Macron banning private jets

[lee-wave]

On 04/09/2022 at 7:36 AM, Bruce Tuncks said:

I fly and believe in global warming. I would gladly remove the CO2 that I put in the air by my flying, but this would be futile unless everybody else did too.

Each liter of avgas used  would need approximately a kg of charcoal to be buried....  no real problem,

Here's another way of looking at the atmosphere...  1 cubic km of air weighs about 10^9kg and 1ppm is therefore 10^3kg or 1 tonne. So 1ppm = 1 tonne per cubic km.

If the atmosphere goes up to 15km ( ie could be replaced by a 15 km deep layer of 1kg/m^3 ) then there are 90 cubic km of air over this farm. ( yep, the farm is 1500 acres or 6 km^2 )

To lower the CO2 from 420ppm to 280ppm would mean removing 140 times 90 tonnes of CO2.

Wow , 12,600 tonnes of CO2 ! That is  possible but it will take years of work Gosh I hope somebody does a check and finds I have overstated the figures.

I find it easy to believe that 12,600 tonnes of CO2 could alter the thermal properties of this bit of atmosphere by enough for 2 degrees of warming.

good stuff there Bruce   .... you might like this article re soaring the Appalachians...

Four on the Floor.pdf

[Ian]

On 04/09/2022 at 4:36 PM, Bruce Tuncks said:

I fly and believe in global warming. I would gladly remove the CO2 that I put in the air by my flying, but this would be futile unless everybody else did too.

Each liter of avgas used  would need approximately a kg of charcoal to be buried....  no real problem,

Here's another way of looking at the atmosphere...  1 cubic km of air weighs about 10^9kg and 1ppm is therefore 10^3kg or 1 tonne. So 1ppm = 1 tonne per cubic km.

If the atmosphere goes up to 15km ( ie could be replaced by a 15 km deep layer of 1kg/m^3 ) then there are 90 cubic km of air over this farm. ( yep, the farm is 1500 acres or 6 km^2 )

To lower the CO2 from 420ppm to 280ppm would mean removing 140 times 90 tonnes of CO2.

Wow , 12,600 tonnes of CO2 ! That is  possible but it will take years of work Gosh I hope somebody does a check and finds I have overstated the figures.

I find it easy to believe that 12,600 tonnes of CO2 could alter the thermal properties of this bit of atmosphere by enough for 2 degrees of warming.

I suspect that you're making it a bit hard for yourself, you don't need to work in volumes, just pressure will work. There's a column of air above every square meter of land the weight of that air creates a force of 101.3 kPa.

Divide this by gravity and you have about a ton of air above you. The % by weight of air that is CO2 is 0.063 and we want to reduce CO2 by about 0.25

This works out at about 16.2kg per m2 of CO2 or 4.4 kg m2.

So for above your farm of 1500/2.2 hectares 110454 tons of CO2 or 30123 tons of carbon.  There's a fair margin of error but you get the gist.

 

On 05/09/2022 at 9:23 AM, Flying Binghi said:

I would gladly remove the CO2 that I put in the air by my flying, but this would be futile unless everybody else did too

This is similar to the pissing in the pool argument. Yes I understand that people do it however most people don't, and while it isn't grand, it's better than the alternatives.

 

Also it's not the "global warming true believers" its what science says. You know that thing that allows engines to run, planes to fly and medicines to work. It really is that good.

 

Your views are in the same camp as the "world is flat", "that vaccines cause autism", "The UN and Bill Gates vaccines programs are sterilizing women" and "fluoridation is a communist plot". Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Science_and_technology

 

It has some corkers that you might want to believe in. I'm not out to hurt your feelings, but if you say dumb stuff I'll let you know, and I'm letting you know. 😉

 

 

 

 

[Ian]

Bill Gates likes private jets and thinks that dumping CO2 is bad. So he offsets his carbon footprint.

https://www.ladbible.com/news/technology-bill-gates-spends-7000000-each-year-to-offset-his-carbon-footprint-20210215

 

So does Jeff Bezos.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/05/why-bill-gates-and-jeff-bezos-buy-carbon-offsets-how-they-work.html

 

So it might be reasonable to enforce a carbon neutral policy on emission for all travel, but you can start with the rich.

[Flying Binghi]

13 minutes ago, Ian said:

I suspect that you're making it a bit hard for yourself, you don't need to work in volumes, just pressure will work. There's a column of air above every square meter of land the weight of that air creates a force of 101.3 kPa.

Divide this by gravity and you have about a ton of air above you. The % by weight of air that is CO2 is 0.063 and we want to reduce CO2 by about 0.25

This works out at about 16.2kg per m2 of CO2 or 4.4 kg m2.

So for above your farm of 1500/2.2 hectares 110454 tons of CO2 or 30123 tons of carbon.  There's a fair margin of error but you get the gist.

 

This is similar to the pissing in the pool argument. Yes I understand that people do it however most people don't, and while it isn't grand, it's better than the alternatives.

 

Also it's not the "global warming true believers" its what science says. You know that thing that allows engines to run, planes to fly and medicines to work. It really is that good.

 

Your views are in the same camp as the "world is flat", "that vaccines cause autism", "The UN and Bill Gates vaccines programs are sterilizing women" and "fluoridation is a communist plot". Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Science_and_technology

 

It has some corkers that you might want to believe in. I'm not out to hurt your feelings, but if you say dumb stuff I'll let you know, and I'm letting you know. 😉

 

 

 

 

 

…and yet, you fly for fun..🤨

 

If you were a ‘true believer’ then you would not fly and free up those carbon credits you are wasting for somebody else to use…🙂

 

 

My views are in my ‘own camp’ and are informed by many sources.

 

I were once a member of the wilderness society and did a permaculture course. Ian, by your reasoning I must be a greeny…..

 

 

 

…

[Ian]

1 hour ago, Flying Binghi said:

If you were a ‘true believer’ then you would not fly and free up those carbon credits

I try to minimise my carbon emissions. However flight doesn't have a good alternative to carbon fuels. I'd love a plane which could fly on biodiesel which is a reasonably feasible projects. 

Did you know that there's a special page on wikipedia dedicated to climate change conspiracies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory

 

However as I've stated I like to use profligate amounts of energy by travelling for pleasure, buying manufactured goods, swimming in winter and flying for fun. However as a someone with a vaguely scientific bent I don't see this as mutually exclusive to a zero carbon emissions philosophy. However to continue down this path I think that nuclear is the only real answer.

 

I believe that scientists are generally smarter and more believable than either football players, politicians and hairdressers. They put their theories up for public scrutiny and accept the criticism. They generally get promoted and remunerated for being right, not being popular or charismatic.

 

I also accept that at some point in the future we're going to be asked to demonstrate that we're carbon neutral and will get taxed when we're not.

 

On the other hand because you think that this science stuff is all junk you'll probably just get old and bitter. 

 

[onetrack]

There's nothing surer than the fact that within the next few years, we will be taxed on an emissions level basis. The move to EV's will accelerate that, whereby your vehicles will have no rego cost, but will be taxed on kilometres travelled, plus emissions produced.  EV's will pay only a km rate, and pay no emissions tax, but if you want to drive an IC engined vehicle, your tailpipe emissions will be calculated, and you will pay extra monies to pollute the environment.

 

It will take very little for Govts to initiate this taxing system for all IC engines, including aviation. It is a system seen as fair, and benefiting the environment, and it is designed to make IC engines extinct as much as possible.

[Ian]

It would be nice to get a good idea of the diesel auto engine conversions out there. We might all be running on ethanol or biodiesel soon as the most cost effective solutions. The advantage of diesel is the efficiency and energy density of the fuels.

Both ethanol and biodiesel are pretty hard on plastic tanks though.

Edited September 6, 2022 by Ian

[kgwilson]

The move to Electric vehicles continues to increase exponentially. Here are some stats.

 

In 2021 worldwide sales doubled from 2020 to 6.6 million.

There are more sold in a week than in the whole of 2012.

China has 300 EV manufacturers producing 700 different models.

China sold 3.3 million EVs last year, half of the worlds sales.

Europe sales increased 65% last year to 2.3 million 

US sales increased by 100% to 630,000.

There are now 16.5 million EVs on the road world wide, 300% more than in 2018.

 

The move to curb emissions is gaining pace everywhere & not always by choice. This is only the very beginning. Our long term ability to survive depends on it

[Flying Binghi]

1 hour ago, Ian said:

I try to minimise my carbon emissions. However flight doesn't have a good alternative to carbon fuels. I'd love a plane which could fly on biodiesel which is a reasonably feasible projects. 

Did you know that there's a special page on wikipedia dedicated to climate change conspiracies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory

 

However as I've stated I like to use profligate amounts of energy by travelling for pleasure, buying manufactured goods, swimming in winter and flying for fun. However as a someone with a vaguely scientific bent I don't see this as mutually exclusive to a zero carbon emissions philosophy. However to continue down this path I think that nuclear is the only real answer.

 

I believe that scientists are generally smarter and more believable than either football players, politicians and hairdressers. They put their theories up for public scrutiny and accept the criticism. They generally get promoted and remunerated for being right, not being popular or charismatic.

 

I also accept that at some point in the future we're going to be asked to demonstrate that we're carbon neutral and will get taxed when we're not.

 

On the other hand because you think that this science stuff is all junk you'll probably just get old and bitter. 

 

 

Hmmm… I’m wondering what happened to my three posts in the thread “The history of lead in fuel - a veritasium video” ???

 

I screen shot all my posts as a reference and re-reading them see no abuse from me in the removed posts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Flying Binghi]

1 hour ago, kgwilson said:

The move to Electric vehicles continues to increase exponentially. Here are some stats.

 

In 2021 worldwide sales doubled from 2020 to 6.6 million.

There are more sold in a week than in the whole of 2012.

China has 300 EV manufacturers producing 700 different models.

China sold 3.3 million EVs last year, half of the worlds sales.

Europe sales increased 65% last year to 2.3 million 

US sales increased by 100% to 630,000.

There are now 16.5 million EVs on the road world wide, 300% more than in 2018.

 

The move to curb emissions is gaining pace everywhere & not always by choice. This is only the very beginning. Our long term ability to survive depends on it

 

 I see there’s a 2000hp electric car. That’s 500 pony’s per wheel…..😬 …..😎

 

It is a shame there wont be enuf power to charge all these lecky cars..😐

 

 

 

 

.

[Flying Binghi]

1 hour ago, Ian said:

It would be nice to get a good idea of the diesel auto engine conversions out there. We might all be running on ethanol or biodiesel soon as the most cost effective solutions. The advantage of diesel is the efficiency and energy density of the fuels.

Both ethanol and biodiesel are pretty hard on plastic tanks though.

 

I made a substantial investment in a biodiesel fuel company over 20 years ago - that were back in my stupid greeny days. All gone…🤕

 

The smart move, once oil gets a bit more expensive and Oz has moved to nuclear power, will be to do coal to fuel conversion.

 

Then there is methane hydrate. China is spending big on researching it and Japan has already had their drill rigs gassing it. Once that gets going then there’s about 10,000 years supply available at the current rate of usage…😎

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Ian]

All these things are possible as long as they're carbon neutral. But I can't see coal having any redeeming values in the future. The Government has thrown billions in subsidies toward lower emission coal and it's all failed. They could have built a nuclear power plant in the money that they gave away.

1 hour ago, Flying Binghi said:

I made a substantial investment in a biodiesel fuel company over 20 years ago - that were back in my stupid greeny days. All gone

That's the thing about investment, it's all about the timing. As Kerry Packer said, its easy, buy low, sell high. Maybe if we had politicians with a bit of vision pretending that climate change wasn't an issue things may have been different.

 

If they actually start to make all vehicles carbon neutral maybe engines like this will become back in fashion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guiberson_A-1020 The efficiency was 0.37 lb. per h.p. which is about equivalent to the toyota prius engine. Imagine what it could do with a bit of turbocharging and modern fuel injection. 

 

Given the differential between boats and planes, maybe these might become more popular. I think that they're classed as boats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-effect_vehicle

 

[Flying Binghi]

12 hours ago, Ian said:

All these things are possible as long as they're carbon neutral. But I can't see coal having any redeeming values in the future. The Government has thrown billions in subsidies toward lower emission coal and it's all failed. They could have built a nuclear power plant in the money that they gave away.

That's the thing about investment, it's all about the timing. As Kerry Packer said, its easy, buy low, sell high. Maybe if we had politicians with a bit of vision pretending that climate change wasn't an issue things may have been different.

 

If they actually start to make all vehicles carbon neutral maybe engines like this will become back in fashion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guiberson_A-1020 The efficiency was 0.37 lb. per h.p. which is about equivalent to the toyota prius engine. Imagine what it could do with a bit of turbocharging and modern fuel injection. 

 

Given the differential between boats and planes, maybe these might become more popular. I think that they're classed as boats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-effect_vehicle

 

“…pretending that climate change wasn't an issue…”

 

‘Climate change’ is not a Real issue. It is an over blown hysteria.

 

I remember a while back there were a thread here about the Barrier Reef being all damaged and under attack from ‘climate change’. I argued that it weren’t.

 

I see now the latest scientific report says the reef is the healthiest its ever been since it were first monitored… Oh dear, hysteria what.…..🙂

 

Apparently our dams were never going to fill again and we needed to build all them water purifying plants… Oh dear, hysteria what….🙂

 

The science said twenty years ago that by now the children will not know what snow is… Oh dear, hysteria what…🙂

 

 

[facthunter]

That seems a bit hysterical about hysteria, what?  Nev

[Ian]

25 minutes ago, Flying Binghi said:

‘Climate change’ is not a Real issue. It is an over blown hysteria.

While you might believe this it isn't what most of the scientific community believe. Also public opinion is also moving and accepting the fact that it is an issue. It would be good if you could be convinced by research, facts, published paper and journals but you're making a stand for your beliefs. I get it, I just don't do facebook, brietbart etc as I think they're nonsense. I know that you would like us believe differently however it's just a belief.

The future will entail

• Lower carbon emissions
• Lower methan emissions
• Taxes on emission or equivalent like an emissions market.
• Significant reductions in fossil fuel
• Alternative energy technologies

Somehow GA needs to dovetail into this framework. There have been some STCs for pure ethanol https://www.flightglobal.com/corn-to-run-can-ethanol-be-used-as-a-clean-alternative/71449.article so the whole zero carbon approach isn't a nail in the coffin of air travel or GA, it just needs a bit of innovation. I'd like to see some biodiesel powered planes funded by Government grants as well.

 

But this is just my opinion 🙂 But I'd be willing to put a wager on it, as I said investment is all about timing.

[Flying Binghi]

4 hours ago, Ian said:

While you might believe this it isn't what most of the scientific community believe. Also public opinion is also moving and accepting the fact that it is an issue. It would be good if you could be convinced by research, facts, published paper and journals but you're making a stand for your beliefs. I get it, I just don't do facebook, brietbart etc as I think they're nonsense. I know that you would like us believe differently however it's just a belief.

The future will entail

• Lower carbon emissions
• Lower methan emissions
• Taxes on emission or equivalent like an emissions market.
• Significant reductions in fossil fuel
• Alternative energy technologies

Somehow GA needs to dovetail into this framework. There have been some STCs for pure ethanol https://www.flightglobal.com/corn-to-run-can-ethanol-be-used-as-a-clean-alternative/71449.article so the whole zero carbon approach isn't a nail in the coffin of air travel or GA, it just needs a bit of innovation. I'd like to see some biodiesel powered planes funded by Government grants as well.

 

But this is just my opinion 🙂 But I'd be willing to put a wager on it, as I said investment is all about timing.

 

…and yet, not long ago I were ridiculed for saying the Barrier Reef is healthy after the so-called scientists said it were done for.

 

Where’s the evidence I asked… Nothing, …..I should just ‘believe’…🤨

 

 

 

 

 

 

😑

[Ian]

OK, there are two schools of thought.

• One which thinks that climate change is a conspiracy and soon everyone will wake up and it will be business at usual. Given that is the case there's not much point in participating in this thread because it's nonsense.
• The other thinks that climate change is real enough that significant changes are coming and things like travel will have to demonstrate that they're carbon neutral in some way shape or form.

Things like Macron banning private jets is just a populist move that makes people feel like they're doing something. Banning them unless they're carbon neutral makes more sense.

At some point I suspect that we'll be forced to fuel our planes with a carbon neutral fuel, by considering what the options are hopefully we can make some sensible decisions going forward. Even if that means investing in canola farms of a bit of bioengineering to make better biofuels. (it has one of the lowest cloud points of the common vegetable oil)

 

If you want to talk about coral reefs and bleaching I suggest that you reach out to a couple of scientists who specialise in that area. Their email addresses are on the page. If they agree with your point of view I'll buy you a beer 😉 

https://www.aims.gov.au/research-topics/environmental-issues/coral-bleaching/coral-bleaching-events

[facthunter]

Anyone's version of the TRUTH these days can be backed up by some statement or other. "It has been suggested" Or I read somewhere THAT.  It's not difficult to find one that makes you  feel warm and fuzzy.. There's 100s of religions so most (if not all) are false.. 7% of Americans believe the earth is FLAT.. Nev

[spacesailor]

A  PENNY,S  WORTH

IF, I C engine,s are BAD.

THE the new ' rocket  ',  that is only a test vehicle! 

.

MUST TAKE THE CAKE.

all the air burnt away, plus the carbon released by those massive engines .

Is a jumbo jet burns a years worth of car fuel "  on tale-off " that rocket  will probably burn more fuel & produce more carbon that the Worlds cars .

Then there,s all those house fires !, more carbon produced there, than the house owners car would ever produce.

spacesailor

[facthunter]

It's HYDROGEN fuel that's leaking.  Nev

[kgwilson]

Belief systems have caused more problems that almost any other on this planet. The problem is that beliefs are not based on real verifiable evidence. Most  people who have a belief in something will always find something that backs up their belief so they continue on with a blinkered vision because what they have now found out from some dubious source which reinforces that belief so any other evidence to the contrary is very quickly sidelined.

 

Here we have a belief that the Great barrier Reef is healthy despite overwhelming evidence that it is not. Pauline Hanson said everything is great so it must be.

[Flying Binghi]

2 hours ago, Ian said:

OK, there are two schools of thought.

• One which thinks that climate change is a conspiracy and soon everyone will wake up and it will be business at usual. Given that is the case there's not much point in participating in this thread because it's nonsense.
• The other thinks that climate change is real enough that significant changes are coming and things like travel will have to demonstrate that they're carbon neutral in some way shape or form.

Things like Macron banning private jets is just a populist move that makes people feel like they're doing something. Banning them unless they're carbon neutral makes more sense.

At some point I suspect that we'll be forced to fuel our planes with a carbon neutral fuel, by considering what the options are hopefully we can make some sensible decisions going forward. Even if that means investing in canola farms of a bit of bioengineering to make better biofuels. (it has one of the lowest cloud points of the common vegetable oil)

 

If you want to talk about coral reefs and bleaching I suggest that you reach out to a couple of scientists who specialise in that area. Their email addresses are on the page. If they agree with your point of view I'll buy you a beer 😉 

https://www.aims.gov.au/research-topics/environmental-issues/coral-bleaching/coral-bleaching-events

 

“…Two schools of thought…”

 

🤨

 

Ian, can I recommend you actually study the subject…🙂 

 

 

“…the former science advisor to the Barack Obama administration is laying waste to claims that rampant global warming is a death sentence for humanity. Physicist Steve Koonin, former U.S. under secretary for science, and the director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University, has released a new book entitled Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.

Although Dr. Koonin firmly believes that the Earth is warming and that humankind has something to do with it…” 

 

 

https://thenewamerican.com/former-obama-science-advisor-takes-an-axe-to-climate-emergency-narrative/

Edited September 7, 2022 by Flying Binghi

[Jerry_Atrick]

Looks like the privte jet franternity complained enough, but the airlines will have a bit to do: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56716708

 

[turboplanner]

15 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Looks like the privte jet franternity complained enough, but the airlines will have a bit to do: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56716708

 

When global warming occurs the oceans expand in their basins and the level rises around the world.

At the meeting I attended in 2005 an ex CSIRO member of the IPCC told us this, and that we could expect Bangladesh to be indundated and a hundred million people would die. Australia sent a Senate committee around Australia assessing our beaches. Coastal Councils were given predicted global warming flood levels and were told to refuse DA's below the expected sea levels. Some did. Then the predictions faltered. The Sydney Tidal gauge, which measures ocean level without the need for helpful modelling shows that in the period starting in the 1800s to current there has been no increase in high tide levels.

If you, like me start to get curious, you can google Ann Bressington, a Member of the Legislative Council of South Australia who, in 2013 felt something was wrong and tracked down the Club of Rome and an outrageously corrupt United Nations official who decided they could make money using the power of the United Nations. The Club still exists today, hiding in plain sight. More and more UN people joined the network. At one point a committee is appointed to look at ways of making big money; the committee reports back that they have chosen about ten things, and one of them happens to be Climate change. The UN/COR group form the  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), The IPCC is not a scientific body, it's the body set up to drive the "Climate Change Agenda" and new world order which was to  make the billions of dollars. The Intergovernmental Panel as its name suggests has the job of coaching the world leaders, and you can google IPCC and see the regular bulletins they send to countries including Australia, including the one which reset the start date back 245 years for the 1.5 degree  Armageddon/Doomsday. 1.5 degrees is about the average difference between Sydney and Melbourne. They flattened the line gradient from an embarrassing arrival about now to an almost flat line allowing it to be used as a stick for most of this century.

Ann Brassington was treated horribly, but she had brought the evidence to the surface. 

 

Shorthaul Jet travel has changed our lives and economy in Australia. When you get up into the Mining areas and look at places like Roma in Queensland you see the volume of RPT and executive jets and how they bring workers from capital cities to mines which earn billions of dollars for Australia. You see a dozen luxury coaches running around a medium size town on a Monday morning picking up miners to take them to the mines. Where we are going, driven by Agenda21  and the Great Reset is scary, with things like renewable power generation in Australia still only able to generate about 1% of peak power demand on hot days, and the failure of the UK Ocean wind farms to supply power to every home by 2020 triggering a reopening of coal mines. I would recommend people don't look at the situation like football barrackers but do some serious research on where this all came from and what the agendas and targets are, because our major political parties have committed us to a life we will not like.

[kgwilson]

So the science is all wrong then. CO2 levels aren't rising, the oceans aren't becoming more acidic and global temperatures are not increasing.