A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Air travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Air travel less harmful to the environment than rail travel?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 13th, 2007, 07:54 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Nelson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Air travel less harmful to the environment than rail travel?

Air travel is probably less harmful to the environment than rail
travel. Aircraft leave vapour trails which aid in the reflection of
the sun's radiation back into space. As these trails are at high
altitude their shadows cover immense areas. On the other hand vast
quantities of fossil fuels are burnt to produce the electricity (at
only 10% efficiency) to power the railways. If someone would do the
calculations, all things considered (the upkeep of track and bridges
for instance) they would probably find that Aircraft are less of a
cause of global warming than an equivalent railway system.

  #2  
Old August 13th, 2007, 09:48 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Bob Myers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Air travel less harmful to the environment than rail travel?


"Nelson" wrote in message
oups.com...
Air travel is probably less harmful to the environment than rail
travel. Aircraft leave vapour trails which aid in the reflection of
the sun's radiation back into space. As these trails are at high
altitude their shadows cover immense areas. On the other hand vast
quantities of fossil fuels are burnt to produce the electricity (at
only 10% efficiency) to power the railways. If someone would do the
calculations, all things considered (the upkeep of track and bridges
for instance) they would probably find that Aircraft are less of a
cause of global warming than an equivalent railway system.


You have a great future ahead of you as a science
adviser, but only if you can get your resume in to
the Bush Administration while they're still in a
position to be hiring...

Bob M.


  #3  
Old August 13th, 2007, 10:33 PM posted to rec.travel.air
James Robinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 495
Default Air travel less harmful to the environment than rail travel?

Nelson wrote:

Air travel is probably less harmful to the environment than rail
travel. Aircraft leave vapour trails which aid in the reflection of
the sun's radiation back into space. As these trails are at high
altitude their shadows cover immense areas. On the other hand vast
quantities of fossil fuels are burnt to produce the electricity (at
only 10% efficiency) to power the railways. If someone would do the
calculations, all things considered (the upkeep of track and bridges
for instance) they would probably find that Aircraft are less of a
cause of global warming than an equivalent railway system.


To start with, your effiency for power generation is woefully low. The
average thermal power plant is about 35 percent efficient, and how to you
rank the efficiency of hydroelectric or nuclear?

The newest thermal power plants are now pushing 60 percent thermal
efficiency, which is 6 times what you suggested.

Aircraft engines are in the range of 40 to 50 percent efficient when they
run at full power, but gas turbines are horribly inefficient at lower
power settings. That means when you consider efficiency of an aircraft,
you have to look at how long the trip is, since if the aircraft doesn't
have a long cruise, the inefficiencies of landing can overpower
everything else. Of course the shorter trips, when aircraft are the
least efficient, are the ones that are rail competitive.

Contrails do reflect sunlight, but they also absorb heat from the
surface, and won't let it escape. There is debate about the net effect of
the two, and there is some indication that the increased cloud cover as a
result of aircraft operations is resulting in global warming:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs10grc.html

Aircraft also produce both CO2 and NOx, which are major contributors to
atmospheric pollution.



Overall, aircraft aren't so great.
  #4  
Old August 13th, 2007, 10:58 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Nelson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Air travel less harmful to the environment than rail travel?

On 13 Aug, 22:33, James Robinson wrote:
Nelson wrote:
Air travel is probably less harmful to the environment than rail
travel. Aircraft leave vapour trails which aid in the reflection of
the sun's radiation back into space. As these trails are at high
altitude their shadows cover immense areas. On the other hand vast
quantities of fossil fuels are burnt to produce the electricity (at
only 10% efficiency) to power the railways. If someone would do the
calculations, all things considered (the upkeep of track and bridges
for instance) they would probably find that Aircraft are less of a
cause of global warming than an equivalent railway system.


To start with, your effiency for power generation is woefully low. The
average thermal power plant is about 35 percent efficient, and how to you
rank the efficiency of hydroelectric or nuclear?

The newest thermal power plants are now pushing 60 percent thermal
efficiency, which is 6 times what you suggested.

Aircraft engines are in the range of 40 to 50 percent efficient when they
run at full power, but gas turbines are horribly inefficient at lower
power settings. That means when you consider efficiency of an aircraft,
you have to look at how long the trip is, since if the aircraft doesn't
have a long cruise, the inefficiencies of landing can overpower
everything else. Of course the shorter trips, when aircraft are the
least efficient, are the ones that are rail competitive.

Contrails do reflect sunlight, but they also absorb heat from the
surface, and won't let it escape. There is debate about the net effect of
the two, and there is some indication that the increased cloud cover as a
result of aircraft operations is resulting in global warming:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs10grc.html

Aircraft also produce both CO2 and NOx, which are major contributors to
atmospheric pollution.

Overall, aircraft aren't so great.


The average thermal power plant is about 35 percent efficient, and how
to you
rank the efficiency of hydroelectric or nuclear?

Yes, 35 percent efficient then loose x % of this in power
transmission, another x % lost on motor efficiency, more lost on
running trains only 10% full etc. The figure of 10% is that actually
used in doing useful work. Nuclear produces heat which is what we are
trying to avoid. Hydroelectricity not often available. At least
aircraft are more fuel efficient than cars or busses.


  #5  
Old August 14th, 2007, 01:02 AM posted to rec.travel.air
Randy Hudson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default Air travel less harmful to the environment than rail travel?

In article .com,
Nelson wrote:

Aircraft leave vapour trails which aid in the reflection of
the sun's radiation back into space.


A study of the no-fly period following 9/11 showed a full extra degree
(Celsius) of cooling over the US during those four days, apparently due to
the lack of contrail vapor, which contributes to the cirrus cloud layer that
reflects nighttime longwave radiation back to earth.

--
Randy Hudson
  #6  
Old August 14th, 2007, 03:55 AM posted to rec.travel.air
James Robinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 495
Default Air travel less harmful to the environment than rail travel?

Nelson wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

The average thermal power plant is about 35 percent efficient, and
how do you rank the efficiency of hydroelectric or nuclear?


Yes, 35 percent efficient then loose x % of this in power
transmission, another x % lost on motor efficiency, more lost on
running trains only 10% full etc. The figure of 10% is that actually
used in doing useful work. Nuclear produces heat which is what we are
trying to avoid. Hydroelectricity not often available. At least
aircraft are more fuel efficient than cars or busses.


No, 10 percent is far too low, even with those efficiencies taken into
account. Further, load factors are more like 70 percent on high speed
train services that are competitive with airlines.

The other factor that you haven't taken into account is that it is far
harder to push an airliner through the air at 800+ Km/h than a train at
300. (Air resistance rises as the square of speed.) When you boil all that
down, airliners use about twice the BTUs as a train per passenger-mile.

Nuclear power is considered to be about 70% efficient, which is higher than
the other thermal plants, plus there are no air pollutants, just nuclear
waste.
  #7  
Old August 14th, 2007, 08:12 AM posted to rec.travel.air
mrtravel[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 837
Default Air travel less harmful to the environment than rail travel?

Randy Hudson wrote:

In article .com,
Nelson wrote:


Aircraft leave vapour trails which aid in the reflection of
the sun's radiation back into space.



A study of the no-fly period following 9/11 showed a full extra degree
(Celsius) of cooling over the US during those four days, apparently due to
the lack of contrail vapor, which contributes to the cirrus cloud layer that
reflects nighttime longwave radiation back to earth.


Can you cite a source for this report showing the entire US dropped
exactly one degree Celsius and that was directly attributable to the
reduction in aircraft?
  #8  
Old August 14th, 2007, 08:32 AM posted to rec.travel.air
Nelson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Air travel less harmful to the environment than rail travel?

On 14 Aug, 03:55, James Robinson wrote:
Nelson wrote:

James Robinson wrote:


The average thermal power plant is about 35 percent efficient, and
how do you rank the efficiency of hydroelectric or nuclear?


Yes, 35 percent efficient then loose x % of this in power
transmission, another x % lost on motor efficiency, more lost on
running trains only 10% full etc. The figure of 10% is that actually
used in doing useful work. Nuclear produces heat which is what we are
trying to avoid. Hydroelectricity not often available. At least
aircraft are more fuel efficient than cars or busses.


No, 10 percent is far too low, even with those efficiencies taken into
account. Further, load factors are more like 70 percent on high speed
train services that are competitive with airlines.

The other factor that you haven't taken into account is that it is far
harder to push an airliner through the air at 800+ Km/h than a train at
300. (Air resistance rises as the square of speed.) When you boil all that
down, airliners use about twice the BTUs as a train per passenger-mile.

Nuclear power is considered to be about 70% efficient, which is higher than
the other thermal plants, plus there are no air pollutants, just nuclear
waste.


Aircraft generally fly at 32000ft which is 6 miles high and where the
air pressure is almost down to one tenth of that on the surface so I
am not convinced. There is still the question of the infrastructure of
the railway system and the amount of fuel required to keep that
going? Our nuclear powers stations are situated by the coast to make
use of sea water cooling systems! Sea is the one thing we should try
not to warm up. I notice the protestors at Heathrow have arrived in
their 4x4s, not a very convincing lot!

  #9  
Old August 14th, 2007, 10:04 AM posted to rec.travel.air
James Robinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 495
Default Air travel less harmful to the environment than rail travel?

Nelson wrote:

On 14 Aug, 03:55, James Robinson wrote:
Nelson wrote:

James Robinson wrote:


The average thermal power plant is about 35 percent efficient, and
how do you rank the efficiency of hydroelectric or nuclear?


Yes, 35 percent efficient then loose x % of this in power
transmission, another x % lost on motor efficiency, more lost on
running trains only 10% full etc. The figure of 10% is that
actually used in doing useful work. Nuclear produces heat which is
what we are trying to avoid. Hydroelectricity not often available.
At least aircraft are more fuel efficient than cars or busses.


No, 10 percent is far too low, even with those efficiencies taken
into account. Further, load factors are more like 70 percent on high
speed train services that are competitive with airlines.

The other factor that you haven't taken into account is that it is
far harder to push an airliner through the air at 800+ Km/h than a
train at 300. (Air resistance rises as the square of speed.) When
you boil all that down, airliners use about twice the BTUs as a train
per passenger-mile.

Nuclear power is considered to be about 70% efficient, which is
higher than the other thermal plants, plus there are no air
pollutants, just nuclear waste.


Aircraft generally fly at 32000ft which is 6 miles high and where the
air pressure is almost down to one tenth of that on the surface so I
am not convinced. There is still the question of the infrastructure of
the railway system and the amount of fuel required to keep that
going? Our nuclear powers stations are situated by the coast to make
use of sea water cooling systems! Sea is the one thing we should try
not to warm up. I notice the protestors at Heathrow have arrived in
their 4x4s, not a very convincing lot!


The air pressure at cruising altitude is 1/4 of that at sea level, not
1/10th:

http://www.sensorsone.co.uk/altitude...onversion.html

Effect of speed difference (900 v. 300 km/h = 81/9 = 9 times the air
resistance) So, the overall effect is 9/4 = twice the air resistance.
Plus, you have to add energy to keep the aircraft in the air, and pass
through denser air getting to and from altitude, which you will do more
of as a proportion of the overall flight on shorter, rail-competitive
routes.

Instead of chasing theory, here is a link to some numbers that show the
energy intensity of various modes:

http://www.bts.gov/publications/nati...tistics/html/t
able_04_20.html

http://tinyurl.com/wy26b

It is a US comparison, where average flight distances are relatively
long, and passenger trains are relatively heavy per passenger, with
sleeping cars, low density seating, and heavy locomotives. You can see
how much better rail is than air, even with these characteristics.
  #10  
Old August 14th, 2007, 10:08 AM posted to rec.travel.air
James Robinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 495
Default Air travel less harmful to the environment than rail travel?

mrtravel wrote:

Randy Hudson wrote:

Nelson wrote:

Aircraft leave vapour trails which aid in the reflection of
the sun's radiation back into space.


A study of the no-fly period following 9/11 showed a full extra
degree (Celsius) of cooling over the US during those four days,
apparently due to the lack of contrail vapor, which contributes to
the cirrus cloud layer that reflects nighttime longwave radiation
back to earth.


Can you cite a source for this report showing the entire US dropped
exactly one degree Celsius and that was directly attributable to the
reduction in aircraft?


Here's one article on the effect:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020511/fob1.asp

There are lots of other examples.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Air travel effects on environment? [email protected] Air travel 1 May 10th, 2007 06:46 PM
Travel Europe by rail asdf Europe 4 May 5th, 2007 02:15 AM
Rail Travel Joey Jolley Air travel 2 October 26th, 2006 01:58 PM
travel and the environment in the EU The Reid Europe 63 June 27th, 2006 11:07 AM
Rail travel between SF and LA Stephen Clark USA & Canada 25 July 29th, 2005 06:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.