By 2050, airlines are expected to carry about 10 billion passengers on flights
Globally, just 1% of the population generate half of all emissions from the aviation sector.
But can the aviation industry ever be sustainable?
For more news, analysis and features visit: www.bbc.com/news
Video made in partnership with The Royal Society and @bbcideas.
#Emissions #Planes #BBCNews
source
41 Comments
These hydrogen planes should be tested in China first.
We have plenty of kerosene anyway.
glideplanes wit a line to sea anchor on surface with adustable resistance so plane can stay up and lift up …plane moving backvards nose into wind, strong winds better.
The video dismisses electric propulsion without much elaboration. In fact, battery eVTOLs might have some helpful use cases, at least for short distances. And fuel cells are more energy dense than batteries, so electric planes with fuel cells are anear-term available technology that could replace a significant percentage of short haul and regional feeder flights. In principle, some existing planes could be retrofitted with fuel cells, so decarbonization of those planes could go faster than fleet replacement.
OF COURSE IT IS They only burn Hydrogen after take off and landing..
BBC gets shown what a hypocrite network it is. Hypocrites are the least credible and are not anyone should be listening to.
https://youtu.be/IbWVcyh-2gk?si=Rud6XxmNLPwYyM7x
Have a Big Heart. It was a gift.
Spoiler alert, No and the unsustainability of aviation is way worse than you think. Small aircraft still burn leaded gas🤦♂️.
However, the industry will make marginal improvements that still keep it unsustainable. Remember don't live near or downwind of airport, that is unless you want cancer, other diseases, you want to ruin your kids life, and enjoy the smell of diesel smell👍.
If we have drones and EV vehicles now why not invent Ev planes as Well??
These people pushing green initiatives are doing so to pad their pockets. Proven over and over again that green energy isnt what they're trying to make it seem like. Look at the ev graveyards in china. Windturbine graveyards and let's not even start on what becomes of the toxic mess solar panels become when damaged and need replaced. Then add in the mining of the earth to get minerals needed for these products and then processing said minerals and producing said products.
I spend 2.500.000 liters last year …. 🙃
"A huge Challenge". No It's not – search Thunderstorm generator. problem solved. stop lying.
We should use big baloons inflated with helium
LMAO! People lacking the IQ of a turnip still buying the carbon scam
2/3 of travel is for leisure
Over half the population of rich countries never fly.
About ninety percent of the world population never fly.
Rich countries will be least affected by global warming and have by far the largest per capita carbon foot print
Tropical countries which will be most affected by global warming. Yet the vast majority of the population of these countries never fly and have small per capita carbon foot prints.
There is no sustainable aviation. Aviation came about with fossil fuels and will disappear with fossil fuels.
If we ever do produce clean hydrogen in large quantities, that hydrogen should be used to de carbonize steel production which uses coal for iron ore reduction. Steel production accounts for 8% of global emissions. Steel is a vital need, leisure travel which concerns a small minority of the world population is not.
As for carbon capture, de carbonizing cement production will require massive carbon capture, as all known methods can only reduce half of cement production CO2 emissions which currently account for 7% of world CO2 emissions. Again, modern civilization can not function without cement production.
6:00 Missing out on seeing the world.
Fuel is JatA1 that’s basically a kerosene which can be produced by sugar and is in many places.
Ironically it’s very common in many places. This sounds more like a lobby for a special product.
The experts also disparage hydrogen which can burn 🔥 in a jet turbine engine.
Lousy producer on this. Portly made and limited thinking. I wonder the sun set on British aviation.
1:44 did he invent winglets? Thought not
DEFUND DA BBC
Maybe if China wasn't burning coal like no tomorrow we might not have such a big problem 😒
of cos if you stop all unproductive flying including those holidays trip.
Airships are the only way round this problem at the moment. Really big ones. It was unfortunate that the Hindenburg disaster put us off this environmentally friendly mode of transport. Heavier than air transport is just a very inefficient way of staying aloft. And it's effect is probably far worse than you think. How can we be sure?
The only time air traffic stopped since the 70's was for three days after 9 11. It's hard to get accurate data (a cover up?) but as far as I can fathom the data shows that once the skies cleared an appreciable effect on global warming within a day was detected (within hours) and the reverse once normal traffic returned. It was only US airspace but it had a trully global effect.
For 50 years we've been constantly pumping co2 into the atmosphere from 10 kms up causing a thick blanket around the Earth which multiplies the effect several orders of magnitude EVERYWHERE as the greenhouse is substantially bigger due to the slow downward drift of co2 to the oceans where it is mostly absorbed.The few places where aircraft don't fly often are over Antarctica and the Himalayas. But it still spreads. And it's being constantly replenished.
Ground based co2 emissions have a far lesser effect on the climate as a whole, as the co2 molecule is relatively heavy and sinks downwards into the oceans. Urban heat islands and surface emissions don't cause a worldwide smothering blanket of co2 10 kms thick. When I drive out of the city into surrounding woodland the change is noticeable. So it was post 9 11.
We don't have accurate measurements at altitude but I am convinced that it is worse than the more localised effect of ground based emissions; co2 is a heavy molecule and so it takes a while to deplete downwards but it happened once. Only once.
Ocean temperatures are rising too partly because of this but also the influence of industry on rivers and coastal areas, like a radiator. Arctic ice is largely gone from the north coast of Russia precisely because most Russian rivers run north dumping all that heat from the heavy inefficient industries warming the water of the Ob, Lena and Yenisei rivers. That doesn't happen in Canada, Alaska and Greenland, but i believe that 50 years of uninterrupted air traffic has contributed far more to global warming.
"No matter how highly mechanised and self-powered, fossil fuels extraction requires a number of people – as if the process is executed by hands using buckets and ropes – by physics.
Today, this number is 8 billion people – working flat out 24/7 – strong.
In any system of energy, Control is what consumes energy the most.
No energy store holds enough energy to extract an amount of energy equal to the total energy it stores.
No system of energy can deliver sum useful energy in excess of the total energy put into constructing it.
This universal truth applies to all systems.
Energy, like time, flows from past to future” (2017).
Fly higher?
I think this 'GO GREEN' shit is just a waste of time when wars are still going on and some still breaking out. What's even the point of putting those efforts with this ongoing arms race which is eventually going to end up as a big war again?
I do enjoy and cherish the enthusiasm and optimism.
It’s a very interesting topic. And applied to aviation, even more so.
How's Minovsky Craft?
stop using coal power stations and stop manufacturing electric vehicles they pollute the most. it’s all about nuclear power and sustainable fuels. this is in the hands of the elite not the common person
Just Say No for the WEF push for Electric Planes…Electric Cruise Ships, Electric Trains and Electric Space Ships…
Fuel alternatives are : Syntetic fuel (recirculated CO2), small molten salt reactor and aluminium-air battery.
Hydrogen is a non starter. Alcohol is a more safe fuel.
The main problem is that politicians , environmentalists and journalist sabotage the green change.
BBC is government-funded climate scam propaganda
Reduce city break holidays….
Flying only accounts for 3% of GHGs. The meat industry and concrete account for 40% collectively… Focus there first.
NO
it's called soaring and sailplanes do it😅
It is unlikely that mass transport via passenger jets will ever be sustainable. At the commuter end of aviation, electrically powered short range small aircraft are already flying. A massive increase in the energy density of batteries is required for much larger electric aircraft to built. That technology development may take many years, maybe decades which is outside the window of opportunity to limit the rise in temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. There is an assumption in this video that combustion based engines used for aviation can be used sustainably. Currently, combustion based aviation engines consume oxygen, fuel and produce a range of pollutants, with Co2 being one of them. Let’s see a more comprehensive explanation of the end to end fuel cycle of proposed “sustainable fuels”. How are all the pollutants managed including Co2?
So there are innovative companies attempting to change aircraft to fly using electric power instead of fuel.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Would be if the world got together and worked on a cleaner, synthetic, easy to mass produce fuel.
Flying isn't part of my life unlike people who preach the eco message
I guess the solution is to stop making airplanes.
BBC News, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CHILDREN FROM THE VIDEOS ABOUT THE BABY-EATING CULT IN LONDON PRIMARY SCHOOLS?
The videos are on my channel.