Final Approach And Landing

The aims of this blog have been to investigate aviation in the context of global climate change. In this final post, I aim to review and reflect on what I have learnt. It doesn't take much research to know that aviation has large impacts on the environment - you can hear planes, see contrails and watch YouTube videos of planes dumping fuel mid-flight! I tried to vary the topics I covered within the umbrella of aviation and environmental change, in order to try and build a larger picture and put it into context without only considering the scientific and measurable effects. 

The first set of posts looked at aircraft emissions, focusing on contrails. Following on from that I explored what people understood and thought of the environmental impacts of flying, where the responsibility should lie, and what measures should be taken to working towards making it sustainable. The last few posts have considered how the aviation industry is currently responding to environmental challenges and goals. 

Despite knowing that there is no easy fix for making aviation greener, in conducting research for the blog, I got to understand more the different perspectives and motives people have and what flying means to them (academics, policy makers, ordinary people, manufacturers). Scientific knowledge and insights of the effects of planes on the environment has not translated to more environmentally conscious flyers, as they continue to benefit from the opportunities and connectivity flying has enabled. 

Looking to the future, I will continue to follow how commercial aviation adapts to or is under increasing pressure to diversify from using liquid based carbon fuels, from a technological perspective - until then, I'm still saving up for my first class ticket, on the longest route possible on the world's-only-fully-double-decker-aircraft-the-practically-carbon-neutral-airbus-a380!

Thanks for reading!

Airports Of The Future

Aircraft themselves are only one part (albeit an important one) of the aviation industry. They are not the only component of the process of air travel - to get on a plane, we first need to check in, maybe take a selfie, or post and upload a photo at the airport! 

Schrenk et al. (2009) have commented on the fact that aviation related, eco friendly developments have been focused on the technological improvement of aircraft themselves, and not on places like airports, which contribute a significant amount of pollution. In the last couple of posts for example, I have looked at how new materials, new types of fuel and more efficient aircraft shapes have been developed, and are actually being tested on or used on civilian flights. 

As well as having the same kinds of environmental impacts conventional buildings have, airports contribute significantly more in the categories of noise, air quality, surface water and soil quality, and habitat and wildlife management (Airports Council International, 2008). There are no quick fixes to such long standing environmental issues as these, and as with the development of more sustainable aircraft, we aren't going to see ultra, eco friendly, better than carbon zero airports anytime soon. In a paper released in October last year  Sahrir et al. (2014), commented how an upgrade to Kuala Lumpur International Airport, broke many "safe" limits including in particulate matter and noise, and the writers called for better economic and social objectives to be defined in accordance to environmental limits in order to protect critical natural resources. With many airports upgrading and expanding, vying to become global hubs and many more airports being planned to be built, even if good technology is going into the airport and it will be a degree more sustainable, thought still needs to go in the construction. 

Thank goodness Chicago's O'Hare airport got the memo. This article from The New Economy writes of how since 2003, "sustainability has underpinned every single aspect of running the operations at O’Hare", however they also note that "only the most green-minded passengers will see the evidence". I don't dispute that they are environmentally conscious in what they do, however what with a lot of effort going into designing the aircraft of the future in terms of the materials, technology, fuel and passenger experience all being considered, should the same drastic changes be expected of airports?

This article from CNN shows that the airports of the future may be following suit! It even shows how established airports can still being at the forefront of environemntal sustainability - Heathrow's newly re-opened Terminal 2 has been recognised for its sustainability. Chicago's O'Hare is even stepping up its game too by allowing goats, sheep, llamas and burros to graze on land around the airport - thats something even the least most green-minded person will be able to see! 

Mexico City has got the idea!  Source, CNN

Fuel Of The Future

Today, I am going to look at the future of providing fuel for aviation. It is estimated that by 2026, 221 billion gallons of aviation fuel will be needed against the 95 billion gallons used in 2007 (Hendricks et al. 2011). 

Regardless of  increasing technological improvements to aircraft that I have touched upon in previous posts, fuel for aviation has been growing at a rate of 4% annually, whereas the fuel efficiencies of aircraft have been increasing at a rate of 1% annually, so addressing the source of fuel for aviation will be critical in helping to achieve  lower carbon emissions,  a goal which the aviation industry has set for itself (Hendricks et al. 2011). 

Substituting some of this fuel with biofuels such as ethanol or biodiesel, which are currently being used as in fuel in cars is not an option due to the specific fuels required for aviation. Thus ways in which biofuels for aviation can be produced without competing with arable land or freshwater resources, do not lead to further deforestation, and do not have wider environmental or social impacts have to be considered (Hendricks et al. 2011). Pagowski (2003) praised the suitability of hydrogen as a fuel to be used in aviation, despite uncertainty on how to actually implement it. A liquid, highly cooled hydrogen fuel in aircraft would render water vapour and smaller quantities of nitrogen oxides as the only emissions. 

Despite the aforementioned fuel options, there may be other factors at play which explains the relative hindrance in the development of alternative fuels for aircraft in comparison to other motor vehicles. Kivits et al. (2010) attribute this to the infrastructure involved. A change in transport fuel will make current aircraft and airport infrastructure unsuitable. The paper names privately owned airports as reluctant to finance and accommodate future air traffic operations, which contributes to aviation being the slowest of major transport systems to adapt to a carbon constrained future. 

The airliner manufacturers (Airbus and Boeing) themselves have been named as responsible for the set back (Kivits et al. 2010). The airframes of many new aircraft in development and production are built around the use of carbon based fuel and turbo engines. It will take Airbus and Boeing many years to pay for projects like the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus a380 (20 years!). These are planes which represent cutting edge technology and concern for the environment, and that's even before they make a profit on them! Therefore potential investment in research and development into new plane shapes and fuel types can not be justified financially. 

Though not looking dissimilar for other aircraft, the relatively larger size of the a380, and the more powerful engines on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, meant that airports had to invest in their infrastructure. Either upgrade or lose out. What would have been done if these aircraft were significantly different? Would they have even been built? As a compromise to environmental efficiency, the proposed Boeing 777x has wings which fold in, so they fit into many smaller airports that the 777 currently serves. 

The development of alternative aviation fuels is an important priority, however without even looking that much into the subject,  it can be seen that there are many apparent set backs when considering the wider effects of going about making such changes to fuel and aircraft efficiency. Turbo engine powered aircraft have been operational since the 1960s and there has been little variation. The simple question of looking at other energy sources for planes requires a whole technological "paradigm change" as Kivits et al. (2010, 3) puts it, something that no one is prepared to do at the moment. Rather than ignoring the issue, biofuel mixes, which wouldn't require great changes to current aircraft or ground infrastructure are currently being investigated and tested.

When putting the previous post into context, it is easy to see why investment is made on smaller environmental initiatives (such as interior cabin materials), as this is something that funding probably permits and does not require substantial infrastructural changes.   

Biofuel made from algae mixed with normal jet fuel have already been tested by airlines!