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

Portland airport grows with expansive mass timber roof canopy

design-milk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 276 posts

Re: Portland airport grows with expansive mass timber roof canopy

#151

Post by vdsk »

wkat4242 wrote: post #144
Sparkyte wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the other improvement people don't pay attention to is the new TSA scanners you don't have to take your laptop out.

You're lucky you get to use those. In Holland they had those at Schiphol Airport and we were able to leave liquids in our bags and the 100ml limit was removed. But the EU ordered it to be reintroduced because they wanted the rules the same within Europe. Edit: This previously said we could no longer keep the laptops in our bags but this part was not affected, I've amended this post to avoid confusion.

CDG in Paris did not need me to take out the laptops, so I'm not sure it's the EU fault for Schiphol

Re: Portland airport grows with expansive mass timber roof canopy

#152

Post by wkat4242 »

vdsk wrote: post #151
wkat4242 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're lucky you get to use those. In Holland they had those at Schiphol Airport and we were able to leave liquids in our bags and the 100ml limit was removed. But the EU ordered it to be reintroduced because they wanted the rules the same within Europe. Edit: This previously said we could no longer keep the laptops in our bags but this part was not affected, I've amended this post to avoid confusion.

CDG in Paris did not need me to take out the laptops, so I'm not sure it's the EU fault for Schiphol

Yeah I was confused, it was the new liquid rules that were a problem. Sorry.

I'm glad the laptops can still stay. I don't travel with liquids so much (I just have toiletries at the places I go to already) but electronics I have a lot.

Re: Portland airport grows with expansive mass timber roof canopy

#153

Post by vdsk »

wkat4242 wrote: post #152
vdsk wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CDG in Paris did not need me to take out the laptops, so I'm not sure it's the EU fault for Schiphol

Yeah I was confused, it was the new liquid rules that were a problem. Sorry. I'm glad the laptops can still stay. I don't travel with liquids so much (I just have toiletries at the places I go to already) but electronics I have a lot.

Yeah, I saw your other comment just after posting. I didn't know there was a movement to increase the volume for liquids. Hope it gets done soon

Re: Portland airport grows with expansive mass timber roof canopy

#154

Post by wkat4242 »

exegete wrote: post #141
wkat4242 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It boggles my mind why the US doesn't simply offer high-speed trains for easy distances like those. That whole Northeast is just screaming for it with easily managable distances. Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC.. All easily high-speed-trainable. Boston to Portland too, for that matter. Instead of spending 1 hour queueing at the airport, spend one hour on the train and you're there.

It’s being planned, but projects like these are never certain: https://secretnyc.co/high-speed-train-nyc-to-boston/

Yeah that's true, even in the Netherlands our high-speed line between Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp was a nightmare. It cost billions, way more than budgeted, many of the bridges turned out to have construction faults (despite all the cost overruns) so the trains aren't able to actually go fast, and the high-speed trains were bought on a budget and had so many flaws that the Belgians refused to allow them. Now we're stuck with a non-highspeed train on the track that was supposed to be highspeed and cost a fortune to build.

In other countries like Germany, France and Spain the high-speed network works like a dream though. Though the good stuff is all nationally focused.

Re: Portland airport grows with expansive mass timber roof canopy

#155

Post by mavhc »

bell-cot wrote: post #150
wkat4242 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It boggles my mind why the US doesn't simply offer high-speed trains for easy distances like those. That whole Northeast is just screaming for it with easily managable distances. Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC.. All easily high-speed-trainable. Boston to Portland too, for that matter. Instead of spending 1 hour queueing at the airport, spend one hour on the train and you're there.

Flying has been the preferred travel mode of both the well-to-do and the aspirational for over half a century. Air travel only needs working airplanes, and a relatively simple airport at each end. So, in general, there's ample social pressure to get the job done quickly. Vs. high-speed trains went out of fashion (in America) well before most people's memories. And their tracks have to be threaded, foot-by-foot, acros…

Plus you get to use the atmosphere as a free sewer, filling it with pollution without paying the actual cost to clean it up, which makes flying really cheap

Re: Portland airport grows with expansive mass timber roof canopy

#156

Post by wkat4242 »

bell-cot wrote: post #150
wkat4242 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It boggles my mind why the US doesn't simply offer high-speed trains for easy distances like those. That whole Northeast is just screaming for it with easily managable distances. Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC.. All easily high-speed-trainable. Boston to Portland too, for that matter. Instead of spending 1 hour queueing at the airport, spend one hour on the train and you're there.

Flying has been the preferred travel mode of both the well-to-do and the aspirational for over half a century. Air travel only needs working airplanes, and a relatively simple airport at each end. So, in general, there's ample social pressure to get the job done quickly. Vs. high-speed trains went out of fashion (in America) well before most people's memories. And their tracks have to be threaded, foot-by-foot, acros…

> Nations with good high-speed rail systems have quite different priorities and local governance structures than America.

Hmm true but Europe has most of the same red-tape/NIMBY/environmental impact studies etc issues as America. Those are not unique.

However considering climate impact it pays itself back.

Re: Portland airport grows with expansive mass timber roof canopy

#157

Post by pmayrgundter »

Perz1val wrote: post #124
morsch wrote: post #114

I agree it looks nice, but dressing up an airport in sustainable materials won't materially change the fact that a flight Boston - NYC (one-way!) blasts through ~0.7t[1] of CO2eq of your yearly budget of 1-3t[2]. It won't change the fact, but I'm sure it'll make it easier to forget or ignore. [1] https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=75775... [2] e.g. https://ieep.eu/publications/carbon-inequality-in…

The carbon emission is not a problem, the imbalance is. When we burn fossil fuels, we use carbon that was stored by dead plants being buried. We take carbon from the ground and dump it in the atmosphere. Plants take carbon from the atmosphere. If were to bury the equivalent amount of wood, we would be equal. Buried wood is not useful, but building from it also locks the carbon somewhere else that isn't an atmosphere.…

Interesting point!

It looks like Skanska is GC for the Project, and cites it as a 9 acre (!) lumber roofing system[SK], and that it uses 3.5M board foot of Douglas Fir Project Lumber[PL].

Douglas Fir is 3.2 pounds per board foot, or 1.45kg [DFM]. So 1.45 * 3.5M = 5Mkg of lumber for PDX airport.

DF has an Embodied CO2 of 1.6kgCO2/kgLumber [DFC]. A little hard to believe? But maybe that's bc a lot of the mass of a tree is left in the ground. Worth following up.

1.6kgCO2/kgLumber * 5MkgLumber = 8MkgCO2 = 8KtCO2 embodiment/sequestration from the PDX roof project. (tho there's a lot more to the project that probably goes in the other direction)

Global CO2 emissions from commercial flights is ~60MtCO2/month [CF], so we need roughly 12,000 airports per month, 144,000/yr, to offset flight CO2 emissions.

There's 9000 commercial airline airports [NA] (tho obv many smaller than PDX, but they would also represent less CO2 from their flights), so 144,000/9000 is a 16x annual airport rebuild rate we'd need to offset CO2 emissions from the flights they service.

So yeah, this is absurd on the face of it.

But, how much of the mass of an airport is the roof? If it's like 1/100th the total mass, and you start building airports with all wood (foundation, runways, etc) you'd get to 16% annual rebuild rate to offset flight emissions. Still too high to be plausible. But another 10x somehow and you get to ~1% range of annual airport rebuild rate to offset emissions.

Then you'd have something.

[SK] https://www.usa.skanska.com/what-we-deliver/projects/278172/...

[PL] https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnoseid/2024/08/19/portlands-...

[DFM] https://www.globalwood.org/tech/tech_wood_weights.htm

[DFC] https://www.douglasfir.co.nz/net/environment/carbon-footprin...

[CF] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1500409/global-aviation-...

[NA] https://sentinel-aviation.com/blog/over-40000-airports-in-th...

Re: Portland airport grows with expansive mass timber roof canopy

#158

Post by morsch »

wkat4242 wrote: post #154
exegete wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s being planned, but projects like these are never certain: https://secretnyc.co/high-speed-train-nyc-to-boston/

Yeah that's true, even in the Netherlands our high-speed line between Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp was a nightmare. It cost billions, way more than budgeted, many of the bridges turned out to have construction faults (despite all the cost overruns) so the trains aren't able to actually go fast, and the high-speed trains were bought on a budget and had so many flaws that the Belgians refused to allow them. Now we'…

I'm not surprised, building a new high-speed line between the largest cities in the Netherlands must be a nightmare, that's connecting and going through some of the most densely populated areas in Europe.

The German railway network (including the high-speed part of it) has loads of issues, and it's hardly working like a dream. That said, the interconnect between large cities is pretty great when it works. For these intermediate distances (around 500 km) it's about as fast as flying would be once you factor in getting to/from the airport (vs the more central train station), being there early etc; and much faster than driving by car.

Re: Portland airport grows with expansive mass timber roof canopy

#159

Post by ryeguy_24 »

alwinaugustin wrote: post #65

This looks good. Bangalore airport in India also has kind of similar wooden design based on bamboo. check this out - https://youtu.be/epYGptLAaio

I was just there and thinking the exact same thing. Looks identical. I am curious to know if the designer is the same.

Re: Portland airport grows with expansive mass timber roof canopy

#160

Post by morsch »

pmayrgundter wrote: post #157
Perz1val wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The carbon emission is not a problem, the imbalance is. When we burn fossil fuels, we use carbon that was stored by dead plants being buried. We take carbon from the ground and dump it in the atmosphere. Plants take carbon from the atmosphere. If were to bury the equivalent amount of wood, we would be equal. Buried wood is not useful, but building from it also locks the carbon somewhere else that isn't an atmosphere.…

Interesting point! It looks like Skanska is GC for the Project, and cites it as a 9 acre (!) lumber roofing system[SK], and that it uses 3.5M board foot of Douglas Fir Project Lumber[PL]. Douglas Fir is 3.2 pounds per board foot, or 1.45kg [DFM]. So 1.45 * 3.5M = 5Mkg of lumber for PDX airport. DF has an Embodied CO2 of 1.6kgCO2/kgLumber [DFC]. A little hard to believe? But maybe that's bc a lot of the mass of a tree…

> tho there's a lot more to the project that probably goes in the other direction

I mean, this is obviously why this is just a fun math exercise and not much else. Building an airport, even if you build part of it out of wood, is not net carbon-negative.

Post reply on HN