Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
YIMBY wrote:Biofuels and synthetic fuels produced by renewable or nuclear energy may come, though not very soon. Anyone to tell which fuels can be burned in the turbines, as they are, with minor modifications or with a complete redesign of the engine. I understand that turbines are generally much less sensitive to fuels than piston engines, but there may be problems with erosion and corrosion, as well as impurities depending on the source, and in aviation no additional risk of malfunction is tolerated. Most biofuels tend to have lower energy densities than good old kerosene, but there are fuels with higher densities - volume or weight - that might also give more range to critical planes like 321(LR). The high energy density fuels will, however, have problems with storage or safety or something else. Expert insight on this?
LH707330 wrote:Ok, for the sake of this thread, let's assume that the objective is to reduce use of fossil fuels in aviation. If you don't agree with 97% of scientists that anthropogenic climate change is real, please start an OT thread about that.
An ATR 72-600 of the Swedish carrier BRA (former Braathens Regional) took off from Stockholm-Bromma today to Umeå fueled at 45% with fossil-free used cooking oil, marking the first biofuel-powered flight of an ATR aircraft.
blacksoviet wrote:LH707330 wrote:Ok, for the sake of this thread, let's assume that the objective is to reduce use of fossil fuels in aviation. If you don't agree with 97% of scientists that anthropogenic climate change is real, please start an OT thread about that.
Almost all scientists reject man-made climate change.
blacksoviet wrote:LH707330 wrote:Ok, for the sake of this thread, let's assume that the objective is to reduce use of fossil fuels in aviation. If you don't agree with 97% of scientists that anthropogenic climate change is real, please start an OT thread about that.
Almost all scientists reject man-made climate change.
blacksoviet wrote:LH707330 wrote:Ok, for the sake of this thread, let's assume that the objective is to reduce use of fossil fuels in aviation. If you don't agree with 97% of scientists that anthropogenic climate change is real, please start an OT thread about that.
Almost all scientists reject man-made climate change.
BobleBrave wrote:
BobleBrave wrote:aviation and sustainable development (we are all full of contradictions aren't we)
BobleBrave wrote:the one and only driver for every player in the industry (Manufacturers, Airlines...) remains financial profitability
BobleBrave wrote:today 2-3% of total GHG emissions come from commercial aviation, that might seem insignificant but actually it is not.
BobleBrave wrote:- Manufacturers and OEM are part of a risk-averse industry, very sensitive to shareholders wishes
BobleBrave wrote:- Heavy safety requirements (due to the very nature of flying)
- A capital heavy industry (entry cost in the market are such that it is impossible for a small innovative company to come along)
- A duopoly industry (less need for disruptive innovation when nobody endangers your market position)
BobleBrave wrote:I am having a hard time convincing myself that the present model has a sustainable future
airmagnac wrote:
airmagnac wrote:BobleBrave wrote:aviation and sustainable development (we are all full of contradictions aren't we)
Why would it be a contradiction ? Transporting people around the world is part of human development, as people will carry their ideas, knowledge, experiences and cultures with them. I sincerely believe that enabling many people beyond the top elites to travel to distant locations helps strengthen human ties and understanding, and directly reduces contributes to reducing the urge of waging costly wars. Even though we obviously do have a long way to go still...
Long range travel is a strong enabler for science and technical progress as well.
airmagnac wrote:Safety is also a major driver for the industry, often at the expense of short-term financial performance.
airmagnac wrote:Also, up till a few years ago, OEMs were sinking billions upon billions is new developments, with such programs following one another. Airbus for example had a new dev program and/or a major mod program going on continuously from teh early 80s till now. Returns to shareholders are therefore not that big.
Same with airlines, it is only recently (after about 80 years) that airlines have really begun generating sustained profits.
airmagnac wrote:BobleBrave wrote:today 2-3% of total GHG emissions come from commercial aviation, that might seem insignificant but actually it is not.
In absolute terms, it does indeed represent quite a few tons of gases pumped into the atmosphere. So reducing the emissions is always welcome.
Then again, it means that any improvement in aviation emissions, even a revolutionary one, will only have marginal effects on the overall GHG budget.
airmagnac wrote:BobleBrave wrote:- Heavy safety requirements (due to the very nature of flying)
- A capital heavy industry (entry cost in the market are such that it is impossible for a small innovative company to come along)
- A duopoly industry (less need for disruptive innovation when nobody endangers your market position)
Definitely. But you miss the most important issue : aircraft design and manufacturing is carried out by tens of thousands of people, even for a single given product. The inertia of such an orgranistion is huge. To make things worse it calls upon very deep technical knowledge, carried by dedicated teams and experts in the organisations. These people will have a natural tendency to reproduce what they have always done.
To put it simply : if you employ a chocolate expert, a flour expert, a pecan nut expert and a baking oven expert to produce chocolate brownies, then when you ask them to create a new dessert, it is highly unlikely they will come up with a strawberry tart. They'll probably propose some kind of chocolate cake variant. And the improvement over the existing brownies will not be very big
Thus technical improvement is mainly blocked by sociological factors, not economic ones.
blacksoviet wrote:LH707330 wrote:Ok, for the sake of this thread, let's assume that the objective is to reduce use of fossil fuels in aviation. If you don't agree with 97% of scientists that anthropogenic climate change is real, please start an OT thread about that.
Almost all scientists reject man-made climate change.
BobleBrave wrote:There has been some controversy about biofuels : depending on the generation and the process used, life-cycle analysis of some biofuels (palm or soy based for instance) show they have a worst carbon footprint than regular fuels when all the steps from production to burning are taken into account. But then again this is being tackled by second and third gen biofuels (as highlighted LH707330 link).
BobleBrave wrote:wouldn't you agree that nowadays, [profitability/revenue and shareholder's influence] is clearly shaping every investment decisions (for both OEM and Airlines)?
BobleBrave wrote:It may be marginal today but given the growth of the sector and the efforts made by other industries (e.g. electricity production, car industry...), the relative share of commercial aviation in the GHG burden might increase faster than we expect.
BobleBrave wrote:the industry faces a "path dependence"
BobleBrave wrote:an exogenous pressure is put on that stable system
airmagnac wrote:So don't expect any dramatic breakthroughs anytime soon.
BobleBrave wrote:Indeed, the industry faces a "path dependence" dilemma whereby every single aspect of the current socio-technical regime has been shaped around fossil fuel jet-engine/props aircrafts, everything, from government policy to engineering culture, infrastructures, user preference, R&D is therefore dynamically stable. There is that quote which sums it up perfectly : "A technology is not chosen because it is the best one, it is the best one because it has been chosen".
But today, an exogenous pressure is put on that stable system (a need for climate change mitigation and GHG emission reduction) which might open up windows of opportunity to develop new technology (coming from various niche of innovations) and help them break through mainstream markets.
parapente wrote:Good topic thread starter.
Of course (with aircraft particularly) energy density is critical.So hard to see a way round hydrocarbon fuels.I guess one could split the problem into two areas.
1.General CO2/Global warming.
2.Damage (by a range of exhaust chemicals) to humans living near airports.
With the former one perhaps should discuss the use of bunker fuel powered oil burning super tankers before worrying about ever more fuel efficient aircraft.
But No 2.I personally like the idea of aircraft manoeuvring around airports using electric wheel motors.That should cut down a load of local pollution.It would be nice to see more work on steeper approaches to runways (5%?).This would cut down local pollution and nouse pollution.
Wish there was something one could do about T/o but I doubt they can.
blacksoviet wrote:I also think that mag-lev railroads will one day replace many of the long-haul air routes we have today. This will reduce the need for jet fuel.
parapente wrote:I personally like the idea of aircraft manoeuvring around airports using electric wheel motors
Francoflier wrote:I think a lot of it will depend on the long term price of oil.
parapente wrote:Now of course if they have 'really' discovered metallic hydrogen (see recent science articles) that that (to quote S Jobs) changes everything.
One assumes liquid hydrogen is just too dangerous.
airmagnac wrote:As mentioned, green political decision are unlikely to sufficently pressure the industry into doing anything new. The last potential driver for change is competition, but the current non-Aor B aircraft designers are short on cash and/or have a long way to go before offering a competitive plane. And anyway, everyone is doing tubes-with-wings.
Hyperloop may be able to offer some competition, but honestly I'm waiting to see the safety studies and resulting constraints on the design, before I make my mind up on the viability. So far, nothing really new has been put on the table ; Maglevs have been demonstrated for 30 years, and vacuum tubes for longer than that. I have not seen much in terms of managing the combination of high speed/high energy levels and vacuum, and the resulting safety and operational constraints.
the average level of CO2 emissions from international aviation covered by the scheme between 2019 and 2020 represents the basis for carbon neutral growth from 2020, against which emissions in future years are compared. In any year from 2021 when international aviation CO2 emissions covered by the scheme exceed the average baseline emissions of 2019 and 2020, this difference represents the sector's offsetting requirements for that year.
parapente wrote:Wish there was something one could do about T/o but I doubt they can
parapente wrote:Thanks for the link on Taxibot.I had not heard about it.Looks like a superb solution.Of course there is the cost of the vehicles themselves (one would need quite a few I imagine).But I think they should be insisted on Frankly.Easyjet states that they use 4% of fuel on ground handling opp's which must add up to shed load of £££ so it would clearly be worth paying for I would have thought.Bring it on! (Starting with Heathrow!)
BobleBrave wrote:Regarding the Hyperloop I see it as a potential substitute for aviation in the long run (for a few city pairs), but the infrastructure required means secondary markets and transoceanic routes will not be served any time soon.
BobleBrave wrote:Isn't there a possibility to use electrically powered catapults ? I think there was a thread about it a while ago, I know it is a far fetched idea but wouldn't that solve the issue ? Take-off is the most energy consuming phase of flight, on top of that : less max power needed means less weight hence less fuel burn (but go-arounds could become a problem with less powerful engines). I know there are quite a number of issues mostly regarding the stress on the plane's structure, but contrary to aircraft carrier catapults, at an airport the available runway length translates into lower acceleration requirement.
parapente wrote:As far as I can see the only real issue for the airline industry burning hydrocarbons at high altitude is ..cloud formation.The level of high altitude cloud formation does (I believe) have a strong effect of global temperatures.
Mind you I can't see what can be done about it but it might be a real issue that can be directly focused on this industry alone.
BobleBrave wrote:parapente wrote:As far as I can see the only real issue for the airline industry burning hydrocarbons at high altitude is ..cloud formation.The level of high altitude cloud formation does (I believe) have a strong effect of global temperatures.
Mind you I can't see what can be done about it but it might be a real issue that can be directly focused on this industry alone.
I agree, although to my knowledge there is not yet a true consensus about its overall impact within the scientific community (and it represents one of the major debate between NGOs and the industry). Models need to take into account a lot of complex factors, those clouds have indeed a greenhouse effect, but they also modify earth's albedo...
Singapore Airlines has begun a series of biofuel flights using A350-900 aircraft on non-stop trans-Pacific flights between Singapore and San Francisco.
The project is being undertaken by Singapore Airlines in conjunction with the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore and air navigation service providers, using enhanced flight operations and Air Traffic Management (ATM) practices along the flight route.
The programme will demonstrate the environmental and economic benefits that can be achieved through a combination of the latest fuel-efficient aircraft, alternative fuels and optimised flight operations to reduce fuel burn and carbon emissions.
The A350s taking part in the programme are being powered by a combination of HEFA (hydro-processed esters and fatty acids) – a sustainable biofuel produced from used cooking oils – and conventional jet fuel.
Altogether, Singapore Airlines will undertake 12 flights using this biofuel mix during the next three months. The first of the “Green Package” flights occurred on 1 May, linking San Francisco International Airport with Singapore Changi Airport.
“We are embarking on this initiative to help promote the use of sustainable biofuel in an operationally and commercially viable manner,” explained Singapore Airlines CEO Goh Choon Phong. “This is in line with our long-term commitment to further reduce carbon emissions while improving the efficiency of our operations.”
Singapore Airlines has ordered a total of 67 A350 XWB aircraft and 12 have been delivered to the carrier as of end-March 2017. Next year it will become the launch operator of the A350-900 ULR, which will be able to fly non-stop on the world’s very longest flights – including from Singapore to New York.
reidar76 wrote:Norway wants to be the first country in the world that puts battery driven aircraft into commercial service, reports the largest and respected Norwegian newspaper. (In Norwegian: http://www.aftenposten.no/okonomi/Avino ... 9664b.html).
Avinor, the state owned company that owns and runs almost all airports in Norway, has started up a project for preparing aircraft charging infrastructure at Norwegian airports. As I understand it, the aim of project is to incorporate future needs for high voltage, high capacity electricity infrastructure in airport upgrade and development plans. The National Transportation Plan 2018-2029, an important document that will be approved by the Norwegian parliament in a few weeks, includes several paragraphs on electric aircraft and financing for airport infrastructure development projects etc.
The CEO of Avinor visited Airbus in Toulouse recently, and he is quoted on that Airbus has made huge progress on the technology development needed for an all electric commercial aircraft. Passenger aircraft up to 100 seats, capable of completing a one hour commercial flight, available in about 10 years, is mentioned. (Hmmm... Speculation, possible ATR update/replacement?)
Why Norway? This is the country with the highest share for electric cars in the world. Almost 25 % of all new cars sold are fully electric (excluding hybrids). Electric cars are heavily subsidized, while taxes on fossil cars are the highest in world. This is a country where an increasing amount of car ferries (ro-ro ferries crossing fjords) runs on batteries that is charged while at port. Electricity is cheap, in abundance and produced almost exclusively by hydropower. I think the government's willingness to invest in and/or subsidize the development of electric aircraft is high. Aircraft with zero emissions is very temping. We are talking about a government that spends billions each year in order to insure that Brazil reduces the logging of the rainforests.
LH707330 wrote:What do people think of this idea? Airlines have a checkbox on their booking site that says "power my flight with biofuel for [nominal price bump]." This would accelerate adoption and help clear the hump (lack of scale drives up costs) by allowing those of us who think it's important to vote with our wallets. Just doing a quick back-of-the-napkin, a flight from SEA-Europe for me is in the neighborhood of 60 gallons of fuel per seat. With a price delta of $2/gal, I'd pay an additional $120 (~10%) for biofuel. On local flights it would be much less than that.
Possible challenges include auditing (did that money really go to biofuel, or some marketing VP's wallet?), can't think of too many other blockers. THoughts?
767333ER wrote:LH707330 wrote:What do people think of this idea? Airlines have a checkbox on their booking site that says "power my flight with biofuel for [nominal price bump]." This would accelerate adoption and help clear the hump (lack of scale drives up costs) by allowing those of us who think it's important to vote with our wallets. Just doing a quick back-of-the-napkin, a flight from SEA-Europe for me is in the neighborhood of 60 gallons of fuel per seat. With a price delta of $2/gal, I'd pay an additional $120 (~10%) for biofuel. On local flights it would be much less than that.
Possible challenges include auditing (did that money really go to biofuel, or some marketing VP's wallet?), can't think of too many other blockers. THoughts?
As you said, many including myself would wonder where such money would actually be going. It is an interesting idea, but when we see time and again most people looking for the least frills cheapest option to fly somewhere, I don't think it would ever be likely that more than a few people would cough up the money for something in which they don't see an immediate or direct return. Something that you would see an immediate or direct return is buying an essential service such as internet or buying premium economy and still people complain about price and don't do it.
LH707330 wrote:I'd be interested to know if some research has been done into fuel additives to promote or suppress contrail formation at the right times. I know USAF looked into it for the B-2 (for lower visibility), but they used some pretty nasty chemicals and it didn't work very well. I've read that some research goes back and forth on the net radiation effects of contrails, perhaps someone will find a fuel additive that's a net benefit.
Balerit wrote:LH707330 wrote:I'd be interested to know if some research has been done into fuel additives to promote or suppress contrail formation at the right times. I know USAF looked into it for the B-2 (for lower visibility), but they used some pretty nasty chemicals and it didn't work very well. I've read that some research goes back and forth on the net radiation effects of contrails, perhaps someone will find a fuel additive that's a net benefit.
You do know that for every ton of fuel burnt in a jet engine, about 1.3 tons of water is released which causes the contrails under the right conditions?