BBC article on green flying

[Peter Wilde]

BBC concludes truly low-carbon flights are a long way off … and the reality may be higher fares. Good news for rail?

Quoted from concluding section :

"The prospect of replacing jet engine-powered long-haul flights is, however, remote. “There is no battery chemistry in the world that will give us the energy we need to take hundreds of passengers over the Atlantic,” he concedes.
Harnessing hydrogen in other ways may be a better bet.
The British-American aircraft company, ZeroAvia, says it expects to have an 80-seater powered entirely by hydrogen in the air within two to three years. Airbus is developing something similar.
Both are propeller planes, however, with limited speeds and ranges.

The pricetag for passengers
The reductions from SAF, fuel efficiency improvements and zero carbon aircraft will only cut aviation emissions by around a third, according to the previous government's estimates. So another part of the Jet Zero strategy involves a pricing scheme to charge airlines for CO2 emissions and carbon offsetting. Airlines already pay a duty for each flight someone takes in the UK, a cost that is passed to passengers. In much of the UK (excluding Scotland) this adds £7 to each domestic flight, £14 to short-haul ones and £92 for long-haul. But carbon offsetting means paying another fee.

Some schemes have been highly controversial, with questions around how to prove how many trees have been prevented from being cut down.
Cait Hewitt, policy director at the Aviation Environment Federation, is concerned that the current informal offsetting projects may be counterproductive: “They could actually have made that problem a bit worse over time by giving consumers the false impression that the emissions from their flight [are] being cancelled out somehow by an offset.”

Full article see this link:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c245e726r79o

 

[yorksrob]

We need a commitment to green rail, i.e. a lot more electrification for it to be good news.

 

[gabrielhj07]

BBC concludes truly low-carbon flights are a long way off

Did anybody think they were just around the corner or something?

 

[swt_passenger]

Did anybody think they were just around the corner or something?

About 600 gullible MPs?

 

[Meerkat]

Did anybody think they were just around the corner or something?

The airline industry is very keen on making you think green flying will soon be possible because they want to put off anti flying moves.
If it is exposed as rubbish they are going to struggle to get all the extra airport capacity they demand.

 

[Peter Wilde]

There are a few people on here who have posted some very techno-optimistic stuff about electric planes being nearly ready for introduction! I think they will come, but there is a huge gap between small, light planes to take a handful of people a short distance, and airliners for even medium-haul routes carrying 200 or so passengers.

 

[gabrielhj07]

I'll take electric planes seriously when they can match the performance, range, and useful load of an A320, for example. Until then, their impact on aviation will be negligible at best.

 

[signed]

Greenwashing at it's best

 

[Meerkat]

Greenwashing at it's best

It’s not even really greenwashing, it’s just holding the fort for as long as possible and hoping for a change in policy (hi Donald!)

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'll take electric planes seriously when they can match the performance, range, and useful load of an A320, for example. Until then, their impact on aviation will be negligible at best.

I think that’s a massively over-simplistic position to take.

I don’t ever see electric planes being able to have the range of a medium-haul jet. But they don’t have to in order to have a huge impact on aviation.

I can see a situation within 5-10 years that an electric aircraft has the range and capacity of regional airliners such as the ATR72, Q400, or even regional jets such as the ERJ145 or the Dornier 328. And that really would have a big impact, especially as the emissions are highest during take off and landing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Dec 2024 ==

The airline industry is very keen on making you think green flying will soon be possible because they want to put off anti flying moves.

The biggest cost that airlines have is the fuel that goes into their aircraft. It’s in their interests as much as anyone’s for fuel consumption to reduce. Reduced fuel consumption means reduced emissions.

 

[Meerkat]

I can see a situation within 5-10 years that an electric aircraft has the range and capacity of regional airliners such as the ATR72, Q400, or even regional jets such as the ERJ145 or the Dornier 328.

The big issue I see is that planes don’t land (often can’t land) with full fuel, but electric planes land with the full weight of their ‘fuel’. Once you go to regional airliner size this must have huge implications for structural and undercarriage strength, and the lengths, depths, and wear of runways??

Also ignites my fire paranoia - wonder how the fire services fancy that many batteries to deal with in a crash. You can’t pick up a plane and dump it in a skip full of water!

The biggest cost that airlines have is the fuel that goes into their aircraft. It’s in their interests as much as anyone’s for fuel consumption to reduce. Reduced fuel consumption means reduced emissions.

That’s just playing on the fringes when other forms of transport become carbon fuel free.

 

[gabrielhj07]

I can see a situation within 5-10 years that an electric aircraft has the range and capacity of regional airliners such as the ATR72, Q400, or even regional jets such as the ERJ145 or the Dornier 328. And that really would have a big impact, especially as the emissions are highest during take off and landing.

I don't think it would.

1. Flights operated by aircraft of that size represent a small minority of flights in the UK.

2. Similarly short flights currently flown by A320/737 size equipment (London - Jersey, London - Manchester etc.) are, to an extent, made viable by the airlines being able to use the one type across a wider sphere of operation. If an airline were required to swap (for example) all domestic flights to an electric aeroplane, should one become available, then they would most likely just stop flying. The training, maintenance, and operational hassle would probably outweigh any fuel saving.

 

[Tetchytyke]

1. Flights operated by aircraft of that size represent a small minority of flights in the UK.

Aircraft of that size represent the majority of domestic flights in the UK/Ireland.

 

[Peter Wilde]

Re: "Aircraft of that size represent the majority of domestic flights in the UK/Ireland."

But surely that is the wrong metric? A lot of very small planes flying very short distances sounds more like private flying than commercial aviation.

The argument should be about passenger-seat-miles, and the prospects for replacing A320 sized airliners (and above) as that is where most of the climate damage is being done. I think the BBC article has it right, it’s unlikely that pure electric planes could cope any time soon - and perhaps not ever. Using synthetic liquid aviation fuels is another way forward, but again due to various problems in scaling up seems unlikely to be anything more than greenwash in the near to medium term future.

 

[signed]

The argument should be about passenger-seat-miles, and the prospects for replacing A320 sized airliners (and above) as that is where most of the climate damage is being done.

Surely that's not right, a bigger airplane has more seats, which means their engines have a much higher bypass ratio, which make them more efficient than smaller engines per passenger

 

[Tetchytyke]

But surely that is the wrong metric? A lot of very small planes flying very short distances sounds more like private flying than commercial aviation.

I’m not sure what you mean? These types of aircraft (especially the ATR72) are the backbone of domestic aviation. Emerald, Loganair, Eastern, Aurigny, and Blue Islands all use these types of aircraft for a reason.

 

[Ghostbus]

Did anybody think they were just around the corner or something?

It's been years since I heard about sustainable jet fuels, geared turbines, and directly routed planes in the news, all presented as mature technologies that could be rolled out (in aviation terms) pretty quickly. All of that should have made a significant dent in the carbon cost of flying by now, as well as the parallel advances in materials and aerodynamics.

Engineers are a naturally cautious bunch, and being one myself, it's usually easy to digest such news the way it is intended, setting aside marketing BS. So to see how little progress is being made, is indeed a surprise and more than a little depressing.

 

[gabrielhj07]

I’m not sure what you mean? These types of aircraft (especially the ATR72) are the backbone of domestic aviation. Emerald, Loganair, Eastern, Aurigny, and Blue Islands all use these types of aircraft for a reason.

It is still a relatively small proportion.

I count 24 A320s/737s on London - Edinburgh flights tomorrow, 19 to Glasgow, 19 to Belfast, etc. It is obvious that the majority of domestic passengers are carried on 320s and the like.

If electric aeroplanes are to become widespread, even just on domestic routes, they first need to match the abilities of the A320 more generally. If they don’t, airlines simply won’t buy them.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It is still a relatively small proportion.

I count 24 A320s/737s on London - Edinburgh flights tomorrow, 19 to Glasgow, 19 to Belfast, etc. It is obvious that the majority of domestic passengers are carried on 320s and the like.

EasyJet and British Airways use the bigger jets but most domestic flights are not operated by British Airways or by EasyJet.

 

[Peter Wilde]

EasyJet and British Airways use the bigger jets but most domestic flights are not operated by British Airways or by EasyJet.

It is irrelevant if any type of aircraft has low fuel consumption or more efficient engines, if using that type means lots more flights in order to carry the many, many thousands of people who fly to Europe, transatlantic, etc.

Also,apart from range considerations, surely little planes would mean higher fares; as each aircraft still needs 2 pilots; at least one steward; and a share of an engineering maintenance team?

Another consideration - if the future was lots of little planes to carry the existing traffic, the UK would need to build many more airports to cope with them all. (Or expand existing under-used ones - but this means not just runways and ATC, but also terminal services, engineering hangars, passenger terminals, customs and security, and new ground transport links to get people there).

Surely this is not likely to happen as all the construction work would damage the low-carbon case for making any such change. Also one should bear in mind that in the context of greening the UK, it is not domestic air traffic that is the issue - that already has only a small market share, and rail is competitive or can become more so. Go to a major airport with huge passenger numbers, like Heathrow, Stansted or Gatwick, and you will see that nearly all the aircraft are A320 sized or larger.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Go to a major airport with huge passenger numbers, like Heathrow, Stansted or Gatwick, and you will see that nearly all the aircraft are A320 sized or larger.

I'm unsure why you're talking about medium and long haul flights when I said, in the original post you quoted, that I don't foresee electric planes being able to replace medium and long haul aircraft. I can't see them ever having the range, not unless there's some new technology like making the aircraft skin a solar panel or something.

I do foresee them being able to replace regional/commuter sized aircraft, something which you dismissed as "private aviation". Go to London City Airport and tell me how many Airbus A320s you see. Electrify the likes of the ATR42/72 or the Q400 and it'll make a significant enough difference. Look at Aer Lingus: 31 A320s but also 18 ATR72s.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm unsure why you're talking about medium and long haul flights when I said, in the original post you quoted, that I don't foresee electric planes being able to replace medium and long haul aircraft. I can't see them ever having the range, not unless there's some new technology like making the aircraft skin a solar panel or something.

I do foresee them being able to replace regional/commuter sized aircraft, something which you dismissed as "private aviation". Go to London City Airport and tell me how many Airbus A320s you see. Electrify the likes of the ATR42/72 or the Q400 and it'll make a significant enough difference. Look at Aer Lingus: 31 A320s but also 18 ATR72s.

I agree that electirc aircraft could potentially replace this type of aircraft. At least a decade away though.

However, I disagree that it will have a significant impact on emissions.

An ATR72 carries a maximum of 5,000kg of fuel, giving it a range of around 800 nautical miles for the 78 (max) passengers. Meanwhile an A320neo carries around 24,000kg of fuel, with a range of up to 4000 NM for the (up to) 186 passengers. Very roughly speaking, the efficiency in fuelburn per seat mile is about the same, perhaps a little better for the A320. But, there are many more domestic seat miles in the bigger aircraft.

So, overall, even if all regional ‘small’ flights were converted to electric, it wouldn’t cover a majority of domestic seat mileage; my guess is less than a third. And in the context of UK aviation emissions, which is the important thing, it would be low single digit percent.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So, overall, even if all regional ‘small’ flights were converted to electric, it wouldn’t cover a majority of domestic seat mileage; my guess is less than a third. And in the context of UK aviation emissions, which is the important thing, it would be low single digit percent.

It'd be interesting to see the numbers of domestic passengers on the bigger jets compared to the numbers of domestic passengers on the commuter-sized planes. Whilst the bigger jets carry more people- and usually carry them further- there are many more flights involving the smaller aircraft. Very few of the islands can take anything as big as an A320- only the Isle of Man and Jersey can- and everything into London City is a commuter-sized plane.

The ATR72 is already very fuel efficient (ATR claim 69g/passenger km). But even given that, as the biggest fuel burn is in the take off and landing phases and you have proportionally more of these phases with the 'puddle jumping' flights, I'd say electrifying these small planes doing small trips would make a decent difference. It wouldn't transform aviation but it's more than a negligible difference.

It'll be interesting to see how Loganair's proposed trial of a hydrogen-fueled aircraft goes.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

People talk about embedded carbon in steel, concrete etc for HS2 et all. Aircraft have too even with more composites being used in aircraft construction.

 

[Peter Wilde]

I don’t know why this has veered off into a discussion of domestic aviation; the BBC article was about aviation generally, and the problem that the present hype about electric planes and green fuels is leading much of the general public to believe - erroneously - that they have a right to expect cheap air fares to continue ad infinitum, for their mass-market holidays in the sun (etc).

The domestic market is very small and niche, as are places like London City.

There is a bit of the domestic market that is arguably necessary, likely to continue, and capable of being made a lot greener - over-water flights to Scottish islands and the like, using very small planes over short distances. But overland flights with 70 seater planes? In a sane world, rail would be replacing those.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I don’t know why this has veered off into a discussion of domestic aviation; the BBC article was about aviation generally, and the problem that the present hype about electric planes and green fuels is leading much of the general public to believe - erroneously - that they have a right to expect cheap air fares to continue ad infinitum, for their mass-market holidays in the sun (etc).

The domestic market is very small and niche, as are places like London City.

There is a bit of the domestic market that is arguably necessary, likely to continue, and capable of being made a lot greener - over-water flights to Scottish islands and the like, using very small planes over short distances. But overland flights with 70 seater planes? In a sane world, rail would be replacing those.

I expect that London to Manchester and Newcastle will cease with rail upgrades (HS2 Phase 1 opening for Manchester, further ECML upgrades, potentially involving ERTMS/ECTS for Newcastle), but to get rid of e.g. Newquay to London, or London City to Edinburgh/Glasgow, you're going to need much more serious upgrades to entice travellers away (including HS2 all the way to Scotland for the London City to Scotland flights, or faster and more frequent Devon+Cornwall to London services on the GWML.)

So any electric or hydrogen plane that can replace a turboprop or regional jet is a great innovation - not just because it proves that green aviation has a future and is worth serious investment in, but because it can preserve regional and remote territory connectivity, while focusing the major government transport investments in intercity corridors where a bigger dent can be made into emissions issues.

 

[Bald Rick]

I expect that London to Manchester and Newcastle will cease with rail upgrades (HS2 Phase 1 opening for Manchester, further ECML upgrades, potentially involving ERTMS/ECTS for Newcastle), but to get rid of e.g. Newquay to London, or London City to Edinburgh/Glasgow, you're going to need much more serious upgrades to entice travellers away (including HS2 all the way to Scotland for the London City to Scotland flights, or faster and more frequent Devon+Cornwall to London services on the GWML.)

So any electric or hydrogen plane that can replace a turboprop or regional jet is a great innovation - not just because it proves that green aviation has a future and is worth serious investment in, but because it can preserve regional and remote territory connectivity, while focusing the major government transport investments in intercity corridors where a bigger dent can be made into emissions issues.

Cant see Newcastle going; it’s almost entirely transfers at Heathrow.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Cant see Newcastle going; it’s almost rntirely transfers at Heathrow.

Well if it doesn't meet climate objective and reasonable through ticketing is made available, surely the government could force them to?

 

[Meerkat]

Well if it doesn't meet climate objective and reasonable through ticketing is made available, surely the government could force them to?

Depends if making a tiny change to climate might not justify the economic damage?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Well if it doesn't meet climate objective and reasonable through ticketing is made available, surely the government could force them to?

The reasonable through ticketing is the key to it all.

If the rail service and air service have through ticketing- and through ticketing that is no more expensive than buying the constituent parts separately- then I think more people will move away from domestic aviation. If you can hop on a train at Morpeth or Darlington and have your flight connection guaranteed then why would you drive to Newcastle and fly a connecting flight from there?

But in the current system, absolutely not. If I book a through ticket with BA from Newcastle then, if the connection goes wrong, they have to rebook at their expense. If I book a train to Heathrow and then separately a flight from BA then, if the connection goes wrong, I'd be looking at paying £1000+ to rebook a long-haul flight. The other option is leaving so much contingency time between the train and the plane that you end up sitting around for hours on end if everything goes to plan.