4 ms·

Also, don't forget about air travel, especially private airplanes, something that is on the rise (e.g Netjets). Often the virtues of world travel are extolled a

Also, don't forget about air travel, especially private airplanes, something that is on the rise (e.g Netjets). Often the virtues of world travel are extolled as a way to learn about the world and bring people together etc. Except, it's extraordinarily carbon intensive and honestly doesn't do any of that IMO. Sure, seeing the Patagonia in person would be cool and all, but if I actually cared about it, I wouldn't go. I would admire it from afar to help preserve it. It's time to start travel shaming and discourage people from flying around just to get a selfie.

lovecg 3y ago
Naively this just seems like a tiny fraction of the problem? Say less than 1%? Haven’t looked up the numbers though, I might be way off.
- zw123456 3y ago
  https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/06/30/greenhouse-emissions-rise-to-record-erasing-drop-during-pandemic https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/06/30/greenhouse-... Granted, cars and air travel, but I think it is more than minor. But anything that is unnecessary, is important. The point is, travel less, that's the best way to admire the places you admire. Something to consider the next time you plan a vacation. How about a nice bike ride near where you live and marvel at the beauty that is near you? It's still beautiful. And you did our planet a favor.
Gud 3y ago
Electric airplanes are becoming a real thing, at least for regional travel.
- zw123456 3y ago
  What if, you said, hey, let's have a nice vacation and ride our bikes or walked to a nice park near us and enjoy the beauty of the environment? We can have selfies and brag about how we had a zero carbon vacation. That would be cool, right?
  - nojvek 3y ago
    I feel it’s kind of important that to realize that high density cheap fuels is what made modern civilizations work. Yes, you can still enjoy your park. Would most Americans be okay not being able to fly to see their families on Thanksgiving? Or tax gasoline so heavily, food, clothing, electronics, healthcare all become expensive? I really hope the policy answer is not a version of “forced covid” . Now the issue really is how can we make those high density fuels from solar. Do what naturally happened over 1000s of years in hours. Gasoline at 45MJ/kg is 10x denser than batteries. It makes long distance aviation possible. It makes cars, boats and ships possible for transport. Moving things around the planet cheap and fast makes humans happy. IMO the answer isn’t to reduce movement of humans and foods, but to figure out a greener, cheaper way to do it.
    - Gud 3y ago
      I agree. Only greed and stupidity is preventing us from having clean, electric transports right here and right now.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  For long-range high-capacity passenger (or cargo) travel, electric airplanes will always be a pipe dream. Battery storage capacities are too low, as well as lacking the fuel-burn-off characteristics of fuel-powered aircraft: half a long-range flight's takeoff weight is fuel, and for distances > ~3000 km, each passenger burns roughly their mass in fuel. The carbon dioxide emissions are actually greater than this as CO2 includes two oxygen atoms contributed from the atmosphere. Mind that long-range flights are also overall more efficient,[1] as they have a longer low-fuel-burn cruise-phase, as contrasted with take-off and climb, which consume tremendous amounts of fuel. For ranges at which electric-powered aircraft are applicable, ground-based transport (e.g., electrified, preferably high-speed rail) are even more optimal, though there are cases (e.g., inter-island travel, remote low-population regions) which might not suit those. Those tend to be outlier and marginal cases already, however. ________________________________ Notes: 1. On a fuel/passenger-km or cargo-kg-km basis. Though the large overall distance makes for prodigious fuel burn regardless.
  - Gud 3y ago
    I don’t know enough about battery technology to agree with you, but yes with current technology, >2000km flights look impossible. But regional travel, less than 1000kms I suspect we’ll see within the next two decades or so.
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      That's ... probably around the upper range limit. One problem with electrified aircraft is that longer ranges probably translate to much lower speeds. Total mass is absolutely critical, so two of the biggest areas of research are likely to be materials (lightweighting the entire airframe) and automation (removing pilots and flight attendants). Given that electrified aircraft are already likely to be small (I'm assuming anywhere from two to perhaps 20 or 40 passengers), eliminating anywhere from 50% to 10% of the total payload mass will be a major consideration. But you're still looking at a slow flight in a small plane at lower altitudes (and bumpier air), with minimum cargo or carry-on allowances. If there's no alternative ground route, or schedule flexibility is of the essence, that might be an option, but not especially fast or comfortable. Looking through proposed aircraft, I'm seeing models designed for anywhere from one to 186 passengers (the last is considerably more than I'd thought viable, Wright Electric with a 335 mi (540 km) range). More likely to me are the Zunum Aero (12 passengers, 700 mi / 1125 km range) and Eviation (9 passengers, 100--600 miles). From: <https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/electric-aircraft/index.html https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/electric-aircraft/index.h...> Zunum's ceased operations. Eviation appears to be ongoing. From Wikipedia: With 260 Wh/kg cells, the 900 kWh battery capacity (3,460 kg, 7,630 lb) is initially estimated to give the design a range of 540–650 nmi (1,000–1,200 km) at 240 knots and 10,000 ft (3,048 m).[6] This is anticipated to increase as battery technology improves. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eviation_Alice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eviation_Alice> (Again, somewhat better than my expectations.) A prototype has flown, and there are orders for at least 167 aircraft. Colour me surprised. Eviation Alice is the only electric aircraft listed by Wikipedia to give passenger numbers: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electric_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electric_aircraft>

lovecg 3y ago

Naively this just seems like a tiny fraction of the problem? Say less than 1%? Haven’t looked up the numbers though, I might be way off.

zw123456 3y ago
https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/06/30/greenhouse-emissions-rise-to-record-erasing-drop-during-pandemic https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/06/30/greenhouse-... Granted, cars and air travel, but I think it is more than minor. But anything that is unnecessary, is important. The point is, travel less, that's the best way to admire the places you admire. Something to consider the next time you plan a vacation. How about a nice bike ride near where you live and marvel at the beauty that is near you? It's still beautiful. And you did our planet a favor.

Gud 3y ago

Electric airplanes are becoming a real thing, at least for regional travel.

zw123456 3y ago
What if, you said, hey, let's have a nice vacation and ride our bikes or walked to a nice park near us and enjoy the beauty of the environment? We can have selfies and brag about how we had a zero carbon vacation. That would be cool, right?
- nojvek 3y ago
  I feel it’s kind of important that to realize that high density cheap fuels is what made modern civilizations work. Yes, you can still enjoy your park. Would most Americans be okay not being able to fly to see their families on Thanksgiving? Or tax gasoline so heavily, food, clothing, electronics, healthcare all become expensive? I really hope the policy answer is not a version of “forced covid” . Now the issue really is how can we make those high density fuels from solar. Do what naturally happened over 1000s of years in hours. Gasoline at 45MJ/kg is 10x denser than batteries. It makes long distance aviation possible. It makes cars, boats and ships possible for transport. Moving things around the planet cheap and fast makes humans happy. IMO the answer isn’t to reduce movement of humans and foods, but to figure out a greener, cheaper way to do it.
  - Gud 3y ago
    I agree. Only greed and stupidity is preventing us from having clean, electric transports right here and right now.
dredmorbius 3y ago
For long-range high-capacity passenger (or cargo) travel, electric airplanes will always be a pipe dream. Battery storage capacities are too low, as well as lacking the fuel-burn-off characteristics of fuel-powered aircraft: half a long-range flight's takeoff weight is fuel, and for distances > ~3000 km, each passenger burns roughly their mass in fuel. The carbon dioxide emissions are actually greater than this as CO2 includes two oxygen atoms contributed from the atmosphere. Mind that long-range flights are also overall more efficient,[1] as they have a longer low-fuel-burn cruise-phase, as contrasted with take-off and climb, which consume tremendous amounts of fuel. For ranges at which electric-powered aircraft are applicable, ground-based transport (e.g., electrified, preferably high-speed rail) are even more optimal, though there are cases (e.g., inter-island travel, remote low-population regions) which might not suit those. Those tend to be outlier and marginal cases already, however. ________________________________ Notes: 1. On a fuel/passenger-km or cargo-kg-km basis. Though the large overall distance makes for prodigious fuel burn regardless.
- Gud 3y ago
  I don’t know enough about battery technology to agree with you, but yes with current technology, >2000km flights look impossible. But regional travel, less than 1000kms I suspect we’ll see within the next two decades or so.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    That's ... probably around the upper range limit. One problem with electrified aircraft is that longer ranges probably translate to much lower speeds. Total mass is absolutely critical, so two of the biggest areas of research are likely to be materials (lightweighting the entire airframe) and automation (removing pilots and flight attendants). Given that electrified aircraft are already likely to be small (I'm assuming anywhere from two to perhaps 20 or 40 passengers), eliminating anywhere from 50% to 10% of the total payload mass will be a major consideration. But you're still looking at a slow flight in a small plane at lower altitudes (and bumpier air), with minimum cargo or carry-on allowances. If there's no alternative ground route, or schedule flexibility is of the essence, that might be an option, but not especially fast or comfortable. Looking through proposed aircraft, I'm seeing models designed for anywhere from one to 186 passengers (the last is considerably more than I'd thought viable, Wright Electric with a 335 mi (540 km) range). More likely to me are the Zunum Aero (12 passengers, 700 mi / 1125 km range) and Eviation (9 passengers, 100--600 miles). From: <https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/electric-aircraft/index.html https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/electric-aircraft/index.h...> Zunum's ceased operations. Eviation appears to be ongoing. From Wikipedia: With 260 Wh/kg cells, the 900 kWh battery capacity (3,460 kg, 7,630 lb) is initially estimated to give the design a range of 540–650 nmi (1,000–1,200 km) at 240 knots and 10,000 ft (3,048 m).[6] This is anticipated to increase as battery technology improves. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eviation_Alice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eviation_Alice> (Again, somewhat better than my expectations.) A prototype has flown, and there are orders for at least 167 aircraft. Colour me surprised. Eviation Alice is the only electric aircraft listed by Wikipedia to give passenger numbers: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electric_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electric_aircraft>