| BlueSky Business Aviation News | |||||||||||||||||
| . | |||||||||||||||||
Surely by now everyone is familiar at some level with the global environmental problems we are experiencing currently. Yes, I know, there are some who deny that there are any environmental problems at all and would happily fly around in a surplus B-52 if they could, but I class those people with the flat-earthers. The data are there for anyone to see. In my opinion, the real question is what are we human beings going to do about it? Obviously, there are a number of classic strategies. Reduce the use of fuel, minimize the use of high embodied energy materials, eliminate toxic materials entirely, plan for recycling, and design for minimal carbon footprint over the intended lifecycle of the product. There is, of course, moaning and groaning within the aviation industry, some of it perfectly logical if not terribly helpful. We don’t use much fuel in comparison to cars; we don’t generate that much carbon per passenger, really; there is more aluminum in beer cans than in the global fleet, the B-52 brings out the color in my eyes, etc. But that’s not the point, is it? In comparison to ships or train or even commercial airliners, business aircraft are not very big and form a very small part of the overall global transportation network. That seems obvious. But our impact on public perception is disproportionate to our size. Our products, to some extent, are emblematic, iconic, really. To the general public, they represent status, prestige, wealth, and embody the attitudes of those who can afford our products. The business aviation industry, for better or worse, design, build, maintain, and operate a very high profile means of transportation. I think we were all reminded quite sharply of how the general public views our industry when the US Congress chastised several automotive CEOs for flying to Washington DC in business jets (the very same business jets that some of those very same politicians rode on during the previous election cycle, I’m sure). It wasn’t pretty. What to do? Without a doubt there are some who will argue that business aviation as a whole is held in high esteem by most people, and perhaps that is true. I have never seen good data on the subject, so I’m a bit agnostic. What I have seen is that business jets can be used against people in public relations and politics. Unfair? Certainly. So is gravity. Denial buys us nothing; instead, let us recognize it for what it is and think about how we might cope. Besides, we really do use fuel; we really do generate carbon dioxide; we really do use a lot of high embodied-energy materials and toxic substances in our products. So, cleaning up our products is undoubtedly the proper thing to do, and cleaning them up before oppressive regulation hits us is simply a sign of forward thinking and good management. Besides, this is a brilliant opportunity for the OEMs to create an entirely new kind of product that will displace their existing products, leading to long, healthy production runs as most everyone goes green. Cui Bono? But who really benefits from a new, “green” airplane? Is it the OEM? Do we expect airplane manufacturers to gain a whole new image this way? Probably not. I don’t see that happening any more than I see General Motors gaining a whole new image by producing the Chevy Volt. (But the Volt is unquestionably a step in the right direct, a symbol that says the current management of GM understand - at long last - the issue and are making strides in the right direction). The real beneficiary is our customer. By flying a green airplane, whatever that turns out to be, our customers are saying to the general public that they, too, are aware of environmental problems and are taking positive action, not just as a passenger on this kind of airplane, but the wider implication is that someone who pushes for a green airplane is someone who is pushing for a greener company, a greener industry (in whatever industry they work), and a healthier world. Whether literally true or not, this image has value. Small, but valuable Yes, a green airplane is a small improvement over conventional airplanes with only small differences in total carbon footprint--at least initially--but as I noted earlier, the power of our product lies in its disproportionate impact, its symbolism. Let us use that power effectively to benefit ourselves, our customers, and the world in general. Carbon dioxide Engines burn fuel; there is no way around this inconvenient fact. Currently, this fuel is entirely petroleum based and therefore what I label as “paleo-carbon.” That is, the carbon that we are burning in the fuel was sequestered millions of years ago. Clearly, a little bit won’t make much difference one way or the other, but remember, it’s not the objective amount of paleo-carbon we burn that is all-important. The symbolism counts as much or more. We have a number of options here. First, and most obvious, is reducing fuel burn. The next most obvious method is to get off the paleo-carbon cycle and move onto the contemporary carbon cycle using sustainable bio-fuels. Another option that may not be obvious, but has gained quite a bit of support, is carbon off-sets. The idea is that however much carbon we burn and put into the air, we sequester that amount and more through the planting of fast-growing trees and shrubs. TerraPass is one vendor of carbon offsets, and they already support business aviation. Aviation related carbon off-sets are surprisingly inexpensive at less than $50/hour for most bizjets. Interestingly, at least one of those fast-growing trees and shrubs can be used for the production of bio-fuel, the jatophra tree, making this a real win-win. Up to 40% of the seed is an oil that can be easily processed into a high quality diesel fuel. Of course, the remnants of the seed are highly poisonous, so there is still a bit of work to be done here even at the gross industrial level, to say nothing of the ecological complications. Reduced fuel burn Often, our knee-jerk response to demands for reduced fuel burn is that this is a problem for the engine guys alone. I disagree. Existing aircraft have a sweet-spot where they can be flown for minimum fuel burn. It isn’t a lot, but it is something. We can do that right now. In fact, we can publish (and advertise) lowest fuel burn procedures. Surely, someone must already do that. New aircraft can be designed for almost any sweet spot you want. We just have to be smart about what we choose. I know the most obvious opposing argument: the passenger has to sit in the airplane longer! This isn’t an issue for status passengers. They aren’t generally looking for the world’s fastest block time. For actual working executives, if we can provide them with the tools they need to actually work - as we should - then the additional few minutes of block time aren’t really relevant since they are continuing to be productive on board. I don’t see this as a big issue. The more subtle argument against is the reduction in economic productivity. There are ways around that, of course, but the easiest one is to simply raise prices. That’s not the ugly contradiction that it sounds. There are a lot of airplanes on the market currently that were not designed to be as green as possible. By “a lot,” I mean all. Don’t make me paraphrase Rumsfeld. Alternative fuels There has been a lot of work in the area of sustainable bio-fuels. Boeing has made a good bit of noise about their bio-fuel test flights with Japan Airlines and Air New Zealand. I read that they intend to do the same with China Airlines. Oh, and the Dutch have already tested bio-fuels in military helicopters. So, really, we are out of the realm of the theoretical and into the realm of the practical. This can be done. It has been done. What remains is to see who picks the ball up for business aviation in terms of equipment compatibility and even more importantly, expansion of the infrastructure necessary to provide us with a reliable supply. Who will lead? Who will follow? Who will be left behind? Toxic materials Fuel is not the only part of business aviation that creates environmental challenges. There is the perennial issue of toxic materials, like the high chromate sealants and primers that we have to use, else our aluminum turns into a fine white powder, to say nothing of the carcinogens we used to use routinely to clean airplanes and components (my dad died of cancer attributable to those carcinogenic solvents). I’m pleased to note the progress we as an industry have made shifting to less dangerous stuff, though we still have miles and miles to go, make no mistake. High embodied energy materials Nor is fuel the only component in our carbon footprint. Almost all of our energy here in the US is derived from a carbon-based source, and every bit of material in an airplane has an energy price, called the embodied energy content, which can be fairly painlessly converted into units of carbon so we know how much to offset. Like most things in aviation, calculating embodied energy can get quite complicated. For example, there is the (energy) cost of transformation (processing), and the cost transporting those materials, and a pro-rated share of the cost of the system required to transport those processed materials. But that’s a fair analysis, because that’s the total cost, without externalizing those costs onto some other group of people. Worse, in my opinion, is the wide variety of ways of calculating embodied energy. There doesn’t appear to be a standard methodology as yet, probably because it isn’t widely used yet. However, this is a cool thing to know because some very smart things can be done to mitigate the energy content, and therefore the knock on problems with carbon. The cost of aluminum So, sticking with one method and simply comparing the embodied energy of various materials gives us some sense of our cost. I found an Australian list that seems easy to use and the numbers are quite interesting. Aluminum costs more than any other material listed (no titanium, unfortunately, nor any carbon fiber, or fiberglass). In this list, aluminum (and not even aircraft grade aluminum, heat-treated for structural use, just your common, garden variety commercially pure aluminum) costs 170 (MJ/kg). Steel costs 38 (again, not an aircraft steel like 17-7 PH, just your plain mild steel). Synthetic rubber (!) costs 110. Copper costs 100. Know how much plywood costs? 10. Makes me want to go back to wooden aircraft. Wooden aircraft? That’s right, ten; about six percent of what an aluminum airplane costs. That’s huge. That’s a LOT of leverage. Imagine if we replaced an aluminum tailplane with one that is largely wood or wood-based? That is neither impossible nor outlandish. You may recall the de Havilland Mosquito from World War II. Almost entirely made of plywood. Fairchild Aircraft tried to sell something called Duramold (actually, longish history there, but fascinating, the book to read is Eric Shatzberg’s “Wings of Wood, Wings of Metal”) to the USAAF back in the day. It took them two hours to mold a full fuselage and wing from phenolic-impregnated laminations on a steam-heated cast iron die. Certainly, there are other ways we could go. The cellulose fibers that carry the loads in wood could be used as the load carrying fiber in a conventional composite material. You can already buy the fibers as lyocell from Lenzing, which has a plant in Mobile, Alabama. Alternatively, we could go high-tech and find a way to reactivate the lignin (the natural matrix for the cellulose fibers) and lay up the perfect natural structures. And don’t knock the lower strength of the cellulose fibers. Their low density more than makes up for it. The original problem with sheet metal aircraft was buckling (still is, to some extent). Buckling is highly sensitive to thickness. A lower density material allows for thicker sections which are much more resistant to buckling than the equivalent weight of aluminum (and steel is worse than aluminum in this regard). The fundamental point The basic point I want to get across is that we in aviation really can make a difference, even if that difference seems small in comparison to other industries. We all make a difference, one way or the other, in all the things we do. One of the best and most powerful ways of making a difference is by inspiring others to also make a difference. Symbols can be very inspirational, and by making a greener airplane that others can use, we as an industry can do our share and energize others to do theirs. That’s what real leaders do. Terry Drinkard is a Contract Structural Engineer based in Jacksonville, Florida whose interests and desire are being involved in cool developments around airplanes and in the aviation industry. He has held senior positions with Boeing and Gulfstream Aerospace and has years of experience at MROs designing structural repairs. Terry’s areas of specialty are aircraft design, development, manufacturing, maintenance, and modification; lean manufacturing; Six-sigma; worker-directed teams; project management; organization development and start-ups. Terry welcomes your comments, questions or feedback. You may contact him via editor@blueskynews.aero Other articles by Terry Drinkard:
|
