Re: Next steps towards a net zero IETF

[Alexander Pelov <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

Indeed "proportional" doesn't exclude a constant (Ax+B) - and the size of
that constant compared to the rest should also be taken into account.

But I'm all for looking at the real world and see the real impact - don't
care too much for abstract gains.

I found an interesting paper dealing with the Marginal Fuel Burn per kg
transported over 1000 km.

"The opposite is also true: a reduction in weight
by one kg saves ~ 0.02 to 0.03 kg of fuel per
1’000 km"

   -
   https://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/bitstream/11475/1896/6/Steinegger_Fuel_Economy_as_a_Function_of_Weight_and_Distance_v1-1.pdf
   <https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAMQw7AJahcKEwiQyoGCs4X-AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcollection.zhaw.ch%2Fbitstream%2F11475%2F1896%2F6%2FSteinegger_Fuel_Economy_as_a_Function_of_Weight_and_Distance_v1-1.pdf&psig=AOvVaw3mCu1q0ldGS6ji1maTqhKc&ust=1680325649308692>



>From what I found, a kg of kerosene is 1.22 liters and produces 3kg of CO2
on average.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co2-emission-fuels-d_1085.html

Transporting a 100kg weight over 1000km then produces 60kg-90kg CO2
emissions.
For a round-trip Paris-Yokohama (9731km) that would be 1.2t-1.7t of CO2 per
person. (And use 0.95t-1.4t of kerosene)



Worldwide, the average person produces about *four tons of carbon dioxide
each year*.
To have the best chance of avoiding a 2℃ rise in global temperatures, the
average global carbon footprint per year needs to drop to under 2 tons by
2050.


https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/carbon-footprint-calculator/#:~:text=The%20average%20carbon%20footprint%20for,is%20closer%20to%204%20tons
.

So yeah, it turns out that the personal contribution - even if the planes
are flying- is not negligible (at least for me).

The IETF at the scale of the global population is of course not going to
change much.

But now I see the point that IETF's impact is NOT net zero if we do nothing
about it (as I initially assumed).

Cheers,
Alexander





Le mer. 29 mars 2023, 14:02, Andrew McConachie <[e-mail]> a écrit :

>
>
> On 25 Mar 2023, at 16:37, Christian Huitema wrote:
>
> > On 3/25/2023 5:36 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >> On 25.03.2023 11:48, Andrew McConachie wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> Trains and planes are fundamentally different in this regard,
> >>> because
> >>> planes calculate their weight at takeoff and only take as much fuel
> >>> as
> >>> they need. The amount of CO2 produced by a passenger plane is
> >>> directly
> >>> proportional to how many passengers it’s carrying.
> >>> ...
> >>
> >> So a passenger plane not carrying any passengers is not producing any
> >> CO2?
> >
> > I think Andrew erred when he said "directly proportional". As in many
> > things, you can probably separate fixed costs and variable costs.
> > There is a fixed cost to carrying the whole weight of the empty plane
> > and the crew through the sky. There is also a variable cost based on
> > the load of the plane, which for a passenger plane means the weight of
> > passengers and their luggage. So yes, an additional passenger directly
> > increases the fuel consumption of the plane -- but less so than if too
> > few passengers lead the airline to fly fewer planes. And the "fewer
> > plane" effect is entirely comparable to the "fewer trains" effect.
> >
>
> Your first sentence is correct. I erred in claiming direct
> proportionality. My point is that a plane carrying more people uses more
> fuel and thus produces more CO2. This is much less true for trains.
>
> There are more direct consequences of individuals choosing to fly simply
> because weight added to an airplane has a much greater effect on energy
> consumption than weight added to a train. Things like luggage and
> airplane meals add weight, which requires more fuel, which then requires
> even more fuel. So there are direct consequences with actually boarding
> an airplane more so than with trains.
>
> Whether or not reducing the number of overall passengers has the same
> effect on planes as it does on trains is a really complicated and
> difficult question to answer. You get into stuff like futures pricing of
> jet fuel and regulations governing rescheduling practices, etc. I
> don’t think anyone on this list is qualified enough to answer this
> question.
>
> —Andrew
>
>