An Eco-Friendly Flying Saucer
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 07.24.07
UFOs may soon no longer be just the realm of science fiction writers: researchers at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands have started working on an "ultra eco-friendly plane" of the future which, in the vision of project director Etnel Straatsma, happens to be a flying saucer. As the head of recently-started CleanEra project, he hopes to design a plane that will reduce noise and release 50% less carbon dioxide per passenger-mile than current airliners.
According to Alexander de Haan, also of Delft University but not affiliated with the project, the main challenge will be overcoming the already close to maximally optimized airplane technologies. After examining several possible design modifications and improvements, he estimates that, at most, they could reduce carbon emissions by up to 15%. "These ideas cannot keep up with the 5 percent growth that the [airline] industry continues to have year after year," he explained.
Straatsma and his colleagues are currently considering a range of possible options — a return to propellers, composite materials, ergonomics and biofuels — to help them reach their ambitious goal. Though more fuel efficient than jets, Straatsma has been lukewarm about the merits of propeller-driven planes, citing comfort as a serious concern: ""One of my requirements is to increase comfort, and we can't do that by making flights longer." However, she says that placing two propellers in a row with oppositely turning blades to reduce noise could be a possibility.
Another option would be to switch to composite materials (plastic reinforced by woven fibers) for the plane's fuselage — a modification that would weigh less, improve aerodynamics and thus reduce fuel consumption. Such a design could help the plane "reach a 30% weight reduction," according to de Haan. Biofuels, another cited alternative, would help reduce total carbon emissions though there are some worries that higher biofuel blends could freeze at sub-zero temperatures in high altitudes. Hydrogen fuel, which eschews that problem, might help once the technology to store it in small gas tanks is achieved.
The last, and perhaps most obvious option, would simply be to place more passengers on each plane. A "blended wing" body could accommodate up to 800 passengers by seating some out into the wings. The only problem would be that those sitting further away from the plane's central axis would likely experience a more "turbulent" ride. Also, airlines would have to review the feasibility and necessity of having planes with such large capacities.
While promising, de Haan cautions that such modifications may well take decades before they are fully implemented. We'll be keeping our fingers crossed.
Via ::LiveScience: Flying Saucer Designed for Greener Air Travel (blog)
See also: ::UFO Light by Neues Licht, ::Solar Powered Plane Might Fly Continuously For Weeks, ::Boeing's Zero-Emission Plane Set To Take Off
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
One in Every Four New Yorkers Has Elevated Blood Mercury Levels
|
Tranformer Fashion: Dos Caras Jacket and Bag
|
The A380 can already accomodate over 800 passengers.
The current body size can handler 853 (including crew).
I believe this was an all economy configuration - and was used to test the escape procedures.
Yes and the dreamliner already uses composite technology as mentioned above.
That boasts a 20% improvement in fuel consumption. This is great!.....
as long as they don't allow 20% more flights.....
That boasts a 20% improvement in fuel consumption. This is great!.....
as long as they don't allow 20% more flights.....
Do you make similar comments about high-mileage personal vehicles like the Prius? Why do people have double standards about fuel economy when it comes to planes? Would it be better if planes wasted more fuel?
If the number of flights stays constant, it's less harmful to the environment.
If it allows flights to be cheaper and increase in number by 25%, the environment gets damaged as much as it does now. You just have 25% more people flying around, perhaps it gets 25% cheaper. There's a benefit to consumers, but no improvement for the environment.
Airlines are interested in growing the number of flights, so how long til we are back where we started? 3 years? 5 years? I know you can say that it's better than leaving things as they are, but if companies push improvements as helping the environment then they can't ignore the way it is used.
I agree there shouldn't be double standards about cars. Again if a car gets twice the mpg, it doesn't help the environment if it allows you to drive twice as far. I just think planes are important because I couldn't do 10,000 miles in 1 day in a car.
I just think planes are important because I couldn't do 10,000 miles in 1 day in a car
How many people fly 10,000 miles in one day? Basically no one.
Light vehicles travel log about 6 times the passenger miles as flying does in the US, with 2/3 of vehicle trips less than 10 miles.
To give some further context, commercial aviation fuel use increased 12.8% over the past 10 years, compared to an increase in light vehicle fuel use by 22.5% -- almost double the rate.
The amount of increase for commercial aviation was 2.2 billion gallons, compared to 25.6 billion gallons for light vehicles -- nearly 12 times the amount.
"Airlines are interested in growing the number of flights, so how long til we are back where we started? 3 years? 5 years? I know you can say that it's better than leaving things as they are, but if companies push improvements as helping the environment then they can't ignore the way it is used."
I'm sorry but this logic does not make sense. If airline companies are going to increase their flights no matter what, then a 25% reduction in emissions and fuel consumption has a larger impact than if they stay the same.
A 25% reduction on 3000 fights is a lot more than a 25% reduction on 1000 flights. And if they were going to have 3000 flights anyway, then it is still a 25% reduction.