Just as long as the reductions don't impact them too much, right? I mean the people clamouring for a reduction in air travel aren't dialling their lives back as drastically as they expect others to do so, are they?
See the above.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
The future of flying - Electric planes or bans on flying?
- Thread starter berneyarms
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Enthusiast
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,226
Probably based on the fact that the UK could cease all its carbon emissions tomorrow and it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever to any problems that may stem from those emissions. It never will whilst the big hitters seem to have little or no interest in making any significant changes. Whilst it's true that we cannot expect them to do so if we don't do likewise, I think that ship has long since sailed and I can only conclude that it is the feeling of guilt that keeps the climate change lobby in this country going. There is no logical reason for it but the country seems content to impoverish itself and jeopardise its energy security and I can only think it is in order to assuage its guilt. It gives rise to movements like this:
Flight Shaming Will Return In 2023
Flight shaming makes people feel guilty for flying because its carbon footprint. Yet with on about 3% of global emissions, there are more effective behaviors that should also be targeted.
www.forbes.com
This explains the origin of "Flight Shaming". I can say with some degree of certainty that nobody I know who flies regularly is ashamed of their habit and are never likely to be.
Please don't start me off!!!
Well I am flying to the Med on Monday and find it a good use of my carbon budget...
Don't accuse people of hypocrisy without proof.
A) it's incorrect to say that the US/China/India are totally unconcerned about their emissions (though they could be doing a lot more) and B) literally everyone can divide things in such a way that they only emit a small amount. Do you vote?
What do you suggest we do? Continue to pollute the air? Continue to tie our fortunes to dictatorships in the Middle East? Not adopt any policies to deal with flooding, crop failures, mass migration, etc?
Shockingly, a former airline CEO is pro-air travel. I note that he never mentions what the more effective ways of reducing emissions are actually meant to be.Flight Shaming Will Return In 2023
Flight shaming makes people feel guilty for flying because its carbon footprint. Yet with on about 3% of global emissions, there are more effective behaviors that should also be targeted.
This explains the origin of "Flight Shaming". I can say with some degree of certainty that nobody I know who flies regularly is ashamed of their habit and are never likely to be.
I would like people to fly less (note I'm not calling for people not to fly at all) - in comparison I've not flown for 8 years (although I wouldn't rule out flying again just not lies every year)
I would like people to walk/cycle more (again not calling for people not to drive at all) - in comparison most of my day to day travel is walking/cycling/public transport (mostly only driving two or three times a week for extra curricular activities) including getting myself and my children to from work/school.
I would like people, where they need cars, to say the very least consider a plug in hybrids or EV for their next car. Whilst I don't have either of these, it is a cast of "yet", as for our next car they would both be serious contenders.
I would like people to have well insulated homes with solar panels - in comparison that's what I've got.
I would like people to consider carefully if they need stuff - in comparison we do that. I certainly don't adhere to fast fashion and much of our tech lasts several years before it's replaced (as an example we've got a second hand laptop which we've owned for 3 years and we've not started to think about replacing it).
Most countries in the world would be able to say the same thing about cutting to zero and it making almost no difference (especially those which are smaller and/or have lower per capita emissions).
However that's not what the UK is doing, we're trying to bring as many other countries with us as possible so that the overall impact is big.
Those countries were are trying to bring with us so include those big hitters and many of them are making progress towards reducing the rate of increase (so whilst they are emitting more it's not as high as it would have been without the changes they've made) or actually reduce their emissions.
For example by showing the USA that we can have a decent lifestyle (2023) on a carbon budget of 60% of the average American, that there's still more they could do without reducing their standard of living below ours. We
Whilst we may contribute about 1% of emissions (broadly comparable to our percentage of the world population), if we can get that lower without our quality of life being reduced too much (which should be possible, although there could be a need for some changes; for example how often people drive - by walking a few more local trips).
As to energy security, what is more secure being able to mostly rely on renewables and use a small amount of imported gas to keep things going out to rely on large amounts of imported gas?
Over time it would be good if that small amount of gas could be reduced by means of storage of energy (not just batteries, but also pumped hydro and could include hydrogen).
Airlines are usually very ready to adopt more efficient engines. There have been various attempts at propfans over the last 50(ish) years. As far as I can tell, none have made it into commercial service. That suggests there are stil problems to be ironed out. Equally, a 'few decades' may see that ironing done.
We should be targeting those flying by private jet instead of the average joe. Just like in everything else. Its the rich polluting, the poorer shouldn't have to worry about their carbon emissions. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/26/flying-shame-the-scandalous-rise-of-private-jets
philosopher
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 1,513
As it currently stands, I think most international travel or travel to other British Islands is just too inconvenient for foot passengers resorting to trains or trains plus ferries. I recently travelled to London to Guernsey via train and ferry and found the whole process just too much of a faff to be practical. Poole railway station and Poole ferry terminal were about a mile apart, which is walkable, but only if have little luggage and the walk was poorly signposted, meaning I had to resort to Google Maps. There was no apparent bus connection and taxis it seemed had to be pre booked. The ferry check in process, while shorter than for flights, still involved arriving at the port an hour before departure and a security check. Most notably there was no combined rail / ferry ticket, meaning I had to purchase separate rail and ferry tickets. Due to return ferry being delayed I had to purchase another train ticket back, something that likely would not be an issue if there was combined ticketing. I do admit in hindsight I should have bought an open return for the train.
It was interesting to try out, however for any future similar trips, such as to Ireland or the Isle of Man I will likely default to flying unless the whole process becomes a lot more seamless.
Likewise if you going anywhere other than Paris, Lille, Belgium or the Netherlands in continental Europe, you are going to have to change trains either in Lille, Brussels or Paris. If changing in Paris it will likely involve a trek across Paris to change stations. There is a high chance such a journey will require separate tickets, which leaves you at risk of significant out of pocket expenses if one of the trains is delayed and miss your connecting train. I probably will try out such a trip someday, but I can see some of the same issues as with the train plus ferry trip cropping up.
From what I gather, noise pollution is a particular concern with propfans as their blades are not shielded, unlike conventional jet engines. This is one of the issues that would need to be ironed out before they are become adopted.
I'm not accusing anyone of hypocrisy, rather I am saying most people are not actually that sincere about the issue. I actually know quite a few people that don't fly or eat meat because of climate change, yet make few if any other major changes to their lifestyles. Whether they choose not to fly or not to eat meat is their choice, and their right. However if as many do they continue to drive big cars, live in large homes, work in well paid jobs many miles from home, and consume products like the rest of society, they aren't really being all that sincere about saving the planet, more like treating environmental issues as fashion trends.
If there were really sufficient numbers of people that really wanted to actually make the kind of lifestyle changes they expect others to make towards what they see as saving the planet, they would be doing a lot more. They would be downsizing their homes, cars, their consumption, taking jobs closer to home even if it meant lower wages. But by and large they don't, they simply strive to blame others through guilt as the article linked by another poster above shows. Because simply put it is far easier to blame everyone else, and especially those nasty people daring to get into flying metal tubes to disgrace themselves by having a bit a fun and relaxation.
That's all the proof you'll ever need in my humble opinion. You'll probably not agree, at least publicly, and that is fair enough. But I'm sure you will get the point I'm making nonetheless.
Yet when people talk about banning private jets people come out of the woodwork to say it won't work, etc etc. See this thread for an example: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/should-private-jet-flights-be-banned.252239/
Are they hypocrites for not killing themselves so they don't emit at all? Not eating meat significantly reduces emissions, I don't think you can call people hypocrites for not devoting their lives to the cause.
Again, I wasn't calling anyone hypocrites.
You were accusing them of insincerity, same difference.
No, if they were calling people out for flying once a year.on their jollies, then having all their food delivered by helicopter that would be hypocrisy. But all most of these people are doing are trying to be vogue.
I drive a big car (when needed), but then given it's mostly used for several people (i.e. me and my family) the emissions from it are fairly low over the year and especially on a per person per km compared to (say) a small car which is almost only ever used by one person. As such whilst the size of car CAN be important, how it's used is also critical.
Another factor is that given a lot of our holidays are camping or staying with family (camping requires us to carry a fair amount of kit) this means that our holiday emissions are likely to be lower (even counting the higher emissions of having a large car for the rest of the year) than others (especially those flying to stay in hotels) when they are on holiday.
Likewise with a family a large house is fairly essential (although how large it is compared to what you're thinking about is unknown) however it being a modern 4 bed house with high quality insulation means that the amount of energy needed to hear the same space is quite a bit smaller (having not lived in it during the last winter we can't be sure of a reasonable comparison).
Again it comes down to how it's used and how efficient it is, not necessarily just the size.
Being well paid again doesn't mean that they have a high carbon budget.
Traveling a long way to work isn't ideal, nor is buying lots of stuff.
Whilst doing it to be fashionable isn't ideal, the fact that they have made some changes is good.
Yes, some people can be frustrating about being seen to do some things (but ignoring other things that they should be doing), however if you don't like them going on about (say) not flying you can always ask them about their carbon footprint of their house or car or if they've used public transport (or walked or cycled) for any trips recently. If it's really about being seen to do the right thing, rather than actually doing it, then asking them when there's people about is probably best.
Quite honestly I don't really care enough these days to ask. I am just pointing out that most people are nowhere near as virtuous as they like people to think.
Well I really don't see how "people usually don't live up to their stated ideals" has anything to do with restricting flying.
Skymonster
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 2,070
I take it the virtue signallers / climate change bandwagon riders accept that if people should not be able to fly more than once or twice a year (or less) for a holiday, they themselves shouldn’t be allowed to drive to go on holiday more than once or twice a year (or be taxed heavily for doing so) - it amounts to the same thing, both pollute and are strictly speaking unnecessary journeys. And of course those self same people don’t drive their kids to school but make them walk, they don’t use tumble driers that use electricity when they could hand washing out on the line line like we used to, etc., etc… I have a distinct feeling that most people who are on the climate change bandwagon are very selective about what behaviours they regard as problematic based on their own lifestyle choices.
Exactly, its so stupid because it does work. They contribute the most to everything.
The first to go will likely be private jets.
It's impossible to see how commercial flying for the general public won't be decimated in future. It will probably be 2040 to 2050 and another global degree hotter before the impetus gets strong enough to do anything though.
It's simple to electrify ferries with more than enough range for European needs. It's pretty much already baked-in at the EU level with Fit for 55 anyway. By a process of elimination they'll be only left with batteries. Hydrogen will be ruled out on cost and greenhouse emissions grounds. Methane can't be used and biofuels compete with actual foods (regional water shortages are going to make this even more unviable). Civilian nuclear is unlikely to ever return. It's typically highly enriched and too expensive. I can't see it ever making economic sense on a ferry.
Electric planes will be a niche market. They'll be much more expensive than what exists now. Ignoring cost, hydrogen for aviation will run into the same greenhouse gas emissions as mentioned above no matter how cleanly it's produced. The hydrogen itself is a greenhouse gas.
There's probably at least two decades left of the status quo and then we'll see forced changes as the climate effects become stronger.
Stena Line are looking to take over the Dublin to Liverpool route. I can see this working well in a 2040/2050 future. 22:30 departure from Dublin arriving at 06:30 in Birkenhead. Then take a 07:30 train from Liverpool arriving in London at a little after 9am post HS2 completion. It would work well enough today. The only difference is the train currently arrives in London at 10.
Irish Rail's internal plan will see much greater train services delivered by 2040 anyway. This will only be accelerated and enhanced if they implement the All Ireland Strategic Rail Review.
Ireland's ports and rail freight offerings will also have to comply with TEN-T well before 2040. That's also pretty much a done deal and already agreed upon whether the Dublin Port idiot realises it or not.
By 2040 Dublin Port should have it's direct Luas connection too.
Flying will of course be necessary for some in future, but it's almost impossible to see it continuing with anything close to the same numbers as today by 2050.
I've heard figures bandied about that battery ships could have a range of up to 5,000km in future. That seems too good to be true to me. However, if that turns out to be even close to accurate then it's likely there will be some sort of return to transatlantic crossings. Ireland to Canada is less than 3,500km.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Right now it should be about reducing the largest emissive behaviours. Absolutism is not possible.
It's impossible to see how commercial flying for the general public won't be decimated in future. It will probably be 2040 to 2050 and another global degree hotter before the impetus gets strong enough to do anything though.
It's simple to electrify ferries with more than enough range for European needs. It's pretty much already baked-in at the EU level with Fit for 55 anyway. By a process of elimination they'll be only left with batteries. Hydrogen will be ruled out on cost and greenhouse emissions grounds. Methane can't be used and biofuels compete with actual foods (regional water shortages are going to make this even more unviable). Civilian nuclear is unlikely to ever return. It's typically highly enriched and too expensive. I can't see it ever making economic sense on a ferry.
Electric planes will be a niche market. They'll be much more expensive than what exists now. Ignoring cost, hydrogen for aviation will run into the same greenhouse gas emissions as mentioned above no matter how cleanly it's produced. The hydrogen itself is a greenhouse gas.
There's probably at least two decades left of the status quo and then we'll see forced changes as the climate effects become stronger.
Stena Line are looking to take over the Dublin to Liverpool route. I can see this working well in a 2040/2050 future. 22:30 departure from Dublin arriving at 06:30 in Birkenhead. Then take a 07:30 train from Liverpool arriving in London at a little after 9am post HS2 completion. It would work well enough today. The only difference is the train currently arrives in London at 10.
Irish Rail's internal plan will see much greater train services delivered by 2040 anyway. This will only be accelerated and enhanced if they implement the All Ireland Strategic Rail Review.
Ireland's ports and rail freight offerings will also have to comply with TEN-T well before 2040. That's also pretty much a done deal and already agreed upon whether the Dublin Port idiot realises it or not.
By 2040 Dublin Port should have it's direct Luas connection too.
Flying will of course be necessary for some in future, but it's almost impossible to see it continuing with anything close to the same numbers as today by 2050.
I've heard figures bandied about that battery ships could have a range of up to 5,000km in future. That seems too good to be true to me. However, if that turns out to be even close to accurate then it's likely there will be some sort of return to transatlantic crossings. Ireland to Canada is less than 3,500km.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Currently there's no such thing as emission free anything. Every person breathes out a kg of CO2 per day just by being alive.
Right now it should be about reducing the largest emissive behaviours. Absolutism is not possible.
Last edited:
heathrowrail
Member
I would second that. I used to house share with one of these woke Green party supporters. He used to have a job which involved flying to America several times a month, owns an old diesel car and many other things. Now all of a sudden he wants to stop all flying, stop diesel cars etc.
Skymonster
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 2,070
And there in that last sentence we have it folks - a climate change protagonist has just effectively implied that reducing the emissions his lifestyles causes is not that important, and we should just eliminate emissions from his pet-hate target (in this case aviation). What’s the strapline of that well-known ad: every little helps. Well clearly not in johnnydoe’s mind!
Splendid. I’ll be in or very close to being in a wooden box by 2050. So I’ll carry on flying without having concern for the planet on my conscience - because I don’t accept the arguments that cutting flying will make a difference anyway.
Well then you are not alone, there are plenty of other people waving their "green credentials" that don't see it either.
Its impossible to see how world economies could survive without commercial aviation. The business itself is worth hundreds of billions a year, with tourists spending similar amounts abroad. If that gets curtailed what happens to those countries that lose the tourists, and indeed all those people employed by the aviation and wider tourist industries? Its a question that I've yet to see answered by activists, but one politicians and voters around the world will start to ask if any such decimation started to occur. And I suspect there will start to be a lot of pushback when they start to calculate the cost to their economies & livelihoods, probably resulting in a pushback on all those arbitrary targets set on emissions.
That's a textbook strawman argument. I likely have lower emissions than you as I don't drive or fly. However, that's besides the point. I object to the impossible to meet absolutism of your argument.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Burning hydrogen does NOT cause the greenhouse effect. It produces water, and only water.
It's not a mass solution for lots of reasons, but this is not one.
It's not a mass solution for lots of reasons, but this is not one.
I think the effects of hydrogen are only starting to be realised.
This is an older paper on the matter.
This newer paper (screenshots) from last year gives hydrogen's GWP as twice that in the older paper.
Attachments
I've always been a bit sceptical of electric aircraft. There have been a few light aircraft of limited range and ability. But more recently I have changed my view as we now start to see some more meaningful electric small commercial airliners coming into existence. I believe these early efforts are the equivalent of the original Tesla Roadster, Riva GWizz etc - more technology demonstrators and projects to help boot strap the industry.
I bumped into a guy at a Tesla charging site over the summer and got chatting. He's a test pilot and said he was involved in test flying a testbed fitted with some new battery technology that is a huge step forward. He claimed not to be able to talk too much about it but seemed very confident that electric aircraft will become practical before too long.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I wouldn't be so sure. If SMRs become a thing, they could be fitted to ships. High capital cost but if that's your ship fuelled for 30 years with little maintenance required, smaller power plant meaning more room for cargo etc it could stack up.
Last edited:
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
It’s all the climate change deniers have, to be quite frank. Their standard arguments can be summarised as:
- It’s only a bit of weather and/or the Earth’s been warming since the Ice Age;
- Even if it IS true, small changes won’t work anyway;
- Big changes are impossible;
- People who support everyone making small changes must be ignored because they’re not making big changes- despite (3);
- People who support bigger changes just want us all to live in mud huts and eat grass.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The actual fuel would emit less carbon, never mind the carbon cost of all the shipping and the huge freight trains.
“Biomass” is just a way of the Government fudging it to look like they’re doing something. Trees can be planted and lots of trees absorb CO2, therefore burning trees is sustainable. Hmm.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Frequent flying to see family is a very very very recent thing. Migration around the world is a much less recent thing.
My parents emigrated to Australia in 1980, just before I was born. A return air ticket to the UK at the time cost about £1000. That air fare now would be over £4000. So in the first four years of my life- until we emigrated back to the UK- I saw my grandparents twice. Once I travelled to the UK, once they travelled to Australia.
Flying halfway across the world three times a year is a really recent thing because it wasn’t affordable before. Everyone still coped. They went less often, but stayed longer.
Last edited:
I am not advocating three times a year, I am arguing that people with families are going to prioritise seeing their family over environmental concerns. Returning to the situation you described would still allow meaningful connections with family. Other members are advocating for total ban on non electric flying and therefore a return to era whereby UK to Australia or East Asia was six weeks on a ship. That would return us to people having sort of wakes to say good bye to family before they emigrated knowing they would never see most family members again. With the left's enthusiasm for immigration its utterly bizarre. Lets have net migration of hundreds of thousands of people per year and then make it close to impossible to see family members outside of Europe...
Yes nuclear is certainly proven tech at the military level. It's the civilian use where things start to get tricky. It's hard to imagine highly enriched fuel being allowed outside of the military. The last civil nuclear ship had fierce issues getting access to ports.
But if that can be overcome I'm still sceptical about the economics of nuclear in ships.
Longer term if they ever get nuclear fusion to work I can't see that working on a ship either. The amount of structure needed to support the magnetic forces involved would be far too much in my opinion. The ITER machinery weighs 23,000 tonnes. The largest cruise ship only weighs 15,000 tonnes.
The next version of ITER will likely need to be larger and more powerful again.
Whilst the argument I can't fly more than one so you can't drive more than once may sound reasonable there's a few issues with it.
If I drive 610 miles that's the same as one return flight to Paris, however the rest of my family travel for just the emissions of one person flying. Therefore based on personal emission levels we could make that trip for each of us rather than us each make that flight.
That's before high altitude emissions have a larger impact than those at ground level - partly due to the water vapour emissions which also impact climate change.
I can assure you that my kids are made to walk to school (even when it's raining) and we put our washing outside as much as possible (we do have a tumble dryer but don't want to use it without good reason - having a family does make trying to dry all our washing within our house rather difficult and would likely require us to use for heating far more and probably would be worse than using the tumble dryer the limited amount of time that we do).
Between my wife and I travel the same (or less) number of average miles by car as two people's total travel (13,000 miles), however that means that as a family we've still got our children's milage to cover the walking/cycling that we do.
However our driving distance includes those above average numbers of "holidays" that we take to see family - which means that if individually we were permitted a return flight to Paris we could actually go on holiday again - so thanks for that.
I'd be quite happy to have a personal carbon budget which I could trade my households under use with those who wanted to use more. I reason that I could do rather nicely or of such a scheme - I do however fear that you may well find it rather expensive.
IF there were limits on the number of flights an individual could do without paying an extra amount, I would suggest a value of 8 flights (so 4 return trips). Then it would increase the APD by a factor of 1.5 for every 2 additional trips you make (applied to the cheapest rate first). Except for flights where there was a train option which took under 4 hours where APD would be triple the starting rate (£19.50 for a domestic flight rather than £6.50).
For way of justification for the 8 flights; that would allow for every single air passenger on flights at UK airports to be half of the UK residents. Even though quite a few of those will be people with other nationalities, so clearly anyone flying now than that is way above the national average.
By applying the doubling to the lowest rates, people (even if they couldn't claim back the extra APD from their company) could still do a decent long haul flight to see family even if they did a lot of business travel.
For someone doing 20 flights a year (2.5 times the number of flights before APD starts to rise) the extra cost could be as little as £810 (all domestic flights in economy) but could be as high as £5,034 (all ultra long haul in premium cabins).
Before anyone thinks that's a lot, it should be considered just how much that individual would be paying in air fares to undertake 10 return trips in business or first class. As it could easily be £2,500 for each return trip, which could put the ticket prices paid at £25,000, meaning an effective tax rate of 21%.
Very few people would be flying for work ultra long haul more frequently than once every 5 weeks and if they are costs would start to track up fairly quickly (24 flights would put the upper tax at an extra £13,177).
Arguably businesses shouldn't be relying on one person that much, or if does then there'll be a significant risk to that company if that person no longer worked for the organisation and it's questionable as to whether that business should carry on operating in that manner.
Yes, of course, business will start to look at making short hops and then connecting to the long haul destination from there, but no more than normal for the first 8 flights and unless the connections are reasonable maybe not even for the next few flights (12 flights would max out at £350 extra).
It's fairly unlikely that individuals would travel to (say) Australia more than twice in one year, and fairly few would travel to Europe more than four times. Even then eight trips to Europe would cost them an extra £213, so whilst it may stop them from going (say) every month, it still would be quite a few times in a year.
Over time it could well be that the APD rises and/or the number of flights without an extra charge reduce to nudge people towards fewer flights, however that's how I'd suggest that it would run IF such a proposal were to come forwards. As it would be a fairly reasonable balance between don't something and doing nothing.
- Status