1950s start of the jet age. GHG emissions uncontrolled from "stove pipe" engines.
.png)
1960's A change in engine technology to "low bypass" engines, dramatically reduced GHG emissions.
.png)
1970s.
Net-Zero aircraft technology outlook is clouded for the moment!
As with all aircraft project before the replacement of the gas turbine powered aircraft, any new concept has to meet a number of thresholds:
1. The project is one of high technical risk.2. Financing the development, production and operation of the Net-Zero aircraft will require huge sums of money, will involve unusually heavy commercial risks, and will likely necessitate major participation by the government(s).3. Despite the high technical risks involved in the program, Net-Zero aircraft must show a potential over their lifetime to operate at costs and fares which equal or closely approximate those of future gas turbine powered aircraft.
So far the proposals offered by Airbus and Boeing fail to meet the established economic and technical standards.It is essential at this time to optimize the characteristics of the Net-Zero aircraft that affect commercial profitability.
Airlines will build fleets around unspecified Net-Zero emissions aircraft but they will want to phase in emission mitigation technologies on today's platforms in sync with companies that built them and Tier 1 Suppliers.
.png)
1980s. The high bypass ration engine was introduced on the twin-engine, short-medium haul B737-300 and the A320 with great success. Fuel burn efficiency increased significantly, emissions were reduced, but not eliminated, and noise levels were reduced.
First Generation, New Generation, Next Generation & Net-Zero Generation aircraft.
The original air-breathing gas turbine jet engine was first proposed in the 1920s. It is in fact, an form of internal combustion engine used in ground transportation. The gas turbine technology took shape in the 1930s when the turbojet engine was invented. The design sucks in air through the front inlet, compresses it, mixes it with gasses from fossil fuel, heats the mixture combustion chamber, which expands the gasses as they are expelled at high temperature and speed through the exhaust nzzle, generating thrust (power) in the process. THe expelled gasses are polutants that have adverse effects on the climate and also have an adverse effect on human health. The first applications were on military aircraft, but these engines had service lives measured in minutes. generation aircraft such as the B707, B727, B737, B747, DC8, DC9 and DC10, were all revolutionary aircraft and dominated the skies for two decades, at which point the replacement cycle began again. US manufacturers shifted production away from commuter and regional aircraft powered by radial engines, because the market was small, and large commercial aircraft offered generous returns on investment. Manufacturers such as ATR (Italy), BAe (UK), Dornier (Germany) Embraer (Brazil) and SAAB (Sweden) built replacement aircraft powered by turboprop engines to fill that gap. The problem for them was that many suppliers, chasing a small number of orders, could not be profitable in the long term.
Airlines realized that they needed to inject competition into the commercial aircraft manufacturing market or resign themselves to paying higher prices for aircraft in a segment controlled by two US producers. The European solution to this problem was to battle for a share of the commercial aircraft market by introducing a new generation commercial aircraft. Within a few years of the launch of the B737 and DC9, European manufacturers combined capabilities, coupled with financial backing from EU governments, and commitments to order aircraft from government airlines. Few airlines wanted what US producers had to offer. Retooled versions of existing aircraft were rejected because airlines wanted the latest and greatest technology built into New Generation designs. The problem was that the dominant manufacturers in the US, Boeing, and Douglas, did not want to risk $3 billion designing a completely new aircraft. The primary engine builder at the time, Pratt & Whitney, held a near-monopoly position with the JT8D and did not want its market disrupted by new engine technology. The response from the US government was muted because General Electric was going to manufacture the engines for Airbus. US airframe manufacturers purposefully ignored the threat. Boeing and Douglas were proposing engine-kits, reengining, payload/range improvements, rebooted systems and conversion to other modes such as freighters. To appease rising customer dissatisfaction, and to minimize sales of Airbus’ first offering, a twin-aisle middle-of-the market (MOM) widebody, Boeing built the B757 based on the B707 airframe, the B767 to checkmate Airbus's A300 and A310 and a reengined B737 powered by the joint US/European engine consortium, General Electric and SNECMA.
The two engine manufacturers saw the opportunity with an engine funded by the US military and the French government, the CFM56 high bypass ratio engine. Even with the warnings from airlines, that if the US manufacturers would not respond to their demands with a new design instead of a reengined B737, they would go elsewhere; the warning was ignored. Airlines and lessors ordered the new-generation short-medium haul A320 in large numbers because it featured the latest engine technology, glass cockpit and a larger fuselage. Airbus was so effective that McDonnell Douglas withdrew from the market by merging with Boeing. Within 15 years Airbus had captured 50% of the commercial aircraft and regional turboprop market.
Finally, Boeing did respond by proposing the Next Generation of aircraft, with a glass cockpit and some structure design changes. Other than that, the offering was a derivative of the original B737 design, first introduced 30 years earlier. This is where the market stands today. Seismic events occurred across the globe in the following decades, most notably terrorist attacks such as 9/11, regional wars caused by rights to control energy supply, the financial crisis, the Pandemic, plus the Climate crisis came to the fore. Airbus and Boeing did have ambitious plans to launch completely new designs, especially for the Middle of the Market (MOM) but opted instead to stretch, shrink fuselages, modify wings, everything and anything but sell replacements for the A320neo and B737NG. Airbus proved to be more adept at the modification game. As the new century approached, Pratt & Whitney had been replaced as the engine provider of choice by CFMI, the CFM56 joint venture owned by GE & SCECMA. Airbus surpassed Boeing in market share and if that was not enough, disaster befell Boeing when the B737 derivative it expected to win back market share, the MAX, was grounded on a global basis. Today, market conditions are even more onerous for the near-term prospects of Airbus and Boeing. They find themselves manufacturing aircraft that are approaching the obsolescence phase of the life cycle. The CFM56 is responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions and its design life cycle is reaching maturity. Financially weakened, Airbus and Boeing are serving a customer base commercially damaged by the Pandemic. Airlines and lessors alike are unable to order enough aircraft to reestablish full aircraft production lines. Governments find themselves caught in the cross hairs. The flying public is increasing pressure for strict legislation and punitive regulations to force airlines to stop aircraft emissions. Failing to respond to that intensity of pressures puts the survival of many governments at risk in the next election cycle. Energy producers, especially oil suppliers, see no benefit in cutting off the main source of their revenue. Their strategy is to assign blame to personal choice, in ways similar to the campaigns fought against regulation of tobacco and plastic.
The open question is what happens if Airbus and Boeing declare they cannot justify the $16 Billion each, they would have to invest to launch each Net-Zero aircraft design within in the short time available to comply with any stricter regulations governing aircraft engine pollution emissions? A few start-up aircraft manufacturers have emerged but they are severely undercapitalized, their designs are limited to commuter and regional aircraft, and it will take them decades to build the supply chain needed to support their products.
.gif)
.gif)
2020. The gas turbine engine and the internal combustion engine technologies fitted to the estimated 350,000 aircraft in the world today, are likely to be the last generation. The engine emissions standards set out in the UN ICAO CORSIA scheme only apply to about 10,000 commercial aircraft, flying international services. All the aircraft designated as flying domestic operations are subject to the emissions standards that each individual country implements. The timeline for transitioning to Net-Zero engine emissions (a) begins in 2027 and the CORSIA scheme ends in 2035. Engine technology transfer options are limited to: (a) blending Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAV) with Jet-A without any change in technology, (b) incremental changes to current powerplant, amounting to dampening the velocity of the gasses emitted by the engines and redesigning components such as fuel nozzles, (c), replacing gas turbine engines with electric ones, (d) adopting the airframe to carry green hydrogen to fuel a yet to be defined replacement engine technology, and (e) a hybrid of any of the above. Other solutions proposed do not reduce engine GHG emissions. The principle behind, what are classed as "negative emissions" technologies, trades off engine emissions for machinery that sucks CO2 out of the air, compresses it, and stores it underground, indefinitely.
Noise must also be factored into the technology that replaces the engines in use today. The higher the thrust rating the greater is the speed at which gasses exit the engine exhaust, increasing noise. This is a particular concern with military aircraft. Proposed flight operations changes require aircraft to take off and land more slowly and over urgan communit5ies, in many cases. The idea of using variable power engines to reduce noise at the airport level, would not address the noise generated at cruise level.
Intelligent, connected, future "NET ZERO" electric aircraft.
Collins Aerospace computer rendition demonstrates expected steps toward a more intelligent, more connected and more electric future. (West Plam Beach, 2019).
About Collins AerospaceCollins Aerospace Systems, a unit of United Technologies Corp.), is a leader in technologically advanced and intelligent solutions for the global aerospace and defense industry. It was created in 2018 by bringing together UTC Aerospace Systems and Rockwell Collins.
United Technologies CorporationUnited Technologies Corp., based in Farmington, Connecticut, provides high-technology systems and services to the building and aerospace industries. By combining a passion for science with precision engineering, the company is creating smart, sustainable solutions the world needs.
.gif)
November 9, 2021, Glascow. U.S. releases first-ever comprehensive aviation Climate Action Plan to Achieve Net-Zero Emissions by 2050. Foor a full briefing go to: https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/us-releases-first-ever-comprehensive-aviation-climate-action-plan-achieve-net-zero https://www.faa.gov/sustainability/aviation-climate-action-plan
Shannon Aero says for a Zero Carbon future Aircraft Design Evolution, not revolution
The most fundamental requirement to stop Greehouse Gasses (GHG) damanging the biosphere beyond the point of recovery, is that human generated carbon must be removed before 2050. Four basic approaches are available:
1. Develop technology that does not produce GHGs, to replace technology that does, especially in transportation, and specifically in the airline business.
2. Use natural processess to produce clean energy that will replace fossil oil energy by reducing the level of carbon dioxide in the air.
3. Capture the GHS using machinery, that compresses it into a solid material and then stores it in the Earth, forever.
3. Economic solutions based on carbon pricing that encourage innovation in upscaling biofuel, electric propulsion and hydrogen power, and upskills the workforce to work in the new climate friendly industries.
Source of the GHGs.
From the formation of planet Earth, nature has been producing GHGs and processing them in the earth, rivers, lakes, oceans, wetlands, and forests. The Eath does not have a built in capability to detect when GHGs are being overproduced and so it cannot counteract the polution excesses. This did not present a problerm until human intervention disrupted the equiliberioum of the Earth's biosphere. The carbon dioxide we swew into the air comes from machinery and equipment, head, energy generation, transportation, agriculture, raw materials, processing industries, in fact anything that has been touched by fossil oil over the last 200 years or more. The more GHGs we produced the higher the Earth's temperaturre rises, eventually to a point where humanity cannot function as we do today. We did not identify the grasvity of tyhe problem until the 1970s and we prevaricated until the 1990s before climate action was taken seriously. The years 2019, 2020 and 2021 produces some of the highest temperatures ever recorded.
How are re responding to the crisis?
Close to 200 countries have signed treaties and conventions in Rio de Janero, Montrael, Kyoto, Paris and Glascow enpowering the UN to develop a plan and to implement it, that stops "the rate of increase" in GHG forcd temperatures. The interm goal is to limit temperature increases to 1.5 degrees centegrade by 2050 and to bring the climate back into equiliberioum by the end of the century.
Are we on track? No and for a host of reason, some of which include:
1. No technology has been developed that can wean society of fossil oil. We do have concepts, prototypes, In the case of aviation no renewable sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) has been developed that both reduces engine acidic polution, and at the same time, costs less to supply, and the production proccess generates less emissions than the Jet-A production process.
Type certification for CO2e engine emissions technology that betters year 2010 GTE performance, may take decades even for Airbus & Boeing aircraft families.
A range of interim technology compromises are needed to fill the gap
Launched by the EU in 1994, the Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development, FP1 through FP9, supported and fostered research in the European Research Area (ERA). FP6 & 7 focused on tecnological researc. Starting in 2014, the funding programs were named horizon. Horizon 2020, has a 7 year budget of around $100Bn, focused on innovation, delivering faster economic growth and delivering solutions to end users that are often governmental agencies. The Horizon Europe was to raise EU science spending levels by 50% over the years 2021-2027. The efficient and environmentally friendly aero engine (EEFAE) - technology platform was part of Horizon. The platform tested advanced technologies capable of providing significant improvement in future generations of engines.
.gif)
Surge in demand for climate action as UN declares 2020 to 2029 as the final window to counteract catastrophic climate damage.
The International Energy Association (IEA)report: The number of countries announcing pledges to achieve net zero emissions over the coming decades continues to grow. But the pledges by governments to date – even if fully achieved – fall well short of what is required to bring global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions to net zero by 2050 and give the world an even chance of limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5 °C. The need is to transition to a net zero energy system by 2050 while ensuring stable and affordable energy supplies, providing universal energy access, and enabling robust economic growth. Solutions must be cost-effective and economically productive pathways, resulting in a clean, dynamic and resilient energy economy dominated by renewables like solar and wind instead of fossil fuels. Key uncertainties, include the roles of bioenergy, carbon capture and behavioural changes in reaching net zero.
Global CO2 emissions declined by 5.8% in 2020, or almost 2 Gt CO2 – the largest ever decline and almost five times greater than the 2009 decline that followed the global financial crisis. CO2 emissions fell further than energy demand in 2020 owing to the pandemic hitting demand for oil and coal harder than other energy sources while renewables increased.
Despite the decline in 2020, global energy-related CO2 emissions remained at 31.5 Gt, which contributed to CO2 reaching its highest ever average annual concentration in the atmosphere of 412.5 parts per million in 2020 – around 50% higher than when the industrial revolution began.
IEA's March 2022 Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021, results are not encouraging. The group says global energy-related CO2 emissions rose by 6% in 2021 to 36.3 billion tons, their highest ever level, as the world economy rebounded strongly from the COVID-19 crisis and relied heavily on coal to power that growth. In 2021 global energy-related CO2 emissions rebound and gre as demand for coal, oil and gas rebounds with the economy. The increase is the largest single increase since the carbon-intensive economic recovery from the global financial crisis.
IEA's March 2022 Global Energy Review: CO2 Emissions in 2021, results are not encouraging. The group says global energy-related CO2 emissions rose by 6% in 2021 to 36.3 billion tons, their highest ever level, as the world economy rebounded strongly from the COVID-19 crisis and relied heavily on coal to power that growth. In 2021 global energy-related CO2 emissions rebound and gre as demand for coal, oil and gas rebounds with the economy. The increase is the largest single increase since the carbon-intensive economic recovery from the global financial crisis.