Airplanes and Climate Change?

This is talked about but you don't see it as much in media because it is a touchy subject with the elite and because so much business is done through these airlines.

Some of the solutions can be worked out through biofuels like Brasil has done. In fact I believe some some airlines are actually working on biofuel solutions and have been for at least a few years.

Most of the studies I have read are centered on contrails and the effects of incomplete combustion of aviation fuels on weather patterns. Some of the particulates emitted by aircraft become rain nuclei and aid in the formation of clouds which shade the earth from incoming solar radiation and lower the insolution levels in some locations. While it is generally understood that this does not have a huge effect on overall climate, it does have an effect.

If I come across any articles I post them up for you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 23 2007, 07:31 PM) [snapback]543447[/snapback]</div>

It's called Global Dimming . . . and some scientist think Global Warming would be worse without the Global Dimming aspects of air pollution:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/contrail.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=39520879762623193

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cheminee @ Nov 23 2007, 07:40 PM) [snapback]543452[/snapback]</div>

I do not know the exact numbers off-hand but I would not readily say that aircraft does not have as large an impact as automobiles or coal-fired plants. Automobiles for one are a small portion of the entire transportation sector of which airlines are included. You have piqued my curiousity though and I'm going to see if I can dig up some info in my Environmental Science book tonight after testing some audio equipment. That being said, there are people/organizations looking into this but because of costs and safety issues I think the airline solutions may move a bit slower than the ground transportation sector.

You are aware of the new regulations being proposed for tractor trailers (big rigs) right? It is a step in the right direction and pulling some of the heat off everyday citizens.

Justin

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Nov 23 2007, 07:47 PM) [snapback]543455[/snapback]</div>

Aye, I own the movie. I've read the papers by Liepert and Stanhill but there are some new papers coming out that may have different opinions. I just saw one on RealClimate.org as well but I have not had the time to read it yet.

A new paper by Stanhill

The newer blog by Gavin Schmidt: Global Warming and Global Dimming

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cheminee @ Nov 23 2007, 07:59 PM) [snapback]543421[/snapback]</div>

ORNL's Transportation Energy Data Book has tonnes of good data (so to speak).

8.4% of the 2005 transportation energy (btu) use in the US was in aircraft. Of that 8.4%, 0.6% was general aviation, 6.6% was domestic flights, and 1.2% was one-way of the international flights. (I guess they assumed that the other direction of each international flight would be counted against another country.)

In 2004, 12.2% of the transportation sector carbon emissions were from jet fuel, and 0.1% were from avgas.

Interestingly there has been a significant rise in jet fuel usage over the last few years (in millions of gallons):

• 1999: 967.2
• 2000: 998.1
• 2001: 938.7
• 2002: 815.5
• 2003: 820.0
• 2004: 1075.2
• 2005: 1507.4

There was a drop after 9/11 as you might expect, but the usage recovered quite quickly, and rose a great deal in 2005.

There was another, dramatic impact of 9/11, which was a significant increase in temperature resulting from absence of the contrails from the jets when they were grounded for three days. Jets don't always make contrails, and they make fewer around that time of year. At a different time of year, the effect would have been even more dramatic.

The particulates in the jet exhaust effectively seed cloud formation when the conditions are favorable, which is what the contrails are. The resulting long, skinny clouds reflect light back into space, reducing the effective albedo of the planet by a small amount. But enough to make a significant difference in the average temperature of the continental United States. Quite remarkable.

However that doesn't mean that the warming caused by the CO2 from the jets is countered by the cooling from the contrails. If all the jets stopped flying now, there would be a small, one-time warming, though not much over the whole planet. Similarly if they started flying again, there would be a small one-time cooling. However the CO2 emitted by the jets over the last fifty years (and the next fifty years) stays in the atmosphere and contributes with all of the other CO2 sources to the accumulating global warming problem.

So, back to the carbon emissions. While the overall ~10% contribution from flying seems small, the personal fractions can be much greater.

From the ORNL report, I came up with an approximate value of 63 grams of carbon emitted per passenger mile. (This takes into account the average seat occupancy on the aircraft.) Comparing that against my flying in the last year -- looking at frequent flyer account records helps with this calculation -- between my flights to and within France and Australia and a few domestic flights between LA and DC, I emitted 2.7 tonnes of carbon just flying. All for business reasons, though I tacked on some vacation time to the foreign trips.

This compares to about 0.8 tonnes that my Prius emitted over 15,000 miles, which is about 53 grams per mile.

It's intriguing that the effective "carbon mileage" of one seat on a commercial airline, 63 grams per mile, and one person in a Prius, 53 grams per mile, is about the same. Newer, more efficient aircraft, like the 787 will make that closer. However if you put two or more people in a Prius, then you have much less carbon per passenger mile, of course.

So the reason for the disparity in my aircraft vs. auto personal carbon emissions is not due to the aircraft burning more fuel per passenger mile in order to go fast. In fact it doesn't burn much more fuel. It's simply the number of miles I cover in the air is far greater than what I cover on the ground.

The solution here will not be in more efficient aircraft, though there will be some gains there. The solution will be flying less. More telecons and videocons. Fortunately this is one area where the incredibly rapid advances in information technology can help the carbon problem.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 23 2007, 09:58 PM) [snapback]543457[/snapback]</div>

Not that small. Motor gasoline accounted for 60.3% of the carbon emissions in the US transportation sector in 2004, as compared to 12.2% for jet fuel (see ORNL reference in previous post). 22.2% was from diesel fuel.

It's probably not far off to attribute the 60.3% from gasoline to automobiles and light trucks, and the 22.2% from diesel to heavy trucks.

The transportation sector in the US accounts for 33% of US carbon emissions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madler @ Nov 24 2007, 11:15 AM) [snapback]543624[/snapback]</div>

I was thinking personal autos specifically but even then I seemed to be underestimating. Thanks for the link.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 24 2007, 08:06 PM) [snapback]543764[/snapback]</div>

Nowadays, most of the light trucks are personal autos. An alternative to the SUV that will never see mud is the truck that will never see cargo. (Preferably with a V8.)

 

Boeing is doing its part to lower fuel consumption, their new 777 is 3.4 % more fuel efficient than past planes and the new planes require less energy to manufacture while producing less waste in manufacture process

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q4/nr_051129g.html

Also NASA has built a very high flying solar powered airplane that will be used as a cheap satellite to monitor weather conditions

You cant get better than solar power

 

We don't have to give up airplanes, but if we continue flying lots of we will have to either
1. fuel them with carbon-neutral artificial kerosene (made from atmospheric CO2 and water),
or
2. power them with microwaves or lasers (it sounds wacky, but it would work if we're willing to build new airplanes and a huge power infrastructure for them).

 

IMHO, I think that there's a bit too much "hey, let's fly to some natural paradise, and do an eco-vacation" going on, honestly.

Also, because aircraft emissions are...well...emitted way up in the sky, they tend to be a bit more malignant than those from ground-based sources.

The condensation trails from jets can, I just read in yesterday's SF Chronicle, also seed large swatches of cirrus clouds, which might contribute to the retention of heat nearer to the ground.

Personally, I'm struck by how energy intensive it must be to get that little meal from the factory to my seat back tray table, as only one example of how air travel tends to consume a disproportionate amount of natural resources.

I'm a big fan of the Dreamliner and other advances in air travel...but air travel, itself, seems (in its current state) to be inherently inefficient and ecologically unfriendly.

 

Actually, it has the opposite effect. The white clouds reflect sunlight right back into space, preventing that energy from heating anything at all. This effect was seen quite clearly in the three days after 9/11, when all the planes were grounded. There was a quite noticeable and unmistakable increase in temperature over the continental US as a result of the sudden lack of contrails.

This does not mean that flying more will reduce global warming -- it will still increase it due to the CO2. The effect of contrails is transient, not cumulative, whereas the CO2 is cumulative. You have to keep flying at the same rate just to keep the temperature the same with respect to contrail effects, all the while continuing to add to the CO2.

 

Boeings 787 Dreamliner is 20% more efficient than the plane it replaces

Thats a HUGE improvement

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/07/boeing-rolls-ou.html

and lets not forget the F22 Raptor which uses Supercruise which allows it to fly almost Mach 2 WITHOUT afterburner for as long as the F15 can fly without afterburner

Now THATS Cool

 

Air travel isn't going to go away unless badness ensues. However, if we can develop BTL (biomass to liquids) technologies we have a chance to make aviation carbon neutral if not carbon negative. Obviously, we also want to keep working on efficiency like WH has point out (the dreamliner being a great example, BTW) because the location of the combustion is important and minimizing the amount of NOx we spew into the atmosphere (particularly at 37k ft) is a good thing.

 

Like this trip?(the AGW conference at Bali). I know it is the proverbial drop in the carbon emissions bucket when considering the overall scheme of things, but symbolically it does not do much for their cause. And BTW, I'd like to know WHO is paying for the airfare, the hotels, the per diem, and such for these tens of thousands of conferees?

You are correct but, an inflight meal? When? With what airline? Me, I can hardly remember my last one. Perhaps 20 years or so ago. I am not poor but do not fly first class since for my tastes it is a little overboard considering the few perks you get for hundreds more in airfare (as in cheap champagne and a TV dinner). Like others, I'll just bring a sandwich on board for 2 hour plus flights.

Perhaps, but just like government and taxes, do you have a better way to move people around the country or world in a timely manner? ;-). I think current technologies have been applied well considering our state of modernization as concerned with air travel for the public.

Rick
#4 2006

 

Yeah, right.

With aviation traffic growth running at 5% a year, then if we replaced EVERY SINGLE PLANE IN USE with a model that's 20% more efficient, then we'd manage to stabilise emissions for 4 years.

Now, if they could come up with a new 20%-more-efficient model every 4 years, we might be able to stabilise emissions at their current (ie too high) level. Even if that was remotely possible, it wouldn't be sufficient. We need to halve our overall emissions.

Maybe we can carry on flying, but only if we cut other emissions even more. If current aviation growth levels continued it wouldn't be many decades before aviation emissions alone exceeded the "safe" total emission limit for all human activity.

 

That's why we have to fix the fuel source.

 

FYI, here is the "airline industry's" position on this issue:


November 19, 2007
The Honorable Joseph Lieberman, Chairman
The Honorable John Warner, Ranking Member

456 Dirksen Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Warner:

On behalf of the Air Transport Association of America, Inc. (ATA) and its member airlines, I write to share with you our concerns regarding S. 2191, "America’s Climate Security Act" (ACSA). As the principal trade and service organization of the major scheduled air carriers in the United States, ATA is actively engaged in addressing the environmental impacts of aviation.1 We take our role in controlling greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions very seriously and are committed to continuing to build on our strong record in this regard. We believe, however, that S. 2191 proposes the wrong approach for our industry. Specifically, as detailed below, application of S. 2191 to the commercial aviation sector is unnecessary, would be unduly punitive and inequitable and, ultimately, counterproductive.
A brief review of our significant fuel and GHG efficiency achievements provides context for the concerns we have with S. 2191. U.S. commercial aviation contributes about 2 percent of domestic U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.2 At the same time, commercial aviation is critically important to local, national and global economies, enabling a large percentage of U.S. economic output. A March 2006 study by the Campbell-Hill Aviation Group found that "the national economy is highly dependent on commercial aviation, which is directly or indirectly responsible for 5.8 percent of gross output, 5.0 percent of personal earnings and 8.8 percent of national employment."3 The study further noted that this translated into $380 billion in earnings, 11.4 million jobs and $1.2 trillion in U.S. output in 2004. Placing aviation’s economic output side-by-side with its GHG output clearly illustrates that commercial aviation is an extremely GHG-efficient economic engine.
We have been able to deliver such strong economic output while reducing our emissions by continually improving our fuel efficiency through reinvestment in technology and more fuel efficient operations. In fact, U.S. commercial airlines (passenger and cargo combined) have improved their fuel efficiency by 103 percent since 1978, which (given the one-to-one relationship between fuel consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2)) has resulted in commensurate CO2 emissions savings. The improvement in recent years has been particularly dramatic. FAA has confirmed that U.S. carriers burned 5 percent less fuel in 2006 than they did in 2000, resulting in absolute reductions in GHG emissions, even though they carried 12 percent more passengers and 22 percent more cargo.4 And the ATA members recently committed to an additional 30 percent fuel efficiency improvement (on a revenue ton mile (RTM) basis) between 2005 and 2025. Few, if any, other industries can match our achievements and forward-looking commitment.
It cannot be overemphasized that our own investments in technology and more fuel-efficient technology has been the predominant and indispensable ingredient in our success. Constantly upgrading aircraft and engines and acquiring new fuel-saving winglets and equipage to enable more efficient routings are just a few examples of the many, capital intensive programs our carriers have undertaken to improve. Future efficiency gains depend on our ability to continue investing in new technology.
We are not embarrassed that many of these environmental achievements have come as an economic imperative – in fact, the theory behind legislation such as S. 2191 is to provide a "price signal" to stimulate emissions reduction where the market is not doing so. In our case, however, the market already is and long has been providing that signal. Fuel is now the largest cost center for the airlines, averaging 20-30 percent of total operating costs, and long has been one of the two highest costs. Thus, the airlines have long been engaged in exhaustive efforts to conserve fuel and ATA has joined with FAA, the Department of Defense, airframe and aircraft engine manufacturers, airports, researchers, universities and others in the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative (CAAFI), whose mission is to bring commercially viable, environmentally friendly alternative jet fuel to fruition.
Against this backdrop, we are compelled to share our concerns about S. 2191. First, based on our fuel and GHG efficiency records and commitments noted above, application of the bill to commercial aviation simply is unnecessary. Second, the bill would, in effect, impose a punitive emissions tax on aviation, which would not only harm the economy but also would be counterproductive.
As drafted, the bill proposes to cover the transportation sector – including aviation – indirectly, through a cap-and-trade system "upstream," which would require fuel producers to acquire allowances sufficient to cover the GHG content of the fuel they sell to the transport sector. Fuel producers will incorporate the cost of these allowances into fuel prices, passing the costs on to fuel consumers (including airlines) – in effect, operating as a fuel tax on jet fuel and other transportation fuels. This would have significant economic repercussions on the airline industry and the economy, as every penny increase in the price of a gallon of jet fuel drives an additional $190-200 million in annual fuel costs for U.S. airlines.
These increased costs would diminish the airlines’ ability to continue to achieve the tremendous fuel efficiency improvements and emissions reductions we have achieved within the industry and, therefore, would be counterproductive. FAA estimates that 90 percent of the efficiency improvement achieved within the industry comes from our continual reinvestment in newer aircraft and technology upgrades. To the extent that our dollars go to paying more and more for jet fuel, which already is at an all-time high in terms of costs, our ability to continue to invest in our own improvements will be compromised.5
Third, we have serious concerns regarding apparent inequities in the bill. As drafted, aviation fuel providers would have to cover 100 percent of the emissions targets for aviation fuels on day one and forever after, with no allowances provided up front. As airlines must have fuel to operate, our fuel suppliers would pass on these costs to us in full. In contrast, the bill would accord to several sectors – including to industries that do not come anywhere near our fuel and carbon efficiency record – a tremendous amount of free allowances, apparently to cushion the economic blow and to pay for modernizing their equipment and facilities to reduce emissions. In effect, the bill would require our industry – which, as detailed above, has made tremendous strides in reducing its GHG profile – to subsidize future efforts of other industries that have done comparatively little to reduce their GHG profiles. The inequity and public policy flaws in this approach are readily apparent.
Moreover, as an industry covered indirectly upstream, aviation would not have access to the offsets, credit for early action or banking options offered in the bill that are further intended to provide flexibility and mitigate cost impacts to certain of the covered sectors. Again, aviation – a sector that has a remarkable fuel efficiency record and already is fully incentivized by existing fuel costs to conserve fuel and reduce emissions to the fullest extent – inequitably would be subject to the full brunt of the bill’s cost effects without any cost mitigation options.
Another concern is how the bill proposes to handle funds from the auctioning of emissions permits. While the bill proposes to rechannel funds from such auctioning into certain technology research and development (R&D) programs, there is no proposed rechanneling of funds into aviation R&D or into alterative jet fuel research. As we have noted in other contexts, congressional funding to NASA and FAA for aeronautics R&D – specifically including for environmental projects – has been cut significantly (by about 50 percent) in the past 8-10 years, compromising the public-private partnership for exploring and bringing to market products with significantly improved environmental performance.7 Though the government should reinstate funding for aeronautics R&D without regard to the specific climate change legislation in any event,8 such funding could be supplemented with funds rechanneled from any auctioning.
In addition to our aviation-specific concerns regarding the bill, we also have concerns about the volatility in energy costs that analysts predict will result from the bill, the potential for a patchwork quilt of confusing and potentially conflicting climate change economic regulation as between the federal and state governments in light of the bill’s provision asserting that states may, in addition, have their own requirements, among others. Further, the extremely broad discretion and authority provided to subsequent Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency for several decades makes it difficult to understand the impacts the bill will have on our industry. We urge you to take these considerations into account. Moreover, given the far-ranging ramifications of S. 2191, we urge the Senate to undertake the analysis necessary to fully understand the effects of the proposal and to take the time needed for deliberate and transparent review. Thank you for your consideration of our views.