sustainability – John Vincent

Unintended Consequences

There’s a list that must exist somewhere in the bowels of Government which describes the dumbest things that have ever been done. The law of unintended consequences. Where an aim may have been honest, but the reality was a deep dive in embarrassment and failure.

If this list doesn’t exist it dam well should. It’s a sort of lessons learned for civil servants, politicians and think tanks. Don’t propose anything X because the last time someone did that they crashed and burned. Or more subtly it was years later that people cursed the day that such a dumb idea was advanced.

I’m not going to argue against market forces. How could I. From an early age markets were part of my life. That’s local agricultural markets. My father bought and sold livestock. The bread and butter of livestock farming is to buy at one price, add value and then, hopefully, sell at a better price. Markets rise and fall in ways that are often mystical.

The UK imports approximately 46% of the food it consumes. Even that figure is 5 years old. I suspect that food imports have increased in the meantime. That’s in a country that is richly blessed with quality agricultural land. Fine, we (UK) are none too good at growing olives or avocados but the range of produce that it is possible to grow is huge.

Grassland is our greatest asset. Every time I flew back from an overseas trip, just looking down from the aeroplane remined me just how the UK is a carpet of green. Field systems that have ancient origins still dominate the landscape.

Livestock farming has changed radically since my father’s time. Fortunately, we have avoided, in most cases, the levels of intensification and factory methods that others have adopted. Hormone injected beef comes from cattle that live sad lives. People know this and have hands down rejected industrial farming to that level of intensity.

Domestic food production has changed because of Brexit and not for the better. One threat to domestic food production has been some of the ridiculous trade deals that have been struck by this Government and its predecessors. Making it harder for exporters and easier for importers.

Political policy towards the countryside has rightfully taken up the need to restore biodiversity and preserve some of our most precious landscapes. Trouble is that at the same time, little or no thought has been given to the need to support domestic food production. It’s like a policy desert. It’s one thing to talk about food security. It’s another to do anything about it.

With the Labour Government threatening to take large amounts of capital out of UK farming with their inheritance tax plans, they will be making family farming a thing of the past. It’s one of the dumbest things that have ever been done.

There’s general agreement that we shouldn’t encourage wealthy people to use land as a repository for their wealth. However, tax advisors have been telling them to do that for decades. Buy land and pay less tax. Reversing that long standing trend needs an intelligent policy not a crude sledgehammer to crack a nut. Even if it’s impossible to ween Labour politicians off their ideas on inheritance tax, there ought to be a way of doing it without penalising the innocent. Letting off those non-farming interests that politicians were aiming at originally. Dogma makes bad policy. It’s time to reemphasise the place family farming has in food production.

Sustainable Aviation: Innovations and Challenges

Gas guzzling continues to be one of aviation’s problems. Combustion remains that the heart of most aircraft power plants. Taking large amounts of fossil fuel. Squeezing energy out of every drop of gasoline. Gobbling up more day after day. Pushing out emissions.

As I look out across the garden, I see gliding effortlessly as the warm air rises, a Red Kite[1] gracefully circling. Wings outstretched they hardly move them as they climb. They’re a distinctive small bird of prey, easily spotted because of their forked tail. Now, that’s what I call efficient flying. Using all that nature provides and wasting little energy.

Human attempts at flying are a million miles behind these magnificent birds. There’s still so much to learn about aerial navigation. It’s a matter of control. The sensing of ambient conditions and the precision movements needed to ascend and dive at will.

The search is on for effective change. There’s no pretence that the way commercial aviation operates is unsustainable. It’s true that the gas guzzlers of the air guzzle less gas now than they ever have but the physical facts remain.

None of this is new. I’m about to send a book called “Towards Sustainable Aviation” to a charity shop. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with it. The book is full of pertinent analysis and observations. Trouble is that it’s dated 2003.

I’m led to ask – what’s changed in over 20-years? In answering my own question – quite a lot but not enough. Discourse has moved on from academic quarters to the political sphere. Aircraft have become more fuel efficient. Driven by economic imperatives as much as any concern for the climate. Research initiatives are generously funded to come up with answers. Solutions like hydrogen, electric propulsion, and SAF (sustainable aviation fuel) are slowly moving from theory to practice. A few prototypes are flying. Limited supplies of SAF are flowing.

Unmistakable that’s where the problem lies. For all the hype, policy and government funding the pathway to genuinely sustainable aviation disappears way off into the horizon. There are setbacks too. Gas guzzling is back in fashion. Certainly, in Trump’s America.

We could make a much more of the technology that’s currently available. Yes, there are costs involved. Change is not a free ride. That said, sticking with the status-quo isn’t free either. Legacy costs mount up. One reason why older jets disappeared from fleets so quickly.

The next generation of commercial aircraft must make major steps forward. Since the life of a typical aircraft type can easily extend to 30-years, then change must happen in design now.

Typically, commercial aviation moves with graduated change. There’s an inherent conservatism in the system, as might be expected when safety and security are paramount. Facing this global challenge, there’s a need for a degree more radicalism.

Since high impact disruption is also in fashion, it’s time for airlines and manufacturers to adopt a pioneering spirt. It’s been done before. In the 1960s, that pioneering spirt gave us the Boeing 747, the Jumbo jet. That opened flying to a whole generation.

[1] https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/red-kite

Travel’s Societal Impact

Privilege is all around us. It’s, by definition, not equality. It’s a privilege to live in a country not torn by war or where the environment has not been decimated. It’s a privilege to be able to protest and strongly disagree with the powers that be. Indeed, in this country it’s a right too.

Debates about the moral or ethical grounds of inequality will never cease. That’s a hope of mine. For the minute we become timid and cowed by an authority that would rather supress such debates, then that’s the end of our democracy. We’d be free no more.

A large part of my career has been in the aviation industry, in one way or another. Putting aside the military uses of aviation, that’s another debate, civil aviation and the travel industry are two peas in a pod. Flying facilitates travel. Largely international travel. Apologies to the cargo industry, leisure flying and so many others.

One phenomenon that is not new, is that of raising the issue of responsibility. For example, the consequences of tourism to natural environments are often negative. Not always so. Huge effort is made by some countries and organisations to make tourism a positive. However, generally there are significant challenges to be grappled with in making travel affordable for all.

Wealthy young Europeans have been roving across boarders as part of a rite of passage since the 1600s. A “Grand Tour” was a form of discovery, education and cultural enrichment. Today, a student might call that a gap-year. Time taken out of formal studies to travel abroad. The aim, as well as having fun, is to return a more rounded person ready for whatever life might throw up.

Where do we sit as a society in terms of the balance between personal freedom and our collective responsibilities? Are activists right to attempt to slam or shame travellers for the negative impacts that they can trigger? These are uncomfortable questions. Ironically, these difficult questions are often raised by the people who have enjoyed the privilege of travel.

In my mind, a debate on this subject of balance reflects greater societal issues. When we look at a basic hierarchy of human needs then international leisure travel may not be top priority. However, life would be less rich and colourful without it. Embarking on an epic journey, that takes a traveller outside their comfort zone, can be a life changing event.

To defend the freedom to travel, I cannot avoid looking at the other side of the equation. There is an overwhelming responsibility to do something restorative. Ignoring the impact of travel, particularly civil aviation, is not an option anymore.

I know there are some politicians who scream for the abandonment of Net Zero policies and all they entail, but they are extremely foolish. Shifting the burden onto future generations is reckless. Appealing to those who want to escape the debate, or force a return to mythical age, is nothing more than doomed short-termism.

This is one reason I’m an advocate for electrification and the exportation of radical solutions, like hydrogen powered civil aviation. Technological solutions are part of the path to take. That, in of itself, may not be enough but at least engineering change is permanent.

Solutions by design are far more powerful than ephemeral political posturing. Legislation can be overturned in a weekend. A whole new way of operating aviation can be sustained for decades.

The Revolutionary Role of Hydrogen

Hydrogen has a history with aviation. What could be better. A gas that is so light. So easily produced and with no need heat it up. With a lightweight gas-tight bag and a fair amount of rope, balloon construction took-off. Literally. The proof that hydrogen gas could lift a balloon goes back to the 1780s in France.

Sadly, the downside of this gaseous element is its propensity to combine with other elements. In fact, where would we be without liquid water. On this planet, that most basic and prolific combination of hydrogen and oxygen. Not so much sadly but more luckily.

Step forward about 250 years and we have a different vision for hydrogen in aviation. If it’s combined with the oxygen in the air that we breath, we get nothing more noxious than water. Since, the other forms of combustion, that populate our everyday lives, is distinctly noxious, surely hydrogen has a lot to offer. Talk about downsides. Burning fossil fuels is distinctly unsustainable. Polluting the atmosphere.

This week, I was looking out to sea. At the English Channel (No name changes there, I see). Standing on the pebble beach at Budleigh Salterton. They ought to have an award just for that name. It’s a small seaside town in Devon. The towns cliffs are part of a World Heritage Site, namely The Jurassic Coast[1].

Forget the 250 years of humans flying, cited above. About 185 million years of the Earth’s history is for all to see on the Devon and Dorset coast. When we say “fossil fuels” what we mean is that we are living off the back of Earth’s history. Society powers modern life on dinosaur juice. Well, not exactly but plant and animal life from hundreds of millions of years ago. How crazy is that?

Hydrogen, on the other hand, is one of the most abundant elements. It’s everywhere.

Modern day dinosaurs (politicians and pundits) insist that we continue to exploit dinosaur juice until it’s all gone. That’s putting aside any concerns about returning all that carbon to the Earth’s atmosphere. Carbon accumulated over millions of years.

Hydrogen can be a clean fuel. The problem is that saying that and then doing it are two different things. There are complexities that come with using Hydrogen as a fuel. It might be reasonably easy to produce, in multiple different ways, but it’s not so easy to transport.

Producing leak proof systems for transport and storage requires innovative thinking. We can’t just treat it with the familiarity of conventional fuels. Whole new regimes are going to be needed to get Hydrogen from where it’s produced to where it’s needed.

Producing leak proof systems for aircraft is a challenge. Given the odourless and invisible nature of this light gas, accurate and extensive detection systems are going to be needed. If the gas is to be consumed by fuel cells to produce electricity, then there’s going to be a constant struggle against complexity and significant expenditures.

What is reassuring is that none of the above is insolvable. At this time in history, we have the materials technology and control systems that make Hydrogen a viable clean fuel.

[1] https://jurassiccoast.org/

Challenges of Hydrogen Fuel in Civil Aviation

This week has been a Hydrogen week. It’s great to learn more of the projects that are out there and the ambitions of those developing systems. Hydrogen is a live subject. Looking at the possible pathways for civil aviation to take there’s a myriad of choices. However, when it comes to the fuel for propulsion there are not so many potentials.

It’s surely the case that at some time in the future the use of fossil fuels to propel us across the skies will no longer be acceptable. Even if I’m talking to climate change sceptics the point must be made that fossil fuels are a limited resource. Not only that but the air quality around airports is a matter of concern.

It’s there in our basic education. Water is H₂O. It’s that combination of Hydrogen and Oxygen that is essential to life on Earth. So, if we have a process that provides aircraft propulsion by using Hydrogen it should be a whole lot better for the environment than using Jet A1.

The problem is, and there’s always a problem, to carry enough Hydrogen it will need to be pressurised and in liquid form. That means extremely low temperatures, robust storage containers and extensive leak free plumbing.

Today, we have cars on the road that run on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). It’s a novelty. It’s less harmful to the environment and can cost less. However, LPG systems need regular servicing. The point of mentioning this pressured gas in a transport system is that it has been integrated into regular everyday usage. That’s knowing that escape of even small quantities of the liquefied gas can give rise to large volumes of gas / air mixture and thus a considerable hazard[1].

Any analogy between the car and the aircraft can be forgotten. That said, one or two of the issues are similar. Yes, what happens when an escaped volume of gas / air mixture is ignited?

What scenarios would bring about conditions whereby a destructive explosion is possible?

Let’s start with the situations where aircraft accidents most often occur. Take-off and landing are those phases of flight. A surprising number of accident scenarios are survivable. The important part being to get an aircraft in trouble on the ground in such a way that an evacuation is possible. That can mean hitting the ground with a great deal of force[2].

Here’s the matter of concern. An aircraft with large cryogenic tanks and associated complex plumbing hits the ground at a force of many “g”. What then happens? Certainly, pressurised liquefied gas would escape. Being a very light gas, the uncontained Hydrogen would rise rapidly. However, trapped amounts of gas / air mixture would remain a hazard. Would that be ignited?

There are a lot of unknowns in my questions. Although there are unknowns, any post impact situation is likely to be very different from a situation with a conventionally fuelled aircraft.

Today’s, burn through requirements ensure that an external fuel fire is held back. Thereby ensuring enough time to evacuate. For a hydrogen aircraft ventilation may be essential to stop build-up of a gas / air mixture inside a fuselage. That means a whole different approach.

[1] https://youtu.be/AG4JwbK3-q0

[2] https://skybrary.aero/accidents-and-incidents/b772-london-heathrow-uk-2008

Labour’s IHT Policy: A Threat to Family Farms?

Labour is driving down a road it’s driven before. It’s a shame when the two biggest political parties in Britain are so captured by their past that they can no more look forward than a duck can master arithmetic.

Post Second World War the country was broke. Rising taxes were inevitable to pay down debt. The British State was far more directly involved in everyday economic decisions than it is now.

Inheritance Tax (IHT) got its status as a loathed tax partially because of the necessary actions of the post-1945 Government. At that time, “estate duty” was increased to 80%. This generated increase tax revenue but led to the breakup of large country estates up and down Britain. Ironically, the breakup of country estates created an opportunity for some tenant farmers. As the estates were sold off in lots so tenants could become owners, if they could raise the finance.

So, you might say farmers paying IHT at 20% isn’t so bad by comparison. The amount of generated increase tax revenue isn’t much. With one hand the Government is subsidising farmers and with the other hand it’s taking a cut of their lifetime acquired assets.

Another side of the coin is the cost-of-living crisis. Certainly, winter heating costs have been a matter of great concern for a lot of people. Food too is an absolutely essential expense. Hence, the growth of food banks in every part of the country. This shouldn’t be accepted as the norm.

All of this is happening at a time when the nation’s supermarkets are making healthy profits. Keeping cheap food on the shelves with, in some cases, the philosophy of sell it cheap and pile it high. Industrialised and highly processed food coming in at the lowest prices to the customer. At the other end of the supply chain, forcing down farm gate prices.

You would think that getting national food production, the job done by farmers, right would be an imperative for Government. You would think that a regular dialogue with farmers might be quite important. Wouldn’t you?

The problem with Labour’s 20% IHT and the threshold of 1 million is that it’s not going to have much impact of those who own large country estates to avoid other taxes, like CGT. It’s not going to have much impact on large corporate agricultural enterprises. It may not even have much overall impact on land prices. Afterall, they don’t make it anymore.

But it’s going to clobber small and medium sized enterprises, very often family farms. It will clobber far more than the Treasury’s last-minute calculations say[1]. The reason is clear. The profitability of family farming has been dire over recent years. Add a new tax bill and selling-up will be the most attractive option for many potential next generation farmers.

Then the question must be asked what’s it all about? What are the values underpinning this policy? There I go back to the start. Does Labour perceive these working people as “rich”. Their logic may go, why shouldn’t the rich pay more after the Conservative Government that they supported has made such a mess of the country? One way of seeing where we are.

Trouble is that they have aimed at the wrong target.

[1] https://www.channel4.com/news/how-many-farmers-will-have-to-pay-inheritance-tax

Ignoring Climate Change?

In a way, I’m not immune from a little hypocrisy. Petrol prices go up and I’m not going to jump for joy. Prices go down. I’m not suddenly thinking that’s just going to encourage more consumption. No, I’m looking at the pound in my pocket. It will cost me less to fill up the tank.

There was a whole swath of apocalyptic tales of the world in the 1970s. The “oil crisis” of 1973 should have been a warning. Humanity might have taken the opportunity to look at the trends related to oil and gas consumption. There might have been a more sustained reaction.

Instead, alternative lifestyles, renewable energy projects and energy conservation were thought of as quaint novelties or scientific curiosities that would never really catch on. The political addiction to short-termism overrode consideration of substantial change. Increased exploration led to new sources of oil and gas being found.

Today, we should know better. The fight against climate change has a decade of talk behind it. Humanity knows that the link exists between burning hydrocarbon and a changing global climate. We are ignorant no more. Now, I almost wish I hadn’t written that last sentence.

Across the pond there’s a powerful nation. One that influences the behaviour of 100s of other nations. The US is the largest producer of oil and gas in the world. However, until the last few weeks it had recognised that maybe that isn’t a good formula for the future.

Back to that dollar in the pocket. Despite the US being a powerful nation many its people didn’t feel that way. All politics is local. When filling up with gas gets more expensive people do not jump for joy. In fact, there’s that human tendance to romanticise the past and remember when everything was cheaper. Life was easier. Can’t we go back?

It’s being reported that US President elect Trump’s choice for energy secretary is going to be like turning the clocks back. Prospect is that the fight against climate change is going to get a back seat. At least for the next 4-years.

Does this spell global disaster? Well, it certainly is a great big lost opportunity. Just like here in the UK, Brexit ignited the tendance to romanticise the past. It looks as if the same phenomena have taken root in the US. Burning more and more hydrocarbons is like a sugar rush. A boom to begin then followed by exhaustion. I expect after this presidential term the results will be one of regret. Just like Brexit. A wonderment – why on earth did we do that?

Still, there’s an opportunity for other countries to race ahead with advanced and alternative technologies to reduce energy dependency. It’s hard to think and act long-term. I’m confident it can be done. If it’s done successfully the prize will be great.

Electric Aviation: The Promise of Clean Flight

Electric aviation is not new. Not new at all. The engineers of the past struggled with two factors. Power and weight. A French electrically powered airship was the first aircraft to make a controlled circuit. On 9 August 1884, it flew a circular course of 8 km at a max speed of 14.5 mph. Its electric motor weighed 100 kilograms and its battery weighed 263 kilograms.

It’s not a problem to be able to distribute or use electrical power on-board an aircraft. The problem come in generating enough of it from a reliable source. Today’s “conventional” civil aircraft generate and use large amounts of electrical power. For example, the Boeing 787 has two starter/generators per engine[1]. Electrical power from the generators goes to four alternating current (AC) electrical distribution buses, where it is either sent for use as is (235 V AC) or converted for use by the aircraft systems that need it.

A revolution is taking place in electric aviation. It offers the opportunity to fly cleanly. That said, the traditional technical challenges remain the same. Power and weight. In 140-years battery technology has advanced considerably. But is that enough?

A difficulty that battery powered flying is stuck with is that at the start and at the end of a flight the batteries weigh, more or less, the same as they did from the day of their manufacture. Today’s “conventional” civil aircraft consume fuel. Thus, they are significantly lighter at the end of a flight than they are at the start. Airframes can be designed to take advantage of this fact.

One of the up sides is that a good electric motor can get to an efficiency of 80% whereas a turbo fan engine comes in at around 35%. That sound great until we look at the amount of energy we can store within a given volume. Jet fuel packs a punch. To get the same punch from an electrical battery it would likely be 15 times the size. That’s not good for a practical design. The low battery energy density coupled with the high weight of batteries means that this strategy for large aircraft needs to be put to one side for now.

A modern aircraft engine like the CFM International LEAP, can develop a max take-off thrust of over 30,000 lbf. Two of those engines can safely accelerate a Boeing 737 or Airbus A320 with ease and cruise with good economy. Thus, electrification of the propulsion of this class of aircraft is a long way off. The nearest possible future for propulsion of a B737 and A320 sized aircraft may be hydrogen based.

This explains why the drawing boards are full of small electric aircraft designs where performance demands are more modest. There’s a hope that the continuous development of battery technology will provide year on year gains. Much more than aviation alone demands that battery technology advances.

Developments in hydrogen-electric aviation are catching the headlines. Much of what has been achieved is experimental. I look forward to the day when hydrogen is not used to fill airship gas bags but becomes the life blood of transport aviation. It’s conceivable that will happen in my lifetime.

[1] http://787updates.newairplane.com/787-Electrical-Systems/787-Electrical-System

Next Decade Aviation

Here, I thought I’d speculate on what’s coming our way. That’s looking at the next ten-years.

Although this maybe contradictory to my earlier writings the subject is by no means all or nothing. Aviation is a technology-based means of mobility. Without the technology component there is no flight. Aviation a youthful industry when compared with ships, roads, and rail.

On the other hand, people are at the heart of the aviation system. That’s particularly true in assuring its stability, safety, and security. People create, innovate and fix systems when they fail. People make go-no go decisions. People protect systems from attack.

Commercial aviation maybe a youthful industry but it has an inbuilt conservatism. It’s the characteristic of not wishing to change when systems are working well. This has both and upside and downside.

A maturity of rules, regulations, processes, and procedures comes about by continuous improvement. By people learning. However, it’s often the case that industry does not reflect the society that it serves. People are excluded or walk away when expectations are dashed.

Across the globe, the future of the aviation workforce depends upon change. There again is a rub. People operating in a successful system rarely welcome change. Especially, if the drivers for that change come from outside the tight knit community of aviation professionals.

The first decades of the jet-age were characterised by a sense of adventure, glamour, and pride. As commercial aviation became available to a wider traveling public there was a gradual opening to professional entrants from most sections of society, even if that was predominantly male.

Now, big company traditional career paths are more an exception rather than the norm. Aviation competes with other industries at a time of rapid digital transformation. This has the impact of opening a wide range of options to potential professional entrants. In the coming decade the trend is going to advance.

A successful aviation industry organisation looks for skills and behaviours as much as it looks for raw technical talent. Assuring stability, safety, and security means having a responsible attitude, an instinct to challenge and question.

Today in the post-pandemic world, the industry is going through a period some people have called the “great resignation”. A generation have walked away from the pressure and stresses of the crisis. Industry behaviour, in a rush to cut costs, exasperated this by treating people exceptionally poorly.

For a sustainable future, commercial aviation needs to work to eliminate the hire and fire cycle. The global aviation industry needs to think and act differently. Aviation needs to get off the trap of the “similar-to-me” effect found in hiring. When a selection bias dominates potential professional entrants are put off. Talented young people are likely to choose meritocratic employment where rewards are there for achievement and commitment regardless of non-relevant factors.

Some work will be replaced by automation. However, retaining aviation people with people skills, regardless of background, will be invaluable in the next decade.