** The Climate Change Thread **

[Cugel]

Both are actually being built, now. I guess we will see what happens with them.

One is a Cessna equivalent. Nothing like a jet airliner.

The other...

Airbus said that its ZEROe plans will therefore be changed, and it does not expect hydrogen planes to be in service until the late 2040s.

https://sustainabilitymag.com/articles/ ... n-aircraft

Physics is against this concept, alas.

Personally I find that not using the filthy noisy things is quite effective at reducing their pollution. Or it would be if all them others would stop with the foreign holidays and going to see Auntie Bertha in Oz for no reason at all. (She's probably dreading the visit of yet another whinging POM).

However, another parcel arrived in a diesel van today, wrapped in much-plastic (the parcel, not the van). I yam as guilty as all the rest of the filthy humans! I pick up litter, you know - but it only gets placed in a Big Pile of Litter instead of the little one I picked up.

Physics is against the human habits. So is chemistry and definitely biology. We'll soon all be soil rather than the despoilers.

[Carlton green]

I think taxation of aviation is governed by international treaty,so not easy to change. Aviation is a relatively small percentage of emissions with limited scope for low-carbon alternatives as far as the technology goes, so it probably makes sense to focus on motor vehicles, energy and industry etc. where there are low-carbon options available. Once those more straightforward areas are tackled then we can think about aviation.

Well, you are right in that currently 2.5% of global emissions are from Aircraft. However that 2.5% somehow causes 4% of the warming and only a small percentage of the world’s population flys anywhere much … when the developing world catches on then their billions will take to the skies with negative consequences for CO2 levels. Amongst the responsible things to do are establishing international standards for fuel efficiency and development of aircraft that are as fuel efficient as they can be made to be - from 1990 to the present day efficiency has (apparently) doubled.

https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions
https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/aviation

Of the energy used in the UK about 75% is from oil and gas, I guess that that’s on power generation and transport. The sooner we have more renewables the better, imho, and I’d like to see the size of private cars capped too (no need to waste energy by moving excessively large vehicles around).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63976805

[roubaixtuesday]

On the significance of UK aviation emissions

In 2022, the UK’s domestic and international flights produced 29.6 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions (MtCO2e). This is around 7% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions. The independent Climate Change Committee (CCC) projects that aviation’s proportion of UK greenhouse gas emissions will increase from 7% in 2022 to 9% in 2025, 11% in 2030 and 16% in 2035. This is because as emissions from some other sectors decline, stable aviation emissions will make up a larger proportion of the total

From https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... /cbp-8826/

And emissions are very unlikely to remain stable, given that we're actively investing in expanding capacity (and as noted above there is no prospect whatever of low emission flight on that timescale)

[the snail]

...

Well, you are right in that currently 2.5% of global emissions are from Aircraft. However that 2.5% somehow causes 4% of the warming and only a small percentage of the world’s population flys anywhere much … when the developing world catches on then their billions will take to the skies with negative consequences for CO2 levels. Amongst the responsible things to do are establishing international standards for fuel efficiency and development of aircraft that are as fuel efficient as they can be made to be - from 1990 to the present day efficiency has (apparently) doubled.

https://ourworldindata.org/global-aviation-emissions
https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/aviation

Of the energy used in the UK about 75% is from oil and gas, I guess that that’s on power generation and transport. The sooner we have more renewables the better, imho, and I’d like to see the size of private cars capped too (no need to waste energy by moving excessively large vehicles around).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63976805

I don't think manufacturers need any encouragement to make fuel efficient aircraft,fuel is a major part of running costs. I think an issue with aircraft emissions is that they are high in the atmosphere so have a disproportionate effect.

[Carlton green]

I don't think manufacturers need any encouragement to make fuel efficient aircraft, fuel is a major part of running costs. I think an issue with aircraft emissions is that they are high in the atmosphere so have a disproportionate effect.

There is an issue here in that what operators want above everything else is maximised profits. Fuel is a cost so keeping fuel efficiency high it’s important to them, but it’s only a part of their mix of costs. Slower journeys cost aircraft operators money because:
# the staff costs per journey are higher (more hours to pay for).
# the number of miles (and hence income earning journeys) that the aircraft does in any day are reduced.
# passenger comfort and catering becomes more of an issue - the customers demand a better journey experience.
# high ticket and prestigious passengers demand flights that are fast (they think themselves important people and time spent inactive on the plane is taking away their income generating time).

Manufacturers either make the aircraft that their customers demand or they go out of business, and the customer (aircraft operator) has limited interest in fuel efficiency and a lot of interest in overall operating costs. So fuel efficient aircraft that are so due to slower speeds are not going to get bought.

[the snail]

Fuel cost is a big cost to airlines, that's why efficiency has risen over the years, and it is a very important factor when airlines are choosing aircraft,and one of the most important criteria when designing airliners.

[axel_knutt]

So fuel efficient aircraft that are so due to slower speeds are not going to get bought.

Concorde failed because the market wanted cheap and efficient, not fast.

[Carlton green]

So fuel efficient aircraft that are so due to slower speeds are not going to get bought.

Concorde failed because the market wanted cheap and efficient, not fast.

Concorde failed because the Yanks didn’t like that they hadn’t made it. It would be true that it was costly to run too but it ran for years serving a limited market. The aircraft itself was, imho, a magnificent feat of British Engineering; if also far from environmentally sound and a mass of things that were right on the edge of what’s going to keep reliably working.

The world wants cheap and, beyond it being sufficient, it doesn’t give a dam about efficiency. It’s all about running costs and margins and sod the rest - well, unless some legislators are getting difficult about things.

[roubaixtuesday]

Concorde failed because the Yanks didn’t like that they hadn’t made it. It would be true that it was costly to run too but it ran for years serving a limited market. The aircraft itself was, imho, a magnificent feat of British Engineering; if also far from environmentally sound and a mass of things that were right on the edge of what’s going to keep reliably working.

Très interressant. Le mot "Concorde" - c'est en quelle langue?

Whilst agreeing its engineering magnificence, Concorde was never a commercially viable proposition, and would never have been developed without government subsidy.

[al_yrpal]

I spent a couple of years working on Concorde airframe and cell testing the engines which were very similar to those used on the TSR2.

The French were involved too....

The problem with the vulnerable fuel tanks was addressed. I guess the reason it fell out of use was a commercial decision by British Airways.

Al

[Carlton green]

Concorde failed because the Yanks didn’t like that they hadn’t made it. It would be true that it was costly to run too but it ran for years serving a limited market. The aircraft itself was, imho, a magnificent feat of British Engineering; if also far from environmentally sound and a mass of things that were right on the edge of what’s going to keep reliably working.

Très interressant. Le mot "Concorde" - c'est en quelle langue?

Whilst agreeing its engineering magnificence, Concorde was never a commercially viable proposition, and would never have been developed without government subsidy.

Much of the English language has its roots in French so my guess is that ‘concorde’ is another that does.

What makes commercial viability? With cheap enough fuel and free access to the North American market viability would have been there and the service did run for many years. Concorde died the death of a thousand cuts and the Yanks - they’re our allies ya’ know - must have been delighted.

So if the Concorde had so many achievements, why was it discontinued?

Issues Faced By Concorde

One of the issues that negatively affected the success of Concorde was the cost of fuel. On a regular flight, Concorde consumes 6,771 gallons of fuel. The cost of fuel quickly exceeded the profit made from the flight and rendered Concorde unprofitable to operate. Though the cost of the aircraft and fuel proved to be problematic, there were also other underlying issues that contributed to its downfall.

Another issue emerged from the restrictions of supersonic travel. Concorde was restricted to only go supersonic over the ocean because it sent a shockwave into the air strong enough to shatter glass if it went over densely populated areas. Cities issued numerous noise complaints whenever Concorde flew overhead, causing huge headaches for the airlines and manufacturers.

But one incident eclipses all these issues. Concorde was involved in a serious accident on July 25, 2000. On Air France Flight 4590, some debris blew a tire and punctured one of the fuel tanks. The fire and engine failure caused Concorde to crash into a nearby hotel, killing 113 people in total.

My bold.

https://blog.museumofflight.org/why-the ... oming-back

On 25 July 2000, Air France Flight 4590 crashed shortly after take-off with all 109 occupants and four on the ground killed. This was the only fatal incident involving Concorde; commercial service was suspended until November 2001. The remaining aircraft were retired in 2003, 27 years after commercial operations had begun. Eighteen of the 20 aircraft built are preserved and are on display in Europe and North America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde

[roubaixtuesday]

Concorde failed because the Yanks didn’t like that they hadn’t made it. It would be true that it was costly to run too but it ran for years serving a limited market. The aircraft itself was, imho, a magnificent feat of British Engineering; if also far from environmentally sound and a mass of things that were right on the edge of what’s going to keep reliably working.

Très interressant. Le mot "Concorde" - c'est en quelle langue?

Whilst agreeing its engineering magnificence, Concorde was never a commercially viable proposition, and would never have been developed without government subsidy.

Much of the English language has its roots in French so my guess is that ‘concorde’ is another that does.

What makes commercial viability? With cheap enough fuel and free access to the North American market viability would have been there and the service did run for many years. Concorde died the death of a thousand cuts and the Yanks - they’re our allies ya’ know - must have been delighted.

You're kidding yourself, I'm afraid. Fuel cost was >10x per passenger (!); extensive and frequent maintenance due to the thermal stresses of supersonic flight; specialist parts (eg the tyres that failed causing the tragedy) etc etc.

They were magnificent, but never truly commercial.

[Carlton green]

You're kidding yourself, I'm afraid. Fuel cost was >10x per passenger (!); extensive and frequent maintenance due to the thermal stresses of supersonic flight; specialist parts (eg the tyres that failed causing the tragedy) etc etc.

They were magnificent, but never truly commercial.

imho it was the Paris airport disaster (referenced above) that delivered the fatal blow to Concorde, but that said it did use a lot of fuel (which could cost a lot) and it was a complex aircraft.

Whatever, the root of the conversation about fuel economy is several posts above. Operators don’t particularly care about fuel economy what they care about are: turnover, costs and margins.

[Jdsk]

Which "Paris air show disaster" was that?

Thanks

Jonathan

[Carlton green]

Which "Paris air show disaster" was that?

Thanks

Jonathan

Well spotted and you are correct. The disaster happened on a scheduled flight from Paris as referenced a little above.

On 25 July 2000, Air France Flight 4590 crashed shortly after take-off with all 109 occupants and four on the ground killed.