These new generation hi efficiency, persisent contrail producing jets are gonna pay!!!!!

EU plans to levy an emissions tax on airlines are valid, according to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The decision means all airlines flying to and from the 27 states of the European Union will face a tax on emissions from 1 January.

www.bbc.co.uk...

The wording "European states" is scary enough. I mean, they aren't even acknowledging the independent countries that make up the union anymore, they're all states. No country can have a say... this is what's dangerous about centralization of power. Anyhoos, back on topic. What's next? Athletes and runners hooked up to machines that record your total CO2 output since they are taking in more oxygen and trading it for carbon dioxide? Cattle and livestock... will small time farmers be forced to downsize and eventually be put out of business by corporate macro agri-industries because of introduced legislation of CO2 tax? This is an outrage!!! Billion dollar companies love this because only they can afford to offset their carbon emissions while sucking the little guy dry. They eventually become the government, calling the shots and making life extra burdensome for small business owners.

On Friday, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said America would respond with "appropriate action" if the scheme went ahead, although she did not elaborate on any specific measures.

Is that right Hillary? You're granny panties are in a knot because you weren't invited to the backroom deal divvy party. Once she gets her cut this "world law" will be praised and justified while the cost of traveling abroad increases. This can set the stage for domestic flight CO2 taxes as well.

THIS JUST IN!!!

www.france24.com...

reply to post by MaxJohnson


Talk about a QUANTUM LEAP. You go from legislation to control jet emmissions to having them monitor our Co2 output. Don't know how you managed to land on your feet with that distance but glad you did. And what does any of it have to do with your thread title?

reply to post by MaxJohnson


OP: interesting thread. Commercial traffic is down. Taxing drones and the military would be a better bet. Still...who ultimately pays the tax? Don't believe in taxation without representation. EU versus U.S. & Canada & China & India - new chessboard. Maybe the answer is in the skies. I don't fly anymore...ever. Not since the aluminum particles hit the heavens. And BTB (by the by) FYI, the new jets have never been proven to create more persistent contrails than the old ones. Hope you get some feedback here - I'm in the dark on motive.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Is that right? Thanks for being so wise as to pick up on the "more efficient jet engine persistent contrail theory. Very interesting statement. there is no proven facts between the persistent contrailers explanations and their wild theories.

reply to post by MaxJohnson

Cattle and livestock... will small time farmers be forced to downsize and eventually be put out of business by corporate macro agri-industries because of introduced legislation of CO2 tax?

freeireland.wordpress.com...

Pat O’Toole sets out the facts that a 37% herd reduction and an 84% reduction in suckler cows would be needed to achieve the nonsensical and mad 30% reduction in greenhouse gasses reduction proposed by the Government.

On the back page Pat continues with what the IFA proposes as amendments to the bill. There should be one one amendment – to throw it out for the useless paper that it is. (See the back page of the article by clicking the image)

Already happening!!

reply to post by PuterMan

WOW PUTERMAN, thanks for the heads up! Man and I was just talkin hyperbolic theories. All this is ridiculous! Global warming my ass, I can't remember it being so cold here in southern California.

reply to post by luxordelphi


No, untrue. This has been presented countless times already:

Commercial traffic is down.

The false, skewed and flawed examples used previously, other threads, singled out ONLY selected airport operations, and thus cannot be used to reflect OVERALL air traffic, which is proven to be up year-over-year.

Not since the aluminum particles hit the heavens.

FYI, the new jets have never been proven to create more persistent contrails than the old ones.

again?

Utterly incorrect, and THIS has been proven countless times, with multiple links to studies that have been conducted!! In fact, in a thread you participated in, just last month!

Here is one of the posts, as proof: www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is even a PHOTO from one of the research test studies, showing a modern airliner, with the more fuel-efficient engines making contrails while AT THE SAME ALTITUDE, and in formation flight just to one side, an older jet equipped with the lower-bypass jet engines making NO contrails!!

Here, the image......which is also included in the post linked above:



And, Read this


At least posting facts should be done here.....resorting to lies and spreading misconception is rather disingenuous, and frankly is anathema to what ATS stands for.

reply to post by MaxJohnson


After reading the article, the title of this thread seems a bit misleading. The term "persistent contrail" is not in the article?

It is about CO2 emissions, which actually are down in the more modern high-bypass and more fuel efficient modern airliner engines, compared to decades ago. But you see, an airliner's jet engine cannot be "muffled" nor have a catalytic converter installed, as can be mandated to lower emissions on ground vehicles.

So, this is a blatant money-grab aimed at an industry that now must either spend much money to lobby against ignorant political policy-makers (raising costs to consumers) or possibly be forced to pay higher taxes and fees (and thus having to raise costs to the consumers).

Additional reading, from the early 2000s (and related to USA proposed standards to cover all emissions, that fall in line with ICAO):

www.epa.gov...

Compare to the late 1990s:

www.epa.gov...


And, probably related to the latest BBC article, which may have based itself on aspects of this one(??):

www.economist.com...

reply to post by ProudBird


You again bird? Explain your creepiness, in how you make a special appearance any time the word "persistent contrail" or ahem (do i even dare say it.... chemtrail) appears in posts and threads. What other explanations are you going to pull out of your hat to back up persistent contrail theory? Cooler jet engines=more efficiency? Now I've heard it all. No matter what you say, no matter what you're told, the exhaust is still the same temperature if not hotter from a more thorough combustion. You just can't achieve the thrust these new motors are producing (in excess of 80,000 lbs.) without the heat.

GE seems to think they achieve greater commercial jet engine compression ratio while lowering the emission temperature by as much as 205 ºC with their new GEnx engines. Maybe view the engine overview video instead.

Originally posted by Illustronic
GE seems to think they achieve greater commercial jet engine compression ratio while lowering the emission temperature by as much as 205 ºC with their new GEnx engines. Maybe view the engine overview video instead.

Oh, you mean the "leaner gas to air ratio" for combustion? That increases exhaust temperature. GEnx hasn't proved itself yet.

reply to post by MaxJohnson


I am curious as to how the leaner fuel-to-air mixture increases exhaust temperature...care to elucidate? Thank you.

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by MaxJohnson

 

I am curious as to how the leaner fuel-to-air mixture increases exhaust temperature...care to elucidate? Thank you.

Like any internal combustion engine, the leaner you make the fuel the hotter the burn, like a cutting torch.

reply to post by MaxJohnson


Your explanation would extremely appropriate if we were discussing INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES; however, we are not:

Imagine a retrofit situation where a new low bypass ratio, mixed exhaust, turbofan is replacing an old turbojet, in a particular military application. Say the new engine is to have the same airflow and net thrust (i.e. same specific thrust) as the one it is replacing. A bypass flow can only be introduced if the turbine inlet temperature is allowed to increase, to compensate for a correspondingly smaller core flow. Improvements in turbine cooling/material technology would facilitate the use of a higher turbine inlet temperature, despite increases in cooling air temperature, resulting from a probable increase in overall pressure ratio.

Efficiently done, the resulting turbofan would probably operate at a higher nozzle pressure ratio than the turbojet, but with a lower exhaust temperature to retain net thrust. Since the temperature rise across the whole engine (intake to nozzle) would be lower, the (dry power) fuel flow would also be reduced, resulting in a better specific fuel consumption (SFC).

en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see, we are talking about turbofan engines, something that is an entirely different animal altogether...

reply to post by MaxJohnson

Oh, you mean the "leaner gas to air ratio" for combustion? That increases exhaust temperature.

Yes as noted.....for a piston engine, where the air intake is more limited by the physical design of the intake systems.

NOT that way in a jet turbine engine. They are all primarily the same in this regard.....ADD fuel, and it gets hotter. Simply. You can't "lean" a turbine engine. When you want more thrust, you add fuel....just like a piston engine...and exhaust gets hotter too. BUT, so do the internal combustion temperatures. The, jet engine will gulp in more and more air, as it's needed, when the fuel flow is increased.

Now, the technologies in newer and newer high bypass engines, to increase fuel efficiency, are designed to allow the increase in power from the air and fuel combination, but to provide better internal cooling.....so that the heat is more concentrated inside, and more efficient combustion is provided where it's needed, and not expelled as much as wasted heat energy into the exhaust.

And, THAT ladies and gentlemen, is that in a nutshell.

GEnx hasn't proved itself yet.

???

The GEnx is intended to replace the CF6 in GE's product line.

They are flying now.

It's been selected by Boeing for the 747-8 and the 787 family as the engine option, along with the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 series models.

Reinforced durigibles with Ion propulsion may only travel 250mph but they will soon be in the skies over the world.

They don't pollute.


Why are we still burning jetfuel in the atmosphere and destroying our oxygen that took hundreds of millions of years to create? Are we REALLY an intelligent life form?????

reply to post by Pervius


How soon? have a reference?

reply to post by Pervius


HUH???

Why are we still burning jetfuel in the atmosphere and destroying our oxygen that took hundreds of millions of years to create?

Do you own and drive an automobile? Know anyone who does? Have ANY idea how many of those things exist on this planet??

And, you talk about "burning jetfuel in the atmosphere"?

Oh, and that "oxygen that took hundreds of millions of years to create"? Have a source for that?

(OH, nvm.....just going back to third-grade science in biology, and Photosynthesis For Kids is a good place to start).

BTW.....where does the emission of CO2 "destroy" oxygen?

Gee, golly whiz.....plants actually "eat it up"!!

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by MaxJohnson

 

Oh, you mean the "leaner gas to air ratio" for combustion? That increases exhaust temperature.

Yes as noted.....for a piston engine, where the air intake is more limited by the physical design of the intake systems.

NOT that way in a jet turbine engine. They are all primarily the same in this regard.....ADD fuel, and it gets hotter. Simply. You can't "lean" a turbine engine. When you want more thrust, you add fuel....just like a piston engine...and exhaust gets hotter too. BUT, so do the internal combustion temperatures. The, jet engine will gulp in more and more air, as it's needed, when the fuel flow is increased.

Now, the technologies in newer and newer high bypass engines, to increase fuel efficiency, are designed to allow the increase in power from the air and fuel combination, but to provide better internal cooling.....so that the heat is more concentrated inside, and more efficient combustion is provided where it's needed, and not expelled as much as wasted heat energy into the exhaust.

And, THAT ladies and gentlemen, is that in a nutshell.

GEnx hasn't proved itself yet.

???

The GEnx is intended to replace the CF6 in GE's product line.

They are flying now.

It's been selected by Boeing for the 747-8 and the 787 family as the engine option, along with the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 series models.

Look Bird, the temp in both engines are coming out in excess of 700 degrees. I don't think 200 degrees less is going to make a difference in whether persistent contrails form.