165 Comments on “Pontifications: Biofuels, hydrogen, batteries are nice but far in the future. Solution exists now.”

1. Open rotor is not exclusive to hydrogen, but indeed, it may eventually contribute more to GHG reduction than SAF. SAF is limited by the availability of sustainable biofeed sources: if fully recovered, spent deepfrying oil from all McDonald’s outlets in the world (2 to 3 kt/day) would barely feed 100 aircraft, that’s 0.5% of the present world fleet. You may find at most 50-100 kt/day of sustainable biofuel in the future, but that will not meet 8% of what is needed by the 40 000 aircraft fleet forecasted by Boeing for 2040.
   Open rotor, if fully implemented on all medium range aircraft (circa 50% of GHG emission), may save at least 10%. Unsufficient to meet the IATA target. A medium-short range single aisle hydrogen aircraft, the only LH2 aircraft that can be realistically envisioned, will need the most efficient propeller it can find on the market, and that’s open rotor. Open rotor technical challenge will seem easy compared to the technical and logistical difficulties brought by hydrogen. One single exemple: present worldwide hydrogen liquefaction capacity (circa 100 t/day) would barely feed 10 aircraft. A sizeable fleet of a few thousand LH2 aircraft would require a thousand new hydrogen liquefaction units to be built near most airports. A huge task, as daunting as designing a new cryogenic LH2 aircraft.

   • Mr. Gocek ,
     I believe the more practical solution is to substitute in liquid ammonia for jet-fuel , providing said ammonia is produced with renewable energy .
     Worldwide , there are more than enough coastal-deserts to provide the necessary water and sunlight .
     Shipping the product around the world would be fairly straightforward , as most of the world’s powerplants and larger airports are reasonably close to oceans , rivers , or inland seas .
     Both hydrocarbon-fuels and ammonia have lists of pros and cons , in terms of both safety and functionality . Obviously however , renewables produced NH3 is far and away more ecologically friendly and “green” than any carbon-fuel .
     D.H.
     *.If you want more detail , read my Quora Post #2 titled : Is it possible to collect the Sun’s energy in the Sahara Desert , and transport it to the northern countries ?

     • Ammonia has a low energy density by weight, I think 1/3rd that of jet fuel. It is very suitable for marine propulsion but I have not heard of a serious proposal to use it in aviation.

       • I have not heard of a serious use as fuel for anything. All theory and what is Ammonia made out of?

         Refrigeration efficiency yes, at a cost in safety

         • Ammonia engines are running now. MAN will have a duel fuel marine 2 stroke commercially delivering in 2024:
           https://www.ammoniaenergy.org/articles/man-ammonia-engine-update/#:~:text=The%20MAN%20ammonia%20engine%20The%20MAN%20ammonia%20engine,and%20has%20achieved%2050%2C000%20running%20hours%20on%20methanol.

           Probably a good idea to check with google and you tube first before dismissing it. Lots of info on it. A Billionaire Mining Magnate Twiggy Forrest is building a 50,000 ton per anum wind powered ammonia plant of the Queensland coast. Fertiliser, explosives and now marine propulsion.

         • X15 was powered with liquid ammonia and liquid oxygen.

         • William:

           Engines are a field I keep up with and have not seen that pop up.

           Maybe interesting and they are making it work, but anything I had heard about it was iffy.

           Certainly does not have a major trend going. Its also really nasty stuff to handled and contain.

           Like Ammonia refrigeration, if enough return its possible its worth it but will have to see how it tests out.

         • I copped a whiff of ammonia once, it was intense. I had a feeling you’d be gone if you had more than one breath in a serious leak. Not much time to put a mask on. Nevertheless it looks like it can be handled on a grand scale.

   • I disagree hydrogen Powertrain will be a long waiting. As we have developed a non-degrading electro catalyst, and figured out how electrode works better, the commercial of these advanced technologies in HFC will put all other non-clean fuels powered engines out soon, even before 2050.

     • The problem is that roughly half the solar/wind electrical energy is lost in electrolysis and then half again in the fuel cell. While H2 (whether burned in a turbine or used with a fuel cell) might have a niche role for aircraft it is a non starter for ground transport and probably for electric storage too because of the losses compared to ever improving (both in cost and energy density with the former being most important for stationary storage) batteries. H2, whether compressed or liquified has serious transport and storage issues too. Batteries, of course are a non starter for all but (very) short range aircraft because they have, at the pack level, 60 or 70 times lower energy density by mass than kerosene.

       • Maybe 30 years ago with alkaline electrolysis and followed by liquefaction we could expect 57% efficiency.

         Modern PEM electrolysers or Solid Oxide Electrolysers combined with liquefaction will achieve 80% though initially this might be in the 75% range.

         Note that a hydrogen economy needs very little liquefaction. Months of hydrogen can be stored in a hydrogen pipeline transmission network at around 20-50 bar. Toyota’s Mirai stores hydrogen at 700 bar 10000psi. The efficiency of electrolysis and compression to that level is 80%. This will also be used by aircraft.

         Solid Oxide Electrolysers might be more than 100% efficient from an electrical point of view if they use waste heat to split water. Then there is also thermochemical water splitting and photochemical.

         Alkaline electroliers have a long history and would be 55% to 70% efficient. Smaller ones for generating a hydrogen supply, say for margarine hydrogenation to avoid shipping bottled hydrogen would be at the lower end.

         They were once operated at a grand scale in the 1920s to 1960s using hydro power in Norway, Canada, Aswan High Dam to generate ammonia for fertiliser and explosives production.

2. I believe a lot of passengers dislike propeller aircraft because the cabins are usually smaller compared to jets. If an open rotor aircraft has a cabin size of an A220, the perception will be different too.

   • small (often to the point of not being able to stand up straight), noisy, no/tiny carry on, bumpy ride (and hence a feeling of being unsafe), a general feeling of being low budget.

     that is why customers don’t like turboprops.

     a mainline single aisle sized aircraft that isn’t any of those things, that is marketed as a major efficiency gain and the latest greatest new tech OpenTurboFan would do fine.

     • Rather than making assumptions based on an individual view, we need research data.

       Unfortunately, this is an area rife with what one person says vs what they really mean can be two different things.

       Oh yes, make me a Station Wagon on the Taurus and I will buy it, then don’t.

       I have yet to understand why Station Wagons don’t sell. They work extremely well – why would you need a cross over? That is my bias and opinion/view.

       But over and over again, they have proven not to sell (Volvo aside)

       So I don’t berate the vehicle Mfgs for not making them. I am sorry they don’t but its the reality in the US. Vans or crossover, take your pick.

   • It will be interesting to see if Embraer does their new turboprop and if it will manage to change the perception of prop planes. Actually distinction between ‘open rotor’ and ‘turboprop’ is pretty fuzzy to me.

     • Yep. Past was noise and vibration issues on Open Rotor so you could hear it (and maybe feel it, non ever went into service)

       There is no basis to conclude people will buy into open rotor akd TP vs jet engines.

       Trying to explain to most people why tech details matter gets a blank stare.

       I don’t blame them, its all about areas of interest and vast majority of people are simply not interested.

       Much like the conjecture on public rejecting the MAX, they are not and have not.

       That was more foolish as there is history that says people fly regardless (pauses aside). If the AHJ says its ok to fly, they do.

       Comet and DC-10 went onto careers.

3. Still 15-20 years away from a reliable and workable solution and the airline industry has always relied on constant growth. Like most of the aviation industry, you are still burying your head in the sand Scott.
   ATC reform has no technical challenges, is available now and is only being held up by vested interests.
   If governments mean what they say, massive fuel taxes to even up the playing field with other forms of transport are inevitable if nothing is done. Lots of other small measures like not pointlessly flying bottles of whisky about to avoid duty are also immediately available.

   • This is spot on. Leeham News has the head buried – deep – in the sand.
     Why the hell does commercial aviation think they are privileged, relative to everybody else, when it comes to actually doing something painful but effective, regarding climate change?
     Give the human species a break, frequent fliers.
     SAFs and biofuels are a grotesque drop-in farce. And open rotors will not deliver on their 20% promise of lower fuel consumption, relative to current turbofans.
     Everyone looks at the better SFC of slower flying ORs, this is wrong. What matters is overall propulsive efficiency, SFC is a misleading parameter. Slower ORs will have a hard time beating faster turbofans in overall propulsive efficiency.

     • “Why the hell does commercial aviation think they are privileged, relative to everybody else”

       And what, exactly, is “everybody else” doing? You think electric road vehicles are of much use, seeing as most are charged with non-green electricity? Why is marine shipping not being discussed? Who’s doing anything about all those old motorcycles in developing countries?

       Modern aircraft have a fuel consumption of ca. 2L per person per 100km…compare that to figures of 6-15L per 100km for typical ICE cars on the roads today, and 4L per 100km for average motorcycles.

       • – “Modern aircraft have a fuel consumption of ca. 2L per person per 100km…compare that to figures of 6-15L per 100km for typical ICE cars on the roads today, and 4L per 100km for average motorcycles.”

         I wouldn’t call consumption of above 10l typical for ICE cars. Anyway, that’s somewhat comparing apples to oranges, as the travels made by those vehicles are so different in length. 2l per person per 100km doesn’t help much, when the distance traveled on one trip with the airliner is often thousands of kilonetres. People also seldom make that long trips by cars, so the two aren’t even alternatives to each other. Air travel is an addition to other travel forms, not a replacement or alternative to them (excluding part of regional flying). Cars are also more necessary than airliners. You could probably leave out three quarters of air travel, and that wouldn’t cause any real long term trouble for the people who would be affected. You couldn’t leave out that much of car travel without more serious consequences.

         • I know LOTS of people who commute 2x 75km per day in single-occupancy cars. Taken over an entire year, each of those consumes enough fuel to fly around the world 2.5 times. Why isn’t Greta bitching about that?

         • Ademeion:

           Huge amount of auto travel is not needed as well.

           Trying to sort out the two and what aviation does for a country business wise?

           Aviation is far more an image as it does not contribute nearly as much to the issues as other energy sources.

           What the balance is and what you can do to make any of it work is an Open Rotor Issue.

         • Misstated per above (the edit check sometimes is there and sometimes not)

           Referring to source of emissions by general category.

           Aviation is a public seen exposed vs say Container ships that burn HFO (and now have to shift to clean diesel X number of miles off US coast)

           Power plants are huge emitters, more so coal but none are clean (Nuke has its own set of issue).

           Bit Coin so called mining is another area as would be cars and personal use vs business use.

         • @TW

           -> “Container ships that burn HFO (and now have to shift to clean diesel X number of miles off US coast)”

           I guess you’re seriously outdated!

         • Who made the eco-zealots the religious fun police? They’re very similar with an austere, sanctimonious and bigoted attitude driven to display their moral purity. Once can see them transitioning from complaining of unnecessary trips to unnecessary humans on the planet as their hoped for extinction apocalypse comes to prove them righteous.

           Take the extreme example of an Brit who flies a 3000nmi round trip on a 236 seat EasyJet A321neo from London Gatwick to Tenerife for a two week holiday in the sun to overcome their SADS. Or my favourite big wave surfing in the Azores.

           The Fuel burn will be less than 2Litre/100km (more like 1.7) due to the high seat density so about 85Litres for the whole trip.

           During the two week holiday they are not going to be commuting or going on shopping trips and that will cancel out the fuel burned on the trip. They’re going to be lying in the sun in their hotel or on the beach, hiking or swimming not commuting, not travelling, not shopping.

           It’s no different from a young girl from Baku Azerbaijan who puts on her active wear, straps on a sports bag and flies Wizz Air from Baku to Budapest and then on to Copenhagen or Edinburgh for the music festival in an AirBNB all for 59 Euro air fare. They’re not driving at the destination.

           Its trivial.

         • William:

           You have determined in your mind how someone is going to spend their vacation.

           On mine I spent a lot of time traveling around. Sub flight to diving spot, diving (gas use) using compressed air (gas or electric).

           I don’t dis people takign vacations, but if you have it purely on a not necessary list, it is. And the few odd billion that can’t take a vacation?

           And that trip is all about more than one person takign a vacation, so put in the whole plane load.

           Once you go down that path…………… We get the not necessary police for all sorts of things

       • Are those 2L calculated on full aircraft, with average load or with a single passenger? Is it from an A320neo/A350, or from an A340?
         To be fair, you’d have to compare that number then to the same basis on a car. If you divide the 6-15L by 5-7 passengers (fully loaded), then your fuel consumption looks totally different.
         You could also take the best in class for cars, and convert the power use from a electric car, fully loaded. How does it look then?

         • -The 2L is from a fully loaded aircraft — something that Ryanair managed to achieve consistently (96% average) before the pandemic. Average load factors in aircraft have been steadily increasing in the past years — the industry average had reached ca. 84% before the pandemic.
           -I said “modern aircraft”, so that eliminates the A340.
           -Talking about higher-occupancy cars diverges into the realm of fantasy: the unpalatable fact is that most cars on the roads have only 1-2 occupants, despite all sorts of campaigns to promote ride sharing. The same applies (by definition) to motorcycles.
           – Similarly, talking about “best in class” cars is fantasy, because most cars are nowhere near “best in class”. Look around you on the roads: SUVs, MPVs, pickups, roadsters with 6L engines…and don’t forget all those ancient models still chugging along in developing countries.

           So, you see, the “everyone else” referred to above is an extremely abstract and over-extended concept.

         • Statistically Low Cost carriers often achieve over 85% load factor. Statistically cars seldom have more than 1 occupant. uBer does have an effective system for aggregating riders which is quite useful in peak hour but it does extend travel times. LCC are extremely good at matching demand. The A321XLR will be very useful in ensuring high load factors when it replaces wide bodies during seasonal demand.

         • William:

           Statistically I was one of those single person drivers today.

           Now it was 10 miles empty, then a load of wood back 10 miles (nor for me) and I hauled a lean too roof away (rotted out)

           Single pax to home, where I have more stuff to load, then SP top the dump. Totally empty and single pax home (another 20 miles or so)

           I mean really, what is your point?

           A car is a heck of lot cleaner than a jet engine. So divide that by 150 and ……………. danged if I know.

           Do you invoke the NP? (Necessary Police).

           Its what we do about all of it and balance all of it out that counts, not one vs the other.

   • @Grubbie

     Correct –

     First up : the business/administrative model has to change : from the cartoon Higher Faster Stronger

     To one with more concern for socialised transport

     More regulation, Less no strings attached subsidies, c.f. duty free, no tax fuel, airport and airport access subsidies, free airline bail outs

     The various versions of the Biden infra bills are merely more of the same only very slightly different- concentrate on roads and cars, and involve very small sums of money in relation to the scale of the problem

     • So, tell me how I have my head buried in the sand: A lot of what’s going on right now is greenwashing. SAF can only do a sliver of what’s needed–it’s not a near, mid- or even long-term solution. Batteries have the issues outlined in Bjorn’s series, as does hydrogen. The best near- to mid-term is Open Rotor that can serve routes up to 2,500 miles.

       • You don’t have your head in the sand at all!
         But the green movement likes to scapegoat aviation as being the root of all evil, and deludes itself into thinking that there are easy solutions to emissions reduction; unfortunately, most green activists have no technical knowledge, and are easily brainwashed by hot air spouted by designated “gurus”.
         Start a discussion on procreation reduction — a very effective pro-environment measure — and see how enthusiastically they react.

       • Scott:

         Clearly you are not buried in the sand but that does not make you right (see my post a ways down)

         It understandably human reaction to try to make it work, but a force fit is not going to do that. Those of us who are taken with Aviation are emotionally vested (me too)

         Unfortunately its an extremely complex situation both people wise and technical wise and spread across the planet with people from living in sky scarpers and people living in the dirt.

         Some countries assert they should be allowed to large pollution so they can catch up.

         Reality is there is no simple answer and there in fact may not be an answer at all.

         So, rather than Win Win, Win loose. Lose Win – it may be loose loose and how badly you loose.

         What we don’t get is honesty from the players, Safran/GE have full reason to both take the research money and muddy the waters.

         PW and RR have full reason to want to continue on their GTF path.

         And you have a likely outcome (my view) Safran/GE one day say, wallah – the best combination is an efficient GTF engine.

         I wish I thought Clark was wrong but in this case I don’t think so.

       • Too little too late. Ofcouse open rotor is a good idea if it does what you say it will, but growth alone will more than acount for any gains.
         I’m not exactly clear (just like almost everyone else) what the target is. I am clear that the more extreme targets of the green lobby are unrealistic and can only result in mass starvation. The events of the last 18 months have proved that flying is largely discretionary, much as I miss it.

         • “The events of the last 18 months have proved that flying is largely discretionary”

           They’ve similarly “proved” that the following activities are “discretionary”:
           – Socializing;
           – Sporting events;
           – Shopping in a physical shop;
           – Dining out;
           – Working in an office.

           Heck, when you think about it, everything is “discretionary” — even breathing!

         • Just flying half as much would result in over 1% reduction in co2, plus all of the other effects of pollution at high attitudes.
           This is one of the lowest hanging fruits, a third of the world’s population depends on oil to grow their food.
           Perhaps we should just allow microbes to do their thing

         • @ Grubbie
           Wow…a full 1% reduction…absolutely fantastic!

           Patient: Doctor, did you manage to remove the tumor?
           Doctor: Well, we removed 1% of it.
           Patient: Oh, that’s wonderful news!!

         • People staving or other people not pointlessly travelling to the other side of the world to stay in a fenced off compound?
           So,we won’t do the 50 1% improvements because you will only consider one 50% solution?
           I don’t want this to happen either but if the aviation industry doesn’t get a grip controlling demand is the only logical option.

4. It will work if all countries work together ,hydrogem can work??

   • It won’t work as there is one loudmouth nation that has to “game” such teamwork at all cost. i.e. not a fair participant.

     i.e. the change from Trump to Biden is again telling others what to do while continuing more or less unchanged on their squanderous path.

     • Speaking of which

   • Hydrogen can work, whether the source is renewables or nuclear. Most of the energy humans use can easily be supplanted by hydrogen in addition hydrogen does not have the problem of energy storage as electricity does. The need for electrical storage is one of the biggest costs and limitations.

     For instance hydrogen can smelt iron, calcinate cement, heat hot water, provide process heat, allow domestic and commercial heating, cooking etc. Hydrogen can be burned in a fuel cell at 60% efficiency and the waste heat used to heat a building.

     PEM fuel cells are now so good that they require less platinum than a car catalytic converter.

     FCEV “Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles” allow a truck or car to be recharged rapidly with hydrogen and moreover there is no need to store the energy in batteries for purposes of network stability and peaking demand. A hydrogen network can store months of energy thus storing energy from one season to another rather than a day as batteries might do one day.

     Hydrogen is much more difficult to liquify than natural gas but it can be done but it can be piped a long distance or transported as ammonia.

5. Mr. Gocek ,
   I believe the more practical solution is to substitute in liquid ammonia for jet-fuel , providing said ammonia is produced with renewable energy .
   Worldwide , there are more than enough coastal-deserts to provide the necessary water and sunlight .
   Shipping the product around the world would be fairly straightforward , as most of the world’s powerplants and larger airports are reasonably close to oceans , rivers , or inland seas .
   Both hydrocarbon-fuels and ammonia have lists of pros and cons , in terms of both safety and functionality . Obviously however , renewables produced NH3 is far and away more ecologically friendly and “green” than any carbon-fuel .
   D.H.
   *.If you want more detail , read my Quora Post #2 titled : Is it possible to collect the Sun’s energy in the Sahara Desert , and transport it to the northern countries ?

   • “Is it possible to collect the Sun’s energy in the Sahara Desert , and transport it to the northern countries ?”
     Yes, several ways a/ 1 million volt DC transmission can transport the electricity to Northern Europe with no more than 15% losses (i.e. UK, Germany, Poland etc)
     2/ Conversion of the energy into petrochemicals via PtL and Direct Air Capture. Heat will allow thermochemical water splitting.
     3/Conversion of the enginery in ammonia and its combustion
     4 Transport of liquid hydrogen in ship (challenging)
     5 Hydrogen Pipeline.

     Ethiopia is better than the Sahara and wind of the Australian coast better still.

6. Kicking the can down the road repeatedly
   https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FBMO9QoVUAow6aj?format=jpg&name=large

   • Thnx, clear picture!

     We have to remember IATA is not an independent institution, but paid by the airlines to defend their interest.

     I think it is a good development greenwashing is exposed and people learn to inderstand our environment footprints are growing, not shrinking, it’s not ok and painless solutions are not around the corner.

     • In this case IATA seems to be as radical as ICAO, if not more. ICAO being the UN body.

7. Almost all SAF at the moment is made of waste vegetable oil but many other sources are developing. In 2016 the United States produced nearly 16 billion US gallons of bioethanol that was used as automotive fuel. In 2019 the US consumed 18.3 billion gallons of jet fuel. Ethanol can be chemically converted to Jet fuel 90% thermal efficiently. Hence in 10 years time with most new cars being electric the bioethanol will progressively become available for jet fuel and 16 billion gallons of bioethanol should make 8 billion gallons of Jet fuel which would be 45% of US needs. This is just a thought experiment to show that it is in the realm of the possible. Directly growing oil seed crops or going the biomethane route is also possible.

   Fuelling a Nations Car and Truck fleet was impossible by biofuels. Doing so for aviation is possible.

   Lufthansa is already purchasing 25,000 liters of power to liquids jet fuel next year.

   • Here is the issue. The source of Bioethanol is primarily corn. The issue with this is as of now the amount of energy invested into producing the output product is a net loss. Additionally the overall acreage to produce the current output is not sustainable from a water usage perspective.

     Bioethanol is simply a subsidy scheme for corn farmers based on the current economics. There are possible sources as identified by the SAF initiative but as Scott pointed out the scale targets amount to only a token impact.

     • > Bioethanol is simply a subsidy scheme for corn farmers based on the current economics. There are possible sources as identified by the SAF initiative but as Scott pointed out the scale targets amount to only a token impact. < Agreed..

       Regarding Open Rotors being a solution, I'll again note Jevons' Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

       What I'm seeing WRT "sustainability" seems to be almost entirely theater; after that, perhaps an abrupt
       collapse in in the offing. Robots and CF and More Tech™ are not going to fix it..

     • This is not correct for a long time. As of 2015 the efficiency of bioethanol production in the USA was 2:1 for the least efficient regions and 4:1 for the most efficient. This includes all factors such as soil tillage, fertiliser, transport, distillation etc.
       https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/usda-energy-efficiency-of-corn-ethanol-production-has-improved-significantl

       The main energy input presently is natural gas for distillation. This efficiency of this is likely to be improved by concentrating the alcohol with osmotic membranes. US agencies are now planning to pipe the CO2 from the fermentation process so that it may be captured, sequestered or utilised.

       As new processes are introduced for SAF they will initially have modest efficiencies but will then gain efficiency rapidly as the process improves.
       Sugarbeet is effective in the USA as well and so will be Wheat.

       Bioethanol from corn may not be the best route but we are seeing new gains with maize. The energy gain with sugar cane derived bioethanol in Brazil is 10:1 because the bagasse is burned as fuel.

8. There is no reasonable solution other than drastically reducing air travel. If we want to keep travelling then rail is by far the best option for lowering emissions per pasanger mile.

   • Aviation is 1.8% of the global emission problem. You think that “drastically reducing” that 1.8% is somehow going to make the other 98.2% magically fade into the background?

     • @Bryce

       Your figures and arguments are undoubtedly reasonable

       But airplane travel is not attacked nor condemned on/with such reasonable grounds : air travel is taken as an emblem of what must be changed

       Politics is not necessarily reasonable – and follow the science is a dubious at best slogan, one which has had neither clarity nor success, as recently we’ve all had the hilarious occasion to witness

     • If you study an MBA one day you will come across something called the Pareto effect. Wilfredo Pareto was an Italian economist that noted that in the various revolutions around the world, including the socialist ones, that 20% people always owned 80% of the wealth.

       Its used in management science because 80% of a problem can be solved by an effort on only 20% of the the key issues.

       If you did an Pareto analysis of CO2 emissions you wouldn’t waste any time or money on aviation. The big low hanging fruit is elsewhere.

       For example:
       1 A supply of hydrogen could eliminated the 12% of emissions associated with cement calcination and iron ore smelting. There’s probably another 3% in ammonia/nitrate production and aluminium.
       2 Road transport produces about 27% of emissions and it would be hard to not concede that within 10 years Battery Electric Vehicles and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles could not mostly displace heavy trucks and cars at affordable prices.
       3 Electracy generation is 28% of emissions and decarbonising.

       So by tacking only 3 areas nearly 70% of emissions have already been dealt with. Many of these areas only require a hydrogen supply and as hydrogen pipelines store serval months of hydrogen the storage problem is solved and do not need batteries (as electric vehicles or electricity supply does) .

       Aviation will decarbonise with relative ease after the above key issues are dealt with. The presence of a hydrogen network will allow any concentrated source of CO2 (say from fermentation or biogas or cement) to be captured and covered the electro fuels ie PtL.

       The various sources of SAF is growing from waste oil to biogas from crops, crop waste, agricultural waste and municipal waste, alcohols fermented from crops and wood waste. Biological sources should be substantial and these will be supplemented by electro fuels.

       By the time hydrogen aircraft are considered SAF and electro fuels will have decarbonised well over 50% of fuel and hydrogen probably won’t be worth the effort.

       Of course if every car and aircraft were fully electric there would be insufficient renewable or nuclear to power them anyway right now.

       • The fervent followers of the Swedish Child Goddess are not interested in the Pareto effect — or any form of reasoning or objective argumentation. Their Great One has declared a Holy Crusade against aviation, and they must blindly submit to her will.

   • JC doesn’t say where he lives (his ISP traces to Montreal). Rail is a viable alternative in Europe, Japan, China, et al, but not the USA. The rail system here is sparse, unreliable and the distances are great. The reality is that outside of a few narrow areas, travel is only by car/bus or airplane.

     • The US could also invest its dollars into building up a high-speed railway system, and shift travelers long term from air to rail. Just because it doesn’t exist (yet), doesn’t mean it’s not useful.

       • May I suggest you view this video by VisualPolik on Spain’s high speed rail disaster. High Speed rail if driven by ideology and politics is a financial, economic and environmental disaster. The US has no committed the folly.

         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYWYhPVwJBY

         The United States is building high speed rail in several area on both the east and west coast but is doing so in routes that will be profitable. High speed rail only saves emission on certain high density routes.
         One route is the Brightline West between Los Angeles and Las Vegas (200mph/320kmh and 277 miles/445miles)

         • @William

           This is a pile of very old school liberalisms – everything transport is politics and society, make it money matters only and you wind up with an industry consisting of Boeing

           The US once built an HSR system, long ago, remember? Was that too a folly?

           Was the Interstate highway system profitable? Charlie Wilson, tick -for anyone else? For this it should or should not be built?

           Those few current US HSRs are tiny are long years in the making and very slowpoke compared to the real thing

           Failure has it’s own excuses – no need for these

       • Yes, in theory, the US could invest in and build high speed rail. In reality, the political opposition by some is immense. The costs is in the multi-billions. The environmental impact is not insignificant. It would take decades to accomplish even a modicum of a rail system.

         As I wrote, the quicker solution is the Open Rotor. All else is long-term wishful thinking, although incremental steps be made.

         • @Scott Hamilton

           The political opposition to cars and planes is building

           In fact there is political opposition to anything and everything – the game of politics is to figure out how to overcome this, hopefully in the interests of the many and not of the few

           The failure to address the transport problem will signify the final downfall of a system which, until recently, has shown itself capable of overcoming political problems in favour of practical solutions

         • With those hold backs: how ever did the Interstate Highway Network ever come into existence? 🙂

           Profits today are quite often generated from using up PUBLIC investment decades ago.
           Low taxes -> low (private) investment.

         • @Uwe

           the interstates were built in the post war era and sold as both an economic benefit and a national security need for transporting massive quantities of military gear and people rapidly around the country. fear of the commies was (and is today) a powerful political sledgehammer in the US.

           additionally, sections of highway were initially built to be suitable for use as contingency airfields (although few were ever even used in a practice drill and very few were maintained that way past initial construction)

     • Scott:

       China runs a pretty extensive rail system and its not a small country.

       Rail certainly would work on each US coast where the main population centers are.

       Getting it installed has huge costs monetary wise let alone politically.

       Europe has a much stronger tradition for rail and less for auto and if you take in the whole of the EU, its not small either.

     • @Scott Hamilton

       The US was capable of building a rail system in the 19th C when the country was a great deal sparser than today

       Was ditto capable of building up the interstate for cars in the 20thC

       Large scale train systems are being built to link China Russia Central Asia to Europe, a far greater landmass than the US

       There is nothing to prevent building a HSR USA today except lack of will/competence

       To state that there is no alternative is to abandon reason in favour of indulgence in that which does not work has not worked for some time and to jump into the dustbin

       • …by the likes of Jay Gould – a rank amateur by today’s standards and relative “sweetheart”.

         Gould only bought out Tammany Hall, today’s Robber Barons own the Federal Reserve Bank of America and everything that flows from it…

       • @Gerrard: The 19th Century is hardly comparable to the 21st. The land was vacant, except for those pesky Indians who white eyes didn’t give a poop about, it was cheap, there was no environmental movement to be concerned about the impact of all the gunk that fell off steam engines or the impact to water, wetlands, mountains and tree removal. (China’s government doesn’t care about these things, either.) In the US, abandoned rail lines have been turned over to use as trails and while legally these could be reverted to rail use, the trail-bicycle lobby is strong and would block much of this even if the effort were put in.

         The rails that are used for Amtrak are given to priority to freighter operations, often leading to long delays.

         It takes two days (if you’re lucky) to go from Seattle to Chicago on Amtrak. A compartment is 3x the cost of a plane ticket that gets you there in 4 hours. Amtrak from Washington to Boston takes 7 hours while a plane gets there in 2.

         I agree, a vast train system in the US like that in Europe would be nice. The challenges are immense.

         • @Scott Hamilton

           The 19thC had it’s challenges, as does the 21stC – in the 19th and 20th Cs such challenges were overcome in the US

           In the 21stC as large country as China has built 40K HSR and is expanding rapidly into the rest of Eurasia – and from scratch just about : one may say they have overcome
           the 21st C problems

           But also enviro EU

           US, niet- Amtrak is a disaster and the structure of railroad ownership ditto, not only is freight favoured as if in the 19thC still, operations are being reduced and consolidated

           Only a generation or two ago sophisticated comedies were set on luxurious trains – today the subject only of dystopian actionthrillers

           Look at Biden’s infra bills – there’s no alternative/difference to wretched service in airplanes or wretched service on the interstate: minute sums allocated as if

         • Plus:
           A disadvantage of rail is that it has *fixed* infrastructure between 2 points — unlike a plane, which is literally free as a bird once it leaves the ground. For example, planned hyperloop routing between LA and SF bypasses Fresno, whereas a plane taking off from LA can land in Fresno — or any other location with a suitable runway.

           To be fair, most European rail is used for relatively short domestic trips — only a tiny fraction is used for long-distance travel. Upgrading the entire network to high-speed use would cause an astronomical environmental footprint for the new concrete/steel needed.

         • Scott:

           Those pesky people refer to themselves as Native Americans, no Indians (a White guy that could not do the math)

           A lot of the land for Railroads was given to them as grants to develop the railroad (yes most of it went over seized Native American land)

           But given the drive, we could use emanate domain to make corridors. I don’t believe freight and high speed rail can share track. Ergo, Amtrak has to go slower on the Freight rails.

           Any plane vs rail data has to include time to an airport, how soon you need to be there before the flight and time from the Airport.

           An Airport is infrastructure like a rail corridor so that cost has also got to play into it.

           Probably the main issue is there is no apples to apples comparison as to the various values and energy is hugely subsidized so that cost is hidden.

           Maybe you could turn Bjorn loose to do a spread sheet?

           East and West coast are ideal area for high speed rail. Across the US, not so much.

     • Would it even be more efficient than air travel and what is the crossover point? I’ve driven cross country and would say most people would find slower travel unpalatable compared to air travel unless it’s substantially cheaper which I don’t see how it could be.

     • When discussing new rail systems, please remember:
       – The VAST amount of concrete and steel required to lay down the physical infrastructure. The production of this material has a gigantic environmental footprint. It takes decades before this is amortized.
       – The costs associated with providing this physical infrastructure lead to increased fares — unless there is government subsidy of the infrastructure costs (as in China / Europe).

       I’m a huge fan of rail transport, but construction of *new* rail infrastructure is not without considerable issues.

       • @Bryce

         Yes costs – but do not greens or ccs recognise the advantage of trains?

         Surely infra has to be provided by the state – the costs as the benefits are measured not purely in terms of banknotes but …not to be polemical…in every other way (China claims a cash profit, too)

         Besides HSR network costs are not extraordinary, especially when compared to the costs of building dud fighter planes, their whole 40,000k network comes in much cheaper than the F-35

         But China figured out how to build HSR 4 or 5 times more better more cheaply than other countries had or can, and it’s worth emphasising better, or is it now more like 9 or 10 x? (ditto fighter planes that function by the way)

         They’ve spent 20 years or more talking about building a HSR SFLA and all they’ve done is talk up the cost

         • Well, remember that “certain countries” have an aversion to publicly-funded things — not just infrastructure, but also healthcare and education, for example. China doesn’t have that problem. Neither does most of Europe.

           Rail infrastructure is of huge benefit to a country. My point was that, in the context of the present discussion, one needs to realize that it comes at a heavy environmental price — which doesn’t necessarily have to be a showstopper but which should certainly be carefully considered.

9. Scott Hamilton

   Re your comment:

   “Another major limitation is passenger acceptance. Studies say passengers won’t like propeller airplanes. Maybe the issues need to be recast in surveys. Ask if “new, open rotor technology will reduce fuel consumption and emissions and the impact on global climate change by up to 30%,” and see what they answer might be.”

   Great to see positive thinking, instead of the usual negative attitude that so often tends to accompany suggestions of change in industry.

   • Unfortunately you are confusing I do A and I get B.

     You may well wind up with A regardless of how you brand it. And that assume its in a vacuum without opposing views (anyone think PW and RR are going to roll over?)

     Much like Musk, you may not know until you try it, but at least in Space X case you can run engineer studies and see what the trade offs look like.

     His engineers had a huge data base to work with including some reasonable assumptions on efficiency gains of newer engines. None of it was wishful thinking. It does not mean they could not have been wrong, but it was on a solid base (pretty good for a liquid rocket eh?)

     It would not have worked in the 1950 to 1990 era. Some advances in efficiency and major advances in processing power and yes, you can make return rockets work on paper without leaping into the void assumptions.

     Here the base is both tech (Turbo Prop) and people feelings about Turbo Prop.

     Musk could bet the ranch, it was his ranch. Calhoun would be fired. Boeing is not in the business of cutting edge on people, aircraft tech is hard enough.

     You don’t know how good a visionary is until its put to the test.

     So now, Open Rotor is still a concept and its not ready to go right now with a bit of PR. How long is your PR campaign? 5/10/15 years?

     Concord actually worked, how big was the base of people who could afford the ticket?

     That also means a shift from a novelty market to a sustained business case.

     Right now you have no open rotor, you have no aircraft and you assume you can convince people.

     I don’t see that as positive thinking. Wishful at best.

10. I don’t often agree with Clark, but in this case he is right.

    This is not an attempt to throw Shade at Scott. The system works because it has an organization like Leeham on its level as well as the rest of what makes it go.

    My level has always been on the hands on end. I never wanted to manage anything, I just wanted to work with my hands.

    And I think that is where the Open Rotor goes wrong. On a higher level, it looks appealing.

    On the tech level, not at all.

    If you look at where Safran and GE are going with the open rotor, its towards a turbo prop in all but name. Nothing wrong with that, but just branding it as a wonder of technology is not going to convince people.

    You then have to make HUGE and COSTLY investments based on its negative are offset by its gains.

    The best place for it is on the rear of an aircraft. That means heavier fuselage structure to support it and the mounts (those little wingy things) have to be LONGER to get the rotor away from the fuselage.

    Jets will continue to improve and by the time open rotor is technically possible, you have closed the gap (again)

    As has been noted, nothing Safran and GE are doing is not usable in a jet engine. The gearbox (can you say GTF?) and the core all apply to a jet engine. So you get a lot of money to do research and position yourself for the next jet engine. Nice.

    So lets address passenger view along with a wing mounted Open Rotor. You assume you can overcome passenger dislike of props as well as the technical l mounting, ground clearance and it looks identical to a normal passenger as a turbo prop (I like turbo props, that does not mean people in general will)

    So you put assumption on top of assumption and invest in that assumption and are wrong (like the Titanic assumption, you are sunk)

    Frankly you would be better mandating upgrades of engine every 5 years along the line of car emissions (and yes they did it with diesels)

    We have seen what the situation does for Boeing, we are not going to do anything until we see through the fog of war.

    Airbus is punting with Hydrogen. Its far enough away they can do that, nice, very nice.

    I don’t claim in any way to have the full answers. I think its a mix of SAF and engine upgrades.

    And rather than put your future into a campaign that has a high chance of failing (people love props) put it into. You can probably swap the verbiage around and say it has a negative chance of succeeding.

    Ok, Air Commerce is what keeps our business working. Its a business and community benefit. Yes it has a cost. We are going to do X to minimize it and hopefully zero it out some day. We will throw in X to emissions reductions in other areas.

    But if we want this system to keep working, we have to accept its going to not be net zero for aircraft for 50 years.

    Political parties have won by saying, if we cut taxes then we all will prosper.

    As we know, changing people minds about this sort of thing is a crap shoot. Do you really think any sane business person is going to go for that.?

    The guys in the trenches would tell you it isn’t going to work.

    • “If you look at where Safran and GE are going with the open rotor, its towards a turbo prop in all but name.”

      Someone stuck in the 1950s might see a turboprop.
      Someone living in 2021 sees a turbofan with the duct removed, whose blades have a pronounced scimitar profile and are provided in two consecutive sets, one of which is static.

      A bit like the difference between a paddle steamer and a hydrofoil.

      • Bryce:

        I know better than to think I will get anything more than snappy no tech response from you, but for others who are interested in a balanced view.

        Fifties yes, that just means a lot of wisdom acquired and others younger and less wise buy into the Carnival Barker. The older I got the less you could pull the wool over my eyes. You are not born with wisdom, you acquire it over time.

        And I have survived in a challenging place to live let alone work (at least the hands on dangerous stuff from Fishing to getting run over by aircraft and tugs on a ramp in a snow storm)

        Darn skippy I have been lucky a few times, but I also found the harder you work and acualy think about things, the luckier you get.

        The time the car came out of the ally at 60 mph and crossed in front of me was pure luck. A fraction of a second faster and I would have had said car through my drivers door (no air bags in those days and I am not sure you would survive a hit like that with one without a snapped neck)

        You can dress OR up in nice pretty pink ribbons and fluffy slippers, its not open rotor anymore because OR did not work. GORE? (Geared Open Rotor!)

        As was noted by another poster and myself, the public does not care about the nuances. Ahh, it has pretty shaped blades, hmmm , are those still not exposed blades?

        So yes its a Turbo Prop in anything other than name and equally they are positioning themselves to do a GTF. I don’t blame them, give me free money and I am delighted to spend it (sadly that has never happened)

        I thought OR was an intriguing concept at the time, but I also assess it on a tech basis not wishful thinking.

        The reality is a huge amount of tech has to be whiz bang on not to mention assumption on people. That ignore the mounting setup and the weight penalty and location penalty for that (Embraer concedes it has to be mounted in the rear and that is for a Turbo Prop in the 800 mile segment). And that is a GORE rotor they are proposing.

        So then we get into mandates.

        Mandating emission to people has worked, the US lead the world in that change. I am skeptical you could pull it off now though thankfully its ingrained. Early emission caused a lot of owner grief until they worked it out (it was NOT ready for prime time) . Many have never had the delight of an electronic carburetor. The solution was a tech advance in microprocessor and FI.

        Mandating to business? EU might pull it off, for sure not the US. Non cohesive blocks like Asia, Africa and South America?

        That does not mean you don’t keep doing research, after all, the Horse may learn to sing, but counting on it? No.

        2035. That is not an immediate fix even if net GORE benefits do prevail (and how much better does it have to be to overcome a neat GTF install?

        I don’t expect to see fusion power in my lifetime let alone cold fusion.

11. I’d argue that we move things and our selves around so much
    because transportation was- for a tiny blip of time- relatively
    cheap.

    • Covid has reduced road/commute traffic quite a bit here via Home Office arrangements. ( not universally available though )
      In general having smallish manufacturing centers right around the corner and moving intermediate products shows advantage over mega sites the require streams of commuters fro a wide capture area twice every workday.

      One issue that I see is that changes are less drive by rational investigation of path to improvement but by religious dogma: virginity in pollution in an impossible quantum leap vs. sensible reductions accumulation over time.

      • @Uwe

        You raise an important point so far neglected in this post, jit supply chains (the facile product of fragile logistics) which leads to another point – reversing the mania for outsourcing (”cutting costs” i.e. shifting investment to suppliers)

        Any sensible re organisation of supply chains will involve some sort of process as you mention, re creation/configuration of localised industrial environments – as opposed to jit airfreight/seafreight deliveries from very far off places, cheapskate industrial tourism

        Not only this- but a stop to frantic outsourcing : a comprehensive in sourcing of essential activities – as carmakers found out with semi conductors – Hyundai is building a chip fab – the chip industry has been shifting away from car required products for some time

        Politics is not and can not be ‘rational’ : to accustom consumers to a display of 17 types of strawberry from every part of the globe every day is to pretend they have a choice

        https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/nxp-semiconductors-automakers-just-in-time-shortage-chip/604424/

        https://media.defense.gov/2021/Sep/22/2002859154/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2021-126_REDACTED.PDF

        • The Triffin dilemma/paradox guarantees this phenomenon. If you wish to be the world’s reserve currency (and now money printer) you, as a nation are compelled to offshore your productive industries. It is “baked into” the system.

          • @Fastship

            The examples Uwe gave, as did I, were mentioned as UK and Korea

            Whether reserve currency or not the logistics & supply chain problems were discovered in many countries, in more or less equal measure, arising from the same failures, even if more tears have been spilt in the US

            The links discuss a generalised phenomenon

            The US stumbled into ‘reserve currency’ status, and thought to profit from it, and did – but now.. oops

        • @ Uwe/ @ Gerrard
          Great comments about over-extended supply chains and rampant outsourcing — which have a humongous environmental footprint.

          However, there’s a glimmer of hope: as discussed many times here before, we now have the first signs of a Great Decoupling after various failures manifested themselves in the era of globalization. In particular, sky-high sea container shipping prices are forcing businesses to seek local manufacture/supply, and various trade wars are serving as a wake-up call to initiate/accelerate onshoring.

          • @Bryce

            Yes – but careful…you are skirting into the dreaded unmentionable underwater seas….

            Plus- The trains! from China to EU and indeed all over Eurasia promise more reliable logistics solutions as well as economic integration

        • @Gerrard White

          No, this is categorically not true; It was at Bretton Woods in 1944 that the US insisted upon the US dollar to be the one, world reserve currency. Motivated by the desire to displace the UK they sought to link the money supply to their own gold reserves.

          The price of my UK car lease payment is defined by the US 10 year note as is a Korean’s cup of joe.

          In 1971 the US went bankrupt and substituted the old dollar for a FIAT currency. The rest as they say, is history…

          • @Fastship

            Exactly – the WW11 heady successes provided the stumble, why not winner take all – and the US thought to benefit – the subsequent war mongering and accompanying financialisation provided a brief while of comfort for the working as for the ruling classes, until the bubble popped

            Your cup of coffee may still be dollarised, but not mine, and less and less Russia/Asia/China’s

            Meanwhile the US pays the increasingly heavy price for misguided political/economic policies, provoking further de dollaring

            There is or was nothing pre ordained about such, and many EU as other countries were equally guilty of off shoring production and relying upon unreliably optimised logistics, or a cheap week in some tropical haven as brief relief from grey skies 9 to 5

12. If Airbus got their fingers out and produced the A220-500 and airlines used it for most of their routes instead of the “too much aeroplane” that they are currently using for the vast majority of their routes, it would also result in a significant improvement with no new technology at all.If Airbus can do it with a plane launched 20 years ago on a desperate budget, of course Boeing can do it as well.
    Despite the enormous cost of lifting fuel into the air, fuel has been too cheap for the industry to care enough.

    • You can’t force Airlines to take the smaller aircraft so that is a strange thing to assert. A220-500 is fine, but its not beginning to the end of the issues.

      Fuel prices are low, artificially so in the US. That gets into Policy and Politics and the issues a democracy has in dealing with that kind of problem .

      What I do know is its incredibly complex and there are no simple answers. Anyone that thinks otherwise is deceiving themselves.

      Scott’s premise was that we implement GORe right now.

      The RISE is not going to happen for 15 years. Even if it worked we are a standstill.

      PW can raise the GTF efficiency by around 7% right now. But are we going to force everyone to upgrade those engines?

      So a simple answer even with the tech in had is not going to fly. And it does not solve all the issues (no GORe on a widebody)

      If we are going to bend public views spend the money where there is the largest return not the smallest. I don’t contend its even possible but that is what the match says.

      US EPA started out with the worst polluters, over 50 some years they have worked their way down to off road diesels (construction equipment ) and lawn mowers.

13. Where does the Open Rotor actually get better economics compared to modern jet engines? It seems to me, that the Open Rotor is pretty much a normal jet engine minus the cowling around. Has the weight gain such a big impact? Or is it also coming from the speed reduction?

    Would a jet engine designed for a 10% slower speed have the same or better fuel consumption?

    • By removing the duct, the open rotor effectively achieves (the equivalent of) a higher bypass ratio.

      https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/memagazineselect/article/140/12/S46/472243/Open-Rotor-Engines-Still-an-Open-Question

    • Matth:

      The engine that does the 10% (more) is the GTF (P&W only right now)

      What no one is saying is that the GORe is theoretical, GTF is proven.

      Claimed noise levels are the same but they have not listed those per dba. They can’t, they don’t have an engine and won’t for 15 years.

      And the OR keeps morphing. It was two blade sets and counter rotations. It was faced aft, now forward. Latest iteration is to drop the second blade set, go with one blade set and guide vanes (and gear it so its quieter)

      What they also do not say is for rear mount (per Embraer the only way a prop is going to sell and they are guessing) has to be spaced off the fuselage the distance of the blades and then another foot or so.,

      That means a mini wing on each side that has to carry all the forces involved in engine and the aircraft. Equally it means the fuselage has to be beefier back there to accommodate those forces.

      So, RISE is presenting an engine that does not exist in direct comparison to engines that do.

      The reality is that its not an engine on a test stand and the SFC it delivers.

      Its an engine mounted on an aircraft fully functional that you then assess all the engineering factor of weight factoring into the SFC of all the parts.

      RISE claims 20% better but take on the factors and its 10% (ball park). P&W can get 7% more out of a GTF right now.

      15 years from now using the same exotic material RISE is, better.

      The PW GTF is not maximized on exotic materials (LEAP far more so). PW got a really good gain using fairly conventional approach. That was deliberate as you have to pick and choose how far you go to come out with a reliable engine. Sans some issues, PW has achieved that.

      Now they can take what they have learned on a conservative engine and start to push in good return areas.

      So the right comparison is each type of propulsion on wing, but you need to start with what PW can do right now vs what RISE claims they have.

      And none of that addressed the blade off issue, what is the targeted mounting location or if people will accept it.

      So in theory the GORe is got advantages (and its not been built yet). Its all theory.

      Put it on an airplane and then compare RISE to a GTF.

      RISE shows engines on wings, it does not state how those will be mounted (and those vane thingies have to clear a wing)

      Embraer thinks people won’t accept it on the wing even if you can mount it.

      And then what aircraft mfg is going to lock into one engine type not build yet that you can’t change for an already risky aircraft development.

      Its not going to happen.

      • The PW GTF achieves a bypass ratio of 12:1.
        Unducted turbofans (i.e. open rotors) can achieve a bypass ratio of 30:1.

        People also said years ago that GTFs were “not going to happen”.
        The rest is history.

        • I have to correct Bryce, granted he is not into tech details.

          There were GTF engines well before P&W (both prim and APU)

          Much like Space X, the argument against GTF was a single aspect of the gears in GTF case) . In fact gears have been around forever and used in Turbo Props (have to be) on wing.

          It was not the approach, the question was can a GTF GEAR SYSTEM on the scale of 30,000 lb thrust work?

          Frankly that is as simple as doing the engineering as to the weight and reliability.

          The resulting PW 1000 is a couple hundred pounds LIGHTER than the comparable Leap.

          That gets into all those annoying tech details like fan size, speeds, what you have to do to get efficiency.

          GE and RR were lazy. PW had incentive as they had gotten shut out of Single Aisle and Wide Body engine choices.

          No Open Rotor has ever been built in any production sense.

          Thousands of GTF had been built.

          And there are even less GORe RISE engines built (like NONE) and won’t be for 15 years (if ever)

          That is the problem if you don’t understand the history and what is behind the tech improvements, you assume its all magic and you can make it work by a statement.

          GORe is more viable than Cold Fusion but not by much.

          Why, you don’t have an aircraft to put it on and never will (along with all the other issues listed)

          • If you’re going to delve into the relatively primitive, small-scale GTFs that existed before PW produced a 63 inch engine, then you shouldn’t forget to mention that the An-70 uses D-27 open rotor engines.

            Big things have small beginnings 😉

        • Nevertheless the ducted turbofan still has growth left in it.
          https://aeroreport.de/en/innovation/high-bypass-engines-of-the-future
          An increase in bypass ratio from 12.5:1 to somewhere between 14:1 & 16:1 will increase fuel efficiency of 5% without increases in hot section metallurgy or cycles.

          MTU has been a partner of P&W. One of their demonstrator engines CRISP “Counter Rotating Integrated Shrouded Propfan” achieved 30% improvement by using a contra rotating geared turbofan, heat recuperation and intercooling.

          The point is the ducted turbofan still has much room for improvement.
          5% with a 14:1 BPR, probably 12% with a 20:1 plus around 15% with thermodynamic improvements,

          https://www.mtu.de/e-papers/MTU_ePaper/Marketing/High-tech_made_by_MTU/epaper/ausgabe.pdf
          Intercooled recuperated engine
          In the quest for higher efficiencies advanced
          thermodynamic cycles are also being investigated. Among others, the recuperated propfan
          appears to be a promising concept which helps
          further enhance the thermal efficiency of engines. It is designed to take the last hurdle on
          the route to 30 percent carbon dioxide reduction. This concept, too, bases on the geared
          turbofan with a high-speed low-pressure turbine.
          The reduction gearbox used in the geared turbofan engine decouples the fan from the low-pressure turbine.
          The counter-rotating shrouded propfan has been extensively tested back in the 1980s.
          The efficiency of an engine can be optimized by the
          use of downstream recuperators.
          In addition, it features an intercooler between
          the compressors and a recuperator in the
          exhaust gas stream. Intercooling and recuperating energy from the exhaust gas stream
          markedly increase the engine’s thermal efficiency

14. To discuss transport in terms of efficiency only is to neglect the most part – this applies more especially to climate changers, but pretty much everyone has adopted this language

    Quicker cheaper cleaner more …etc and so on are a small part – the rest is society and politics, what people think they want – the recent ..ahem…health problem has suggested that life (especially travel) may not be so simple as many liked to pretend

    If it’s high density rapid transit life we want, it pays to recognise that other species are much better adapted to such, and may or will take advantage of whatever weaknesses and inefficiencies we make so evident

15. I have just been reading a load of waffle from Bombardier about SAF and how committed they are to sustainability during the launch of the challenger 3500.
    Confirmed, definitely greenwash.

16. Interesting article on (past) emissions, which gives some interesting perspectives.
    Not at all certain that the “allowance left” figures are correct: previous models of climate change failed to make (adequate) allowance for higher-order / knock-on effects, such as methane release from melting permafrost. Remember that these past emissions were made by a much smaller population than the world has today.

    https://www.straitstimes.com/world/us-china-and-russia-the-top-co2-polluters-since-1850-analysis-finds

17. Presumably you imply the speed constraint is related to prop tip-speed?

    In any case, the thesis of your case is moot for the opponents of aviation are not reasonable people on whom syllogistic Aristotelian logic can have any effect. The anti-intellectualism that motivates this ideology (for that is what it is) has its roots in Platonism, an old and long discredited philosophy that has spawned, over the centuries other “-isms” of which we know all too well.

    One of the triumphs of Cultural Marxism is to cause otherwise reasonable people to doubt their own certainties which of course, is its objective; you say “A is A” what a fool you are, it is clearly “B”. 2 x 2 = 4? This is dangerous logic, anti-social rhetoric, racist perhaps. 2 x 2 can = 5 or 7 or whatever we claim it to equal and to persist in contrary arguments identifies you as a subversive, a “denier” one who can be dehumanised, de-platformed and your social “privileges” take away from you. Thus, a spell of bad weather is not that, it is an “emergency” harbinger of the end of the world and faced with such a catastrophe and action may be, is justified. It was ever thus.

    It is not from Platonic love that our airliners course through the skies but from Aristotelian logic. People who asked questions and sought answers made such things happen. Now, no questions must be asked.

    Each of us here knows that carbon based liquid fuels is the only viable energy carrier for airliners. Baring some as yet unknown, Nobel winning break through in physics is it all there is. Clever chemists may devise a scheme to turn nuclear energy into a liquid energy carrier but the opposer’s will not permit the vast fleet of nuclear power plants – one at each major airport necessary.

    We have seen these last 18 months just how easily “consent” may be engineered amongst the global populace, well this is now turned against the airline industry and no amount of clever engineering will placate them – least of all prop-fans. A century of Keynesian economics has brought us to this parlous state. The same people who fly into Davos in their G5’s and Global 7000’s and who, between themselves devise schemes to constrain the populace have their familiar comrades on the street. Let us recognise this for what it is; Global socialism is once again lacing up its jackboots for yet another long march and how many more will it add to its already gruesome tally?

    Identifying your opponent, you may now confront him.

    • Well my head hurts, E=MC2 is hard enough for me.

      How bout them Brewers!

18. Presumably you imply the speed constraint is related to prop tip-speed?

    In any case, the thesis of your case is moot for the opponents of aviation are not reasonable people on whom syllogistic Aristotelian logic can have any effect. The anti-intellectualism that motivates this ideology (for that is what it is) has its roots in Platonism, an old and long discredited philosophy that has spawned, over the centuries other “-isms” of which we know all too well.

    One of the triumphs of Cultural Marxism is to cause otherwise reasonable people to doubt their own certainties which of course, is its objective; you say “A is A” what a fool you are, it is clearly “B”. 2 + 2 = 4? This is dangerous logic, anti-social rhetoric, racist perhaps. 2 + 2 can = 5 or 7 or whatever we claim it to equal and to persist in contrary arguments identifies you as a subversive, a “denier” one who can be dehumanised, de-platformed and your social “privileges” take away from you. Thus, a spell of bad weather is not that, it is an “emergency” harbinger of the end of the world and faced with such a catastrophe and action may be, is justified. It was ever thus.

    It is not from Platonic love that our airliners course through the skies but from Aristotelian logic. People who asked questions and sought answers made such things happen. Now, no questions must be asked.

    Each of us here knows that carbon based liquid fuels is the only viable energy carrier for airliners. Baring some as yet unknown, Nobel winning break through in physics is it all there is. Clever chemists may devise a scheme to turn nuclear energy into a liquid energy carrier but the opposer’s will not permit the vast fleet of nuclear power plants – one at each major airport necessary.

    We have seen these last 18 months just how easily “consent” may be engineered amongst the global populace, well this is now turned against the airline industry and no amount of clever engineering will placate them – least of all prop-fans. A century of Keynesian economics has brought us to this parlous state. The same people who fly into Davos in their G5’s and Global 7000’s and who, between themselves devise schemes to constrain the populace have their familiar comrades on the street. Let us recognise this for what it is; Global socialism is once again lacing up its jackboots for yet another long march and how many more will it add to its already gruesome tally?

    Identifying your opponent, you may now confront him.

    • To turn this into a “socialist” problem you must indoctrinated from a young age and persevered looking through cylinders ever since.

      I think it’s a good thing we’re confronted by the results of our double agenda’s and internal conflicts. Big changes have to be made coming decades. Props, trains, nuclear energy, H2 and the transparency of real bottom line impact of our consumption all might be part of a bigger movement.

      One thing is “freedom” usually doesn’t help big changes, even if it’s clearly to the benefit of all. The less free Chinese created an truly impressive HSR network in little more than a decade.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=belm4kDAHgM They are the undisputed leaders, although w’re way to proud to ever admit they realized in a decade, HSR we’ve been discussing for 4-5 decades. They’re supposed to be ineffective bureaucrats, not us!

      • The basic requirements of a high speed rail network are 1 Two large population centres with high disposable incomes that want to travel and 2 That the population centres are not too far apart. If these conditions don’t exist other transport systems are superior.

        China has a population of 1.45 billion and a population density of 150 people per square kilometre (about 500 per square mile) and 8 cities with populations above 12 million. The conditions for Very Fast Rail exist.

        By the same token Australia with 1/50th the population and a similar land area would be insane to build a network to connect its capital cities. The US falls somewhere in between.

        The whole length of California is being covered with Very Fast Rail with spur lines to Las Vegas. Houston to Dallas will have VFT. The North East of the UZZSA developing rail that will operate around 220kmh as tracks are added or improved to avoid those slowed by rail traffic.

        VFT have serious limits in economics. Perhaps in a decade wearless and maintenance free maglev will be developed to the point they are affordable and will allow an expansion where steel rail was not possible.

        • @William

          As in your previous post on electric copters your mid west size town planner mindset is making assumptions that reality does not confirm

          The China HSR system is/has extending into the sparsely populated western districts and to medium size towns defined as population 500,000

          Your it’s ok only because they got mega cities talk is misplaced, misleading, and misguided

          The first railway systems built in the US covered a lot of then open and unpopulated land – at a time when capital markets as continental wide companies were as undeveloped as rare – yet justly celebrated in the annals of finance commerce and on your tv set – yet now you need billions in every closely situate city in far off special case countries ?

          The SFLA line all of 600/800k you mention is a 15 year old project mired in cost overruns and very far from completion in fact barely begun, of uncertain future with project costs doubling every few years– optimistic completion date given as 2033

          In these same 15 years China has built 40k – and will have built 70,000 kilometers by the time this one California 800 kilometer line is maybe maybe not completed : this is the difference between competence and incompetence

          Aus would be insane perhaps to buy dud subs, but HSR to 500,000 plus pop cities ? It would mean learning how to do so, true, and very stupidly they’ve probably nixed any chance that China will do it for them, so ….

          The LA Vegas line you have mentioned is as dead as a dodosub

          By the way, without entering into the social political economic benefits of transport infra structure, China claims the HSR network is profitable on the regular joepublic buying tickets level

          If Outer Mongolia has functional profitable useful HSR it’s insane for Melbourne ? You must have re defined the word – if they ever come out of l’down they’ll tell you –did’nt they bring in the Chinese in the old days to do that which they were unable to do themselves ?

          • A high speed rail link between Sydney and Melbourne will likely happen one day. My (German born) mother was a strong proponent frustrated at a lack of action. Progress associations in Australia should be called anti progress associations.

            The Very Fast Train Joint Venture’s series of studies (of the 1980s) remain the most expensive investigation of high speed rail performed in Australia with a cost of over $37 million in 2013 dollars, and no proposal has come closer to becoming a reality. It remains the only high-speed rail proposal to have maintained a promise of no net cost to the taxpayers.

            The wiki article seems quite informative:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Fast_Train_Joint_Venture

            I recall that while at Uni at the time a fellow student who worked for the State Rail Authority of NSW said they had run simulations comparing TGV with Transrapid Maglev and that the Maglev won transit times by a large margin due to its acceleration. He did great work on using image processing to detect knife attacks and fights on trains. We had the brains, algorithms just the computing power in 1988 was expensive.

            Subsequent proposals for a VFT all foundered on the fact they were substantially tax payer funded and very expensive. One could have 10 international airports for the same price.

            A lot of stars have to align for rail to happen. I don’t think there are many lessons from the original railways to apply to VFT. The days of steam evolved when there was no tar on roads and no rubber wheels and no internal combustion and no gasoline.

            I’m pretty sure it will happen in the next 5-10 years but I suspect it will need a convincing reduction in operating costs eg Maglev.

            The flying distance Sydney to Melbourne is 600km but a rail track will likely be 720kmh. It really would be nice for it to operate at 400kmh plus and be low maintenance to keep the journey under 2 hours. There are not many big cities in between to generate revenue though the ones there are will benefit.

          • @William

            ‘no net cost to taxpayer’?

            The sentence of doom from the never to be liberal infrastructure bill, the world upside down, if anything is worth buying it’s infra

            The Chinese were offering a lot of BRI to Melbourne before Scotty from Marketing threw a HMV hissy –

            The Chinese seem to be moving towards maglev at speeds of up to 650kph – but already Beijing-Shanghai a lot further than Syd-Mel beats the plane in speed cost comfort green clean did I mention comfort calm hassle beds space food, did I read they have a hundred a day ?

            –maybe a future generation of Aus politicians will be unstupid enough to slip the US noose and so be able to welcome ..

            –not only the up to date infrastructure tech but the brains to design it the cash investment to build it the managers to make you a profit and even in time honoured tradition the workforce to build it – all you have to do is cosy in your seat and vid the world go by, perhaps you’ll even be lucky enough to have Huawei 6G phones to chat upon

            To turn your comparison on it’s head: For the price of a dudsub or two with another bloke’s finger on your button – you can have your two towns HSR’d

        • -> “The basic requirements of a high speed rail network are 1 Two large population centres with high disposable incomes that want to travel and 2 That the population centres are not too far apart. ”

          What’s your definition of “not too far apart”?? 🙄 How is it different from empty talk?

          ” China’s most profitable high-speed rail line, reporting 6.6 billion yuan (over $1 billion) in net operational profit in 2015, connects Beijing to Shanghai, two major economic zones. Construction first started on this 1,318 km-line in 2008, and it opened for commercial service in 2011. […] China’s high-speed rail now carries more than twice as many passengers as its domestic airlines.”

          • Lets have a look at this numerically.
            1 Shanghai is the worlds 3rd largest city with a population of 25 million. About 75k kilometres south and on the same VFT line is Tianjin the worlds 20th largest city with 12.5 million.
            2 The destination is Beijing, 1300km to the South by rail. Beijing in the 8th largest city in the world with 20 million inhabitants.

            So from 3 cities alone there are 47.5 million ‘customers’. In between on the Beijing side are cities like Nantong and Yancheng with 8 million each. There look like half a dozen additional 2 million plus cities in between.

            I suspect there are several hundred million people living within 50km of this line who could get in to a station with a express train within 30 minutes.

            This density of people and million plus cities is what makes the economic case for VFT.

          • @William

            To be Consistent in ignorance of the reality of China HSR network is

            The system does include large cities but extends to small (500,000 population)

            Maybe you should think about how networks work – it’s not picking the ‘easy’ destinations only, because that would not create a network, it’s …er how to put this in simple.. it’s about creating a network

            Perhaps in aircart terms you’d be able to analogise this to hope and spike business plan?

            Or Sydney main route traffic jams dependent on the network of littler roads from littler suburbs all feeding in and out and creating a ….

          • @Pedro

            ‘Liberal ‘ so called market criticisms of China’s infra developements are motivated by the need to not understand

            This is wilful ignorance at the Boeing level

      • “One thing is “freedom” usually doesn’t help big changes, even if it’s clearly to the benefit of all. The less free Chinese created an truly impressive HSR network in little more than a decade.”

        …and there you have it!

        • “One thing is “freedom”

          That freedom is chokingly limited to corporate freedom create profits in any way they like.

          The perceived personal freedom is a mirage.

          • > That freedom is chokingly limited to corporate freedom create profits in any way they like. The perceived personal freedom is a mirage. <

            Thanks for this comment; I'd add that PR operations are well underway from the Davos set and their explaining minions to tell us "you don't want that silly ol' Freedom anyway- and it's not good for you!"

            Who decides, and who benefits? Not you or me..

19. Warning —–Very seriously OFF TOPIC but welcome relief from over heated biofuel comments

    DALLAS, TX—A spokesperson for Southwest Airlines has announced delays in flights due to strange weather that seems to pass over competitors’ planes, only affecting their own signature blue and orange aircraft. The airline has stated these delays have no connection to their pilots protesting vaccine mandates.

    The spokesperson then announced a new Southwest Airlines incentive program for potential passengers: All flights, domestic or international, are free to any passenger who is vaccinated and can also fly a plane.

    “The requirements to take advantage of these incredible savings are simple,” said Southwest CEO Bob Southwest to a crowd of customers who have been stuck at the airport all weekend and were frothing at the mouth in anger. “Show us proof of vaccination against COVID-19 and promise us you know how fly commercial airliners, and your flight is on us.”

    The CEO then mentioned other skills that were not required, but beneficial: Experience calming herds of rabid, sleepless passengers, expertise in flying through mysterious, invisible weather events, and the ability to land the plane.

20. Answers are decades away if we have that mindset and if only insignificant investment in alternatives are made. We need to have a Manhattan Project mentality about finding alternatives to fossil fuels – it is that urgent. Otherwise we will need to eliminate all forms of transportation, electrical generation and space heating and cooling that rely on these dirty fuels. How do we do this? The industrialized nations need to stop throwing so much money into developing new hardware for killing each other and put a trillion dollars into the coordinated development and roll-out of – high density fast charging batteries, hydrogen fuel production, storage, distribution and engines that run on hydrogen and fuel cells as an offshoot thereof, the production of biofuels in large quantities, alternate transportation forms such as hyperloop, conversion of existing nuclear power plants to liquid salt Thorium fission plants, and finishing the work on fusion power. At the same time research should continue on higher efficiency solar cells and wind generators and how to install these technologies at low cost. We also need to quickly convert all ground based vehicles, and aircraft to the extent possible, to being electrically driven. These answers are five years away at most provided we invest the required resources. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is no less than a race to save our high technology society as we know it. The alternative is too grimm to imagine.

    • @SE Hakanson

      ‘a race to save high tech society’ ‘the alternative is too grim to imagine’

      I guess you are writing this from the perspective of an EUUS style society and living conditions

      You may be able, or not, to understand that for the larger part of the world such a mindset and it’s product is not only alien but unwelcome, indeed seen as the problem, both people and product

      Good luck with your list of we must do

    • @ Sten Erik Hakanson
      Good news! Researchers in central America have found a huge, magical Maya vending machine: you just put in a coin, press a button, and a desired machine/technology will be dispensed to you! Isn’t that just fantastic?!

      You honestly think that “finishing the work on fusion power” can be accomplished in 5 years? Really?

      • @Bryce

        Yes we can! if Bob Souwest kicks in

      • Nuclear Fusion has been “ten years away”.. for the last
        forty-or-so years. 😉

        Nuclear is a centralizing technology. Under increasing centralization (i.e. less autonomy), who will do the deciding; and which group will benefit from those
        decisions? We’re seeing that now.. the fifty richest persons have somehow *doubled their wealth* since
        March 2020.. odd.

        • Completely independent of such considerations, it deserves mention that the technology/science involved in fusion is HORRENDOUSLY complex. Using magnets to do what stars do with gravity is a Herculean task, and stars have different chemistry/temperatures at their disposal, which allows them to exploit much more exoergic/efficient reactions.

    • The Manhattan project gave us nuclear power as well and they are the solution ready to go. At this point ramping up will require SMR “Small Modular Reactors” a well understood technology straight out of submarines.

      Reactors under 66MW do not require pumped cooling, can operate completely with a thermosiphons and have the issues with passive cooling and can easily be made such that there is no risk of steam explosions.

      There isn’t time for anything else..

      I note that Rolls-Royce appoints Grazia Vittadini as Chief Technology Officer (formally at CTO at Airbus) as Paul Stein steps down in 2022. Stein is going off to develop small modular reactors at Rolls Royce for power.

      • The green movement fanatically opposes nuclear power — though it can’t give any logical reasons why: expect (the usual) violence as (more and more) reactor construction starts.

        • Sorry, Bryce, it’s all about the storage of the spent rods…. where does one store them as in NIMBY. Don’t knock the environmentalists. Tot zien.

          • you don’t store them
            your rework and reuse them.
            but research into transmutation by irradiation
            is blocked politically
            as a solution would take the “soul” from the antinuclear/green movement.

        • Interesting. Are those opposed to nuclear power truly
          “fanatics”? I’d like to hear more a bout “the usual”
          violence this commenter alludes to; its sources and
          possible objectives.

          Thank you.

21. The author states that the change over from the smoky turbo-jets of the 1960’s to more “eco friendly” high bypass engines was impelled by environmental legislation and concerns. However welcome that effect was it was not the cause, rather it was motivated by the “energy crisis” of the 1970’s which itself is a mis-characterisation of what it actually was – a currency crisis.

    By 1970 the US gmt’s warfare/welfare policies had bankrupted the country making Bretton Woods unsustainable. Put simply, they ran out of gold. Nixon substituted the old gold backed dollar for a FIAT dollar which had no backing save the “Confidence and Faith in the US Government”…

    Decades of stable oil prices came to an end and OPEC found they were no longer getting the $3-$5 a barrel they were accustomed to but less than $1 equivalent in gold. OPEC,who had price setting power responded rationally to the collapsing value of the US dollar by restoring parity with the price of oil to that of gold resulting in the dollar price of oil going from $3 in 1970 to $30 a barrel ten years later. This rise perfectly mirrors the price of gold relative to the USD over that same period.

    The airlines income and expenses now in this new dollar currency which had a fraction of the value of the previous dollar, in order to stay in business, made the aeroplane makers respond with more efficient engines and airframes – wide-bodies and high bypass engines were the result.

    Another result of this policy was the establishment of the petrodollar system which compelled any country buying oil from OPEC to pay for it in the new US dollars which they could only obtain by selling something to the US, thus was America’s manufacturing base hollowed out and off shored. Price & wage controls were imposed.

    Note that in 1971 Nixon said his policy was a temporary measure but forty years later sill exists. Also consider that we now have the lowest interest rates in 5000 years but almost zero economic growth and that almost 25% of all US dollars that have ever come into existence did so in the last two years. The average life of FIAT currency is 27 years. Central banks are racing to introduce CBDC’s.

    However laudable you may think “eco-friendly” airliners might be in the future recognise what happened then and what is happening now for what it was and what it is. In the 1970’s a currency crisis was misrepresented by the media and state as an energy crisis. Today we have the “climate emergency”. Compulsory medication and mask wearing (temporary measures of course). It is nothing whatsoever to do with the environment but rather, then as now everything to do with a collapsing monetary system brought about by inept and wholly corrupted government. Make your dispositions accordingly.

    • @Fastship

      I think you are over simplifying a very much more complex situation, an entire political cultural economic and social system which is collapsing under the greed of it’s own weight

      We need more of the Southwest solution to an apparent pilot shortage:

      Now that’s thinking out of the box!

22. I think folks are far too pessimistic. Rolls Royce at its UltraFan website says they are targeting s reduction in fuel consumption down to 30% corresponding to 1 litre per passenger.
    https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-stories/innovation/2016/advance-and-ultrafan.aspx#overview

    Admittedly its hard to see how. Ultrafan is a geared turbofan section scalable to both narrow body and widebody whereas Advance3 is a new hot section. Combined I suspect one could see maybe 15%-20% improvement in fuel burn over the Trent-XWB. So come 2026 Airbus might launch an A350neo and Boeing a B787 MAX and get a 15-20% fuel burn reduction as they enter service around 2029. Airbus might even redo the outer wing sections for true laminar flow.

    GE have also started working on gear boxes and Pratt & Whitney need to improve their hot section.

    So with fleet renewal with A350, A330neo, A320neo, B737 MAX, B787, B777-9 we should see a 15% improvement over the next 10 years as older aircraft are replaced. At that point a upgrade cycle will introduce another 15% improvement.

    The SAF fuel industry will evolve. It would progress from waste oil and will increasingly use distilled bioethanol, biomethane and oil seed crops and wood waste and maybe algae. I’ve shown in my other post that the bioethanol produced in countries such as the USA, Australia and Brazil for automotive use is already so large it could supply 50% of the needs of total jet fuel consumption. As cars move over to battery, fuel cell, hybrid the bioethanol and biodiesel can be used for jet fuel. There will be competition from earth moving machinery, tillage etc.

    An reduction in fuel burn of 15% and a 15% SAF fuel compounds to nearly a 30% reduction in emissions and this might be possible in 10 years. (growth not included).

    A electro fuel PtL Jet Fuel plant will start to supply Lufthansa with 25 tons of Jet fuel per year in a few months. This fuel is made out of air, water and electricity.
    https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2021/10/05/lufthansa-invests-in-first-industrially-produced-carbon-neutral-electricity-based-kerosene/
    Out of little things big things grow and this plant will be improved and scaled and one can imagine the one built in 5 years hence will be may 1500 tons/year and the one thereafter scaled 50 times again.

    • the future’s so bright I gotta wear shades

      Lost autonomy is not easily regained..

23. Off topic

    -> “Amazon is shopping for used B777 and A330 freighters to help the company directly fly imported goods from China”

    https://mobile.twitter.com/justinbachman/status/1448336348767735812

    Amazon wants to buy used long-range cargo planes that could haul goods from Asia to the US. The company is shopping for 10 refurbished Airbus’s A330-300 aircraft and an unspecified number of used Boeing 777-300ER cargo planes.

    • Not surprising: just look at the mushrooming demand in the entire P2F market.

      With the hugely increased price of sea containers, and the increasing congestion at sea ports, it’s becoming increasingly viable to use air freight for certain categories of goods. The whole global supply chain is struggling at the moment.

      https://www.freightwaves.com/news/why-are-supply-chains-so-messed-up

      China’s trade surplus with the USA has reached a record high, and will continue to grow because the USA doesn’t sell much that China wants to buy…whereas the USA is addicted to a plethora of Chinese goods.

      https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/271475744/chinas-trade-surplus-with-us-surges-to-record-42bn-in-september

      • -> Apple has added China’s BOE Technology to its list of premium display suppliers for the latest iPhone, providing a major boost to Beijing’s tech ambitions — and added pressure on existing suppliers like Samsung.

        Chinese suppliers are moving up the value chain, leading to bigger trade surplus. Tariffs and threats of decoupling failed, miserably. May be cheap sweat shirts are re-shoring but where’s the labour?? 🙄

      • -> Nike lost 10 weeks of production to Vietnam, Indonesia factory shutdown

        -> CNBC: Covid restrictions force some retailers to rethink Vietnam as a manufacturing hub

24. https://www.piie.com/blogs/trade-and-investment-policy-watch/why-biden-will-try-enforce-trumps-phase-one-trade-deal-china
    ‘the Biden administration has decided to hold China’s feet to the fire on at least one important aspect of that confrontation. The administration will continue enforcing the so-called “phase one agreement” that China signed in early 2020, including its commitment to purchases of US goods that it has so far fallen short of fulfilling.’
    An extra $200 bill.

    Hello 737 Max orders when its re certified in China

    • And how, exactly, is Mr. Biden going to “hold China’s feet to the fire”?
      Send some nukes over? (yeah, sure)
      Stop buying Chinese goods? (even less likely — Apple/Microsoft won’t allow it)
      Put more tariffs on Chinese goods? (golly, that’s worked well up to now)

      What he *could* do is to allow China to buy the LEAP engines and other parts that it wants for the C919…but that wouldn’t fit well with the present “selective free trade” policy 😉 No MAX re-cert until that policy changes, methinks.

      Next up: lots of soy beans (oh, wait, the Chinese have found another source for those).

      Mhh…somewhat of stingless bee.

      • @Bryce

        Biden can not even begin to get any domestic bills passed, like the infra bills, vx clean up, etc

        The hot China chatter is for gullible domestic, if he talks up roasting the commies maybe they’ll forget he is incapâble

        • The infighting among politicians is doing what Russians couldn’t do during the Cold War, forcing the USG to run out of cash and lay-off workers.

        • Its a binding agreement signed by China in 2020. Under previous president. Doesnt need any votes in Congress

          Of course China will stand by their commitments !

          Maybe they will even buy lots more US coal as they are well behind on their usual buys. Maybe they dont need coal to keep the lights on….Oh wait.
          It seems the aircraft, engines and parts category is $54 bill by end of 2021 but only $7 bill spent.
          I wonder what item could make up the underspend.?

          • @DoU

            No one is saying Biden needs Congress on China

            Biden needs to bark to hide his toothless – for locals to lap up like he’s doing something

            Hence the gunboat diplomacy – a show for the native not the foreigner

            The natives want their phones and Xmas toys, no one is going to put these at risk

            How about that Bob Souwest..eh?

          • @DoU

            PS Pressuring the FAA/China to certify the Max

            Who does that remind you of how well that worked out

            BA does’nt have much any other aircart to sell, maybea n dud rocket?… some real estate, an intro to an ex pres?

      • There are B787 Boeing that can’t be deliver to its customers in China and the customers are ready to cancel the contracts. Who to blame? Boeing? FAA? China?? 😂

        • … B787 *that* Boeing *can’t deliver* …

      • WaPo: Biden is making more companies pay Trump’s China tariffs
        https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/08/17/biden-china-tariffs-trump/

        IMF Tells Biden To Dump Trump’s Tariffs
        https://www.mic-cust.com/insights/posts/detail/ad/imf-urges-us-to-end-trump-era-tariffs/

        New data show the failures of Donald Trump’s China trade strategy
        https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/02/10/new-data-show-the-failures-of-donald-trumps-china-trade-strategy

        Trump’s trade war on China was a failure in every possible way
        https://www.axios.com/trump-trade-war-china-failure-6111a412-9458-438e-ab2f-a4b7481f89e3.html

        -> The United States retains tariffs imposed by President Trump covering over $135 billion—or 93 percent—of imports of intermediate inputs from China. Tariffs on such parts and components increase costs for American companies seeking to compete not only for the business of American consumers, but also globally and in China through exports ….

        Shooting American businesses in the foot!!

    • Isn’t it off topic??

      -> How Trump’s Tariffs Really Affected the U.S. Job Market

      A recent study on U.S.-China trade concludes that Trump’s trade policies cost the U.S. economy nearly a quarter million jobs. But its obsolete understanding of trade flows ends up pointing trade policymakers in the wrong direction.

      https://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/83746

25. More state aid for Boeing 😉
    “Boeing expects an order from the US Army for at least 100 AH-64E Apache attack helicopters in the second quarter of 2022.”

    https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/boeing-expects-us-army-order-for-at-least-100-ah-64e-apaches/145910.article

26. Some news on SAF:
    “Shell, Rolls-Royce and Airbus call for swifter movement on green jet fuel”

    Of particular interest: “The asking price for sustainable fuel is estimated to be around eight times higher than traditional fuels.”

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/rollsroyce-airbus-shell-warren-east-united-nations-b960425.html

    • The IATA Jet Fuel price monitor has jet fuel at $2.25/gallon. m If its 8x the prices its $18/gallon. I can buy 4 Litres of blended vegetable oil in the local supermarket for $3.00. I presume the bottleneck is either in the processing plants or in obtaining some kind of certified carbon neutral feedstock.
      https://www.iata.org/en/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/

27. Ah yes, never a dull moment in the 787 circus:
    “Boeing deals with new defect on 787 Dreamliner – WSJ”

    “Oct 14 (Reuters) – Boeing Co (BA.N) is dealing with a new defect on its 787 Dreamliner that involves certain titanium parts that are weaker than they should be, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday, citing people familiar with the matter.

    The defect is on 787s built over the past three years, the report said.

    This comes as the planemaker continues to grapple with structural defects in the 787, which have caused it to cut production and halt deliveries.

    Boeing did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. The WSJ report did not give any further details on the defect.”

    https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/boeing-deals-with-new-defect-787-dreamliner-wsj-2021-10-14/?rpc=401&amp;

    • This Daily Mail article contains a little bit of extra detail:
      “In a statement to DailyMail.com, a Boeing spokesman confirmed that the company had received a notice from a supplier about ‘certain 787 parts that were improperly manufactured.'”

      — And, as usual:
      “In a statement to DailyMail.com, a Boeing spokesman confirmed that the company had received a notice from a supplier about ‘certain 787 parts that were improperly manufactured.’

      The statement continued: ‘Yet-to-deliver airplanes will be reworked as necessary prior to customer delivery. Any potential fleet actions will be determined through our normal review process and confirmed with the FAA.'”

      — Further, the same old, meaningless, tedious hot air:
      “‘We are making progress as we apply our Quality Management System to improve first-time quality in our production and delivery system,’ a Boeing spokesman told DailyMail.com in a statement.

      ‘As part of these efforts, we continually raise the standards we hold ourselves to. We have strengthened our focus on quality and constantly encourage all members of our team and supply chain to raise any issues that need attention,’ the statement added.

      ‘When issues are raised, that is an indication that these efforts are working. Even where these efforts result in a near term impact on operations, we’re confident it’s the right approach to drive safety, stability and first-time quality for the long term,’ the spokesman said.”

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10092083/Boeing-deals-NEW-defect-787-Dreamliner-latest-slip-up.html

    • More details are coming out:

      – Over the past two years, Boeing engineers and regulators have been looking for problems. New issues that are found invite more scrutiny, adding more things to fix

      – Boeing’s 787 woes come as the FAA examines a series of alleged quality-control lapses across Boeing’s commercial-airplane unit, according to an Aug. 18 agency letter and people familiar with the probe. The agency has claimed that Boeing allowed unqualified personnel to sign off on quality checks or otherwise failed to follow company or FAA guidelines

      – The company performed immediate repairs to two undelivered aircraft that would have been grounded because they contained a high number of the weak parts

      – Boeing has been working to resolve problems with the 787 Dreamliner since late 2020 after discovering tiny gaps between sections of the aircraft that could lead to premature fatigue.

      – FAA officials have been encouraged by Boeing’s attempts to address production and culture problems but aren’t satisfied with the company’s pace, said people familiar with the agency’s position. In addition to the recent letter about quality controls, the FAA sent a Sept. 6 letter to Boeing outlining how the company is overdue in addressing 48 ways various aircraft don’t comply with federal standards. The issues relate to items including paint thickness, windshield-bond strength and landing-gear valves, according to the letter.

      – The FAA’s production scrutiny has also focused on avoiding factory debris being left behind inside finished airplanes. By early 2020, debris had been found in nearly two-thirds of newly produced 737 MAX jets’ fuel tanks. Tools, rags and other material left behind can pose in-flight safety hazards

      – After U.S. regulators approved the 737 MAX to again carry passengers in November 2020, some Boeing customers still found debris on the jets during inspections. […] Earlier this year, inspections of 737 MAX aircraft found a pocketknife left in a wheel well and a soiled lavatory

      Delivery of B787 is delayed again, “later than previously anticipated”

      BA’s main B787 supplier claims the substandard components come from subsupplier qualified also by BA, i.e. who’s watching the hen house? No one or the fox??

      • This is worse than bad…this is a nightmare!

        “The agency has claimed that Boeing allowed unqualified personnel to sign off on quality checks or otherwise failed to follow company or FAA guidelines”
        – Wild West practices! (and there are commenters here who mock COMAC’s quality…)

        “The FAA sent a Sept. 6 letter to Boeing outlining how the company is overdue in addressing 48 ways various aircraft don’t comply with federal standards. The issues relate to items including paint thickness, windshield-bond strength and landing-gear valves, according to the letter.”
        – And this company is the “pride and joy” of the US manufacturing industry?

        “By early 2020, debris had been found in nearly two-thirds of newly produced 737 MAX jets’ fuel tank…After U.S. regulators approved the 737 MAX to again carry passengers in November 2020, some Boeing customers still found debris on the jets during inspection”
        – So the FOD issue STILL isn’t fixed.

        • -> BA targets to reduce debris per plane *by half* this year: customers have to accept FOD are part and parcel of BA’s jets!! 😂

          • @Pedro

            Inflation steadily increasing, supply chain problems worsening (don’t tell me Boeing stockpiled chips, those parked planes are good for scavengers) the prospect of rising interest rates, reduced Q3 WS forecasts, negative cash burn

            Looks like few are betting on Max China re cert

28. Breaking News

    https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/boeing-deals-with-new-defect-787-dreamliner-wsj-2021-10-14/

    I’d like to nominate the Boeing 787 as eco aircart of the year

    No joke – this is what happens when your world collapses

    • That’s an excellent suggestion – and very astute of you.
      After all, a plane that’s sitting on the ground is a plane that isn’t emitting CO2 and NOx…right?
      To further improve the eco value of these 787 desert whales, perhaps a few windows/doors could be removed so as to allow wildlife to shelter inside — I can imagine that bats, bee-eaters and swallows would be interested. Burrowing owls might find solace in the APU and the wheel wells of the landing gear. And bees/wasps might like to build hives under the wings and horizontal tail components.

      Just look at all the positive PR that BA could generate 😉

      • @Bryce

        Re wilding is all BA is good for, return to nature what used to be called an industrial park….Chairman Cal would make an excellent Parks Services Guide

29. SingaporeAir brings back the A380 for SIN-LHR-SIN flights

30. -> “In an attempt to save Boeing money, Forkner allegedly withheld critical information from regulators. His callous choice to mislead the FAA hampered the agency’s ability to protect the flying public and left pilots in the lurch”

    https://mobile.twitter.com/dominicgates/status/1448783661319417863

    • @Pedro

      Texas…wasn’t it Texas where that corrupt prosecutor sold out the DoJ case for a handful of bitcoin?

31. “small fine of $244 million and specifically exonerated Boeing’s senior management by stating that they had not facilitated the misconduct. However, the agreement cited Forkner and his deputy as being involved.”

    When you buy yourself an out of jail card on company money, and to make it extra secure, you throw a couple of others under the bus.

    What an example the senior management gives to their employees. This is exactly Boeing’s corporate culture. And from my understanding, that management is still largely in place, so it continues as during the MAX development. It baffles me how investors still support these guys and don’t vote them out.

32. Comments are closed.

    Once more, too many of you have veered way off topic.

    Hamilton