Zero carbon emissions for major airline -- Do you think this is achievable? If so, how?

Don't worry, Bill Gates is talking about seeding the atmosphere with sunlight blocking materials. I'm sure that will turn out dandy.
 
Daleandee said:
Good point but it's difficult to connect a vehicle to a wind turbine or hydropower plant. The battery technology isn't there yet and the emissions from new battery technology seems to be quite costly.


​
https://www.industryweek.com/techno...acturing-them-leaves-massive-carbon-footprint
Click to expand...
Electricity is fungible. The car doesn't care how the power is generated. I could just as easily say it's difficult to connect a vehicle to a gas or coal powered generator. But if I'm in IA, KS, or parts of the NE USA, there's a good chance the car is using electricity from renewable sources.

I also suggest that you are only looking at part of how cars are used. For the past 16 months, I haven't driven more than 60 miles, and the current battery technology certainly works for that sort of driving. I've personally seen a large number of EVs used China, and it works well for them. When traveling on business, it is rare for me to drive more than 120 miles from one place to another. Will batteries be good for everyone? Not at this time. But that doesn't mean that current technology isn't useful to a lot of people, even if it doesn't meet your needs.

I suspect (and hope) the energy requirements to make more batteries will come down as old ones are recycled, as is currently done for lead-acid cells. The article cites Germany, and they don't seem to be much heavier in coal than the USA: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/E...tion/Tables/gross-electricity-production.html In fact, Germany seems to use a higher proportion of renewable electricity than the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States
 
Everskyward said:
Then there's this https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210401-the-worlds-first-commercial-hydrogen-plane. Reminded me of Henning...
Click to expand...

Shame on me for not doing my internet homework beforehand. This looks to be exactly what they’re talking about, on their website:

https://hub.united.com/united-pledges-100-green-2050-2649438060.html

The wording is a tad misleading but it is indeed a net zero and planning to use this technology and not “...relying solely on the purchase of carbon offsets...”

I had never heard of this technology. Interesting! And promising. I suspect solar (photovoltaic or otherwise) will be used to power the process.

Again, this is capitalism at work. This CEO wouldn’t endanger his personal millions in compensation just for a PR stunt, IMHO.

“The Stone Age didn’t end because of a shortage of stones” /a Saudi oil sheik, I believe
 
X3 Skier said:
People are talking as if the CEO was claiming carbon neutrality when the plain words were “reducing carbon emissions 100%. Unless the definition of emissions has somehow somewhere changed, that’s what comes out the tailpipe (or from wherever on the amazing zero carbon emissions gizmo propelling the aircraft).
Click to expand...

True. I was just pointing out that if the purpose of reducing emissions is to reduce the environmental impact, then we need to consider the emissions from electricity generation as well. The more transportation is electrified, the more electric generation capacity will have to be expanded.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Generally, that is true. It depends on where you live. Iowa and KS have some wind power, a lot of the northeast gets hydropower from Canada.
Click to expand...
A problem I see there is that if a significant portion of transportation is shifting to electric, then wind and hydropower would have to be greatly expanded if they're going to be relied on to avoid using fossil fuels. Maybe wind power could be increased, but I'm not sure how much opportunity there is to expand hydropower.
 
Looks like about 59% of electricity is generated from fossil fuels in the US.

outlet-graph-large.jpg


https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php
 
Palmpilot said:
Looks like about 59% of electricity is generated from fossil fuels in the US.
Click to expand...
Just over 20 years ago it used to be over 50% coal. Once large scale energy storage becomes widespread the mix will shift. And it won't all be lithium batteries either.
 
Palmpilot said:
A problem I see there is that if a significant portion of transportation is shifting to electric, then wind and hydropower would have to be greatly expanded if they're going to be relied on to avoid using fossil fuels. Maybe wind power could be increased, but I'm not sure how much opportunity there is to expand hydropower.
Click to expand...

The environmental impact of the actual wind turbines is largely ignored as well. Each turbine requires hundreds of gallons of lubricating oil, which often gets dumped on the ground when the seals fail. The design lifespan is 20 years, but from what I've seen around here in Iowa they don't usually make it that long. The composite blades were billed as being recyclable, but the retired turbines here have had their blades dumped in a landfill in buried. Any effort to publicize that gets buried as well.

There is also the hundreds of endangered and protected birds that have been killed by the blades that no one cares about. If a powerplant killed one endangered slug they would be fined.

Anyone that has ever flown downwind of a turbine farm knows the turbulence they produce. I half jokingly say one day science will say the turbines impact the natural atmospheric and weather patterns causing climate change.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Anyone that has ever flown downwind of a turbine farm knows the turbulence they produce.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's not very much at all. Tempted to fly between the stands and blades sometimes. :) I also reflect that my timing and reflexes would make that a total fail!
And the FAA would consider it a conjested area, too.

JAK_2042 by Jack Silver, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
A problem I see there is that if a significant portion of transportation is shifting to electric, then wind and hydropower would have to be greatly expanded if they're going to be relied on to avoid using fossil fuels. Maybe wind power could be increased, but I'm not sure how much opportunity there is to expand hydropower.
Click to expand...
Agreed for both. It will be the economics, as much as anything, that drives where this could go. Still, electric vehicles are an improvement in the efficiency of the energy sources used by those who can make use of electric vehicles. I think most of the comparisons of petro-fueled vehicles here don't include the energy/carbon cost to make the fuel. From a 42 gallon barrel, we get about half as various fuels. I can't find a ready reference, but I think it takes about half that amount of fuel to resolve the various components of crude oil to products, including fuel- I may well be wrong on this.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Agreed for both. It will be the economics, as much as anything, that drives where this could go. Still, electric vehicles are an improvement in the efficiency of the energy sources used by those who can make use of electric vehicles. I think most of the comparisons of petro-fueled vehicles here don't include the energy/carbon cost to make the fuel. From a 42 gallon barrel, we get about half as various fuels. I can't find a ready reference, but I think it takes about half that amount of fuel to resolve the various components of crude oil to products, including fuel- I may well be wrong on this.
Click to expand...
Thank you. If we want to make true comparisons between options it needs to be apples-to-apples as much as possible. It’s not helpful to cite costs and impacts for one mode as a reason not to pursue it without credibly doing the same for existing or alternative options.
 
Palmpilot said:
A problem I see there is that if a significant portion of transportation is shifting to electric, then wind and hydropower would have to be greatly expanded if they're going to be relied on to avoid using fossil fuels. Maybe wind power could be increased, but I'm not sure how much opportunity there is to expand hydropower.
Click to expand...

Basically all hydropower in the US is already done, unless you live on the coasts and want to set up wave pattern/current generators. You can only block off so many water sources, and the environmental impacts on fish/etc. have pretty much ensured that they don't want any additional structures impeding nature. The best solution to the US power needs in the future is modern nuclear reactors. Great at baseloads, and the tech has come a long way from 3-mile island. I won't use the word "can't", but most of the modern designs are just about impossible to put into a meltdown situation. I imagine a future (maybe by 2050) where 40%-50% of the vehicles are EV, and the rest are Hybrid or ICE. A typical 2-car household could have 1 of each. 99% of housing isn't designed with charging available in the garage anyway, unless you can get by on 110V which would be less than optimal.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Basically all hydropower in the US is already done, unless you live on the coasts and want to set up wave pattern/current generators. You can only block off so many water sources, and the environmental impacts on fish/etc. have pretty much ensured that they don't want any additional structures impeding nature. The best solution to the US power needs in the future is modern nuclear reactors. Great at baseloads, and the tech has come a long way from 3-mile island. I won't use the word "can't", but most of the modern designs are just about impossible to put into a meltdown situation. I imagine a future (maybe by 2050) where 40%-50% of the vehicles are EV, and the rest are Hybrid or ICE. A typical 2-car household could have 1 of each. 99% of housing isn't designed with charging available in the garage anyway, unless you can get by on 110V which would be less than optimal.
Click to expand...

I've seen numerous articles recently that all agree, the US electrical grid is not ready for widespread EV. Even now, high load days create brownouts or rolling blackouts. Many utility companies are installing remote controls on air conditioners to be able to load shed at peak times. Power companies will need trillions in investment to upgrade the distribution networks to accommodate even an average of one EV per household. Something the politicians and environmentalists want to ignore.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Something the politicians and environmentalists want to ignore.
Click to expand...
Isn't this part of the infrastructure legislation that is being considered? Whether that bill is good, bad, or indifferent is another discussion that doesn't fit in this forum. I only bring it up because it suggests the issue isn't being ignored.
 
pburger said:
I reviewed the rules, just in case. This is not a political post. It's a technical discussion prompted by a statement from the CEO of a major US airline.

I got an e-mail today (April 13, 2021) from United Airlines. Here is an excerpt:

"A note from our CEO, Scott Kirby.

This Earth Month, we have a lot to celebrate at United. We've committed to being 100% green by reducing our carbon emissions 100% by 2050 and have invested in ground-breaking technology to make our goal a reality. But there's still a long way to go. And today, we're launching an industry-first effort that has the potential to play a significant role in the global fight against climate change."
​
Reducing something by 100% eliminates it completely, so United is committed to eliminating all carbon emissions by 2050.

My questions are:
1. Is a 100% reduction in carbon emissions possible for a major airline (assuming they don't shut down)?
2. If so, how?
Click to expand...
Whenever a CEO or politician sets a goal for a time after they'll be retired (or dead), be very, very suspicious.

It would be more honest to commit to something he'll actually be around to answer for, like, say, a 10% carbon-output reduction by 2025.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I've seen numerous articles recently that all agree, the US electrical grid is not ready for widespread EV. Even now, high load days create brownouts or rolling blackouts. Many utility companies are installing remote controls on air conditioners to be able to load shed at peak times. Power companies will need trillions in investment to upgrade the distribution networks to accommodate even an average of one EV per household. Something the politicians and environmentalists want to ignore.
Click to expand...
An EV draws less current than many ovens while charging, but unlike ovens, all the EV chargers don't all go on at the same time every day to cook dinner — a car used only for local driving might be charging only once/week, often overnight when most of the capacity in the grid is otherwise wasted. The people writing those articles from unnamed sources probably cooked the numbers by assuming everyone is driving their electric cars at highway speed 24/7, pausing only for 30 minutes every few hours to fast charge them.

My reply is not meant to defend the airline claim in the original post, which is equally dubious
 
midwestpa24 said:
Anyone that has ever flown downwind of a turbine farm knows the turbulence they produce. I half jokingly say one day science will say the turbines impact the natural atmospheric and weather patterns causing climate change.
Click to expand...

upload_2021-4-15_18-10-40.jpeg
 
It’s been interesting to ponder this issue in the context of just having gone through a course on TheGreatCourses.com about the Guilded Age to the Progressive period (a GREAT course and I highly recommend people check out that website for others of all flavors).

120ish years ago the car started hitting its stride. Around then there were 100-200 THOUSAND horses in NYC alone - pooping an average of 22lb and peeing a quart a DAY per horse. Despite the obvious public health and generally unsavory issues with that, many of the day tried to sabotage cars with obstacles in roads, etc. There were opponents to progress back then as there are now.

It would be silly to believe the viability of a Tesla, F-150, Mac truck, or whatever should be judged by what was available as cars back then. People then would have probably laughed if someone said an electric car could do what a Tesla does.

But just as forward-thinkers then got us ultimately to where we are today with cars, we’ll very likely do the same in other areas, including how we power future transportation.

Sneer at the multi-millionaire CEO all we want - my bet is he sees what’s coming better than most of us. Again - he has skin in the game and most of us don’t. Capitalism is a very powerful force.

Just me...
 
Llewtrah381 said:
Huh. But limited to, what, 300 feet AGL?

Interesting, though.
Click to expand...
It matters to those living downwind of them. Mostly inaudible low-frequency sound that can cause headaches and other maladies.
 
Dan Thomas said:
It matters to those living downwind of them. Mostly inaudible low-frequency sound that can cause headaches and other maladies.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Reference? And sound falls off as the square of the distance so how close must one be to have this be an issue?
 
Llewtrah381 said:
Interesting. Reference? And sound falls off as the square of the distance so how close must one be to have this be an issue?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it's become political, so you'll find references supporting and refuting that comment. It's difficult to find which ones are truthful.
 
Lindberg said:
Where do you find 17-140 kW ovens?

View attachment 95609
Click to expand...
I think the graphic answers your own question adequately. The level 3 chargers are for public charging stations, as it says, not for every homeowner. Your graphic even states that the level 2 (the highest for personal/home use) is comparable to a stovetop — that's not where I got the information, but it's nice to see it confirmed. I don't know what your source was for EVs overwhelming the power grid, but I assume it's someone who took just enough truth (the super high-power charger for service stations along the highway will draw 140 KW) and combined it with a lot of BS (so let's multiply this by the number of households in America) to try to score a political point.
 
Last edited:
Dan Thomas said:
View attachment 95603
Click to expand...
Interesting. How low do you have to fly to feel it? I've never felt any difference flying around the wind farms here at 1,000 ft AGL or higher, but I imagine you'd have to be down close to their level, unless you have terrain (a ridge, etc) to throw the air up higher. I've also never noticed any disturbance in nearby water, crops, etc.
 
David Megginson said:
I think the graphic answers your own question adequately. The level 3 chargers are for public charging stations, as it says, not for every homeowner. Your graphic even states that the level 2 (the highest for personal/home use) is comparable to a stovetop — that's not where I got the information, but it's nice to see it confirmed. I don't know what your source was for EVs overwhelming the power grid, but I assume it's someone who took just enough truth (the super high-power charger for service stations along the highway will draw 140 KW) and combined it with a lot of BS (so let's multiply this by the number of households in America) to try to score a political point.
Click to expand...

I think the idea is that the grid (substations, neighborhood power distribution/transformers, etc.) isn't built to have everyone turning on their 240V stove at 6PM when they get home on a 100-degree summer day with the A/C units going full bore. It taxes the components of the grid when a lot of the power draw is used simultaneously. It's not like the cars will be charging for hours on end all night long, but it will be right around peak load times. It becomes an even bigger problem as the ratio of EVs goes up. So infrastructure has to be dealt with now. It's less about available power in many areas so much as the equipment south of the local substations. Of course there are all sorts of scenarios that can make it better, like automated charging that waits until off-peak hours to charge and people only charging every few days.
 
David Megginson said:
Interesting. How low do you have to fly to feel it? I've never felt any difference flying around the wind farms here at 1,000 ft AGL or higher, but I imagine you'd have to be down close to their level, unless you have terrain (a ridge, etc) to throw the air up higher. I've also never noticed any disturbance in nearby water, crops, etc.
Click to expand...
Maybe down at their level? I wasn't very high above the ones in my picture. I was departing K57 and turned as soon as I could clear them for someone else departing; I was still climbing. I didn't feel a thing. It's probably like sailing a boat in another sailboat's dirty wind if you were down in the towers.

upload_2021-4-16_11-10-17.png
 
This is just the CEO's way of spinning the fact they are going bankrupt and shutting down operations.
 
David Megginson said:
Interesting. How low do you have to fly to feel it? I've never felt any difference flying around the wind farms here at 1,000 ft AGL or higher, but I imagine you'd have to be down close to their level, unless you have terrain (a ridge, etc) to throw the air up higher. I've also never noticed any disturbance in nearby water, crops, etc.
Click to expand...

I've encountered light to moderate chop at 1,000 AGL when 2-3 miles downwind of the wind farms around here. As a matter of fact if I'm out tooling around VFR, I keep track of the wind direction and if I have to pass downwind of them I climb up to 2,000 AGL just to avoid getting bumped around.

FWIW, some of the turbines around here are now 500+ feet to the upper tips of the blades. Fortunately from what I'm told, they have hit a technological plateau on how tall they can make them for now. Apparently we are at the upper height limit at what a steel monopole with a turbine can be built at, although there is research into new construction materials and designs to aim higher.
 
The CEO of United Airlines will be given a lot of congratulations by his circle of immediate direct reports, media, his country club friends, and his neighbors in his high end gated community. Probably get some recognition / awards from various organizations and government bodies.

Will still be driven in his limo, fly on his personal jet, live in a large house using enough electricity and natural gas to run a small neighborhood. You will never see him drive in a Prius.

He will retire, spend his days living in houses made from bricks of cash he got/gets from United, and will be long dead before any of his plans come to fruition (if ever) and before the costs / consequences of his directive fall on United.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I've encountered light to moderate chop at 1,000 AGL when 2-3 miles downwind of the wind farms around here. As a matter of fact if I'm out tooling around VFR, I keep track of the wind direction and if I have to pass downwind of them I climb up to 2,000 AGL just to avoid getting bumped around.

FWIW, some of the turbines around here are now 500+ feet to the upper tips of the blades. Fortunately from what I'm told, they have hit a technological plateau on how tall they can make them for now. Apparently we are at the upper height limit at what a steel monopole with a turbine can be built at, although there is research into new construction materials and designs to aim higher.
Click to expand...
They make them now (2018) as high as about 800 feet [1, 2]

[1] https://www.tdworld.com/renewables/...Wind AG has,plant concept - the water battery.
[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...-wind-turbine-will-tower-over-some-ncna853596
 
Cap'n Jack said:
They make them now (2018) as high as about 800 feet [1, 2]

[1] https://www.tdworld.com/renewables/article/20970429/german-company-builds-worlds-tallest-wind-turbine#:~:text=Max Bögl Wind AG has,plant concept - the water battery.
[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...-wind-turbine-will-tower-over-some-ncna853596
Click to expand...

Ah, my information is dated apparently. It was a few years ago I had that conversation with their engineer, so makes sense. I wonder how long until Iowa starts see 800 foot tall turbines.
 
WDD said:
The CEO of United Airlines will be given a lot of congratulations by his circle of immediate direct reports, media, his country club friends, and his neighbors in his high end gated community. Probably get some recognition / awards from various organizations and government bodies.

Will still be driven in his limo, fly on his personal jet, live in a large house using enough electricity and natural gas to run a small neighborhood. You will never see him drive in a Prius.

He will retire, spend his days living in houses made from bricks of cash he got/gets from United, and will be long dead before any of his plans come to fruition (if ever) and before the costs / consequences of his directive fall on United.
Click to expand...

My guess is most of those bricks are made of United stock instead of cash, so he and his fam will continue to have skin in the game.

This is how progress is made. Heck - this is an aviation forum. Thank goodness a couple of bicycle guys didn’t stop trying to make an airplane because of naysayers 120 years ago.
 
OK, how old is this guy? I am guessing, because it's not important enough to look it up, so let's say he's 60 for the sake of argument. He will be CEO for a maximum of 10 more years, right? That is 19 years from the stated goal, the odds of him being around then are slim and being head of the company are less than zero. He's basically pandering to the woke crowd, when he should be making the planes safer and more comfortable. But, adding an inch of legroom doesn't generate headlines and twitter comments!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top