Speaker 1 (00:01):
Well I'm in over my head. No one told me trying to keep my footprint. Smile was harder than I thought it could be. I'm in over my head. What do I really need? Trying to save the planet over someone, please save me trying to save the planet over someone. Please save me.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Welcome to my head. I'm Michael Bartz. Just a quick note that all our transportation interviews were conducted over the phone. So the audio quality isn't at a studio level. Hopefully your ear can get accustomed to it and you'll still enjoy the great conversations. My guest today is Dr. David Zingg. Dr. Zing is the director of the university of Toronto Institute for aerospace studies and is internationally recognized as a leading researcher in the field of computational fluid dynamics. He has held a tier one Canada research chair in the computational aerodynamics and environmentally friendly aircraft designs. In 2001. He also serves on the board of directors of the green aviation research and development network, which brings together government, academia, and industrial partners to foster the development of technologies to reduce emissions. Welcome to you over my head, Dr. Zingg, thank you. In talking about sustainable transportation. One topic that always comes to mind is air travel.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
It's easy to imagine everyone driving electric cars or biking to work, to reduce their environmental footprint, but planes with their massive size and how much fuel they burn. I mean, they are flying after all. They seem like an obvious culprit when it comes to the climate crisis at the extreme end, some people have sworn off flying altogether, and I would guess that most environmentally conscious people have some reservations about booking that next flight to a far off country, but from my perspective, solving the climate crisis, isn't about turning back the clock on technology, quite the opposite. It should be one of our most important tools in fixing the problem. So to begin, let's start with a contribution civil aviation plays in climate change in going through your research. You said that the contribution is relatively modest, which surprised me. Tell me more about that.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
Sure. So aviation causes between three and 5% of human impact on climate change. There's a arrange there because we're uncertain about some of the impact. So we're very clear on the impact of CO2 emissions. We're fairly clear on the impact of nitrogen oxide emissions at altitude. We're less clear on the impact of contrails. So there are large error bars on the the impact of contrails. And in fact, recent data that's been, become available as a result of the reduced flying during the pandemic suggests that the effect of contrails is lower than we have thought previously. So the impact of aviation could be, you know, around three, three and a half percent of all human impact on climate change. So, you know, it's certainly important to be careful with flying, but we won't solve the climate change for problem just by stopping flying. There's a whole bunch of other things we have to do in
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Addition. Yeah, for sure. And it is, it is just one part of the solution, but I figure, I mean, you, it's not, you have to do one thing and not the other thing, you can do a range of, of different things to solve the problems. So, and I think obviously talking about flight is, is important. So other than the, the current situation with the pandemic overall is, is the demand for air travel increasing. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:10):
Traditionally if you put aside recessions and pandemics, the demand for air travel increases about four to 5% per a year, meaning that the amount of air travel doubles about every 15 to 18 years, but it's hard to say going forward as we go into the post pandemic world and a world is more conscious about climate change, whether that will actually continue. And,
Speaker 2 (03:33):
And so our emissions per passenger kilometer increasing, or, or decreasing,
Speaker 3 (03:39):
They're always decreasing historically at about one to 2% per year, primarily as a result of advances in technology. And if we continue to invest about the same amount in R and D, that that would continue, and it's not enough since demand grows more than one to 2% a year. So the impact of aviation would go up, which is one of the reasons why aviation has the target on it. So we do need urgently need increased investment in R and D. And another reason it's urgent is because it takes a long time to bring a, a technology to market in aviation because of all their safety requirements and reliability requirements. And also aircraft are flown for a very long time, 30 years. So an aircraft that's going to go into production now will still be flying in 2050. So we need to make sure the aircraft we're producing soon are, are a lot cleaner than the ones we're, we've been flying in the past.
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Yeah. That makes sense. If it's such a huge investment, they're not gonna just fly it for a few years and then get a new, wants, like a car that you're leasing. So,
Speaker 3 (04:42):
Or an I, it's not like an iPhone, right?
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Yeah. So it's definitely an investment. In your opinion, is there enough funding in R and D to help solve the climate crisis when it comes to flight?
Speaker 3 (04:53):
No, absolutely not. We have the the kind of, a lot of public pressure to to reduce emissions from aviation, but we don't have the, a a comparable investment. We definitely need to, if we want to be able to fly in a, in a way that is consistent with our carbon targets, we need a lot more R and D than we're
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Doing now. All right. So maybe let's talk about some of the technology that potentially could come about that would help with when it comes to flight, some areas of your research include aerodynamic shape optimization and Aero structural optimization. How much of an impact does the shape of a plane have on its greenhouse gas emissions?
Speaker 3 (05:33):
Right. So the shape of the plane is relevant to its its aerodynamics and therefore it's drag, which is directly proportional of the amount of fuel. It burns. So historically the reductions in emissions for passenger kilometer have come as a result of improved technologies, including aerodynamics, but also structures, materials, and engine technologies. Since 1960 technologies have reduced the emissions for passenger kilometer by over 70%. So the shape of a plane has a huge impact on its greenhouse sist.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
It might be a simple question, but is the shape changing a lot or they, are they now minor changes compared to in the past?
Speaker 3 (06:07):
No, that's actually a great question because you know, anyone who looks up at the sky sees that airplanes haven't changed much from a big picture point of view the, the general layout and configuration hasn't changed much for a long time. And so the question is whether in future, that layout is still going to be the, the best possible design. When I say in the future, once we consider environmental considerations as a higher priority. So there are some alternative consider potentially on the horizon that are being researched quite actively right now that might offer a step change, a step improvement, which is what is needed.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
I know just audio, but can you describe some of those, those changes, what that might look like? Yeah,
Speaker 3 (06:49):
The two that are probably most most likely to bear fruit in the medium term are the blended wing body are hybrid wing body, which is sort of a, you could call it a flying wing, but that's not quite accurate. So it's more that the, the body where the passenger sit is blended with the wings. There's not such a distinct tube and wings as in current aircraft. So that's one with high potential, and another one is much simpler and therefore, maybe easier to bring to fruit and sooner is just a, a TRUS brace wing with some kind of a strut or multiple struts to support the wing, to allow for longer wings without a weight penalty, which reduces drag and therefore improves fuel efficiency and reduces carbon dioxide emissions as well.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Mm-Hmm okay. Oh, and speaking of, of fuel efficiency, does the planes fuel source affected greenhouse gas emissions?
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Yes, very much so. So in addition to making the aircraft more efficient, the second way to reduce climate change impact is through the fuel. So currently aircraft burn kerosene, which is great for safe and economical flight, but leads to CO2 emissions and emissions of nitrogen oxides that also contribute climate change. So biofuels have huge potential to reduce CO2 emissions, and they're still usable in current engines, but they have big challenges in terms of supply and cost. And then hydrogen is kind of also being looked at as a fuel for the future, but it's a little too far away to help us in the short to medium term.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
Okay. Let's lower these a bit more. So what sir, what are exactly what are biofuels?
Speaker 3 (08:24):
So biofuel is a, basically a fuel that is made from a crop to a feed stock. So you grow something and during the process of growing that you absorb CO2, and then when you burn it, you release that CO2. So there's some sort of a net bowel and between the CO2 absorbed and the CO2 omitted it of, of course, it's not perfectly neutral because you have to transport it and you have to process and, and things, but it's, it's a net CO2. If you count both the absorption and the emission is much better than kerosene.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Okay. But you said there's problem with sourcing. It is there just a limited supply,
Speaker 3 (09:00):
Right? This is now something you grow. And most of what we grow, we eat. So you don't wanna displace people's food crops with fuel crops. So you have to grow the feed stock for the fuel in a place where you couldn't go grow food, otherwise, which kind of limits the type of feed stocks
Speaker 2 (09:19):
You can use. Yeah. It would make more sense if it was maybe a byproduct that we already had that we could use, it was maybe waste, but just to grow crops for fuel, doesn't seem like a very good idea. Can you, let's quick touch a bit on hydrogen. How does, how does hydrogen power a plane?
Speaker 3 (09:34):
So hydrogen is a is a fuel like any other but compared to kerosene, it has a lower mass per power output, which is great, but a higher volume per power output. So you end up having large volume tanks, which makes the aerodynamics harder and could increase drag, but it's also got some challenges with safety and infrastructure and handling and those kind of
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Things. And yeah. So you said it was a bit too far out right now to, to use that technology.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
Well, it's funny. I mean, I think some companies are making quite a point of stressing hydrogen and it, and it could be something that becomes the fuel of the future. But again, I stress that our climate change problem is, is so urgent that something that's gonna help us starting in 2050 is great, but we need other things too. We need things that are gonna start helping us sooner
Speaker 2 (10:28):
Than that. And, and so what are some of those things?
Speaker 3 (10:31):
Well, biofuels could ramp up faster than they have been, but I think the tech logical changes, even though they're smaller in their potential benefit, they're, you know, 10, 20, 30, 40% when you, they accumulate are more short term and, and medium terms. So I think we really should pursue everything, both different technologies, but also different timeframes.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
Cause you said that a lot of these technologies, because you purchase a plane and it goes for 30 years, perhaps it, it moves slowly. So do you see a shift happening in, in enough time to address the climate crisis when it comes to flight, as far as implementing newer technologies quickly enough?
Speaker 3 (11:13):
Right? So basically there's there's technologies that we have have around now that could maybe reduce drag by 10%, not nearly enough, but if those could be implemented and brought into service within five years, 10 years, then that would be great. Larger step changes. 20, 30% would be further down the road, but again, with increased investment, these things can happen fairly quickly. And I think more quickly than something like hydrogen fuel, which, which has a, you know, a development path, that's gonna take a while. So yeah, I, I think that the efforts that that's gone into something like trust, brace wing, or the blended wing body, there's no reason why it couldn't enter service within 10 years. I don't think it will, but I think it could,
Speaker 2 (12:00):
To me, it sounds like it maybe it's a, a funding issue or just not having enough resources, potentially.
Speaker 3 (12:05):
It's a big challenge. Like, like everything associated with climate change in that the, the government has certain amount of money to invest. And in industry has a certain amount of money to invest and industry needs to remain profitable. So, you know, the amount they invest in R and D just because the challenge is urgent doesn't mean they suddenly have more money available. So it's a tough it's
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Tough nut to crack. Yeah. And like you said, if, if the flight emissions are three to 5% of the overall pitch, they're not gonna be putting maybe as much into that as, as other solutions, which might actually be cheaper and, and more effective.
Speaker 3 (12:37):
No, absolutely. There are much more low hanging fruit available in terms of you know, electrification of cars, but, but even more so getting more green power sources, I mean, we have to eliminate coal burning and things like that. So yeah, there's much lower hanging fruits than aviation around. So that's one of the kind of myths is that we should all stop flying because we can reduce the emissions from ground transportation fairly easily by going to electric cars. Fine. That's true. Except as long as we don't switch over to electric cars, then we like, there's much more benefit from switching to electric. If you have green electricity, then there is from stopping flying. There's, there's a bigger bang for the box. Even there's other things, internet use, there's so many luxury products we get that we don't need. We don't know the CO2 emissions that those costs, we know what it is from aviation, but somehow we don't have an accounting that tells us how we can responsibly make the decision. Aviation has this well understood contribution, but I don't think people are quite as clear when they buy a certain product, how much CO2 was admitted to make that product and bring it to you, transport it to you. So I think if we have a more transparent accounting, I think people can make better decisions.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
Well, that's a, that's a great point. And I think for that, it's easy to imagine a big playing with all its fuel and flying in the air as being this huge emitter. And that's something that we could, if we didn't fly at all, then, then we'd fix the whole problem. But if it's those smaller other things like you to talked about internet or, or the purchases we make, then that's good to talk about as well, because I, this show is about finding solutions and, and not demonizing certain industries. Let's, let's make informed choices. So this is really helpful.
Speaker 3 (14:21):
Yeah. I mean, I, I respect the activists who are recommending that we reduce flying, but I, I think that to some extent, this target on aviation came from some early books and articles where they tried to, to make the point that it's harder to eliminate CO2 emissions from aviation than it is from other sectors. And therefore, if we want to reduce co CO2 emissions by 80%, then we can do X in transportation and construction and home heating, but there's nothing similar in aviation. So therefore the only way to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% in aviation is to reduce flying. And that's somewhat true. But again, it only makes sense to target flying if you've already done those other things, or if, at least in parallel, you're doing all those other things and we're Laing, we still drive SUVs. We still eat steak. I mean, it goes on and on.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Yeah. I find that very interesting that it is all part of the solution, but perhaps perhaps a smaller percentage than people thought it was.
Speaker 3 (15:22):
Yeah. I think it's become a bit out of proportion. Yeah. Because it's, there's also sort of this notion that only the rich fly and certainly there to that, but there's, you know, most things that have a big impact on climate change are done primarily by the affluent portion of the globe. I think we all know that too luxury goods, even ground transportation and the internet usage, the poor people on the planet. Aren't, aren't doing much
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Of that. Yeah. And, and I think, you know, the world is, is so much better because we, we can fly. We can go across the, across the globe in such little time. And, and I don't think that, like I said, demonizing flying is, is productive actually at
Speaker 3 (16:00):
All. Well, no, that goes back to your earlier point about not setting the clock back. I, I think it's easy to kind of be a bit glib that the only period people fly is to zip down to Florida in the winter if you're a Canadian, but there's a lot of other reasons people fly and, and it certainly has made the world a smaller place and has helped with global understanding. And there's a lot of things that a lot of flights that are taking place that are not purely a little trip to Florida.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Mm-Hmm . Yeah. And obviously if we can make these things more environmentally friendly, I I'm all for that for sure. But one of your papers was on the preliminary designs for solar powered hybrid air ships. And although this intended mission was for disaster relief in remote areas of central Africa, it does make me wonder if renewable energy is something we might one day see in civil aviation. I mean, in a hundred years, do you see all the planes being powered by renewable energy?
Speaker 3 (16:55):
Yeah. I mean, I think in a hundred years, if we're still around in a hundred years, then I think we have to be doing everything renewably. I mean, we'll, we'll run out of anything. That's not renewable in a hundred years, so absolutely. I mean, biofuels are inherently renewable, right? You grow them and you burn them and you can grow some more. So yes, absolutely. I think though, that solar powered and electric aircraft are again a hundred years, a long way away, but in the short to medium term, electric aircraft are, might have a niche, but they won't help us with long range flights. The battery technology is just not not good enough yet. And, and won't be good enough for as far as anyone can tell, but a hundred years is a, is a long way. Maybe that was too far. Maybe have
Speaker 2 (17:39):
To be making predictions 20, 50 years from now. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
Yeah. I mean, I think the sooner we use solely renewable energy sources, the better off we'll be. I mean, there's no question about that,
Speaker 2 (17:49):
But is that technology even like, we talk about hydrogen a bit, but is some of that technology even being considered for, for flight or not as much?
Speaker 3 (17:58):
Yeah. I mean, biofuels were, were not that long ago considered the solution. And then somehow they got leapfrogged by hydrogen. I guess people got impatient with the rate at which availability of biofuels was going up and cost of biofuels is coming down. So I think we need to stay the course sometimes and see these things through biofuels are a better solution in the short to medium terms than hydrogen, you know, they can be used in current engines. It's just so much less risk involved.
Speaker 2 (18:25):
So does a larger plane have lower emissions since it haul as more passengers?
Speaker 3 (18:31):
Yes. per passenger kilometer, a larger plane has lower emissions and, and a longer flight is better than a short flight if you are measuring emissions per passenger kilometer, but of course a long flight. And normally we use large planes for long flights. Still. It's lots of CO2, even though it's low per passenger kilometer, because it's how I am kilometers. So I, I think maybe the main point is that even though the long flights in the big planes emit the most CO2, we have so many more medium range flights that that's the bulk of the CO2 from aviation. So the, the aircraft class that emits most of the CO2 from aviation, the largest portion is the Boeing 7 37 Airbus, a three 20 class, those single isle aircraft there there's so many of them making so many flights every day that that's the the largest contributor to aviation climate change impact.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
Mm-Hmm, interesting. Okay. Well that, that makes sense. And so we've established that the overall emissions are maybe a lower percentage. We, I thought they were, but when it comes to civil aviation, is there anything that the average person like myself can do to ensure that these flights are more environmentally friendly in the future?
Speaker 3 (19:39):
Yeah. That's a very interesting question. If what we need to have aircraft that have lower impact on climate change, professor kilometer, really the only path there is to have significantly more investment in R and D and aircraft engines and fuels than we currently have, especially from aircraft and then new engine manufacturers and governments like we discussed earlier and what will spur this investment. So airlines need to put pressure on aircraft manufacturers to produce more environmentally friendly aircraft presume they they'll only do that if the passengers demand it. Right. So crucial aspect for example, is fleet renewal. If there's more fuel efficient aircraft available, but an airline doesn't buy them. It continues to fly the old ones. Then that's bad from a CO2 emissions point of view. And the benefit takes much longer to be, be seen if the airlines hang onto their planes longer and longer.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
And if passengers always choose the cheapest, fly the air, they'll encourage the airlines to, you know, buy the cheapest airplane rather than one that's more environmentally friendly. So if passengers are willing to pay a somewhat higher fair for a more environmentally friendly aircraft, then this could provide the airlines with the incentive. They need both to renew their fleets more quickly and to pressure manufacturers, to place a higher priority on environmental performance. I think this has to become a, a way of life, sort of a part of the marketing. This airline has to say, look, we use aircraft that that AIT less CO2 than, than the other than our competitors. And the public has to say, well, in that case, I'm gonna fly with you. And the, and the next airline is going to go to Boeing and say, Hey, I need an airplane that it's less CO2.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
I think that's the way the the average person can contribute. But when you look at the airlines and how they market their environmental efforts, but they focus a lot on their own operations. So they've, they've eliminated the amount of paper they use or they've reduced the, their carbon footprint of their head office or, or even the operations of the airport. But what people have to realize is that's all dwarfed by the, the impact of the in-flight operations. So what, what happens in flight is much, much more significant than what happens in manufacturing, the airplane, or operating the airport. So that's where the main focus should
Speaker 2 (21:47):
Be. No, that's, that's very helpful. That's good to know, because something I wanna talk about is greenwash. And I know a lot of companies do that to, to see more environmentally friendly and yeah. Not using paper or, or reducing small emissions in their offices. Yeah. You're right. Is, is peanuts. So that's very helpful. Good to know.
Speaker 3 (22:04):
Yeah. And again, I'm not trying to discourage airlines from saying maybe not using plastics in serving their food and stuff, but it doesn't make sense to do that and then not pay any attention to the CO2 emissions from the
Speaker 2 (22:17):
Plane itself. Yeah. And like we talked about if, if people are, if they're marketing this as a, a, a green alternative people might look at a certain company and say, oh, they're doing all these environmentally friendly things. We should go with them. And, and maybe they try more, but, but if their, if their efforts are, are, maybe I'm gonna say misdirected, or if they're not as effective as they could be, then perhaps that could be misleading.
Speaker 3 (22:37):
Right. If at the same time they're flying the oldest fleet of all the airlines say but getting rid of, you know, plastic forks and spoons, then you know, it's not it's not quite maybe the best
Speaker 2 (22:47):
Choice. Yeah. Well, well, thanks so much for your time, Dr. Zingg, this has been very helpful. Thank you.
Speaker 3 (22:52):
Well, thank you very much for having me on your show.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
So that was my talk with Dr. Zingg. I'm glad we covered the shape of planes, increasing efficiency, biofuels, and the myth of stopping flying. But one of the most important parts for me was being informed when it comes to airline companies, marketing their environmental efforts. After this interview, I was reading Mark Jaccard�s, the citizen's guide for climate success, which I highly recommend in chapter nine. He talks about carbon offsets. This is where you can pay extra to make your flight carbon neutral based on his findings. It seems as though these aren't an effective way to reduce our emissions. So we need to be pushing airline companies to make effective change and not be swayed by slick marketing. Well, that's all for me. I'm Michael Bartz. Here's the feeling a little less in over our head when it comes to saving the planet. We'll see, again, zoom in over my head was produced and hosted by Michael Barts original theme song by Gabriel Thaine. If you would like to get in touch with us, please email info over my head podcast.com special. Thanks to Telus STORYHIVE for making this show possible.
Speaker 1 (23:54):
I'm trying to save the planet or will someone please save me.