Branson on Peak Oil

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 28 Apr 2010, 21:39

http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/27/s ... gin-group/

(I like comment #4.)

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 28 Apr 2010, 22:24

Sincerity.

Once you can fake that, you've got it made.

syberberg · Post by **syberberg** » 29 Apr 2010, 05:17

Oh dear, we seem to be in a bit of a pickle.

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 29 Apr 2010, 11:14

We need Bronson NOT Branson.

"You were warned not to drive any gas guzzling SUVs in my area. So long sucker."

Quintus · Post by **Quintus** » 29 Apr 2010, 12:27

Vortex wrote:We need Bronson NOT Branson.

No! We need Branston not Bronson or Branson!!

“Don’t catch that cheap flight to Tenerife, have a cheese and pickle sandwich at home instead.”

Prono 007 · Post by **Prono 007** » 01 May 2010, 09:16

emordnilap wrote:Sincerity.

Once you can fake that, you've got it made.

Is he insincere or just misguided?

He says that towing aircraft to the runway would save 12% of all fuel used. That can't possibly be right: we talking maybe 2 miles at 10 - 30 mph versus hundreds or thousands of miles at 600 - 700 mph.

syberberg · Post by **syberberg** » 03 May 2010, 03:15

Prono 007 wrote:
emordnilap wrote:Sincerity.

Once you can fake that, you've got it made.

Is he insincere or just misguided?

He says that towing aircraft to the runway would save 12% of all fuel used. That can't possibly be right: we talking maybe 2 miles at 10 - 30 mph versus hundreds or thousands of miles at 600 - 700 mph.

Planes do spend a lot of time with the engines running waiting for clearance to taxi. If they only have to start the engines when at the runway, it should save a fair amount if you also include a tow to the terminal as well, I can see the 12% figure being a fair estimate. After all, that leaves 82% of the fuel for flying.

But having said that...

Ground service equipment is responsible for 10.9% of airport-generated VOCs and 14.3% of NO x nationally, according to the EPA. National figures for APUs were not available, but in southern California in 1990, APUs gave off less than 1% of hydrocarbons and about 6% of NO x , according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

So, maybe not a vast improvement then, as it'll be moving the pollution to the ground service vehicles. Unless they were electric and charged from solar PV's on the airport's massive acreage of roof.

From the same article as above

One measure that could reduce emissions is single-engine taxiing. Single-engine taxiing saves fuel and reduces emissions substantially. Delta Airlines pilots generally use one engine to taxi, and at the airline's hub in Atlanta, this strategy saved $5.9 million in fuel costs in 1995 alone, according to the NRDC. But other airlines eschew or minimize the practice. Some airplanes lack the ability to taxi on one engine, says James Ericson, director of the office of environment and energy at the FAA. Furthermore, crews must be properly trained in the technique. Albert Prest, vice president of operations for the Air Transport Association, a trade group, says that the practice can be dangerous in certain circumstances, such as wet weather, because it may encourage the plane to slide or veer to one side.

(Emphasis mine.)

Then there's this idea from Boeing.

And then there's the TaxiBot.

But all of these "Big Ideas" are just pie-in-the-sky, cloud cuckoo-land, thinking. We all know that the only real reduction in emissions will come from falling passenger numbers and higher fuel costs. Or interesting volcanic activity.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 03 May 2010, 14:50

What about these geo-engineering types who want to put Sulphur Somethingorother particles into the atmosphere to reduce warming? If they do it, flights will have to be stopped temporarily and it'll...reduce warming!

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 03 May 2010, 14:55

RenewableCandy wrote:What about these geo-engineering types who want to put Sulphur Somethingorother particles into the atmosphere to reduce warming? If they do it, flights will have to be stopped temporarily and it'll...reduce warming!

Aviation is not seriously threatened by normal dust or most sorts of particles in the atmosphere. Volcanic dust is only dangerous because it is largely composed of silica - it melts into glass.

WatchMeRise · Post by **WatchMeRise** » 05 Apr 2011, 18:20

UndercoverElephant wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote:What about these geo-engineering types who want to put Sulphur Somethingorother particles into the atmosphere to reduce warming? If they do it, flights will have to be stopped temporarily and it'll...reduce warming!
Aviation is not seriously threatened by normal dust or most sorts of particles in the atmosphere. Volcanic dust is only dangerous because it is largely composed of silica - it melts into glass.

Sulphur is volcanic i thought? click here to see why airlines do not enjoy volcanic gases or ash in the atmosphere. Either way, no matter what Branson says at the moment, heating and cooling bills have remained steady and it is my feeling that the hvac and power industries will be able to sustain themselves during these so called hard times. As far as hvac is concerned, the amount of green initiatives in place is very encouraging.