Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-26-2021, 05:28 AM   #11  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Mar 2021
Posts: 3
Default FedEx Commits to Carbon-Neutral Operations...

FedEx announced their operations will be carbon neutral by 2040.
I thought this was an impossible goal. I can see all ground equipment complying, but am dubious about the aircraft.
Could this be part of their plans?

FedEx Commits to Carbon-Neutral Operations by 2040
https://newsroom.fedex.com/newsroom/sustainability2021/
CycleFlorida is offline  
Old 03-26-2021, 05:58 AM   #12  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 29,296
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CycleFlorida View Post
FedEx announced their operations will be carbon neutral by 2040.
I thought this was an impossible goal. I can see all ground equipment complying, but am dubious about the aircraft.
Could this be part of their plans?

FedEx Commits to Carbon-Neutral Operations by 2040
https://newsroom.fedex.com/newsroom/sustainability2021/
Airlines really mean they are going to buy carbon offsets (ie pay somebody to plant trees, etc), not that they are going to actually stop burning jet A. In theory that should work, but the eco-freaks don't really care for the idea.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 03-26-2021, 05:32 PM   #13  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Posts: 894
Default

Iím so tired of all this environmental bull crap. I enjoy increasing my carbon footprint.
123494 is offline  
Old 03-26-2021, 06:39 PM   #14  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 29,296
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 123494 View Post
Iím so tired of all this environmental bull crap. I enjoy increasing my carbon footprint.

There's that.


rickair7777 is offline  
Old 03-26-2021, 06:58 PM   #15  
Perennial Reserve
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 6,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
Airlines really mean they are going to buy carbon offsets (ie pay somebody to plant trees, etc), not that they are going to actually stop burning jet A. In theory that should work, but the eco-freaks don't really care for the idea.

Why not? Theyíve bough in to stupider ideas than that...

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...olitics-477620
Excargodog is offline  
Old 03-27-2021, 07:52 AM   #16  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 29,296
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excargodog View Post
Why not? Theyíve bough in to stupider ideas than that...

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...olitics-477620
Carbon offsets, if they worked, might dilute the narrative of tearing down the establishment and society in the interest of a great reset and social justice for all (except of course the winners from the old paradigm, who will be severely punished).
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 03-27-2021, 08:27 AM   #17  
Perennial Reserve
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 6,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post

4. Lastly, there's some scientific concern that dumping a lot of water vapor into the upper atmosphere would have it's own greenhouse effect... and burning H2 has only one combustion product.
Donít know that THAT would be a realistic concern. If anything it might increase the albedo a little, reflecting solar energy back up and decreasing global warming. But in any event, itís difficult to see where a combustion product of water would be worse than a combustion product of water, CO2, oxides of Sulfur, Oxides of Nitrogen, unburned fuel, and soot, which are the products of combustion of Jet A.
Excargodog is offline  
Old 03-27-2021, 12:03 PM   #18  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 29,296
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excargodog View Post
Don’t know that THAT would be a realistic concern. If anything it might increase the albedo a little, reflecting solar energy back up and decreasing global warming. But in any event, it’s difficult to see where a combustion product of water would be worse than a combustion product of water, CO2, oxides of Sulfur, Oxides of Nitrogen, unburned fuel, and soot, which are the products of combustion of Jet A.
Water and CO2 have different absorption spectra... water vapor lets some light through, and absorbs some light which becomes heat. Then the light that got through reaches the ground and heats it. The ground then radiates IR back up, and water vapor absorbs IR pretty well, so that stays in the biosphere as heat.

There's a graph in this article:

https://jpenhall.wordpress.com/2012/...-water-vapour/

Carbon-neutral SAF might actually be better for global warming than H2.

Also considering the stoichiometric process Jet A combustion produces only C02 and water vapor. The other pollutants are the results of impurities or catalytic processes involving atmospheric N2.

An H2 combustion of an equivalent amount of O2 would produce more H2O than Jet A and zero carbon... so while you're reducing the carbon you emit more H2O than before so now that's significant for greenhouse purposes. The other pollutants need to be considered too of course, but there's no equation to compare/contrast C02 vs. smog pollution... that's in the eye of the beholder.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 04-14-2021, 04:11 PM   #19  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Apr 2021
Posts: 2
Default

"What is the Disadvantage of Hydrogen Fuel Cells?

Hydrogen Extraction
Despite being the most abundant element in the Universe, hydrogen does not exist on its own so needs to be extracted from water via electrolysis or separated from carbon fossil fuels. Both of these processes require a significant amount of energy to achieve. This energy can be more than that gained from the hydrogen itself as well as being expensive. In addition, this extraction typically requires the use of fossil fuels, which undermines the green credentials of hydrogen."

Source: https://www.twi-global.com/technical...gen-fuel-cells

Those who claim that hydrogen is the future of fuels for: "trains, planes and automobiles" do not know physics and chemistry.
rower is offline  
Old 04-14-2021, 05:15 PM   #20  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 29,296
Default

I've done some homework on this, since it seemed pretty far-out for airbus...

I was right. The genesis of this "project" is that it was actually a condition imposed on airbus by some euro-politicians (who are probably not physicists or engineers).

The fine print is that airbus expects longer-range aircraft will still require conventional liquid fuel of some sort (presumably SAF) due to the energy density limitations of H2.
rickair7777 is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fedex and UPS A380 Freighter Flea Bite Cargo 34 07-12-2006 04:21 PM
Letter to NTSB regarding AA 587 ADIRU Major 13 06-07-2006 12:48 PM
Airbus admits A350 flopped, to spend $10 billion on new plane Gordon C Major 46 05-15-2006 10:48 PM
Boeing gains major ground against Airbus captain_drew Hangar Talk 0 12-30-2005 07:03 PM
Singapore Air head furious at Airbus Sir James Hangar Talk 0 08-07-2005 11:40 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:02 PM.