Stuck on the Runway
EmailDepending on your point of view, carbon dioxide is a good thing (nourishing to plants), or excess carbon dioxide (helping warm the climate) is coming from everywhere–cars, factories, power plants that burn coal or oil or gas. Today the issue is air travel. The EPA says aircraft account for 12 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from American transportation, 3 percent of U.S. output overall. (See its summary HERE; you’ll hit pay dirt on p. 3 of 393.) Today the Attorneys General of California, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Mexico, the City of New York, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the District of Columbia have joined with a bunch of environmental groups to call for curbs on the carbon dioxide emissions from airplanes. Jerry Brown, the California Attorney General, in a statement at a Los Angeles news conference: "the EPA should have taken action by now to curb these emissions. Not to do so, ignores the tremendous opportunity for technological innovations that can increase efficiency and reduce emissions…." More HERE. He continues, “Aircraft engines burn massive quantities of fossil fuels and inject greenhouse gas pollution at high altitudes—-right where these emissions have a heightened negative impact.” He and others say that with fairly simple steps, aviation could cut its emissions ten percent. The full petition is HERE, among other places. You’ll recall that back in April the Supreme Court ruled the EPA has authority–and to advocates, an obligation–to regulate carbon dioxide as an "air pollution agent" that affects public health and welfare. The petitioners today have already gone after ocean-going ships. Aircraft are a knottier issue. Airlines, which struggle with the ups and downs of fuel prices, have long tried to cultivate a green image. Some advertise that they tell their pilots to taxi on only one engine; the new Boeing 787 is touted for its fuel efficiency: "The airplane will use 20 percent less fuel for comparable missions than today’s similarly sized airplane." The Air Transport Association, trade group for major airlines, says it’s not afraid of the EPA, but it’s already doing plenty. In response to a bill last month by Sens. Lieberman and Warner, it wrote that airlines are "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." They’ve posted more on their efforts HERE. So. Does every bit help? Or has the water already been wrung from this stone?
Space Station Flies Over Eastern U.S. at Night 
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Well every little bit helps. But my concern and hopefully others, is that other clean energies come out of this whole global warming thing. GE and Honda have proven to be on the forefront of this, in starting to produce and market hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. They produce only water emissions. The only drawback on this is where to get the hydrogen, and some people’s concerns for safety. Well, hydrogen is remarkably abundant on the planet. It’s in the air, in the water(duh) and in the rock. We just have to extract it, and that takes energy. I think we need to switch to Nuclear energy, which is much cleaner, aside from the nuke waste, which can be stored until a time where we know how do dispose of it properly, or have another use for it. So it’s better than burning coal or natural gas to produce it, or we just get fed clean water and nuclear made electricity and let the cars themselves produce the hydrogen.
As for the safety, I’ve heard that many people think that because hydrogen burns, it’s more dangerous than gasoline. HA! These people are stupid to think this. You BURN gasoline to run your car, and gas spreads out when it spills, creating a large, potentially destructive area. When hydrogen leaks, it’s so light that it rises quickly, so the potential destructive area is almost as large as the leaky area itself. So in my opinion, gas is more dangerous.
As for air travel, I think that’s where we’ll have our most problems. I’m not sure how to propel aircraft with hydrogen. So untill we figure that out, we’ll be burning jet fuel for a long time. And finally, sadly, we won’t have nuke power prevalent for some time. People still have a fear of it. Even though technological jumps have made it a really safe form of energy. Only time will tell, but how long are we the people willing to wait?
Posted by: Lawrence | December 5, 2007, 3:22 pm 3:22 pm
Can anyone say, “Hydrogen is the fuel of the future!”
Posted by: Daleri | December 5, 2007, 5:16 pm 5:16 pm
If they can make turbine engines that run on hydrogen for laptops, they can also make them for aircraft.
Posted by: Daleri | December 5, 2007, 5:22 pm 5:22 pm
Lol…reduce emissions from aircraft? Oh but wait, you the flying public wants something for nothing when it comes to airline fares, right? $150 round trip from one coast to the other or even $150 one way,it doesn’t matter. Drive that sometime and then tell me it should be that cheap. You get what you pay for and deregulation is destroying the airline industry as a whole. They arent’ even maintained by people who can read the manuals now. It’s only a matter of time before they start having serious problems. And they’re worried about emissions? Want to cut emissions? Make the airlines charge a reasonable fare that is more than driving and this won’t be an issue. Less will fly.
Posted by: rewire1 | December 5, 2007, 9:55 pm 9:55 pm
Unducted Fan technology would save a significant percentage of fuel over today’s jet engines, but they also produce more vibration/cabin noise which the traveling public (Jerry Brown included) would, of course, complain about. Nuclear energy should, indeed be on the front burner in replacing fossil fuel electrical generation.
Posted by: TomO | December 5, 2007, 10:33 pm 10:33 pm
FYI, to fill all US electricity needs using solar power only, it would take a square area less than 100 miles / side in the desert. Of course, we have to make all the solar panels, etc. However, it’s not as outlandish as some might think. Plus, no radioactive waste.
Posted by: David M | December 6, 2007, 12:43 am 12:43 am
Solar panels on each and every rooftop would provide plenty of electricity. We could shut down all the nuclear polluters.
Posted by: Daleri | December 6, 2007, 1:51 am 1:51 am
So if we can power the country on solar power on an area less than 100 SQ. miles, then why the hell are we not? Most assuredly it is corporate survival. Government most likely won’t allow it in order to save the corporations. When that changes, then we will move forward as a species in terms of energy needs.
Posted by: Lawrence | December 6, 2007, 8:44 am 8:44 am
This whole global warming is a big bunch of hooey. If you don’t beleive me, look at the recient change of the date where global warming started. It got moved back to 1900 because someone realized that quite a few high temperature records were set in 1911. If you need more, just follow the money. Besides, all the articles are about the emissions released by the USA, and nothing is mentioned about the rest of the world.
Posted by: chris3 | December 6, 2007, 9:33 am 9:33 am
Come on propelling aircraft through hydrogen as fuel is no challenging task. Already rockets and rocket engines uses hydrogens. Only thing which is important is that energy needed for getting hydrogen should be again through some reneable energy source like wind/solar/tidal energy.
Posted by: Kiran. K | December 6, 2007, 10:24 am 10:24 am
Lawrence, that was 100 miles per side, giving you 10,000 square miles – a bit more daunting…
Posted by: Matt F | December 6, 2007, 3:48 pm 3:48 pm
Lawrence,
Don’t be silly. Warming is a fact, which you’d know if you lived outside the USA.
The weather has changed dramatically for other countries around the world. Just ask anyone over 40, and they’ll tell you what happened since they were a kid. Sudan, Ireland, Greenland, etc.
The reason everyone talks about the US in relation to Global warming, is that the US is the world’s biggest polluter, and hasn’t signed up to the environment treaty because it might hurt the economy.
If someone can make profits recycling garbage, why can’t companies make profits on cleaning the air? Surely this could create a whole new industry.
Posted by: Emmet | December 12, 2007, 5:03 pm 5:03 pm