Thanks for a fact based summary of what I long suspected. SAF = Silly Aviation Fantasy. Lifting hundreds of tonnes into the air takes a lot of dense energy X all the humans currently in the air, at any one time (1 M+) = the urge to fly wins and at a cost the masses can afford.
Yes, "Air New Zealand walks back emissions reduction targets after coming to the realisation that physics" and I would add homegrown aviation fuel, are "the ultimate arbiter."
In the meantime, domestic passengers (NAC) will continue to subsidise its loss making, ozone layer depleting overseas arm (TEA). The solution is to go electric or hydrogen which is now sadly now, not an option because our largest hydroelectric generator is committed to the overseas owned massive polluter at Tiwai Point
Hydrogen is unfortunately a fantasy for similar reasons to those laid out in this excellent article. Physics. Entropy. Huge energy costs to manufacture. Low energy density and serious storage and use problems. Embrittlement of metals it comes into contact with. Constant refrigeration energy costs or offgassing if stored and used in liquid form. It appears that small short haul electric aircraft may be viable. Not yet tested in the market, but prototypes are flying.
Hydrogen and battery electric aviation may be viable for turboprop regional flights, but the physics simply doesn't work for intercontinental jets.
If Air New Zealand wants to be a bona fide leader in climate change, it needs to start offering carbon capture as an option rather than the delusional offset option it currently does.
That brings up another important point. It is increasingly clear that carbon capture by land management (e.g., growing pine trees) is not a reliable way to lock carbon away and will not contribute to geological net zero.
Therefore, is it useful to anyone outside PR to call such efforts carbon capture?
I can't really comment on that I haven't spent enough time looking into it. I know there very naïve and hubristic people engaging in geo-engineering projects in various parts of the world. I hope its not happening here but appreciate that my hope could be misplaced.
I was shocked when i identified the culprit, who laid a persistent stripe across the sky, using flight tracker. I have observed that heavy drops preceed extreme weather events.
No chance. This make no sense to anyone with knowledge of the ideal gas laws and thermodynamic extensions given these things often sit around for hours, are linear, often long, and hold together even as they change shape. We see many around here:
Nothing remotely unusual about those photos. Contrails are mainly caused by the pressure wave of the aircraft's passage, not the CO2 and H2O. I'm old enough to remember when most aircraft in the sky over New Zealand were prop-driven. They still made contrails back then.
Thanks, that's all I wanted to know thank you. No response to my request for credible analysis, plus you're wrong about your "noting unusual" statement and your prop. driven statement. Propellers did not cause persistent stable trails caused by air moisture condensation = contrail. So not a credible argument.
Interesting it's on OilPrice.com. Seems the publisher, James Stafford, is a fan of 'renewable' energy. And he studied at UCLA Davis (search for an interview with Leuren Moret*, an environmental scientist and graduate/academic there which she gave to one of her colleagues Prof.? in 2016 if you want to find out more about that place) then medicine.
Thanks for a fact based summary of what I long suspected. SAF = Silly Aviation Fantasy. Lifting hundreds of tonnes into the air takes a lot of dense energy X all the humans currently in the air, at any one time (1 M+) = the urge to fly wins and at a cost the masses can afford.
Yes, "Air New Zealand walks back emissions reduction targets after coming to the realisation that physics" and I would add homegrown aviation fuel, are "the ultimate arbiter."
In the meantime, domestic passengers (NAC) will continue to subsidise its loss making, ozone layer depleting overseas arm (TEA). The solution is to go electric or hydrogen which is now sadly now, not an option because our largest hydroelectric generator is committed to the overseas owned massive polluter at Tiwai Point
Hydrogen is unfortunately a fantasy for similar reasons to those laid out in this excellent article. Physics. Entropy. Huge energy costs to manufacture. Low energy density and serious storage and use problems. Embrittlement of metals it comes into contact with. Constant refrigeration energy costs or offgassing if stored and used in liquid form. It appears that small short haul electric aircraft may be viable. Not yet tested in the market, but prototypes are flying.
Plenty of energy going to waste at Tiwai
Hydrogen and battery electric aviation may be viable for turboprop regional flights, but the physics simply doesn't work for intercontinental jets.
If Air New Zealand wants to be a bona fide leader in climate change, it needs to start offering carbon capture as an option rather than the delusional offset option it currently does.
They are doing carbon capture via pine tree at the moment. I am aware of at least two blocks they have bought over the past few years.
That brings up another important point. It is increasingly clear that carbon capture by land management (e.g., growing pine trees) is not a reliable way to lock carbon away and will not contribute to geological net zero.
Therefore, is it useful to anyone outside PR to call such efforts carbon capture?
The idea that pine trees are an inert carbon sink is naive at best. They are fraught with a variety of problems. It’s a PR exercise at best I agree.
Time NZ dropped out of the long haul competition and focused on Domestic
I have witnessed air nz dropping chemtrails. Many of us have. How does this equate with their corporate statement?
I can't really comment on that I haven't spent enough time looking into it. I know there very naïve and hubristic people engaging in geo-engineering projects in various parts of the world. I hope its not happening here but appreciate that my hope could be misplaced.
I was shocked when i identified the culprit, who laid a persistent stripe across the sky, using flight tracker. I have observed that heavy drops preceed extreme weather events.
That makes sense. Higher humidity in the upper troposphere likely accompanies extreme weather events. Better conditions for strong contrails.
No chance. This make no sense to anyone with knowledge of the ideal gas laws and thermodynamic extensions given these things often sit around for hours, are linear, often long, and hold together even as they change shape. We see many around here:
https://craighutchinson.substack.com/p/sprayed-cust-canterbury
But if you can show me some credible analysis of your position I will stand corrected.
Nothing remotely unusual about those photos. Contrails are mainly caused by the pressure wave of the aircraft's passage, not the CO2 and H2O. I'm old enough to remember when most aircraft in the sky over New Zealand were prop-driven. They still made contrails back then.
Thanks, that's all I wanted to know thank you. No response to my request for credible analysis, plus you're wrong about your "noting unusual" statement and your prop. driven statement. Propellers did not cause persistent stable trails caused by air moisture condensation = contrail. So not a credible argument.
Uh huh... Yeah... I forgot there's no such thing as geoengineering and stratospheric aerosol injection... How silly of me... 🤣
Indeed
Must be lovely weather in your world. https://open.substack.com/pub/tuzarapost/p/president-trumps-chemtrails-task-ac6?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2f9m40
Something more on biofuels you might be interested in
Is Biofuel Land Better Used for Solar?
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Biofuels/Is-Biofuel-Land-Better-Used-for-Solar.html
Feels like hopscotch.
Interesting it's on OilPrice.com. Seems the publisher, James Stafford, is a fan of 'renewable' energy. And he studied at UCLA Davis (search for an interview with Leuren Moret*, an environmental scientist and graduate/academic there which she gave to one of her colleagues Prof.? in 2016 if you want to find out more about that place) then medicine.
https://rocketreach.co/james-stafford-email_362480
* Added: found it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QbI5RPbHWo