Eco-Friendly Boeing?!

Post by **Mike** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:23 am

I don't know how much I trust this BBC article. It suggests that the plane is 20% less CO2 than competitors. . . and is made from carbon fibre which is more environmentally friendly. Does anyone know if carbon fibre is more energy efficient or better for the environment compared with aluminum?!

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:05 pm

elite sports cars have been made from carbon-fibre for nearly a decade but even so i would be worried of the safety standards; its a total pointless fear yet i keep imagining a plastic plane hitting the floor and splintering into millions of bits like a giant airfix kit. plus carbon-fibre is lighter than aliminium so how much of this CO2 saving is going to be down to the whole structure burning less fuel because it weighs less and not because its engines are more efficent? and how will the lighter craft which presumably would be the same size as normal jumbojets cope with strong winds on landing - ive seen footage of 747s being blown tens of feet off line coming into land and even pointing at sharp angles into the wind to try and hold steady.

mr_e · Post by **mr_e** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:55 pm

Carbon fibre is used because it absorbs more impact energy, so it should be safer (that's why it's in use in F1 now). Landing into the wind...er...good point, but I imagine they'll just use a similar technique, but maybe land with more thrust.

Unfortunately, the one estimate I can find for carbon fibre, which I must stress is from 1978, puts the production energy at 16 times higher than aluminium, and 4000 times higher than good old wood.

Post by **Mike** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:45 pm

I think the wood option would be good. The problem I know of with Carbon Fibre is the impact stress hairline fractures etc. I know aluminium suffers from the same problem but it seems to be a weird way to go. The CO2 saving must be in the lightness of the craft, there is nothing else I can think of that would make the craft more efficient. The other thing is what they measured their plane against. If it is a 20 year old engine then I would have hoped for a better improvement. I am sure the air carriers are more interested in the fuel saved than the CO2!

mr_e · Post by **mr_e** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:10 pm

Well, they are businesses, so it's all about the bottom line. They're possibly worried that air fuel may start to go up in price as well, or lose some of it's tax-free status (or is it actually subsidised?). The engines are supposed to be more efficient as well as the reduced weight.

I would honestly love to know if a wooden-framed plane that carried similar passenger numbers to commercial planes was possible. The answer's probably that the airframe would be huge due to wood's lower strength, but you never know (until someone proves you wrong).

John Knight · Post by **John Knight** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:46 am

Transrapid commercial maglev is the way forwards 500kmph and about 20% of the carbon output for a plane. if did to london from here including stops in birmingham journey time would be 50 minutes.

John Knight · Post by **John Knight** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:48 am

http://www.transrapid.de/cgi-tdb/en/bas ... 9c4694990e

BarcelonAl · Post by **BarcelonAl** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:03 pm

It's a pity they didn't test their website as well as their electromagnetic mono-rail / train thingy...it's awful in Firefox

Post by **Mike** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:15 pm

That sounds like professional disdain there!

mr_e · Post by **mr_e** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:45 pm

John Knight wrote:Transrapid commercial maglev is the way forwards 500kmph and about 20% of the carbon output for a plane.

Is having to build a shed-load of new track included in this calculation? That's going to consume a lot of energy before the trains have even started moving, and also ongoing maintenance of the track (we really don't have a great record in the UK for that, do we?). Still, it looks like quite an attractive option, especially if the journey times can compete with internal flights.

Post by **Mike** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:09 pm

We do need to invest in the future of rail travel. It is not just about the long haul stuff but the main hoppers. JK is right we do need that as much as the flights, lets bring back the romantic eara of train travel where is was cool to get a long comfortable train ride with dinner in the carriage etc. :D

John Knight · Post by **John Knight** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:41 am

The biggest carbon advantage is that maglev trains run on electricity. In theory they could therfore be run using renewable energy wind turbines solar tidal etc etc. Unless someone has invented an electric plane the will forever be tied to carbon fuels. Even if you replace fossil fuels with biofuels the vast swathes of arable land that would have to be turned over to its production would in turn force up food prices.