Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Carbon Footprint And Efficiency Of 787 Production  
User currently offlineCJAContinental From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 459 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5991 times:

The 787 is supposed to be the epitome and the start of the future for more environmentally friendly aircraft.

Will the carbon footprint of every aspect of production of the 787 compliment this, or will it contradict the "green profile" of the new boeing.

Thoughts...


Work Hard/Fly Right.
87 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31122 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5890 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well Al smelting requires vast amounts of power, so that she uses so much less should help.  Smile

User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5857 times:

I would expect a single 787 will consume more fuel in commercial service over its lifetime than the Dreamlifter and other cargo transport used to transport 787 parts for the lifetime of the 787 program.


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineSirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5785 times:

Exactly. Using 10% less fuel over millions of miles of flight far outweighs the cost of moving parts around. As the production ramps up, I would expect efficiency to increase in that they can go and pick up two section 41s or whatever part if they can fit more than one on the dreamlifter.

User currently offlineDougbr2006 From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 393 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5594 times:

Well if we consider that just to get the 1st aircraft to the assembly plant has taken six or more Dreamlifter flights, It can hardly be said that its helping the environment, If for example Boeing sell 1,000 units then thats over 6,000 flights and a lot of Carbon emissons from those B747's not exactly healthy for the planet.

User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5568 times:

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 4):
Well if we consider that just to get the 1st aircraft to the assembly plant has taken six or more Dreamlifter flights, It can hardly be said that its helping the environment, If for example Boeing sell 1,000 units then thats over 6,000 flights and a lot of Carbon emissons from those B747's not exactly healthy for the planet

And a single 787 can be expected to make 300-600 long haul flights per year, spending a significant amount of time in the air. If the 787 is utilized for 20 years, that is some 6000 to 12000 flights. If it is utilized for 30 years, as Boeing suggests might be possible, you can increase those numbers by 50%. I wouldn't concern myself with the manufacturing transport fuel consumption, as it likely represents < 0.1-0.2% of lifetime fuel costs of a 787.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineKen4556 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5502 times:

In the "real world", the carbon footprint of aircraft is not going to make an ounce of difference.

About 22 percent of the global emission of methane is released through belching farm animals, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas because it traps nearly 20 times as much heat as carbon dioxide.

Add in volcano eruptions and wild fires, flying in an airplane or the carbon footprint of the Dreamlifter does not matter much.

I am quite proud of my large carbon footprint. The bigger my footprint, the more plane trips I am making!


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5476 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5442 times:

I stepped in a campfire once and got carbon footprints everywhere...


What the...?
User currently offlineDougbr2006 From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 393 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 5278 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 5):
I wouldn't concern myself with the manufacturing transport fuel consumption, as it likely represents < 0.1-0.2% of lifetime fuel costs of a 787.

Any unecessary emissions are really a item for concern, most the major components should have been done in the USA to help unemployment and the environment.

Quoting Ken4556 (Reply 6):
global emission of methane is released through belching farm animals according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas because it traps nearly 20 times as much heat as carbon dioxide.

Those are good statistics for a country that has yet to comply with the Kyoto Protocol and simply always has an excuse not to, at least methane is a natural gas, its about time the USA started thinking more about environmental issues and the first step would be to comply with the Kyoto Protocol. After all Europes efforts far exceed what the USA is even thinking of.


User currently offlinePhilly Phlyer From United States of America, joined May 1999, 317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 5237 times:

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 8):
Those are good statistics for a country that has yet to comply with the Kyoto Protocol and simply always has an excuse not to, at least methane is a natural gas, its about time the USA started thinking more about environmental issues and the first step would be to comply with the Kyoto Protocol. After all Europes efforts far exceed what the USA is even thinking of.

Sorry, but I do not believe someone from a country causing widespread environmental problems with destruction of the rain forests and other environment issues should be casting stones at glass houses. While I disagree with President Bush on this (and most) issue and think it would have been nice if the US had signed Kyoto, the accord is meaningless as long as China and India are exempt. Won't do a damn thing without some limits on the emissions on those two economies.

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?


User currently offlineContnlEliteCMH From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1464 posts, RR: 44
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 5225 times:

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 4):
Well if we consider that just to get the 1st aircraft to the assembly plant has taken six or more Dreamlifter flights, It can hardly be said that its helping the environment, If for example Boeing sell 1,000 units then thats over 6,000 flights and a lot of Carbon emissons from those B747's not exactly healthy for the planet.

This is just incredible. You're actually saying that 6,000 DreamLifter flights to build 1,000 aircraft that will make an estimated 20 million flights is "not exactly healthy for the planet." Wow. I shouldn't be amazed at the inability of people to do basic math or assign significance to numbers, but the utter depravity of skill just continues to kick me in the stomach. I highly doubt that you have the abilty to assess the "green" nature of Boeing's supply chain first because you probably have no real knowledge of it. This doubt is made a surety by your inability to assess the significance of DreamLifter flights.

No wonder a UK study showed that schoolchildren are having trouble sleeping at night due to fears over global warming. To point at the DreamLifter flights as a substantial contributor only illustrates the sheer stupidity of this whole frenzy. I'll bet you would be the first person to cry foul when all of these suppliers, who you say should be building these parts in the U.S., cleared land to build the facilities required to do it.

One of the reasons why Boeing picked their suppliers was because they had the knowledge to do the work -- hardly a trivial matter when new methods and materials are being used -- and they also had the facilties and skilled workforce to actually make the part.



Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 5184 times:

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 4):
Well if we consider that just to get the 1st aircraft to the assembly plant has taken six or more Dreamlifter flights, It can hardly be said that its helping the environment, If for example Boeing sell 1,000 units then thats over 6,000 flights and a lot of Carbon emissons from those B747's not exactly healthy for the planet.

This is a really dumb concern for all the math reasons listed above not to mention the fact that even if the whole thing were built in the US you would still have to move the parts around. I suppose you could build the whole thing in one place assuming the everyone from the top down would like to build a factory in Washington.

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 8):
Those are good statistics for a country that has yet to comply with the Kyoto Protocol and simply always has an excuse not to, at least methane is a natural gas, its about time the USA started thinking more about environmental issues and the first step would be to comply with the Kyoto Protocol. After all Europes efforts far exceed what the USA is even thinking of.

Kyoto has a bunch of problems that prevent it from being much help. It is really just a symbolic gesture. Regardless there are limits on the power of the government to push people to reduce emissions in the United States. That pesky constitution and what not gets in the way sometimes....


User currently offlineDrExotica From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 5153 times:

This is all silly.

One weekend with several million backyard barbeques raging in the LA basin will emit a lot more nastiness than these flights. Try to keep things in perspective.

Another bunch of nuts on a hi-fi forum that I frequent were condemning Chinese made high-end hi-fi gear because of the "huge" amounts of carbon being emitted flying a 25 lb. box from China to England (if you actually do the math - how much does a 744F loaded with 25 lb boxes burn on a flight from Beijing to London - it is not much per box ...). They were merely using this red herring in order to not have to state that they love their precious Naim/Linn/whatever gear and that they don't like the fact that the Chinese can build pretty darn good stuff for much less than they can.

Everyone has an agenda ...



N707PA - Best looking commercial aircraft ever.
User currently offlineDougbr2006 From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 393 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 5124 times:

Seems no one really cares about the planet, I rest my case, lets hope the children of the future can mutate and have the ability to breath the **** that we are all now putting into the atmosphere, have skin that can withstand the extra high UV and weather all these storms that the scientests are warning will happen. Isn't the USA expereincing a higher number of Tornados and Tropical Storms, whys that happening. By the way most of the rainforest is still intact and has govermnet protection but because the timber taken is in demand by countries like the USA for exotic wood, the illegal falling of timber still continues, think abut what you right just to stay in defense of the USA.

User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 5097 times:

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 13):
Seems no one really cares about the planet, I rest my case, lets hope the children of the future can mutate and have the ability to breath the **** that we are all now putting into the atmosphere, have skin that can withstand the extra high UV and weather all these storms that the scientests are warning will happen. Isn't the USA expereincing a higher number of Tornados and Tropical Storms, whys that happening. By the way most of the rainforest is still intact and has govermnet protection but because the timber taken is in demand by countries like the USA for exotic wood, the illegal falling of timber still continues, think abut what you right just to stay in defense of the USA.

It is not that no one cares, it is that you cannot simply just order people to change their lifestyles. The government does not have that sort of power.


User currently offlineIwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 5065 times:

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 8):
Those are good statistics for a country that has yet to comply with the Kyoto Protocol and simply always has an excuse not to, at least methane is a natural gas, its about time the USA started thinking more about environmental issues and the first step would be to comply with the Kyoto Protocol. After all Europes efforts far exceed what the USA is even thinking of.

And the good thing about Kyoto is?????

China and India are getting a free run, not to mention the cause of global warming is NOT what the politicians would have you believe...

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 13):
y the way most of the rainforest is still intact and has govermnet protection but because the timber taken is in demand by countries like the USA for exotic wood, the illegal falling of timber still continues, think abut what you right just to stay in defense of the USA.

So... Brazil allows for random rainforest destruction and that's the USA's fault.  Embarrassment

If you want to get extreme, the 787 is great because all the carbon in the fuselage is carbon that is not in CO2.

-iwok


User currently offlineDougbr2006 From Brazil, joined Oct 2006, 393 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5050 times:

Quoting Iwok (Reply 15):
So... Brazil allows for random rainforest destruction and that's the USA's fault.

Brazil doesn't allow the Amazon to be destroyed, it is a hugh area to poilce, it happens because of demand for the timber, Amazona is a government protected area but the resources necessary to police it are difficult to have in the right place at the right time.

Lets close the subject, and before anyone says it I am not a Greenpeace supporter, though I have sympathy with some of their opinions when voiced in a civilised and non violent way.


User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 49
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5023 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 14):
The government does not have that sort of power.

I so wish that were true...


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 5011 times:

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 17):
I so wish that were true...

Despite what people think the government is capable of most governments, in particular the United States government, are limited from what exactly they can force their citizens to do. There are property rights that would lead to court challenges that can lead to new people being elected that can lead to revolution.

It is one of the fundamental precepts of how the US is organized, the people have certain rights the government cannot encroach upon. Because of that it is pretty much impossible for the US government to make forcible changes in the carbon emissions of consumers. They can force GM and Toyota to make more efficient cars, but they cannot force people to buy them.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 4976 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Well Al smelting requires vast amounts of power, so that she uses so much less should help. Smile

The amount of carbon to produce Al metal for the metal equivalents of a 787 sized plane is probably more than that needed to produce the carbon based resin and the petroleum derived carbon fibre in a 787 but the difference should be less than a factor of 2.

Carbon rates for steel these days are about 400 kg per tonne, but those 400 kgs actually correspond with about 550 kg of coal. Those numbers I really know!!

Al is more energy intensive, you need about 2.02 tonnes of carbon per tonne of metal, which probably equals about 2.2 to 2.4 tonnes of fossil fuels.

The tonnage of carbon and resin for the 787 is less than that for Al metal, perhaps 30%? I suspect that the 787 carbon based feed per tonne of products is going to be about 1.5 tonnes per tonne of fuselage. The Al scrap can be recycled, but I am doubtful that carbon fibre "scrap" is recoverable. That difference could reduce any advantage.

Then again, the proportion of composites in the 787 is not that much higher than some current planes so the difference to other types may not be great. At least it is probably not worse.

So less, but possibly not spectacularly less.

Does anyone have more accurate data? I don't suppose that Boeing has told us some of these interesting missing bits of data.  Smile

Certainly most of the advantage would be in fuel consumption rather than initial construction, so weight savings are probably worth most changes in material costs.


User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 49
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 4881 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 18):
They can force GM and Toyota to make more efficient cars, but they cannot force people to buy them

Really? Where do I buy a car that is not compliant with the EPA standards? Your assertion is disingenious. Its like saying "a robber can shoot you if you do not obey him, but he can't force you to give him your money".


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 4848 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Al smelting requires vast amounts of power

Lets put it this way, Alcoa Warrick Operations is the second largest aluminum smelting operation in the world:

The Warrick Power Plant in Newburgh, Ind. is a four-unit, 742-MW, coal-fired, steam-electric
facility. Alcoa owns Units 1 through 3, which are rated at 144 MW each, and one-half of Unit 4, rated at 300
MW (Vectren Corp., an Indiana gas and electric utility based in Evansville, owns the other half). All four
units entered service between 1960 and 1970. Nearly all of the generation that Alcoa owns is used
by the company's Warrick Operations, the rest is for the supporting Aloca "village".

Half of one of the 4 units powers about 1/3 of the the Evansville Indiana metropolitan area (approx 250,000 people) which includes a steel refinery, a Toyota plant and a GE plant where they make platic resins.

Thats a lot of electricity.

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 13):
Isn't the USA expereincing a higher number of Tornados and Tropical Storms, whys that happening.

No.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 21):
Where do I buy a car that is not compliant with the EPA standards?

You only have to worry about that in states that inspect (not that many). I could yank my converter tomorrow and noone would ever know. Those emmissions parts usually do not make it to powertrain number two on picklups and hot rods anyway.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8969 posts, RR: 39
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 4835 times:

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 4):

But it's hard to argue that a few extra flights will outweigh a lifetime of very significantly reduced fuel consumption. I'm sure by the time that aircraft reaches 100 cycles it has by far more than made up for that fuel.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 4806 times:

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 10):
his is just incredible. You're actually saying that 6,000 DreamLifter flights to build 1,000 aircraft that will make an estimated 20 million flights is "not exactly healthy for the planet." Wow. I shouldn't be amazed at the inability of people to do basic math or assign significance to numbers, but the utter depravity of skill just continues to kick me in the stomach. I highly doubt that you have the abilty to assess the "green" nature of Boeing's supply chain first because you probably have no real knowledge of it. This doubt is made a surety by your inability to assess the significance of DreamLifter flights.

Agreed. If the environmental costs are included in the total cost of a good, usually the most economical means of production is also the least energy intensive. Think of the energy used to fly a passenger on a plane, it is about the same as 2 persons in a Yugo driving the same distance. In doing freight - the company looks at the various ways of shipping and includes the secondary costs for the method: inventory cost for time in transit, lost/damaged good costs, labor handling, transport cost. May shippers have found for high value cargos or cargos needed in a hurry it makes sense to ship by air and to standardize on that. What happens to that delecate instruments when they bounce thru 3 days of a tropical storm then the conex box gets dropped in the port.

Kyoto put the highest burden on the US when written, and gave the 3rd world a free ride. When it was being considered to be sent to the Senate by Clinton, he deferred to the Bush administration because Clinton knew it would not be ratified by the senate. Bush did "unsign" Al Gore's signature because his advisors indicated that it might have an economic cost on the order of 5% of GDP for an uncertain benefit to the US. Bear in mind that the US does have some pretty stringent environmental regulations and energy conservation measures already in effect.

Is it better for the planet to close a US Copper Smelter that is partially compliant with regulations but cannot be brought up to the current US standards and move the plant to the 3rd world where there are no standards. For most substances it is about the same cost to remove from 95% to 99% reductions as it does to go for the first 95%. The US / EU level of allowable emissions are already near the 99% reduction level. So it would be a lot more efficient for the total world to reduced emmissions in the 3rd world to the 90% level than to reduce the same pollutant in the US from 98% to 99%. But there needs to be a "vehicle" to allocate efficiently the cost for this reduction to the party that is receiving the benefit. That takes more than treaties.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5476 posts, RR: 30
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 4746 times:

It blows me away that with all the 'carbon footprint' hubub going on, hardly anyone talks about how much the carbon footprint would have been reduced if proper diesel cars had been available in North American for the past 30 years like they are in Europe.

I'm by no means a 'Eurofile', but in this respect, they got it right. If even half of the autos running around were diesels, most of the oil currently being imported from the middle east would be superfluous.

If that was the case, then there would be less need to worry about supplies and way less talk about 'carbon footprints'.

Anyway...rant over.



What the...?
25 BigJKU : Actually it is more along the lines of saying that the EPA is an organ of elected government. If they change regulations so that cars become vastly m
26 Magyar : If you want to regulate emission then just go to the source and increase fuel prices with "eco-taxes". That will do the job for you and make these "l
27 GeorgiaAME : Bless you, bigfoot. Your abandonment of the politically correct carbon issue will result in more people generating more wealth and prosperity for the
28 DeltaDC9 : No Europe is DIFFERENT. Our diesel infrastructure is much much bigger and slower to change. The locomotives, semi tractor trailers, and tow boats dic
29 Post contains images TeamAmerica : We ARE thinking about it...it's the actions that are overdue. This is true, but not so much so as you (or many Europeans) believe. Europe is lagging
30 Silentbob : Last time I checked it takes more energy to create an amount of ethanol than you can get by actually burning the ethanol. That doesn't seem like a su
31 DeltaDC9 : But because of how dirty US diesel fuel is, people just could not stand them. US automakers offered diesels too, and they just did not sell. Also, I
32 ContnlEliteCMH : Is that all you've got? You're met with detailed and substantive opposition, and you just fold like a cheap table? Weak. To catalogue this response,
33 DeltaDC9 : Is it? Can you really back that up? The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 made landfall on the city of Galveston, Texas, on September 8, 1900. It had estim
34 TeamAmerica : How is US diesel different from diesel anywhere else? The US was late in requiring low sulfur content, but other than that how is it "dirty"? The ear
35 DeltaDC9 : They actually do get 15-30% better than the gas counterparts. A Ford E-350 diesel van full of tools and hydraulics my neighbor had got 20 MPG in the
36 PolymerPlane : However, carbon used in 787 stays with the 787 (at least excluding the energy used for processing). It is not in the atmosphere as CO2. Cheers, PP
37 Atmx2000 : The senate rejected Kyoto 95-0. You should take it up with the Senate, as they have to ratify any treaty for it to go into effect. The rainforest is
38 Dougloid : Although your friends may be accused of cork sniffing snobbery, the concept is a valid one. I think you may be less than well informed. Ethanol produ
39 Post contains images TeamAmerica : I'm glad to hear that. I've got a couple friends with big diesel pickups who swear that the mileage is no better than their old gasoline trucks, whic
40 XT6Wagon : Its very possible that in fact they didn't get a benifit in MPG. I know my F150 with 5.4L 3v sees the same milage towing the same load as many F250 6
41 BigJKU : You would be wrong in that case. The US government is by the people. The established a framework within which the government is allowed authority and
42 ContnlEliteCMH : Please be aware that I was not at all asserting that we have more storms and tornadoes. Indeed, that's why I put "a dubious fact" in parentheses. I w
43 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Interesting thought experiment. Suppose a single 787 flies an average of 16 hours a day for 20 years. At 7.5 tonnes of fuel burn per hour, you get up
44 FreequentFlier : That's because most Americans think the global warming Inquisition is 90% bullshit and 10% legitimate. And you know why they think that? Because it i
45 Baroque : True, but most of the carbon in the difference of feed to product - I suggest about a ratio of 1.5, but have to admit it is largely guesswork, could
46 Mrocktor : Research what the income tax was when originally created and compare it to today. Then lecture me on the power of majority rule to restrict the gover
47 BigJKU : Income tax was originally created during the Civil War without any changes being made to the constitution. It sputtered along and was eventually decl
48 EXAAUADL : The accord is meaningless anyway. Many of the signatories havent been able to meet their goals. It is also not a conincidence that the year 1990 was
49 DeltaDC9 : Gotcha. Remember By December 1, 2010, all highway diesel will be ULSD, so the transitions is still going on. The transition is still going on, it onl
50 EXAAUADL : I would also like to point out that one reason Brazil has burnt down areas of their rainforrests, it to plant sugar so they can use it for vehicle fue
51 Post contains images TeamAmerica : I read your post as saying that the fuel itself was dirty. Smoke from a diesel has always indicated mechanical (or design) problems, not an issue wit
52 Post contains links and images Khobar : And Katrina was a Cat 3 storm. The devastation from Katrina was, as you said, the result of a failed levee system. True. "For ethanol, the top yields
53 DeltaDC9 : Actually form the 70s back is was simply due to inefficincy, all semis spewed black smoke that was simply unburned fuel and oil leaking into the comb
54 Post contains links Baroque : Tornadoes are uncommon in the tropics not due to lapse rates but due to considerations associated with the Coriolis force. There are, however, report
55 Aeroman444 : What does this tell us about globalization and the impacts on the environment? March 7, 2007 Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage By Chris Dem
56 EXAAUADL : No I mean tornados. You need a clash of cold and warm air with a cold upper atmoshpere for tornados to form. Global Warming would reduce not increase
57 Post contains links DeltaDC9 : For those of you not aware, Chevy will soon introduce a car that I am looking forward to buying for a daily driver: 640 miles on 12 gallons of gas aft
58 EXAAUADL : Even with electric cars, it is important how the electricty is generated. If everyone in the USA stopped driving fossil fuel cars and started driving
59 DeltaDC9 : On that note, are you aware of the fact that utilites are converting coal burning facilities to natural gas at a fast rate to reduce emissions? Its c
60 AutoThrust : Well, that above could be applied to you, as much some deny it but China and India arent the worst polluters, its the USA: With 25% of Global oil con
61 PPVRA : Those are some very odd words about ethanol. You can search and pick and choose quotes, even the article you mentioned raised some skepticism about t
62 Mrocktor : Namely, it takes time. That does not mean it cannot be done, which is what you stated. With today's level of environmental lunacy, that goes out the
63 Khobar : Indeed, you are correct - there is no point in attacking ethanol to piss off a single person I don't agree with. Scientists with the EPA agree with t
64 Post contains links and images TeamAmerica : Doesn't tell us anything, as it's nothing more than hack journalism. A smokin' turd of sophistry. Here I am hugging the trees, and you dump this on m
65 Magyar : Great! Now I have a valid argument not to pay my speeding tickets! My niece is crazy girl and like fast car! All indication is that she will be a muc
66 Khobar : The argument is that you get pulled over and are told to pay a fine for speeding when there's no actual proof you've been speeding. You try to fight
67 Post contains images AutoThrust : Firstly you dont seem to know the diffrence between anti-Americanism and critizism. Of course is the US not the only threat to the planet but at the
68 Post contains images Magyar : C'mon! Are you actually saying here that there is no proof that the US is the greatest green-house gas emitter at present and was in the recent past?
69 BigJKU : I never said it cannot be done. I would suggest you learn to comprehend things. I said it cannot be done without the consent of the people as some we
70 DrExotica : Oh dear ... oh dear. Seems that someone out there is not a big fan of the US or our Army... Pretty funny actually. I love it when people wear their p
71 Mham001 : By next year China is expected to be the largest polluter in the world. Also remember, the US consumes 25% of the worlds oil, but also produces 30% o
72 Iwok : Don't confuse pollution with greenhouse gas emissions. They are totally different things. China is by far the worst polluter and is on track to be th
73 AutoThrust : That might be true, but there are four times more Chinese then US Citizen so the relation is totally diffrent. True, got this number from the interne
74 JayinKitsap : Would you like the US Army to be greatly reduced and its role shifted to the United Nations? That would be particularly effective as it seems like th
75 DeltaDC9 : I would really like to see sopme stats to back that up. Sorry but it is. The geography of the US has dictated our infrastructure. Do you have any ide
76 Post contains images TeamAmerica : Nope. The US point of view (which I don't agree with) is that any efforts by Americans to reduce emissions leads directly to transferring those emiss
77 Khobar : Since there is no "speed limit" with regards to emissions, I cannot have been "speeding".
78 DeltaDC9 : The problem is that wind and solar are not practical for large megawatt applications and nuclear is forbidden.
79 Post contains links and images AutoThrust : No i'm not talking about big reduction, i'm talking to stop expansion and reduce a little. IIRC 437Billions have been spent this year for the US Army
80 BigJKU : I completly agree with you that the US should reduce its expenditure on the Army and defense in general. The correct foreign policy position for the
81 Mrocktor : But then, Three Mile Island type facilies are already perfectly safe...
82 TeamAmerica : Not so much anymore. Many Greenies are seeing the tragic error they made in the 70's. Thanks for at least recognizing the change. Should've happened
83 DeltaDC9 : I was not referring to safety, but the much lower cost, infrastructure, and maintenance requirements. This came to light when an Alaskan community wa
84 PolymerPlane : At what cost though? We have seen that the higher cost of labor here pushed the country's manufacturing to countries with lower labor cost. If we can
85 TeamAmerica : That's why I was defending the US position as having merit (even if I wish we would go to renewables anyway) and pointing to the insane rate of const
86 Mrocktor : I'm not being facetitious or ironic, I'm dead serious. Three Mile Island had as severe a malfunction as can be imagined and it was impossible to even
87 FreequentFlier : You seem to be under the obviously mistaken impression that US citizens like subsidizing Europe's defense. But its hard to expect Europe to pick up t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
NYT Art. Re: Carbon Footprint Calc And Offset posted Tue May 15 2007 15:42:02 by BigAppleCoder
Efficiency Of BA And CX - OneWorld Alliance posted Mon Oct 9 2006 16:58:33 by DernierVirage
First And Last Of Production Where Are They? posted Sat Sep 16 2006 03:24:14 by JAM747
Boeing On 787 Production And SQ RFP posted Fri Sep 30 2005 16:51:22 by PanAm_DC10
Law Involving Aircraft Length And Number Of Exits? posted Sun May 6 2007 14:49:31 by Steve332
History and Size of AA's Former Dedicated Cargo Service? posted Sat May 5 2007 23:41:20 by Flavio340
LH And EK 748I Seating And Efficiency posted Fri Apr 20 2007 08:38:33 by SCAT15F
Mexicana Back To PTY And More Of Them And Click! posted Wed Feb 28 2007 22:44:26 by Ghost77
Nikkei Decline: Could It Affect 787 Production? posted Wed Feb 28 2007 01:21:29 by MCIGuy
New Pics Of 787 Parts: Boeing Presentation posted Thu Feb 8 2007 15:20:49 by NYC777