THE VINE APRIL 17, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Today's Vancouver Sun has a provocative editorial wondering whether peak oil and stratospheric fuel prices might just mean the end of commercial flight as we know it. Many airlines are already struggling against rising fuel costs, with some even going belly-up. And if global efforts to curtail greenhouse gases ever started addressing commercial flight, the combination would be near-fatal to an industry whose contributions to manmade climate change are fairly staggering. So what would happen after that?
[Urban studies professor Anthony] Perl believes air travel in the future will be reserved for the rich, many of whom will use "micro jets." Others will pay big bucks to be transported in larger, fuel efficient aircraft that ply high volume, long-range routes.
He foresees a new type of passenger aircraft, designed for fuel efficiency—one that's bat-shaped, resembling a B-52 bomber, with 20-seat rows. ...
Globally, no more than 25 airports will be functional by 2025, Perl predicts, only one of them in the Pacific Northwest.
We're assuming—probably safely—that Richard Branson won't ever invent his hoped-for superjet that can fly without fossil fuels. But it's a difficult world to envision. Here in the United States, sure, a whole bunch of airline flights could become either redundant or less critical if we built ourselves a vast high-speed rail infrastructure. But what about flights overseas? Well, there's always the suggestion made by George Monbiot: Bring back the Zeppelin. Is that our future? No flying cars, no intergalactic travel, just... blimps? A flight from New York to London on an airship would take 43 hours—and that's if there are no high winds to disrupt take-off and landing. Well, as long as they offer wireless Internet and decent reclining seats, maybe it could work... And no, I'm not sure how seriously to take all of this.
--Bradford Plumer
8 comments
Well, that assumes that all commercial air travel is only made possible with fossil fuels. Thus far, that's been true, but there are tentative efforts to design fuel cell or even battery-powered aircraft. Furthermore, there's always the possibility of using synthetic fuels, generated by sucking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (which would require a ton of electrical power, granted, but we have a better idea how to make green electricity than green jet fuel).
High-speed rail is a technology that should be pursued aggressively in the US, if only because it tends to replace inefficient short-range flights. (Most plans for HSR in America and elsewhere include connections at airports, obviating the need for feeder flights on tiny planes.) But I highly doubt that we'll see too many commercial airports closing down, though we may see a move away from the current (and fragile) model of having most flights fly into or out of a "superhub" like Chicago O'Hare or Atlanta.
Incidentally, Bradford, not all airships are blimps. A blimp has a nonrigid structure - that is, held up by tgas pressure alone. The Graf Zeppelin, as in your picture, was a rigid airship, with an aluminum frame. Airships may well provide a niche service in the future - do a Google search for Dynalifter or World SkyCat for a few interesting concepts.
- benjamin81
April 17, 2008 at 5:40pm
This is ridiculous, even IF we failed to come up with any alternative to Jet A1 to fuel planes, we sure as hell will have alternatives to most other uses of oil. Aviation accounts for less than 0.1% of American oil consumption! (www.grinzo.com/.../us_oil_summary_table.html) Even if this figure were 10 or 100 times greater as a share of global oil consumption in 2025, it would still be a small figure. Replace oil for cars and heating and peak oil will never happen; there'll be more oil in the world than we'll ever need.
- Maverick_VII
April 18, 2008 at 3:32am
Maverick - You should probably include the 8.1% of oil that goes to jet fuel in your table as well.
- holmy406
April 18, 2008 at 11:57am
Do the lunatics run the asylum these days? Instead of progressing as a species, are we going back to hucking rocks at buffalo because of some pagan tree-worshippers? We already got rid of the Concorde with no super-sonic replacement in sight. There are no plans for Hypersonic planes in the near future. What are we aiming for? America and humanity has progressed because of God's gift of human intellect and ingenuity. We've always managed to find solutions - from penicilin to genetically modified super-seeds. And now because of some quasi-scientific reports from hucksters about man-made warming, we're willing to throw away trade, commerce, business-travel, pleasure-travel, diplomacy, etc. Wow. Just wow. Mark these words, in 20 years, the greenies will be on to something equally outrageous. Just like the fear of overpopulation in the 80's, the fear of losing the ozone in the 90's, etc. etc. etc.
- jwl2672
April 18, 2008 at 1:25pm
The fear of losing the ozone layer was actually well-founded, jwl2672. The reason you don't hear about it is because we took actions to stop destroying it in the '80s and '90s. It will be a long while, but it's probably going to recover.
I'm sympathetic to your point that we shouldn't be trying to live a more primitive lifestyle for the sake of the environment, although I strongly dispute your characterization of global warming reports as "quasi-scientific." For some good ideas about how we can keep our high standard of living without burning through all of our natural resource, see any lecture by Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute. To a degree, it would seem we can have our cake and eat it too, if we're willing to put a little work into it.
- benjamin81
April 18, 2008 at 3:48pm
If the rest of his scholarship is as as good as his understanding of aircraft, we have nothing to worry about.
The B-52 is the engineering for-runner of the modern passenger jet, as we know the today.
See here (a B-52):
upload.wikimedia.org/.../800px-B-52_flying_over_clouds.jpg
And here (An Airbus 330:
www.mercopress.com/.../RAFA330.jpg
Or compare the specs here:
www.globalaircraft.org/.../b-52_stratofortress.pl
www.globalaircraft.org/.../airbus_a330.pl
- sdemuth
April 20, 2008 at 11:29am
Don't get me wrong; I'd like to conserve energy as much as the next person. In fact, my electric bill in my dinky apartment is roughly $35/month. When I leave in the morning, the only things turned on are my digital clock, refrigerator, and a few LCD clock displays. I walk 30 blocks to work. Take mostly public transportation.
I do believe that we can save on some things - for instance, do we need giant shopping malls to be completely air-conditioned? Or how about Manhattan's office buildings at night? Can't we turn off all the lights at night? Or what about 1 person cars? I almost never drive alone and yet, in every other car I see, it's single drivers, millions of them. Gas prices have been, in a way, the invisible hand that regulates the market. People will drive less now that it costs more.
If only greenies would propose viable solutions like these, not "throw the baby out with the bathwater" solutions.
- jwl2672
April 21, 2008 at 3:13pm
jwl2672:
Hang on a second there. We are not talking about global warming here, we are talking about peak oil- nothing to do with global warming really other than the fact that it's interesting that the world is running out of oil at the same time we should be using less.
Maverick said: "Replace oil for cars and heating and peak oil will never happen; there'll be more oil in the world than we'll ever need."
Actually, we are probably hitting the peak right about now - this is part of the reason we are seeing the price of gas increase. Yes there are alternative sources of energy, but none of them work nearly as well and as cheaply as oil - at least not yet.
- wyllie
April 21, 2008 at 6:14pm