This Vox article discusses a movement among some environmentalists: “Flight-shaming” - because airplanes emit an enormous quantity of carbon emissions.
Some of the things mentioned (it’s a long read):
[ul]
[li]Currently, air travel demand is stronger than ever, especially as previously poor nations become more affluent.[/li][li]By the year 2050, airplane-generated carbon emissions will have jumped a whopping 300-700% compared to the levels of the year 2005.[/li][li]Making airplanes more efficient isn’t really an option; modern airliners are already nearly as fuel-efficient as they can possibly be.[/li][li]Short flights generate more carbon emissions, per passenger-mile, than long flights.[/li][/ul]
Some solutions might be: Use train instead of airplane for short flights. Simply don’t travel as much as before. And maybe international business meetings that require people to fly together for a meeting can be replaced with video teleconferencing.
But the pros of air travel are still too great for aviation to ever go away. It is far faster than any other form of transportation (for crossing Pacific or Atlantic, etc.)
The other thing is that for moving large numbers of people a very long distance airplanes are actually more efficient that some of the other options.
Aviation has its uses and it isn’t going away.
That said, use of trains for intermediate distances would be a good thing. It would also be a good thing if so many people weren’t in such a damn hurry all the times.
Flight-shaming? This seems like a form of recreational outrage to me.
The article you linked says aviation contributes 2% of total greenhouse gas emissions. That’s not very much.
In any case - the best solution is to enact a revenue-neutral carbon tax, increase it until carbon emissions have dropped to acceptable levels, and bypass this bunch of self-righteous, holier-than-thou environmental fascists running around shaming people for eating meat, driving to work, running the air conditioner, buying products from overseas, taking vacations, etc.
Since you have to a) get to the airport and b) get there two hours ahead of time, and c) collect your bags at the other end, I doubt trains would really take that much more time for short haul. But aviation is obviously more efficient for long haul trips.
Anyway, I think everyone on the planet except small skinny people hate flying. Plus the cost makes managers hate to send people on planes even if they get to stay at home themselves. Video conferencing has already become commonplace to avoid flights. Maybe the airplane is a passing thing?
You really think humans will give up something like that so easily?
For sure the longer distances or larger planes are not doable with current tech, but it should be noticed that such progress was not in the cards until recently, I think that a lot of emission reductions will be able to be done for larger passenger planes by using hybrid solutions.
I actually started taking the train from Chicago to Detroit at one point because when I ran that very same equation the door-to-door time for the trip was the same or even shorter if I took the train rather than the plane, with a hell of a lot more legroom and a lot less stress. That was back when you only had to be at the airport an hour ahead of time.
I’m a small skinny person and I hate flying commercial. (Being in the cockpit myself is a different story.)
No, it’s not - because people fly for more than one reason.
To me it seems that carbon neutral liquid fuels could be an answer. I’m not sure if we currently have the technology to produce large quantities efficiently enough, or if it could ever be possible to do so.
Maybe someone more knowledgeable can comment on this.
We can make biofuels that run just fine in jet engines. They’re just more expensive than the fossil stuff.
More expensive would be carbon capture from a concentrated non-fossil source (e.g. a fermenter), followed by reduction of carbon dioxide, followed by Fischer–Tropsch. Or syngas to methanol, then methanol-to-gas (I don’t recall if anyone had promised that for jet fuel.)
Or if you want to get real pricey, direct air capture followed by the above.
If there were a price on carbon, the relative prices change.
The chemical processes all take more energy than you get out, before someone starts nattering about free energy. If you have too much electricity your can store that energy in liquid fuels for a hefty loss in round trip efficiency.
they’re working on rechargeable fluid batteries that are 1.5 times denser than Lithium so electric planes for short flights are highly likely if they’re cost effective. The idea is to use a conventional “gas tank” system but filled with a liquid that can be repeatedly recharged.
A hybrid plane/train seems like a good idea on paper. Instead of laying track on graded beds we put up overhead wires and fly lifting bodies closer to ground level but above current traffic corridors. It would be like a reverse electric train with the trailing wire going up to the plane.
All of this is on top of what we’re already seeing and that is the transition from gas to electric vehicles. This is going to happen at the same evolutionary speed the cell phone exhibited. Maybe faster. The price barrier has already been broken by high performance electric cars and it’s just a matter of time before batteries catch up the price point and refueling needs of daily drivers.
Electrification of aviation faces some steep barriers, regardless of whether using a conventional battery, redox flow battery, or fuel cell. Those all have their own challenges, including energy density. But regardless of storage medium, the motors and power electronics aren’t really up to snuff. People are working on this.
With the relative energy densities of hydrocarbons vs. even very good batteries, I suspect that the only viable option for long-range (including intercontinental) travel is going to be hydrocarbon fuels offset by some sort of sequestration process. Yeah, it’ll be a lot more expensive than it is currently, but battery airplanes would probably be much more expensive yet.
It’s easy to put a motor behind a prop so commuters are the logical progression. Also, I think they they rely on freight loads like wide body aircraft do. So there should be more space available for energy storage.
Space isn’t the issue; it’s weight. Gravimetric (or specific) energy density of storage. And of all the electrical systems. Even the wiring weight is a problem. You need high voltage to keep the wire diameter down. At those altitudes, dielectric breakdown of air is a problem, which would steer you away from high voltage. It’s a very hard problem.
Yes, weight is the issue. But larger aircraft use their available space/weight for cargo. It is less so with commuter aircraft. In other words, larger aircraft are based on both passenger and cargo revenue. Their cargo bays are filled with freight. They will run a higher density in their belly compartments than a commuter plane will.
With electric propulsion there are a number of metrics that change. The size of electric motors allows more options for placement so they can be used to increase lift by means other than accelerating the wing forward. They can be used to move air over the wing using many smaller propellers or angled to directly lift the plane. Commuter planes are a logical platform for electric motor propulsion.
Didn’t the Air Force or NASA build a nuclear powered air craft in like the 60’s? I seem to recall it had some major radiation issues, but that’s nothing in the face of current carbon emissions. We could do that. I mean, what could go wrong???
There was a lot of research on nuclear powered aircraft but nobody built a working prototype. The closest they came was the Convair NB-36H which carried an operational nuclear reactor, but wasn’t actually powered by it. They demonstrated that the aircraft could carry a reactor and sufficient radiation shielding to keep the crew safe, but concerns remained for contamination in case of a crash.
I wouldn’t dismiss the concept out of hand though. Nuclear thermal generators are used on many spacecraft, and several have survived rocket explosions without causing any contamination. Of course an actual reactor is larger and more difficult to make crash-proof.
