 Poster: A snowHead
|
I've just done a survey for IATA on attitudes to flying wrt enviromental concerns. Interestingly it states that a modern aircraft (presumably full) uses less than 3 litres fuel per passenger per 100km which is less than a modern compact car (presumably with one person).
So basically that means that flying to the Alps uses about as much fuel as commuting 50km each way to work every day for 2 weeks (which a lot of people I know do).
Seeing as I use public transport to get to work I now don't feel too bad about flying off on far too many ski weekends.
I've been trying to find out this information for ages but it's not readily available at all ... I think it should have been made much more widely known by all sides to enhance the debate on this issue rather than a lot of parties making out flying is inherently un-enviromentally friendly when it's in reality similar to driving a car with only one person in it (I agree that isn't particuarly great either).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
RichA, I read something similar in a magazine that was comparing the carbon footprint of different methods of transport from Portsmouth (possibly Plymouth) to Bilbao. Ferry was the best followed by train then car and air were about the same. It depends on the truth in the value for aircraft: cars are easy to find, most modern small cars will do around 50-60mpg which is slightly worse than your figure. Of course this is a best case, new car scenario. Putting a roof box on and adding passengers will lower this massively and if the car is big enough to fit 4 with ski kit I'd imagine its original mpg would be significantly lower.
OTOH how often do you fly on a completely full plane? The last ryanair flight I was on had 6 rows front and back blocked off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Except you're forgetting other costs such as the transport of fuel, the fuel for the vehicles which deal with servicing the plane. Energy consumption for the airport facilities used and so forth. Limited survey if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
RichA, I think I posted about this a while back when they did a similar piece of analysis in Strasbourg. Turns out that a plane which was 75% full had lower emissions per passenger 100km than 3 people in a diesel family-sized car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Timmaah, similarly, there's the transportation of fuel, energy used in running service stations, street lights, building roads, etc, which isn't included in the car impact - making it very limited there!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Timmaah wrote: |
| Except you're forgetting other costs such as the transport of fuel, the fuel for the vehicles which deal with servicing the plane. Energy consumption for the airport facilities used and so forth. Limited survey if you ask me. |
True. But cars also use fuel which has had to be distributed by tanker fleets, and pumped at petrolstatons, which have their own energy consumption. Not enough data to be sure, but I suspect the distribution of aircraft fuel is more energy efficient than fuel distribution for cars, simply because there are limited number of points of fuel distribution (the airports) and some distribution is done by pipeline.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Except you're forgetting other costs such as the transport of fuel, the fuel for the vehicles which deal with servicing the plane.
|
All that still applies to the car and its supporting infrastructures: petrol station by the thousand consuming their own fuel and gas and electricity etc...
Maybe such cost are higher for aviation (don't know) than for the car industry but there are still certainly there for cars as well.
The other thing to consider with aviation when talking about it's impact on environment is the nature of emissions, and the fact that they are released at higher altitude which I seem to read makes them more harmful....
Finally, projected growth for aircraft number, doubles planes number in the fairly near future so that ought to be an issue as well..
I think aviation is being demonised at the moment wrt environment, unfairly IMV, but at the same time it needs to be responsible and act now to reduce whatever impact it has and plan for the future ti minimise that impact further...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
achilles,
you made the point I was trying to make a lot better than me! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
RichA,
Here it is
My mistake - based on a plane 80% full. (in that thread I quoted the CRJ-100, not the Airbus A320 which is considerably more economical!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know bu**er all about this subject (but that has never stopped anybody on SnowHeads before!) so I'm going to chip in anyway. I thought the issue was flying was that the emissions went straight into the upper atmosphere where they did more damage.
EDIT - strange if you type bu**er in  with the 'g's instead of '*'s it comes out as bug!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Timmaah, you're forgetting the building of roads, which destroys forest. So it's probably twice the carbon footprint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
Trenmold, I thought the primary worry about aircraft location in the atmosphere was contrails which might have an unspecified adverse effect on the climate - effectively introducing man-made cirrus clouds when there was sufficient aircraft activity in some circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| contrails, which might have an unspecified adverse effect on the climate |
- one of the effects of plane contrails is contributing to Global Dimming, which has a counter effect to global warming. Statisics show that GD is decreasing as we clean up our act, thus potentially increasing the efect of global warming. You just can't win... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
The issue I was trying to get at was that we don't really have enough data to make a legitimate say in which damages contributes to global warming more.
abc, building ski resorts destroys forest too
I just don't think its the right attitude to say "oh look, flying and driving are fine!". There are a lot more cars in the world than aircraft, so the car issue needs to be dealt with within the next five years efficiently. Over time the airplanes will adapt as fuel costs are becoming to expensive for them. Just look at Ryanair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I think there is merit in the concern about high altitude emissions and creation of contrails (artificial clouds) dont recall the exact statistics but post sept 11 when flying was banned in the states there was a measurable temperature drop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
| I think there is merit in the concern about high altitude emissions and creation of contrails (artificial clouds) dont recall the exact statistics but post sept 11 when flying was banned in the states there was a measurable temperature drop. |
That astonishes me - any reference for that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
The aviation industry likes to quote emissions per 100km, because it comes out pretty well.
How often do you fly 100km?
I've already flown to Toronto and Miami this year (for work - honest!). That's about 19,000 miles for less than £1,000 all in. I'll probably top 80,000 miles by the end of the year, but do only around 6,000 in my (very fuel-efficient) car.
The issue with aviation is not emissions per mile - it is that cheap flights make it possible for a huge number of people to do a huge number of miles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
PaulClark, 100km is only 60 miles. A lot of people do that, or more, as part of their daily commute in their car (no matter how efficient it is). Given that this site is mainly about European skiing, the comparison between driving to the alps or flying would be a valid one - same distance, two different ways of doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
achilles, i saw it on a television programme and it sounded compelling to me. From wikipedia
It had been hypothesized that contrails may affect the weather, reducing solar heating during the day and radiation of heat during the night by increasing the albedo. The suspension of air travel for three days in the United States after September 11, 2001 provided an opportunity to test this hypothesis. Measurements did show that without contrails the local diurnal temperature range (difference of day and night temperatures) was about 1 degree Celsius higher than immediately before;[4] however, it has also been suggested that this was due to unusually clear weather during the period.[5]
From Science daily
"We show that there was an anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature range for the period Sept. 11-14, 2001," the researchers reported in today's (Aug.  issue of the journal Nature. "Because persisting contrails can reduce the transfer of both incoming solar and outgoing infrared radiation and so reduce the daily temperature range, we attribute at least a portion of this anomaly to the absence of contrails."
The diurnal temperature range is the difference between the nighttime low temperature and the daytime high temperature, usually for a given day.
The change in the temperature difference was plus 1.1 degree Celsius, equal to plus 2 degrees Fahrenheit, above the 30-year long-term mean diurnal temperature range. The researchers compared the temperature ranges on these three days to those of the three days directly before Sept. 11 and the three days after Sept. 14, finding that the days before and after were similar, but that the three days in question differed by 1.8 degrees Celsius or 3.2 degrees Fahrenheit.
"Sept. 11-14, 2001, had the biggest diurnal temperature range of any three-day period in the past 30 years," said Carleton. Contrails form when water vapor and particles from jet engine exhaust enter the atmosphere.
Contrails alter temperature the same way that natural high clouds do. During the day, the layer of ice crystals shields the ground from some of the sun's energy. At night, the layer of ice crystals prevents some of Earth's heat from dissipating into the vacuum. Without the contrails, the daytime temperature would be slightly higher and the nighttime temperature would be slightly lower, creating the increased range between lowest and highest temperatures.
The researchers note that the greater range reported was an average and that some areas had an even larger range increase. They also investigated whether those three days were unusually dry, which would account for an absence of natural cloud cover and a greater temperature range.
"Satellite images showed that cloud cover on Sept. 11 was light, but that cloud cover and humidity increased on the 12th, 13th and 14th," says Carleton. "These clouds and greater humidity should have suppressed the range, but the temperature range was still the largest in 30 years."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
skimottaret, thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Wear The Fox Hat, I'd be interested to see the distance from my house to say Val Thorens (a) by car and (b) by coach/plane via Geneva. I'm sure (b) will be further but by how much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wear The Fox Hat, the comparison between flying to the Alps and driving is the one the aviation industry wants you to make.
Yes, if you start from the premise that a journey is essential / inevitable, flying on a fairly modern, fairly full jet compares OK to driving. The issue with air travel - and particularly low-cost air travel - is that journeys that previously would have been impossible / impracticable become commonplace, and strongly contribute to total emissions. (I include in that the journey that the strawberries I ate this morning made from Kenya.)
I'm not really taking a stance here on whether this is good or bad. I recognise the environmental downsides, and also the economic / quality of life benefits that the majority - not just the rich - can now afford to travel widely and eat strawberries for breakfast in the winter. I do think we have to be realistic and honest in presenting and evaluating data, however, and the data is unquestionable that aviation contributes strongly to the emission of gasses that (are claimed to) contribute to global warming. In this context, the aviation industry's focus on emissions per mile travelled is a diversionary tactic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw on a documentary about air aviation, global warming and the such, apparently temperatures were consistently down 3 degrees on average around New York for the following days of 9/11 (all planes were grounded)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Twice, I hate to be morbid, but there was also a huge cloud of dust and smoke hanging over New York for those days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PaulClark wrote: |
| In this context, the aviation industry's focus on emissions per mile travelled is a diversionary tactic. |
It is the standard way of measuring anything to be cmpared between different modes of transport though. It isn't just "the aviation industry".
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Can't see it's a diversionary tactic (rather emotive language). It's up to the public to evaluate it and set it in context.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
achilles,
PaulClark said he was not taking any stance so he probably did not mean(?) to be "emotive", but you are 100% right, "diversionary" implies there was some wrong doing in the first place or that there is something to hide...
Using this method might show aviation in a particularly good light but itcan't be blamed for using it (who would not) and does not mean they are trying to hide something or mislead people...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
alex_heney, achilles - When I describe the aviation industry's enthusiasm to keep the debate on emissions per mile as a 'diversionary tactic' I am not being remotely emotive. This is clearly a chosen strategic communications approach by the industry, to focus on a metric where they do well.
Let's accept for a moment that air transportation is an environmentally efficient means of delivering the total quantity of transport that consumers demand, both as travellers and as consumers of shipped goods.
What the industry doesn't want a public debate on is the question of whether that total quantity of transport - which has only been made possible by mass cheap aviation - is sustainable, and whether it is accompanied by what economists call 'unpriced externalities' - such as half of Florida being under water in 200 years time, say. Unpriced externalities are a big deal, and are easily forgotten - like, um, the cost to decommission all the nuclear power stations that are now coming to the end of their working lives and to store their waste safely for a couple of millenia.
I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but if you buy the argument that emissions lead to global warming (no comment on that) and that global warming is a bad thing (I agree - hate snowdomes), then you have to accept that the total amount of transportation consumed globally is an issue. The total quantity of transportation consumed in the modern world is only made possible by aviation - who would have time to travel all those distances by car, train and ship? - so I believe you also have to accept that aviation is bad for the environment. (Good for all kinds of other reasons though.)
Look at India, where Tata are launching the "People's car" - a low priced vehicle that will allow millions more Indians to take to the road. In 5 or 10 years time, India may be able to turn around and point to the low fuel consumption of typical Indian vehicles, and compare favourably the emissions per mile of Indian cars to those of gas-guzzling Americans and Europeans. None of that changes the point that there will be more Indians driving more miles and creating more emmissions.
So, I agree that next time you (or I) travel to the Alps, if we start from the position that we are definitely going - by whatever means - then flying looks a perfectly acceptable option environmentally on an emissions per mile analysis. But going back to RichA's original question, "Is flying as bad for the enviroment as you think ??", the answer has to be "Absolutely, and probably worse."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Would it make a huge difference if internationally we only used the most modern, efficient planes? It does not solve the big problem but it might chip away at it a bit. How much more efficient -in reduced carbon emissions - is a plane that's less than 5 years old compared to older planes? Do large airports ever ban planes that are old or higher polluters?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
But going back to RichA's original question, "Is flying as bad for the enviroment as you think ??", the answer has to be "Absolutely, and probably worse."
|
PaulClark, keep in mind India/China is going to have as many cars per capita as UK/US eventually. Carbon emission is going to go UP even if you stop flying to the Alps or stop driving altogether.
I don't pretend I know the answer. But I know stop living isn't it. Besides, how far back into the cave can we go?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
abc, Yep. Basically we're all screwed. Let's go skiing 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| abc wrote: |
| .............How much area does an airport cover and how many miles of roads does it equate??? .......... |
No idea. Have you? It will depend on the airport, of course. But even for a large airport, much of its area will be grass. Not sure of the relevance of that, as I am not sure of the relevance of the question, even after reading back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Swirly, May be less via plane i don't know but Via Michelin route finder gives 1420km from liverpool to VT at a cost of 127.59Euro for petrol and 65 euro for tolls at a total journey time of 15hrs. Surley a plane will take a more direct route to GVA and then its 203km by road to VT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
SNOWCOW,
re modern planes, there is a big difference (25% at least) in fuel consumption between the newest and oldest planes flying. One good aspect of the high oil price is that it increases the incentive for flying newer planes. You are right that one way of cutting emmissions would be to ban old/inefficient planes - not done yet but is something that gets discussed. 5 years old is not realistic though - planes will fly for 25 years (and often longer) and it would be very expensive to scrap them after 5. I've heard 20 talked about though.
In practice, it's engine technology that make the big difference. The engine/plane manufacturers think that they could lop another 20-25% off with new designs but at the cost of increasing the noise levels. You can imagine that this is tricky for politicians as voters around (e.g.) Heathrow might not be able to see the bigger picture...
J
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jet Engine technology does not evolve as quickly as the automotive one
and your basis for saying that is what?
Fuel consumption of planes has improved much more than that of cars over the last 30 years.
Frankly it would be wierd if jet engines were not improving faster given that it is a younger technology (60 years versus >100 for the internal combustion engine)
J
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| jedster wrote: |
...........In practice, it's engine technology that make the big difference. The engine/plane manufacturers think that they could lop another 20-25% off with new designs but at the cost of increasing the noise levels. You can imagine that this is tricky for politicians as voters around (e.g.) Heathrow might not be able to see the bigger picture...
J |
Boeing's take on things. Note how change in aircraft operation could achieve further fuel efficiency. I am unclear how much improved engine performance alone has achieved the fuel savings of recent years, and how much is due to improved avionics (allowing fly by wire and hence the control of unstable but aerodynamically efficient aircraft) and aerodynamics - taking advantage of fly-by-wire control, and more efficient wings (one bit of evidence, the upturned wingtips of modern aircraft). Structure (such as carbon fibre) and other weight-saving techniques (eg use of fibre-optics and thin insulation wiring) have also played their part.
I am intrigued that the more aircraft are being shown to be fuel-efficient, the more the cry from some is that we should not fly anyway. Presumably those who advocate thus are content for the richer elements of society to be able to travel by expensive transport such as trains - and for the poor should to stay at home. That would make the slopes less crowded, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jedster wrote: |
Jet Engine technology does not evolve as quickly as the automotive one
and your basis for saying that is what?
Fuel consumption of planes has improved much more than that of cars over the last 30 years.
Frankly it would be wierd if jet engines were not improving faster given that it is a younger technology (60 years versus >100 for the internal combustion engine)
J |
I was not trying to "quantify" how much jet engines have improved since their invention or their improvements in terms of fuel consumption compared to automotive engines..
I was merely implying that aircraft engine development cycles are longer than the automotive ones so manufactrurers cannot bring out a new engine out as often as the car industry, therefore even if an airline could renew it's fleet every year/two years, it would not necessarily imply an interesting leap in engine technology every time... The automotive industry moves very quickly at the moment, it does not mean that overall they are progressing more that aircraft engine manufacturer, it's just that every small iteration/version of their engines is very quickly available to the general public... I have worked for a company which among other things was producing engines for the agricultural/hgv industry. Engines were improved every 18 to 24moths...A privilege the aircraft industry does not have...
Not sure if I make myself clear... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
