|
The Conflict between Aviation Growth and the Environment: An Industry/ Research Perspective Interview with David Pui, U of M Engineering; David Kittleson, U of M Engineering; and Bruce Anderson, NASA Langely. Transportation n Collaborative http://www.talktrans.com Audio/Video/Web Presentation Victoria Pellar-Price talktrans@aol.com Mobility, GDP and CO2 emissions go hand in hand: increases in demand and rate of increase in the economy equal transportation emissions. Intrinsically linked, transportation and energy technologies are the nuts and bolts that drive cost benefit and result in harmful environmental impacts. Local air-quality has a direct impact on the health of humans and the ecosystem. Before 9-11, air-traffic was growing at an estimated 4 to 6% annually, and it was expected that improvements would only offset less than a third of the total emissions growth and global environmental impacts which were expected to increase without any action taken. After 9-11, attention focused on significant reductions in atmospheric changes, which resulted in a decrease in contrails occurring after a slowdown in air traffic. Contrails are often the result of greater engine efficiencies. An increase in contrails can contribute to radiative forcing, which can alter the climate and atmospheric ozone levels, which causes an increase in ultraviolet-B radiation. A result of this forcing, using GDP growth as a determinant for aviation’s contribution, contributes to a mean surface temperature rise. The IPCC estimates aviation’s contribution to global warming at 3.5% and growing. Global accountability is sought by organizations like the ICAO, who is pressing for more stringent regulations on NOx emissions at national airports. Impacts from aviation such as alterations in the chemical composition of the troposphere and stratosphere, upper atmospheric ozone depletion, changes in aerosol and particulate levels, the creation of contrails and changes in existing cirrus cloud cover could have serious global impacts. The EPA proposed PM-2.5 regulations would provide a restriction on aircraft particulate emissions. The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change seeks reduced emissions from industrialized countries from aviation fuels. Extra fuel burned on the ground during delays increases energy intensity and total emissions. Because, technological and operational changes to an aircraft determine its energy intensity, the environmental performance of aircraft has a direct relationship to energy intensity and costs. If future technologies were developed to help eliminate emissions, they would have to be balanced by future revenue. If the price for these new technologies becomes too high the airlines may choose to limit environmental acceptability. Policy decisions regarding emission mitigation correspond directly to cost, technical feasibility and safety concerns. Though options have been proposed such as higher fuel taxes, emission charges, emission limitations, increased emission standards, retrofit mandates, voluntary actions, and demand management, the belief is that these options will be negotiated into policies that will include technological, operational strategies for improvements to system efficiencies and emission reductions. Without government imposed industry laws, which apply to reductions of emissions through accountability, emission charges and or limitations, no real improvement will come from industry unless it’s profitable. On a local level the state legislature has mandated measuring stations for pollutants at specific points in the Metro area and MSP. However this is not a funded mandate, and the equipment is not sophisticated enough to detect particulate matter. The research of Professors Pui and Kittleson has revealed undetected nano-particulate matter where dense traffic is found, both surface and air particulate matter. In order to ensure human and environmental safety these findings indicate more research is necessary in order to study the environmental impacts of aviation operations. Historically no standard for emissions has been prescribed at an acceptable level. And no regulations exist that focus on energy use, reducing fuel consumption and increasing passenger load factors, which would not only increase profitability but also would drive energy intensity lower and decrease pollutants. Rather than just economical setbacks to the airline industry, 9/11 and the recession exposed extremely high fixed costs, lack of competition, a convoluted fare structure, lost business customers due to delays, security gaps, and negative environmental effects. The current model, both nationally and on a local level, which has always prized maximizing revenue over operational efficiency and environmental concerns is broken. The video/audio/web presentation includes industry’s approach to remedying the problems and local researchers‘ analysis, as well as participation in an online discussion on the topic. |
|||