Travel – Page 20 – a sibilant intake of breath

Two interesting Mars space travel tidbits

Firstly, a nice demolition of the idea that a one-way mission to Mars makes sense, written by Oliver Morton, whose excellent book I reviewed. The best concise point:

Most importantly, in terms of costs, there’s the ongoing commitment. A set of Mars missions you can cancel is a much more attractive than a set of Mars missions that you cannot cancel without killing people (“Launch the next rocket or the kid gets it”). To fund a single one way to Mars mission is more or less to sign up to funding them for as long as the colony lasts. That is a far larger spending commitment than required for a small number of return trips.

I certainly wouldn’t want to be one of the decision-makers responsible for keeping a Martian colony alive, while billions are watching via high-definition video links. Watching the astronauts slowly (or quickly) die would be awfully depressing, after all, especially if it was because of budget cuts.

Secondly, a Science article on the importance of not contaminating Mars with terrestrial organisms: Biologically Reversible Exploration. In essence, it argues that contamination from terrestrial spacecraft could forever eliminate our chances of studying life that evolved independently on Mars, if any such organisms exist. It argues that future missions, including any manned missions, adopt protocols so as to be ‘biologically reversible.’ As countless examples of terrestrial invasive species demonstrate, the concerns are not unwarranted, when it comes to microorganisms that might be able to survive or thrive in the Martian environment.

How Americans spend their time

The New York Times has cooked up a neat interactive graphic on how Americans spend their time. It is broken up by hour of the day and by characteristics like employment status, race, and level of education.

Everyone devotes a surpising amount of time to TV and movies, especially compared to socializing. It is also interesting to see that those with advanced degrees seem to spend the largest share of their time traveling, though the graphic doesn’t make clear whether this is intra-city commuting, vacation travel, or both.

I found the graphic via Sightline Daily. There are some interesting observations there, such as: ” Just so, only five percent of men over 15 say they spend any time walking on a given day. Yet for most of human existence, walking was the only form of transportation available to the large bulk of humanity.”

Manhattan airport

An idea so comically bad, one suspects it is an elaborate (and not especially amusing) bit of satire: turning Manhattan’s Central Park into an airport.

Firstly, the last thing the world needs is more airports. We need to be aggressively cutting our greenhouse gas emissions, not building infrastructure that will encourage more.

Secondly, the supporters of the project who describe Central Park as an “underutilized asset,” “relic,” and part of a “vestigial prewar cityscape” are probably not speaking for most New Yorkers. Land that has been set aside for green space is precious stuff. Quite probably, people in the megacities of the future will regret that nobody in the past gave up some development opportunities to give them the equivalent of New York’s Central Park, or Vancouver’s Stanley Park.

Thirdly, there is the matter of the noise that aircraft landing and taking off would produce. The design for the airport shows two runways going north-south along the eastern edge of the former park. That wold mean having planes approaching and leaving over areas of dense high-rise development.

Fourthly, there is the seriousness that a crash would have, if it took place in such a densely packed place.

Fifthly, there is the air pollution that results from jet exhaust. Increasing the level of criteria air contaminants like sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), and ground-level ozone (O3) isn’t a great idea in such a densely populated area.

I doubt the scheme has the slightest chance of success, but it is still disquieting that there are people out there so hell-bent on development that they would consider and propose such a thing, then produce a slick website which includes the laughable assertion that environmentalists are ‘rallying in support” of the plan, because it will employ’ active prevention bird strike programs.’ Absurd.

Carbon-neutral aviation

The climatic impact of aviation

At present, virtually all freight and passenger-carrying aircraft operate in one of two ways: burning kerosene to turn a propeller, generating thrust that the wings partially convert to lift, or generating thrust by burning kerosene in a jet engine. Virtually all of that kerosene is produced by refining petroleum. As such, burning it adds to the stock of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. These include carbon dioxide (CO2) (a basic product of the combustion) and other greenhouse gasses (GHGs), like nitrous oxide (NO2). It is also possible that aircraft have an effect on cloud formation (both by producing vapour trails and inducing cirrus cloud formation), but my understanding of the science is that scientists aren’t sure whether that has a net warming or a net cooling effect. The latest IPCC report says:

Moreover, the uncertainties on some aviation forcings (notably contrail and cirrus) are still high, such that the overall radiative forcing consequences of changing cruise altitudes need to be considered as a time-integrated scenario, which has not yet been done. (p. 355)

Helpfully, the report does identify that, if contrails prove to be a significant problem, they “can be easily avoided – in principle – by relatively small changes in flight level, due to the shallowness of ice supersaturation layers.” There is also some uncertainty about the relative emissions of short-lived but potent GHGs like nitrous oxide, compared with long-lived but less potent ones like carbon dioxide. All told, the report does conclude that aviation has a “larger impact on radiative forcing than that from its CO2 forcing alone.”

Carbon neutral possibilities

A couple of logical possibilities exist for making air travel carbon-neutral, though they differ in practicality. Electric planes are conceptually possible, and small versions exist. As I understand it, the big problem is storing enough energy in light enough batteries. My sense is that we are nowhere near being able to do this for large commercial aircraft. Similar issues exist for hydrogen aircraft, in term of storage, and there is the added question of where we get the hydrogen. To me, biofuels seem like the most plausible near-term option. That being said, there are technical issues to be overcome within aircraft themselves, such as the gelling of biofuels at the low temperatures found at high altitudes. While some airlines have tested multi-engine planes with a single engine running on a biofuel/kerosene mix, as far as I know nobody has flown such a plane exclusively using biofuels.

Additionally, not all biofuels are carbon neutral. Ethanol derived from corn might actually represent more greenhouse gasses than an equivalent amount of gasoline, once you factor in fertilizer production, emissions from farming and farm equipment, ethanol fermentation, etc. The same might be true of palm oil derived biofuels, given how their production can lead to the destruction of rainforests that are major carbon sinks.

My sense is that the air travel industry has yet to demonstrate that it will be able to exist in a carbon neutral world, regardless of how expensive tickets become. That being said, it does make sense to displace emitting activities in order from lowest cost to highest cost. If we can replace fossil fuelled ground vehicles with electric vehicles running on renewable power, we should do so first before pouring enormous effort into trying to produce a carbon neutral aircraft. That being said, there does seem to be a strong moral imperative to reduce emissions generally, including by limiting the amount of long-distance travel we undertake.

As usual, I expect any mention of aviation to produce a lively discussion.

Algae for biofuels?

One possible feedstock for biofuel production is algae, which could be grown and processed in various ways, producing transportation fuels. Some people seem to think this is the most plausible path to affordable non-fossil transportation fuels. Others think various land-based plants and processes (cellulosic ethanol, jatropha, etc) are more viable. Another big question is how cheap biofuels could ever become. Biofuels at $100 per barrel probably wouldn’t mean the end of air travel, private cars fueled by liquid hydrocarbons, etc. Biofuels at $1,000 a barrel would push us a lot father away from their mainstream use.

I don’t know enough to decide one way or the other, though it certainly doesn’t seem like anyone is making cheap and functional biofuels from algae right now.

Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller

Jeff Rubin is a Toronto-based economist for CIBC World Markets, and he has written a book predicting a future of “triple digit” oil, and some of the consequences it will have. While the book is interesting and many aspects of the hypothesis are plausible, the lack of rigour in analysis makes the work less convincing than it might otherwise have been. For one thing, “triple digit” oil covers an awfully broad range. For another, it isn’t clear whether the effects he predicts will unfold in the order he anticipates. For instance, if severe climate change impacts emerge before acute and permanent increases in the price of fossil fuels, the global consequences may look rather different.

When he says that the world is going to get ‘smaller,’ Rubin is reversing the normal sense of globalization having shrunk the world. What he really means is that the world will get larger, relative to our ability to travel and move goods, and that we will have a correspondingly more local focus as a result. That means less imports of all kinds, less travel, and the re-localization of industry. Rubin’s strongest points and arguments relate to the production and use of fossil fuels: such as the effect of domestically subsidized fuels in oil producing states, the limitations associated with energy efficiency, the problems with corn ethanol, and the importance of energy return on investment, when contemplating alternative fuels and sources of energy.

Rubin’s habit of mixing established fact with speculation, and sometimes dismissing important possibilities with a brief splash of rhetoric, makes this book more valuable as a prod to thinking than as a guide to what is likely to happen. The book also contains the occasional overt error, such as referring to prosperous South Korea as the ‘Hermit Kingdom’ – rather than the tyrannical regime to the north. The chapter on climate change was certainly lacking in ways that make me doubt the overall quality of Rubin’s understanding and analysis. He doesn’t really seem to grasp the concept of a stabilization pathway, technological wedges, or the physical realities that must accompany the stabilization of greenhouse gasses at a safe level. His discussion of electrical generation – in both fossil fuel based and alternative forms – is similarly lacking in detailed and rigorous evaluation.

In the end, Rubin’s work is an interesting way to set yourself thinking about the effect that constrained energy ability would have upon the world and your life. When it comes to evaluating the macroeconomic and societal consequences of such a development, the book would probably best be read alongside a more transparent and quantitative analysis, such as that in David MacKay’s book on sustainable energy.

Down the west coast by public transit

As reported on Tristan’s blog, my friend Mike is in the process of traveling from Vancouver to Portland, by public transit alone. Apparently, this is possible because the transit systems of successive places overlap.

You can follow the journey via Twitter, or through the blog they have been updating several times a day: The I-5 Chronicles

Obama’s high speed rail plan

Obama’s high speed rail plan is appealing in many ways. It has considerable scale, $13 billion of funding for the next five years, and it includes connections to Canada, for instance. That being said, rail will only really be a sustainable when it is powered in a zero carbon way. While trains with diesel locomotives do generally produce less CO2 per passenger mile than aircraft, the real reason air travel is so emissions intensive is because people travel greater distances by plane. If we want to be able to travel those distances while shifting towards a low-carbon society, better options are necessary. Replacing fossil fuels with biofuels is one option. It has the advantage that it would not require major modifications to either tracks or rolling stock. The downside, of course, is all the limitations of biofuels: from land and water use to effects on food prices to the use of fossil fuels in producing most of them. Also, if sustainable biofuels were available in quantity, it might actually make more sense to use them in aircraft.

To me, it seems like the best option is the progressive electrification of the rail network, with the power coming from renewables and perhaps nuclear. Ideally, the electrified tracks could also be electricity transmission corridors. That way, new renewable stations like wind farms and run of river hydro stations could feed into the grid from the closest rail line. Because of its variety in both sources and uses, it seems that electricity will be the principal energy form in low- and zero-carbon societies, both for private vehicles (in the form of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids) and for both urban and intercity forms of public transit.

Such a deployment would probably be hugely expensive. That being said, it seems like the way to establish a sustainable, zero-carbon system for intercity transport. It’s a goal that doesn’t need to be met instantly and which can be worked towards piecemeal, with intermediate steps like using high speed rail to displace short-haul flights and fuel switching to genuinely sustainable and low-carbon biofuels. As with the current plan, the focus can start off with the most commonly used routes, then branch out to the rest of the network gradually.

Visiting Vancouver in summer 2009, by land?

In the past, this blog has featured some discussion of trans- and inter-continental travel by means other than aircraft. This summer, I am thinking about actually giving it a try, going from Ottawa to Vancouver by train. If I could take two consecutive weeks off work, the three-day journey in each direction wouldn’t be excessively long in comparison with my time in Vancouver. It would also give me the chance to see quite a bit of Canada from ground level.

Given that wireless internet access is available on the trains, and I am actually quite good at working while on them, the time need not even be terribly unproductive. The biggest drawback of the train is the outrageous expense of the sleeper cars. Going in a two-berth room with a stranger would cost more than $3000, round-trip. By contrast, traveling in an ordinary seat would probably be under $700, with the Sierra Youth Coalition 40% discount. While I definitely cannot shell out three grand for the trip, I am also not sure whether I could tolerate three days of trying to sleep in a semi-reclining chair, eating whatever I brought along with me, and hunting for laptop-charging electrical outlets in cars designated for richer people.

While the train would be aesthetically appealing, I am not opposed to considering other lower-carbon options. Some kind of ride-share, for instance, could be interesting as well. It would also probably be a lot cheaper, though it would probably take significantly more than three days each way.

Spring in Toronto

This weekend, I am visiting Toronto, which always induces comparisons with Ottawa in which the capital city comes off looking badly. I like subways and shops that are open past 6:00pm. If this dire economy can provide space in Toronto for someone with no particular interest in private enterprise, perhaps I will find a way to relocate myself here over the course of the next few years.

Also, one quality for which Toronto should be praised is the availability of Gingerbons spicy and sweet ginger candy. They taste like a fantastic amalgamation of ginger and honey, and I have only ever seen them in a bulk food store on Bloor Street, a couple of blocks east of Jane.

Now, off for a late, greasy diner breakfast.