Also we keep looking at technology to save us, yet it’s technology that’s caused it.
it people that are the problem, technology is merely a tool.
Is cargo okay?
I am worried about my kids.
Yeah, what may happen in my kids' lifetime is what worries me too. At the moment it feels a bit like a disaster movie plot unfolding in slow motion.
I'm also a geologist and I've made my peace with what's coming. I watched the first episode of Chris Packham's new show last night on my four year old phone (don't have a TV). Generally avoid this kind of thing now because the over-wrought music and moody-gazing-off-camera shots have me throwing the phone at the wall, but I'm a sucker for anything concerning the End Permian Extinction. I suspect Packham gets it, and he even came close to implying it in this episode - we're ****ed but it's ok, the planet goes on. You just need to take the long view.
I no longer fly, don't own a car (or an e-bike), decided not to have kids, don't eat meat unless I'm out on the hill - but I'm not delusional, it makes no difference. And to answer the original question: gradual deterioration, tipping point, global conflict.
on my four year old phone (don’t have a TV
Genuine question, why did you feel the need to state that?
...gradual deterioration, tipping point, global conflict.
It's not just this thread, it's any thread once the bickering and the I'm more cleverer than you shit starts
Because choosing not to own a TV, with the carbon cost of making it (drilling for the oil for the plastic, mining the rare earth metals for all the circuit boards etc) and the carbon cost of shipping it (in a ship running on bitumen fuel) and the carbon cost of running it (from your biomass fuelled power station), and not buying a new phone with the same costs on a smaller scale aee good environmental decisions and relevant to the thread.
I suppose a particularly unpleasant person with no knowledge of what they're talking about would call it virtue signalling. Which if it is, I'm all for.
And of course air cargo isn't okay. If we need it from the other side of the world in a plane (perishable food etc) we can eat something else. Any other air cargo is non-critical. It's just stuff.
Yup, slowly then WW3 for me.
I think the opposite order is more likely. i.e. WW3 (started because of "land grab" due to fear of climate catastrophe and food shortage) then climate catastrophe (because of war efforts) then mass famine & disease (the result of the previous two).
The irony is that trying to save the human population because climate change eventually lead to more human and climate disaster. LOL!
I no longer fly, don’t own a car (or an e-bike), decided not to have kids, don’t eat meat unless I’m out on the hill – but I’m not delusional, it makes no difference.
This is a pertinent point – individuals doing all they can to minimise their impact on the planet is a very honourable thing but we know that it is going to take much, much more than that. The problem is that it won't happen on a global scale, there are too many politicians with fingers in too many pies, too many vested interests and intent only on pleasing the majority of their voters and keeping their donors happy. Then, one day in the future, when the whole shit-show is about to implode everyone will look at everyone else and ask 'why didn't we do something to stop this happening'?
Genuine question, why did you feel the need to state that?
Genuine answer: are you being obtuse, or do you not understand context?
I suppose a particularly unpleasant person with no knowledge of what they’re talking about would call it virtue signalling
It is virtue signaling. And I'm not that unpleasant. I'll give you the no knowledge bit.
Genuine answer: are you being obtuse, or do you not understand context?
Not being obtuse. I understand context. Have another think about it.
Adversity has caused massive changes in human responses throughout our history, I refuse to believe that there is no hope and fully believe that solutions both known and unknown will be found and implemented.
Sorry but the doomsayers can get on the b ark, there has to be hope and I have it. No question there will be huge hardships as a transition happens but I fully believe that in time there will be long term positive outcomes
The food inflation caused by the Ukraine war will be insignificant compared to the effect of severe draught.
It is virtue signaling. And I’m not that unpleasant.
Just the occasional foray into that pastime?
Interesting comparing an STW thread from 10 years back, my earliest contributions went with the hack but there is a shift in the general tone of the threads - from denial to resignation.
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/global-warming-update/page/3/
The link in my own post on that page still works if anyone is interested why three geologists on the same thread mention the Permian:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event
from denial to resignation.
A convenient combination which doesn't require anyone to change anything. Resignation is no different to denial, actually IMO it's worse because people who are now resigned to catastrophe are essentially abandoning their/other people's kids to a life of misery so that they can continue with their noses in the trough safe in the knowledge that they won't be around to experience it. It's f***** pathetic quite frankly.
Earth, Series 1: 1. Inferno: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0fpwly8 via @bbciplayer
The STW skimming appears to screw up the link to that new show I mentioned. Looks like the final episode might be relevant.
Just the occasional foray into that pastime?
I try to avoid it when I can, but it happens from time to time.
zeitgeist on here but his book Fully Automated Luxury Communism
I admit I have not read the entire book but have read bits and watched some videos on it and it's fantasy.
Daffy, you’ve just added more evidence that you can’t cut emission 50% as you claimed by stopping business class. Even if you replace 50% business class volume with normal seats you don’t cut emissions 50% because the business seats used to be sat in by people who sit in the ecoomy seats that replace them.
Are you a bit simple? An A350-1000 has a 2 class layout at 300 seats of which ~60 (depends on carrier) are business class. A single class layout is 480 seats, that's what it's safety rated for. So, and as I said you get 180 MORE SEATS!!!! Exactly as I said. You also save around 5 tonnes of WEIGHT!
I NEVER SAID 50%! I said almost 50%. If we presume that long haul is 70% of emissions, and that approximately 50% of those emissions are directly related to business and first, then couple that with business aviation which is 2-4% of global emissions, you're at 39% of total emission and that doesn't even take into account short haul aircraft and their business class emissions (Lufthansa, BA, KLM, United, AA, etc, etc. You're getting mighty close to 50%, aren't you?Low cost carriers which don’t even have a business class are 34% of European flights. The A320 is Airbus’s best selling aircraft, those sold with business class only have 12 business class seats. Longer haul planes can have more with up to 5 business class for 13 economy. That still doesn’t allow for a 50% saving if you eliminate them.
I no an idustry expert butI’ve been on a guided tour of the Toulouse factory, I didn’t see any aircraft with the kind of business volumes you’re claiming.
This right here is the depth of your knowledge on aviation - a factory tour of one of the assembly lines at Toulouse. I was involved in the design of the A350 for crying out loud. You couldn't even be bothered to go and check the types of aircraft you're spouting about. On the otherhand I've have spent a lifetime removing weight and improving performance all of which reduces fuel used. My personal accountability runs to the millions of tonnes of fuel saved- and I understand not only the aviation sector in extreme detail, but also its context and its trajectory. I'm here every day trying to make it more sustainable, but also recognise that aviation is to CO2 what the SUV is to car emissions, It's just an easy target for lazy environmentalists and in the grander scheme is muddying the water where there are real targets which could be dealt with right now.
You’re presenting a distorted view of aviation to suit your greenwashing agenda. The idustry says 12% business class flyers with those 12% business class emitting 3 times the CO2. I’l go with that.
NOTHING I've said is biased, everything I've said can be borne out by facts. Even your silly figure above
- my simple math makes that 36% and that doesn't include its effects on aircraft weight. So 36% of emission, + business aviation at 2-4%, so 38-40% and then aircraft cabin weight...How close are we to 50%? Almost? Like I said on Page 2.12% are business class but are emitting 3* the Co2
Is a bumper sticker and about as much use to the climate argument as you yourself are. It's not going to happen, so how about being a real Edukator for a change, and giving people something to strive for, huh?Just stop flying.
Resignation is no different to denial
Although it's a weird inversion that the two biggest self-proclaimed greens on the thread are both firmly in the "resigned to it" category, while more or less everybody else is in the "lets do everything we still can" category. Which according to @dazh assessment makes them part of the problem, and everyone else part of the solution.
As for scaling – yes, but that’s a problem we’ve been solving for a century. We have no problem scaling established technologies that don’t have huge regulatory concerns.
Part of the issue is the lack of regulatory bodies, at the moment there is no agreed spec for sequestering CO2 or agreed safe practices for doing it. I work in a company that just developed one of these to remove it at source from the gas coming out the well (which is roughly 10% CO2 and was previously just vented). Even without the difficult bit of trying to scrub it from the air there's big gaps in our knowledge of how this'll work.
e.g. do you build stainless steel pipes (cripplingly expensive), or use carbon steel (less expensive, but needs the CO2 to be dry, and not just dry but REALLY dry, and TEG/MEG based de-watering techniques can't be used as any entrained droplets will then re-absorb water in the pipe and corrode through it). You've then got issues with cold embrittlement as it's dense phase CO2, so any small leaks quickly become catastrophic. And CO2 isn't just asphyxiating, it's also considered toxic so leaks are bad.
Give it 30-50 years and a few accidents and maybe we'll have a better long term understanding and regulatory standards to make it easier.
We also don’t need to be capturing carbon 24/7. We run it only when there’s excess capacity, so energy storage for CC isn’t required.
So how many hours a day will this excess free (not free) energy be available, a few hours mid day from solar (when people might decide that AC is needed if it's somehow free to run), some windy overnights in the winter (when people might put storage heating on if it's free).
Because then for every proportional less than 24/7 you're running the plant needs to be bigger to do the same job. Let's be optimistic and assume we've invested in those 7 extra panels per person and therefore it's roughly 1/3 of the time, offshore wind IIRC isn't far off the same sort of figure. Now you need 3x as many CO2 scrubbing machines. And each of these things would be enormous, for scale this is the pilot plant currently in operation:
It removes 1ton a day. You're talking 2.5MILLION tons a day in the UK. Picture lets say 3 machines, built in Aberdeen, Shetland, Middlesbrough (places with access to offshore reservoirs), each 2.5millions times the size (less a bit for the space efficiency of doing it at scale).
Each machine able to draw 150Gigawatts of power from the grid (the entire national grid consumption currently averages ~12GW?).
Which is why I'm not even addressing whether a solar panel is 400W or 250W. Because either way it's the equivalent power 50x Sizewell C's (times 3 if we assume the renewables achieve 1/3 of their nameplate capacity).
So we burn the planet to protect the jobs of private jet pilots? This is a ludicrous position.
I think I've maybe been misinterpreted here. I'm not suggesting that pilots' jobs should be protected, or that flying half way round the world for dinner is a good idea. I'm just saying that solutions such as "just get a different job", "just move closer to where you shop", "just get rid of your car" etc. are so utterly simplistic, so devoid of even a basic grasp of what is actually required for these things to happen that my mind boggles how anyone could think it's a sensible way to approach the problem. "Just stop polluting, it's simple" ffs 🙄
People are going to need leading by the hand for things to change, governments are going to have to provide pathways for people to achieve what's required. As said above, until climate change action can be monetised there is little hope that anything meaningful will happen. Source: human history for the past 60 years.
Which according to @dazh assessment makes them part of the problem, and everyone else part of the solution.
Pretty much yes. If we're going down then we still need to be doing everything we can to prevent it. Anything less is simply indefensible. I'm a uber-pragmatist on this. It's not a case of doing one or the other or giving up on a particular option because it has a negligible effect, we need to be doing everything that is now currently possible technologically and politically. In future other things will be possible, and when that happens we need to be doing them too. Simply giving up is the worst possible action from every possible viewpoint.
Although it’s a weird inversion that the two biggest self-proclaimed greens on the thread are both firmly in the “resigned to it” category, while more or less everybody else is in the “lets do everything we still can” category.
The two are not mutually exclusive. However I have not advocated doing nothing - I have advocated a realistic assessment of the situation. I have done my best for 30 years and have had a much smaller impact on the planet than most in the west. I welcome any steps taken by anyone.
I'm just being realistic.
Right - so you're talking about DACC, not about capture at source? Yes, DACC is highly inefficient, it actually takes more energy to remove than it does to create from burning, but If you were to apply ASCC onto current power infrastructure, a significant proportion of that energy is provided by waste heat. This would significantly reduce the amount of extra CO2 we emit. Running DACC during leaner times would then allow us to more rapidly move toward neutrality. As for turning it back...we'd need SBSP or fusion to make that work.
The national grid is currently 30-35Gw, but there's usually around 10gW of free capacity in teh early house of the morning and this will rise as Dogger bank expands. But like I said, it's a start and it's doable - what should we be doing (as a nation) instead?
Reduce Reuse and Recycle are key, but there's more than can and should be done.
Currently - only around $4-6bn has been invested in research into CO2 capture. In context Microsoft will buy Activision Blizzard for $69bn.
Daffy, you need to link your sources because the numbers in you last post don't correspond with anything I can find on the Net.
"If we presume that... " is not helpful.
The first Google result I clincked says that in miles flown half are short haul, a quarter medium haul and a Quarter long haul.
In terms of flight bumbers the first Google result says 86% are short haul, 10% medium haul and 4% long haul.
I find it disappointing that in a thread on which you've got three geologists telling you what happens next you can attempt to greenwash flying with numbers that you provide no links to and fly in the face of anything in the public domaine.
I you think the difference between business class and economy is the problem you've failed to comprehend what's coming.
Just stop flying.
dazh maybe my friend would see your kids as a pointless burden to the planet to satisfy your own desires same as flying to New York to buy a shirt.
This is a pertinent point – individuals doing all they can to minimise their impact on the planet is a very honourable thing but we know that it is going to take much, much more than that.
For centuries in other part of the world the culture is to have large families (slight shift to having less recently due to economy pressure) as safety net for old age. Having large a family means that the chances of someone being looked after in their old age is much higher than those with small family. This trend is not going to reverse anytime soon. The more they are imposed on the more they will oppose.
Adversity has caused massive changes in human responses throughout our history, I refuse to believe that there is no hope and fully believe that solutions both known and unknown will be found and implemented.
It is part of the cycle as nature will deal with mankind accordingly.
A convenient combination which doesn’t require anyone to change anything. Resignation is no different to denial, actually IMO it’s worse because people who are now resigned to catastrophe are essentially abandoning their/other people’s kids to a life of misery so that they can continue with their noses in the trough safe in the knowledge that they won’t be around to experience it. It’s f***** pathetic quite frankly.
Resignation or denial etc makes no difference to me. People just have to adjust their lifestyle as they see fit.
However, I do oppose to over fishing or destroying the fish stock all over the world.
As for leaving the mess to the kids, once you have educated them the way of life (whatever that is), the rest is up to them. You don't live their lives for them and they cannot blame you for the world. Everyone walks their own path.
Shell and National Grid have both recently quit carbon capture North Sea projects, Daffy.
Putting my geologist hat on again there just aren't number of suitable wells available, it's energy intensive and technically challenging. BP gave up on a projest in the North Sean a few years back. They failed. Wells often leak, a lot of North sea wells are currently leaking methane, a major greenhouse gas contributor. If you think that trying to store CO2 under pressure in those wells will improve matters think again.
Carbon capture on a large scale = unrealistic greewashing
Fusion = pie in the sky, the scientists are less confident now than 40 years back because each bigger better accelerator takes them further from an energy positive power station than their previous knowledge. The Cern website recently had to dramatically change the wording on its web site.
Really interesting this, and some very interesting comments so far. Some real insights from industry experts and others that think everything is everyone else’s fault.
My viewpoint is I work in oil and gas. Not one of the big players at all. We are seeing this industry decline. A few years to go yet but its future is certainly mapped out. Im currently investigating a move into hydrogen and CCS (carbon capture and storage). Heres my opinion.
This technology exists. Its proven and we are currently seeing companies roll it out. Especially in the UK. There are already companies using this tech to produce aviation fuels and we will shortly (few years yet) see the hydrogen economy take off. This will (imo) be the next industrial revolution.
Could this all be produced by renewables? Yes is it cheap to do so? No. So while its proven and possible the real issue is funding. And this is where it all stops. The government / treasury will let the world burn before having to spend their (our) hard earned. I envisage a future where by the countries all look to develop as much “in country” resources as possible now. Especially after the Ukraine debacle. i know that at least 50% of spend for the uk infrastructure now must be UK supply, which means we wont be cost competitive so we either have to come up with some other ideas or end up with nothing.
dazh maybe my friend would see your kids as a pointless burden to the planet to satisfy your own desires same as flying to New York to buy a shirt.
This is the other side of the denial/resignation position. The nihilistic 'we all need to die' argument. Anything to prevent reasonable constraints on the behaviour and consumption of those who have enough money to do whatever the f*** they want. It's very revealing that those who aren't willing to change their lifestyles are the ones who think billions of people dying is a price worth paying. 🙄
dazh maybe my friend would see your kids as a pointless burden to the planet to satisfy your own desires same as flying to New York to buy a shirt
Hopefully not. I mean that would be weird, wouldn't it? Prioritising flying to buy shirts over having another generations of humans to carry on after us (with what little we leave them).
If we all stopped having kids it's not going to be happy existence for those that are left either unless they are all planning to work until they drop dead. Feel sorry for whoever would be last!
People have all but said this but a key issue here is rebound effects.
Daffy, you clearly know your stuff here. I'm all for getting big of business class. What happens then though? Airlines convert that space to economy. Price per seat drops, more people fly.
Rebound effects are pretty limited with something like food (you can only eat so much, even after a long ride), but with flying, driving, computing, etc. they are huge
Similarly, a sobering fact about aviation I've read is that the efficiency of the (propeller-driven) planes of the 1950s was only matched by jet-planes in the early 2000s
Buildings are not dissimilar -- I think commercial buildings of the 1970s were about as efficient as those of the 2000s (took 30 years to offset the extra energy of AC)
So, what will follow the next efficiency improvements for planes? The return of supersonic flights? Commercial space tourism?
The government / treasury will let the world burn before having to spend their (our) hard earned.
@rone to the thread please 😂
Seriously, the idea that we don't have the money to do this, whilst at the same time possessing the means to create that money is nonsensical.
No - business class pays for almost 70% of the cost with less than 20% of the seats. Get rid of business class and seat prices RISE. Less people on fewer planes, but you still have the air freight network for perishables and a moving economy.
So airlines would need more flights to achieve the same profit? Or would they just absorb the losses?
Daffy, you need to link your sources because the numbers in you last post don’t correspond with anything I can find on the Net.
“If we presume that… ” is not helpful.
The first Google result I clincked says that in miles flown half are short haul, a quarter medium haul and a Quarter long haul.
In terms of flight bumbers the first Google result says 86% are short haul, 10% medium haul and 4% long haul.
The latter is Wilkerson's paper and is utterly irrelevant. it's the flight miles that's important as it dramatically scales the weight if the aircraft. MTOW of an A320 is 78t and an A350 is 320t+ Which means that over the first 3000 miles of a journey the A350 will use almost 4* the fuel. This is why long haul matters and why business class matters more. It's highly wasteful. An A320 burns less fuel than a very efficient car. 0.69.0.81l/100km. An A330 (the only data I have to hand) is closer to 2.7l/100km. That's a medium sized aircraft.
I find it disappointing that in a thread on which you’ve got three geologists telling you what happens next you can attempt to greenwash flying with numbers that you provide no links to and fly in the face of anything in the public domaine.
What exactly have you told me? All the reasons it won't work? All the things I'm doing wrong? You've provided no links. In each case it goes something like "a quick Google search suggests", "a tour of an aircraft factory suggests"
you think the difference between business class and economy is the problem you’ve failed to comprehend what’s coming.
No - I'm trying to suggest a better means of getting people to REDUCE the impact of aviation. Your suggestion is to aviation what Leave was to Brexit. Simple, stupid and ill thought out.
What about driving? More emissions - should we all just stop that? What about shipping? Faaaar more emissions - stop that too? Why aviation? Why the smallest contributing global transport sector?Just stop flying.-
Now you mention it, I think I even looked this up before (price per m2 of plane for different tickets) and have the numbers hidden in some spreadsheet
So airlines would need more flights to achieve the same profit? Or would they just absorb the losses?
They'd have to raise prices, which would further reduce demand until a more stable aviation level was achieved.
"Price per seat drops, more people fly."
" Get rid of business class and seat prices RISE."
Both can be true depending on route, aircraft type and client profile. Budget airlines rely on high load factors and premium on people paying for a higher level of service. Airlines very often have both, for example Air France KLM with Transavia.
France has recently introduced a law banning short haul internal flights where there are TGV alternatives. It doesn't go far enough IMO.
The aviation industry benefits from very low fuel cost because there are no internationally agreed taxes. On a 2000km journey (Pau Berlin) junior does regularly the cheapest is nearly always the plane, then the bus, then the train. The train is about 14 hours and 150e (360e for departure tomorrow), the bus about 30 hours and 150e (300e for departure tomorrow) and the planeabout 2h from 10-50e (273e dparture tomorrow)
The CO2 impact in the inverse of the price you pay and time time taken. That's bad news for climatic change.
We desperately need an international air fuel and air miles tax to discourage the use of the most polluting means of transport.
That paper on engine/aircraft efficiency is a little bit misleading as it focuses primarily on the engines and their efficiency, less on the aircraft/engine/mission package. Overall, it's not wrong, but in terms of overall efficiency, last gen piston aircraft were non-pressurised, low altitude, aircraft, comparing them to a 707 is a little unfair.
I'd have said it wasn't until we go mid bypass fans in the 80s that efficiency was similar, but that it wasn't until the 90s that the fleet replacement caught up and it was better. Today, in the 2020s, aircraft emissions are almost 50% less than they were in the 50s despite flying 3* higher and almost twice as fast.
