Just wonder will countries further tighten the ICAO aviation emissions standard in the Glasgow Summit after the release of the United Nations report? (Link for explanation of the report) https://www.reuters.com/business/enviro ... 021-08-09/

As in "creating insurmountable barriers to entry" for those hopeful "traditional" aviation and engine manufacturers (and their host nations), who do not have an established position at the very top of the food chain?

To what end. The current standards push all new large commercial aircraft built in 2028 and after to use the relatively recent fully developed engines; and substantial engine improvements can no longer be predicted based on the current state of the art.

Phosphorus wrote:

As in "creating insurmountable barriers to entry" for those hopeful "traditional" aviation and engine manufacturers (and their host nations), who do not have an established position at the very top of the food chain?

You mean the crew 'not competitive with today's technologies.'

Yes, ICAO will tighten standards further. How much, and when, are different questions.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

As in "creating insurmountable barriers to entry" for those hopeful "traditional" aviation and engine manufacturers (and their host nations), who do not have an established position at the very top of the food chain?

You mean the crew 'not competitive with today's technologies.'

Yes, ICAO will tighten standards further. How much, and when, are different questions.

Yeah, I mean the bunch who has no budget to spend on the future technologies, because they do not have gush of cash from selling today's technologies.
Meaning advancing towards monopolies, unless govt money gets involved.

Phosphorus wrote:

Yeah, I mean the bunch who has no budget to spend on the future technologies, because they do not have gush of cash from selling today's technologies.
Meaning advancing towards monopolies, unless govt money gets involved.

Planning to sell engines that are worse than their competitors sounds like a fundamentally bad idea. Regulations or not.

mxaxai wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Yeah, I mean the bunch who has no budget to spend on the future technologies, because they do not have gush of cash from selling today's technologies.
Meaning advancing towards monopolies, unless govt money gets involved.

Planning to sell engines that are worse than their competitors sounds like a fundamentally bad idea. Regulations or not.

Depends on the bigger picture. If there's only one incumbent with a beautiful product, and its engines are too expensive for a customer, and an upstart competitor, whose engines are not at the same degree of perfection, but affordable to a buyer, continuing to offer those same 'worse' engines is the not the worst of ideas, especially if you manage to make money in the process. No?

Environmentalist think further tightening of aviation emissions standard is not enough. The way I understand it, some environmentalists want to curb predicted aviation emission growth at a global level.

Recent diagram published in Wizz Air thread might help illustrate this. According to that diagram, Wizz is expected to grow fleet from 67 to 268 from Fiscal Year 2015/2016 to FY 26/27 and grow average seat count from 183 to 229. That represents fleet growth of 400% and average seat count growth of 25%. During that same timeframe they are expected to transition the fleet from A320ceo technology to mostly A320neo generation. If that technology transition reduces emissions by 20% and assuming all other things being equal, their cumulative emissions as an airline will still grow about fourfold in that timeframe.

Squeezing out additional 5 or 10% reduction in emissions even if manufactures can deliver it will not put a significant dent in total global aviation emissions unless growth is limited by fuel taxes, setting minimum ticket price and offloading some air travel to other means of transportation. Is this what future of commercial aviation might look like according to environmental activists?

Captaincurious wrote:

Just wonder will countries further tighten the ICAO aviation emissions standard in the Glasgow Summit after the release of the United Nations report? (Link for explanation of the report) https://www.reuters.com/business/enviro ... 021-08-09/

Will depend if countries will take serious action to combat climate change or not. Aviation (and international ships) has a status apart, and has been kept out of the Paris agreement. The EU has made it clear that within the Green Deal, something has to change to this status within EU travel. Either carbon tax or a minimum tariff will be applied. In essence, air travel will be made more expensive.

I think air travel will be made more expensive all over the globe by carbon taxing, very much including transcontinental travel. We'll see if my predictions willl come true.

fly2moon wrote:

Environmentalist think further tightening of aviation emissions standard is not enough. The way I understand it, some environmentalists want to curb predicted aviation emission growth at a global level.

Recent diagram published in Wizz Air thread might help illustrate this. According to that diagram, Wizz is expected to grow fleet from 67 to 268 from Fiscal Year 2015/2016 to FY 26/27 and grow average seat count from 183 to 229. That represents fleet growth of 400% and average seat count growth of 25%. During that same timeframe they are expected to transition the fleet from A320ceo technology to mostly A320neo generation. If that technology transition reduces emissions by 20% and assuming all other things being equal, their cumulative emissions as an airline will still grow about fourfold in that timeframe.

Squeezing out additional 5 or 10% reduction in emissions even if manufactures can deliver it will not put a significant dent in total global aviation emissions unless growth is limited by fuel taxes, setting minimum ticket price and offloading some air travel to other means of transportation. Is this what future of commercial aviation might look like according to environmental activists?

Recent research indicates that the effect of contrails magnifies the effect of aviation on global warming. Currently direct emissions from aviation (CO2, Nitrous Oxides) results in about 2% of total warming due to aviation. However, the burning of kerosene at altitude release particulates where ice crystals nucleate to create contrails. Contrails can be long lasting which result in amplifying the effect of these direct emissions to 5% of global warming. See a summary here: https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-airplane-contrails-are-helping-make-the-planet-warmer.

Aviation really cannot use anything other than kerosene-type fuels in the immediate future. This means that the total percentage of contribution of aviation to global warming will be increasing as other areas of the economy move to cleaner and less polluting energy sources.

With that information as background, it is a certainty in my view that the current plans for aviation which rely upon technology advancement and increased efficiency will be revisited as they are insufficient in comparison to the magnitude of the problem.

What is likely to happen is broader adoption of the EU's initiative for Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF). Research is showing that SAF produce fewer particulates and thus will produce fewer contrails. The EU is planning a phased approach where SAF become a greater proportion of the fuel blend over time.

"A blending mandate specifically targeting the aviation sector is necessary, in order to spur the market uptake of the most innovative and sustainable fuel technologies. This would allow to scale up production capacity and lower production costs over time. Given that sustainable aviation fuels should account for at least 5% of aviation fuels by 2030 and 63% by 2050, it is essential that the fuel technologies supported under this Regulation have the highest potential in terms of innovation, decarbonisation and availability. This is a sine qua non condition in order to meet future aviation demand and contribute to achieving the decarbonisation objectives. This should cover notably advanced biofuels and synthetic aviation fuels. In particular, synthetic aviation fuels have the potential to achieve emission savings as high as 85% or more compared to fossil aviation fuel. When produced from renewable electricity and carbon captured directly from the air, the potential emission savings compared to fossil aviation fuel can reach 100%. "
-- Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on ensuring a level playing field for sustainable air transport, Brussels, 14.7.2021, COM(2021) 561 final 2021/0205 (COD)

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/refueleu_aviation_-_sustainable_aviation_fuels.pdf

For me, the term "environmentalist" has lost its meaning here because everyone in the business of aviation understands that this is a significant problem which the industry needs to address head on.

If we assume Wizz Air grows 400% by the end of decade, SAF being 5% of aviation fuels by 2030 and engines producing 20% less emissions by then will not prevent at least 300% increase of overall Wizz Air emissions. Same could be expected for other growth airlines on a global scale if air travel growth significantly outruns technical solutions for reduced emissions during the next decade.

Captaincurious wrote:

Just wonder will countries further tighten the ICAO aviation emissions standard in the Glasgow Summit after the release of the United Nations report? (Link for explanation of the report) https://www.reuters.com/business/enviro ... 021-08-09/

Specifically in response to the 6th Assessment Report? No.

Despite the hype from the media acting like this report is some shocking news, the 6th AR merely updates the 5th AR with the minor changes that continuing refinement of the climate models resulted in. The only reason for political leaders to change their priorities in response to the 6th AR is if they want to admit they did not pay attention to the 5th AR (although frankly, evidence of any political leader having actually read anything the IPCC has published is thin - regardless of which side they are on, nearly all of them prefer rhetoric over research).

That said, further changes certainly are likely as currently planned regulations take effect and the next steps are planned. I think the next step is likely to be a sustainable fuel standard or a cap and trade system, rather than further fuel consumption standards.

Pythagoras wrote:

Recent research indicates that the effect of contrails magnifies the effect of aviation on global warming. Currently direct emissions from aviation (CO2, Nitrous Oxides) results in about 2% of total warming due to aviation. However, the burning of kerosene at altitude release particulates where ice crystals nucleate to create contrails. Contrails can be long lasting which result in amplifying the effect of these direct emissions to 5% of global warming. See a summary here: https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-airp ... net-warmer.

That article states 0.05 mW/m^2 effective radiative forcing. The IPCC report is using 0.06mW/m^2, so they're in close agreement.

The IPCC number works out to contrails contributing 2.2% of the effective radiative forcing from human activity.

Aviation currently counts for about 2% of CO2 equivalent annual emissions, but because aviation developed late in the industrial revolution, it's around 1% of the total historical emissions. The For different reasons you could look at it from either perspective, but either way, we're talking about 3-4% of the current human-caused climate forcing. I'm splitting hairs for all of this, especially since there is actually a lot of uncertainty in the estimates of how much contrails driving warming: the IPCC estimates for contrails range from 0.7% to 3.7% of the mean estimate of total human-caused climate forcing.

The Yale article is based on a paper that is looking at forecast human-caused warming around 2050. The expectation that flight rates increase, and engine efficiency improves (which counter-intuitively, increases contrail formation due to quirky thermodynamic things that happen in higher compression ratio engines). So they figure 5% around 2050.

Some global warming chemistry in the atmosphere is long lasting (CO2), but others which may have a greater effect but be short, even very short lasting. Perhaps someone can explain this with good data. I see improved ground transportation replacing a lot of flights under 300 miles. Most of us are expecting hybrid aviation to begin replacing <500 moving up to <1000 mile flights as time goes by. bio fuels are very expensive now, that likely could change in the future. The goal of most environmentalists is to not only improve the 'green' in transportation, but also to improve transportation in general. On a personal level it always has made sense to ensure we get the maximum enjoyment and production out of our travel and make each flight contribute to that. Many very rich people are making effective efforts to offset their 'expensive to green' lifestyles. Entertaining a bit of Pollyanna into our future and that of our great grandchildren's future is a good thing.

Interesting story on wings magazine website that questions industry statements on sustainable jet fuel.
Biden’s goal for cleaner jet fuel may not fly
ALLAS (AP) — President Joe Biden and his team are promoting an agreement reached with the U.S. airline industry to cut aircraft greenhouse-gas emissions 20% by decade’s end, but the deal might not fly.

In an announcement Thursday, the White House unveiled an array of measures to reduce climate-changing emissions. The administration is also setting a goal of replacing all of today’s kerosene-based jet fuel with cleaner or “sustainable” fuel by 2050.

Climate experts say that while the effort is laudable, the administration’s approach is aspirational and unrealistic. The targets are voluntary, and robust government support will be needed to offset the higher cost of sustainable fuel — up to three times more than regular fuel.

Airlines in fact have talked up sustainable jet fuel for years and even made small investments in it, but it may prove to be a vision beyond Biden’s promised reach. Airline executives have expressed concern in particular that “flight shaming” — famously advocated by Swedish activist Greta Thunberg — could catch on in the U.S. if the companies are seen as uncaring about the environment.

WHITE HOUSE, touting Biden’s steps to involve the government, aircraft makers, airlines and fuel suppliers to boost the use of cleaner fuels: The measures “will result in the production and use of billions of gallons of sustainable fuel that will enable aviation emissions to drop 20% by 2030 when compared to business as usual.”

THE FACTS: That’s a giant step that will be highly difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

Only 2.4 million gallons of sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF, were produced in the United States in 2019, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. In contrast, airlines burned 21.5 billion gallons of regular fuel that year. That means just over 0.01% of the nation’s supply currently comes from sustainable fuel.

The airline industry says bridging the gap will require bold steps including grants and tax credits for producers, government support for research, and more. Biden is seeking a SAF tax credit as part of a $3.5 trillion spending bill being pushed in Congress by Democrats, but its outcome remains uncertain. Even with that money, it’s not clear all those things would be enough to meet the administration’s ambitious goals, according to aviation experts.

“Aspirational goals like this don’t move markets,” says Dan Rutherford, who oversees aviation research at the International Council on Clean Transportation, an environmental group based in Washington.

Without a government mandate or “very strong incentives,” Rutherford says, “I doubt that much SAF will be generated.” He notes that the International Air Transport Association, a global trade group for airlines, had a voluntary goal of 10% sustainable fuel by 2017 and the federal government had a target of 1 billion gallons per year by 2018, “and neither came anywhere close.”

Liz Jones, a climate-law attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, says the administration plan “largely relies on biofuels aspirations that simply aren’t based on reality.”

Airlines have been announcing promises to become carbon neutral around the middle of the century, and some have invested in sustainable fuel as they defend against criticism over aviation’s role in climate change. Airplanes produce only around 3% of the world’s heat-trapping emissions, but their share is growing rapidly.

Jones says, however, that nothing in the administration’s plan would force airlines to live up to their promises.

“And even the best-case scenario doesn’t cut climate pollution fast enough,” she says. “The Biden EPA needs to set strong airplane emissions standards now, not get mired in the myth of sustainable airline fuels.”

The White House and airline trade groups are counting on tax credits to produce three billion gallons a year by 2030. Airline trade groups are pushing Congress to enact a tax credit of $1.50 to $2 per gallon, depending on how much the fuel reduces greenhouse gas emissions when burned.

Airlines for America, a trade group for the biggest U.S. airlines, had previously set a goal of producing 2 billion gallons of sustainable fuel in 2030. This week, the group agreed to back the White House goals.

The airline group’s president, Nicholas Calio, said the airlines “are proud of our record on climate change, but we know the climate change challenge has only continued to intensify,” and so it raised its goal for sustainable fuel.

Airlines are also placing orders and making investments in startups that are designing aircraft powered by electricity or hydrogen. Some of the manufacturers aim to have small electric planes of up to 19 seats in service by the end of the decade.

“We want to operate aircraft that are very good for the environment in the long run,” Andrew Nocella, the chief commercial officer of United Airlines, said this week. “How they come to be and when they come to be is still a little bit TBD (to be determined).”
https://www.wingsmagazine.com/bidens-go ... y-not-fly/

Was reading the White House press release on Biden's Plan and noticed an interesting statement -
"will result in the production and use of billions of gallons of sustainable fuel that will enable aviation emissions to drop 20% by 2030 when compared to business as usual"

So without defining what "compared to business as usual" is, pretty much allows you to define success. 20 percent of what?

It is wishful thinking.

I think it gives airlines cover until either a miracle happens technology wise making SAF cheaper or GW becomes so evident to Joe Citizen that flying is greatly reduced.