Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to Silverstar64,dave559,OLTB,eyeball08,wilbobob, for Donating to support the site

Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

wildlife, gardening, environment, Rural living, Pets and Vets
dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 6789
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5674 times
Been thanked: 2034 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388764

Postby dspp » February 22nd, 2021, 3:32 pm

gryffron wrote:
dspp wrote:You are confusing a "cruise" liner with a fast passenger liner.

I'm using typical figures that were easily available for a modern (and hopefully quite efficient) passenger ship.

I fully concede cruise liners have theatres and casinos and comforts and lots of staff and various other non-essential passenger spaces. But the slower you go, the more recreation you're going to have to provide. By your own figures, even your proposed slow cattle boat is no more fuel efficient than an all-tourist-class modern aircraft. So the conclusion is the same: Moving passengers from aircraft to ships doesn't help solve the emissions problem.

Gryff


Gryff,
I'm sorry but the fuel consumption is directly related to the speed, and not in a proportional way. In just the same way as flying Concorde to NY at Mach 2 will use up a lot more fuel than flying a 747 to New York at Mach 0.9, so too will motoring a ship to New York at 34-knots consume a lot more fuel than motoring the same ship at 15-knots:

Look at the fuel curves for the 32,000 tonne vessel and you will see that at 15-knots you will burn 35 tons/day, and at 15-knots it will take 10.1 days, so 350 tons. Divide 2500 passengers into that and you get 0.14 tons fuel per passenger per crossing.

QUEEN MARY in LUXURY FAST LINER SERVICE = 0.75 tons @ 4.5-days
LARGE PLANE = 0.25 tons @ 0.5-days
ECONOMIC LINER = 0.14 tons @ 10-days

The selections of speed are matters of choice, not compulsion.

regards, dspp

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 9226
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 91 times
Been thanked: 1662 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388777

Postby Lootman » February 22nd, 2021, 4:04 pm

gryffron wrote:
dspp wrote:However large shipping economic motoring speeds are typically approximately 12-knots, going up to maximum 20-knots for fast commercial traffic.

Internet quotes 29kts cruising speed as "typical" for QM2. I guess cruise ships generally go faster than bulk cargo cos they have places to get, and aren't ultimately guided by fuel cost.

You could equally quote that I picked a jumbo jet which is pretty ancient design and isn't the most efficient of modern aircraft. And the capacity I used includes the first class seats, so that isn't optimised either.

The phrase "jumbo jet" is used for any widebody or "heavy" jet. However historically it was used more for the first generation of 3 and 4 engined planes that were very inefficient in terms of fuel: Boeing 747, McDonnell-Douglas DC-10/MD-11 and the Lockheed L1011 Tristar.

Then came a generation that were 2-engined and were more efficient: Boeing 767 and 777, Airbus A330. Although there were still newer planes with 4 engines: Airbus A340 and A380, plus newer variants of the 747.

The gold standard for widebodies now is the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and the Airbus A350, which have flourished during the pandemic even while airlines are mothballing their older planes. Those are the planes that should be used as the basis of any comparison, in my view. Or for shorter long-haul flights, the long-range variants of the Airbus A321 plus (dare I say it?) the Boeing 737-MAX.

Mike4 wrote:
vrdiver wrote:
gryffron wrote: So the conclusion is the same: Moving passengers from aircraft to ships doesn't help solve the emissions problem.

But an alternative conclusion might be "limiting aircraft passengers would discourage more people from travelling long distances". Now that would help to solve the emissions problem!

Indeed. There seems to be an implicit assumption in recent posts that people collectively are entitled to travel around the globe regardless of the environmental damage being caused. Limiting (then reducing) the number of carbon-fueled passenger miles travelled by the human race in total seems to me to be the obvious way to make progress, whatever the method of transport used.

Except that people ARE entitled to travel around the globe. If any country attempted to bar their residents from doing that then people would tend to migrate to countries that still allowed travel. And the hit to the economy of telling people they cannot go overseas for their holidays would be huge.

Like it or not, global air travel is projected to double by 2050. The key is not to ban that, assuming that was even possible, but rather to continue to develop more efficient aircraft and, where appropriate, price air travel to reflect its external costs.

Mike4
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2331
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 470 times
Been thanked: 1098 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388800

Postby Mike4 » February 22nd, 2021, 4:38 pm

dealtn wrote:
Mike4 wrote:
vrdiver wrote:But an alternative conclusion might be "limiting aircraft passengers would discourage more people from travelling long distances". Now that would help to solve the emissions problem!

VRD


Indeed. There seems to be an implicit assumption in recent posts that people collectively are entitled to travel around the globe regardless of the environmental damage being caused. Limiting (then reducing) the number of carbon-fueled passenger miles travelled by the human race in total seems to me to be the obvious way to make progress, whatever the method of transport used.


Should we also limit, or stop, international trade, eating food grown overseas, eating meat products, non-international transport, ... ? They all contribute to similar problems. Isn't this about deciding where the "line is drawn". We won't all agree on where that should be.


Undoubtedly the line needs to be drawn somewhere, yes. The way the climate science shows we are heading tells us this or do you disagree there is any need to reduce burning carbon-based fuels?

A different way of stating the problem as I see it, is there is no line drawn at all, and I was saying one needs to be drawn. Once drawn, we can start squabbling about it being in the wrong place, but let's draw one to start with.

And I think it is far preferable to start off by preventing or reducing people arbitrarily flying or cruising around the world for recreational purposes, as opposed to reducing the food supply. But yes all of those things you mention will have to stop according to the Bill Gates programme on the BBC, as I understand it.

dealtn
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3149
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 95 times
Been thanked: 1032 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388803

Postby dealtn » February 22nd, 2021, 4:44 pm

Mike4 wrote:
dealtn wrote:
Mike4 wrote:
Indeed. There seems to be an implicit assumption in recent posts that people collectively are entitled to travel around the globe regardless of the environmental damage being caused. Limiting (then reducing) the number of carbon-fueled passenger miles travelled by the human race in total seems to me to be the obvious way to make progress, whatever the method of transport used.


Should we also limit, or stop, international trade, eating food grown overseas, eating meat products, non-international transport, ... ? They all contribute to similar problems. Isn't this about deciding where the "line is drawn". We won't all agree on where that should be.


Undoubtedly the line needs to be drawn somewhere, yes. The way the climate science shows we are heading tells us this or do you disagree there is any need to reduce burning carbon-based fuels?

A different way of stating the problem as I see it, is there is no line drawn at all, and I was saying one needs to be drawn. Once drawn, we can start squabbling about it being in the wrong place, but let's draw one to start with.


I'm not saying anything about the need to reduce burning carbon-based fuels one way or the other. I'm not a denier, although I wouldn't say I was passionate about its importance either.

I'm more a realist, and pointing out that as with any complex issue the liklihood of agreeing the response and the magnitude is going to be difficult in practice. One persons "obvious" response will be another's obvious overreaction.

For sure have a line and then argue where it should be, but in effect that is where we are already. A line has been drawn that already stops some of the worst polluting behaviours of the past, and more are due to come into effect going forwards. You seem to be already at the stage of arguing the line is inappropriately drawn, not that it hasn't yet been drawn.

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 9226
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 91 times
Been thanked: 1662 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388804

Postby Lootman » February 22nd, 2021, 4:46 pm

Mike4 wrote: I think it is far preferable to start off by preventing or reducing people arbitrarily flying or cruising around the world for recreational purposes

Easy to say but how? Countries that benefit a lot from foreign tourism are certainly not going to do that. And unless every country does it then you can just hop over to the closest country that does allow flights, which of course will prosper greatly at the expense of those nations that restrict or tax flights more. Some UK residents already fly long-haul out of Dublin or Amsterdam to avoid the punitive UK air passenger duty.

As a sidebar, it is interesting to me that the Lemons who want to ban flights are largely the same Lemons who support the Covid lockdowns and the sealing of borders. Coincidence?

Mike4
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2331
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 470 times
Been thanked: 1098 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388821

Postby Mike4 » February 22nd, 2021, 5:13 pm

Lootman wrote:As a sidebar, it is interesting to me that the Lemons who want to ban flights are largely the same Lemons who support the Covid lockdowns and the sealing of borders. Coincidence?


Probably not, as both require a 'public spirited' approach to life rather than a self-centred "I'm alright Jack" attitude.

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 9226
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 91 times
Been thanked: 1662 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388834

Postby Lootman » February 22nd, 2021, 5:52 pm

Mike4 wrote:
Lootman wrote:As a sidebar, it is interesting to me that the Lemons who want to ban flights are largely the same Lemons who support the Covid lockdowns and the sealing of borders. Coincidence?

Probably not, as both require a 'public spirited' approach to life rather than a self-centred "I'm alright Jack" attitude.

I would express that a little differently. There are some people who value bigger and more invasive governments, and others who value individual rights, freedoms and choice.

I notice you did not answer my question about HOW you would restrict or ban flying.

DiamondEcho
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2931
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:39 pm
Has thanked: 2096 times
Been thanked: 398 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388905

Postby DiamondEcho » February 22nd, 2021, 8:08 pm

Blimey M4, for a proprietor of a heating engineering company you've gone 'Greener than Greta' :lol:

vrdiver
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2515
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:22 am
Has thanked: 465 times
Been thanked: 888 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#388940

Postby vrdiver » February 22nd, 2021, 10:30 pm

Lootman wrote:Like it or not, global air travel is projected to double by 2050. The key is not to ban that, assuming that was even possible, but rather to continue to develop more efficient aircraft and, where appropriate, price air travel to reflect its external costs.

That would be a good start. Problem is, as you mentioned elsewhere, any country that does that (e.g. harmonising fuel duty for aircraft with that of cars, or making a carbon-offset payment mandatory) will lose business to those countries that are slow to implement.

For such an approach to work, I think it would need to be implemented at a global, or at least regional (EU, North America, Asia). I am doubtful that this would be supported sufficiently at government level, but it would be nice to think the next round of climate talks could add such requirements to the Paris Climate Agreement or similar.

One effect would be to raise costs to the consumer, leading to actual reductions (choosing cheaper, nearer destinations, or not flying as frequently).

VRD

88V8
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1708
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 561 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#389066

Postby 88V8 » February 23rd, 2021, 10:12 am

scrumpyjack wrote:One of the problems with flying is the absence of tax on aviation fuel making flying artificially cheap.
Ideally we would tax it at the same rate as petrol.

Absolutely.

Ships... emissions.... ships can run on methanol which has low emissions.
And ships emit at ground level or should that be sea level.... while aircraft emit into the atmosphere where the harm of the emissions is magnified https://davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do ... te-change/

I won't mention sail.

V8

JamesMuenchen
Lemon Slice
Posts: 943
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:05 pm
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 125 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#389131

Postby JamesMuenchen » February 23rd, 2021, 12:22 pm

vrdiver wrote:
Lootman wrote:Like it or not, global air travel is projected to double by 2050. The key is not to ban that, assuming that was even possible, but rather to continue to develop more efficient aircraft and, where appropriate, price air travel to reflect its external costs.

That would be a good start. Problem is, as you mentioned elsewhere, any country that does that (e.g. harmonising fuel duty for aircraft with that of cars, or making a carbon-offset payment mandatory) will lose business to those countries that are slow to implement.

For such an approach to work, I think it would need to be implemented at a global, or at least regional (EU, North America, Asia). I am doubtful that this would be supported sufficiently at government level, but it would be nice to think the next round of climate talks could add such requirements to the Paris Climate Agreement or similar.

One effect would be to raise costs to the consumer, leading to actual reductions (choosing cheaper, nearer destinations, or not flying as frequently).

VRD

I'm not so sure it would be easy to avoid extra duty or carbon-offset payments by using another country.

For starters, I think we tend to assume that most flights are international but in reality domestic routes are much busier in just about every market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_b ... air_routes

My question is how effective are carbon-offsets really? If all flights had a 100% carbo-offset then would air-travel be OK?

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 6789
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5674 times
Been thanked: 2034 times

Re: Half aviation emissions caused by 1% of people

#389290

Postby dspp » February 23rd, 2021, 6:05 pm

JamesMuenchen wrote:
My question is how effective are carbon-offsets really? If all flights had a 100% carbo-offset then would air-travel be OK?


I've seen articles that conclude most carbon offset programmes are as flaky as hell. That fits with my various encounters with the oleaginous types selling participation in them, who'd give a double glazing saleperson a good run for jail entrance. Given that I tend to think carbon offset is not currently the right way to go, though I fear that is not the answer that politicians wish to hear.

regards, dspp


Return to “The Natural World”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests