Aviation

[kassy]

Cheap fix floated for plane vapour's climate damage

The climate-damaging vapours left behind by jet planes could be easily tackled, aviation experts say, with a new study suggesting they could be eliminated for a few pounds per flight.

Jet condensation trails, or contrails, have spawned wild conspiracy theories alleging mind control and the spreading of disease, but scientists say the real problem is their warming effect.

Researchers argue these smoky trails essentially double the amount of heating that’s caused by aviation's use of fossil fuels.

The problem will be discussed at the UN climate conference, COP29, in Baku for the first time.

Contrails form in the sky in the same way that your breath goes misty on a chilly morning.

When a plane passes through cold humid air, the contrails form as the vapour from the engines condenses on unburned fuel fragments in the exhaust stream.

While the causes of contrails have been known about for decades, it’s only in recent years that the climate warming impact of these human generated clouds has been recognised.

“They create an artificial layer of clouds, which traps the heat from the Earth that’s trying to escape to outer space,” said Carlos Lopez de la Osa, from the Transport & Environment campaign group, which has carried out a new study on the solutions to contrails.

“The scale of the warming that's associated with them is roughly having a similar impact to that of aviation carbon emissions.”

...

The COP event aims to draw attention to the fact that relatively simple changes to aviation practice could eliminate much of the warming impact of these trails.

According to the Transport & Environment study, some 80% of the warming associated with contrails is generated by just 3% of flights.

Tweaking the flight paths of a handful of aircraft could reduce contrail warming by more than half by 2040, at a cost of less than £4 per flight.

Geography and a flight's latitude have a strong influence on whether a contrail is warming. Flights over North America, Europe and the North Atlantic region accounted for more than half of global contrail warming in 2019, the report said.

Time of day also influences the climate effects of contrails. Those formed by evening and night flights have the largest warming contribution. Seasonality is also important - the most warming contrails tend to occur in winter.

“Planes are already flying around thunderstorms and turbulence areas,” Mr Lopez de la Osa said.

“We will need to add one more constraint to flight planning, which is avoiding areas of contrail formation.”

...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7wp777780o

Practical and cheap...lets do it.

[Ranman99]

We are being fed. Society is being duped! Its not going to end well.

[Sigmetnow]

Practical and cheap...lets do it.

 
It may help reduce contrails, but flying longer or less than the most efficient route is not cheap, because it burns more fuel — which is the factor for a flight’s total emissions.  Fuel is an airline’s biggest expense, and a primary consideration (after safety, we hope) when the captain plans the flight.  Each change in altitude or route away from that baseline adds cost. 
Also, Air Traffic Control requires that airliners follow designated routes from point to point (navigational waypoints, and specific flight levels).  Planes can’t just wander off-route or off-altitude without permission from the controllers, who must consider the effect on fitting the plane in with other traffic from minute to minute.

From the article:

Tweaking the flight paths of a handful of aircraft could reduce contrail warming by more than half by 2040, at a cost of less than £4 per flight.

Not possible — unless perhaps they mean £4 paid by every flying passenger on every flight ever.

To calculate the cost of fuel burned per minute:
 
- For a Boeing 747 at 60 gallons per minute, if we use an average price of $4.50 per gallon, the cost would be approximately $270 per minute.
- For an Airbus A380 at 77 gallons per minute, at the same fuel price, the cost would be around $346.50 per minute.
- For a Boeing 787-9 at 45 gallons per minute, the fuel cost would be about $202.50 per minute.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/oo77SufhUP5MEAu2gNPrUkMiM

[Sigmetnow]

Meanwhile, small electric aircraft are taking over for small fuel burners.

Planned at first to be an actual (rather neat-looking) electric flying car, problems experienced while in ground mode led to the switch to a Cybertruck-looking van which carries the rotorcraft folded up inside.  Xpeng is building a factory where they expect to make thousands of them. Range of the “short flights” has not been specified.

NEWS: Chinese EV maker Xpeng showed off its modular flying vehicle called Land Aircraft Carrier.
 
• Starting price: $280,000
• They've received 2,000 orders
• Takes 5 minutes to put the aircraft back in the carrier
• Aircraft cabin fits two people
• Supports 5-6 short flights on a full charge. The “Mothership” can charge the aircraft’s battery from 30 to 80% in 18 minutes.
• Deliveries of this massive vehicle are scheduled for 2026. Annual production capacity of 10,000 units.

11/13/24, ➡️ https://x.com/sawyermerritt/status/1856921571245367661
47 sec: unboxing, pull out rotors, flying.

This Chinese EV Looks Like a 6x6 Tesla Cybervan and Launches Flying Cars
Xpeng is taking its next steps towards personal flying vehicles and cars with its Aeroht “Land Aircraft Carrier” debut earlier this month.
Sep 05, 2024
https://www.motortrend.com/news/xpeng-aeroht-land-aircraft-carrier-ev-van-evtol-flying-car/

Photos: Xpeng’s Land Aircraft Carrier merges car and aircraft
Xpeng’s Land Aircraft Carrier features a unique modular design, consisting of a ground-based vehicle called the “Mothership” and a detachable aircraft for flight.
Nov 13, 2024

Xpeng has taken a giant leap into the future of transportation with the first public flight of its groundbreaking modular flying car, the “Land Aircraft Carrier.” 
This innovative vehicle, priced at 2 million yuan ($280,000), is slated for delivery in 2026. 

Developed by Xpeng’s subsidiary, Xpeng AeroHT

https://interestingengineering.com/photo-story/xpeng-land-aircraft-carrier-first-public-flight

280K USD Xpeng’s flying car performs public flight and gets over 2,000 orders
November 13, 2024

The Xpeng modular flying car called Land Aircraft Carrier received over 2,000 orders after performing its first public flight. Deliveries of this massive vehicle, which costs 2 million yuan (280,000 USD), are scheduled for 2026.
Xpeng’s subsidiary Xpeng AeroHT runs the Land Aircraft Carrier project. This company has been operating since 2013, trying to bring a real flying car solution to the market.
 
Xpeng AeroHT initially planned to launch a road-legal car with deployable rotors on the roof. However, it appeared to be too difficult to lock rotors properly to prevent damage from vibrations when the car is driving on the road. So, Xpeng switched to the idea of a modular flying car.

https://carnewschina.com/2024/11/13/280k-usd-xpengs-flying-car-performs-public-flight-and-gets-over-2000-orders/

The original concept, from January:
XPENG AEROHT announces launch of the first modular flying car to be mass produced specifically for individuals
January 10, 2024
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/xpeng-aeroht-announces-launch-first-110600825.html

⬇️ The recently revealed “modular” version in black/gray, and the original design in blue.

[Sigmetnow]

An unleaded version of 100 octane fuel has finally been approved for light planes — but there’s a catch.
 

Many piston engine planes still need 100 octane fuel and while lead was eliminated from car gas it hadn't been possible to do that for aircraft, partly because modifying aircraft is a massive problem so the EPA let small aircraft continue to use 100LL (low lead)
…
A small company named 'General Aviation Modifications Inc.' - GAMI - worked on their own 100 octane fuel using 20% xylene as an octane booster. And a couple of years ago it began getting approvals for specific engines. It now covers practically every engine used in the US.
…
But that's not the end of the story because the FAA hasn't approved this as the only unleaded option. Swift fuels have a 100UL formulation that is getting STC approval for some engines. And LyondellBasell and VP Racing Fuels’ UL100E is hoping to get approved via PAFI

And there is a problem with this because while all these fuels can safely mix with the existing 100LL, they can't necessarily mix safely with each other. Swift apparently uses ETBE as an octane enhancer and UL100E uses MMT (an organic molecule with Manganese). There's likely a lot of crossover here.
…
So while one option exists today the others will still enter the market, and aircraft may not be able to easily switch between fuels. And in California there's a law that bans the sale of leaded AvGas after Jan 1st 2031, so the clock is ticking.

I should add, that lots of small aircraft can use lower octane gasoline, consistent with what cars use. However the standard blends of gas at the pump frequently contains ethanol and that is a problem for lots of hardware.
…
Also, to add to the mess, the lawyers at the engine builders have stated that aircraft using unleaded fuel may not be covered by warranty.

Thread: https://x.com/djsnm/status/1853469361518026793

Or read here: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1853469361518026793.html

[kassy]

Practical and cheap...lets do it.

 
It may help reduce contrails, but flying longer or less than the most efficient route is not cheap, because it burns more fuel — which is the factor for a flight’s total emissions.  Fuel is an airline’s biggest expense, and a primary consideration (after safety, we hope) when the captain plans the flight.  Each change in altitude or route away from that baseline adds cost. 
Also, Air Traffic Control requires that airliners follow designated routes from point to point (navigational waypoints, and specific flight levels).  Planes can’t just wander off-route or off-altitude without permission from the controllers, who must consider the effect on fitting the plane in with other traffic from minute to minute.

From the article:

Tweaking the flight paths of a handful of aircraft could reduce contrail warming by more than half by 2040, at a cost of less than £4 per flight.

Not possible — unless perhaps they mean £4 paid by every flying passenger on every flight ever.

It´s a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things.

Did you ever consider that keeping this planet liveable is more important  then  flying  to  places?

[Sigmetnow]

Practical and cheap...lets do it.

 
It may help reduce contrails, but flying longer or less than the most efficient route is not cheap, because it burns more fuel — which is the factor for a flight’s total emissions.  Fuel is an airline’s biggest expense, and a primary consideration (after safety, we hope) when the captain plans the flight.  Each change in altitude or route away from that baseline adds cost. 
Also, Air Traffic Control requires that airliners follow designated routes from point to point (navigational waypoints, and specific flight levels).  Planes can’t just wander off-route or off-altitude without permission from the controllers, who must consider the effect on fitting the plane in with other traffic from minute to minute.

From the article:

Tweaking the flight paths of a handful of aircraft could reduce contrail warming by more than half by 2040, at a cost of less than £4 per flight.

Not possible — unless perhaps they mean £4 paid by every flying passenger on every flight ever.

It´s a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things.

Did you ever consider that keeping this planet liveable is more important  then  flying  to  places?

Nowhere did I say it was not possible, nor that it was not desirable.

I am saying:
 
1) It is not simple.
 
2) It is not cheap.

These are the reasons why the idea won’t be immediately adopted — not because no one cares about aviation GHG emissions.  (Which make up only about 2% of global GHG emissions, anyway, so there are much bigger targets that could have much more of an effect.)

[kassy]

We are in a bit of a hurry so we should tackle everything we can.

[kassy]

Will flights really reach net zero by 2050 - and at what cost to passengers?<

t is the perfect start to a holiday: your plane ticket is cheap, your cabin baggage is safely stowed, the engines are roaring into life - and the pilot has announced that there’s no need to worry about the environmental impact.

This is Jet Zero, a vision where air travel is entirely carbon neutral thanks to new technology and green ventures that offset the environmental impact. The plan was drafted in 2022 when Boris Johnson was prime minister, marking a step towards the government’s legal obligation to reach net zero by 2050. The Labour government has since made a similar pledge, and in addition it wants all domestic flights and UK airport operations to reach zero emissions by 2040.

This is no easy feat when you consider the scale of the challenge: one passenger taking an economy-class flight from London to New York generates 309kg of carbon dioxide, which would take roughly a year to absorb via 10 mature trees.

Multiply this on the global scale and the aviation industry would need to plant roughly 100 billion mature trees each year to offset its emissions. For UK emissions alone you’d need a forest almost the size of Wales.

So, just how realistic is the plan to hit Jet Zero by 2050? And what is the knock-on cost for passengers?

...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c245e726r79o

Read the article for the answers but the gains from technology are not that big so we will have to cut in other ways.