Google searches a big CO2 producer

jackofalltrades

quentingargan wrote:

This is all true. The problem is that if Jetropha was to be used as the sole fuel for all aviation it would require 1.4 million square kilometers of land. By comparison it is estmiated that using solar thermal to produce electricity would require just 300,000 Sq Km of land (in the Sahara and similar areas) to produce the worlds total energy needs (eh...., including Google to get back to the original subject).

There are a few technologies that totally depend on reserves of oil for them to be so affordable, and popping down to a holiday home in Turkey for the weekend is one of them. Google searching isn't. Aviation may never cease, but it will become less affordable.

I doubt any fuel that has to be grown on land will ever become commercially viable as an aviation fuel. The best bet is an algae based fuel grown in bioreactors.

Google's Data centres whilst not as dependant on aviation for cheap fuel are still very dependant on fossils fuel for a reliable source of power. Renewables are still a long way away from being able to power their data centres on their own.

BendiBus

quentingargan wrote: »

By comparison it is estmiated that using solar thermal to produce electricity would require just 300,000 Sq Km of land (in the Sahara and similar areas) to produce the worlds total energy needs (eh...., including Google to get back to the original subject).

Which would mean that aviation could carry on using fossil fuel and although it's contribution might now be 90% of carbon emissions, it wouldn't matter as total emissions would be so low.

Everybody wins.

Put another way, those demanding reductions in emissions should be concentrating on those who actually can use alternative, clean fuels. e.g. the IT industry!

air

Exactly, we are squandering scarce fossil fuel resources in applications where there are lots of viable alternatives. Until something with comparable energy to weight ratio & convenience emerges to replace fossil derived jet fuel we should try & spare fossil fuels for aviation etc.

Capt'n Midnight

jackofalltrades wrote:

In fairness to aviation industry they've been breaking their backs to reduce their fuel usage and consequently their CO2 emissions ever since the airplane was invented. The IT industry has only cottoned on to the Green movement in recent years.

Don't the founders of Google own a Boeing 767, two private jets and an ex-military fighter jet.

So the founders of google have less jets than John Travolta ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Star

Energy Star is an international standard for energy efficient consumer products. It was first created as a United States government program in 1992,

There was no direct payback to IT of doing this back in 1992

Airlines were interested in reducing CO2 only because that's a side effect of being more fuel efficient. Fuel can be up to half the takeoff weight of a long haul jet. For cargo aircraft a rough rule of thumb for maxium takeoff weight is 1/3 air frame 1/3 maximum payload 1/3 max fuel. A heavily armed and armoured C130 at max payload has a range of only 70 miles !

Back in 1957 (iirc) the Boeing 707 was launched , it was based on earlier bombers and earlier German research. The 727, 737 and 757 still use the same fuselage sections the overall shape is very similar even though blended wing / lifting body passenger aircraft existed back in the 1920's

Fuel economy has been achieved by computer control, weather forcasting the jet stream, reducing the air turnover since the smoking ban ( gave about 1% but more sick passengers ) , winglets , lighter planes , and mostly by more efficient engines. All are bolt on solutions that could be retro fitted to older planes.

While the soinc cruiser Boing have hyped for the last 20 odd years is faster and probably more fuel efficient , the speed increase is only about the same as buying better slots. The fuel economy , no idea since no one in the airline industry seems that interested in it.

The aviation industry seems like the car industry , until someone starts selling diesel hybrids it's mostly lip service and continuous tweaking rather than real stepwise improvement.

BendiBus

One of the best ways to reduce aviation emissions has nothing to do with aircraft and all to do with air traffic control.

Within Europe at least, aircraft have to follow some daft routes to get from A to B instead of flying direct. The main reason being nonsensical boundaries between national ATC services.

With modern aircraft & ATC systems, and some genuine European-ness from our political leaders (I continue to believe hope will triumph over expectation ) a pan-European ATC system would deliver shorter flights, saving time, money, fuel, CO2 emissions and generally make life a little better.

Like I say, all it takes is for European politicians to stop being parochial for a minute.

Capt'n Midnight

BendiBus wrote:

aircraft have to follow some daft routes to get from A to B instead of flying direct.

planes from Dublin flying to London go via Liverpool instead of Wales

RAF training is the excuse used but the have mountains in scotland / NI too with less traffic