A new disruptive airplane design?

The last time that I wrote about a potential Airline disrupter was back in late March. Interestingly, the source article was written back at this point but I didn’t find it for a few months.

In this case, the change is in design rather than in the fuel (the last article on planes was looking at using biofuels made from algae. I should note, that this is probably possible to power any aircraft, so both changes could team up.

In this case, rather than changing the fuel, the layout of the plane was changed. Rather than 1 relatively thick wing, they replaced it with 3 thin wings distributed along the body of the plane.

By having 3 sets of narrow wings, each part of the plane is supported.

One of the main advantages of this design, is that there is no natural rotating point. Generally the tail of the plan is required to keep the plane flying level (this tail is recognized as one of the most problematic parts of the plane in terms of efficiency).

Why is this design exciting? Well this plane would have a carbon footprint 70-80% lower than current aircraft. This means that it is incredibly cheap to run, and therefore cheaper for passengers to fly on. Also of interest is the fact that this design makes the aeroplane far safer. Due to its higher efficiency it can also fly an incredibly long way – 10,500 miles, far enough to easily fly London to Australia ( this would suggest that perhaps in the future, non stop flights to new Zealand are not too far off). Another advantage, is that due to its low drag coefficient, it would fly at 690 miles per hour (mach 0.9) – more than 100 miles an hour faster than normal passenger jets. In a similar way, London to Johannesburg would be a little over 8 hours.

So this plane would be cheaper to fuel, fly further and faster. It is predicted to be far cheaper to maintain, and to have a life span of twice current planes. It would have a wider body, so take more passengers than normal. It has a high lift coefficient, allowing it to take off from shorter runways, allowing it to access more of the world. Due to the how thing the wings are, they would not be able to store fuel anymore, so this would have to go in the proper body of the plane – current plans would be at the top of the plane over the passengers. As well as having a lifespan of roughly 50 years, it is thought that each plane will take half as long to build.

Whether we see an aircraft like this is anyone’s guess. Moving to one engine at the rear of the plane, probably rules out electric propulsion, though who knows. Of course with wings as slim as this it is unlikely to be able to accommodate dispersed power.

Has the Pandemic forced a new way of working on the BBC natural history unit?

In filming for the BBCs mating game, the film-makers for the BBC were forced to work in a different way to normal.

Given rules that were put in place to stop the epidemics spread, it was impossible in many instances to send film makers on trips all over the world. As a result, they were forced to rely on local wildlife film-makers.

The producers of the series, found that not only did this make it easier to get the footage required, but also meant that it was easier to know timings of when specific parts of the series would be complete.

Over the last couple of decades high definition cameras have become the norm and in recent years, local people around the world have been trained to use them. With the advance of 4G signal in wilder parts of the world, it is now possible to stay in touch with crews even when they are in the field. This also means that the carbon price of the production can fall dramatically.

Could fusion arrive in time?

Fusions is the safe version of nuclear power, indeed it is what happens in the sun. Fision is much easier to get going – this is why it is able to operate in nuclear weapons.

We still aren’t at commercial point, but it suggests more and more clearly that this could power the human race in the future.

Fusion is the promise of limitless green energy in the near future. Cutting our electricity use, as well as making electricity in a greener way shouldnt stop, but it may arrive to help in the future.

Is the UK in danger of setting lofty goals and never trying to meet them?

Over the last few years the UK has set itself some impressive goals. Unfortunately there is little joined up thinking about how to actually try to meet some of those goals in question.

Boris Johnson continues to put up impressive targets. At the Cop conference coming up the UK will be asked how it will deliver – this is now what the government has to focus on.

I would be embarrassed to chair a meeting with Boris Johnsons record on climate, but then it would seem that my capacity for embarrassment is higher than his.

UK one of the most nature depleted countries; is that a surprise for anyone?

The UK is in the lowest 10% of countries in terms of wildlife depletion. It is also last amongst the G7 of developed nations. It is thought that we have about half of our biodiversity left (average world levels in 75%). More alarming, it is thought that long-term 90% is the lowest level biodiversity can reach safely and sustain itself long-term.

It should be noted, that this biodiversity loss in the UK is not a new thing. Indeed, the UK has survived in this state for quite some time.

There is currently a conference going on in Kumning China, which is trying to address this.

Addressing biodiversity loss alongside carbon reduction would be the most sensible. Halting the loss of carbon sinks, is also very good for the wide range of biodiversity that thrive in its ecosystems. Can we move to doing both in tandem?

What should we do when our government makes a big show of new climate commitments which are actually recycled?

The British government is continually making good noises about cutting emissions.

At the beginning of June they announced half a billion pounds for a blue planet fund – but this was merely repurposed money, from the conservative manifesto in 2019. A total of £11.6 billion has been pledged to fight climate change by the British government in this term, which means that this pledge is nothing more than deciding where to spend the money.

Is £11.6 billion spent across a parliamentary term a good amount of money. 

It is certainly a lot of money, however in 2020 the government spend over 900 billion pounds, meaning that this advertisement is roughly 0.2% of our spending each year for the next 5 years. This is not fighting for our lives and that of our children’s future. Indeed if we truly consider environmental change an existential threat to our current way of life if this is chump change.

The fact that new pledges the government make then come out.of this small amount should be an embarrassment. I suspect that it will be highlighted multiple times during the the climate conference being held later this year. I hope other countries point out the absurdity of this position.

We are an island country! We stand to have our country changed dramatically if the amount of sea level rise that is possible actually happens. The idea that we can’t even put 1% of our GDP towards fighting this is a problem and one which future generations would have a right to point to.

How can an average UK household reduce their carbon footprint?

The average UK household has a footprint of around 20 tonnes. Now it is true, that this is well below USA emissions as that is for 4 people – so average emissions of around 5 tonnes per head.

However, with relatively small adjustments, this can be cut dramatically. 12.3% of emissions come from heating, and a further 10.4% comes from electricity.

Furthermore, a significant cut can be made through replacing beef mince with Turkey mince. This can reduce your food carbon footprint by as much as 50%, and given that most mince is eaten in dishes with other foods, it is often unnoticeable

Continue reading “How can an average UK household reduce their carbon footprint?”

Uk has just signed you energy infrastructure with Africa and despite Boris Johnson’s promises where do you think the majority of it went

More than 90% of this 2 billion pounds energy infrastructure deal that the UK has done in Africa over the last week is in oil and gas extraction. Boris Johnson open the summit talking about how we breathe the same air and how the climate emergency means we must stop business as usual as carbon emissions heat the planet.

1.2 billion pounds of this will be spent on oil production in Kenya with the majority of the rest going to Tunisia Morocco and Nigeria fossil fuel projects. Just 8% or 161 million pounds went to to green projects being split between a new solar farm in Kenya and the solar powered irrigation pumps in Uganda.

We are supposed to be hosting un global climate summit in Glasgow this coming November. You would think that the government would therefore be working towards the cleanest deals possible. This is an embarrassment to the UK and I hope that come November that is clear.

Guardian to ban fossil fuel advertising

Given the forward thinking of the Guardian on environmental issues, we would would be reasonable to suppose that they had put a ban on fossil fuel advertising in place a significant time ago.

However they have now put this ban in place. If bans on fossil fuel advertising are replicated in other parts of the economy this could possibly accelerates the end of fossil fuels anyway.

I suppose as the saying goes better late than never ( it’s alarming to say that about a newspaper that is leading the way but these moves should have occurred a decade ago as the science became clear)

See Animals Wild