TObound
Topic Author
Posts: 311
Joined: Mon May 27, 2019 12:54 am

How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:43 pm

See this article in the New York Times yesterday:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/clim ... sions.html

Aviation emissions are growing substantially faster than previously predicted:

...the new research, from the International Council on Clean Transportation, found that emissions from global air travel may be increasing more than 1.5 times as fast as the U.N. estimate.


To the point where:

...one study found that the rapid growth in plane emissions could mean that by 2050, aviation could take up a quarter of the world’s “carbon budget,” or the amount of carbon dioxide emissions permitted to keep global temperature rise to within 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.


As the article points out, aviation is being called to the carpet now, particularly by the recent activism:

The decision by Greta Thunberg, a young climate activist, to sail across the Atlantic rather than travel by air ahead of her speech at the United Nations next week, has refocused attention on aviation’s role in causing climate change and its consequences....


The article also makes the point that the majority of travel in many of the biggest "offenders" is domestic. Not international. So how does the aviation sector deal with this? I am not sure sticking heads in the sand and hoping for the best will work here. If aviation doesn't get ahead of this, governments will soon start imposing solutions. The article points out some pretty draconian proposals:

Some governments have suggested going further. In Germany, the Green Party has suggested banning domestic air travel altogether to force Germans to travel by train, which pollutes less.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3588
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:25 pm

No worries avaition will be out of buisness if some have their way. Twenty five years form now we will look back at this and wonder what all the fuss was about.
 
geologyrocks
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:05 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:21 pm

Fully loaded planes produce substantially better miles per gallon per passenger than cars.

She can sail across the Atlantic all she wants. The rest of us with jobs and things to do will take the 8 hour flight while she can spend the week at sea.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:35 pm

Aviation deals with this the way it deals with making sales: competing directly on the economics. Boeing and Airbus planes keep getting more efficient with every iteration and every new frame. The fuel efficiency drives down costs AND emissions, so it's a self-regulating industry from that standpoint.

Sustainable jet fuel is also 1% more efficient per liter and lighter per liter than refined Jet 1A, so as we bring more fuel-producing algae online, we can convert CO2 back into jet fuel very efficiently.

And, yes, eventually, we'll have carbon-saltwater batteries so energy-dense we'll be able to run hybrid engines over long distances efficiently. Don't know if TPAC will ever be possible, but domestically and TATL? Definitely.
 
KFLLCFII
Posts: 3495
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:08 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:17 am

All it takes is one moderate to large volcanic eruption to emit more pollutants into the atmosphere than aviation has in all of its history.

You can choose to lose sleep over it...I'm going to sleep soundly tonight.
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
 
Ka6
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2018 5:54 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:07 am

As in other industries, energy efficiency gains do not come close to the amount needed to reduce emissions. So how does aviation tackle climate change ? Pretty much by dwindling down, i am afraid.

The transport industry, with aviation on the forefront, has an even more formidable foe to contend with: its visceral dependency on oil. There are no foreseeable viable alternatives, energy-wise, to the good old fossil oil that is being pumped out of the ground with relatively little expenditure. With conventional crude peaking (or plateau-ing or whatever one chooses to call it) for well over 10 years now and with even the IEA screaming about supply crunch, i believe aviation's days are numbered. It is that simple. The coming decade is going to be brutal and quite revealing for other, less exposed industries.

I wonder to what extend we are not already seeing the premises in the state of the industry right now. Big builders are squeamish about committing to clean-sheet designs. When they do launch newish programs, they display an uncanny ability to botch them up. Those might be signs of that: too much uncertainty, too little yield. Part of the explanation might be a matter of technological maturity: the low hanging fruit is gone. As a result, additional gains need considerably more investment. In either case, the picture i see is a bleak one: in purely technical terms, aviation in 10 years will not look much different than it does now. In commercial terms, it will look much less vibrant than it does now. Emissions will reduce accordingly, not by intelligent planning, but by the ironic coincidence of decaying supply of aviation's sole source of energy. At least, that is what i would bet my money on. ;)
 
Hornberger
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:34 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:56 am

The only real solution is to fly less:
    * Use larger, more fuel efficient planes, with higher density seating seats and carrying higher passenger loads.
    * Increase the high reliance on teleconferencing for business meetings.
    * Reduce the use of fly-in fly-out working arrangements. Don't employ some one to regularly fly across the Atlantic, employ two people - one on each side.
    * Use a carbon tax on aviation fuel (which will depress demand) to invest in low carbon electricity generation and storage, to offset carbon emissions from flying.
    * Invest in alternative transportation methods
      -For ultra-short haul (<400km), invest in electric buses and conventional rail.
      -For ultra-short haul (<400km) where ground based transport isn't viable (e.g. islands), invest in small electric aircraft.
      -For short haul (400km - 100km), invest in high speed rail.

 
gloom
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:06 am

geologyrocks wrote:
Fully loaded planes produce substantially better miles per gallon per passenger than cars.


Really?
Let's crunch some numbers.

1. Bus vs bus. Full vs full. Apples to apples, not oranges. Say, Merc 580 vs A350?
a) A350: 300pax, going at 5.4t/hr (lowered a bit for easier number crunching), and 900km/h (.85): average CASK at around 0.02 kg/pax*km (5400kg/300*900)
b) O580: 50pax, going at 30l/100km (most are using just below that, at 26-28, but again easier number crunching): average CASK at around 0.0051 (30*0.85/50*100); I assumed diesel to be 0.85kg/l.

That's four times more for a pas-km.

2. standard car vs A350. Say, one of the top europe's. Golf? 2.0 TFSI?
b) 4 pax (it can take 5, but certainly at long range that's pain in the ***, assume 4 is enough); it's averaging 7.9l, assume 8 (usually those numbers are below, but I assume this is offseted since on long routes you go for highways rather, where the fuel consumption is much lower than in the cities); average CASK at around 0.017 kg/pax*km (8*0.85/4*100)

For this case, it's more or less equal, with a little advantage going to car. One can argue you can always drive car with one man, but the only way to compare apples to apples is CASK, not the actual occupancy. And, for a long range drive, in cars/buses you usually get full cars as well, going out with family/friends for holidays.

Any input/arguments welcome.

Cheers,
Adam
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2893
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sat Sep 21, 2019 11:54 am

geologyrocks wrote:
Fully loaded planes produce substantially better miles per gallon per passenger than cars.
no, they don’t, my wife’s car does 200 passenger miles per gallon and mine does 350. There are no planes that will do that in commercial service.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:14 pm

gloom wrote:
geologyrocks wrote:
Fully loaded planes produce substantially better miles per gallon per passenger than cars.


Really?
Let's crunch some numbers.

1. Bus vs bus. Full vs full. Apples to apples, not oranges. Say, Merc 580 vs A350?
a) A350: 300pax, going at 5.4t/hr (lowered a bit for easier number crunching), and 900km/h (.85): average CASK at around 0.02 kg/pax*km (5400kg/300*900)
b) O580: 50pax, going at 30l/100km (most are using just below that, at 26-28, but again easier number crunching): average CASK at around 0.0051 (30*0.85/50*100); I assumed diesel to be 0.85kg/l.

That's four times more for a pas-km.

2. standard car vs A350. Say, one of the top europe's. Golf? 2.0 TFSI?
b) 4 pax (it can take 5, but certainly at long range that's pain in the ***, assume 4 is enough); it's averaging 7.9l, assume 8 (usually those numbers are below, but I assume this is offseted since on long routes you go for highways rather, where the fuel consumption is much lower than in the cities); average CASK at around 0.017 kg/pax*km (8*0.85/4*100)

For this case, it's more or less equal, with a little advantage going to car. One can argue you can always drive car with one man, but the only way to compare apples to apples is CASK, not the actual occupancy. And, for a long range drive, in cars/buses you usually get full cars as well, going out with family/friends for holidays.

Any input/arguments welcome.

Cheers,
Adam

Isn't it funny that airplane engines, once they finally reach technical maturity, will really only be AS efficient as car engines at the end of the day?

Mind you, if the EPA and others would just get rid of the DEF requirement/standard and bring in the opposed piston engine, we'd be able to practically double our MPG today. Bastards...
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3682
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:09 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
gloom wrote:
geologyrocks wrote:
Fully loaded planes produce substantially better miles per gallon per passenger than cars.


Really?
Let's crunch some numbers.

1. Bus vs bus. Full vs full. Apples to apples, not oranges. Say, Merc 580 vs A350?
a) A350: 300pax, going at 5.4t/hr (lowered a bit for easier number crunching), and 900km/h (.85): average CASK at around 0.02 kg/pax*km (5400kg/300*900)
b) O580: 50pax, going at 30l/100km (most are using just below that, at 26-28, but again easier number crunching): average CASK at around 0.0051 (30*0.85/50*100); I assumed diesel to be 0.85kg/l.

That's four times more for a pas-km.

2. standard car vs A350. Say, one of the top europe's. Golf? 2.0 TFSI?
b) 4 pax (it can take 5, but certainly at long range that's pain in the ***, assume 4 is enough); it's averaging 7.9l, assume 8 (usually those numbers are below, but I assume this is offseted since on long routes you go for highways rather, where the fuel consumption is much lower than in the cities); average CASK at around 0.017 kg/pax*km (8*0.85/4*100)

For this case, it's more or less equal, with a little advantage going to car. One can argue you can always drive car with one man, but the only way to compare apples to apples is CASK, not the actual occupancy. And, for a long range drive, in cars/buses you usually get full cars as well, going out with family/friends for holidays.

Any input/arguments welcome.

Cheers,
Adam

Isn't it funny that airplane engines, once they finally reach technical maturity, will really only be AS efficient as car engines at the end of the day?

Mind you, if the EPA and others would just get rid of the DEF requirement/standard and bring in the opposed piston engine, we'd be able to practically double our MPG today. Bastards...


True, only if you disregard time, distance and oceans as a barrier to travel.


GF
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3682
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:11 pm

Ka6 wrote:
As in other industries, energy efficiency gains do not come close to the amount needed to reduce emissions. So how does aviation tackle climate change ? Pretty much by dwindling down, i am afraid.

The transport industry, with aviation on the forefront, has an even more formidable foe to contend with: its visceral dependency on oil. There are no foreseeable viable alternatives, energy-wise, to the good old fossil oil that is being pumped out of the ground with relatively little expenditure. With conventional crude peaking (or plateau-ing or whatever one chooses to call it) for well over 10 years now and with even the IEA screaming about supply crunch, i believe aviation's days are numbered. It is that simple. The coming decade is going to be brutal and quite revealing for other, less exposed industries.

I wonder to what extend we are not already seeing the premises in the state of the industry right now. Big builders are squeamish about committing to clean-sheet designs. When they do launch newish programs, they display an uncanny ability to botch them up. Those might be signs of that: too much uncertainty, too little yield. Part of the explanation might be a matter of technological maturity: the low hanging fruit is gone. As a result, additional gains need considerably more investment. In either case, the picture i see is a bleak one: in purely technical terms, aviation in 10 years will not look much different than it does now. In commercial terms, it will look much less vibrant than it does now. Emissions will reduce accordingly, not by intelligent planning, but by the ironic coincidence of decaying supply of aviation's sole source of energy. At least, that is what i would bet my money on. ;)


Utter bollocks, we’re no where near “peak” oil as fracking shows us daily. Fracking turned the US from importer to exporter of fossil fuels in a decade.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:28 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Isn't it funny that airplane engines, once they finally reach technical maturity, will really only be AS efficient as car engines at the end of the day?

Mind you, if the EPA and others would just get rid of the DEF requirement/standard and bring in the opposed piston engine, we'd be able to practically double our MPG today. Bastards...


True, only if you disregard time, distance and oceans as a barrier to travel.

GF


Time-efficient, sure, planes win out, but in terms of fuel economy, ships are still much better.

As time goes on and we get CFRP and Graphene construction dialed in, combine geared fan tech with CMCs in our turbofans, bring carbon-saltwater battery tech online (or maybe graphene supercapacitors), and eventually deploy hybrid or all-electric engines, the carbon footprint will plateau.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:31 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Utter bollocks, we’re no where near “peak” oil as fracking shows us daily. Fracking turned the US from importer to exporter of fossil fuels in a decade.


Fat lot of good that's done for jet fuel prices unfortunately.
 
User avatar
WildcatYXU
Posts: 3101
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 2:05 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:37 pm

flipdewaf wrote:
geologyrocks wrote:
Fully loaded planes produce substantially better miles per gallon per passenger than cars.
no, they don’t, my wife’s car does 200 passenger miles per gallon and mine does 350. There are no planes that will do that in commercial service.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There are no real world cars that would do that either.
310, 319, 320, 321, 321N, 332, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, AT4, AT7, BEH, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3, DH4, E45, E75, E90, E95, F28, F50, F100, MD82, Saab 340, YAK40
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 2893
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:41 pm

WildcatYXU wrote:
flipdewaf wrote:
geologyrocks wrote:
Fully loaded planes produce substantially better miles per gallon per passenger than cars.
no, they don’t, my wife’s car does 200 passenger miles per gallon and mine does 350. There are no planes that will do that in commercial service.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


There are no real world cars that would do that either.

My car has 5 seats and does about 71-72mpg on average. My wife’s mini has 3 seats and does about 55mpg.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Image
 
gloom
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:04 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Isn't it funny that airplane engines, once they finally reach technical maturity, will really only be AS efficient as car engines at the end of the day?


Actually the funny part is engines are more-or-less similar in terms of efficiency, compared to diesels on cars, ships, or whatever.

It's the speed of aircraft (and drag resulting), that makes overall result worse. Even if the aircraft engine is/will be better, they will still suffer from the speed they're flying at.

OK, time to close this little offtop :)

Cheers, Adam
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:50 pm

gloom wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Isn't it funny that airplane engines, once they finally reach technical maturity, will really only be AS efficient as car engines at the end of the day?


Actually the funny part is engines are more-or-less similar in terms of efficiency, compared to diesels on cars, ships, or whatever.

It's the speed of aircraft (and drag resulting), that makes overall result worse. Even if the aircraft engine is/will be better, they will still suffer from the speed they're flying at.

OK, time to close this little offtop :)

Cheers, Adam


I wouldn't say it's off-topic. Boeing's truss-braced wing optimized for Mach 0.75 is proof enough you're right, and now Airbus is doing their flapping wingtips too.

I personally think we've only got another 25-30% more improvement to pull out of smaller conventional turbofan engines like the LEAP and PW1000G series. Making them much bigger increases the weight so much it probably stops being worth it for a 737-sized plane. Between CMCs, composite fan cases and engine covers, variable pitch fan blades to get rid of thrust reversers, and using geared fans to reduce the need for stator vanes, we can combat the weight gain, but that can only go so far once the pylons and wings have to take on a bigger bending moment from drag on any future huge engines. Maybe GE can work some materials magic to be able to shrink the core and spin it faster/hotter for higher bypass ratios instead of increasing the fan diameter?

Boeing also brought up gas turbine tech in their TBW concept plane. I wonder how THAT'll work out...
 
Longhornmaniac
Posts: 3123
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:33 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:32 pm

KFLLCFII wrote:
All it takes is one moderate to large volcanic eruption to emit more pollutants into the atmosphere than aviation has in all of its history.

You can choose to lose sleep over it...I'm going to sleep soundly tonight.


Pop quiz:

Do volcanoes have a net warming or cooling effect?
Cheers,
Cameron
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 1478
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:34 pm

Back when we actually used horsepower and sailing ships life was actually quite tough. Everyone worked 12-14 hours a day in the field or shop, it cost a fortune and took months to get something from Europe to Virginia as the order itself took weeks to be mailed to Paris. I would rather take today's conditions.

Society tends to improve, pollutants outside of carbon (which I do not consider a pollutant) are steadily declining, my eyes no longer burn like they did growing up near
Denver in the 60s. Cars are far more efficient, going from under 10 MPG to over 25 MPG in 50 years. Houses are far more efficient. It is not something needing hysteria, just steady progress. Besides we could figure out a viable plant that sucks carbon rapidly and reforest a lot of areas with them.
 
Ka6
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2018 5:54 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:29 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Ka6 wrote:
[...] With conventional crude peaking (or plateau-ing or whatever one chooses to call it) for well over 10 years now and with even the IEA screaming about supply crunch, i believe aviation's days are numbered.[...]


Utter bollocks, we’re no where near “peak” oil as fracking shows us daily. Fracking turned the US from importer to exporter of fossil fuels in a decade.


Peak oil in absolute terms is much too complex to quantify and predict. Serious predictions with regard to peak oil production have been made relative to country, type of extraction, etc. Most of those predictions have panned out quite well.

Which is why i specifically focused on conventional crude. Conventional crude has been peaking for a long while. Fracking is not considered conventional. Neither is extraction from bituminous sands, etc. The reason is quite simple: conventional oil extraction involves drilling a hole above some reservoir, capturing what is spewed out and refining it into its components. While not an easy feat, it is an order of magnitude less expensive then collecting the precious hydrocarbons from diffuse pockets or from a poorly porous medium. Crucially, it takes an order of magnitude more energy to extract oil by fracking, bitumen, crops, coal liquefaction... you name it.

So indeed, there is plenty of the stuff left in the earth's mantle. Enough to fry the global climate many times over no doubt. The issue is with the energetic cost of its extraction. When that raises faster then the aggregate increase of primary energy, choices are being made (market driven or otherwise). What sector is going to be deprived of energy in favour of oil extraction ? Interestingly, post-arbitration, price is not even a factor in all of this. We might well en up with cheap oil, but just not enough of it to supply all the needs.

Where does that leave aviation ? Nowhere enviable.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 19390
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:25 am

flipdewaf wrote:
geologyrocks wrote:
Fully loaded planes produce substantially better miles per gallon per passenger than cars.
no, they don’t, my wife’s car does 200 passenger miles per gallon and mine does 350. There are no planes that will do that in commercial service.

Fred



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Airliners have the advantages of flying mostly in straight lines, not having to stop at stoplights, slow for traffic (barring approach holds), etc...

200 miles in a car might only be 120 as the crow flies.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 2:22 am

Longhornmaniac wrote:
KFLLCFII wrote:
All it takes is one moderate to large volcanic eruption to emit more pollutants into the atmosphere than aviation has in all of its history.

You can choose to lose sleep over it...I'm going to sleep soundly tonight.


Pop quiz:

Do volcanoes have a net warming or cooling effect?


Trick question. Depending on the volcano type and whether or not you have high-volume ash eruptions or mostly lava, it can go either way.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 2:29 am

JayinKitsap wrote:
Back when we actually used horsepower and sailing ships life was actually quite tough. Everyone worked 12-14 hours a day in the field or shop, it cost a fortune and took months to get something from Europe to Virginia as the order itself took weeks to be mailed to Paris. I would rather take today's conditions.

Society tends to improve, pollutants outside of carbon (which I do not consider a pollutant) are steadily declining, my eyes no longer burn like they did growing up near
Denver in the 60s. Cars are far more efficient, going from under 10 MPG to over 25 MPG in 50 years. Houses are far more efficient. It is not something needing hysteria, just steady progress. Besides we could figure out a viable plant that sucks carbon rapidly and reforest a lot of areas with them.


The increased CO2 in the atmosphere is actually helping re-green the northern hemisphere pretty quickly. Trees are growing faster than they're being cut down. That said, there's SO much room to make cars more efficient it's not funny. Once the EPA gets out of the way and we throw out the Diesel Exhaust Fluid standard, we can bring in opposed piston engines, an idea several decades old and for which Mercedes and Achades have had working models for nearly 8 years. The only reason the engines aren't on the road yet is the basket case environmentalists are too busy attacking the auto industry for not being able to improve efficiency on this ancient standard.

Too many talking heads, no listening ears...

And for economy cars that never need to go faster than 85 mph, we can take a lot of weight out of the engines by remaking them with CMC construction rather than Aluminum or Steel blocks. The car frames and panels can be redone in CFRP and other applicable materials too. All of this combined SHOULD get the 40mpg Hyundai Elantra up to 80mpg at least without using a hybrid engine.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 4898
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:50 pm

There were a lot of talks surrounding crop-derived and algae-derived carbon-neutral aviation fuels a few years back, not really sure where all that ended up.

It will be hard to replace jet fuel in the medium term as there is little out there with the adequate energy density and relative ease of use. Over the longer term, I expect electricity storage will eventually reach adequate levels. The adoption of electric vehicle will reach a critical mass where most of the research that is currently being allocated to bettering combustion engines will shift towards electric energy storage.

In the short term, the only way is to offset the carbon output through carbon trading schemes and carbon taxing.

patrickjp93 wrote:
The increased CO2 in the atmosphere is actually helping re-green the northern hemisphere pretty quickly. Trees are growing faster than they're being cut down.


Maybe, but nowhere near enough to compensate for the systematic and large scale deforestation of the Amazon and other large tropical forests on South East Asia which are all massively going up in flames as we speak.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3136
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 2:22 pm

Regarding jet turbines powering airplanes: The contribution they make to the worlds's economy justifies the 5% of petroleum they use. But aviation still needs to do its part to keep their usage as low as possible. There are a variety of tools to make this happen.

Better surface transportation to airports
Less fuel for taxiing
More direct routes and avoid arriving early
There are interesting developments going on with bio-fuels, one or more of them will be winners
I am pessimistic about rail (despite being a fan), between autonomous electric cars and buses its niche will get smaller
but optimistic about hybrid air, starting with hops growing up to 500 nm
Another free market/capitalistic tool is offsets. It may be the cheapest most efficient way for jets and petroleum
(petroleum and coal are marvelous, but also at a cost, they will continue to have certain niches)
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 2:28 pm

Francoflier wrote:
There were a lot of talks surrounding crop-derived and algae-derived carbon-neutral aviation fuels a few years back, not really sure where all that ended up.


Qantas and Air New Zealand are both actively working with teams in AU/NZ to set up farms for sustainable aviation fuel. It's 1% more efficient per liter and significantly lighter per liter, to the point IIRC a fully fueled 787-9 weighs almost 1.8 tonnes less with it rather than with Jet 1A. So put that together with the eventual big CMC GEnx PIP, and you'd probably be able to fly Brisbane to JFK with a 787 and 230 souls onboard.

It will be hard to replace jet fuel in the medium term as there is little out there with the adequate energy density and relative ease of use. Over the longer term, I expect electricity storage will eventually reach adequate levels. The adoption of electric vehicle will reach a critical mass where most of the research that is currently being allocated to bettering combustion engines will shift towards electric energy storage.


Well, Boeing has apparently been doing research into LNG-powered aircraft. Their Truss-Braced Wing papers mention a gas-powered turbine, so...

We still probably have 25-30% more to go on making turbofans more efficient. GE's got the materials and core design lead, and Pratt and Rolls Royce have the lead on GTF tech. RR especially long-term thinks they can do away with thrust reversers, which saves a decent amount of weight and bulk. That'll take at least 30 years before we're scraping the bottom of the barrel on engine improvements. Maybe by then we'll have super capacitor and carbon-saltwater batteries with the capacity and rapid charge needed for something 737-sized.

In the short term, the only way is to offset the carbon output through carbon trading schemes and carbon taxing.

That doesn't offset it, just funnels money to governments. If you want to offset it, go plant trees, peat moss, and algae.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 4898
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 2:53 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Qantas and Air New Zealand are both actively working with teams in AU/NZ to set up farms for sustainable aviation fuel. It's 1% more efficient per liter and significantly lighter per liter, to the point IIRC a fully fueled 787-9 weighs almost 1.8 tonnes less with it rather than with Jet 1A. So put that together with the eventual big CMC GEnx PIP, and you'd probably be able to fly Brisbane to JFK with a 787 and 230 souls onboard.


Good to know. Thanks.

patrickjp93 wrote:
That doesn't offset it, just funnels money to governments. If you want to offset it, go plant trees, peat moss, and algae.


Unless you suggest that we should all individually go plant trees, there needs to be some sort of government initiative and enforcement to make the whole carbon offset scheme actually work. Since greed always seems to trump environmental concerns, there needs to be some sort of motivation for the money to flow towards carbon capture programs, and I can't see who or what other than governments and laws can achieve that.

Ideally, the governments would pass the offset schemes into law and only enforce them without the money going through them. Private entities would trade carbon between themselves just like any other business, under the watchful eyes of regulators. If a carbon tax was to be levied, then governments would have to somehow guarantee that the money will go towards carbon offset schemes and not be diverted to fund mismanaged pension funds or other unrelated budget shortfalls. I generally agree with you that the temptation is always too great for politicians, and as such, option 1 would work best.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3136
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:16 pm

Only a little off topic: For a variety of reasons buses have not been able to take advantage of freeways which provide grade separated no cross street traffic and within 25 (even 5 miles) miles of a huge percent of the population. The Everett/Seattle to Portland/Eugene buses either drive/detour to several major and minor towns on the way adding upwards of an hour per stop, or they don't have enough passengers to make it a nonstop. Mostly such buses don't even exist. Astounding. The freeway system should have surface streets/freeway interchanges for passengers to board buses and vans. Uber/Lyft sorts of software should connect the best times for passengers to travel those 150 mile trips with the efficient use of vans and buses. Uber would even take me to the surface side of the passenger interchange.

To make this a little clearer. A passenger might tell the Uber/Lyft system they need to be in downtown Salem Oregon by noon next Thursday, and they are starting in North Seattle. The system would tell them they needed to be at the North Gate Interchange (about 100th St N) at 8:30 am. Also It could pick them up at their house at 7:50 am and provide a guaranteed connection. Or they may say the passenger would have to leave their house at 6 am. In any event a definite offer, and a seamless connection
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:11 pm

Francoflier wrote:
There were a lot of talks surrounding crop-derived and algae-derived carbon-neutral aviation fuels a few years back, not really sure where all that ended up.
Algae are surprisingly difficult to cultivate. They also need a lot of investment, compared to traditional fuel-crops like corn and soy. Those fuel-crops, of course, compete with food production and are often grown on what used to be rainforest.

A fundamental problem of aviation is the slow cycles. We can easily generate all electricity from renewable sources by 2030, but you won't be able to develop an all-electric A320 within 10 years. It's not just a matter of effort, but also of technological readiness.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:22 pm

mxaxai wrote:
A fundamental problem of aviation is the slow cycles. We can easily generate all electricity from renewable sources by 2030,


Unless you're counting nuclear in there, no, just no, not even half of what we need right now, let alone the 25% growth from that by 2030.

Algae actually is not that difficult to cultivate anymore. A few firms in California solved that nearly a decade ago.
 
lazyme
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:57 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:44 pm

Air transport accounts for 2% of global man-made CO2 emissions. In 2017, civil aviation, as a whole, emitted around 859 million tonnes of CO2, which is roughly 2% of man-made carbon emissions.
https://www.iata.org/pressroom/facts_figures/fact_sheets/Documents/fact-sheet-climate-change.pdf

You can probably lessen that by a fraction with new tech, replacing those 3k+ coal power plants with nuclear or renewable sources and you lessen the CO2 with a much higher percentage, and get clean air in the cities, and other impacted areas.

In Nordic region, boat transport account for more than the 2% civil air transport does.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2212
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 7:20 pm

The only sensible way to approach aviation's CO2 footprint is with a CO2 tax on fossil fuels, that ideally gets redirected into alternate energy research. This will drive up fuel prices, make sustainable fuels more competitive, and let the market figure out how best to deal with the new situation.

Regarding the 2% of global emissions numbers, they are closer to 8-10% in industrialized economies. As other countries catch up, the 2% global number will become larger as more can afford to fly.
 
lazyme
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:57 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:35 pm

Do you have any source for what countries have 8-10%.?

The problem with a CO2 tax on aviation fuel vs vehicle fuels is that it need to be spanned over a whole region (like USA or Europe, Asia) or else it will only create loopholes, and suboptimization.

An example : My country set the same tax on aviation fuel as gasoline or diesel (one political party actually want just that in my country), the result will be that my travel to SEA will be 3-12 times more expensive depending on class flown IF I FLY DIRECT from my country,

If I still chose to travel to that SEA destination I will fly to a hub close nearby (to another country that does not have this tax) , and happily continue to my SEA destination.


Violá -you have not just stopped all longer range destinations than the nearby country.
Did I save any CO2 ?

They neighbour hub happily accept the extra passengers- your country lose most aviation jobs, and you emit more CO2 that you would have flying with that extra stop.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:10 pm

LH707330 wrote:
The only sensible way to approach aviation's CO2 footprint is with a CO2 tax on fossil fuels, that ideally gets redirected into alternate energy research. This will drive up fuel prices, make sustainable fuels more competitive, and let the market figure out how best to deal with the new situation.

Regarding the 2% of global emissions numbers, they are closer to 8-10% in industrialized economies. As other countries catch up, the 2% global number will become larger as more can afford to fly.


Won't work. You'd have to get such a policy adopted at the E.U., Chinese federal, U.S. federal, Canadian federal, and ME3 level for that to be effective. Otherwise, people will just travel to the nearest place without the tax and continue their journey from there.

The only way you're getting sustainable fuels into the air en masse is to ramp up production all over the world so it becomes cost-effective vs. refining. Truth be told airlines are doing the ground work on that now anyway, but it's not the kind of research and development work that wants to be scaled up. The eventual deployment and buildout, sure, but there's really no speeding up the research.

But the fact is aviation is naturally self-regulating on its CO2 emissions, as the incentives to reducing them are directly tied to fuel economy, which is the main driver of ticket prices. If you want REAL progress, get the EPA out of the way when it comes to automotive standards. Get rid of the DEF standards and requirements, and bring on opposed-piston engine tech. It's been production-ready since the 90s for crying out loud. That and manufacturing engine blocks out of CMCs rather than aluminum will double your mileage on pure ICE cars. Bringing on carbon-saltwater batteries for hybrids will probably double it again, and with battery manufacturing that finally doesn't actually emit more than it saves.

And if you actually want to make a difference, go plant 10 trees a year. The northern hemisphere is greening at an accelerating rate thanks to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, so just toss more trees at the problem and help China and India who are responsible for over 50% of the global CO2 emissions on their own.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2212
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:15 pm

Turns out the 8-10% is for transportation emissions, overall in the EU it's 3%: https://www.emissions-euets.com/carbon- ... the-eu-ets

patrickjp93 wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
The only sensible way to approach aviation's CO2 footprint is with a CO2 tax on fossil fuels, that ideally gets redirected into alternate energy research. This will drive up fuel prices, make sustainable fuels more competitive, and let the market figure out how best to deal with the new situation.

Regarding the 2% of global emissions numbers, they are closer to 8-10% in industrialized economies. As other countries catch up, the 2% global number will become larger as more can afford to fly.


Won't work. You'd have to get such a policy adopted at the E.U., Chinese federal, U.S. federal, Canadian federal, and ME3 level for that to be effective. Otherwise, people will just travel to the nearest place without the tax and continue their journey from there.

The only way you're getting sustainable fuels into the air en masse is to ramp up production all over the world so it becomes cost-effective vs. refining. Truth be told airlines are doing the ground work on that now anyway, but it's not the kind of research and development work that wants to be scaled up. The eventual deployment and buildout, sure, but there's really no speeding up the research.

But the fact is aviation is naturally self-regulating on its CO2 emissions, as the incentives to reducing them are directly tied to fuel economy, which is the main driver of ticket prices. If you want REAL progress, get the EPA out of the way when it comes to automotive standards. Get rid of the DEF standards and requirements, and bring on opposed-piston engine tech. It's been production-ready since the 90s for crying out loud. That and manufacturing engine blocks out of CMCs rather than aluminum will double your mileage on pure ICE cars. Bringing on carbon-saltwater batteries for hybrids will probably double it again, and with battery manufacturing that finally doesn't actually emit more than it saves.

And if you actually want to make a difference, go plant 10 trees a year. The northern hemisphere is greening at an accelerating rate thanks to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, so just toss more trees at the problem and help China and India who are responsible for over 50% of the global CO2 emissions on their own.

I never said it would be easy, that doesn't mean it's not necessary.

Regarding the idea of the one-skip CO2 tax dodging, let's run some numbers. If a large entity like the US or EU implemented a price of $100/ton, a 10-hour flight on an A330 becomes $90/pax/direction more expensive*, so my R/T ticket from the US to Europe just went from $1300 to $1480. You may get a few people in near-border towns adding hops, but by and large most people in a large geographical area will eat it.

As far as getting sustainable fuels off the ground, they're currently competing with a mature fossil industry, so scaling the production at a comparable price is the main problem. Fix that with a CO2 tax and the situation will change rapidly.

As far as the opposing piston idea, I'm not super familiar with it. I generally think regulators should stay out of the business of picking the winners, instead specifying safety specs and managing market signals like sin taxes, then let the market figure out how to build the best mousetrap.

* $100/t CO2 * 6 t/h fuel burn * 3t CO2/t in fuel * 10 hours = $18000 total CO2, divide by 200 pax = $90/pax
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Tue Sep 24, 2019 3:20 am

LH707330 wrote:
Turns out the 8-10% is for transportation emissions, overall in the EU it's 3%: https://www.emissions-euets.com/carbon- ... the-eu-ets

I never said it would be easy, that doesn't mean it's not necessary.

Regarding the idea of the one-skip CO2 tax dodging, let's run some numbers. If a large entity like the US or EU implemented a price of $100/ton, a 10-hour flight on an A330 becomes $90/pax/direction more expensive*, so my R/T ticket from the US to Europe just went from $1300 to $1480. You may get a few people in near-border towns adding hops, but by and large most people in a large geographical area will eat it.

As far as getting sustainable fuels off the ground, they're currently competing with a mature fossil industry, so scaling the production at a comparable price is the main problem. Fix that with a CO2 tax and the situation will change rapidly.

As far as the opposing piston idea, I'm not super familiar with it. I generally think regulators should stay out of the business of picking the winners, instead specifying safety specs and managing market signals like sin taxes, then let the market figure out how to build the best mousetrap.

* $100/t CO2 * 6 t/h fuel burn * 3t CO2/t in fuel * 10 hours = $18000 total CO2, divide by 200 pax = $90/pax


It ISN'T necessary. Aviation is self-regulating on getting more efficient and producing fewer emissions, as that's literally the fuel economy driving the competitiveness of aircraft and engines. The auto industry and agricultural machinery need far more attention. And beyond all of this, taking out transportation altogether leaves you with the other 90% of emissions, a much larger chunk of which being the agriculture and cattle industries. Lab-grown meat can eventually make keeping beef cattle a niche pastime of a few passionate families, but you'd have to regulate the big industrial operations into sinking a lot of R&D into that.

Otherwise, seriously, just go plant more trees. The Amazon may be on fire, but the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is letting plants grow much faster and bigger and is greening the northern hemisphere, so use that to our advantage. Aviation is honestly among the lowest of priorities to slap a carbon tax on for the purposes of combatting human effects on the climate. Heck, right after dealing with automotive and agriculture, shift your focus to fixing building codes around the world. If everyone had their homes insulated as well as the Swiss, Australia wouldn't have an energy crisis, and they'd be able to take several coal-fired plants offline. It's not just about the cold weather, people. Insulation works in both directions...
 
Lamp1009
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2019 7:36 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:15 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Only a little off topic: For a variety of reasons buses have not been able to take advantage of freeways which provide grade separated no cross street traffic and within 25 (even 5 miles) miles of a huge percent of the population. The Everett/Seattle to Portland/Eugene buses either drive/detour to several major and minor towns on the way adding upwards of an hour per stop, or they don't have enough passengers to make it a nonstop. Mostly such buses don't even exist. Astounding. The freeway system should have surface streets/freeway interchanges for passengers to board buses and vans. Uber/Lyft sorts of software should connect the best times for passengers to travel those 150 mile trips with the efficient use of vans and buses. Uber would even take me to the surface side of the passenger interchange.

To make this a little clearer. A passenger might tell the Uber/Lyft system they need to be in downtown Salem Oregon by noon next Thursday, and they are starting in North Seattle. The system would tell them they needed to be at the North Gate Interchange (about 100th St N) at 8:30 am. Also It could pick them up at their house at 7:50 am and provide a guaranteed connection. Or they may say the passenger would have to leave their house at 6 am. In any event a definite offer, and a seamless connection

The simple reason: people don't like buses. Look no further than Japan, the Expressway system has the equivalent of intercity bus rapid transit run by JR along all major freeways in the country, and yet people still choose the more expensive train (shinkansen or Limited Express). Why?

It's certainly faster, it's far more convenient, it's cheaper to operate (4-5 operators (1 driver, 2 conductors, 1-2 guards) for a 16 car train that carries 1300 seated passengers and can carry another 300+ more standees, it runs on electricity (which is always going to be cheaper), there are no tolls that JR is accountable for (Tolls are a huge expense in Japan), property income, etc), it's far more comfortable (there is no comparison here), among so many other things. However, this is Japan we're talking about, and despite Hokkaido, for the most part, not really adhering to these standards, the benefits of rail will almost always beat the plane, bus, or car for most intercity trips in the country.

The US only has about 4-6 corridors that are actually suitable for high-speed rail in the long term (San Diego to Vancouver, NEC (Portland to Norfolk), Toronto-Chicago (Maybe only Detroit-Chicago), Texas (Dallas to Houston), and Florida (Jacksonville-Miami (+ Tampa)). In the grand scheme of things, this doesn't account for the vast majority of trips throughout the country, but it certainly helps reduce the need for a lot of trips. Ultimately, people are moving back into cities so this may help things out longterm. Interstate bus service could become a reality in some areas that have high enough ridership to justify it (but low enough trip times that people aren't discouraged from using it), but I can't see it becoming the new reality, especially since Greyhound, Megabus, and all the other bus companies continue to cut bus services everywhere.

The freeways are also not in the most convenient of places for people. I live in Southern Ontario, and our intercity bus network is actually alright. We have short distance (30-200km) services run by a government body which serve most of the GTHA (but not Hamilton-Kitchener for some ungodly reason). Buses have their own lanes on a lot of freeways, and the toll road is a dedicated corridor for buses. However, stops are a pain in the ass and add so much time to the trip, plus, they require a lot of infrastructure to even be slightly convenient (bus storage, terminals, specialized on-ramps, parking, etc). Adding this infrastructure to the freeways won't be cheap in any way, and the fact that most living centres are away from freeways would be a disadvantage to potential users. Michigan might be a state where it could work (they have business loops in most cities along I69, I94, I96, I75, making reentry to the freeway slightly convenient), but they have a fairly robust Amtrak network that pretty much parallels all the freeways, plus it's faster so I don't see buses being big there any time soon.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2212
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 2:54 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
LH707330 wrote:
Turns out the 8-10% is for transportation emissions, overall in the EU it's 3%: https://www.emissions-euets.com/carbon- ... the-eu-ets

I never said it would be easy, that doesn't mean it's not necessary.

Regarding the idea of the one-skip CO2 tax dodging, let's run some numbers. If a large entity like the US or EU implemented a price of $100/ton, a 10-hour flight on an A330 becomes $90/pax/direction more expensive*, so my R/T ticket from the US to Europe just went from $1300 to $1480. You may get a few people in near-border towns adding hops, but by and large most people in a large geographical area will eat it.

As far as getting sustainable fuels off the ground, they're currently competing with a mature fossil industry, so scaling the production at a comparable price is the main problem. Fix that with a CO2 tax and the situation will change rapidly.

As far as the opposing piston idea, I'm not super familiar with it. I generally think regulators should stay out of the business of picking the winners, instead specifying safety specs and managing market signals like sin taxes, then let the market figure out how to build the best mousetrap.

* $100/t CO2 * 6 t/h fuel burn * 3t CO2/t in fuel * 10 hours = $18000 total CO2, divide by 200 pax = $90/pax


It ISN'T necessary. Aviation is self-regulating on getting more efficient and producing fewer emissions, as that's literally the fuel economy driving the competitiveness of aircraft and engines. The auto industry and agricultural machinery need far more attention. And beyond all of this, taking out transportation altogether leaves you with the other 90% of emissions, a much larger chunk of which being the agriculture and cattle industries. Lab-grown meat can eventually make keeping beef cattle a niche pastime of a few passionate families, but you'd have to regulate the big industrial operations into sinking a lot of R&D into that.

Otherwise, seriously, just go plant more trees. The Amazon may be on fire, but the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is letting plants grow much faster and bigger and is greening the northern hemisphere, so use that to our advantage. Aviation is honestly among the lowest of priorities to slap a carbon tax on for the purposes of combatting human effects on the climate. Heck, right after dealing with automotive and agriculture, shift your focus to fixing building codes around the world. If everyone had their homes insulated as well as the Swiss, Australia wouldn't have an energy crisis, and they'd be able to take several coal-fired plants offline. It's not just about the cold weather, people. Insulation works in both directions...


Many of the points you make about building codes, meat consumption, etc. are spot on, I agree that those are lower-hanging fruit. Governments should hop to in making those into law, instead of the day-to-day nonsense they're engaged in now. Getting back to this thread's topic, namely how aviation can rein in it's footprint, it is to a degree self-regulating, there are major incentives to be more efficient. My point though is that 10% here and there won't fix the fact that aviation keeps growing at a pace faster than efficiency gains, so the overall CO2 footprint keeps growing. The only way to fix that is to make the relative cost of fossil versus sustainable fuel higher. That will drive focus on further investments, as well as fix the source of the fuel. If fuel becomes more expensive, airlines will prioritize ways of using less of it, by adopting many of the measures mentioned upthread.

No CO2 tax -> incremental efficiency increases outpaced by demand growth -> more CO2
CO2 tax -> more aggressive efficiency improvements, sustainable fuel scales -> less CO2
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:26 pm

LH707330 wrote:
My point though is that 10% here and there won't fix the fact that aviation keeps growing at a pace faster than efficiency gains, so the overall CO2 footprint keeps growing. The only way to fix that is to make the relative cost of fossil versus sustainable fuel higher. That will drive focus on further investments, as well as fix the source of the fuel. If fuel becomes more expensive, airlines will prioritize ways of using less of it, by adopting many of the measures mentioned upthread.

No CO2 tax -> incremental efficiency increases outpaced by demand growth -> more CO2
CO2 tax -> more aggressive efficiency improvements, sustainable fuel scales -> less CO2

Aviation will not be growing at this steady pace forever. After India's aviation market develops, there's only tidbits here and there. We'll have critical mass.

You won't get any more-aggressive efficiency improvements that way. That's already the thing every resource in the industry is focused on. We already have R&D into sustainable fuel in full swing, and the price of jet fuel is climbing with no end in sight, so others are naturally incentivized to help in whatever way they can.

The only thing a sweeping carbon tax will do is put LCCs out of business ($90 tax almost doubles the cost of a Norwegian ticket across the Atlantic) and reduce travel that people mostly do out of necessity or very rarely to begin with. If you want to clamp down on unnecessary travel or only hit the ones who can afford it, tax corporate travel, and especially tax premium seats. Economy fliers are already treated like cattle. No point in making it worse for them.

It's pointless. Focus on giving people tax deductions or refunds for planting 10 trees a year or helping tend and nurture forests through an NGO "charity"-like operation. The battery, capacitor, and fuel cell people are already doing their best to pack more energy safely into smaller, lighter storage units. Engine OEMs are already working on squeezing every drop of performance out of their existing designs WHILE going through proofs of concept and demonstrator programs for new technologies at their maximum pace (if they don't, they go under with no one to sell to). They're also figuring out all-electric architectures (I have not heard of any hybrid engine efforts, but I'm sure someone will post one). Airbus and Boeing are fighting tooth and nail to have the best airframes in the sky, constantly looking into new materials and shapes, exotic tech like Airbus' BLADE and fluttering wingtips or Boeing's folding wingtips, and how to solve the energy storage problem of all-electric flight at-scale SAFELY.

Taxes can be good for manipulating other industries into better behavior, but it's a terrible fit for aviation by all of the above unless you can prove to me they're not already working as hard as they can to reduce emissions (shy of shutting down aviation altogether).
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3136
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 1:31 pm

One of the green energy sites had an article which mentioned it only takes giving up a pound or two of meat to compensate for flying across the Atlantic. Some fairly reasonable carbon taxes would enable flying with petroleum to fund compensating reductions in CO2 in other sectors of the economy maybe cheaper than directly reducing it. If the same dollar reduces CO2 twice or three times as much that way, it is literally the way to go.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
LH707330
Posts: 2212
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 5:20 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
You won't get any more-aggressive efficiency improvements that way. That's already the thing every resource in the industry is focused on. We already have R&D into sustainable fuel in full swing, and the price of jet fuel is climbing with no end in sight, so others are naturally incentivized to help in whatever way they can.

Here's where we disagree. The industry is not doing everything to minimize emissions, they're trying to maximize profits given current fuel prices. This leads to several areas where efficiency is suboptimal:

1. Airlines flying older planes that are depreciated. If fuel cost went up, the balance would tip towards replacing these sooner, and we'd have a more efficient fleet in the sky.
2. Frequency vs capacity: flying many smaller planes uses more fuel than a smaller number of larger ones. Revenue management can extract a few more % by having more frequencies and that makes sense at current fuel prices, but if the fuel cost goes up, we'll see more upgauging. Routes like SEA-PDX have oodles of RJs on them, sometimes 20-30 a day in 20-minute intervals. That's clearly inefficient. Same story for related problems like airport congestion, should we build more runways to support all the RJs, or upgauge?
3. Propulsion: ATRs and Q400s are more efficient than RJs, but passengers prefer the jets. If the fuel price changed, the RJs would have to have a higher price premium, and people would vote with their wallets for turboprops. Similar story for open rotors: if an engine OEM can come up with a 10% fuel savings for a .05M reduction in cruise speed, that might not sell today, but with a guaranteed higher fuel cost tomorrow, it would make sense.

patrickjp93 wrote:
Taxes can be good for manipulating other industries into better behavior, but it's a terrible fit for aviation by all of the above unless you can prove to me they're not already working as hard as they can to reduce emissions (shy of shutting down aviation altogether).


I think the points above adequately address the "working as hard as they can" piece. To be clear, I'm not suggesting it should be introduced one day immediately at $90, I'd support a phased approach of maybe $10/a year for the next decade. Will there be some winners and losers? Absolutely. RJs will become tougher to operate, LCCs will have a tough go, and several other things will happen as well. A lot of frivlous cheap travel will go away, more people will take the train or vacation closer, etc. If that's the price we need to pay to fix our planet, then so be it. If all goes well, the price signal of the CO2 tax will spur innovation like hybrid planes, sustainable fuel, etc., and it might not be as bad as we might think.
 
blockski
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:48 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
The only thing a sweeping carbon tax will do is put LCCs out of business ($90 tax almost doubles the cost of a Norwegian ticket across the Atlantic) and reduce travel that people mostly do out of necessity or very rarely to begin with. If you want to clamp down on unnecessary travel or only hit the ones who can afford it, tax corporate travel, and especially tax premium seats. Economy fliers are already treated like cattle. No point in making it worse for them.


The whole point of a carbon tax is to reduce carbon emissions. That's the goal. The goal isn't to clamp down on unnecessary travel, but to dramatically reduce carbon emissions.

If putting LCCs out of business is a consequence of reducing carbon emissions, then so what? If you don't want that outcome, then you have to argue that it's not really that important to reduce emissions.

(without LCCs, budget travelers will be fine, btw - there are other travel options out there. And there will be a large financial incentive for innovative, low-carbon or carbon-free alternatives)

It's pointless. Focus on giving people tax deductions or refunds for planting 10 trees a year or helping tend and nurture forests through an NGO "charity"-like operation. The battery, capacitor, and fuel cell people are already doing their best to pack more energy safely into smaller, lighter storage units. Engine OEMs are already working on squeezing every drop of performance out of their existing designs WHILE going through proofs of concept and demonstrator programs for new technologies at their maximum pace (if they don't, they go under with no one to sell to). They're also figuring out all-electric architectures (I have not heard of any hybrid engine efforts, but I'm sure someone will post one). Airbus and Boeing are fighting tooth and nail to have the best airframes in the sky, constantly looking into new materials and shapes, exotic tech like Airbus' BLADE and fluttering wingtips or Boeing's folding wingtips, and how to solve the energy storage problem of all-electric flight at-scale SAFELY.

Taxes can be good for manipulating other industries into better behavior, but it's a terrible fit for aviation by all of the above unless you can prove to me they're not already working as hard as they can to reduce emissions (shy of shutting down aviation altogether).


Even if the aviation industry is working as hard as they can, what good does it do if we blow through our entire carbon budget?

If your solution to the problem is to say "ho hum, we can't solve the problem because it's too hard" you understand why that rings hollow, right?

It's also true - taxes like a carbon tax do work to modify behavior. In this case, it's less about the industry and more about the consumers. Tax carbon emissions and the cost of flights will rise, and travelers will adjust their behavior and fly less - which will emit less carbon.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:49 am

blockski wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
The only thing a sweeping carbon tax will do is put LCCs out of business ($90 tax almost doubles the cost of a Norwegian ticket across the Atlantic) and reduce travel that people mostly do out of necessity or very rarely to begin with. If you want to clamp down on unnecessary travel or only hit the ones who can afford it, tax corporate travel, and especially tax premium seats. Economy fliers are already treated like cattle. No point in making it worse for them.


The whole point of a carbon tax is to reduce carbon emissions. That's the goal. The goal isn't to clamp down on unnecessary travel, but to dramatically reduce carbon emissions.

If putting LCCs out of business is a consequence of reducing carbon emissions, then so what? If you don't want that outcome, then you have to argue that it's not really that important to reduce emissions.

(without LCCs, budget travelers will be fine, btw - there are other travel options out there. And there will be a large financial incentive for innovative, low-carbon or carbon-free alternatives)

It's pointless. Focus on giving people tax deductions or refunds for planting 10 trees a year or helping tend and nurture forests through an NGO "charity"-like operation. The battery, capacitor, and fuel cell people are already doing their best to pack more energy safely into smaller, lighter storage units. Engine OEMs are already working on squeezing every drop of performance out of their existing designs WHILE going through proofs of concept and demonstrator programs for new technologies at their maximum pace (if they don't, they go under with no one to sell to). They're also figuring out all-electric architectures (I have not heard of any hybrid engine efforts, but I'm sure someone will post one). Airbus and Boeing are fighting tooth and nail to have the best airframes in the sky, constantly looking into new materials and shapes, exotic tech like Airbus' BLADE and fluttering wingtips or Boeing's folding wingtips, and how to solve the energy storage problem of all-electric flight at-scale SAFELY.

Taxes can be good for manipulating other industries into better behavior, but it's a terrible fit for aviation by all of the above unless you can prove to me they're not already working as hard as they can to reduce emissions (shy of shutting down aviation altogether).


Even if the aviation industry is working as hard as they can, what good does it do if we blow through our entire carbon budget?

If your solution to the problem is to say "ho hum, we can't solve the problem because it's too hard" you understand why that rings hollow, right?

It's also true - taxes like a carbon tax do work to modify behavior. In this case, it's less about the industry and more about the consumers. Tax carbon emissions and the cost of flights will rise, and travelers will adjust their behavior and fly less - which will emit less carbon.


Dramatically reducing carbon emissions in aviation by this avenue is laughably pointless. It's under 8% of global emissions, and I've provided much higher priorities already. Once you've knocked off 40-50% of emissions by tackling the auto and agriculture and construction industries, then we can talk about aviation, but by then we'll have improved craft efficiency once again and therefore reduced emissions again.

We are absolutely nowhere near blowing through any "carbon budget". Humanity stepped onto this planet with more than double the percentage of carbon we have today in the atmosphere. A single volcanic eruption is worth more than 4 years of current human output. If you're that concerned about it, go plant trees.

Bigger craft don't solve the regional travel problem.

ATRs and Q400s have long since stopped being more efficient than CRJs and Embraer E2s. Please keep up. The ONLY case for which they remain superior is in the 60 passengers and below segment, and that'll go by the wayside in the wake of CMC-based jet engines and geared fan technology.

The unducted fan is also NOT more efficient and has such enormous maintenance problems you'd eat the difference in production and transportation of extra parts to keep pace. Seriously, the industry is already pumping all of their best minds into this, and a carbon tax is not going to save the planet. Believe it or not, planes are more efficient than cars once you have to get 100 or so people 3+ hours away by car. We'd be able to make a big step change on this if the EPA and E.U. would get rid of the DEF standard, but Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier, and Embraer are already directly competing on emissions. Taxing their carbon output is utterly pointless when their share of global emissions is under 8% and they're already demonstrating big strides in reducing that.
 
blockski
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 1:01 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Dramatically reducing carbon emissions in aviation by this avenue is laughably pointless. It's under 8% of global emissions, and I've provided much higher priorities already. Once you've knocked off 40-50% of emissions by tackling the auto and agriculture and construction industries, then we can talk about aviation, but by then we'll have improved craft efficiency once again and therefore reduced emissions again.


Well, no. The IPCC's reports are quite clear - we have to get to Net Zero emissions fast. That 8% of global emissions has to get to zero (on net), or we won't be able to limit warming to 2 degrees C.

Yes, it's true that other sources emit more carbon, but that's also irrelevant - we need to reduce emissions from all sources (as well as find ways to go negative on emissions - methods that don't currently exist).

We are absolutely nowhere near blowing through any "carbon budget". Humanity stepped onto this planet with more than double the percentage of carbon we have today in the atmosphere. A single volcanic eruption is worth more than 4 years of current human output. If you're that concerned about it, go plant trees.


None of this is true, of course. Human civilization has emerged in a relatively narrow and stable climate, and we've dramatically changed that with our own emissions. And we know that our current path of emissions will continue to dramatically change the planet. The planet itself will be just fine, but human civilization is at extraordinary risk.

The IPCC has put out their estimates of the carbon budget; we need to have global emissions peak in 2020 (next year!) and then drop by 66% from 2010 levels by 2050. And that still produces 2 degrees C of warming, with drastic consequences. We're no where near meeting that target. Exceed that budget, and we'll face much greater warming.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3682
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:12 pm

blockski wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Dramatically reducing carbon emissions in aviation by this avenue is laughably pointless. It's under 8% of global emissions, and I've provided much higher priorities already. Once you've knocked off 40-50% of emissions by tackling the auto and agriculture and construction industries, then we can talk about aviation, but by then we'll have improved craft efficiency once again and therefore reduced emissions again.


Well, no. The IPCC's reports are quite clear - we have to get to Net Zero emissions fast. That 8% of global emissions has to get to zero (on net), or we won't be able to limit warming to 2 degrees C.

Yes, it's true that other sources emit more carbon, but that's also irrelevant - we need to reduce emissions from all sources (as well as find ways to go negative on emissions - methods that don't currently exist).

We are absolutely nowhere near blowing through any "carbon budget". Humanity stepped onto this planet with more than double the percentage of carbon we have today in the atmosphere. A single volcanic eruption is worth more than 4 years of current human output. If you're that concerned about it, go plant trees.


None of this is true, of course. Human civilization has emerged in a relatively narrow and stable climate, and we've dramatically changed that with our own emissions. And we know that our current path of emissions will continue to dramatically change the planet. The planet itself will be just fine, but human civilization is at extraordinary risk.

The IPCC has put out their estimates of the carbon budget; we need to have global emissions peak in 2020 (next year!) and then drop by 66% from 2010 levels by 2050. And that still produces 2 degrees C of warming, with drastic consequences. We're no where near meeting that target. Exceed that budget, and we'll face much greater warming.


Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you do know That. Won’t. Happen. It’s not improbable, it’s impossible. If we peak in 2040, it’ll be a miracle. Just today’s in-service carbon producing tools won’t be replaced in many cases by 2040. Look at the order book for current aviation designs from planes to tow equipment and their lifespan.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 2:32 pm

blockski wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Dramatically reducing carbon emissions in aviation by this avenue is laughably pointless. It's under 8% of global emissions, and I've provided much higher priorities already. Once you've knocked off 40-50% of emissions by tackling the auto and agriculture and construction industries, then we can talk about aviation, but by then we'll have improved craft efficiency once again and therefore reduced emissions again.


Well, no. The IPCC's reports are quite clear - we have to get to Net Zero emissions fast. That 8% of global emissions has to get to zero (on net), or we won't be able to limit warming to 2 degrees C.

Yes, it's true that other sources emit more carbon, but that's also irrelevant - we need to reduce emissions from all sources (as well as find ways to go negative on emissions - methods that don't currently exist).

We are absolutely nowhere near blowing through any "carbon budget". Humanity stepped onto this planet with more than double the percentage of carbon we have today in the atmosphere. A single volcanic eruption is worth more than 4 years of current human output. If you're that concerned about it, go plant trees.


None of this is true, of course. Human civilization has emerged in a relatively narrow and stable climate, and we've dramatically changed that with our own emissions. And we know that our current path of emissions will continue to dramatically change the planet. The planet itself will be just fine, but human civilization is at extraordinary risk.

The IPCC has put out their estimates of the carbon budget; we need to have global emissions peak in 2020 (next year!) and then drop by 66% from 2010 levels by 2050. And that still produces 2 degrees C of warming, with drastic consequences. We're no where near meeting that target. Exceed that budget, and we'll face much greater warming.


The IPCC's reports conveniently leave out the fact the upper troposphere is already cooling thanks to the next x-thousand-year cooler solar cycle. It also conveniently leaves out the fact no one has found any statistically significant oceanic warming. And did we forget that while one pole has ice receding, the other is growing much faster?

We are by no means in any immediate danger on this, not even on the scale of 200 years. Plant plenty of trees, enforce a certain percentage of greenery in any new residential city planning or road construction, and let aviation regulate itself as it already does. In fact, as I pointed out above, one of the biggest barriers to carbon reduction is, ironically, the regulators themselves. Get rid of the Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) standard, bring in opposed piston engines, get them scaled up for farming equipment after they make it into cars, and get a much more comprehensive climate report done at that point.

Bill Gates and others have developed methods of sucking CO2 right out of the air and returning Oxygen with relatively low electricity requirements, so yes, the methods exist.

I didn't realize humanity has only been alive 20,000 years... Our genetic ancestors go back tens of millions of years, through the last little ice age to a time when, yes, we had more than double the CO2 in the air at sea level and lived just fine. CO2 is a relatively harmless greenhouse gas too. High-altitude water vapor has much more drastic effects, demonstrated most notably by the shutdown of U.S. airspace in the wake of 9/11, when temperatures suddenly spiked by 2-3F all around the country due to, yes, lack of contrails.

Humanity also survives in a multitude of conditions from the freezing Swiss Alps to the 45-50C Australian and Indian deserts. We are more than capable of surviving in a warmer climate than we have today. If it's uncomfortable for you, go improve building codes and insulate the way the Swiss, Swedish, and Norwegians do. You won't have to run your air conditioner much more than an hour a day under the Aussie Sun if you do.

Also, there is no scientific study which has survived peer review which claims humanity's activity has had any significant effect on the climate cycle. While it IS almost universally agreed that greenhouse gases cause a net warming effect, and it IS universally agreed that we have been on a warming trend all through the industrial revolution, there is NO consensus, not even a plurality belief that humans are the primary cause. Every time a volcano erupts we get 4x as much CO2 and CFCs pumped into the air as an entire year of human activity.

The only sane approach is adding carbon sinks, not stopping human activity, and letting markets which would normally be competing on efficiency do so unimpeded. Get the regulators out of the way of the automotive industry (Mercedes and Achades both want to launch their own OPEs and have since 2000, but can't because of DEF), let the aviation industry continue its ongoing tooth and nail fight to have the most efficient planes in the sky, and come to grips with the fact economic activity must continue, else you wind up with global poverty.
 
blockski
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:26 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
blockski wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Dramatically reducing carbon emissions in aviation by this avenue is laughably pointless. It's under 8% of global emissions, and I've provided much higher priorities already. Once you've knocked off 40-50% of emissions by tackling the auto and agriculture and construction industries, then we can talk about aviation, but by then we'll have improved craft efficiency once again and therefore reduced emissions again.


Well, no. The IPCC's reports are quite clear - we have to get to Net Zero emissions fast. That 8% of global emissions has to get to zero (on net), or we won't be able to limit warming to 2 degrees C.

Yes, it's true that other sources emit more carbon, but that's also irrelevant - we need to reduce emissions from all sources (as well as find ways to go negative on emissions - methods that don't currently exist).

We are absolutely nowhere near blowing through any "carbon budget". Humanity stepped onto this planet with more than double the percentage of carbon we have today in the atmosphere. A single volcanic eruption is worth more than 4 years of current human output. If you're that concerned about it, go plant trees.


None of this is true, of course. Human civilization has emerged in a relatively narrow and stable climate, and we've dramatically changed that with our own emissions. And we know that our current path of emissions will continue to dramatically change the planet. The planet itself will be just fine, but human civilization is at extraordinary risk.

The IPCC has put out their estimates of the carbon budget; we need to have global emissions peak in 2020 (next year!) and then drop by 66% from 2010 levels by 2050. And that still produces 2 degrees C of warming, with drastic consequences. We're no where near meeting that target. Exceed that budget, and we'll face much greater warming.


Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you do know That. Won’t. Happen. It’s not improbable, it’s impossible. If we peak in 2040, it’ll be a miracle. Just today’s in-service carbon producing tools won’t be replaced in many cases by 2040. Look at the order book for current aviation designs from planes to tow equipment and their lifespan.


Well, in that case, we're going to have a lot more warming than 2 degrees C. We're on track for 4 degrees C or more. And that will have catastrophic consequences.
 
Slide
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2016 1:13 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:40 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
blockski wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Dramatically reducing carbon emissions in aviation by this avenue is laughably pointless. It's under 8% of global emissions, and I've provided much higher priorities already. Once you've knocked off 40-50% of emissions by tackling the auto and agriculture and construction industries, then we can talk about aviation, but by then we'll have improved craft efficiency once again and therefore reduced emissions again.


Well, no. The IPCC's reports are quite clear - we have to get to Net Zero emissions fast. That 8% of global emissions has to get to zero (on net), or we won't be able to limit warming to 2 degrees C.

Yes, it's true that other sources emit more carbon, but that's also irrelevant - we need to reduce emissions from all sources (as well as find ways to go negative on emissions - methods that don't currently exist).

We are absolutely nowhere near blowing through any "carbon budget". Humanity stepped onto this planet with more than double the percentage of carbon we have today in the atmosphere. A single volcanic eruption is worth more than 4 years of current human output. If you're that concerned about it, go plant trees.


None of this is true, of course. Human civilization has emerged in a relatively narrow and stable climate, and we've dramatically changed that with our own emissions. And we know that our current path of emissions will continue to dramatically change the planet. The planet itself will be just fine, but human civilization is at extraordinary risk.

The IPCC has put out their estimates of the carbon budget; we need to have global emissions peak in 2020 (next year!) and then drop by 66% from 2010 levels by 2050. And that still produces 2 degrees C of warming, with drastic consequences. We're no where near meeting that target. Exceed that budget, and we'll face much greater warming.


The IPCC's reports conveniently leave out the fact the upper troposphere is already cooling thanks to the next x-thousand-year cooler solar cycle. It also conveniently leaves out the fact no one has found any statistically significant oceanic warming. And did we forget that while one pole has ice receding, the other is growing much faster?

We are by no means in any immediate danger on this, not even on the scale of 200 years. Plant plenty of trees, enforce a certain percentage of greenery in any new residential city planning or road construction, and let aviation regulate itself as it already does. In fact, as I pointed out above, one of the biggest barriers to carbon reduction is, ironically, the regulators themselves. Get rid of the Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) standard, bring in opposed piston engines, get them scaled up for farming equipment after they make it into cars, and get a much more comprehensive climate report done at that point.

Bill Gates and others have developed methods of sucking CO2 right out of the air and returning Oxygen with relatively low electricity requirements, so yes, the methods exist.

I didn't realize humanity has only been alive 20,000 years... Our genetic ancestors go back tens of millions of years, through the last little ice age to a time when, yes, we had more than double the CO2 in the air at sea level and lived just fine. CO2 is a relatively harmless greenhouse gas too. High-altitude water vapor has much more drastic effects, demonstrated most notably by the shutdown of U.S. airspace in the wake of 9/11, when temperatures suddenly spiked by 2-3F all around the country due to, yes, lack of contrails.

Humanity also survives in a multitude of conditions from the freezing Swiss Alps to the 45-50C Australian and Indian deserts. We are more than capable of surviving in a warmer climate than we have today. If it's uncomfortable for you, go improve building codes and insulate the way the Swiss, Swedish, and Norwegians do. You won't have to run your air conditioner much more than an hour a day under the Aussie Sun if you do.

Also, there is no scientific study which has survived peer review which claims humanity's activity has had any significant effect on the climate cycle. While it IS almost universally agreed that greenhouse gases cause a net warming effect, and it IS universally agreed that we have been on a warming trend all through the industrial revolution, there is NO consensus, not even a plurality belief that humans are the primary cause. Every time a volcano erupts we get 4x as much CO2 and CFCs pumped into the air as an entire year of human activity.

The only sane approach is adding carbon sinks, not stopping human activity, and letting markets which would normally be competing on efficiency do so unimpeded. Get the regulators out of the way of the automotive industry (Mercedes and Achades both want to launch their own OPEs and have since 2000, but can't because of DEF), let the aviation industry continue its ongoing tooth and nail fight to have the most efficient planes in the sky, and come to grips with the fact economic activity must continue, else you wind up with global poverty.


This is completely incorrect with respect to the global scientific consensus on climate change. It is driven by human activity and its implications are catastrophic: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The question is not whether humans can survive in a warmer climate. Obviously, we physically can do so. The catastrophic danger is to the systems and environments that modern society is built upon. Fisheries and agricultural zones will change dramatically. Sea level changes will affect major population centers and industrial zones. Extreme weather events will become more commonplace. These effects threaten the very basic processes and systems that society depends upon - food, safety, stability.

Life on this planet does not require a climate that *never changes*, it requires a climate that is *stable over long periods of time*. Human activity has created extreme short-term instability in the climate, and that is the catastrophic problem that it poses.
 
blockski
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: How does aviation tackle climate change?

Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:44 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
blockski wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Dramatically reducing carbon emissions in aviation by this avenue is laughably pointless. It's under 8% of global emissions, and I've provided much higher priorities already. Once you've knocked off 40-50% of emissions by tackling the auto and agriculture and construction industries, then we can talk about aviation, but by then we'll have improved craft efficiency once again and therefore reduced emissions again.


Well, no. The IPCC's reports are quite clear - we have to get to Net Zero emissions fast. That 8% of global emissions has to get to zero (on net), or we won't be able to limit warming to 2 degrees C.

Yes, it's true that other sources emit more carbon, but that's also irrelevant - we need to reduce emissions from all sources (as well as find ways to go negative on emissions - methods that don't currently exist).

We are absolutely nowhere near blowing through any "carbon budget". Humanity stepped onto this planet with more than double the percentage of carbon we have today in the atmosphere. A single volcanic eruption is worth more than 4 years of current human output. If you're that concerned about it, go plant trees.


None of this is true, of course. Human civilization has emerged in a relatively narrow and stable climate, and we've dramatically changed that with our own emissions. And we know that our current path of emissions will continue to dramatically change the planet. The planet itself will be just fine, but human civilization is at extraordinary risk.

The IPCC has put out their estimates of the carbon budget; we need to have global emissions peak in 2020 (next year!) and then drop by 66% from 2010 levels by 2050. And that still produces 2 degrees C of warming, with drastic consequences. We're no where near meeting that target. Exceed that budget, and we'll face much greater warming.


The IPCC's reports conveniently leave out the fact the upper troposphere is already cooling thanks to the next x-thousand-year cooler solar cycle. It also conveniently leaves out the fact no one has found any statistically significant oceanic warming. And did we forget that while one pole has ice receding, the other is growing much faster?

We are by no means in any immediate danger on this, not even on the scale of 200 years. Plant plenty of trees, enforce a certain percentage of greenery in any new residential city planning or road construction, and let aviation regulate itself as it already does. In fact, as I pointed out above, one of the biggest barriers to carbon reduction is, ironically, the regulators themselves. Get rid of the Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) standard, bring in opposed piston engines, get them scaled up for farming equipment after they make it into cars, and get a much more comprehensive climate report done at that point.


I don't know how to say this, but this is complete denial of the actual science here.

The IPCC reports absolutely take the various solar cycles into account. And we are absolutely in immediate danger. If you want to deny the problem, that's one thing. But just recognize that's what it is: denial. The idea that planting trees and letting aviation regulate itself (whatever that means) will address climate change is laughable.

Bill Gates and others have developed methods of sucking CO2 right out of the air and returning Oxygen with relatively low electricity requirements, so yes, the methods exist.


Not to take anything away from Bill Gates, but the methods aren't new at all. The issues are scale, efficiency, and cost. And no, we're nowhere near meeting the challenge with a technological deus ex machina to save us.

I didn't realize humanity has only been alive 20,000 years... Our genetic ancestors go back tens of millions of years, through the last little ice age to a time when, yes, we had more than double the CO2 in the air at sea level and lived just fine. CO2 is a relatively harmless greenhouse gas too. High-altitude water vapor has much more drastic effects, demonstrated most notably by the shutdown of U.S. airspace in the wake of 9/11, when temperatures suddenly spiked by 2-3F all around the country due to, yes, lack of contrails.


I said 'human civilization' for a reason; it's a fundamentally important milestone. The development of farming at 10,000 BCE is both reliant on the climate and what supported the evolution of the species beyond just hunting and gathering.

Again, the threat isn't to individual humans (though there are still plenty of those threats), but to civilization itself.

Also, there is no scientific study which has survived peer review which claims humanity's activity has had any significant effect on the climate cycle. While it IS almost universally agreed that greenhouse gases cause a net warming effect, and it IS universally agreed that we have been on a warming trend all through the industrial revolution, there is NO consensus, not even a plurality belief that humans are the primary cause. Every time a volcano erupts we get 4x as much CO2 and CFCs pumped into the air as an entire year of human activity.


I just want to note that this claim in bold is completely false.

The point about volcanos is misleading, too. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/c ... activities

"Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do."

As far as CO2 emissions go, human fossil fuel use is like a constant volcanic eruption.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Charleytuna, Flow2706 and 31 guests

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