[teragram (OP)]

Is there any hope of effective action on climate change?

I quote from  an article in New Internationalist 515 September/October 2018:-

'The UN's International Civil Aviation Organisation has identified a new kind of low-carbon aviation fuel...."kerosene". Apparently the old fashioned jet fuel will now be classified as a climate-friendly "alternative fuel" so long as it's processed in a refinery POWERED BY (my capitals) renewable energy. This handy new definition of "clean oil" was agreed by the ICAO thanks to pressure from the US and Saudi Arabian delegations, according to the European Federation for Transport and Environment....'

The article goes on to criticise the ICAO's carbon offsetting scheme known as "CORSIA" and then continues;
 
'Airlines can also classify their flights as "lower carbon" by using biofuels - even though the majority of biofuels have been linked to (direct or indirect) deforestation, often making them even worse for the climate than burning fossil fuels. Despite these loopholes, the promise of making aviation growth "carbon neutral" frequently crops up as an excuse for airport expansion.....
The creation of climate - friendly fossil fuel is likely to be the final sputter of CORSIA's engine before it heads towards the ground: aviation isn't going to become low - carbon anytime soon....'

[alancalverd]

Replacing our liquid-fuelled transport system with anything else will require a huge energy input (it takes as much energy to build a car as it will use in its lifetime) and a massive, sudden replacement of a fuel storage and distribution system that has so far grown organically to match demand over the last 150 years or so. Far more sensible to keep what works (the internal combustion  engine and gas turbines) and make sustainable liquid fuels.

[chris]

You are right to be sceptical @teragram - and the examples you cite are thought-provoking to say the least...

[teragram (OP)]

]

Replacing our liquid-fuelled transport system with anything else will require a huge energy input (it takes as much energy to build a car as it will use in its lifetime) and a massive, sudden replacement of a fuel storage and distribution system that has so far grown organically to match demand over the last 150 years or so. Far more sensible to keep what works (the internal combustion  engine and gas turbines) and make sustainable liquid fuels.

Mention of transport powered by sustainable energy always seems to provoke talk of an almost overnight conversion of the systems currently in place. Solutions to the problems of transport emissions can be introduced over a manageable period of time, vehicles that wear out will be replaced by better ones. The OP was concerned though with the aviation industry, which seems to have achieved sacred cow status, having managed to avoid international agreements on reduction of CO2 emissions, and unlike the car industry for example, shows little enthusiasm to address the problem.
Whether road or air transport though, the solution to environmental problems cannot include heat engines, because of their low thermal efficiency.

[wolfekeeper]

Really large scale deployment of biofuels is, with currently available technology, a non starter; their production takes up far too much land. Small scale deployment might work, maybe 10% of current fuel use (enough for airlines). The rest will probably have to electrify.

The technology- and more importantly- costs of the technology are making major strides and are likely to see widespread deployment by about 2025. All the technologies, like batteries, biofuels, solar, wind, electric cars etc. actually look like they are going to interwork really, really well.

There are some worrying areas, like shipping, it may be that a lot of shipping will have to switch to going overland instead. Electrifying ships seems to be beyond the current state of art, unless there's nuclear power involved.

[alancalverd]

Nuclear powered ships have been around for many years. Not just submarines but icebreakers and capital warships - the USA decommissioned its last non-nuke aircraft carrier in 2009. Makes perfect sense, and I look forward to a nuclear powered trawler or container ship. Indeed if the UK is going to make better use of worldwide trade in the future, now is the time to start building nuclear container ships - we have the capacity and the technology.

Apropos biofuels, the biological production of fermentation sugars is only one means of using solar energy to capture atmospheric carbon dioxide. It's traditional, well understood, and produces food as a byproduct, but it's not particularly efficient. Watch this space!

[alancalverd]

the aviation industry......shows little  enthusiasm to address the problem.

Quite to the contrary. Fuel consumption is the key to profitability in a competitive market, with 100 passenger miles per US gallon at 500 mph as the starting point for scheduled jet services. Add to that the fact that the plane does not have any footprint between its destinations (how much fuel is burned to produce a mile of road? No annoying, energy-consuming street lights or "road improvement works" in the sky....) and you might wonder why we still use road transport at all!

[teragram (OP)]

  …. with 100 passenger miles per US gallon at 500 mph as the starting point for scheduled jet services.

Can we compare 100 passenger miles per US gallon for an aircraft with the Prius (often quoted yardstick), at 70mp(us)g which with 4 people on board equals 280 passenger mpg? Or a little less to account for the extra rolling resistance with more people than just the driver. Mind you, the Prius won't reach 500mph

[alancalverd]

Trouble with the Prius is (a) it needs 1000 miles of tarmac or concrete to travel from Lands End to John o Groats (b) that concrete needs lights, drains, policing, repairs, and goes through lots of habitation (c) nobody  I know has ever got more than 50 mpg (UK gallon, 37.5 mpUSG - comparable with a diesel car of the same size) from a Prius in real traffic and (d) it needs a major battery replacement after about 60,000 miles. The average occupancy of cars on the road is 1.2 occupants, not 4.

Unlike the plane  that only needs 2 miles of concrete (with lights and drains)  for any journey, doesn't cause any congestion or accidents in cities, and needs a major overhaul (not replacement) every 20,000 hours (1,000,000 miles). RB211 and similar engines are generally retired after about 2,500,000 miles on a precautionary basis, smaller piston engines (used for short journeys) are rebuilt, not scrapped,  after 200,000 miles.

If you reduce passenger comfort from airliner to car standard (no toilets, no galleys, no standing height, no overhead luggage, max hold cargo of one suitcase per passenger, no cabin crew) there is no contest in terms of fuel efficiency. per passenger mile.

[teragram (OP)]

Trouble with the Prius is (a) it needs 1000 miles of tarmac or concrete to travel from Lands End to John o Groats (b) that concrete needs lights, drains, policing, repairs, and goes through lots of habitation (c) nobody  I know has ever got more than 50 mpg (UK gallon, 37.5 mpUSG - comparable with a diesel car of the same size) from a Prius in real traffic and (d) it needs a major battery replacement after about 60,000 miles. The average occupancy of cars on the road is 1.2 occupants, not 4.

Unlike the plane  that only needs 2 miles of concrete (with lights and drains)  for any journey, doesn't cause any congestion or accidents in cities, and needs a major overhaul (not replacement) every 20,000 hours (1,000,000 miles). RB211 and similar engines are generally retired after about 2,500,000 miles on a precautionary basis, smaller piston engines (used for short journeys) are rebuilt, not scrapped,  after 200,000 miles.

If you reduce passenger comfort from airliner to car standard (no toilets, no galleys, no standing height, no overhead luggage, max hold cargo of one suitcase per passenger, no cabin crew) there is no contest in terms of fuel efficiency. per passenger mile.

As always, I admire your knowledge, in this case of aircraft. Your figures regarding the technical aspects of maintenance etc. are interesting.
I used the Prius example as I have seen it quoted by the aviation industry for these sort of comparisons. My figures were from Wiki, but I can say that my trusty old Peugeot has managed a genuine average consumption of 64mpg(imp) during it's life with me (mostly with 2 occupants), or 128 passenger mpg.
Regarding fuel efficiency, cheap air travel has made extreme  long distance travel possible for a large portion of the world's population. Much of the miles travelled are for recreational purposes, arguably not necessary for a healthy existence. In the world of instant communication one could argue that many air journeys are unnecessary, and consumption of fuel could be reduced enormously. We could of course say that many car journeys are unnecessary, and public transport should be used more
Regarding congestion, isn't it the case that aircraft already have to queue for long periods to land at major airports? Hence the often stated requirements for more airports or additional runways. If significant number of road vehicle journeys were transferred to air travel, how would that affect the congestion situation? We may end up with requiring fewer roads, but far more runways.
I must admit though that the costs of permanent way maintenance is probably not often considered in such discussions as this.
In terms of climate change, given that aircraft can consume more than 100,000  litres of fuel in one flight, I think that the industry should be seen to be trying harder.

[alancalverd]

Regarding fuel efficiency, cheap air travel has made extreme  long distance travel possible for a large portion of the world's population. Much of the miles travelled are for recreational purposes, arguably not necessary for a healthy existence. In the world of instant communication one could argue that many air journeys are unnecessary, and consumption of fuel could be reduced enormously. We could of course say that many car journeys are unnecessary, and public transport should be used more

I sort of agree. My personal opinion is that almost all business travel is a waste of time and money and I do a lot of it, in the air and on the ground. Travel for pleasure makes sense, however, but as an enthusiast I get as much pleasure from flying as from arriving, and the best form of flying is gliding where the peak of achievement is to get back to where you started by the longest possible route, with zero fuel consumption.

Regarding congestion, isn't it the case that aircraft already have to queue for long periods to land at major airports?

No. Scheduled flights are just that, and general aviation (bizjets and private aircraft) normally only carry enough fuel for one diversion and 40 minutes "weather" hold. I sometimes have to hold for 5 to 10 minutes if I miss my landing slot, but Traffic Control are aware of the inexorable nature of gravity. 

Hence the often stated requirements for more airports or additional runways.

Not a congestion problem, but a response to anticipated demand (nobody wants to drive 5 hours to get to an airport for a 1 hour flight) or, in the case of the European Union, the need to spend your money.

If a significant number of road vehicle journeys were transferred to air travel, how would that affect the congestion situation? We may end up with requiring fewer roads, but far more runways.

500 people travelling 1000 miles in  an A380 need 4 miles of runway, for about 10 minutes. 1 person travelling 1000 miles in a car needs 1000 miles of road, for 20 hours.

In terms of climate change, given that aircraft can consume more than 100,000  litres of fuel in one flight, I think that the industry should be seen to be trying harder.

I can't get 100,000 liters of fuel into my plane. More like 150. The amount of fuel you burn is directly related to where you are going.

And note: cars don't float. This is quite an important consideration if you live on an island, even one as big as Great Britain.

[mrsmith2211]

Would making climate change worse be an effective action?

[alancalverd]

Depends on your definition of "worse". Climate change is inevitable, human comfort and settlement is not.

Any change will require adaptation, but humans are driven by politics and philosophy, not logic, so will probably kill one another whatever happens.

[teragram (OP)]

Would making climate change worse be an effective action?

We have been making climate change worse for hundreds of years, definitely effectively! I admit my question should have been "Is there any hope of effective action to reduce the rate of climate change".

[teragram (OP)]

500 people travelling 1000 miles in  an A380 need 4 miles of runway, for about 10 minutes. 1 person travelling 1000 miles in a car needs 1000 miles of road, for 20 hours.

How do the 500 people get to the aircraft? By travelling some distance to an airport, some of them via part of the 1000 miles of road you mentioned. In other words, no-one can walk from his front door to an aircraft (except the very rich). In any case the road infrastructure is required anyway. To say that one person in a car requires 1000 miles of road to travel 1000 miles is similar to saying one passenger in a large aircraft is using one gallon of fuel for each mile travelled (probably much more, but you get the drift)

I can't get 100,000 liters of fuel into my plane. More like 150. The amount of fuel you burn is directly related to where you are going.

Apparently an Airbus 380 can carry 300,000litres of fuel. That the amount of fuel burnt depends on the destination distance is sort of the point. I have heard of people flying from the UK to the Maldives or to the Greek Islands to get married, or even for a stag party!

[alancalverd]

A plane can travel from anywhere to anywhere else with no intervening infrastructure. In order to achieve the same global connectivity by car you would have to cover the entire globe (including the oceans) with concrete.

Looking at public transport, it's interesting to compare the energy input required to buiild and operate a new railway line (the HS2) between London and Birmingham, plus the trains to run on it, with that required to supply the same service by plane. The energy breakeven point is in about 100 years. The disruption to existing traffic, and the cost of compensation for land purchase, would of course be zero for an air service, which could begin tomorrow. So why is there no regular direct air service, since the cost of introducing one would be negligible (startup airlines lease their planes - no capital cost)? The obvious answer is lack of demand, which makes one wonder why HS2 (which will cost umpteen billions, take years to build, and take twice as long for the trip) was even considered. 

Flying small aircaft in the UK is horrendously expensive because about 80% of the fuel cost is tax, but it still works out about the same price as first-class rail travel for a single pilot in a 4-seater, and with 3 passengers it's comparable with the cheapest standard class rail travel, but much quicker and with no need to travel into a city. Car is indeed cheaper per mile but road mileage is between 1.2 and 1.4 times the point-to-point distance and journey times are about 3 times as long as private aircraft.

Anyway, back to the modified original question. If climate change is driven by carbon dioxide, the rate of change can be radically altered at no cost and with no change in anyone's standard of living, by abandoning meat farming, which contributes about 25% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. If you want to improve standards of living, this can be done, again at no cost, by reducing the birthrate to less than replacement level.

[teragram (OP)]

Flying small aircaft in the UK is horrendously expensive because about 80% of the fuel cost is tax, but it still works out about the same price as first-class rail travel for a single pilot in a 4-seater, and with 3 passengers it's comparable with the cheapest standard class rail travel, but much quicker and with no need to travel into a city. Car is indeed cheaper per mile but road mileage is between 1.2 and 1.4 times the point-to-point distance and journey times are about 3 times as long as private aircraft.

 Are we suggesting that the greater part of travel should be moved to aircraft? If so, what are the prospects of todays traffic density on the roads and rail being successfully dealt with in the air?

Anyway, back to the modified original question. If climate change is driven by carbon dioxide, the rate of change can be radically altered at no cost and with no change in anyone's standard of living, by abandoning meat farming, which contributes about 25% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. If you want to improve standards of living, this can be done, again at no cost, by reducing the birthrate to less than replacement level.

Here we can approach some sort of agreement, abandoning meat farming would be a great step forward. As cattle in particular also produce huge quantities of methane (although now this may be reduced by diet) would it not be a good idea to drastically reduce our consumption of dairy products also (alas, no more cheese!!). I am with you 100% also on reducing the birthrate. But how to achieve this, when the traditional cry of religious leaders has been "Go forth and multiply", and major faiths still subscribe to this doctrine, obviously to ensure that future generations of humans are of the "correct faith". The Chinese attempt at reducing birthrate did seem to work but culturally such programmes have undesirable side effects such as abortion of "wrong sex" babies. I wonder whether the ideal of well controlled world populations will ever be a reality, or whether natural selection will take over, with millions dying of starvation, while the richer few (including people like myself) inherit the earth, or what's left of it.

[alancalverd]

Religious leaders are responsible for most of the misery in the world, but fortunately humanity is beginning to show signs of growing up and ignoring such parasites.

My suggestion is to pay every woman £500 (or the locally-adjusted equivalent) every 6 months if she is not pregnant, and abolish all child benefit payments. The saving in health and education costs alone will outweigh the cost of the grant.

Strict immigration control and the prohibition of religious teaching in state schools (or even a curriculum change to ensure that religion is included along with sexually transmitted diseases and careless driving, under "things to avoid") will allow the UK to become a model of voluntary population control. If others wish to reproduce to starvation, it is up to them - there will be no handouts for famine relief in areas that cannot reasonably support their populations.

As for travel and transport I really don't see the point of most of it. Look around a city at lunchtime. Pretty well everyone wearing an office suit has no need to be there - anything you can do in an office, you can do on a computer at home, including "meetings" (what a waste of time). Travel for fun and adventure, and by all means transport goods around the place, but commuting and "business trips" really don't need to happen - as High Street shops are beginning to notice.

[GrizzlyBoom]

It depends on states' will. You see, developing countries in Asia and Africa can't afford to spend money on new techs that's why coil and oil will be burnt. Then we eat. Agriculture affects global warming too and pretty enough. We can't do anything with it. Pretty sad, but we (governments) should change our life completely. And also we have to help developing countries.

[alancalverd]

Help developing countries how? Reduce infant mortality so that everyone starves? Increase adult life expectancy so that everyone starves? Supply American rice so that the local market becomes uneconomic? Supply weapons to both sides in a religious war? Lend money to corrupt administrations?

The definition of a "developing" country seems to be one with too much faith and not enough rain. There is nothing that an external agency can do to fix either problem.