Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum [home] and [about]
Current travel advice (early 2021)
Forum in and beyond Coronavirus
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 00:35 01 Mar 2021
- Covid: Beach car parks shut to stop lockdown rule-breakers
* Jobless rate around UK airports above average, say MPs
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 today - End, Bath Transport consultat.
03/03/21 - South East On Track - ONLINE
08/03/21 - School (travel) returns
09/03/21 - Tuesday Club - ONLINE
Random Image
Train Running Polls Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 01, 2021, 12:54:45 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[146] Regular commuters: What are your current plans and preference...
[71] A new name for the organisation that runs the railways
[56] Terrible day in UK rail history 28 February
[41] Friday 28th February 2020 - Greta Thunberg in Bristol.
[39] No services between Taunton and Exeter 27/2/21- WW2 bomb
[36] Bow Street Station (Aberystwyth) opens 14.2.2021
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
  Print  
Author Topic: Could you give up flying? Meet the no-plane pioneers  (Read 17021 times)
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3804


View Profile
« Reply #120 on: December 16, 2020, 02:35:21 pm »

Meanwhile, the Supreme court has decided that there is nothing unlawful about building a third runway at Heathrow.

To precise they said that the government's actions in approving it so far were not unlawful.  That difference may be important later. 
Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3642



View Profile
« Reply #121 on: January 17, 2021, 02:46:09 pm »

HMG have announced the latest grant or subsidy to airports.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55692486

Climate emergency ? Not any more it would seem.

The present downturn in air travel should be considered as a good oportunity to REDUCE capacity, to close some airports, and reduce the numbers of airlines.

Is there not a government policy to make the UK into a "net zero carbon economy" in not many years ? That will require largely eliminating air travel. And yet at present we are encouraging it with grants of public money.

And as for the legal ruling in favour of the third runway at Heathrow, appalling. Apart from the concerns about climate change, this ruling sounds out the message that promises and assurances given by "the authorities" are worthless. The promises made about "no thrid runway" meant nothing, simply change or re-interprete the rules so that "no third runway" actuelly means "a third runway is OK"

No wonder that a growing minority of anti heathrow protesters are now calling for what is politely called direct action.
Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
TaplowGreen
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5535


View Profile
« Reply #122 on: January 17, 2021, 04:13:15 pm »

HMG have announced the latest grant or subsidy to airports.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55692486

Climate emergency ? Not any more it would seem.

The present downturn in air travel should be considered as a good oportunity to REDUCE capacity, to close some airports, and reduce the numbers of airlines.

Is there not a government policy to make the UK into a "net zero carbon economy" in not many years ? That will require largely eliminating air travel. And yet at present we are encouraging it with grants of public money.

And as for the legal ruling in favour of the third runway at Heathrow, appalling. Apart from the concerns about climate change, this ruling sounds out the message that promises and assurances given by "the authorities" are worthless. The promises made about "no thrid runway" meant nothing, simply change or re-interprete the rules so that "no third runway" actuelly means "a third runway is OK"

No wonder that a growing minority of anti heathrow protesters are now calling for what is politely called direct action.


Another eternal Quixotic Broadgage argument.

The Aviation industry directly supports over 200,000 jobs in the UK and contributes billions to the economy.

It makes the world a smaller place and travel possible in a way that no other means of transport can possibly or practically achieve.

It has, and continues to do enormous amounts to reduce its negative environmental impact.

It facilitates trade (import and exports) inward and outward tourism which contributes billions more and supports thousands more jobs and many communities.

How much of this revenue and how many jobs are you suggesting we can afford to lose, and how would you replace it/them?
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3272


View Profile
« Reply #123 on: January 17, 2021, 04:49:29 pm »

Is there not a government policy to make the UK into a "net zero carbon economy" in not many years ? That will require largely eliminating air travel. And yet at present we are encouraging it with grants of public money.
By 2050, I think. The key word is "net". This means you (we) can carry on emitting CO2 but will use accountancy to create anti-CO2, eg by planting trees, in sufficient quantities to arrive at an arithmetical zero.
Logged

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
Thatcham Crossing
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 762


View Profile
« Reply #124 on: January 17, 2021, 05:17:22 pm »

Quote
The present downturn in air travel should be considered as a good opportunity to REDUCE capacity, to close some airports, and reduce the numbers of airlines.

Seems like you are going to get your wish before to long broadgage. I wish for the opposite, for the reasons that Taplow Green has eloquently described.

Your dislike for anything non-rail (or even some things are rail, that you also sound like a broken record on) are getting tiresome.

Quote
That will require largely eliminating air travel.

I'm gonna say it, that is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read in my time on this forum! Do you know anything about modern aviation at all?
Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3642



View Profile
« Reply #125 on: January 17, 2021, 05:43:44 pm »

Quote
The present downturn in air travel should be considered as a good opportunity to REDUCE capacity, to close some airports, and reduce the numbers of airlines.

Seems like you are going to get your wish before to long broadgage. I wish for the opposite, for the reasons that Taplow Green has eloquently described.

Your dislike for anything non-rail (or even some things are rail, that you also sound like a broken record on) are getting tiresome.

Quote
That will require largely eliminating air travel.

I'm gonna say it, that is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read in my time on this forum! Do you know anything about modern aviation at all?


I know a fair bit about modern aviation, including the fact that it is virtually 100% fossil fuel powered, and that due to the distances covered that it burns a great volume of this fossil fuel.
I fail to see how aviation can continue on anything like the present scale as part of a zero net carbon economy.
And yes I know that the plan is to offset the fuel consumption by tree planting and the like.
I do not believe that off setting on the required scale is possible.
If we are serious about a low carbon or net zero carbon economy, we will need to fly a lot less.

And remember that such carbon offsetting as is possible may be fully taken up by offsetting higher priority uses than flying.
Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3642



View Profile
« Reply #126 on: January 17, 2021, 05:45:32 pm »

Slavery, the fur trade, whale killing, fox hunting and others were once important to the economy, yet we manage without them now.
I would replace aviation jobs with;
Building new rail lines, and upgrading others, including electrification.
Improving bus services, building electric buses, building tramways.
Building the Severn barrage.
Building and installing wind turbines.
Installing PV arrays on public buildings.
Increasing capacity at existing hydroelectric stations*
Improving the energy efficiency of housing and public buildings.
Flood resilience works.

*Or in more detail, the total annual energy production cant be increased in most cases as this is limited by the amount of water available. Peak power CAN be increased by fitting larger turbines and alternators. 100 Mw for 6 hours is worth a lot more than 25 Mw continually.








Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3804


View Profile
« Reply #127 on: January 17, 2021, 05:54:08 pm »

Is there not a government policy to make the UK into a "net zero carbon economy" in not many years ? That will require largely eliminating air travel. And yet at present we are encouraging it with grants of public money.
By 2050, I think. The key word is "net". This means you (we) can carry on emitting CO2 but will use accountancy to create anti-CO2, eg by planting trees, in sufficient quantities to arrive at an arithmetical zero.

There is only so much space to plant trees so this cannot be the long term answer. 
Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3642



View Profile
« Reply #128 on: January 17, 2021, 06:15:13 pm »

Tree planting helps only slightly. An ESTABLISHED forest absorbs very little carbon dioxide, the carbon absorbed by young growing trees, is offset by the carbon emitted as old trees die and either rot or are destroyed in forest fires.
A newly planted forest absorbs considerable carbon dioxide, but only whilst newly planted, once the forest is mature then as described above.

Destroying an existing forest returns to the atmosphere that carbon that would otherwise have remained locked up, not in any one tree, but in the forest a whole.
Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
TaplowGreen
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5535


View Profile
« Reply #129 on: January 17, 2021, 07:34:10 pm »

Slavery, the fur trade, whale killing, fox hunting and others were once important to the economy, yet we manage without them now.
I would replace aviation jobs with;
Building new rail lines, and upgrading others, including electrification.
Improving bus services, building electric buses, building tramways.
Building the Severn barrage.
Building and installing wind turbines.
Installing PV arrays on public buildings.
Increasing capacity at existing hydroelectric stations*
Improving the energy efficiency of housing and public buildings.
Flood resilience works.

*Or in more detail, the total annual energy production cant be increased in most cases as this is limited by the amount of water available. Peak power CAN be increased by fitting larger turbines and alternators. 100 Mw for 6 hours is worth a lot more than 25 Mw continually.










Really hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

I didn't realise we had parody accounts in the Coffee shop!

🤦‍♂️😉
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3272


View Profile
« Reply #130 on: January 17, 2021, 07:38:34 pm »

Is there not a government policy to make the UK into a "net zero carbon economy" in not many years ? That will require largely eliminating air travel. And yet at present we are encouraging it with grants of public money.
By 2050, I think. The key word is "net". This means you (we) can carry on emitting CO2 but will use accountancy to create anti-CO2, eg by planting trees, in sufficient quantities to arrive at an arithmetical zero.

There is only so much space to plant trees so this cannot be the long term answer. 
It's not even a short term answer. It's the triumph of accountancy over mathematics and physics.

Accountants perform a useful function when they count things that actually exist but not when their profession is misused to count hypotheticals as real.
Logged

Waiting at Pilning for the midnight sleeper to Prague.
Thatcham Crossing
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 762


View Profile
« Reply #131 on: January 18, 2021, 08:29:17 am »

Quote
I know a fair bit about modern aviation, including the fact that it is virtually 100% fossil fuel powered, and that due to the distances covered that it burns a great volume of this fossil fuel.

I'm really sorry, but that statement demonstrates no knowledge at all. It's a statement of fact, yes, but takes no account of the progress made, for example, in reducing fuel consumption in recent years.

For example, a Boeing 747-400 (designed in the late 80's, and currently being retired by BA and other global airlines), will burn around 10-11 tonnes per hour whilst carrying 400 people on a 10 hour flight. All approximate figures, as it will vary according to weight, speed, altitude, temperature etc.

An Airbus A350-1000, which is a large twinjet, being used as a 747 replacement by BA, Virgin and others, will carry almost as many people and typically burn around 6t per hour, ie, approx 40% less. I think we can all call that progress.

All modern airliners use a computer model called "cost index" (part of the Flight Management Computer) to compute the most fuel-efficient speed, altitude, power settings etc. to achieve the lowest fuel consumption for a given flight. In some airlines, pilots are "measured" on their conformance against these targets.

But, hey, aviation is the root of all evil  Roll Eyes



Logged
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3642



View Profile
« Reply #132 on: January 18, 2021, 01:00:38 pm »

Modern aircraft do indeed burn less fuel than older types.
Still several tons of fuel per flight though.
Significant furthur improvements seem unlikely, jet engines are now a mature technology and unlikely to improve much.
The fuel used is virtualy 100% fossil fuel, and seems likely to remain so.

Surface transport by contrast does not have to be fossil fuel powered.
Railways can be electrified, and this is being done slowly.
Electric road vehicles are readily available.
Ships can be electric or wind powered.

Electric aircraft for long distance use seem improbable because the energy density of batteries is less than that of jet fuel.

Electricity can be generated from renewable sources and increasingly it is.
Jet fuel is virtualy 100% fossil fuel. I very much doubt that renewably produced jet fuel will ever be available in sufficient volumes.

It is not JUST air travel to which I am opposed. Excessive use of fossil fueled cars and other road vehicles is as bad. At least we are doing something about this with the upcoming ban an new registrations of such vehicles.

Excessive, wasteful and needless fuel use for other purposes is also a concern, but IS being at least partialy addressed by new building regulations and by new standards for energy efficiency of lamps and appliances.
There is for example a proposal to prohibit gas supply to new homes.

But air travel it seems must be protected by subsidies, rather than being allowed to contract.
Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
TonyK
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5466


The artist formerly known as Four Track, Now!


View Profile
« Reply #133 on: January 18, 2021, 04:19:06 pm »

Is there not a government policy to make the UK into a "net zero carbon economy" in not many years ? That will require largely eliminating air travel. And yet at present we are encouraging it with grants of public money.
By 2050, I think. The key word is "net". This means you (we) can carry on emitting CO2 but will use accountancy to create anti-CO2, eg by planting trees, in sufficient quantities to arrive at an arithmetical zero.

There is only so much space to plant trees so this cannot be the long term answer. 

I wouldn't worry about space to plant trees. One of the subsidy-heavy "green" schemes involves Drax power station burning 8 million tonnes of wood pellets annually instead of coal. They will burn the trees faster than you can grow them. As it happens, they already do, importing most of that timber from north America and the Baltic states, so nobody notices. There's also the space left by the estimated 14 million trees cut down in Scotland to satisfy the foreign wind turbine manufacturers' insatiable demand for places to put wind farms.

Jet fuel has been produced in laboratories, and work continues to upscale this to commercial production. It is done by combining hydrogen and carbon at high temperature over a catalyst, so using some of that pesky carbon dioxide. It is rather hungry for energy, but the industry tells us, somewhat tongue in cheek, that this could use all the spare renewable energy that doesn't exist. It could be done using the predictable sunshine in deserts, like in the UAE, but you can see why they might not rush to start production. Having said that, the UAE is diversifying, and has just switched on its first nuclear power station. If they find themselves stuck for something to do with all that power, this could be it.

Biofuel for jets is another option. Again, this sounds wonderful until you think about where it would be grown, and realise that what is left of the Amazon and Indonesian rain forests would work well.

Aviation produces 2% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. If it is, as Broadgage says, a mature technology and unlikely to improve much, it would make sense to concentrate first on the other 98% with the same evangelical fervour. As he helpfully points out, we could push electricity as the motive power of choice for cars and trains, and build a new fleet of fast clippers to bring our tea from the east, instead of relying on diesel.

Slavery isn't important to the economy in this country, now that we can rely on sweat shops abroad to exploit their own workers to give us cheap goods and clothing. As with a lot of other things, such as carbon dioxide and waste plastic, it is one of our more successful exports. I don't think fox hunting was ever crucial to the national economy. The meets still meet in large part. Even without hounds, they are, well, hounded by people who refuse to accept than anyone smartly dressed on a horse isn't up to no good. Farmers have found other ways to kill foxes without anybody  seeing it.

If the contents of my junk mail folder are anything to go by, then hydrogen is the new target for massive subsidies, so make sure we don't get sidetracked into spending the green energy budget on that.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2021, 06:56:16 pm by TonyK » Logged

Now, please!
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3642



View Profile
« Reply #134 on: January 18, 2021, 07:40:19 pm »

Whilst it may be true that aviation accounts for only about 2% of global emissions, that could probably be said of many other sources of carbon dioxide, if considered in isolation.

Do not worry about aviation it is only 2%
Do not worry about private cars, they are only a few percent of the total.
Do not worry about HGVs they are a small proportion of the total.
Do not worry about domestic heating, it is only a small percentage of the total.
Do not worry about UK emissions, they are a very small percentage of the world total.

Or perhaps simply let us do nothing much.
Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page