Back to Squawk list
  • 12

White House takes aim at a fast-growing source of emissions: airplanes

The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday took a key step toward limiting pollution caused by the nation’s fleet of commercial aircraft, part of a broader push in the Obama administration’s waning months to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA issued a scientific assessment known as an “endangerment finding,” which determined that emissions from certain kinds of plane engines contribute to pollution that fuels climate change and creates health risks for Americans. Emissions that… ( さらに...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Ruger9X19 11
Why am I not surprised?

Do these people not understand how efficient these airlines are already running. Fuel economy is one of the few way available to beat your competitors price point, and it is consistently getting better. What are they hoping to accomplish?
That's not the point. It's no different than the auto industry. They have to keep raising the bar to justify their jobs and show there is a problem needing solved. Even if engines burned trash and emitted flowers they would still be clamoring for more efficient engines.
The problem is I haven't seen a current technical breakthrough that will result in greater fuel economy. The engineers are constantly making small tweaks to make things better, but from what I see the only way to meet more stringent efficiency standards is to cram more people onto fewer planes. Maybe I'm missing something.
You mean like more 747s & A380s doing domestic service?
I was thinking more like 200 military style seats on a 737-800
EPA decides to attack 3% of annual US emissions. Efforts well spent.
Roy Hunte 10
Why does Airforce 1 smoke on takeoff, lol.
The oil industry has a target on it's back the same as the nearly defunct coal industry. There are those who want oil done away with. It's a radical agenda that does not care who is hurt or put out of a job and it is based on less than certain science.

I am sure the founding fathers could have never imagined an un-elected body creating policies and rules, with such power, that it has the potential of sending this country backwards.
Liberal Stupidity.. White House has no clue what they are doing - obama is doing everything that he can do to further destroy this country...
Yes, with fewer and fewer days left in his term (and our sentence) I believe he will get more desperate in his efforts. To keep this comment aviation related, I'd bet he will still ride Air Force One home on January 20th.
He should be ridding on "ConAir One"
Being a heavy duty truck dealer I saw first hand the EPA influence. To meet emissions standards the price of the truck increased approx $15k. The complicated system would require that much in mx cost over life cycle also. Fuel mileage went down. Breakdowns went up. Regenerations became necessary (parking and letting system inject diesel fuel to burn out contaminants). So cost went up, efficiency down. Did it reduce pollution? Absolutely. You can judge for yourself the cost vs benefit.
canuck44 8
Drag it out for the next 178 days when the EPA can be reined in by a Trump administration. Maybe they will make Mark Steyn EPA director...that would be delicious.
dee9bee 6
A few days ago,John Kerry flew on a 757 all the way to Vienna (plus a support plane or two, I assume) to deliver a speech on climate change.
canuck44 5
Then the idiot told the world that refrigeration is more dangerous than ISIS flying that same 75 halfway around the world to deliver this pontificate. .
He is a quite out of date on the refrigeration topic, but that doesn’t belong here, lol!
Maybe he could have used the Internet thingee he invented to teleconference instead.
linbb 2
Funny thing about that I met a fellow who he and his partner sold to a large company the ability to use two computers over phone wires. He did that many years back and his name was not Gore............................
Al Gore says he invented the Internet. Lol
The current tenant in the Rainbow House is so concerned about the pollution generated by aircraft, yet he does not hesitate to vacation or take Michelle on a date somewhere using a fleet of them. Perhaps he should just hop on an electric plane. Wait--there are none. Maybe he can use a hybrid limo and be accompanied by a fleet of hybrid Secret Service vehicles. No, there are none of those, either. When he stops smoking cigarettes and/or dope that directly effects him, he might have a little more credibility with me. Nah. Forget that I said that last bit.
There are electric planes, but they are only test aircraft at max 2 seats so far.
Chris B 3
Just following Europe's lead doesn't mean its the right flightpath to take.
Following Europe is like following Jim jones. All that's left is to drink the kool aid.
The EPA was created in 1970 by a Republican, Richard Nixon. These days, most of what is in the media is propaganda about how the EPA gets in the way of business. Few understand that business was destroying our environment before the EPA made them stop. We would have air like Beijing if it weren’t for the EPA.
canuck44 3
Yes it was created under Nixon as was the Clean Water Act when his veto was overridden in 1972. The original intent of the EPA was appropriate however under successive Administrations the agency has been perverted into a legislation free law maker through the use of manipulated data and junk science to promote policy well beyond the original intent. They have ignored the courts and legislators. They have used taxpayer funds to bully individuals and small government bodies. They are due for a thorough re-evaluation of their role in American and those presenting the false data and lying to Congress fired with loss of pension.
Very true... But by the same token.... The liberals and obama in particular has used this as a tool to crush businesses.... Just like a company in the news here in Missouri, the last factory that makes bullets in the United States. Now they will be made only in 3rd world countries... The Regulations are killing us. I know they are needed, and the EPA is needed, but they are being used to excess and now they are doing so much that they are destructive in a much worse way to our country.
There is always good and bad actors in anything you do. We got the EPA because of the bad actors in commerce, i.e. Times Beach, Love Canal, ect. As others have said, we don't need over-reaction. For example, there is no need to try and regulate farmers who create dust during harvest. But, that is exactly what the EPA has proposed.

Airlines are already very aware that the less they spend in fuel, the better their bottom line. So you see them purchasing more efficient craft, lessening idle time where possible, and filing intelligent flight plans.
that tractor-dust thing was a fake by a think tank (the same ones that say Love Canal was no biggie)
It was not a fake. The House in 2011 (H.R.1633) ensured that the EPA could not issue any new rule that regulates "nuisance dust" , after which the EPA backed off it's plans. It (the EPA) still has dust from farming and other sources in it's regulatory sights.

[This poster has been suspended.]

Sorry I have to disagree as pure jets are more efficient, there are no thermal and mechanical losses through a complex gearbox or free turbine drive shaft system. Also the much higher service ceilings of the jet allow for greatly reduced air resistance and the decrease in ambient temperature at provide a significant boost to thrust.

If we went back to turbo props we would have service ceilings around 25000ft. severely congesting already crowded airspace, and loose over 200mph necessitating even more aircraft in the air at the same time (also more aircraft at already overcrowded airports). The end result for airlines would be more planes, more maintenance, more crews, more payroll, and very probably increased overall fuel usage. Also, you have to admit even with synchrophasers the propeller noise in the cabin can be very uncomfortable.

As for more efficient cars, I guess that depends on your idea of efficiency. If you measure as MPG yes there has been modest increases, mostly due to overall reduction in total car weight allowing smaller engines. Aircraft already incorporate the lightest design they can there is no easily available way to make the structure lighter, so the only way to show a decrease in MPG is to count MPG per seat and increase the number of seats per flight.

That is the way I see it anyway. I agree there is no real solution.
True that weight is a factor for cars but their big jump in efficiency came with the automatic overdrive transmission and the engine tech to operate at lower rpm at highway speeds. We used to go down the interstate at 3000+rpm in direct drive; now we're at 1800 to 2000 rpm. My old big engine pickups used to get 10 to 12 mpg. Now my bigger, heavier pickups get 17 to 20.
Agreed. Those technologies work by degrading the HP out put of the engine not by making the engine itself more efficient. In aviation when we set cruise power we are already reducing the fuel flow and power to the minimum for a given fligbt condition.
I do not agree with you on that.... Prop planes cannot go nearly as high as they cannot pressurize in the RVSM Airspace. the newer planes are really much more fuel efficient. Sure the C-130 might get better gas mileage than a 777, but look at how many people you can seat and get them there quicker. They are looking at fuel burn per hour, but if you take a plane that can get there much quicker and carry more that is going to off set the Passenger Mile per gallon of which obama has no clue of, and by the amount of vacations that he takes in Air Force one that is of little concern to him as well... Maybe his next trip to Hawaii he should take a C-130 or an Electra...
ADXbear 1
These new engines burn so clean, they actually clean the air of many pollutants, especially in nasty air communities like LA
You got it Ken, great post. 100% agree


アカウントをお持ちではありませんか? 今すぐ登録(無料)!機能やフライトアラート、その他様々な設定をカスタマイズできます!