Friday, February 28, 2020

How Aviation Is Becoming More Environmentally Sustainable


Roger Lu

Every day, over 100,000 aircraft takeoff and land across the world. As technology develops, this number increases and is now approaching nearly 40,000,000 flights a year. From short-haul flights such as Dallas/Fort Worth to Austin to ultra-long-haul routes flights like Perth to London, all of these flights contribute to the 2.4% of global human-induced carbon dioxide emissions. In order to counter aviation’s growing CO2 emissions which are projected to triple by 2050, leading airlines and aircraft manufacturers are taking measures to become carbon-neutral and enhance the efficiency of next-generation aircraft.


Aviation’s Current Environmental Sustainability Innovations:

The Manufacturers:

In the past decade, major manufacturers such as Airbus and Boeing have developed new aircraft to combat rising carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide/nitric oxide (NOx) emissions.

Boeing:

The Boeing Company, one of the two major aircraft manufacturing corporations in the world, has produced two innovative families of aircraft which exist today - the revolutionary 787 Dreamliner and the unfortunate 737 MAX.




The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is a mid-size, twin-engine widebody capable of flying some of the world’s longest routes. The 787 intended to replace the aging and less fuel-efficient 767, a previous Boeing aircraft that’s currently being retired by many airlines. Approximately 10 years ago, the 787 took flight for the first time before entering service a few years later. The 787 is known for being created with 50% composite materials, which reduces the the weight of the aircraft and offers 20-25% lower CO2 emissions, reduced NOx emissions, and 60% less noise pollution compared to similarly-sized aircraft. The 787 is one of the two revolutionary long-haul aircraft currently flying as airlines - such as American Airlines - have chosen the 787 to replace and phase out their older, less environmentally-friendly aircraft. Just three days ago on February 25, 2020, All Nippon Airways, the world’s largest operator of the 787, placed an order for 20 more of Boeing’s 787 aircraft to emphasize the airline’s commitment to environmental sustainability.




In addition to the 787, Boeing also produced the new and infamous 737 MAX to compete with Airbus’ (another global aircraft manufacturer) A320neo Family aircraft. While the 737 MAX’s name has a negative connotation as it fatally crashed twice in the past year killing 346 people, led to a worldwide grounding of the aircraft, and caused thousands of flights to be cancelled, it was another innovation for sustainable flight. There are currently around 5,000 orders for the Boeing 737 MAX (subject to change) which will replace aging narrow-body aircraft like Boeing’s previous 737 model, the 737 Next Generation. With its efficient CFM LEAP-1B engines, the 737 MAX delivers a 14% reduction in carbon emissions, 40% noise reduction, and is 50% below the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection’s (CAEP) NOx limits.

Airbus:

On the side of the world, there’s Airbus, a European company that recently overtook Boeing in 2019 as the world’ largest airline manufacturer. The company also produced two families of revolutionary aircraft which are flying today: the A320neo and A350.




The A320neo, consisting of the A319neo, A320neo, and A321neo is Airbus’ solution to replacing older narrow-body aircraft. The A320neo is simply a re-engined version of the old A320 family as the “neo” in the name stands for “New Engine Option”. With its new CFM LEAP-1A or Pratt & Whitney PW1100G-JM engines, the A320neo Family is able to deliver around a 20% reduction in carbon emissions or 5,000 tons of carbon per year, 50% reduced noise production, and is 50% below the CAEP’s NOx limits.




Additionally, Airbus has created the elegant A350XWB, a wide-body aircraft which currently flies the world’s longest flight, Singapore and Newark, and potentially 20-hour ultra-long-haul routes such as direct Sydney to London in the near future. The A350 consists of lightweight materials and the world’s current most fuel-efficient engine, the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engines. As a result, these new technologies allow the A350 to have a 25%-30% lower fuel burn and CO2 emissions, 40% noise reduction, and 28% below the CAEP’s NOx limits when compared to previous generation aircraft.

The Airlines:

Aircraft manufacturers aren’t the only leaders in environmentally-sustainable aviation as airlines are also taking measures to reduce their own CO2 and NOx emissions when operating flights.

JetBlue:

JetBlue, a major U.S. airline headquartered in Long Island, has been working on offsetting its CO2 emissions since 2008. Its carbon offsetting program includes projects such as forest conservation, landfill gas capture (LFG), and promoting solar and wind farms. JetBlue has recently announced they will completely offset all CO2 emissions from jet fuel on domestic JetBlue flights. Additionally, the airline intends to begin using sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) on flights from San Francisco Airport later this year. SAF is produced from 100% waste and residue raw materials with an 80% lower carbon footprint compared to the current fossil fuel-based jet fuel. On top of this, JetBlue has committed to enhancing its fleet with over 85 of Airbus’ efficient and more environmentally-friendly A321neo aircraft.




Delta Air Lines:

In addition to JetBlue, Delta Air Lines, the world’s second largest airline based in Atlanta, has committed $1 billion for a 10-year plan to reduce all emissions from March 2020 and onward. Delta will invest this money to promote innovation for clean air travel technologies and accelerate the reduction of carbon emissions and waste. Since 2005, the airline has reduced over 11% of emissions with electric ground vehicles and newer aircraft. 98% of Delta’s emissions are coming from its aircraft, so they will be investing in a more environmentally-friendly fleet with the Airbus A350XWB, A321neo and Airbus’ other new narrow-body aircraft, the A220. One of Delta’s carbon offsetting programs supports projects such as Conservation Coast, a 54,000 hectare conservation that provides sustainable benefits for communities. Additionally, Delta has become more conservative by reducing single-use plastics such as stir sticks, wrappers, utensils, and straws by replacing them with reusable alternatives. They’ve also unveiled brand-new First/Business Class amenity kits to remove the plastic outer wrap, which has avoided 30,000 pounds of plastic waste from landfills in one year. Delta was also the first airline in the United States to recycle service items from aircraft such as drinking cups, bottles, and magazines. In the past 10 years, Delta has recycled more than three million pounds of aluminum and other materials from waste. Similarly to JetBlue, Delta also announced a $2 million investment for sustainable airplane fuel, which is expected to supply Delta’s flights in airports like Seattle, Portland and Los Angeles starting this year.




Trains Over Planes:

Personally, I believe planes are better than trains for a multitude of reasons. However, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, an airline based in Amsterdam, recently announced they would replace one of five daily flights between Amsterdam Schiphol Airport and Brussels Airport with a train service operated by Thales and NS Dutch Railways in order to promote a sustainable future. KLM’s “Fly Responsibly” program, which promotes CO2 reductions and biofuel, continues to grow with this train service. Not only would the environment benefit, but KLM will now have the ability to expand its route network as Amsterdam Schiphol Airport is a highly slot-constrained airport meaning flights are limited to and from the airport.




Similarly to KLM’s plan, the Catalan government in Spain would like to completely scrap every flight between Barcelona and Madrid. The government claims the train emits zero emissions and has a similar travel time to a flight from Barcelona to Madrid. While this promotes sustainability, airlines operating flights between the two airports will be economically affected as this flight is lucrative to their networks with over 2.5 million passengers in a year traveling between the two airports.


Aviation’s Future Environmental Sustainability Innovations:

With the current innovations in environmentally-friendly technology, there’s no doubt improvements will continue to rise. 

For example, airlines will soon be flying Boeing’s newest model and the world’s largest twin-engine aircraft, the 777X, which delivers 10% lower emissions compared to the current competition.



On the other hand, Airbus is planning to use the aerodynamics of geese to lower fuel consumption and CO2 emissions. This is possible by using aircraft to replicate the “V” pattern migrating geese fly in. When birds flap their wings, air flows over the wings and swirls upwards behind it. This creates a wake, which is kinetic energy in the form of air movement. Geese fly in a V pattern to save energy by exploiting “wake-energy retrieval” when flying. Similarly, airplanes also create a wake when flying, so Airbus is planning to take advantage of this by having aircraft fly three kilometers apart to save fuel and reduce emissions.

The Future Of Electric Aircraft:

While current aircraft use fossil fuels to power flights, Airbus’ next project is the “E-Fan X”, an electric commercial four-engined aircraft designed to jump towards zero-emissions in the next 20 years. The E-Fan X is a complex hybrid-electric aircraft demonstrator with four engines powered by electric propulsion units with batteries and generators. Airbus’ motivation for creating electric aircraft is to achieve a 50% reduction in aircraft CO2 emissions by 2050.




Conclusion:

Overall, the aviation industry will become more sustainable as innovations continue to prosper.

What do you think the future of aviation will rely on? Could electric aircraft be the solution to emissions or could airplanes be replaced entirely? Do you think trains should replace airplanes? What do you suggest airlines should do to reduce or eliminate emissions?

Sources:





Tuesday, February 25, 2020

Earthquake-Resistant Structures


Victor Lord

Mother nature is ruthless. From flooding to volcanic eruptions, there are a variety of weapons that cause havoc to our population. Specifically, earthquakes have always been problematic. According to the National Earthquake Information Center, there is an average of 20,000 earthquakes each year, and around 10,000 deaths annually; the majority of the death toll is not only caused by the quake itself but the collapse of buildings with people inside them. Though, scientists have learned to come up with a solution to prevent this problem: earthquake-resistant structures.

How Earthquake-Proof Buildings Are Designed

4 factors are taken into consideration when building an earthquake proof building: foundation, force absorption, deflection, and structure. Earthquake-resistant buildings are constructed with a base that lift's the foundation with flexible pads made with rubber, steel, and lead. This allows for the building to not be controlled by the seismic waves of the earthquake, rather, it relies on the base isolators that hold it to move freely but not sporadically. Force absorption executed through vibrational control devices, which are implemented on the walls of a building to absorb the energy of the force and convert it into heat, and pendulum power, in which engineers install a giant ball connected with steel wires inside the building to counteract the swaying of the building. Regardless, both of these force absorption techniques work to take the force of the earthquake and transform it into an effort to keep the building standing.

Image result for earthquake building

Later on, scientists turned to deflection of seismic waves in which they believed that placing plastic rings underneath the buildings would reroute the energy of the earthquake. The use of cross braces, horizontal frames, and moment resisting frames have been implemented in the structure of the building to provide even more flexibility to the building without collapse. Japan has even began to make earthquake-resistant structures a requirement when constructing a building. Beginning in 1971,  construction of buildings had to meet certain laws regarding earthquake sustainability and is mandated throughout the process. Because of this, the nation is said to have an extremely low earthquake to building collapse ratio. 
Image result for earthquake resistant structures

Earthquake-proof buildings is only one of the many examples of how the human population managed to adapt to the environmental conflicts we deal with. With the use of these buildings in city areas that are at risk of an earthquake, the amount of lives that could be saved would be astronomical. Though, with all of these new technologies that developed to combat the destruction of earthquakes, these buildings still would not be able to survive a powerful earthquake without collapse. There is still much more room for improvement and it's not guaranteed that one could be safe inside, but with the steady growth of technology and the development of different strategies, earthquakes can soon be a problem in the past. 
Image result for earthquake proof buildings

What's your opinions on Earthquake-proof structures? Do you believe it could help the population? Do you think the US should consider building some? Do you think we should tear down some old buildings and replace it with earthquake resistant ones? What places do you think we should place these structures in?





Wednesday, February 19, 2020

Does Captive Breeding Actually Save Endangered Species?

Yvonne Kim

According to the IUCN Red List, there are approximately 41,415 species that are classified as endangered and about 16,306 of them have a high risk of extinction. As the various species continue to decline in number, many assume that saving a species is an easy process by simply allowing organisms to breed in captivity, away from potential threats. I know this, because prior to researching about this topic, I assumed the same thing. Why can’t endangered species just be bred in a protected environment under human control? What many don’t realize is that captive breeding has more harmful consequences compared to benefits. 


To begin, many organizations claim to be “conservationists”, however their intentions say otherwise. A majority of these organizations have profit-driven ambitions and exploit their animals for the sake of making money. Specifically, organizations such as zoos, Tiger Temple (a supposed tiger sanctuary in Thailand), and other popular tourist attractions such as Sea World make profit through their display of wild animals. And in contrast to their conservative demeanor, these facilities have little to no success in captive breeding and the animals participating in these programs are rarely introduced to their natural habitats in the wild. This is due to the fact that the animals caged within these organizations are bred over a number of generations without any exposure to their natural habitats. A majority of animals caged in zoos are not being prepared to be released into the wild because they are denied the opportunity to learn and develop their survival skills. Additionally, even if the captive animals were given the opportunity to return to the wild, it would be impossible for them to survive without the basic knowledge of reproduction, territory defense, and the ability to obtain food and water. This is a problem for dwindling populations because animals raised in captivity won’t be able to interbreed with their wild counterparts, which hurts genetic diversity within the species.


Furthermore, fondness for captive breeding may be influenced by social media bias due to the fact that reporters are inclined to write about captive breeding programs that are both dramatic and successful. The media tends to filter out captive breeding failures despite the fact that raising and breeding a wild animal within an enclosed space is extremely challenging. Although this may be the case, there have actually been a couple successful captive breeding attempts. For example, in 1986, only 18 black-footed ferrets were alive in the entire world. Ever since then, there has been a successful captive breeding program that brought the numbers for this species up to about 500 in the wild with 300 more in zoos and other sanctuaries. Although this is true, other species such as the Asiatic Lion haven’t been as lucky. The captive breeding program in India began in 2002 in an effort to rebuild the small population of about 175 wild individuals. However, this program was abandoned after a mysterious disease killed 30 of the lions with dozens more showing symptoms of the same affliction. This disease most likely originated from genetic weaknesses in the Asiatic breeding stock, and all the zookeepers could do was isolate the sick lions to die. 


Because this so-called solution to decreasing populations have been proven ineffective, you may ask, “So what should be done instead?” An alternative solution would be to focus on preserving natural habitats so that these species may thrive. Habitat conservation efforts should address threatening issues such as social, environmental, and economic factors that contribute to habitat destruction, disease, and  invasive species. Habitat conservation would also allow more success for captive breeding programs by making sure a species has a suitable habitat to return to. No matter how much effort is put into preserving an endangered species, the job won’t be fully done if the animals only 
have bulldozed rubble to return to. 


What do you think? Should we continue captive breeding? What other solutions could humans use to help endangered species? Should media bring awareness to this issue? What could you do to help with this issue?



Are our Ocean Ecosystems in Danger?

The ocean is the biggest ecosystem on this earth, with so much biodiversity flourishing in our seas, but is facing one of the biggest threats of environmental sustainability. Our oceans produce more than half of the oxygen we breathe, and make up 97% of the world’s water. So why is it in so much danger?

 Image result for ocean pollution
Much of our ocean life is in danger due to human interference. Our oceans have been used as trash dumps and primary food sources, a large amount of our species endangered. 

Overfishing is one of the most significant drivers to the declines of the fish populations. Today, over a third of our fisheries have pushed past their biological limits to fish, according to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. To make matters worse, ocean ecosystems are so endangered that it is bound to collapse, sending fisheries into collapse, and consumers into a food crisis. Another danger to overfishing is bycatch-- the capture of unwanted sea life while fishing for a different species. Because of the lack of government regulation of fisheries, we can push ourselves into posing a huge endangerment into ocean life, causing a loss of biodiversity and a scarcity of a sustainable food source. 
In addition, overfishing is not the only factor towards marine life endangerment. Every year, billions of pounds of trash and other pollutants enter the ocean, destroying many marine habitats and and even affects animals’ mating rituals, which can have devastating consequences and wipe out an entire species. A private organization by the name or 4Ocean has been rising up to the marine pollution problem and clean out oceans and beaches in Florida, Bali, Haiti, and Guatemala. Still, one organization is not going to save our precious ocean ecosystems
Image result for overfishing problems
Image result for 4 ocean
More changes need to be made without removing a sustainable food source, but avoid overfishing.
Where do we find a balance? How can we as humans undo the mistakes we have made? 


Shh!

Maanav Varma Humans are LOUD. We make a lot of noise. Social events like concerts, transportation methods like airplanes, and daily househ...