbon emissions is tons of CO2. In talking about passenger aircraft for comparison purposes, it might make sense to compare carbon emissions per passenger mile. In this case I think a modern aircraft at full load compares favorably to a passenger car with 1 or two passengers. A bus full of people will do significantly better, but a bus with three passengers does worse. For Electrified rail, the efficiency is higher again, but the calculation now has to talk about the efficiency of the fossil fuel component of the generating mix applying in the country of travel.
|
Originally Posted by Australopithecus
(Post 10620101)
Interesting question. So a bit of research in the forestry tables suggests that one 20 year old pine tree has a carbon content of 1 tonne +/- 10%. That’s the equivalent of 1.8 tonnes of CO2. So to offset my year of 737 flying I have to plant 5,600 trees and wait 20 years. But first I have to plant another quarter million trees to offset just my previous flying. Well, that’s my Sunday gone... On edit: Using the available metrics, the air transport industry would need to plant out one million acres every year. In one state of Australia alone more than that has burned in bushfires and we are only a third of the way through fire season. If anything, we will need to cut down more trees to make the space, and provide building materials. OR, we could just build them, and offset our huge carbon footprint by planting replacement trees in Scandinavia, to replace the ones imported by ship to feed our building program. Naturally, all this will be done in a sustainable way. "Simples". |
Pilots, you're not scientists. Please stop pretending that you are - stick to what you're expert on and leave the real scientists to do their job.
|
Originally Posted by jimmievegas
(Post 10620442)
Pilots, you're not scientists. Please stop pretending that you are - stick to what you're expert on and leave the real scientists to do their job.
BTW what's a "real scientist"??? |
Originally Posted by Old King Coal
(Post 10620220)
Oh how I laugh when I go into a UK supermarket and am required to spend 5p to obtain a plastic bag.
It is an attempt to reduce plastic pollution. It has been remarkably successful. We are a stingy bunch over here. |
There is a new rail service for fuel from Isle of Grain to Colnbrook agreed between BA & BP, but they are also moving the railhead and fuel connection at Colnbrook.:hmm:
|
Originally Posted by jimmievegas
(Post 10620442)
Pilots, you're not scientists. Please stop pretending that you are - stick to what you're expert on and leave the real scientists to do their job.
|
Originally Posted by jimmievegas
(Post 10620442)
Pilots, you're not scientists. Please stop pretending that you are - stick to what you're expert on and leave the real scientists to do their job.
|
Chris2303
Why, when even the scientists can't agree |
Originally Posted by jimmievegas
(Post 10620442)
Pilots, you're not scientists. Please stop pretending that you are - stick to what you're expert on and leave the real scientists to do their job.
|
Originally Posted by Ex Cargo Clown
(Post 10620227)
Why would you measure a gas in a mass unit? One mole of mass @STP is 22.4L.
You've made two conversions to make one. Plus not entirely sure what the obsession with weight of "carbon" is, surely it's the volume of CO2 that is the issue. I've never even weighed dry ice. Only reason to work out a molar mass to volume is to work out partial pressure. |
It depends who I google, but in Australia they talk about CO2 equivalents, and I see that they use a conversion of 1:3.67. In this dry country 15 trees are required to offset one tonne. (!) the planting density means around 100-300 tonnes per hectare at year 30. Not real good |
Originally Posted by TURIN
(Post 10620529)
Why? Adding 5p to the supermarket bill has got bugger all to do with offsetting CO2 in the atmosphere.
It is an attempt to reduce plastic pollution. It has been remarkably successful. We are a stingy bunch over here. |
Originally Posted by marchino61
(Post 10620118)
1 tonne of carbon is surely not equivalent to 1.8 tonnes CO2.
Molar weight of carbon = 12 g. Molar weight of CO2 = (12 + 2 * 16) g = 44g. This implies 1 tonne carbon is equivalent to 4.4 tonnes CO2. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 22:43. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.