backtop


Print 59 comment(s) - last by The Raven.. on Sep 16 at 4:31 PM


NASA's Green Aviation Summit discusses ways to cut toxic NOX gas emissions, sound pollution, and carbon emissions over the next 15 years, while adopting more fuel efficient technologies to save money.  (Source: NASA)
New engines and lightweight materials are among the solutions proposed

Today, the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration is helping to kick off the Green Aviation Summit at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffet Field, California.  The summit is hosting 200 participants in the government, industry, and academia and looks to highlight progress towards solutions to the industry's toughest problems -- fuel efficiency (which directly impacts airlines' profitability), carbon emissions, air traffic noise, and space.

One of the solutions proposed to improve fuel efficiency is to investigate unconventional aircraft designs.  Other options include the increased use of biofuels, designing more efficient engines, or using new lightweight, high-strength materials.

Ames Research Center Director Simon "Pete" Worden speaking to the audience at the summit stated, "As the world travels even more we're going to have a very serious global warming issue, as well as lots of other environmental impacts of aviation."

NASA has proposed that by 2015 aircraft be developed that use 33 percent less fuel than the current most energy efficient models, by 2020 use 50 percent less fuel, and by 2025 use over 50 percent less fuel.  NASA also wants toxic nitric oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions cut 20 percent by 2015, 50 percent by 2020, and better than 50 percent by 2025.

Not all the goals are "green", so to speak, though.  NASA also wants to cut aviation noise levels to one sixth of their current level by 2020.  Noise pollution is a major concern for citizens living near U.S. airports.

Talk of global warming, particularly in light of recent revised melting figures, is sure to provoke criticism from some and praise from others.  However, most would agree that cutting NOX emissions -- which are toxic and cause health issues -- is desirable.  Likewise, most can agree that cutting noise pollution is a good idea.

Additionally, fuel efficiency gains potentially can be a smart business plan, given the massive yearly fuel costs of the airline industry.

Of course, the goals of the summit are overly ambitious and achieving them in an economical manner will be a serious challenge.  Still it's good to see some of the brightest minds in the industry striving to reinvent and improve one of man's most impressive engineering marvels – the modern aircraft.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

thanks for my morning laugh !
By kattanna on 9/10/2010 10:35:15 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
NASA has proposed that by 2015 aircraft be developed that use 33 percent less fuel


how.. cute. in less then 4 years design a brand new aircraft better then the stuff just coming into production today?

LOL please pass what they are smoking !!

now, im not saying such targets can not be meet, i mean the fuel reduction, but it takes a LONG time to design a new aircraft and engines

and since industry is always pushing for such reductions anyways, this whole thing, IMHO, reeks of being nothing more then a grand PR event.




RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By The Raven on 9/10/2010 10:47:17 AM , Rating: 3
You couldn't be more correct.

I am in the automotive industry and to plan car production on this schedule is laughable. That is if they haven't already been working on it.

And yes, if the airlines wanted to cut costs (which they do), this would've already happened.

33 percent? Holy Crap!
Oh I know... hybrid technology will do it! The electric turbines will recharge when the pilot hits the air brakes ;-)


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By MozeeToby on 9/10/2010 11:25:55 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I think there is a real argument to be made that the 787 was an incremental step in this direction. I doubt that Boeing put everything they could into making it as fuel efficient as possible, they were already taking huge risks just the way the plane is now (just look at all their slippage if you don't believe there was risk).

And as for hybrids, yes, there is real research into hybrid airplane engines; serial hybrids (like the Volt) rather than parallel hybrids obviously. One larger, more efficient gas turbine generator supplying power to electric engines on the wings. Simplifies the engine design since you don't have to have physical linkages between the bypass, compression, and exhaust blades and you can more easily optimize airflow to the combustion chamber since you don't have to worry about the turbofan at the front pushing air out the back.


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By bug77 on 9/10/2010 11:40:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I doubt that Boeing put everything they could into making it as fuel efficient as possible


But what if they did?


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By MozeeToby on 9/10/2010 1:37:15 PM , Rating: 3
Nah, more than 50% of the planes weight is still taken up by various metals as structural materials, most of which could be replaced by composites. And there's still lots of efficiency to be gained in the engine designs (which Boeing has very little say in beyond negotiating requirements). Supposedly, even something as simple as painting the leading edges of an aircraft with a radioactive paint can improve fuel efficiency by 2-5% (it sets up a very thin layer of plasma on the surface of the wing which reduces drag). And of course there are more efficient (but harder to design an build) airplane designs than the common tube with wings layout, a flying wing for example could greatly improve efficiency.

Also, unless NASA specifies other performance targets there's all kinds of cheats that you can do: design for a lower cruise speed, more gradual climb and descent profiles (more a question of the ATC systems than airplane design but still), you could even move to more efficient (but much slower) turboprop designs if all you cared about was fuel efficiency.

For the record, I'm not saying that all these things are implementable in 4 years, and I'm absolutely not saying that all of them are desirable. But I would put even money on 50% reduction in fuel costs being more than possible if that's the only goal you have in mind. 30% seems feasible without greatly reducing other performance targets.


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By Amiga500 on 9/10/2010 1:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Supposedly, even something as simple as painting the leading edges of an aircraft with a radioactive paint can improve fuel efficiency by 2-5% (it sets up a very thin layer of plasma on the surface of the wing which reduces drag).


It ionizes the air around the wing - which through use of a favourable charge gradient on the wing can prevent shock induced boundary layer separation.

But, there are loads of ideas for maintaining laminar flow, riblets, suction slots, blown slots, compliant surfaces... all yet to see the light of day on a service aircraft due to maintenance.

As you allude to; if either of us were was charged with making an aircraft that would use 50% less fuel than a 737 carrying the same PAX the same distance, We could start designing it tomorrow with technology that exists today. It would require major jumps on part of the certification authorities and sacrificing of some other performance parameters (such as speed) - but it could be done.


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By The Raven on 9/10/2010 2:55:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I doubt that Boeing put everything they could into making it as fuel efficient as possible, they were already taking huge risks just the way the plane is now (just look at all their slippage if you don't believe there was risk).


Yeah you're right. They don't care. They know that the gov't will bail them out when the going gets tough. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but not towards you. You raise valid points.)


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By kattanna on 9/10/2010 11:32:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The electric turbines will recharge when the pilot hits the air brakes ;-)


LOL man.. that was a good belly laugh

thanks!


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By Solandri on 9/10/2010 3:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
Hybrid electric turbines for planes are real.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_includes/articl...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Turbofan3_Labell...
Modern jet engines are a ducted bypass fan design. The jet engine in the center (numbers 3-8 in the animation) only provides about ~20% of the thrust. The remaining ~80% is provided by the ducted bypass fan blades surrounding it (essentially, they (2) are propellers except they have a duct/shell (1) around them).

The problem right now is that due to the radial design, the rotation of the bypass fan blades is tied to the rotation of the engine itself. So if you want the bypass fan (the "propeller" which provides most of your thrust) to remain spinning and providing thrust, the engine must also be on and burning fuel.

The hybrid jet engine concept is to attach the bypass fan to an electric motor run off a battery and/or electric power generated by the jet engine. This would (1) always allow you to run the engine at its most efficient RPM, (2) power the engine intermittently when reduced thrust is needed (cruise), and (3) turn off the engine entirely when very little thrust is needed (e.g. descent).


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By kattanna on 9/13/2010 12:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
you my friend, missed the humour


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By TSS on 9/10/2010 1:06:24 PM , Rating: 4
Well actually the new planes will be all electric - with windmills on the wings to recharge the batteries mid flight.

In other news, Nasa also plans to cut the use of the laws of physics by 33% before 2015.


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By The Raven on 9/10/2010 2:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
ROTFLMAO!!

+6


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By TSS on 9/10/2010 5:45:51 PM , Rating: 2
Naw. It was funny enough for a 5, sure.

Whats funny enough for a 6 is that the title has changed to 20% by 2020 instead of 35% by 2015 after i posted that.

While the source says, and i quote:

quote:
-- Enabling aircraft to burn 33 percent less fuel than today's most efficient models by 2015, 50 percent less by 2020, and better than 50 percent less by 2025.


Now, i've seen the most dramatized headlines on this site moreso then any other site, and i visit a site daily that was founded on the "big brother" craze, yet none of them ever have been changed. This one, while.. overly optemistic, is actually true in the source, yet it gets changed. While in the article itself the old, correct info is still displayed!

Jason, you're an Idiot. with a capital IDIOT.


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By The Raven on 9/11/2010 12:47:26 AM , Rating: 2
Are you a Trekkie? You seem to enjoy over analyzing science fiction. ;-)


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By Jeffk464 on 9/10/2010 1:15:55 PM , Rating: 2
It has already happened, that is why the airlines want the 787. It reduces fuel cost per passenger over competing designs. The airlines can only purchase what the manufacturers come up with. The design also has to be able to be produced at a reasonable cost life cost of the airframe is competitive. The higher the cost of fuel, the more extravagant you can go with the design of the airframe.


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By Jeffk464 on 9/10/2010 1:18:26 PM , Rating: 2
It has already happened, that is why the airlines want the 787. It reduces fuel cost per passenger over competing designs. The airlines can only purchase what the manufacturers come up with. The design also has to be able to be produced at a reasonable cost, life cost of the airframe has to be competitive. The higher the cost of fuel, the more extravagant you can go with the design of the airframe.


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By Dr of crap on 9/10/2010 12:21:36 PM , Rating: 2
Well, come on if they throttle the speed down a little, it would only add a few minutes to the flight!

And then we could see the ground scenery better!!

Maybe even do skipping from high point to high point!
HA, HA!


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By Amiga500 on 9/10/2010 1:06:30 PM , Rating: 3
They already do.

Many airlines are already operating at their maximum range speeds rather than their usual cruise speeds.


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By Amiga500 on 9/10/2010 1:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
I think Jason has grabbed the wrong end of the stick.

Sounds like a re-gurgitation of the ACARE 2020 goals to me (could also have been called NASA 2025 at some point).

The baseline is not current technology, but rather 737-NG or A320 [CFM-56 or V2500] for single aisle/narrowbody and 777 [GE90] for long range/widebody.

Anyhoo - the Bombardier CSeries will cut fuel consumption by around 20% relative to the baseline. It is scheduled for first flight in 2012 - although there is not a mission of it making 2012, maybe early 2014.


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By Jeffk464 on 9/10/2010 1:24:18 PM , Rating: 2
Bombardier, their Canadian. Who told the hosers they can build planes?


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By Amiga500 on 9/10/2010 1:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
That'll be the 3rd largest commercial aircraft manufacturer in the world by numbers in service and current backlogs.


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By Jeffk464 on 9/10/2010 1:11:02 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, I have a most excellent idea. How about improving fuel consumption by spending less time sitting on the ground. Nothing like sitting in line to take off for taxi to the terminal to wast fuel and piss of passengers. I think this was kind of the idea behind the 787, less massive congested hub airports, and more point to point travel. Sounds good to me. Not to mention all the fuel wasted by cars trying to get in and out of these congested hub airports.


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By BZDTemp on 9/10/2010 1:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
how.. cute. in less then 4 years design a brand new aircraft better then the stuff just coming into production today?


Please. The word "current" likely refers to what is in use today not what is about to be completed. Also the word "design" in the statement is not the same as a aircraft has to be even close to be in service.

The NASA guys are not stupid stop making them out to be!


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By kattanna on 9/13/2010 12:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The NASA guys are not stupid stop making them out to be!


NASA engineers ? .. of course their not stupid.

but their not the ones making this obvious PR move now are they? so they are not the ones im talking about.


RE: thanks for my morning laugh !
By EJ257 on 9/13/2010 10:22:47 AM , Rating: 2
Seeing how the 787 is suppose to reduce fuel burn by 20% compared to the current generation of airliners, all the airline industry have to do is park all their other airplanes and fly the 787 exclusively. DONE!


Source?
By guacamojo on 9/10/2010 11:33:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
NASA has proposed that by 2015 aircraft be developed that use 33 percent less fuel than the current most energy efficient models, by 2020 use 50 percent less fuel, and by 2025 use over 50 percent less fuel.

I didn't see this statement in the 2010 Green Aviation Summit announcement or agenda. Do you have a source for these claims?

NASA may have a disproportionate number of PhD's, but I have a hard time believing they're so naive as to propose a 33% more efficient aircraft in service in 5 years.

What I did see was an artist's concept of a blended wing aircraft on the front page. Also, the agenda included discussion of alternate airframes and geared turbofans, both of which have the potential for some serious efficiency gains. P&W for one is actively pursuing geared turbofans, increasing the bypass ratio to something like 80% IIRC.




RE: Source?
By guacamojo on 9/10/2010 12:01:51 PM , Rating: 5
Oh, ok, I found it.

Charles Bolden's summit briefing slides:
http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/pdf/gas_2010_bolde...

There's a little detail in his slides, but a lot more in Dr. Shin's slides:
http://www.aeronautics.nasa.gov/pdf/gas_2010_shin_...

It might have been nice for Jason to note the baseline: 33% fuel consumption reduction vs. 777 with GE90 engines, manufactured ~1997-1998.

For those who are interested in such things, here are the key technologies mentioned in Dr. Shin's briefing:

- Improved air traffic management (no-stop taxi operations, direct routing, continuous climb/descent)

- Vehicle improvements, possibly including hybrid wing/body airframe (ala X-48B), open-rotor propulsors, or geared turbofan designs. Boeing had some interesting concepts for truss-strut wing structures that could reduce weight. Hybrid electric propulsion was mentioned for 2030 timeframe, presumably for balancing takeoff/climb power vs. cruising power requirements.

Fuel improvements: tests using 100% Fischer-Tropsch (synthetic) fuels showed 90% reduction in particulate emissions at idle, 30-40% reduction at higher power.

Noise reductions mainly talked about flight path modifications and tabbed engine cowlings (chevrons) for reducing the noise footprint around airports.


RE: Source?
By Amiga500 on 9/10/2010 12:59:52 PM , Rating: 3
Picking up the baton:

- Open rotor is already on the way. But it'll not be ready till the far side of 2020. With it you can expect a reduction of the order of 25-50% in fuel consumption.

- Traffic management has often been talked about, but I think now the fruits are starting to be seen with constant rate descent profiles and such improving operational efficiency.

- More radical approaches, such as the BWB have been talked about for as long as traffic management. Not happening any time soon. Look at the trouble Boeing have had with the 787, now start multiplying that by large numbers for the trouble they could have with a BWB. The lifting body fuselage is another runner (I think that is what you are referring to with the braced wings); but again, no time soon.

- I have not heard an A380 yet, but from talking to people who have; the noise issue would seem to be on the verge of becoming negligible. Which surprised me, I had been working in that area and was under the impression that reducing the noise footprint to desired levels was still some way away. I guess the (now) existing spliceless acoustic liners, the higher BPRs, the nozzle mixing techniques and undercarriage fairings are up to making the noise levels low enough to do.


NASA Charlotte?
By Mitch101 on 9/10/2010 10:24:32 AM , Rating: 2
When buying a new car I spoke with someone who's husband worked for NASA she told me NASA in Cape Canaveral, FL is going through some major staff cuts and that NASA is going to be doing something big in Charlotte NC area soon. I cant find a thing about NASA/Charlotte. Anyone out there know what might be going on if anything?




Brilliant
By bug77 on 9/10/2010 10:25:52 AM , Rating: 2
Seeing as how fuel consumption is reflected directly into profit, I'm sure no one has ever thought of cutting down. Luckily, there are geniuses around to think of all that.
Still, if 787 was able to cut consumption by 20% within 6 years, maybe 50% in 10 years is achievable. But airlines don't change their entire fleet that often.




Okay
By AssBall on 9/10/2010 12:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
So they wan't the cost of flying to go up by 200% by 2012. How nice.




Misguided
By knutjb on 9/11/2010 4:02:02 AM , Rating: 1
This article reads as though aircraft manufacturers and airlines don't care about fuel consumption and they function like the car market where fuel consumption isn't the most important consideration. This model does not apply to aviation.

Fuel has always been expensive at the volumes they consume. The more fuel you carry the more you need to carry it. If they can eek another .1% in efficiency they will. Recycling cabin air requires less fuel than using more fresh air. This is why cabin air is dirtier today than when people could smoke inflight. If people looked at fuel costs the way airlines look at fuel costs, projected over the expected lifespan, many would look to more fuel efficient cars.

This politically derived PC green crap was conceived by people who have little understanding of what IS going on in aviation. Even with delays Boeing keeps getting more orders for the 787. Why? Projected life-cycle costs.

Though missed in the article there is far more to be gained by fixing the air traffic control system, oh wait that's run by the FEDS. If jets aren't sitting on the taxiway idling in line or orbiting waiting to land most of the gains suggested would be seen. Unfortunately that would require more and bigger airports along with the electronics to make it all happen. I don't see that happening anytime soon. Yes I do know they are upgrading the electronics, I think into the late 20th century.




Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By The Raven on 9/10/10, Rating: -1
RE: Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By Dorkyman on 9/10/2010 11:00:17 AM , Rating: 1
How is it that you know how much flying is appropriate?

Maybe you suggest Obama appoint an "Appropriate Flight Volume Czar" to go along with his other bureaucrats?

Oh, and I for one don't feel the least bit guilty about my oil consumption.


RE: Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By Reclaimer77 on 9/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By The Raven on 9/10/2010 1:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
How do you think I'm liberal? I'm a libertarian.

I don't think I know better than anyone else. I don't know how much travel is appropriate for everyone. Niether does the gov't. The market does. I'm asking the gov't to let the market determine this.


RE: Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By Solandri on 9/10/2010 3:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
The government doesn't encourage people to fly. If you've ever bought an airline ticket with the components of the fare fully itemized (hint: buy an international ticket), you'll see that ~50% or more of it is taxes. I used to travel from Seattle to Los Angeles frequently, a distance of about 1150 miles. By car at 30 mpg, that's 76.7 gallons round trip, or $230 at $3/gal. Typical round trip airfare between the two cities was $160-$220. So it was actually cheaper to fly than to drive alone, even before taking into account the much larger taxes on airfares than on gasoline, and ignoring depreciation of your car due to the miles put on.

Where air travel is not cost-competitive is with freight, where you can pack as much stuff together as you want for as long as you want. Rail and cargo ship rule by that metric, which is why air freight is pretty much limited to stuff which needs to be delivered within 24-48 hours.


By The Raven on 9/11/2010 1:27:28 AM , Rating: 2
I know they aren't giving out frequent flier miles, but they are giving away money to buy houses, education, healthcare and everything else. If we're not spending it on those things and we are buying tickets... then they are subsidizing air travel.

I'm not sure I follow you on freight, but thank you for bringing it up. To ship a 150 lb person from Japan to St Louis it cost roughly $2000.
To ship 35 lbs of paint from Japan to the St Louis costs roughly $1000.
150 lb/35 lb = 4.3
$1000*4.3=$4300
Now this is hazmat and that make the price go up, but on the other hand we are transporting human beings. Plus throw in the cost of peanuts, chicken or fish, and a couple movies... Basically it looks like the human is getting off cheap here. ;-)

I don't claim to know what subsidies that the airlines are getting to move businessmen around the country but I suspect they are there. But that is another story and i don't even have to dig down that hole as I've already tried to explain.

And as far as your trips to LA go, it sounds like you should've gone with someone else it would've cut your cost to $115 per passenger. And in all fairness you should be comparing the plane fare to that of a 1 man vehicle since in your example of a car, you are driving more vehicle than is necessary. If you didn't want to do that then compare the mpgs/person of a airplane that is only filled to a quarter of its capacity (assuming the car seats 4). You got to get apples with apples.

And let me again stress that my original point was unrelated to the plane v. car efficiency debate.


RE: Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By Omega215D on 9/10/2010 1:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
This is for the OP

Wow, the US spans 3000+ miles east to west, 1000 miles north to south. Trains are quite costly and are slower. Traveling by car or bus is even worse and also means more emissions and traffic jams.

Are you a self righteous arsehole or what?


By The Raven on 9/10/2010 1:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
No


RE: Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By The Raven on 9/10/2010 2:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
Where do I mention cars or trains?

You for got about bikes ;-)

I was referring more to the concept of "stay the hell home".
Simple concept: travel less miles; emit less pollution

I'm not saying much more than that.


RE: Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By Spuke on 9/11/2010 11:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was referring more to the concept of "stay the hell home". Simple concept: travel less miles; emit less pollution I'm not saying much more than that.
You could emit even less pollution by not living in a home, not owning a car, not wearing clothing, and not eating. Where does one draw the line? And, who does the drawing?


By The Raven on 9/14/2010 4:38:49 PM , Rating: 2
Again, the market should draw the lines. Supply and demand.


RE: Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By tng on 9/15/2010 11:35:22 AM , Rating: 2
I hear you.

I had a co-worker who had the same attitude. He suggested that people who drive large pickups and other large vehicles should have to show the state that they had a business use for the vehicle before they could buy one. This way he reasoned, it would be a more environmentally friendly way to do things.

I countered with the fact that he lived in a house that was 3000 square feet with only his wife. There should be a law that defined how much living space each person needs. I told him that 600 square feet per person would be enough and he should move.

True to form he did not get my point. Welcome to California.


RE: Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By Amiga500 on 9/10/2010 1:10:58 PM , Rating: 1
It is cleaner for you to fly a few hundred miles than to take a typical car.

A fully loaded Airbus A380 uses less than 3 litres of fuel per passenger per 100km. That is ~78mpg "per person".

Unless you've more than 3 people in your car, you'll really struggle to beat that.


RE: Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By The Raven on 9/10/2010 2:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
Not that I disagree with you (I didn't mention cars at all in my OP) but out of curiousity, where do you get your numbers?

From the Boeing site:
quote:
Aircraft entering today's fleet are 70 percent more fuel efficient than early commercial jet airplanes, consuming about 3.5 liters per passenger per 100 km. Technological innovation is a fundamental part of this industry.


If I figure correctly this is roughly 62/mpg. I don't know if this is counting takeoff and landing or just the cruising rate. And mind you that this IS from the Plane manufacturer's own site.

Get 30 MPGs with 2 passengers and you're basically doing the same thing.

But again, my argument is not "Which is better?" It is "Don't take a plane OR drive a car."

I am not asking the gov't to prohibit air travel (or even tax it for that matter). I'm asking them to not ENCOURAGE air travel (if they are truely worried about carbon emissions).


RE: Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By Amiga500 on 9/10/2010 2:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
Last time I checked, Airbus built the A380, not Boeing. ;-)

Google "2.9 litres per passenger per 100km".

The A350-1000 is already slated for around 2.2 litres per passenger per 100km. The 787 is supposed to achieve under 2.4 litres per passenger per 100km.

That Boeing figure is referring to current aircraft, such as the 737/A320 or 777/A330.


RE: Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By The Raven on 9/10/2010 3:18:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah sorry I didn't mean to make it seem like I was comparing numbers. I just looked for a mileage figure. While searching for plane mileage I went down the Boeing track.

I just meant to ask where you got your numbers (e.g. website). And it would help if your source wasn't biased like mine lol.

And upon further investigation 3.5L/100Km = 67.2 mpg (Thank you ConvertAll Portable!) But my 36 mpg Carolla or my wife's Civic still beat that. But again: we would eliminate emissions by not going anywhere at all ;-)


RE: Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By Jeffk464 on 9/10/2010 7:15:51 PM , Rating: 2
we would eliminate emissions by not going anywhere at all ;-)

Also avoid using electricity in your home, don't take showers, build an outhouse in the backyard, avoid eating any animal products, only eat locally grown food, and for God's sake never fire up a car. Do all this and you can be as environmentally conscious as Al Gore.


By The Raven on 9/11/2010 1:43:12 AM , Rating: 2
Also avoid using electricity in your home, don't take long showers, use a low flow toilet, avoid eating an excess of animal products, only eat locally grown food, and think before you drive or fly. Do all this and you can save money (main reason I do it) and be more environmentally conscious than Al Gore and his huge mansion and frequent cross-country flights that he takes to get paid to be a blowhard and speak to some soft heads.

Oh and you can save (taxpayer) money by not wasting it on the crap that this article addresses. It is in the best interest of the aircraft manufacturers to make fuel efficient planes. If they don't, their competitors will. And they will be put out of business. We don't need NASA to monkey with that.


RE: Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By The Raven on 9/10/10, Rating: 0
RE: Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By knutjb on 9/11/2010 3:39:11 AM , Rating: 2
No, our comprehension skills are just fine. You deviated off the article and opened the door to a swift slamming. Your unrealistic post
quote:
Don't encourage people to fly.
is ludicrous at best and it went rapidly down hill from there.

If you want to replace anything your replacement has to be better than, in this case air travel, to encourage people off of it. Currently technology isn't there to replace it or improve it to NASA's pie-in-the-sky figures. Look what airplanes did to ocean liners. Simply saying don't do this or you must do that doesn't cut it. Come to think of it you sound kind of like NASA's politically derived desires. That's not to say they haven't come up with some great ideas. This one's from 1979: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/KC-135/HTML...


RE: Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By The Raven on 9/14/2010 4:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
Taking an air plane to Disneyland creates pollution.
Going on a picnic with your family does not.


RE: Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By tng on 9/15/2010 11:45:03 AM , Rating: 2
Where is this picnic going to take place? Unless you have someplace you can walk to there are emissions involved. Going to the store to get supplies for your picnic has emissions involved unless you walk.

Just saying that if you live in any area except a very urban environment, there is transportation considerations involved in almost everything you do outside of your own residence.


RE: Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By The Raven on 9/15/2010 2:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I know and shipping the bread for our sandwiches, etc. involves massive emmissions as well. Hell you're right, may as well eat my sandwich halfway across the globe.

The article is about REDUCING emissions, not eliminating them altogether.

Tell me where you live and I'll show you where to have a picnic. It is almost guaranteed that there is one nearby.
I don't live in any hippie community and we have 3 parks within walking distance (a term which is reletive, but they are surely within biking distance.) Just pull up google maps and look for the green areas ;-)

But honestly you are being too literal. My point is not to disuade people from flying, it is to tell the gov't not to encourage people to do it if they really want to "save the environment".


RE: Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By tng on 9/16/2010 12:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
I get your point and yes there is a park within walking distance (easy walking distance at that) from my home. There is actually a Safeway store within easy walking distance as well.

My point is that as someone who spends roughly 3/4 of the year on the road for business, I fly allot. I would not think that me having to drive a car from the California Central Valley to upstate NY and back every month would be more green than flying, quite the opposite.

Planes that are full are not only more profitable for the airlines they are more fuel efficient per passenger and much more efficient than if all of those passengers choose to drive instead.

A typical 737-700 can hold 130-150 passengers? Take all of them and put them on a plane from San Francisco to San Diego or have them in ones and twos drive there in roughly 90 cars of various types and fuel efficiencies. Which way do you think pollutes more?

I think that the government should be encouraging more air travel if you look at from this viewpoint.


RE: Here's an idea to cut emissions...
By The Raven on 9/16/2010 4:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
We discussed the per passenger fuel economy of plane v. car previously. If you want to do that, you have to go apples to apples. In this case a fully loaded plane (which I assume is the metric that Boeing and Airbus are using, somebody correct me if you know about this) with a fully loaded car. I'm pretty sure (based on our previous calculations) that the car will at least equal if not surpass the fuel economy of the plane.

Not to mention that this issue of pollution is not a MPG issue. It is a total pollution issue. Meaning that if I take my family of 4 on a vacation from Missouri to Florida (approx. 1000m) and assume that the plane gets 100 mpgs/passenger, it is not as "green" as taking my family of 4 on a trip to Memphis (approx 300m) with half the fuel economy (a car that gets 12.5 mpgs lol).

And of course you could reduce emissions even more if you couldn't afford to travel at all.

quote:
A typical 737-700 can hold 130-150 passengers? Take all of them and put them on a plane from San Francisco to San Diego or have them in ones and twos drive there in roughly 90 cars of various types and fuel efficiencies. Which way do you think pollutes more?

I definitely agree with you here. But if people couldn't afford to fly, don't you think they would start carpooling? I do. I saw people do it as gas prices approached $5/gal. (Why they still aren't inclined to do it I don't know, but whatever.)

Now as far as your business travel is concerned, that is a matter to be determined by your company. If it costs more to pay you hourly (or waste your salaried time) and put you up in hotels that you could save money on by flying, then more power to them. That is the market at work.
And I guess you can also look at the corporation as a person as far as gov't incentives go.

I don't think I should dictate how much a person flies. Neither do I think the gov't should. The market can decide. And in this case, it would reduce GHG emissions.
Granted it might not be by much, but it would definitely be a reduction. I don't have the figures but business travel I would wager is much more prevelant than personal. But I guess on top of that, people wouldn't spend as much on crap if these 'stimulous' gimmicks would end and then there would be less need for business travel too.


By The Raven on 9/16/2010 4:31:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But if people couldn't afford to fly, don't you think they would start carpooling? I do.

Sorry, I don't want to come across like a judgemental self-righteous prick. I don't mean that I personally carpool. I don't. I mean that I think people would start carpooling under those circumstances.

To be honest, I have tried to get my co-workers to carpool with me and each other (there are 2 that drive 1 hr each way from basically the same place!) I have a 30 minute commute but i would still like to cut my gas bill in half by picking up a coworker. But everyone likes their independance (call 'em crazy) and won't commit to doing it with me.


"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki