Do you care about your children? Then stop flying 10 September 09

The EU has not only given free permits to aviation, but to more then 90% of the industries that fall under ETS. Aviation is therefore no exception to the rule.

I agree with your arguments; the same argument could be made for eating meat (and dairy): Every day we eat meat, we are personally responsible for huge amounts of greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation of rainforests in South-America etc. And what’s more, we are sending out the wrong message to those at the other end of the world; FAO predicts that by the year 2050 meat consumption has doubled…

Femke, I’m guessing that you’re one of those vegetarian, animal-loving, tree-hugging environmentalists. Please correct me if I’m wrong and I’ll apologise sincerely. For myself, humans are top of the world pecking order and there are too many suffering poverty and needing available spare resources. It puzzles me why so many apparently intelligent people are fooled by the political and environmentalist propaganda thrown at us by the UN and related political organisations in support of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis.

The Hypothesis remains to be proven by convincing evidence. In fact more and more scientific evidence is being found which proves that our use of fossil fuels has negligible impact upon global climates.

I can give you links if you want some.

Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

Peter Ridley, I do think you owe me an apology. Ok, I do not eat meat, but not (only) for sentimental reasons. The environmental effects of meat are huge: the external costs of a kg beef for example amount to approx. 10 euros (I can send you the report if you like). For a large part, these external environmental costs consist of damage to biodiversity and climate change (but eutrophication is another impact category). Maybe you don’t believe in human induced global warming, but the amount of land and water needed to produce our growing consumption of meat would be another reason to cut down on your meat…

Femke, dont listen to his attack on you. He is a astroturfer by all accounts and know little about the real world of science. For some reason he does not accept orthodox science and tries to use anti science to argue against AGW which is dangerous.

Mark Lynas, not flying is only one small step to stopping AGW from being a real problem. This article represents evidence from a top German physicst about emissions allowed come 2050. The average European emits 11 tonnes per annum but limits of dangerous AGW mean that it should be not more than 2.75×40=110 per annum and that means no meat, no driving and not flying using fossil fuels anyway.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/10/schellnhuber-developed-countries-carbon-insolvent?commentpage=1&commentposted=1

Frightening really.

“The use of kerosene in jet turbines will be extremely difficult to substitute technologically. Hydrogen planes will never get off the ground.“

Hydrogen planes will certainly be able to do that if they get built, and with larger payload fractions and/or ranges, because their fuel mass fractions will be less. Large airports could have nuclear water-splitting and hydrogen liquefaction plant.

But the planes’ other virtue, that of emitting only water vapour, turns out to be not all that virtuous if they are in the stratosphere when they do it. It doesn’t naturally get up there, and its presence there as a result of existing planes’ burning of kerosene up there is a contributor to global warming.

There may be a way planes can get off the ground by burning hydrogen, and also burn it while approaching and landing, but while in stratospheric flight, actually remove water deposited there by planes that passed by earlier.

(How fire can be domesticated)

We really need to start powering more high-speed electric trains using advanced 4th generation nuclear reactors to reduce demand for air travel: http://www.thenucleareconomy.com My new book sums up the entire issue the world is facing, from peak oil & climate change, to energy transitions, to “alternative” energies, to the integral fast reactor. Compact and to the point, this book quickly explains why we need to go nuclear.

But Zachary, 4th generation nuclear reactors haven’t even been build yet! A lot of research is being done with the aim of them becoming operational by 2030, but that’s pure theoretical thinking. Even the IPCC states in its 4th Assessment report that “Assessments of future potential for nuclear power are uncertain and controversial.” (see p. 296, Ch4, WGIII) So why not aim for the transition to a renewable energy supply?

These 4th generation nuclear reactors could offset wedges around 2030 but not before then and hence they have to be considered as part of a future solution only.

Joseph Romm at climate progress has many articles demonstrating how to offset the 1 GtC wedges and there are many examples of how the USA (the largest polluter) can achieve this. Natural Gas and CSP sources are one good example as is large scale wind and energy storage.

Many options

I’ve tried posting to this blog but my comment keeps being rejected. I’ll post it to Mark’s “Age of Stupid” and hopefully you’ll be able to see it there.

best regards, Pete Ridley, human-made global climate change agnostic

“Joseph Romm … many articles … Natural Gas … good“

Ahem.

Zacharay Moitoza, were you aware that much airliner flight occurs over water?

You seem to accept Lynas’s proof-by-assertion that hydrogen planes will not leave the ground. Why?

(How fire can be domesticated)

Wouldn’t post ther either. I’ll try again tomorrow.

GRL, it cannot be helped. Power is required in baseload and peak and renewables providing peak power will require some fossil fuel based usage until sufficient electricity generating storage capability and capacity. If you want zero carbon then dream on and on and on I am afraid, well at present anyway.

Interesting article Mark because at the heart of this of course lies the dilemma of how much are we all prepared to sacrifice for the greater good? I suspect the answer will be not much. Certainly though this recession will have curtailed the number of package holiday’s to far flung shores from the UK, but I’m guessing that those flights are only a miniscule problem in the scale of things. Would’nt it be nice if we could simply rely on people to be sensible and cut back a little. If you fly 5 times a year ordinarily cut it down to 3 say etc etc. But that would mean everyone being sensible and unselfish and that’s not going to happen! As for other methods of aircraft propulsion i cannot help thinking about cost and availability of the technology and practical costs to implicate?

Pete (Ridley) are you still hanging around this site in the hope of claiming the scalp of someone less well informed than yourself? You will be waiting a long time for that to happen although my 6 year old may be up for debate with you on the matter. On everything else she is I am certain better informed than you.

We need to get rid of coal first. Wind/Nuclear/CSP can provide the baseload and some energy storage (compressed air and heated oil etc) can provide some peak load but not all so its natural gas until we can overcome the energy storage issue.

As for air travel, bio fuels can do this so long as they are carbon neutral which they can be if it is only for flying. All freight and land travel can be electric in nature eventually.

What part of Don’t talk to them is so hard to figure out?

“GRL, it cannot be helped … As for other methods of aircraft propulsion i cannot help thinking about cost and availability of the technology and practical costs to implicate?“

Two votes for nothing-can-be-done-about-anything. I say it can. The yeas have it.

(How fire can be domesticated)

Femke, G.R.L. Cowan: 4th generation nuclear was cancelled for political reasons in 1994, 2 years before completion. GE will likely now have a demonstration reactor up and running before 2015. Today, more Gen-III+ reactors will be built, and their waste (their main downside) can be stored safely right next to the plant until it is used to fuel future Gen-IV plants. So, a future combination of Gen III and IVs will work quite niclely. As for travel over oceans where electric trains can’t be used, that’s where nuclear ships or submarines come in.

“Today, more Gen-III+ reactors will be built, and their waste (their main downside) can be stored safely right next to the plant until it is used to fuel future Gen-IV plants.“

True.

“So, a future combination of Gen III and IVs will work quite niclely. As for travel over oceans where electric trains can’t be used, that’s where nuclear ships or submarines come in.“

But still no explanation from you or Lynas why hydrogen flight won’t work. The only objection — pollution of the stratospheric with water vapour — has been from me.

I know how to fix that, and the fix has some side benefits. But in pursuit of a theory that my prescriptions for the world’s problems would be more quickly filled if they were not free, plus I would have more money, I’m auctioning the secret. Bid high; if your bid is the winning one, you can always sell the main house.

(How fire can be domesticated)

Hydrogen is presently created from natural gas and is extremely energy inefficient in its creation. Do you have a method of creating hydrogen efficiently energy wise in order that no fossil fuel is used?

As for Nuclear power, its very expensive to implement and Gen IV is some time off and hence a future wedge possibility.

Something went wrong with that auction link. I’ll try it once more: Stratosphere-friendly flight idea.

The blog software is turning the ampersand into an ampersand followed by a hex code for an ampersand. Next, it will become conscious, and figure out exactly how to collapse a vacuum CRT so as to decapitate the viewer. Or maybe it already did that, and only those of us not still using CRTs are still alive. Stratosphere-friendly flight idea.

until sufficient electricity generating storage capability and capacity. If you want zero carbon then dream on and on and on I am afraid, well at present anyway.

i am scc the topic

خلفيات صور للتصاميم توبيكات العاب بنات

i am scc the topic

خلفيات صور للتصاميم توبيكات العاب بنات

i personally prefer for the transition to a renewable energy supply than nuclear..

Mark writes: “But nothing can plausibly decarbonise aviation.”

How about ammonia? How about carbon-neutral jet fuel made from garbage via plasma converters? I don’t want to spill Graham’s beans about his secret system, though, so I’ll leave it at those two. Ammonia power for vehicles is something that’s already being done commercially today, though mainly it’s just tractor engines because farmers have a ready supply of ammonia on site. Ammonia (NH3) is just basically an easier way to tote hydrogen around, though it would have the same water-producing effect as using straight hydrogen. I’ll go with carbon-neutral jet fuel from wastes. Or Graham’s secret system.

mp3 says: “I personally prefer for the transition to a renewable energy supply than nuclear.”

Your personal preferences in this case aren’t really relevant, because renewables alone can’t supply all the energy human society demands, and even less so in the near future. Nuclear can, and very easily. I personally prefer pie in the sky, but I never seem to see any pies floating by. Except magpies, of course.