Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

How Aviation Can Come Clean

Advanced technology won't be enough for the industry to meet its own greenhouse-gas targets.

By Kevin Bullis

Thursday, October 01, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Last week the global aviation industry called on the United Nations to establish a single, worldwide policy for reducing aviation greenhouse-gas emissions, in an attempt to avoid a costly network of regional regulations. The industry proposed two primary goals--that by 2020 it should stop increasing its greenhouse emissions, and that by 2050 it should cut its emissions by 50 percent compared to 2005 levels.

Flying wing: The Boeing X-48B, an unmanned prototype with a 6.4-meter wingspan, has a blended-wing design that could one day replace that of today's commercial planes.
Credit: NASA

These goals, while less stringent than the 80 percent reductions proposed for the rest of the world's economy, may nevertheless prove too ambitious, some experts say. Furthermore, an array of potential technologies that could significantly reduce emissions will be difficult to deploy quickly in an industry that is reluctant to take on the cost and risk of radical innovation and that can take decades to replace old airplanes.

Whichever new technologies do get implemented may not be enough to keep up with the industry's growth. Each year the industry reduces fuel consumption by improving efficiency by 1.5 percent to 2 percent. But each year people fly more--the industry is expected to grow by 4 percent to 5 percent--overwhelming fuel savings from efficiency.

Part of the problem is that it takes the industry as long as 20 to 30 years to replace planes. This means that the efficiency improvements of planes introduced in 2010 won't be seen throughout the fleet until 2025 or later. If things continue as they have been in recent years, by 2050 the industry will have to fly "three times as many airplanes with only half as many emissions," says Ian Waitz, a professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT and director of the Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction. "It's a tremendous challenge," he says. The challenge is so great that climate-change policies may force a tradeoff--requirements to cut emissions may increase prices and slow the growth of the industry.

Story continues below

The aviation industry can limit its emissions in three basic ways--making airplanes more efficient, improving logistics to waste less fuel, and replacing fossil fuels with biofuels. But some potential technical improvements are limited because of the engineering requirements of airplanes. For example, it's conceivable that batteries and electric motors could one day replace internal combustion engines in cars. But batteries don't store enough energy to transport a commercial airliner across the Pacific.

With these limitations in mind, by 2020, new technologies could make aircraft about 20 percent to 35 percent more efficient, on average, than planes today. Fuselage coatings and adjustable wings, among other things, could reduce drag. Engines that run hotter and at higher pressures would use less fuel, as would engines that use gears to optimize the speeds of different parts of a turbine, and open-rotor designs that resemble and have some of the efficiency advantages of turboprops.

Comments

  • How Aviation Can Come Clean? Hum. Let Me Count the Ways

    Right up my alley, thank you. There is only one way that the aviation industry can come squeaky-clean (no emission whatsoever) and that is to abandon the erroneous paradigms and primitive chemistry-based propulsion technologies of the baby boomer century and forge a bold new future. How can it do that? What else is there besides the same old stuff? Well, there is the realization that we are literally swimming in energy, lots and lots of clean energy. A recent reevaluation of our understanding of the causality of motion leads to the inescapable conclusion that we are immersed in an immense lattice of energetic particles. This huge energy field can be tapped into for both super fast propulsion and energy production. Soon, we’ll have vehicles that can travel almost anywhere at enormous speeds and negotiate right angle turns without slowing down and without incurring any damage due to inertial effects. Floating cities, earth to Mars in hours, New York to Beijing in minutes… That is the future of energy and travel.

    My advice to aviation is this. Soon, there will be very little distinction between ground, air and space transportation. It will all be based on the same advanced technology. You would do well to carefully examine the writing on the wall from all angles and prepare yourselves for radical change ahead.

    You don’t understand motion, even if you think you do:
    http://rebelscience.blogspot.com/2009/09/physics-problem-with-motion-part-i.html
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Mapou
    10/01/2009
    Posts:53
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    • Re: How Aviation Can Come Clean? Hum. Let Me Count the Ways
      Wow!
      You should be a science fiction movie director, with that dazzling imagination of yours.

      Yet, your comment seems to be slightly incongruous. Please forget the fantasy, and live in reality. It must be acknowledged and accepted, rather than diverting from the main issue, that global warming is a real problem, and the aviation industry is a huge contributor to this problem. I think this article adresses some important issues, whilst injforming us about the changes that are hopefully about to take place in the aviation industry. The message is simple yet powerful, if there is a joint effort to improve the energy efficiency of the aviation industry, then the entire world will substantially benefit from it. As far as I am concerned, I believe that the aviation industry must be taken seriously, since I don't see any evidence or signs of your imaginary prediction in the coming future. No flying cities, or high-speed transportation systems.Neither, do I believe that the aviation industry is ever going to disappear. As the article suggests, biofuels is an optimistic prospect for the aviation industry, and the demand is growing 4percent anualy. The aviation industry needs to act today, rather than tomorrow to make a difference in carbon emmisions. Biofuels is an excellent way of transforming before oil peaks and global temperatures rise.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      nishant kuma...
      10/01/2009
      Posts:12
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
    • Re: How Aviation Can Come Clean? Hum. Let Me Count the Ways
      I want some of what he's smokin'!
      Rate this comment: 12345

      ranadrew
      10/01/2009
      Posts:20
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • alternative
    I think the hybrid airships being developed right now could significantly reduce fuel consumption and could be used effectively on many of the shorter routes that aeroplanes fly today.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    samitch26
    10/01/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: alternative
      I agree, i would love to travel this way. But in todays fast paced world everything is about speed. Those airships are slow. It would be great tho to have a slower and hopefully much greener way to travel by air as an alternative.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      samurai.stew...
      10/01/2009
      Posts:4
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Re: alternative - back to the Zeppelins
        Actually, airships could be pretty fast, especially if they are going with a global airstream. And we could mitigate the slower speeds, by greatly increasing the creature comforts on these ships.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        gabrielg01
        10/01/2009
        Posts:381
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
  • direct offsetting........
    Couldn't airline companies and plane manufacturers get involved more in designing and manufacturing wind turbines and then paying for them directly to be installed. No need to fuss around with carbon trading.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    DJTal
    10/01/2009
    Posts:127
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • 10X reduction by flying lower
    The gram-years of jet exhaust at 30,000' is something like 10X that of jet exhaust at 10,000 feet. Yes, flying lower does increase the number of grams of pollution by about 30%, but flying lower greatly decreases the number of years it stays in the atmosphere.
    - - - Learned while working at Boeing
    Rate this comment: 12345

    hlahore
    10/01/2009
    Posts:1
    • Re: 10X reduction by flying lower
      As far as light craft are concerned, Leik Myrabo has some really interesting ideas and research in that area. I suggest anyone interested in truly innovative solutions read his book, Lightcraft.

      Gary 7
      Rate this comment: 12345

      gary7
      10/01/2009
      Posts:14
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • Magnitude of the problem
    Some investigation last year determined that US airlines use 10% of all fuel used for transportation to benefit 1% of the population. Never was able to determine how much more polluting they are but their engines are certainly contributing much more than our highly regulated car engines which emit about 1000 times less pollution than unregulated engines pre 1967.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    fiberman
    10/01/2009
    Posts:69
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • How about drastically reducing flying?
    Rewind about 100+ years to the era when men though only birds could fly.   The dogma has now drastically changed and any human can now board a huge aluminum can and fly at the expense of enormous amounts of jet fuel.  Ask yourself if such expense is justifiable or sustainable? Compare the energetics of traveling by water, land and air and the answer will be that humans can't fly, not without overheating their planet.
    This conclusion is devastating to the airline industry but should we really sacrifice the planet so that they can meet their growth projections? How about branching out into other forms of transportation like bullet-trains. For me, door-to-door going through SFO and LAX end up taking about as long as driving to LA from SF event though the actual flight is only about 1:30 hrs, the overhead of airports and security, etc... makes flying only reasonable for long distance trips. With a proper train network flying can be significantly reduced without compromising consumer "needs".
    Rate this comment: 12345

    rodrigoa
    10/01/2009
    Posts:4
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • Re: How about drastically reducing flying?
      The solution to atmospheric pollution from aircraft is staring us in the face - literally.  It's the computer you're reading this on.

      I have flown on business exactly once in the last decade.  However, I teleconference several times a day.  Not only does this save time and money, it is far more effective in actually getting work done.

      For pleasure travel, take your electric car.  Convert airplanes to something useful - like beer cans.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      bildan
      10/01/2009
      Posts:12
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Re: How about drastically reducing flying?
        Come on. Teleconferencing is not the solution. There is a huge tourist industry out there that depends on air travel. It would be a much bigger industry if air travel was cheap, fast and efficient. And I will not even go into the air cargo industry. We need cheap ways to ship goods and people as fast and as far as possible.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        Mapou
        10/02/2009
        Posts:53
        Avg Rating:
        2/5
        • Re: How about drastically reducing flying?
          When talking about saving the planet, the tourist industry gets a very, very low priority.

          To the engineer, the subject isn't eliminating air travel, just drastically reducing it.  Getting rid of the 80%+ of seats filled by tourists and 'business' travelers on non-essential trips would do that.

          The problem is that aviation just can't be cleaned up.  Even if 100% biofuel was used, it still transports CO2 to the stratosphere where it stays for a very long time.  That's unsustainable.

          Bill D
          Aerospace engineer and commercial pilot
          Rate this comment: 12345

          bildan
          10/02/2009
          Posts:12
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
  • Only partially workable
    Your industry only requires a voice or data, so telecommuting or email works fine.  Mine requires that I or another engineer physically be on location and interact with the issue at hand.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    lasertekk
    10/01/2009
    Posts:70
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • The green religion is stupid, like any other religion.
    Some really bizarre patterns seem to emerge.

    In many places the locals were asked to save the environment and build an economy based on eco-tourism. This is being done in many places in South America, Asia and Africa. But the eco-tourists have to be flown in from really far away. Hence eco-tourism is becoming a big driving force on atmospheric pollution and global warming.

    A lot of eco-tourists pride themselves on having visited great natural wonders, the Amazon rainforest, the Serengeti and the Masai Mara, the rainforests of Papua New Guinea, the Great Barrier Reef, etc. What is the carbon foot print of all these eco-travels?

    I wonder how many eco-nuts actually comprehend this...
    Rate this comment: 12345

    gabrielg01
    10/02/2009
    Posts:381
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Increase Rail
    With such an extremely difficult problem one needs to "think different".  Air traffic reduction is the only possible method to achieve the goals.  Combine new, high speed monorail electric trains with smart grid distribution lines instead of crowding the skies further.  Add fast product distribution to it's use and reduce the overnight delivery air fleets.  The costs could be amortized over a much longer lifespan of a low environmental impact.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    reb
    10/03/2009
    Posts:1
    • Re: Increase Rail
      Absolutely.  Electrified rail is the minimum polluter on a ton mile or passenger miles basis.  Europe has proven this.

      However, fixed right-of-way systems go from A to B and nobody lives at point A or wants to go to point B. 

      So, thinking outside the box...

      Why not expand transport of personal electric vehicles by passenger rail.  Drive to the train station, park your electric car or motorcycle on a special rail car and enjoy the trip from inside the train.  On arrival, drive your own car to your real destination.  That way there's no electric car "range anxiety".
      Rate this comment: 12345

      bildan
      10/03/2009
      Posts:12
      Avg Rating:
      4/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Changing A Cell's Biological Battery
Technology Review September/October 2009

Current Issue

The TR35
Technology Review presents its ninth annual list of leading young innovators.
•  Subscribe
Save 36%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.