Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
#1840161
skydriller wrote:And its all very well if you want to get from near the relavent Train station in Paris to the center of Bordeaux or Toulouse or Montpellier etc. But try getting from 30mins north of Paris to 30 mins (atlantic coast) west of Bordeaux Airport....

I don't know the specifics, but a quick google shows Aulnay-sous-Bois (nr CDG) to Biganos (w of Bordeaux) takes no more than 04:30 on a train (admittedly with a couple of changes). I really doubt it would be notably quicker via air. And not being treated like a criminal at an airport is an added bonus.
johnm, Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1840189
CloudHound wrote:I see the initials SAF being used a lot recently.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel which appears to offer a level of improvement in environmental emissions.

Maybe not a long term solution which I think involves hydrogen, electricity and Flubber.


Now that is an interesting topic (and declaring an interest, I'm on one of the sub-committees of the Prime Minister's JetZero Council, which is pursuing this).

SAF is both an excellent idea, and a really bad one, depending upon the way in which you look at it.

The principle being applied (and I'm not a total convert to this) is that we should be able to produce from a multiplicity of sources, drop-in Jet-A1 replacements, that will allow air transport to carry on as previously with minimal change to their operations. That might just work too, and HMG is investing 8-figure sums in developing that capability over the next year or two alone.

My problems with it are several:-

(1) The science is pretty much telling us now that about 2/3rds of air transport's contribution to radiative forcing (the mechanism behind climate change) isn't CO2 it's contrails. Now SAF *may* also reduce that, and statements to that effect are being made, but the evidence to prove those statements is very weak.

(2) Noise, surface pollution, other emissions won't change.

(3) Agriculture is very far from carbon neutral itself.

There's a holy grail, being seriously pursued now, of e-Fuels, which is basically the use of renewable electricity to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere, and reconstitute it as burnable jet fuel. This has actually been done, but at laboratory scales, and costs ~10-20 times per volume of fossil fuels. But, it's a really interesting trajectory.

None of which solves the contrail problem, the real solutions to that come primarily from better meteorology, linked into air traffic management.


I really do like the direction of green hydrogen, then hydrogen burning or fuel cell aircraft. People like ZeroAvia are definitely creating a significant part of the future, if not all of it.


@johnm firstly I'm deeply jealous of your ten acres of trees, secondly I can absolutely see how that might make you carbon negative. My understanding incidentally is that it's not trees themselves that do most of the heavy lifting of carbon capture and storage, it's the build up of soil beneath them, made up of organic matter, and trapped in place by the presence of the trees.

G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer on Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ben K liked this
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1840190
skydriller wrote:
Best thing we as a species could do for the planet :

1. Not do anything to combat C19 or cancer etc. - just let people die.
2.Limit everyone worldwide to ONE child then sterilization.

That should cut the global population significantly and save the planet within 100 years or possibly even earlier... no more problem...

Might be a little inconvenient for a few people though... :wink:

Regards, SD..


You're not wrong, and China had a good go at the second part of that.

But there's a balance isn't there - we want to preserve the human race, and preserve the planet we live on. That takes a delicate balancing act. Part of which will inevitably be inconvenient!

G
skydriller liked this
User avatar
By Paul_Sengupta
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1840236
Colonel Panic wrote:Sadly I don't think it'll happen here. With airlines charging Mickey Mouse prices to fly, & train prices being as daft but in the other direction it rarely makes financial sense. Even if it is a far nicer way to travel.


It's not just in Europe these things happen. One trip in the US, I wanted to get from New York to Washington DC. The single air fare was $50. The single train fare was $150. I took the train as I'd never been on a American train before. :D

I agree with Skydriller, not about the letting people die of diseases bit, but about the one child policy. I said that many years ago to a work colleague and he said it was racist as his "race" (actually a "religion") said they all had to have 4 children. :roll:
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1840254
As an aside, most religious observance, particularly across the 3 great Abrahamic religions, is about public health policies now totally obsolete and in urgent need of update to address the global warming and population issues :D
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1840305
As some will know I commuted weekly Germany - UK for some years and although the flying bit was only just under an hour the door to door travelling time was 6-7 hours on a good day.

When Josh and I were flying RYR that was a well oiled process with hardly any delays and it was as cheap as chips. When I then moved one of my clinics to BHX and could commute even more directly I thought that I would experience this as my arrival in Nirvana. Nothing could be less true. It was a never ending drama of delays and cancellations with BMI and to a lesser extend Eurowings and enormously inflated prices, add to this that car rental prices went from being as cheap as chips to a considerable chunk and the fun bit was soon taken out of it.

My most notable quote during those five years was: 'Those who think that air travel is glamorous, have just not done enough of it'

Since 2018 I only travel once a month, and almost exclusively by just Driving and Chunneling it. The door to door times have increased by about an hour, the costs are lower and the experience a lot more civilised (just ignoring the terrible state of 'service' stations at all locations on the journey on both sides of the Channel.

You can travel at your own pace, take some stuff with you and stop as you please.

I don't miss the air travel and associated awfulness one bit.

If train travel was an option for the journey I would do it in a heartbeat. Done several long train journeys in Europe, it is bliss, clearly helped by the fact that I am a bit of a (train) nerd.
Colonel Panic liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1840317
The thing is that there is no simple answer as to what is easiest or least stress free for any voyage, as it will always be dependant on individual circumstances and preferences.

@Colonel Panic has suggested a 4.5 hr train option from west of bordeaux to north of CDG. I know from personal experience that there are one or two options to do such a trip in one day from the railway station 15 mins drive from my house. But driving 40mins to the airport there are (well, preC19) 4-6 AF options a day as a minimum. With Luggage its 3 - 3.5 hrs door to door. By train much longer, and a complete PITA if you have bags/luggage. By car is worst because you have to cross the Gironde estuary and get through or around Paris. GA is pretty good and depending upon time getting out/ prepping the aeroplane, about the same as commercial if planned the day before...

Regards, SD..
Colonel Panic liked this
#1840321
Geologists have shown the planet goes through ice ages and warming all by itself before the human race got as far as the industrial revolution.

Surely it would still happen even if everyone stayed at home and grew their own food. Mother Nature is in control despite human do-gooders.

Perhaps the eco warriors should do their bit and just not leave their home town or village. :wink:
Although I know of some that quite happily take the family on foreign holidays.

If want to reduce global warming why dont NASA or one of the other space agencies create a big sun visor between the Sun and Earth to regulate the temperature.
With the right UV filters it might avoid some cataracts and skin cancers.

The Venetians had something that could be "up"-cycled.... Venetian blinds... :wink:
.... just need a nice remote control next to the tv remote :lol:
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1840325
The natural cycles thing has been shot down at some point by just about every reputable climate scientist living.

The concept of geoengineering seems to get people very very emotive - the last conference I went to on it we had a picket line with banners outside shouting at us that we should "keep an open mind", to the point that most scientists and engineers just don't want to engage with that question. Which is a shame, as it might be what we actually need to do.

G
kanga liked this
#1840393
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:If train travel was an option for the journey I would do it in a heartbeat. Done several long train journeys in Europe, it is bliss, clearly helped by the fact that I am a bit of a (train) nerd.

Have you looked at Eurostar from Amsterdam or Brussels?