Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Article Re. A/c Pollution  
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 694 times:



http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0826-03.htm

Perhaps the visions that air traffic will multiple in the future will not turn out to be the case after all.

IIRC turboprops consume only about half the fuel jets do - I wonder if in the future we'll see very large turboprop a/c with excellent noise shielding and cabins for passengers - true cruise liners in the sky! Or electrically operated props, quieter and friendlier still.

Speed is important for business execs, but then they are only a small percentage of the global population, and they can work their asses off on planes perfectly fine if they have their own cabins.



15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (13 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 663 times:

electric power is not environmentally friendly, no matter what the treehuggers will have you believe.
In fact, it is probably far more poluting overall than direct use of fossile fuels. People tend to forget transportlosses of electricity.
The efficiency of powerplants is not a lot higher than that of modern internal combustion engines (given that they are internal combustion engines, that is hardly surprising). After the electricity is produced, it needs to be transported to the point where it is consumed. Depending on distance (and technology used to transport it) this leads to a waste of approximately 30% on average.

Turboprops indeed consume less fuel PER HOUR than jets, but as they need to run longer (lower speed of travel) that difference is largely offset. Turboprops are just jetengines where the turbines drive a propellor instead of compressing the exhaust gasses further to produce thrust (simplified...). Oldfashioned propengines are more fuelefficient, but these were mostly discarded because they cannot produce enough thrust to power large aircraft at high speed.

Speed is not only important to business execs. If you have a 2 week vacation once a year, do you want to spend a week or more of that getting to and from your vacation spot? Or do you want to deny people who live a long way from a beach for example the right to go there?

There were once cruiseliners of the sky. They were built mainly by the Zeppelin company in Germany. Only the rich and famous could afford airtravel in those days.

This report was made up by some people trying to push their agenda of a world where people are back to sheltering naked in caves from the weather and predators (all except themselves of course).

Global warming as they mean it has never been proven (in fact, there is good indication the opposite is happening). Without a greenhouse effect, this planet would be a ball of ice.
Living in the middle of a climatologically highly unstable era between to ice ages, we can expect severe climateshift. Human actions will not prevent this or make it happen, the forces at work here are far greater than anything we can do.
The Sahara dessert was a forest 10000 years ago, humans did not cause it to become a dessert (though logging is helping to make it larger now).
I'm not saying we should just dump whatever we like, but to claim everything that happens to our planet is the direct result of human action is a dangerous and foolish thing to do (not to mention being extremely homocentric).



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 655 times:



The environmental friendliness of "electricity" depends on the system. Electricity is just a way to transport energy from A to B. For instance, assume that you have a nuclear powerplant that you use to produce hydrogen from water, then use the hydrogen in fuel cells to power an a/c. Assuming the uranium ore was mined and refined responsibly (such as with fuel cell-powered machinery), there'e very little pollution at work here. Of course, if you have a coal power plant... Also, using natural gas to produce electricity produces substantially less emissions than other fossil fuels. Solar and hydro power are emission-free.

In a typical industrialized country, you might find (for example) that 30% of power is nuclear, 10% hydro, 20% gas and only 30% or so from coal. France has a nuclear fraction of 80%.

> Global warming as they mean it has never been proven

This is not true.

>This report was made up by some people trying to push their agenda of a world >where people are back to sheltering naked in caves from the weather and predators

This is not true, either. Whatever made you say this?

>I'm not saying we should just dump whatever we like, but to claim everything that >happens to our planet is the direct result of human action is a dangerous and foolish >thing to do

They didn't say that and they didn't imply it, either.

Why are you so upset about the idea of developing environmentally friendly solutions?


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 648 times:

Bitch bitch bitch. That's all this article does. How about real solutions?

Without any "incentives" from the treehuggers, the aviation industry has cut polution and fuel consumption to a vast degree, by its own admission. Why, because fuel costs money, and airlines want to minimize their costs. Aircraft manufacturers are therefore pushed to develop technology to reduce consumption. It's called the free market.

I have no problem in gradual phasing in of increased requirements on noise suppression and pollution, such as through different landing fees according to the aircraft's "pollution footprint". As stated, in Switzerland, this has caused the virtual disappearance of the old noisy types in favor of more environmentally friendly models.

If I read the article right, the proposed solution is to tax everything to make jet travel prohibitively expensive for all but the business traveller and the very wealthy. What a quaint idea! Making planes quieter and more efficient is not enough - make a plane ticket much more expensive so that taking your family on a holiday becomes a cause for bankruptcy - there's the solution!

I wonder if this guy walks to work every day (if he did, he would have put out a lot of carbon dioxide on the way.) And I wonder where he and his family spent their last holdays.

Charles


User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 644 times:


Cfalk,

As was pointed out in the article, pollution created by aviation has not decreased despite market forces, since despite per-pax improvements the industry as a whole has grown so much that these improvements have been overtaken.

They didn't say anything you claim either. The point (IIRC) was to use fewer flights on bigger, newer planes, and to tax the fuel. Better use of slots, runways and fuel.



User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 643 times:

If everyone in the world wanted to simply go between Singapore and Frankfurt, fine, about 200 A380s might do the trick.

Unfortunately people are spread out, and the ease and low cost of air travel is widely responsible for the economic developement of many parts of the world which would starve to death without tourism. What do you expect economies in the caribeans to do without tourism? Or Mauritius, Tunisia, etc. etc.?

It may be true that you could reduce the polution aspects of airliners by shutting down the 10 daily A320 flights between London and Geneva and replacing them with one or two A380s or 747s, but people would scream bloody murder about what that will do to their schedules.

The most valuable thing in life is Time. Frequency of services allow people to use their time more efficiently, to the betterment of themselves and the society they serve.

Not to mention that the numbers people keep throwing around are dubious at best. I've seen numbers which give the entire human contribution to global warming gases to be less than 2%, of which aviation would be just a fraction - far less than the 3.5% (itself a pretty small number). And what if we could eliminate all human emissions of greenhouse gases (which means you can't even fart, which emits dangerous methane). Everyone goes back to the caves. One good volcanic eruption could throw all that sacrifice down the drain.

Speaking of which, It's amazing how much study has been done on volcanos. But everyone seems to like to ignore the very real correlations between volcanic activity and the resultant volcanic aerosol optical effects and global temperature changes. For example, in the past 20 years there have been two particularly "dirty" eruptions unusually close together, Pinatubo and El Chichon, which would of course make a much greater impact than anything man did. What do the treehuggers want us to do? Try to plug up the volcanos? Good luck...

Get out the UV-block suncream, folks. Global Warming will come regardless of what we pitiful humans do. On the other hand, things could turn around towards the next ice age just as quickly. Nature doesn't like to be manipulated by man. THE EARTH'S CLIMATE HAS NEVER BEEN STABLE, AND IT NEVER WILL BE STABLE.

Charles


User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 633 times:


I was referring to hub-spoke types of routings, not "hub-hub" as you very well understand. Your comments concerning the impact of tourism on Caribbean economies aren't relevant here, since their economies don't depend on the size of planes their tourists arrive on.

If you reduced 10 flights to 5, people's schedules would not explode. They'd book their flights and go to the airport 30 minutes before departure just like before. Maybe they'd have liked a bit better to fly half an hour earlier, but then you can't have everything in life. I'd rather have children without noise-induced learning disabilities than be able to go to the airport 30 minutes earlier anyway.

You're discounting what climatologists say about climate change. Okay, you distrust science. Many people do that, but I don't accept that those people claim that other, scientifically oriented people would be advocating a return to caves.



User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 631 times:

Ah, but the difference is that a climatologist blaming volcanoes cannot make any money off of it. Blaming man will get all the greens up in arms and will guarantee funding for his profession for decades.

Charles


User currently offlineAlaskaMVP From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 150 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 626 times:

You're discounting what climatologists say about climate change. Okay, you distrust science.

You are discounting the real accuracy of climatology, how is it that scientists can't predict the weather 10 days in advance, but are sure that global warming is happening?

Global warming predictions have a great many problems, including

a) Their own measurements are inconclusive. Virtually all of the warming is confined to measurement stations near urban areas, which are full of artificial heat sources. Other measurements that remove human influences show no warming at all.

b) The scientists predicting global warming were predicting global cooling and a new ice age just 10-20 years ago. This is a science?

c) Most CO2 is not man-made, and C02 can be trapped by large carbon sinks (i.e. the massive American forests that the Kyoto treaty refused to give the U.S. credit for) so if there is an excess it can be captured easily.

d) It's not even clear that even if global warming is true, whether it's bad. Scientists don't know when we are due for the next ice age, which would be much worse, perhaps global warming could be saving us from this awful fate? 600 years ago we entered a mini-ice age for a couple centuries, fortunately we recovered.

Joni, face it, believing in global warming is not believing in science, it's believing in politics...


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7966 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 626 times:

Ah, but the difference is that a climatologist blaming volcanoes cannot make any money off of it. Blaming man will get all the greens up in arms and will guarantee funding for his profession for decades.

That's just stupid and you probably know it. What you, Iwenting and - sadly to say: so many other people - do is: you justfy your I-am-not-moving-my-butt or your I-want-to-live-as-comfy-as-possible-don't-disturb - mentality by claiming that this or that wasn't fully prooved (btw: what's prooven? Some weirdos still say smoking wasn't unhealthy and some bangheads even say the Shoa (Holocaust) never took place.)
In doubt, all those scientists urging governments to do something now are just tree-huggers from outer space and your neighbour / the next factory / the next vulcano (please underline what fits best) are even worse in polluting environment than you are. Right?  Smile

I have to admit, that I don't get up in the morning with a though like "what's the most environmentally friendly thing I can do today?". I like to fly and I know flying isn't environmentally friendly. But besides that I accept that we (and I) can't continue with our "Environment? What environment?"-habits frome decades ago.
Just imagine 1 Billion chinese people and quite a large number of Africans driving cars, using electricity and flying on planes like people from industrialized nations do.
Of course we can't prohibit them to do so when they are ready. On the other hand that would probably cause a collapse (not only) in environmental terms.

Regards,
NoUFO



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7966 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 624 times:

AlaskaMVP wrote:

You are discounting the real accuracy of climatology, how is it that scientists can't predict the weather 10 days in advance, but are sure that global warming is happening?

Because "weather" on the one hand and "climate" on the other are two different things? Wake up, get a life.

It's not even clear that even if global warming is true, whether it's bad. Scientists don't know when we are due for the next ice age,

I came across a report that the next ice age maybe a result of global warming. When polar caps start to melt, we will see how this will cool down oceans.

Anyway: There are many theories on global warming and change of climate. Some of them may be pretty controversial. But this should not mean that we can put them away, do nothing and check out what will happen in reality.

We are not only responsible for trees and whales but also for our children and therefore should care for the world - better sooner than later.
Safety first I say. Not only in aviation.

Regards,
NoUFO



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 615 times:

So, it's just stupid, is it? Take a look at this, and tell me if it does not look significant to you. These maps show the accumulation of volcanic emissions in the upper atmosphere (greenhouse gasses) over the past 70 years.

I'm not saying that man does not contribute to global warming, but I am saying that man's contribution is insignificant, next to the power of nature, which abhors stability.



Borrowed from A. Robertson1, J. Overpeck, D. Rind, E. Mosley-Thompson,
G. Zielinski, J. Lean, D.Koch, J.Penner, I. Tegen, and R. Healy
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research
University of Colorado, Boulder


Charles


User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 611 times:


Cfalk,

When you're saying that man's contribution to climate change is insignificant, you're in fact flatly denying that thousands of climatologists are worth their salt. Do you believe a woman can get pregnant from intercourse with a man? If so, why? Do you believe a woman can get pregnant from just sleeping in moonlight. If so, why?

Climate change is a complex and intertwined mechanism that cannot be dismissed by waving a fuzzy picture. Do you recall the report Bush commissioned on climate change? Do you remember how embarassing that was for Bush?



User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 613 times:

When you're saying that man's contribution to climate change is insignificant, you're in fact flatly denying that thousands of climatologists are worth their salt.

Not only that, I'm also saying that they are not subjective, as researchers are always on the hunt for research funds. That's how they make their living. It's like asking an architect if we need more buildings.

Not to mention that there are many climatologists who disagree with the politically correct. I recall that at one major conference (was it Kyoto?), a whole bunch of them showed up, and were not allowed into the conference. To me, that is evidence that the "science" of human-related global warming does not stand much scrutiny. Interestingly, objective news reports like BBC and NZZ reported all about this, but the news was ignored by politically correct press like CNN.

Do you believe a woman can get pregnant from intercourse with a man? If so, why? Do you believe a woman can get pregnant from just sleeping in moonlight. If so, why?

What are you talking about?

Charles


User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 609 times:

Scientific data that contradicts the politically correct view of "global warming" and "greenhouse effects" gets discarded either by the scientists themselves (because they are paid to report that those things are happening) or by the organisations paying for the research.
This happens in other areas as well. How many of you have read reports stating that fossil fuels produce more nuclear waste than do nuclear plants, and that that waste is dumped into the environment rather than being treated as it should? I worked on nuclear research for a while, partially on measuring that level of radioactivity. Noone on the outside had ever heard of it, because the evidence was suppressed.

Flying is no worse for the environment than other means of travel, plus it is faster.
A fully loaded 747 for example uses no more fuel to reach its destination than an equivalent number of cars or trains would that can transport the same amount of passengers and cargo. It does however need no roads or railtracks through unspoilt nature, and is a lot faster as well.
The same equation holds true for most is not all modern aircraft.

Myself, I am glad for the greenhouse effect. Without it the earth would be cold enough to freeze nitrogen.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 605 times:


Jwenting,

You appear to think that science is done like they show on "X-files". The scientists and organizations that turn the tables on conventional wisdom are the ones who always get most publicity and funds. What you wrote was true when the Chruch tried to suppress the heliocentric view, but in more modern times a critical approach has been the defining hallmark of science.

The climatologists that really are after the money are the ones paid by the fossil-fuel industry to dispute work done by others, and are generally the ridicule of their profession. Research done by industry is always done to advance the goals of that particular corporation, hence the tobacco industry isn't very vocal on the ill effects of cigarrettes and the oil industry not too hot on greenhouse gases. These instances do their best to muddy the waters, and it appears that in at least your case they've been very sucessful.

In reality, however, there's no global conspiracy (as there usually isn't). No cloak-and-dagger erasure of hard drives, no dumped data or maliciously abandoned avenues of research. The existing consensus is the result of decades of work by tens of thousands of highly educated, smart people. You don't want to believe it because it would require that you changed your mindset a bit, and that's always difficult and a bit unpleasant to do. However, in contemporary times it's necessary if you want to keep pace with what's happening around you, and it's also healtiher than clinging to lies spread by greedy people.





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...
Article Re: ABE - US Will Drop ABE-PIT posted Fri Apr 27 2007 18:46:25 by PHLBOS
Forbes Article RE: "Steenland Pleased By NWA Deal" posted Wed Jul 19 2006 04:07:44 by FireFly
"Boys Parents Place Blame" Trib Article Re:WN 1248 posted Wed Dec 21 2005 17:30:19 by Planespotting
Interesting Article Re-MAS' Rural Air Network posted Sun Jan 30 2005 14:15:05 by MAS777
Interesting Article RE QF Management posted Fri Jul 30 2004 07:07:12 by Miami1
Animal Transport Article- Re: CO-IAH posted Wed Aug 27 2003 08:12:19 by Lt-AWACS
Interesting Article Re: US/UA Failure posted Mon Jul 30 2001 20:35:28 by D L X
Interesting Article Re: A340 Vs. 777 posted Wed Apr 25 2001 02:16:07 by Travelin man
Article On F-70NG/F-100NG Re-production posted Fri Sep 22 2006 13:48:46 by MauriceB
Article In Tribune Media Re: Bo-sox Airplane posted Sun Mar 20 2005 16:32:20 by Planespotting