Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Hangar Talk
Boeing 737 Max compared to Airbus A320 Neo >

Boeing 737 Max compared to Airbus A320 Neo

Notices
Hangar Talk For non-aviation-related discussion and aviation threads that don't belong elsewhere

Boeing 737 Max compared to Airbus A320 Neo

Old 06-03-2019, 02:19 PM
  #21  
:-)
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Default

I highly doubt that biofuel catches on, the international market for these fuels will ultimately lead to bulldozing the rain forest, as that is the lowest cost "farm" on Earth. Liquefied natural gas is the biggest cost saver of the bunch, but the tanks become gigantic bombs, that I personally would not go near. If a ramper ran a cart into an external tank, the entire airport would likely be destroyed.

However, and here is the big issue, the price of Jet A will crater once any alternative technology takes hold, resulting in sticking with Jet A. We will see fully autonomous aircraft before any of those replace Kerosene.
Mesabah is offline  
Old 06-03-2019, 02:57 PM
  #22  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

Originally Posted by Mesabah View Post
I highly doubt that biofuel catches on, the international market for these fuels will ultimately lead to bulldozing the rain forest, as that is the lowest cost "farm" on Earth.
All of the current biofuel projects (aviation and otherwise) have dropped all feed sources which might have other environmental or social impacts. Not only do they not use foodstock, they are also avoiding plants which would utilize land which would normally (or could be) used for food.

They are focusing on plants which would grow in environments normally unsuitable for agriculture and currently not cultivated... deserts for the most part.

Another feedstock concept is algea grown in a liquid... greatly simplifies harvesting/handling of the feedstock, as the liquid can be pumped around as needed and the outside environment/soil doesn't matter as long as it's sunny.

Also waste mass (ag, industrial, garbage) is going to be a feedstock source as well.

Most of the technical challenges are resolved, I'm actually quite impressed with the progress, ten years ago I didn't think they could develop a cost effective Jet A replacement. The only thing really missing now is economy of scale. There is a big gap to bridge there, but regulatory/social pressure might dictate the use of (initially) more expensive bio fuel even if Jet A is somewhat cheaper.

Originally Posted by Mesabah View Post
Liquefied natural gas is the biggest cost saver of the bunch, but the tanks become gigantic bombs, that I personally would not go near. If a ramper ran a cart into an external tank, the entire airport would likely be destroyed.
It's not about cost anymore. LNG is not carbon neutral or even close to it.

It's energy density is significantly lower than Jet A, so it would require about 50% more fuel volume, and associated structural weight, which you then have to haul up to the flight levels every leg... net result even more fuel burn and carbon.

You'd need clean-sheet designs, for larger tanks and different fuel systems (turbine engines can burn anything with minor tweaks, peanut butter has been demonstrated as turbine fuel, with powerful fuel pumps of course).

But I do agree LNG is far too flammable as well, while kerosene is actually hard to light on fire unless it's atomized or vaporized.


Originally Posted by Mesabah View Post
However, and here is the big issue, the price of Jet A will crater once any alternative technology takes hold, resulting in sticking with Jet A. We will see fully autonomous aircraft before any of those replace Kerosene.
Regulatory or social mandates/pressure will drive the need to lower carbon emissions (other emissions will still be a factor too). Bio fuel is about the only way to do that, since it's zero net carbon except for production and distribution overhead (which could also be near zero carbon if the grid is nuclear, solar, hydro).

Also huge advantage that it's a drop in replacement (at least up to 50%, probably good to 80%) for Jet A. Any other fuel/power scheme will require clean-sheet designs.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 06-03-2019, 04:14 PM
  #23  
:-)
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Default

I'm aware of all that stuff, but as we have seen with the failure of the Paris Accords, you can't prevent countries from trying to game the system. Europe didn't even come close to its targets, China, forget it.

Aviation is a probably less than 3% of emissions anyway. The main reason we have climate change is the lack of available nuclear power.
Mesabah is offline  
Old 06-03-2019, 09:41 PM
  #24  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

Originally Posted by Mesabah View Post
I'm aware of all that stuff, but as we have seen with the failure of the Paris Accords, you can't prevent countries from trying to game the system. Europe didn't even come close to its targets, China, forget it.
Yes. But potential social pressure could circumvent regulatory requirements. Ie people choose not to fly if airlines don't cut carbon. It's already started.

Originally Posted by Mesabah View Post
Aviation is a probably less than 3% of emissions anyway.
True, but it's emblematic of progress, growth, and success in modern industrial society and therefore an easy target for rabid anti-establishment progressives who seem to set the tone these days.

Originally Posted by Mesabah View Post
The main reason we have climate change is the lack of available nuclear power.
100% agree. Freaking stupid, we could have a near-zero carbon grid which could power most passenger cars, all trains, and some trucks. Ships and most airplanes need to burn liquid fuel (could be bio fuel).
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 06-03-2019, 10:41 PM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,391
Default

The true "green" power is nuclear. Nothing else can match the need for billions of people occupying this planet. A tennis ball sized chunk can meet a lifetime of power for a single person. Not so with wind/solar etc.
Don't think you will hear many green power advocates admitting this.
Rama is offline  
Old 06-04-2019, 05:34 AM
  #26  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

Originally Posted by Rama View Post
The true "green" power is nuclear. Nothing else can match the need for billions of people occupying this planet. A tennis ball sized chunk can meet a lifetime of power for a single person. Not so with wind/solar etc.
Don't think you will hear many green power advocates admitting this.
A few have started to, but not many. It's certainly not hip or woke enough for most of them... science pales in comparison to rainbows and unicorns.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 06-04-2019, 08:47 AM
  #27  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...-idUSKCN1T4220
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 06-04-2019, 04:16 PM
  #28  
:-)
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Default

The alternative energy AND the oil companies lie to them, telling them solar and wind will work, and the technology for storage is right around the corner. These industries both win, they sell their windmills and panels, and the baseload is dependent on fossil fuels, that can't be replaced by either. The ramping required to replace solar and wind when they die at different times per day, makes it physically impossible to use nuclear on the same grid.
Mesabah is offline  
Old 06-04-2019, 09:07 PM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
JamesNoBrakes's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,977
Default

Originally Posted by Rama View Post
The true "green" power is nuclear. Nothing else can match the need for billions of people occupying this planet. A tennis ball sized chunk can meet a lifetime of power for a single person. Not so with wind/solar etc.
Don't think you will hear many green power advocates admitting this.
Not in every place and situation. In a few, it makes sense. In many, the energy required to build everything, protect it, isolate the radioactive waste, outpaces the energy produced. In other words it costs more than it saves. Many cities use gas-turbines because they are over 65% efficient (thermal cycle) and are extremely reliable and scalable (can add one or two real fast as necessary). It's possible that technology could offer a cleaner nuclear or fusion solution in the future, but again, that's not where we are today.
JamesNoBrakes is offline  
Old 06-05-2019, 07:46 AM
  #30  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes View Post
Not in every place and situation. In a few, it makes sense. In many, the energy required to build everything, protect it, isolate the radioactive waste, outpaces the energy produced. In other words it costs more than it saves. Many cities use gas-turbines because they are over 65% efficient (thermal cycle) and are extremely reliable and scalable (can add one or two real fast as necessary). It's possible that technology could offer a cleaner nuclear or fusion solution in the future, but again, that's not where we are today.
I think we're about at a point where cheap is not a carte-blanche excuse to generate CO2.

New design nuclear (fission) plants solve every problem except waste. Waste should be considered a temporary issue, ie we're not going to use fission forever, just long enough to bridge the gap to future carbon-free sources. A single waste repository in the right place would be harmless. The only (grasping) argument against that is the danger to future primitive societies... first off, I don't think we are obligated to plan for what happens after the total collapse of civilization. Second if a future society has regressed to the point where they don't know not to play with nuclear waste, you can simply keep them out with large steel doors

Current plants are the technological equivalent of a '57 Chevy. Works fine, lasts a long time, but new plant designs are a very sharp contrast to the old ones (both systems and core physics). IMO it would be important to license only one design, for standardization purposes. First generation plants were all one-off designs, so the operators are test pilots for the life of the plant. Operators who change jobs have to spend about three years in training before they are released to "fly the line"... and then they are still test pilots.

We all understand the benefits of a fleet with one type rating...
rickair7777 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
antiguogrumete
Your Photos and Videos
0
12-24-2017 12:34 AM
APC225
United
154
07-13-2012 02:53 PM
Too Tall
Major
32
12-08-2010 11:27 PM
captain_drew
Hangar Talk
0
12-30-2005 07:03 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices