Our grandchildren will be dead by the time the shit really hits the fan
You'll see the shit properly hitting the fan if you live to average age, Cougar. We're already seeing the shit hit the fan, it's just not as obvious in the UK as in many other parts of the world.
There's a general concensus that the increase in the extent and severity of wild fires we're seeing around the World is being driven by greenhouse gas driven climatic change
The increased flooding in many parts of the world is caused by greenhouse gas induced climatic change.
The 30-50cm sea level since the industrial revolution is caused by ocean warming and continental ice melt caused by greenhouse gas induced climatic change. 50cm is already making some people homeless. The rise in sea levels combined with more/more intense storm events is resulting in faster coastal erosion in many areas around the World including my local coast line.
Hundreds of ski resorts have already closed and junior has had to move to the Alps.
Heat dome events are more and more common, we've just had one over the last week and it put 11 runners in a race in hospital with one probably heat related death - in May, when many temperature records were broken. the 2003 heat wave in France caused 15 000 deaths. The average temperature in France is currently 1.9°C above pre industrial values and the difference is higher in the mountains.
Tropical diseases are gaining ground in southern France with the associated deaths.
Latin America and India are suffering ever increasing death counts in human-induced extreme heat waves:
Thing is that whilst you're making your planes and rockets a few percent more efficient you're also making lots more of them and the total amount of fossil fuels they burn is going up and up, Daffy
Let's just be clear - 30% is not a few percent! It's a massive reduction.
As for sustainable air flight, anybody even slightly honest in the industry will tell you that isn't going to happen any time soon if ever.
Correct - so we should do nothing? You yourself admit that people are their own worst enemy. No one is forcing the rise in flight traffic, it's happening because people want to fly.
Aviation requires energy dense fuels for useful payloads long haul. Lighter than air vessels (Zeppelins) travelling at low speeds are about the only option that might work.
Wrong - long haul aviation requires dense fuels, short haul less than 1000nmi can work with LH2, Hybrid electric and other energy types, even at speeds up to mach 0.8.
You get angry on this these threads because you know I'm right, Daffy, you have no answers.
I get angry on these threads because YOU have no damn clue about what's actually happening - how much effort is going into ameliorating and yes, eventually fixing this. All you see is a rise in flight traffic and your "solution" (which you admit doesn't work due to people and their habits) is "just stop flying".
Aviation is an increasingly important factor in green house gas emissions and that will only change if individuals choose to stop flying (along with using their gas central heating, ICE cars, eating more meat than is healthy, over consuming... ). What it will take to make individuals change their habits I'm not sure, history tells us that humans are particularly determined in continuing self destructive habits.
Yes, and it would be even greater if the Airframers as a part of that industry weren't continually trying to make every single generation of aircraft (as they are all replaced) far more efficient, thus speeding up the rate at which they're replaced.
Literally everything I do at work is to improve this, everything from structural optimisation (the mass reduction and fuel burn improvement), to operations mapping (which is what proves that LH2 can work and continuous descent is a big opportunity), to psychosocietal modelling (to better understand how those people habits you talk about can be...adjusted using the right levers). I spend millions and millions of € every year to do this, fighting tooth and nail to make it happen and it does have an impact - a substantial one.
Can I fix it all? No, but I'm making a far bigger improvement than simply spouting "just stop flying" and wasting my time trying to fix the vanishingly small amount of rocket emissions.
As for us making more of them (planes) - that's actually a good thing. Fully 50%+ of what we sell replaces older, less efficient aircraft. By selling more, we also earn more, which allows us to invest more (80% of our profit goes into RnT). Passenger growth has quadrupled in 35y, but emissions per RPK will be <30% of what they were in 1990 by the end of the decade - dropping to 15% by 2040. Had we done nothing, the global impact of the aviation industry wouldn't be 2.5-3% of global emissions, it would be closer to 8%.
In terms of production and growth - passenger growth is slowing 3.3% vs 4% previously and the rate at which aircraft can be produced is also limited and is extremely difficult to grow. A real danger to global aviation emissions would be a cheap and dirty entrant into the marketplace which could be sold quickly, cheaply and then disposed of.
As for us making more of them (planes) - that's actually a good thing. Fully 50%+ of what we sell replaces older, less efficient aircraft.
That means 50% of them are being added to the existing fleet, but they're only 30% more efficient so the volume of emissions rises with every new plane produced. From my link on the previous page:
"In 1990, global aviation emitted around 0.5 billion tonnes. In 2019, that was around 1 billion."
It doesn't matter how much you say you've improved the effciency of your aircraft, there are so many more flying the total emissions continue to rise significantly.
These are discretionary emissions, people don't need to fly to eat. So the 10% of people who can afford to fly are selfishly bringing about climatic change that disproportionately impacts the poorest 90% of people.
One of your points is very unfair, I specifically stated long hau
"Aviation requires energy dense fuels for useful payloads long haul"
Your passenger growth figures are misleading, I specifically didn't include stats for growth that included the Covid blip. You have clearly cherry picked to show slowing growth when I specifically didn't cherry pick to show rising growth. Fact is more planes are entering service, more passengers are flying and projections for the future are frightening if you are the slightest bit worried about global warming.
Your last point about a cheap and dirty entry manufacturer is the opposite of what my mates at Safran fear. They fear the Chinese will gain access to technology through joint ventures (some of them are currently working in China) and then improve on Western technology in the way they've done with electric cars, telephones,and a host of consumer products. The current Chinese aircraft uses a very high proportion of Western parts, I don't expect that to last and I expect the home grown stuff of the future to be cutting edge.
So what can I do? I spent years working on atmospheric pollution and as a geologist have a very good idea of the relationship between green house gasses and climate. Human kind needs to reduce emissions, especially the low hanging fruit such as the unneccesary cheap polluting flight. I can inform people as I'm doing here and on a personal level simply not fly.
There is no justification for very short haul. France has banned commercial flights between towns where the TGV makes time saved negligible. The rail network needs to be expanded and lines doubled up, and paid for by taxes on flying, much as a bonus malus system favours electic cars in some countries. It is madness that I pay four times the price to do jouneys by train rather than fly. Flying needs to be taxed at least as much as ICE car and train travel. We need a tax proportional to the long term damage done - if that were correctly calculated then 99% of people wouldn't be able to afford to fly.
As for us making more of them (planes) - that's actually a good thing. Fully 50%+ of what we sell replaces older, less efficient aircraft.
Have you considered a career in spin?
That says exactly the same thing as 50%* of our sales is growth not replacements. What other industries can even boast those sorts of growth figures?
*caveat depends how far off 50% your 50%+ was.
As with all things, the devil is in the details. Part of that outstanding <50% also comes from replacing aircraft made by our competitors, some also comes form the fact that airlines are replacing large, widebody aircraft such as A330/340, 767 and 777 with a higher number of smaller, more efficient aircraft such as A321NEO XLR, even for transatlantic routes. The fuel burn is around 2/5th of the larger jet for the same distance, so even operating two aircraft, you get a reduction in fuel and the ability to carry more passengers closer to their final destination - point to point rather than hub and spoke.
10y ago, you wouldn't have been able to run these routes with a narrowbody. This is partially driven by engine efficiency, partially by weight savings and partially by fuel stowage. As ever with aerospace, it's a complicated picture especially due to the baked in need for safety and assurance.
The fuel burn is around 2/5th of the larger jet for the same distance,
Not so according to Airbus. They claim a cruising consumtion of 3569L/hr for the A321NEO XLR and 5500l/hr for the A330
In terms of seating 250-400 seats on the A330 and 180-244 for the A321NEO XLR
Once again fact checking proves you wrong, Daffy, there's almost no difference in l/hr per passenger in the single class economy configuration which let's face it, all planes should be if we're interested in CO2 per passenger mile. Airbus themselves make a claim of 20% fuel saving compared with the previous generation of jets.
The other part of my geology degree was economics so sparing you the graphs a more economical plane fleet will offer lower prices and increase the number of customers and numbers that fly. This was cearly demostrated by the Easy jet and Ryan Air business models which have increased the number of people flying and the number of planes in the air dramatically - more economical planes lead to more flying and more total pollution. You could create a model and work out the fuel cost/hr that gives the highest total CO2 production.
Oh good Lord - stop googling things you know nothing about and pretending that you do.
Block fuel burn for A330 will be an average of 6.2-6.3t per hour on typical (non tour missions)
Block fuel burn for A321XLR will be 2.9t per hour.
In two class layout is XLR is 190-200 seats
In two class layout 330neo 900 is 298 seats and 800 is 264 seats.
Two XLRs carrying ~ 400 passengers consumes 5.8t/h. One A330 neo 800 or 900 will carry less than 300 passengers and do it at over 6t/h.
It's a bit of an interesting one. On the one hand making flying more efficient should be a no brainer. However, making flying more efficient is going to be used to reduce passenger fares, which is going to result in more people flying, which is going to result in less demand for alternatives, and so on.
I used to work in the oil industry. I was involved in drilling optimisation and probably saved at least a couple of wells that would have failed otherwise and reduced the amount of time to complete them on most. I was reducing the amount of energy needed to drill a well, and increasing the odds of wells being successful in an area of the world with strong environmental protections.
But in no way would I try to argue I was making a positive contribution to the environment. I was still digging oil out the ground and doing it more efficiently was going to reduce the oil price, therefore raising demand.
Actually reducing demand for oil is the responsibility of everyone, but mostly it's going to come from governments doing their part (and actually making consumers pay prices that actually discourage flying).
By all means, keep making flying more efficient. But I think you also have to accept if that efficiency is passed onto passengers in the way of reduced fares then you will never make a net-positive contribution to the environment.
We might be, our children will have to live thru it. collapse is coming quickly - 25 - 40 years until it really hits IMO - thats mass starvation in many places and mass migration on a scale that makes Europes immigration issues now look like nothing.|
With current demographic trends, the future problem looks to be depopulation rather than overpopulation. Wealthy countries tend to have low fertility, but now many less wealthy countries are also experiencing very low fertility. It will take a few decades for the effects to work through the population, but many countries may have no realistic option except mass immigration to have enough workers to pay enough taxes to support the elderly.
We also don't know what technological advances will occur in the next 50 to 100 years. It seems reasonable that most manual work will be handled by robots. It's not impossible that fusion energy will become viable, it's pretty much guaranteed that renewables will become cheaper. It's plausible that our environmental impact in 100 years will be much smaller than it is now just through depopulation and technological advances. However, in the words of a great philosopher:
It's a bit of an interesting one. On the one hand making flying more efficient should be a no brainer. However, making flying more efficient is going to be used to reduce passenger fares, which is going to result in more people flying, which is going to result in more people flying, which is going to result in less demand for alternatives, and so on.
Jevons' paradox, innit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
That fireworks factory going up in malta looks a bit meh in comparison doesn't it...
That says exactly the same thing as 50%* of our sales is growth not replacements. What other industries can even boast those sorts of growth figures?
I am no expert but taken in context of what else daffysays... No it doesn't.
If two skinny planes are purchased that are more efficient than 1 (and allow more efficient routing for a brucey bonus)
You count one as a replacement and one as new? And it become not that useful as a broader picture if the overall is a benefit.
That's what i understood from the numbers anyway.
It's a bit of an interesting one. On the one hand making flying more efficient should be a no brainer. However, making flying more efficient is going to be used to reduce passenger fares, which is going to result in more people flying, which is going to result in less demand for alternatives, and so on.
I used to work in the oil industry. I was involved in drilling optimisation and probably saved at least a couple of wells that would have failed otherwise and reduced the amount of time to complete them on most. I was reducing the amount of energy needed to drill a well, and increasing the odds of wells being successful in an area of the world with strong environmental protections.
But in no way would I try to argue I was making a positive contribution to the environment. I was still digging oil out the ground and doing it more efficiently was going to reduce the oil price, therefore raising demand.
Actually reducing demand for oil is the responsibility of everyone, but mostly it's going to come from governments doing their part (and actually making consumers pay prices that actually discourage flying).
By all means, keep making flying more efficient. But I think you also have to accept if that efficiency is passed onto passengers in the way of reduced fares then you will never make a net-positive contribution to the environment.
I don't think making an oil well more efficient reduces the price of oil, it just increases the profits for the oil company.
Similarly making planes more efficient could reduce ticket prices but more likely make more profits for airlines (or, more likely, smaller losses)
...By all means, keep making flying more efficient. But I think you also have to accept if that efficiency is passed onto passengers in the way of reduced fares then you will never make a net-positive contribution to the environment.
I don't think making an oil well more efficient reduces the price of oil, it just increases the profits for the oil company.
Similarly making planes more efficient could reduce ticket prices but more likely make more profits for airlines (or, more likely, smaller losses)
It should be an holistic approach. For a given aircraft, more passengers per aircraft is better for the environment than a half-empty aircraft, so cheapen ticket prices.
The trick is encouraging airlines not to double their fleets on the back of greater passenger numbers, just cram 'em in there.
Ban private business jets, etc.
@Daffy interesting stuff
Oh good Lord - stop googling things you know nothing about and pretending that you do.
You mean the Airbus site is lying to me. I don't think so, Daffy, you have produced no links wharsoever to back up you 2/5 claim and none of the manufactureres claims anything like that. It strikes me that there's a lot of good information in the public domaine about the fuel consumption of aircraft, I'm using it.
Googling things I don't know much about seems like a pretty good way of learning about things. Posting links and information from people who know even more than you seems a good strategy.
I do know a hell of a lot about atmospheric pollution, paleo climates, glaciations, the role of green house gases in climate, extinction events due to climatic change, anoxic events, the role of biomass in climatic regulation... . Enough to know that airplanes are a significant factor in climatic change and a growing one.
I don't think making an oil well more efficient reduces the price of oil, it just increases the profits for the oil company.
Similarly making planes more efficient could reduce ticket prices but more likely make more profits for airlines (or, more likely, smaller losses)
It's supply/demand/pricing theory. If you increase the supply of something, competive forces wil drive the price down. The oil price is one one of the most supply dependant commodities out there hence the formation of the OPEC cartel to limit supply from member countries and increase the price. When supply exceeds demand the price crashes. I seen lower than $20 a barrel several times in my lifetime.
Airline will reduce prices if they can because it increase profits due to higher number flying. They've developed the dynamic pricing system to maximise profits from a given number of seats with a given level of costs.
Going back to ‘things fall down, go BOOM’, I’ve just read a short article about an explosion in Halifax, Nova Scotia in 1917. Until the first atomic bomb, it was the biggest man-made explosion in history.
Two Ships Collided at 1 MPH. The Resulting Explosion Flattened a City.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a71454542/halifax-explosion/?utm_source=flipboard&utm_content=other
Googling things I don't know much about seems like a pretty good way of learning about things.
I don't have a dog in this race and I don't know which of you is right/wrong. But this statement does sound an awful lot like "do your own research!"
Going back to ‘things fall down, go BOOM’, I’ve just read a short article about an explosion in Halifax, Nova Scotia in 1917. Until the first atomic bomb, it was the biggest man-made explosion in history.
Two Ships Collided at 1 MPH. The Resulting Explosion Flattened a City.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a71454542/halifax-explosion/?utm_source=flipboard&utm_content=other
If you happen to find yourself in halifax the museum cover it in alot of detail it's quite eye opening when you see the ships anchor shaft that landed like 3 km away.
It's worth reading about the N1 explosion as well, probably closest in scale to last week's New Glenn failure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)#Second_failure,_serial_5L
I don't have a dog in this race and I don't know which of you is right/wrong. But this statement does sound an awful lot like "do your own research!"It's also a good way to pick up lots of other people who have "done their own research".
Googling things I don't know much about seems like a pretty good way of learning about things.
username does not check out
