Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

smh.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 251 posts

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#81

Post by WalterBright »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #76
WalterBright wrote: post #60

> striving to meet their emissions-reduction goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. This is part of the reason Qantas has invested heavily in kick-starting Australia’s sustainable aviation fuel industry. This is one of the most destructive frauds otherwise intelligent people are suckered into. It's based on the idiotic notion that a C atom from a biofuel results in "green" CO2 emissions. The CO2 emitted is exactly the sa…

It's clear that different fuels can have a different carbon impact. A "C atom from a biofuel" may in isolation be indistinguishable from one sourced from a fossil fuel, but it is exactly not the same in terms of its impact; claiming so is obviously disingenuous. None of this means that biofuels are actually an effective method to reduce the carbon impact of aviation. Life-cycle analysis is pretty hard. We can broadly…

> A "C atom from a biofuel" may in isolation be indistinguishable from one sourced from a fossil fuel, but it is exactly not the same in terms of its impact

How does it result in less CO2 in the atmosphere?

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#82

Post by coredog64 »

et-al wrote: post #44

I'm pretty sure the Mojave storage field is where it is because of its proximity to Edwards AFB and Bakersfield, but climate and land cost-wise, would there be a milder, yet dry, location to store aircraft outdoors in the States?

Pinal Airpark in Marana, Arizona. It’s just up the road from the boneyard at Davis-Monthan in Tucson.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#83

Post by bryanlarsen »

WalterBright wrote: post #80
progman32 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea being that producing the biofuel took carbon from the atmosphere (in particular algae crops [1]), vs releasing co2 that had been sitting harmlessly underground prior to being burned. Does producing biofuel not pull carbon away from the atmosphere? Am I misunderstanding your point? [1] https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/bio-aviati...

Let's say you have a log from a tree you just chopped down. You have the same amount of wood dug up as coal. Each emits the same CO2 when burned. Where is the net decrease in CO2? What difference does it make being fossilized?

Carbon neutrality means "no net increase" not a net decrease.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#84

Post by reisse »

908B64B197 wrote: post #61
rob74 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not get too carried away, shall we? At least the 346 people that died in the two 737-MAX crashes would probably question your "unqualified success" statement. But yes, no one can deny that the 737 has been a cash cow for Boeing (for far too long, some would say).

The original 737s by Boeing were all-American masterpieces that had pretty great safety records considering the sheer number of miles flown and delivered airframes. The 737-MAX, courtesy of Post McDonnel Douglas-Boeing merger [0], with code written by offshored 9$/h Indian coders was a complete disaster. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing...

Oh dear.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues

And speaking of safety records, A32* is better than B737* by any metric.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#85

Post by suzzer99 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #25
diebeforei485 wrote: post #4

It's a magnificent plane. It's very unfortunate that they launched the "shortened" version. The design and engineering was done for longer fuselage, so it actually has extra structure (and extra weight!) and larger wings than necessary. And it launched just before engines got a lot more efficient. The upside for passengers is that it's still the smoothest flying experience, even in turbulence. Boeing's 747 was incred…

The A380 is pretty smooth, but I found that the way it cruises is not great for me. It tends to surge and glide in a way that prevents me from actually falling asleep, more so than on other smaller planes like a 787. While the 787 might not be as silky smooth taking off and landing, I prefer it for the long term comfort that matters for most of the flight.

In a similar vein, my boss complained that the cabin was too quiet, and he couldn't sleep hearing all the other sounds that are usually blocked out by ambient noise.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#86

Post by WalterBright »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #83
WalterBright wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say you have a log from a tree you just chopped down. You have the same amount of wood dug up as coal. Each emits the same CO2 when burned. Where is the net decrease in CO2? What difference does it make being fossilized?

Carbon neutrality means "no net increase" not a net decrease.

I do know what the words mean.

Throwing the log in a landfill (or building a house with it) would accomplish the same thing, and is a heluva lot cheaper.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#87

Post by pwarner »

raulgalera wrote: post #5
diebeforei485 wrote: post #4

It's a magnificent plane. It's very unfortunate that they launched the "shortened" version. The design and engineering was done for longer fuselage, so it actually has extra structure (and extra weight!) and larger wings than necessary. And it launched just before engines got a lot more efficient. The upside for passengers is that it's still the smoothest flying experience, even in turbulence. Boeing's 747 was incred…

i totally agree re: the smoothest flying experience. the takeoff is so long and smooth you almost don't realize that you're up in the air. it was sad to learn that airlines were trying to get rid of it.

I missed the actual takeoff on my one and only 380 flight. It was truly exceptional. 747 may have more character and history, but 380 may be more comfortable.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#88

Post by et-al »

coredog64 wrote: post #82
et-al wrote: post #44

I'm pretty sure the Mojave storage field is where it is because of its proximity to Edwards AFB and Bakersfield, but climate and land cost-wise, would there be a milder, yet dry, location to store aircraft outdoors in the States?

Pinal Airpark in Marana, Arizona. It’s just up the road from the boneyard at Davis-Monthan in Tucson.

Climate-wise, Marana, AZ doesn't seem any milder (I'm also surprised the Mojave doesn't cross 100ºF):

https://weatherspark.com/compare/y/1757~2591/Comparison-of-t...

Basically asking, "if we can put this anywhere else, where would be other good candidates?" Besides Redwood City, Climate Best by Government Test.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#89

Post by rainsford »

WalterBright wrote: post #80
progman32 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea being that producing the biofuel took carbon from the atmosphere (in particular algae crops [1]), vs releasing co2 that had been sitting harmlessly underground prior to being burned. Does producing biofuel not pull carbon away from the atmosphere? Am I misunderstanding your point? [1] https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/bio-aviati...

Let's say you have a log from a tree you just chopped down. You have the same amount of wood dug up as coal. Each emits the same CO2 when burned. Where is the net decrease in CO2? What difference does it make being fossilized?

I'll caveat this by stating I'm not an expert in the area, but the obvious difference seems to be that I can keep growing more trees to burn, while the only way to keep burning coal is to dig up more of it. Burning a tree may release the same amount of CO2 as burning the coal, but the carbon in the tree was taken out of the air during the growing process, so the total amount of CO2 hasn't changed over the lifetime of the tree. Burning the coal releases previously stored carbon without a way to "re-store" it since new coal isn't being created at nearly the rate we're burning it.

Really burning the tree would have the same problem if you were burning them far faster than new trees were growing, but the idea is that you don't do that. The problem with fossil fuels is have no way of restoring it remotely as fast as we're burning it, so the net amount of carbon in the air has to go up.

Re: Qantas is bringing back Airbus A380s from the California desert

#90

Post by bsk26 »

WalterBright wrote: post #86
bryanlarsen wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carbon neutrality means "no net increase" not a net decrease.

I do know what the words mean. Throwing the log in a landfill (or building a house with it) would accomplish the same thing, and is a heluva lot cheaper.

Except it'll probably still decay into co2 in the landfill while the coal underground is stable
Post reply on HN