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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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?

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.

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....

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 ...

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.

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.

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.  

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

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.

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

I so wish that were true...

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.

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.  

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 21): 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".

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 more expensive then people will vote out their representatives and have the EPA closed down. But before that happened congress would modify the regulations anyway so as not to be voted out.

Not to mention the fact that people could buy used cars to avoid paying the absurdly high prices on new cars if the EPA got really really stringent really fast on emissions and the Federal Government could not do anything about it. So long as I buy and sell it all in the same state the Federal Government has no authority to regulate.

Again, everyone assumes it is very simple to regulate these things. They should take a look at the Semi-Truck industry. New rules were put in place and now used trucks are all the rage as rebuilt engines do not have to meet standards. It is not so simple as an EPA or even a Presidential Edict.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 27): Again, everyone assumes it is very simple to regulate these things. They should take a look at the Semi-Truck industry. New rules were put in place and now used trucks are all the rage as rebuilt engines do not have to meet standards. It is not so simple as an EPA or even a Presidential Edict.

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 "loop-hole" games irrelevant. Of course, that would also be
a political suicide, so nobody is willing to do it. But to say it is impossible is not correct.

Quoting Ken4556 (Reply 6): The bigger my footprint, the more plane trips I am making!

Bless you, bigfoot. Your abandonment of the politically correct carbon issue will result in more people generating more wealth and prosperity for the rest of us to enjoy, than if you were to sit at home swaddled in rags to keep warm. I hope you appreciate that with every carbon atom that burns for you, you are helping to pay the salaries of baggage handlers, phone receptionists in India, computer programmers who keep the checkin kiosks working, flight attendants. And what do those people do with those salaries? Stare at them? Or use them to buy toasters manufactured in energy inefficient factories in China, or send their kids to universities and pay bolshevik, oops, excuse me: environmentally friendly professors who lecture on the evils of our current president when they should be teaching math or history?

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 8): for a country that has yet to comply with the Kyoto Protocol and simply always has an excuse not to

Next, let's clear the air about Kyoto. Its sole purpose was to cripple the economy of the United States. Nothing else. It had nothing to do with the environment or pollution. Sorry, them's the facts. The two worst planetary polluters, and the two most energy ineffecient countries on the planet were exempt from Kyoto protocols: China and India. Don't believe me, look it up. The last American administration, President Clinton and the soon to be sainted VP,crackpot hero of the environment when he isn't guzzling gas in his private jet or using 3x the electricity the average American household uses or plowing his carbon penalty credits back into an organization he owns stock in, serves on, and draws a salary from, Al Gore, refused to even submit this foolish treaty to congress for consideration, knowing in advance neither the Republicans in charge nor the Democrats is opposition, would ever ratify it. Nothing has changed. I know, as those frightened actors in Hollywood would say: it's "an inconvenient truth".

And finally, even if you don't accept a single word I've said, the damn machine is built out of CARBON! Carbon, you know, like, that black stuff that you guys seem to be so afraid of. Tons of the stuff. Think of it as a humongous soot particle, that because of its really big size is actually good for the planet. Now have a nice day, and try not to burn down too many acres of the Brazilian rain forests today.

Sheesh!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 26): I'm by no means a 'Eurofile', but in this respect, they got it right

No Europe is DIFFERENT. Our diesel infrastructure is much much bigger and slower to change. The locomotives, semi tractor trailers, and tow boats dictated what types of diesel fuels were refined, and those types were not up to snuff for cars. That is why they stunk and were not as efficient and clean as their European counterparts.

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 8): its about time the USA started thinking more about environmental issues

We ARE thinking about it...it's the actions that are overdue.

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 8): Europes efforts far exceed what the USA is even thinking of.

This is true, but not so much so as you (or many Europeans) believe. Europe is lagging on their Kyoto committments.

Quoting Philly Phlyer (Reply 9): 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.

  ZING! Well deserved, and well delivered. Destruction of the Amazon rainforest by Brazil and other nations is arguably as important a factor in global warming as emissions by the US.

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 13): have skin that can withstand the extra high UV

Um...what? The CFC ban is working and the "ozone hole" is closing. Not so much a concern anymore.

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 13): the USA expereincing a higher number of Tornados and Tropical Storms, whys that happening.

And the Amazon basin is experiencing the worst drought in over 100 years. Why is that happening? (Ans: deforestation)

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 13): By the way most of the rainforest is still intact

  Kudos to you. You've only bulldozed 17% of the forest so far. How much will be left when you stop?

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 13): but because the timber taken is in demand by countries like the USA for exotic wood

And somehow it's someone else's fault when you bulldoze your forests.  

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 18): It is one of the fundamental precepts of how the US is organized, the people have certain rights the government cannot encroach upon.

I prefer to think of the US as "government of the people, by the people". We determine what we can do to ourselves.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 19): The Al scrap can be recycled, but I am doubtful that carbon fibre "scrap" is recoverable.

Depends on what we mean by "recycle". CFRP can be chipped and burned in kilns or furnaces, so the energy content is partially recoverable. Alternatively, CFRP can be landfilled - effectively trapping the carbon content. We could then say that every CFRP airliner built represents that much less carbon in the atmosphere (if we were cynical advertising types).  

Quoting Baroque (Reply 19): 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.

Not so much? Keep in mind that the structure of the aircraft is only a portion of the total weight, and the composite content is generally stated as a percentage of that total weight. The lighter a material is, the lesser the percentage of the total - it's misleading. The composite content of the 787 is approaching the reasonable maximum for any airframe.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 26): 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've been driving VW diesels since 1981. Mercedes offered diesels in the USA as far back as the 1960's, and VW has had them continuously since the 1970's. They've been available, but relatively few have been sold.

Quoting Magyar (Reply 20): Don't bother argueing with them, just work on your ethanol industry, and make sure they cannot take over it once itis profitable. The best way to fight ignorance is to take advantage of their short-sightedness.

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 sustainable energy source to me.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 31): I've been driving VW diesels since 1981. Mercedes offered diesels in the USA as far back as the 1960's, and VW has had them continuously since the 1970's. They've been available, but relatively few have been sold.

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 inquired about the only MB deisel available in the US right now at the MB dealership here, the E-320, and they said they just could not get 1/10th of what they could sell. For whatever reason, we cant even import the ones we do want!

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.

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, you must be right and we must be wrong because:

(1) We disagree with you, and we all know the environmental Inquisition cannot tolerate dissent.
(2) We have more tornadoes and storms (a dubious fact).
(3) Our children cannot mutate.
(4) America takes all the energy and wood.
(5) We're not capable of discussing this topic's specifics because we're Americans making a defense of America.

It bears repeating: WEAK. This is just as shallow as your initial post.

Assuming that flying will not be ceased "for the good of the environment", the 787 is quite good for the environment even though it requires a few airplanes to ferry its parts around. It burns considerably less fuel than the aircraft it replaces, and its emissions are considerably cleaner, too.

Here's another fact: a 737-800 in typical American configuration at 80% LF gets about 80 passenger miles per gallon. Let's compare that to a vehicle that gets 35 MPG on the highway, which will be a fairly small vehicle. You can get two passengers plus their bags into that car comfortably, and you still only get 70 passenger miles per gallon. You will need at least three people in that vehicle to surpass the airliner, and you'll probably not get three people plus their bags into a car that size. Soooo... assuming that you're going to fly, the airliner is a pretty efficient way to do it. The 787 improves the fuel burn considerably over its predecessors. That's good for the environment, even if the DreamLifter has to make some flights to ferry pieces during construction.

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 34): We have more tornadoes and storms (a dubious fact).

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 estimated winds of 135 miles per hour (215 km/h) at landfall, making it a Category 4 storm on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale.
The hurricane caused great loss of life. The death toll has been estimated to be between 6,000 and 12,000 individuals.

Katrina was a sucker punch on a failed levee system and not nearly as devistating. The Galveston storm doesnt even make the top ten.

We had a record year in 2005, but that really does not indicate a trend.

Most intense Atlantic hurricanes
Intensity is measured solely by central pressure
Rank Hurricane Season Min. pressure
1 Wilma 2005 882 mbar (hPa)
2 Gilbert 1988 888 mbar (hPa)
3 "Labor Day" 1935 892 mbar (hPa)
4 Rita 2005 895 mbar (hPa)
5 Allen 1980 899 mbar (hPa)
6 Katrina 2005 902 mbar (hPa)
7 Camille 1969 905 mbar (hPa)
Mitch 1998 905 mbar (hPa)
9 Ivan 2004 910 mbar (hPa)
10 Janet 1955 914 mbar (hPa)

As for tornados, EVERYONE in the tornado alley knows it takes COLD air to make a funnel.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 33): But because of how dirty US diesel fuel is, people just could not stand them.

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"?

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 33): US automakers offered diesels too, and they just did not sell.

The early US diesels were hasty conversions of gasoline V-8 motors, and they were utter crap. It's no wonder they didn't sell!

The more recent Ford and GM diesels are excellent, but they're only offered on heavy-duty pickup trucks. They offer more power, but not much better fuel economy. The only smaller US-made vehicle I've seen with a diesel was the Jeep Liberty...but it was an Italian motor, and no longer offered anyway. Sad!

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 36): They offer more power, but not much better fuel economy.

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 city. A gas van he had before got 12-14. Under a load is where they shine.

A duramax 3/4 ton pickup will get almost 20 mpg in town under a load if tuned correctly. They just dont do much better on the highway.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 19): 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.

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

Quoting Philly Phlyer (Reply 9): 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.

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.

Quoting Dougbr2006 (Reply 16): 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.

The rainforest is being destroyed, and not simply for wood, but to clear land for agricultural purposes.

Quoting DrExotica (Reply 12): 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.

Although your friends may be accused of cork sniffing snobbery, the concept is a valid one.

Quoting Silentbob (Reply 32): 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 sustainable energy source to me.

I think you may be less than well informed. Ethanol produced in Brazil is very efficient, and the bagasse fires the boilers that are necessary to distill the stuff. I'm told above 800 gallons per acre can be produced. In the states sugar beets are up in the six hundred gallons per acre range and corne comes in third at about 325.
However, there are few byproducts from distillation of sugar cane or sugar beets beyond bagasse, but the byproducts of distillation of corn are a high value animal feed that actually gains protein content from the distillation process.

So you have to see the entire picture in context and not as a one shot process.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 37): They actually do get 15-30% better than the gas counterparts.

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, which I always found hard to believe. I think maybe they are failing to mention that they stepped up from an F150 to a Super-Duty when they bought the diesel.  

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 41): 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, which I always found hard to believe. I think maybe they are failing to mention that they stepped up from an F150 to a Super-Duty when they bought the diesel.

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 6L diesels. Likely two things happen. They use the extra capiblity of the diesel for towing loads faster. They coast less thus causing longer periods with fuel being burned. When evaluating this, one must tailor the operation profile to fit with what is most effiecent. For example the XJR I had got the best fuel milage using full acceleration from a top to cruise speed. Which is not the case for virtualy any other car. Its due to the way the engine is programed. It would trigger rich fueling at moderate throttle positions due to positive manifold pressure. So might as well get "2mpg" for a few seconds than limp along getting 6-10mpg for half a minute or more. Other cars will get the best milage with low rpm 50% throttle as they still lean burn, but have low frictional losses and lower pumping losses than higher rpm use.

In aircraft terms, Its alot like comparing the efficency of a 747 flying a normal proper mission profile, compared to one that operates at 10ft the whole trip. Its not designed around "low" altitude operation and thus will absolutely stink at it.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 31): I prefer to think of the US as "government of the people, by the people". We determine what we can do to ourselves.

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 denied it authority in other areas.

In as much as there is a system in place that allows us to alter that basic contract the government can pretty much do what it wants. There is a very high bar to be passed to do that for a reason. The suggestion of the earlier posters was that the government could simply regulate or pass laws to demand energy conservation. That is not really the case.

So I agree with you, the people can do whatever they want to do with the government. We are free to invest any power we decide to in the government to those ends. The government cannot do whatever they want to the people. To alter the framework necessitates large amounts of review by the people and their other representatives.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 35): Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 34): We have more tornadoes and storms (a dubious fact). Is it? Can you really back that up?

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 was merely summarizing the position of the poster to whom I was responding.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 2): 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.

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 to 876,000 tonnes of fuel, or roughly 7,500 times the empty weight of the aircraft. Another way of seeing this is that a 787 will consume its own weight in fuel every day. By the way, those 876,000 tonnes of jet fuel would fill 450 olympic size swimming pools, and is the same total volume as the Empire State Building.

The 747 LCF on the other hand can be expected to burn roughly 15 tonnes of fuel per hour. One 787 frame takes very roughly two trips to Nagoya (30 hours), two trips to Italy (36 hours), one trip to Kansas (5 hours), one trip to North Carolina (8 hours), plus assorted other non-LCF cargo flights (say we add 30%). That comes to roughly 1500 tonnes of jet fuel per frame built.

So, all of the LCF flights will consume about 5 times as much fuel as a single 787 frame over the lifetime of the program. As such, Atmx2000 gets full credit for getting the correct order of magnitude  

Now for extra credit, how many ping pong balls...   

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.

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 is. Woops, am I being politically incorrect here? Heavens no. The fact of the matter is these doomsday predictions are a dime a dozen and come around every decade or so, only to be scrapped later without any accountability for those who "foresaw" the fire and brimstone. Remember global cooling anyone? Remember the "Population Bomb"? Mass starvation? Been there, done that. The same people, always wrong. But since their predictions are always at least a decade away before they're shown to be bullshit, the soothseers can always go into hiding to escape any public scorn.

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.

Before I begin, I suppose I'll press my "green" credentials here. I don't like pollution any more than the next guy and think more should be done to curb it (while not believing in ridiculous fantasies like massive global warming from carbon emissions). For instance, I support several Pigouvian taxation schemes when externalities arise from pollution (go look it up) I support much higher gas taxes, virtual heresy here in the USA. I like wind power, solar power and wish we'd do a hell of a lot more to develop nuclear energy. I wouldn't even mind the government subsidizing battery powered plug in hybrid vehicles.

With that said, does anyone "really" care about the planet? Well no. At least not if they truly believe global warming is going to wreak devastation on our planet. If they did, Tony Blair wouldn't be pushing for an Open Skies (do you think that's going to result in more or less "carbon emissions", hmmm?) agreement while simutaneously pushing for big government environmentalism. Al Gore wouldn't continue refusing to sign a simple pledge proposed to him by a fellow Senator that he cease flying on corporate jets, a luxury 99.9% of Americans will never be able to afford. Would all citizens cease eating beef altogether? Should I go on?

Quoting Magyar (Reply 20): It is a very naive approach to think that presenting arguments will change the behavour of the US. The US will not hurt/curb/limit its industry seriously no matter how real/man-made this global warming is. You can present whatever argument you want, the economy is sacred there and above all. They will spin/deny/or just plainly ignore you. Don't bother argueing with them, just work on your ethanol industry, and make sure they cannot take over it once itis profitable. The best way to fight ignorance is to take advantage of their short-sightedness.

This is a joke right? You don't think the ethanol industry produces "carbon emissions"? Some studies have shown its actually less energy efficient than other forms of energy currently used. Its not exactly "clean" to convert corn or sugarcane into ethanol fuel. And I might add that the best way to fight ignorance is to stop falling for the same doom and gloom scenarios that are peddled by the same false cultists that form the world's newest PC religion, environmentalism.

By the way, the US just had one of the coldest winters it's ever heard in recent memory, with record low temperatures in several counties. What does this mean? About the same as when we have high temperatures during summer, ie nothing.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 38): 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.

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 be better, could be much worse - will end up as carbon dioxide. Assuming dead 787s are used as landfill, that carbon would be kept out of the atmosphere, but the Al planes could be recycled.

In constructing new planes, it would be possible to use almost entirely recycled Al whereas I don't think this is likely for CFRP.

Potentially, in the long run, Al planes could be lighter on atmospheric CO2 compared with CFRP provided they are recycled. Direct recycling is not very likely because aircraft manufacturers will find it easier to get the exact alloy compositions they need starting from newly refined Al, but the scrap Al will be just fine for other uses that have less demanding specs, and the savings will be effectively the same.

However, if CFRP planes are lighter (as per the ads), there will be GREAT advantage to that method of construction in the fuel costs.

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 25): If they change regulations so that cars become vastly more expensive then people will vote out their representatives and have the EPA closed down.

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 government.

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 46): 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 government.

Income tax was originally created during the Civil War without any changes being made to the constitution. It sputtered along and was eventually declared unlawful by the Supreme Court. An ammendment was necessary to allow income tax to become legal in 1913. In addition voters have clearly expressed preference at times for canidates who will lower the rate of income taxation and have had large tax cuts passed as a result.

So yes, both majority rules and the court system are present to serve as a check on the rule of government. Failing that the people can resort to revolution and overthrow the government. You continually assert that the governemnt can simply do what it wants when this is clearly not the case. Has the level of income tax increased since its inception? Sure. Did the government do that without passing the highest level of review by both the judicial branch and the various representatives of the people? No.

Like it or not the government faces certain constraints and that hampers its ability to just declare that people must change their lifestyles. You can rant all you want about how the government can just do what it wants but the fact is you are wrong.

Quoting Philly Phlyer (Reply 9): 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.

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 used as the benchmark year. Why?

Well the UK can thank Maggie Thatcher and her smashing of the coal miners union and baddie Arthur Scargill for UK's ability to meet Kyoto goals. In 1985 there were 200,000 miners employed in the UK, by 2000, that number had fallen by an amazing 99%. As for Germany, 1990 was the year after reunifiction. All those belching communist factories were still in operation. Those factores were closed long before Kyoto so it is easy for "Greater" Germany to meet its Kyoto goals. Move the bench mark year to 1989, and Western Germany would also fail to meet Kyoto. France loves Kyoto cuz it means they get to sell nuclear power reactors worldwide.

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.

So many misconceptions in shuch a short paragraph. CO2 isnt a pollutant. Your children wont have trouble breathing if CO2 levels 2x or 3x. It traps heat, but it is not pollution. UV and the ozone have nothing to do with CO2. Infact the hole in the ozone over antartica has been getting smaller. The Ozone will completely repair itself within 50 years as CFCs have been banned.

As for Tornados, they form when upper level atmospheric conditions are cold and the lower atmosphere is warm causing warm air to lift into the cold upper atmosphere etc etc...Global Warming would reduce the likelihood of tornados by warming the upper atmosphere. When was the last time there was an outbreak of tornados in the tropics?

I do agree the production process must be taken into account which is why Hybrid automobiles are actually not very green. The production process especially for the batteries is very envirnmentally damaging.


By exempting countries like China and India, Kyoto could actually make the world worse off than without a treaty. Kyoto raises the cost of production in signatory countries and will shift economic activity to countries like China and India that still lack even basic environmental laws. What good is Kyoto if it causes a auto factory in Michigan to relocate to China and produce even more pollutuon than it did in Michigan?

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 42): 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 was merely summarizing the position of the poster to whom I was responding.

Gotcha.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 34): 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"?

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 only really began in October 2006. This will allow European deisel cars to be imported in mass and US automakers to offer real deisels for the first time ever in large quantity.

Do you remember the days when all semi's spewed huge black clouds out of their stacks? Now you see pretty much nothing unless there is a mechanical problem with the truck. The older Cummins, Catapillar and Detriot Deisel engines and the trucks they were put in were optimised for power not efficiency and definately not low emissions. The evolution of these engines, trucks and the laws that apply has been going on for 2 decades now.

Now, with turbo chargers, much better aerodynamics, and other major engine advances in combination with much stricter laws, semis can now afford to use low sulfer fuel and the emmsions equimpemt that it makes possible because low sulfer fuel = less MPG.

A semi getting 8 mpg and new fuel causing 1 less mpg is a lot more palatable than when they used to get 5-6 mpg.

Eurpoe is different because they do not rely on over the road trucks like we do.

[Edited 2007-05-22 16:55:11]