Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Boeing757100
Topic Author
Posts: 730
Joined: Wed May 06, 2020 10:09 pm

"CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:35 pm

https://simpleflying.com/wizz-air-co2-emissions/

Before I get into talking about the article, and before I get blasted for putting a SF article, let me say for the record, they held a webinar with the CCO of Wizz, so maybe it is not as bad as it seems...

HOWEVER

The title seems a bit clickbait, and I am not so sure that this statement is true anyways. I have heard that aviation makes up for a whopping, 2% of emissions. This is less than that of other forms of transportation, meat packaging industry, the fashion industry, and many others. Shutting down coal plants around the world would cut emissions more than turning every airline into the stereotype that is "We have new planes, so we're the safest, most reliable airline in the world." Airlines like DL would make the extreme environmentalists have a heart attack because they still operate 757s/767s and other planes that seem "too old" for these people. Well, this strategy of having a fully paid off but older fleet has come in extremely useful for DL. They got their money's worth by operating the DC-9-50s for a while longer back in the early 2010s because they were fully paid off and the ownership cost was virtually very little. Compare that to an airline who keeps using brand new aircraft, where leasing/owning cost may be higher.

What is your take on the CCO's statement?
 
UpNAWAy
Posts: 769
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:49 pm

New aircraft are always more efficient and hence cleaner. Aviation is a false worry in the grand scope of things its too small. And if China doesn't have to comply anything the US & Europe does is meaningless.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 9892
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:57 pm

Boeing757100 wrote:
I have heard that aviation makes up for a whopping, 2% of emissions. This is less than that of other forms of transportation, meat packaging industry, the fashion industry, and many others. Shutting down coal plants around the world would cut emissions more than turning every airline into the stereotype...


None of that is a bit relevant to Michalapoulos' assertion.

“It’s really all about technology. The latest technology reduces emissions significantly,” the CCO adds. “We’ve continued to renew the fleet, we’ve continued to hand back older technology aircraft, whereas a number of other airlines in Europe have stopped taking orders and continue to age their fleet.”

No, it really isn't. It's as much about gauge (and to a lesser degree, seating density: 186 seats on an A320 - shudder). If one values maintaining connectivity (both frequency and destination set) from secondary and tertiary origins (the kinds of places that don't have six TGV lines...), then a carrier needs something(s) smaller than 186-seat aircraft.

https://wizzair.com/en-gb/information-a ... allocation
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22726
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:05 pm

UpNAWAy wrote:
New aircraft are always more efficient and hence cleaner. Aviation is a false worry in the grand scope of things its too small. And if China doesn't have to comply anything the US & Europe does is meaningless.

Until rules apply to China and India, we shouldn't worry about aviation.

If anything, work more towards fuels derived from sunlight to reduce impact. Make that a global requirement.

Lightsaber
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2719
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:17 pm

lightsaber wrote:
If anything, work more towards fuels derived from sunlight to reduce impact. Make that a global requirement.

Lightsaber

Even better, use renewable electricity to turn off coal powerplants and ICE cars. That's vastly more effective than synthetic fuels (with current efficiencies, 1 GWh of renewable electricity can replace 1 GWh of coal-based electricity or it can be used to produce 0.25 GWh worth of synthetic fuels.) It should be the worlds no. 1 priority to stop burning coal.
 
cesar666cu
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 8:08 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:19 pm

One has to also consider, that maintaining a young fleet requires a quick turnaround of aircrafts.
This implies heavy manufacturing and scrapping pollutions that might be more polluting than this 34% CO2 emissions.
 
SA280
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:18 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:23 pm

Emissions would be so much higher if all airlines stimulated demand as Wizz Air does.
 
User avatar
chunhimlai
Posts: 721
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 11:03 am

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:27 pm

Further 34% would be fallen if every fleet was as dense as Wizz Air’s
Last edited by chunhimlai on Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
kimimm19
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:34 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:30 pm

UpNAWAy wrote:
New aircraft are always more efficient and hence cleaner. Aviation is a false worry in the grand scope of things its too small. And if China doesn't have to comply anything the US & Europe does is meaningless.



Agreed. It's like when people want to make everyone go vegan because of cow farts. They too are so over-exaggerated in terms of the environmental impact. Plus, if everyone did have a young fleet, once more there would be more waste.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7695
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:41 pm

A new A321 packed with people to the exit limit is pretty much as clean as it gets for cost and emissions per passenger mile.
 
Starfuryt
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:58 am

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:47 pm

In the US transportation accounts for 30% of CO2 emission, Airplanes account for 10% of transportation emissions, thus airplanes account for roughly 3% of the total emissions. The global numbers are likely somewhat similar. While every little bit counts, you could call this a solution in search of a problem.

source: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast- ... -emissions


another source: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport

"Aviation – while it often gets the most attention in discussions on action against climate change – accounts for only 11.6% of transport emissions. It emits just under one billion tonnes of CO2 each year – around 2.5% of total global emissions [we look at the role that air travel plays in climate change in more detail in an upcoming article]. International shipping contributes a similar amount, at 10.6%. "
 
planecane
Posts: 1716
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:55 pm

mxaxai wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
If anything, work more towards fuels derived from sunlight to reduce impact. Make that a global requirement.

Lightsaber

Even better, use renewable electricity to turn off coal powerplants and ICE cars. That's vastly more effective than synthetic fuels (with current efficiencies, 1 GWh of renewable electricity can replace 1 GWh of coal-based electricity or it can be used to produce 0.25 GWh worth of synthetic fuels.) It should be the worlds no. 1 priority to stop burning coal.


The western world (for sure the US) seems to be pretty rapidly moving towards stopping burning coal. Doesn't seem to be the case for China.

When comparing synthetic fuels to fully electric stuff you need to take into account more than energy efficiency. For aviation it's about practicality. You can power large aircraft with synthetic fuels, you can't with fully electric power. For ground transport, for vehicles that need to be able to travel long range with minimal refueling/recharging time, synthetic fuels make more sense than battery electric. For example, with long haul trucking or even for trains (assuming you don't have direct power running along the tracks), the number of batteries required would be ridiculously expensive and take up a lot of space. A long haul trucker can't afford to stop for an hour or two every 250 miles either and a train doing that would be logistically very bad.
 
blockski
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Thu Jul 22, 2021 3:07 pm

Boeing757100 wrote:
https://simpleflying.com/wizz-air-co2-emissions/

Before I get into talking about the article, and before I get blasted for putting a SF article, let me say for the record, they held a webinar with the CCO of Wizz, so maybe it is not as bad as it seems...

HOWEVER

The title seems a bit clickbait, and I am not so sure that this statement is true anyways. I have heard that aviation makes up for a whopping, 2% of emissions. This is less than that of other forms of transportation, meat packaging industry, the fashion industry, and many others. Shutting down coal plants around the world would cut emissions more than turning every airline into the stereotype that is "We have new planes, so we're the safest, most reliable airline in the world." Airlines like DL would make the extreme environmentalists have a heart attack because they still operate 757s/767s and other planes that seem "too old" for these people. Well, this strategy of having a fully paid off but older fleet has come in extremely useful for DL. They got their money's worth by operating the DC-9-50s for a while longer back in the early 2010s because they were fully paid off and the ownership cost was virtually very little. Compare that to an airline who keeps using brand new aircraft, where leasing/owning cost may be higher.

What is your take on the CCO's statement?


It's self-serving spin, mostly.

The key to the percentage reduction they're claiming is not just newer planes with more efficient engines, but based on seat density. They're claiming the 'reduction' based on a per passenger km basis.

To address climate change, we don't just need to get more efficient, we actually need to decrease emissions. If the more efficient planes are used for more flying, then the overall level of emissions increases, not decreases.

As for aviation more broadly - yes, it's a small faction of global emissions. But again - we need to get to zero.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2719
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:13 pm

planecane wrote:
When comparing synthetic fuels to fully electric stuff you need to take into account more than energy efficiency. For aviation it's about practicality. You can power large aircraft with synthetic fuels, you can't with fully electric power.

Of course you can't (yet) power airplanes directly via electricity. However, renewable electricity should be used first to turn off fossile powerplants. "Wasting" it on synthetic fuels is something we can only afford when we achieve a massive surplus in renewables.

More than 50% of the US energy consumers do not need fossil fuels; the entire commercial and residential sectors as well as personal transportation and large parts of the industrial sector.
I am absolutely for sustainable aviation but producing synthetic fuels is not worth it as long as cars & light trucks still burn gasoline, powerplants still burn coal, and heating is done via gas. We should fund more research, though.
 
luckyone
Posts: 4021
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:08 pm

So in other words...a fact-based story that is in essence thinly veiled WizzAir adverts.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 900
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:26 pm

The key for the airlines will be timing. As fewer folks buy heating oil, diesel and gasoline the supply chain for jet fuel stands to be disrupted. Refineries will close for lack of demand. A similar situation occurred in the 1960's when high octane aviation gasoline units were shut down due to decline in the number of aircraft burning that fuel. You see that today with Regular Aviation Gasoline.

Who funds the construction of SYN JET fuel refineries is a good question.
 
2175301
Posts: 2106
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:00 pm

cesar666cu wrote:
One has to also consider, that maintaining a young fleet requires a quick turnaround of aircrafts.
This implies heavy manufacturing and scrapping pollutions that might be more polluting than this 34% CO2 emissions.


This!

When you look at the lifecycle of equipment. Raw Materials to Manufacturing and then disposal usually are very significant pollution sources.

It would be very very bad for the world pollution to be rapidly replacing aircraft every decade. The efficiencies of the engines are not going to make up for that.
 
UpNAWAy
Posts: 769
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 12:42 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:01 am

Anyone that is truly worried about the environment, peoples livelihoods and health and is not 100% sold on a massive buildup of nuclear energy is not an environmentalist but a foolish dreamer living in neverland. Solar and wind can never replace what we currently use and they both have huge environmental impacts that are completely ignored in the current conversations. The basic laws of physics and thermodynamics makes it impossible to replace fossil fuels with those two.
 
2175301
Posts: 2106
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:54 am

UpNAWAy wrote:
Anyone that is truly worried about the environment, peoples livelihoods and health and is not 100% sold on a massive buildup of nuclear energy is not an environmentalist but a foolish dreamer living in neverland. Solar and wind can never replace what we currently use and they both have huge environmental impacts that are completely ignored in the current conversations. The basic laws of physics and thermodynamics makes it impossible to replace fossil fuels with those two.


Agreed.

The other thing often left out of the discussions is the real cost to connect various alternate energy sources to the grid. It may currently be cheaper to build solar electric for daytime generation than a new conventional power plant (of any technology); but when you look at the cost of connecting utility sized solar electric to the grid... The cost of a 1000+MW Nuclear Power Plant is cheaper to build and connect to the grid on a $/MWHr basis than is solar electric... and nuclear runs at night as an added bonus.

Edited to add: The cost to build, connect to the grid, operate, maintain, fuel cost, future demolition and disposal, and all other cost is routinely estimated the International Energy Agency based on real world data collected from around the world for all kinds of electrical generation. Other than Hydro Electric, of which there is very little ability to expand - Large Base-load Nuclear Power Plants are the cheapest electrical energy option at this point. There was a thread some months ago on Hydrogen where I linked the locations of the studies.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 9892
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:37 am

2175301 wrote:
The cost of a 1000+MW Nuclear Power Plant is cheaper to build and connect to the grid on a $/MWHr basis than is solar electric... and nuclear runs at night as an added bonus.


You want to show a source for that? On the basis of Vogtle, Olkiluoto, and Hinkley Point C, $10 Billion/gigawatt seems to be the ballpark for construction costs. Starting construction today in the U.S., estimates would surely be higher. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory last year put utility-scale solar with storage at $1.75 Billion per gigawatt.

5% biofuels in aircraft (even if every aircraft in scheduled passenger service worldwide) just isn't going to cut it 2035+.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:58 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
2175301 wrote:
The cost of a 1000+MW Nuclear Power Plant is cheaper to build and connect to the grid on a $/MWHr basis than is solar electric... and nuclear runs at night as an added bonus.


You want to show a source for that? On the basis of Vogtle, Olkiluoto, and Hinkley Point C, $10 Billion/gigawatt seems to be the ballpark for construction costs. Starting construction today in the U.S., estimates would surely be higher. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory last year put utility-scale solar with storage at $1.75 Billion per gigawatt.

5% biofuels in aircraft (even if every aircraft in scheduled passenger service worldwide) just isn't going to cut it 2035+.


There are commercial parties that are shutting down nucleair plants because there is no business case. The costs are extremely prohibitive and time to market is extremely long. Most energy companies are moving to renewables because it is much cheaper per investment and pay off is sooner. Start a nuclear plant today and your first check arrives in 6 years, if everything goes perfect. Why wait when you can have an pay out in 1 year max with solar or wind. Probably in combination with batteries. In NL they starting to use shared BEV’s as storage for excess power and new level 2 (<22kw) public charging installations are required to be bi-directional to support BEV’s as grid stabilizers.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 6:08 am

To add; Nuclear is a high risk high reward play. If it works out you got the cheapest way of creating electricity. Renewable are less cheaper but less risky. Wind or solar installation are less risky and easier to manage. Businesses tend to dislike high risks…
 
Strato2
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:00 am

JonesNL wrote:
To add; Nuclear is a high risk high reward play. If it works out you got the cheapest way of creating electricity. Renewable are less cheaper but less risky. Wind or solar installation are less risky and easier to manage. Businesses tend to dislike high risks…


If done and maintained properly nuclear is not high risk at all but exactly the opposite.
 
DartHerald
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:08 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:46 am

2175301 wrote:

Agreed.

The other thing often left out of the discussions is the real cost to connect various alternate energy sources to the grid. It may currently be cheaper to build solar electric for daytime generation than a new conventional power plant (of any technology); but when you look at the cost of connecting utility sized solar electric to the grid... The cost of a 1000+MW Nuclear Power Plant is cheaper to build and connect to the grid on a $/MWHr basis than is solar electric... and nuclear runs at night as an added bonus.

Edited to add: The cost to build, connect to the grid, operate, maintain, fuel cost, future demolition and disposal, and all other cost is routinely estimated the International Energy Agency based on real world data collected from around the world for all kinds of electrical generation. Other than Hydro Electric, of which there is very little ability to expand - Large Base-load Nuclear Power Plants are the cheapest electrical energy option at this point. There was a thread some months ago on Hydrogen where I linked the locations of the studies.


That is an Accountancy way of thinking, though, which only worries about immediate, visible costs and fails to take into account other factors - solar power might be more expensive in the short term but doesn't leave piles of radioactive waste that has to be stored for thousands of years. It's the same sort of thinking that has left the world hostage to China because their labour costs are so much lower that a high proportion of the world's manufacturing, particularly low value but nevertheless essential products such as medial PPE, has moved there
 
JonesNL
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:06 am

Strato2 wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
To add; Nuclear is a high risk high reward play. If it works out you got the cheapest way of creating electricity. Renewable are less cheaper but less risky. Wind or solar installation are less risky and easier to manage. Businesses tend to dislike high risks…


If done and maintained properly nuclear is not high risk at all but exactly the opposite.

I am talking about the financial and project management risks. A project of 6-10 years is always riskier than a project of 6-10 months...
 
User avatar
Aquila3
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:18 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:24 am

JonesNL wrote:
To add; Nuclear is a high risk high reward play. If it works out you got the cheapest way of creating electricity. Renewable are less cheaper but less risky. Wind or solar installation are less risky and easier to manage. Businesses tend to dislike high risks…

I seriously doubt that we are anywhere close to supply all the necessary energy to every house for replacing fossil fuel cars with battery cars, and that we will be in the next 25 years.
It is not as to cover our current Electric needs with renewables. It is to cover an order of magnitude more of our current electric production to supply the cars (and the airplanes of course).
We sadly will need to choose between building a nuclear plant every middle size city or to stick with (maybe Hybrid)Diesel/Jet1 , that is until now the most CO2 efficient, if your electric source is not renewable.
This forgetting about all the polluting massive infrastructure works necessary to bring the electric energy to each house, requiring 10x wiring and transformers and the assuming that we will find a away to produce and recycle the batteries in a clean and CO2 neutral way.
The only other way that I see for proceeding with the full electrification of our vehicles is to have individual/local solar/wind plants where everybody charges his own car (avoiding distribution infrastructure build and losses).
That might be practicable in advanced Countries with proper environmental conditions and scarce population, (i.e. Texas, Arizona, maybe Iceland and Norway) but I do not see it working at all in most highly populated areas like Bejing or Netherland or North West Germany.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5738
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:27 am

CO2 is not a pollutant, it does not cause global warming; it is a trace gas absolutely essential to life, and we need more of it, not less, for a healthy planet. Consider: the historical range of CO2 concentrations extracted from ice cores is from 0.02% to 0.44%. The range that will support life is 0.017% to 5%. Below 0.017% plants die. Above 5% mammals die. The optimum level for plants is 0.2%. Below that level any increase causes plants to grow faster, stronger, and use less water. This is evidenced by satellite photos showing formerly arid areas turning green. At the start of the Industrial Revolution the level was about 0.030%. Currently it is about 0.041%. And remember that figure of the highest level ever recorded, 0.44%? Do you know what was happening when it was deposited? AN ICE AGE. All of the hype about CO2 is a totally unscientific power grab by politicians and bureaucrats to seize control of everything in our daily lives. When is real science going to arise and put an end to this nonsense?
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14682
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:15 am

2175301 wrote:
cesar666cu wrote:
One has to also consider, that maintaining a young fleet requires a quick turnaround of aircrafts.
This implies heavy manufacturing and scrapping pollutions that might be more polluting than this 34% CO2 emissions.


This!

When you look at the lifecycle of equipment. Raw Materials to Manufacturing and then disposal usually are very significant pollution sources.

It would be very very bad for the world pollution to be rapidly replacing aircraft every decade. The efficiencies of the engines are not going to make up for that.


For a car yes. But for a plane I'm not so sure. A car might burn its weight in fuel in a year, for a plane it does that in 2-3 days.

However a new airplane doesn't burn 34% less than a 5 year old one, so the savings aren't necessarily great either.

And you also have to consider the cost, even if the goal is carbon neutrality, money might be better invested in another way than replacing aircraft after a few years.

The solution to take all this into account is a carbon tax of course. Not a fuel tax, but a carbon tax applying to everything. Then a new equilibrium will be found, it might make sense to develop a way to put neo engines on young ceo frames for example.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:42 am

Aquila3 wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
To add; Nuclear is a high risk high reward play. If it works out you got the cheapest way of creating electricity. Renewable are less cheaper but less risky. Wind or solar installation are less risky and easier to manage. Businesses tend to dislike high risks…

I seriously doubt that we are anywhere close to supply all the necessary energy to every house for replacing fossil fuel cars with battery cars, and that we will be in the next 25 years.
It is not as to cover our current Electric needs with renewables. It is to cover an order of magnitude more of our current electric production to supply the cars (and the airplanes of course).


Actually we are quite close as the energy grid has a lot of instability on the demand side. If cars would only recharge at night during low demand hours, the grid would not even blink. Of course that is not realistic as there will be added demand during the day, which would require about 20% more capacity in an decade or two. Which is quite feasible according to the net company Tennet in the Netherlands. But the gist is that most demand will be at low demand hours and make the grid more efficient as an whole.

I do agree that the main challenge is to get the grid off fossil, but the Dutch are highly impacted by rising sea levels and will swallow the cost as part of their everlasting battle with the seas…
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2719
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:50 pm

Aquila3 wrote:
That might be practicable in advanced Countries with proper environmental conditions and scarce population, (i.e. Texas, Arizona, maybe Iceland and Norway) but I do not see it working at all in most highly populated areas like Bejing or Netherland or North West Germany.

Experts in the field of renewable electricity would disagree. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvett ... ew-report/
Global energy demand could be met by using 0.2% of available land area for solar, and 0.5% for spacing between onshore wind turbines.

Carbon Tracker uses the findings to claim that “the fossil fuel era is over.” At current growth rates, it says, solar and wind power could price fossil fuels out of the world’s electricity markets by the mid-2030s, and by 2050 could replace fossil fuels entirely.

And investments in fossil fuels (and devices that use such fuels, like cars and powerplants) are increasingly shaky as renewable sources become cheaper every year. Most of the large car manufacturers have announced to stop producing ICE somewhere between 2030 and 2040, with R&D ceasing several years earlier.
 
User avatar
Aquila3
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:18 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:10 pm

I find it very very optimistic that the grid needs only a 20% up-gauge. Do not forget that grids have the nasty problem that must be dimensioned for peak capacity and not for average, so if at a certain hour (i.e. 6 pm) you need +100% your grid needs to double. Actually my calculations were more about tenfold.
I understand that Netherlands is not the worst case (like maybe Milan or Tokio) but it is surely sub-optimal in a winter week without much wind. Again, it does not help that your average renewable (wind) capacity is almost sufficient, that week you need 90% atomic energy. The fanta-energy stored in your electric cars may help for one or two days, but you better start to plan cold holiday Friday without your good Atomic plant in the backyard. Are you ready for that? And what if the weeks become 2 or 3 , in the busy December?
The problem is not economic, to pay for it (many are actually making money with renewable energy and battery cars) but purely technical. That renewable energy simply is not there at your door for many decades to come, unfortunately.
Finally, about your brave fight against tides and floodings (sadly I just come back from the last one), the efforts of the already very clean Dutchmens and Germans will not reduce the water level of one mm, until India China, Pakistan & Co do not make serious effort. I see only China trying to take on the problem. The rest is political propaganda pumped by the lobby that is actually making money with batteries and renewables.
I see Aircraft manufacturers jumping on that wagon very soon (Airbus looks like is already) . If the new battery airplanes will be cheaper to produce and will be sold for double the price like modern battery cars, why not? Who cares if there will only disadvantages for the final user?
 
Strato2
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:17 pm

SEPilot wrote:
CO2 is not a pollutant, it does not cause global warming; it is a trace gas absolutely essential to life, and we need more of it, not less, for a healthy planet. Consider: the historical range of CO2 concentrations extracted from ice cores is from 0.02% to 0.44%. The range that will support life is 0.017% to 5%. Below 0.017% plants die. Above 5% mammals die. The optimum level for plants is 0.2%. Below that level any increase causes plants to grow faster, stronger, and use less water. This is evidenced by satellite photos showing formerly arid areas turning green. At the start of the Industrial Revolution the level was about 0.030%. Currently it is about 0.041%. And remember that figure of the highest level ever recorded, 0.44%? Do you know what was happening when it was deposited? AN ICE AGE. All of the hype about CO2 is a totally unscientific power grab by politicians and bureaucrats to seize control of everything in our daily lives. When is real science going to arise and put an end to this nonsense?


CO2 levels now are higher than at any point in the past 800000 years. In fact, the last time the atmospheric CO2 amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago, when temperature was 2°–3°C (3.6°–5.4°F) higher than during the pre-industrial era, and sea level was 15–25 meters (50–80 feet) higher than today.Global atmospheric carbon dioxide was 409.8 ± 0.1 ppm in 2019, a new record high. That is an increase of 2.5 ± 0.1 ppm from 2018, the same as the increase between 2017 and 2018. In the 1960s, the global growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide was roughly 0.6 ± 0.1 ppm per year. Between 2009-18, however, the growth rate has been 2.3 ppm per year. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.

Carbon dioxide is the most important of Earth’s long-lived greenhouse gases. It absorbs less heat per molecule than the greenhouse gases methane or nitrous oxide, but it’s more abundant and it stays in the atmosphere much longer. Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are responsible for about two-thirds of the total energy imbalance that is causing Earth's temperature to rise.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/u ... on-dioxide
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1220
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:20 pm

Is it really practical or environmentally friendly to throw away aircraft at 10 years old, versus 20? That doesn't seem green to me.

About up gauging, this gets into the old CASM argument again. Lowest CASM aircraft (historically A380) is NOTthe most green solution for every job. By the same token, Being 737-Max 10 or A321 NEO are not the most green narrowbodies, if the job has a demand of 100 seats each way.
 
tphuang
Posts: 6637
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:29 pm

JonesNL wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
2175301 wrote:
The cost of a 1000+MW Nuclear Power Plant is cheaper to build and connect to the grid on a $/MWHr basis than is solar electric... and nuclear runs at night as an added bonus.


You want to show a source for that? On the basis of Vogtle, Olkiluoto, and Hinkley Point C, $10 Billion/gigawatt seems to be the ballpark for construction costs. Starting construction today in the U.S., estimates would surely be higher. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory last year put utility-scale solar with storage at $1.75 Billion per gigawatt.

5% biofuels in aircraft (even if every aircraft in scheduled passenger service worldwide) just isn't going to cut it 2035+.


There are commercial parties that are shutting down nucleair plants because there is no business case. The costs are extremely prohibitive and time to market is extremely long. Most energy companies are moving to renewables because it is much cheaper per investment and pay off is sooner. Start a nuclear plant today and your first check arrives in 6 years, if everything goes perfect. Why wait when you can have an pay out in 1 year max with solar or wind. Probably in combination with batteries. In NL they starting to use shared BEV’s as storage for excess power and new level 2 (<22kw) public charging installations are required to be bi-directional to support BEV’s as grid stabilizers.


Solar cost is already really cheap and estimated to get cheaper than even caol in a few years.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-no ... nfirms-iea
https://ieefa.org/solar-power-in-southe ... eneration/
https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/ ... r-by-2030/

Yet, we still have this tired old argument that nuclear energy is good and solar/wind is bad.

The problem with nuclear power is all the additional costs from safety features to protect against a meltdown. Now, if they can somehow make it more economically viable, then go ahead. I'm all for it.

On the original topic, just think about all the additional CO2 emissions from producing enough new aircraft to make every fleet as young as wizz air's.
 
User avatar
Aquila3
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:18 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:45 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Aquila3 wrote:
That might be practicable in advanced Countries with proper environmental conditions and scarce population, (i.e. Texas, Arizona, maybe Iceland and Norway) but I do not see it working at all in most highly populated areas like Bejing or Netherland or North West Germany.

Experts in the field of renewable electricity would disagree. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvett ... ew-report/
Hi, do not get me wrong. I am all for the maximum renewable energy implementation and for clean skies, with or without CO2. I have done my experiments and my implementations of wind generators and solar panels from my youth, when they were much more primitive than now.
If everyone could have his little 200 sq. meters of solar panel and enough sun for almost every day of the year, that would be a done deal.
But in many populated areas of the world, especially in the cold north I do not see it feasible FOR MANY DECADES to come.
I am simply stating that there is no way that most of us will get enough renewable energy TO OUR DOOR in the NEXT 25 YEARS to replace fossil run transport with renewable. Your shiny battery car and the ones of all your neighbours will have to stay parked for long days by 2045 if you do not decide to get a nuclear powerplant very close to you. Same for your battery planes. I am keeping my good, clean turbodiesel until they do not come to confiscate it. BTW I went on Biodiesel for a while until they made it incompatible with the newer "cleaner" engines.
Indeed Biofuels should be the way to go for airplanes and (and cars IMO) for the the next 50 years, not this battery utopia. I would prefer that (with all its known problems)that the nuclear plant in the backyard, but sadly I think it is where we are going thanks to ideology and lobbies.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:36 pm

Aquila3 wrote:
I find it very very optimistic that the grid needs only a 20% up-gauge. Do not forget that grids have the nasty problem that must be dimensioned for peak capacity and not for average, so if at a certain hour (i.e. 6 pm) you need +100% your grid needs to double. Actually my calculations were more about tenfold.
I understand that Netherlands is not the worst case (like maybe Milan or Tokio) but it is surely sub-optimal in a winter week without much wind. Again, it does not help that your average renewable (wind) capacity is almost sufficient, that week you need 90% atomic energy. The fanta-energy stored in your electric cars may help for one or two days, but you better start to plan cold holiday Friday without your good Atomic plant in the backyard. Are you ready for that? And what if the weeks become 2 or 3 , in the busy December?
The problem is not economic, to pay for it (many are actually making money with renewable energy and battery cars) but purely technical. That renewable energy simply is not there at your door for many decades to come, unfortunately.
Finally, about your brave fight against tides and floodings (sadly I just come back from the last one), the efforts of the already very clean Dutchmens and Germans will not reduce the water level of one mm, until India China, Pakistan & Co do not make serious effort. I see only China trying to take on the problem. The rest is political propaganda pumped by the lobby that is actually making money with batteries and renewables.
I see Aircraft manufacturers jumping on that wagon very soon (Airbus looks like is already) . If the new battery airplanes will be cheaper to produce and will be sold for double the price like modern battery cars, why not? Who cares if there will only disadvantages for the final user?


Peak capacity is mostly unused at night, the idea is that in this decade most EV's will charge at night using the excess production capacity that is not being utilized right now. There are already off the shelve solutions for this, you save money charging at night by setting your charging schedule. The "fanta-energy" is mainly as an short buffer to stabilize the grid to prevent outages (never had an outage in the West Europe in the last 30 years, but that is an other discussion).

And you are wrong about efforts of the Dutch and Germans going to vain. Due to lots of subsidies in Europe solar and wind has become so cheap that India and China are competing to become the solar powerhouse of Asia. That is basic economics, fund things that promising until it reaches maturity and from there it will take off on its own. Same happened with airlines which at the beginning where usually state enterprises. You see the same thing happening with EV's, lots of subsidies have been pored in the last decade and most manufacturers have put an end date on the ICE cars. This will kill the industry and make ICE cars extremely costly to run while BEV's will become increasingly cheaper.

In 5 years time the industry average cost of batteries will be cut down by at least 50% and by 2030 the cost of solar will be cut down by 50% as well. The only problem will be the constrained production capacity...
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4986
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:38 pm

JonesNL wrote:
To add; Nuclear is a high risk high reward play. If it works out you got the cheapest way of creating electricity. Renewable are less cheaper but less risky. Wind or solar installation are less risky and easier to manage. Businesses tend to dislike high risks…


Another consideration is that electricity tends to be most expensive in very low income areas. Solar and wind have the ability to provide cheap electricity in most of Africa as well as other mid-latitude areas. Back of the envelope economics tells me that electricity at 10 cents per kW hour would be affordable most of the world around*. A relative added a fairly small solar roof system on his house near Seattle. It provided about 65% of their electricity during that 3-5 day heat dome with 3 days of 100 plus degree weather. Solar and wind along with LED lighting by themselves can get us a huge way toward 100% green. As well as the EV battery a cheap major storage item is adding a second electric hot water heater. Minimal changes in how we use electricity, especially the timing, along with adjustments to the grid can take us close to that 100%.

* having lived off the grid I believe electricity also follows the Pareto rule, 20% of past usage provides 80% of the benefits. I enjoy the full 100% benefits as do most of us, but I would like the rest of the world to be able to afford that 20%.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2412
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 3:25 pm

JonesNL wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
2175301 wrote:
The cost of a 1000+MW Nuclear Power Plant is cheaper to build and connect to the grid on a $/MWHr basis than is solar electric... and nuclear runs at night as an added bonus.


You want to show a source for that? On the basis of Vogtle, Olkiluoto, and Hinkley Point C, $10 Billion/gigawatt seems to be the ballpark for construction costs. Starting construction today in the U.S., estimates would surely be higher. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory last year put utility-scale solar with storage at $1.75 Billion per gigawatt.

5% biofuels in aircraft (even if every aircraft in scheduled passenger service worldwide) just isn't going to cut it 2035+.


There are commercial parties that are shutting down nucleair plants because there is no business case. The costs are extremely prohibitive and time to market is extremely long. Most energy companies are moving to renewables because it is much cheaper per investment and pay off is sooner. Start a nuclear plant today and your first check arrives in 6 years, if everything goes perfect. Why wait when you can have an pay out in 1 year max with solar or wind. Probably in combination with batteries. In NL they starting to use shared BEV’s as storage for excess power and new level 2 (<22kw) public charging installations are required to be bi-directional to support BEV’s as grid stabilizers.

Remember as well that, thanks to all the private home and business installation (primarily of solar panels), the utilities do not have to upfront the expense of building the "generators".
 
User avatar
Pythagoras
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:33 am

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 3:37 pm

Aquila3 wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
To add; Nuclear is a high risk high reward play. If it works out you got the cheapest way of creating electricity. Renewable are less cheaper but less risky. Wind or solar installation are less risky and easier to manage. Businesses tend to dislike high risks…

I seriously doubt that we are anywhere close to supply all the necessary energy to every house for replacing fossil fuel cars with battery cars, and that we will be in the next 25 years.
It is not as to cover our current Electric needs with renewables. It is to cover an order of magnitude more of our current electric production to supply the cars (and the airplanes of course).
We sadly will need to choose between building a nuclear plant every middle size city or to stick with (maybe Hybrid)Diesel/Jet1 , that is until now the most CO2 efficient, if your electric source is not renewable.
This forgetting about all the polluting massive infrastructure works necessary to bring the electric energy to each house, requiring 10x wiring and transformers and the assuming that we will find a away to produce and recycle the batteries in a clean and CO2 neutral way.
The only other way that I see for proceeding with the full electrification of our vehicles is to have individual/local solar/wind plants where everybody charges his own car (avoiding distribution infrastructure build and losses).
That might be practicable in advanced Countries with proper environmental conditions and scarce population, (i.e. Texas, Arizona, maybe Iceland and Norway) but I do not see it working at all in most highly populated areas like Bejing or Netherland or North West Germany.


An order of magnitude!? Hardly!

Using Federal Highway Administration Monthly Traffic Volume data.

Vehicle Miles Traveled in the US (2019) : 3.23 billion miles
Typical Mileage Electric Vehicle: 100 miles traveled using 30 KWh charge or 3.33 miles/KWh
Total Electrical Needs for EVs: 0.97 trillion KWh
Total Yearly US Electrical Generation : 4.01 trillion KWh

Percentage increase electricity generation required to power 100% EV fleet: 24%

And remember that this investment will happen over several decades. Furthermore, it will mean that capital and resources that is currently used to explore and extract oil would instead be used to build electricity generation plants. A fracked oil well has an economic life of 10 years which is way below any renewable source of electricity.

These arguments conveniently ignore the massive capital investments that oil companies currently make when they are exploring for new sources of oil and maintaining existing oil production. Let's take all that steel used to make Deep Sea Horizon and use it to build out the grid instead.
 
User avatar
Pythagoras
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:33 am

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 3:54 pm

Starfuryt wrote:
In the US transportation accounts for 30% of CO2 emission, Airplanes account for 10% of transportation emissions, thus airplanes account for roughly 3% of the total emissions. The global numbers are likely somewhat similar. While every little bit counts, you could call this a solution in search of a problem.

source: https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast- ... -emissions


another source: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport

"Aviation – while it often gets the most attention in discussions on action against climate change – accounts for only 11.6% of transport emissions. It emits just under one billion tonnes of CO2 each year – around 2.5% of total global emissions [we look at the role that air travel plays in climate change in more detail in an upcoming article]. International shipping contributes a similar amount, at 10.6%. "


Studies over the past decade indicate that the contribution to global warming from air travel is 3X larger than just the CO2 pollution because of where the pollution occurs. The ice crystals formed by contrails can be long lasting and serve as an insulating barrier for heat escaping the earth. Remember that global warming occurs in the infrared part of the spectrum, which means that these clouds are effective as an insulation blanket in both daylight and at night.

So the actual percentage contribution of 2.5% should really be something closer to 7-8% of world wide emissions. Should the world reduce its CO2 emissions in other sectors by half and not touch aviation that percentage would rise to 14-16%. Taking this analysis further, once reductions are reduced by 75% in other sectors, aviation's contribution would be nearly 30% of the total global warming budget.

One way to address this is to incorporate Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) as was announced this week by the EU. Sustainable Aviation Fuels will not only reduce CO2 pollution but will also minimize the particulates which are where water vapor nucleates to form the ice crystals in contrails.

NASA Study Confirms Biofuels Reduce Jet Engine Pollution
“Using biofuels to help power jet engines reduces particle emissions in their exhaust by as much as 50 to 70 percent, in a new study conclusion that bodes well for airline economics and Earth’s environment.”
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-study-confirms-biofuels-reduce-jet-engine-pollution

NASA-DLR Study Finds Sustainable Aviation Fuel Can Reduce Contrails
“Cleaner-burning jet fuels made from sustainable sources can produce 50%-70% fewer ice crystal contrails at cruising altitude, reducing aviation’s impact on the environment, according to research conducted by NASA and the German Aerospace Center (DLR).”
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-dlr-study-finds-sustainable-aviation-fuel-can-reduce-contrails
 
jomur
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:36 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:30 pm

planecane wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
If anything, work more towards fuels derived from sunlight to reduce impact. Make that a global requirement.

Lightsaber

Even better, use renewable electricity to turn off coal powerplants and ICE cars. That's vastly more effective than synthetic fuels (with current efficiencies, 1 GWh of renewable electricity can replace 1 GWh of coal-based electricity or it can be used to produce 0.25 GWh worth of synthetic fuels.) It should be the worlds no. 1 priority to stop burning coal.


The western world (for sure the US) seems to be pretty rapidly moving towards stopping burning coal. Doesn't seem to be the case for China.

When comparing synthetic fuels to fully electric stuff you need to take into account more than energy efficiency. For aviation it's about practicality. You can power large aircraft with synthetic fuels, you can't with fully electric power. For ground transport, for vehicles that need to be able to travel long range with minimal refueling/recharging time, synthetic fuels make more sense than battery electric. For example, with long haul trucking or even for trains (assuming you don't have direct power running along the tracks), the number of batteries required would be ridiculously expensive and take up a lot of space. A long haul trucker can't afford to stop for an hour or two every 250 miles either and a train doing that would be logistically very bad.


Electric trains would never use batteries in the first place. The technology is already in use worldwide and has been for a long time as not to need this as an option. You just need either overhead power or a third rail
 
User avatar
Aquila3
Posts: 599
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:18 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:13 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
To add; Nuclear is a high risk high reward play. If it works out you got the cheapest way of creating electricity. Renewable are less cheaper but less risky. Wind or solar installation are less risky and easier to manage. Businesses tend to dislike high risks…


Another consideration is that electricity tends to be most expensive in very low income areas. Solar and wind have the ability to provide cheap electricity in most of Africa as well as other mid-latitude areas. Back of the envelope economics tells me that electricity at 10 cents per kW hour would be affordable most of the world around*. A relative added a fairly small solar roof system on his house near Seattle. It provided about 65% of their electricity during that 3-5 day heat dome with 3 days of 100 plus degree weather. Solar and wind along with LED lighting by themselves can get us a huge way toward 100% green. As well as the EV battery a cheap major storage item is adding a second electric hot water heater. Minimal changes in how we use electricity, especially the timing, along with adjustments to the grid can take us close to that 100%.

* having lived off the grid I believe electricity also follows the Pareto rule, 20% of past usage provides 80% of the benefits. I enjoy the full 100% benefits as do most of us, but I would like the rest of the world to be able to afford that 20%.

I fully agree with you, it works very well for scarcely populated areas. I did the same when I lived in the countryside. USA is a happy place about that, there is abundance of land per inhabitant. Now, try to do that in Tokyo, Bejing, and why not, New York, possibly between December and January. World population is concentrating into the mega-cities, not the opposite. How will the fully electric airport manage those dark days with few wind? What about a nice nuclear powerplant on property, just in case?
 
Strato2
Posts: 627
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:55 pm

JonesNL wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
To add; Nuclear is a high risk high reward play. If it works out you got the cheapest way of creating electricity. Renewable are less cheaper but less risky. Wind or solar installation are less risky and easier to manage. Businesses tend to dislike high risks…


If done and maintained properly nuclear is not high risk at all but exactly the opposite.

I am talking about the financial and project management risks. A project of 6-10 years is always riskier than a project of 6-10 months...


Sorry for the misunderstanding. I thought you were talking about safety. I agree on the financial side.
 
planecane
Posts: 1716
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 6:13 pm

jomur wrote:
planecane wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Even better, use renewable electricity to turn off coal powerplants and ICE cars. That's vastly more effective than synthetic fuels (with current efficiencies, 1 GWh of renewable electricity can replace 1 GWh of coal-based electricity or it can be used to produce 0.25 GWh worth of synthetic fuels.) It should be the worlds no. 1 priority to stop burning coal.


The western world (for sure the US) seems to be pretty rapidly moving towards stopping burning coal. Doesn't seem to be the case for China.

When comparing synthetic fuels to fully electric stuff you need to take into account more than energy efficiency. For aviation it's about practicality. You can power large aircraft with synthetic fuels, you can't with fully electric power. For ground transport, for vehicles that need to be able to travel long range with minimal refueling/recharging time, synthetic fuels make more sense than battery electric. For example, with long haul trucking or even for trains (assuming you don't have direct power running along the tracks), the number of batteries required would be ridiculously expensive and take up a lot of space. A long haul trucker can't afford to stop for an hour or two every 250 miles either and a train doing that would be logistically very bad.


Electric trains would never use batteries in the first place. The technology is already in use worldwide and has been for a long time as not to need this as an option. You just need either overhead power or a third rail


True but you'd have to add the power infrastructure to however many hundreds of thousands of miles of track which isn't going to be cheap or quick. I did say "assuming you don't have direct power running along the tracks" in my post.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2412
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:52 pm

jomur wrote:
planecane wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
Even better, use renewable electricity to turn off coal powerplants and ICE cars. That's vastly more effective than synthetic fuels (with current efficiencies, 1 GWh of renewable electricity can replace 1 GWh of coal-based electricity or it can be used to produce 0.25 GWh worth of synthetic fuels.) It should be the worlds no. 1 priority to stop burning coal.


The western world (for sure the US) seems to be pretty rapidly moving towards stopping burning coal. Doesn't seem to be the case for China.

When comparing synthetic fuels to fully electric stuff you need to take into account more than energy efficiency. For aviation it's about practicality. You can power large aircraft with synthetic fuels, you can't with fully electric power. For ground transport, for vehicles that need to be able to travel long range with minimal refueling/recharging time, synthetic fuels make more sense than battery electric. For example, with long haul trucking or even for trains (assuming you don't have direct power running along the tracks), the number of batteries required would be ridiculously expensive and take up a lot of space. A long haul trucker can't afford to stop for an hour or two every 250 miles either and a train doing that would be logistically very bad.


Electric trains would never use batteries in the first place. The technology is already in use worldwide and has been for a long time as not to need this as an option. You just need either overhead power or a third rail

The technology is there; but you still have a lot of lines that are not electrified and cannot be in an economical way.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 12552
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Sat Jul 24, 2021 7:58 am

Boeing757100 wrote:
What is your take on the CCO's statement?


It is framing, making his airline 'attractive' for the general public who gets more and more worried about climate change and their own behavior.

As for the environmental impact of aviation itself, it is huge. Yes, 'only' a few percentages of the causes of climate change are caused by aviation, but there is no real transition plan and aviation will be growing rapidly again after the impacts of the pandemic has been mitigated. Aviation will be impacted by the energy transition, it would be quite naive to think it wouldn't. The EU will be introducing taxes on intra-EU travel, which will impact the business model of WIZZ, among others. So I see the comments in this context, trying to influence policies.
 
User avatar
tjcab
Posts: 360
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 3:14 am

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Sat Jul 24, 2021 9:04 am

Aquila3 wrote:
Finally, about your brave fight against tides and floodings (sadly I just come back from the last one), the efforts of the already very clean Dutchmens and Germans will not reduce the water level of one mm, until India China, Pakistan & Co do not make serious effort. I see only China trying to take on the problem. The rest is political propaganda pumped by the lobby that is actually making money with batteries and renewables.


Sure, but how long, historically, have they been massive polluters? It's easy to lecture others not to build a house now that you have one, cut down the very forest from which lumber was used to build one's country, or pollute space with space junk, then discourage others from launching. Don't get me wrong, the environmental situation is dire, just some perspective.
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8968
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Sat Jul 24, 2021 9:14 am

The embedded carbon created by building new planes is worse than flying old gas guzzlers til they’re ready to drop. Same with cars, if you want to help the environment, don’t buy a Tesla, keep driving your 2003 Ford til it’s ready for scrapping
 
User avatar
IceCream
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:46 pm

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Sat Jul 24, 2021 10:38 pm

tphuang wrote:
JonesNL wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:

You want to show a source for that? On the basis of Vogtle, Olkiluoto, and Hinkley Point C, $10 Billion/gigawatt seems to be the ballpark for construction costs. Starting construction today in the U.S., estimates would surely be higher. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory last year put utility-scale solar with storage at $1.75 Billion per gigawatt.

5% biofuels in aircraft (even if every aircraft in scheduled passenger service worldwide) just isn't going to cut it 2035+.


There are commercial parties that are shutting down nucleair plants because there is no business case. The costs are extremely prohibitive and time to market is extremely long. Most energy companies are moving to renewables because it is much cheaper per investment and pay off is sooner. Start a nuclear plant today and your first check arrives in 6 years, if everything goes perfect. Why wait when you can have an pay out in 1 year max with solar or wind. Probably in combination with batteries. In NL they starting to use shared BEV’s as storage for excess power and new level 2 (<22kw) public charging installations are required to be bi-directional to support BEV’s as grid stabilizers.


Solar cost is already really cheap and estimated to get cheaper than even caol in a few years.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-no ... nfirms-iea
https://ieefa.org/solar-power-in-southe ... eneration/
https://www.woodmac.com/press-releases/ ... r-by-2030/

Yet, we still have this tired old argument that nuclear energy is good and solar/wind is bad.

The problem with nuclear power is all the additional costs from safety features to protect against a meltdown. Now, if they can somehow make it more economically viable, then go ahead. I'm all for it.

On the original topic, just think about all the additional CO2 emissions from producing enough new aircraft to make every fleet as young as wizz air's.

Everything you said here is 100% true.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14682
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: "CO2 Emissions Would Fall 34% If Every Fleet Was As Young As Wizz Air’s"

Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:49 pm

cedarjet wrote:
The embedded carbon created by building new planes is worse than flying old gas guzzlers til they’re ready to drop. Same with cars, if you want to help the environment, don’t buy a Tesla, keep driving your 2003 Ford til it’s ready for scrapping


Any numbers to back that up ?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos