Can’t rely on billionaires for low-carbon solutions

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 02/11/2021 (1412 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Forecasting is an imperfect science, but who should we believe? World leaders gathered at COP26 in Glasgow are pledging to achieve ambitious reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. At the same time, the Boeing Company is forecasting four per cent annual growth of both passenger and cargo airplanes to 2035.

These expectations of the future are incompatible. Aviation already produces two per cent of global carbon emissions, and when released at 30,000 feet, their emissions are twice as damaging to the environment.

It is easier to dismiss global targets that will never be achieved than to ignore the reality that jet aircraft are big polluters. Moreover, the world economy depends on travel at jet speeds. Zoom has its limits.

The dilemma for jet aircraft is that they have had it so good, for so long. Setting aside the issue of the carbon emissions, Jet-A (kerosene) is an ideal form of high-energy-density fuel. It is cheap, compact and simple to store. By comparison, hydrogen is zero-emissions, but is not easily compacted or stored.

Research to develop lightweight pressure tanks and cryogenic storage of liquid hydrogen will take years to complete.

Airbus does not foresee putting even its concept hydrogen airplanes into service before 2035. At four per cent annual growth, as Boeing predicts, the jet aircraft fleet will grow 75 per cent by 2035. Technical refinements over the next 14 years may improve fuel efficiency, but more must be done to reduce the growing impact on climate change.

One alternative is to replace kerosene with sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), bio-fuels, presumably made from algae or oilseeds. More research is still needed before the economics of SAF will work. This leaves the alternative of trading carbon credits in order to offset jet aircraft emissions.

The IATA ( International Air Transport Association) has already created a facility to help airlines purchase carbon credits. It claims “more than 50 airlines have made voluntary net-zero offset commitments.” As always, the devil is in the details: what constitutes an eligible carbon offset, and who proves its validity?

From an economic perspective, not all carbon emissions are considered equal. In a country as large and spread out as Canada, reliable passenger air service is critical to our economy, and some level of emissions can be justified. Home heating and transport trucks are easier to convert to zero-carbon energy sources. They should be tackled first. However, no justification can be produced for the carbon emissions of dedicated cargo jets.

Cargo jet numbers are increasing sharply. Airlines have been returning older Airbus and Boeing passenger jets to air leasing companies because of the pandemic. Many are being refitted with cargo doors, stronger floors and blocked-out windows to serve the surging freight demand that is overwhelming global supply chains.

Boeing predicts the current fleet of 1,770 cargo airplanes will grow to 3,010 airplanes by 2035. More than 60 per cent of these deliveries will be freighter conversions of repurposed passenger planes. Such cargo aircraft are the oldest and most heavily polluting jets in the sky.

Speed has value, but at what cost? Very little freight has to travel at 800 kilometres per hour. Crossing the Pacific Ocean in 12 hours, only to sit in a warehouse for days, is hardly an essential use of carbon fuels. An alternative is to use slower, dirigible-size, electric airships to replace cargo jets. The door-to-door delivery times of an electric airship might be a day or two longer, but at lower costs and with zero-carbon emissions.

The government of Canada pledged a 40 per cent GHG emission reduction by 2030, which exceeds the Paris Agreement target. With such an aggressive goal, one would think the feds would be exploring every reasonable option. Raising carbon taxes from $30 per metric tonne to $170/MT by 2030 can only inflate air travel costs, because there is no currently viable alternative to jet fuel.

Windmills, electric cars and dirigibles were all commercially available in the 1930s, and then they all disappeared because of cheap fossil fuels. Wind turbines and electric vehicles have both benefited from government investment, and have returned to market prominence with a vengeance.

Electric airships can fill an important and valuable niche as well. However, no new transportation system has ever been introduced successfully without government support and encouragement. This element is still missing for airship development.

Experience has shown that green technologies can be self-sustaining. After some initial support to get started, many have proven to be highly profitable. Electric airship technology is well advanced around the globe. With proper investment, they could be in use within five years.

Desperate times, such as the existential threat of climate change, require bold initiatives. We cannot wait for some eccentric billionaire to take all the risk to develop an airship industry and solve our problems. If now is not the time for the government of Canada to act, then when is?

Barry Prentice is a professor of supply chain management at the University of Manitoba.