People that live in the Bay Area often hear the familiar sounds of airplanes as they arrive or depart from SFO. But, the noise pollution shouldn't be the only thing that bothers inhabitants. Although air quality near airports has not been studied much, Shishan Hu and Suzanne E. Paulson at the University of California Los Angeles studied the air around a small airport in Santa Monica. The air sampled in this area showed high concentrations of ultra-fine particles of organic carbon and sooty black carbon in a plume extending more than 2,000 downwind of the airport. This is longer than those typically found near highways. Although intense analysis of the health risks from breathing air around airports has not been done, similar studies have been done with other vehicles. The similar ultra-fine emissions from vehicles can be inhaled and cause damage to the lungs.
I think the government should invest in better technology for airplanes. Although automakers are constantly looking at a new, more energy efficient design, the same should be done for airplanes because both effect the air we breathe. Do you think the government should give more incentive to create energy efficient and eco-friendly airplanes?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I don't know if the government should invest in that at the moment with so many pressing matters at hand
Though I am not as thoroughly educated in airplane technology, I hope logic and my minimal knowledge can provide a relatively good guess.
It's not the government that needs to make changes, it's the private companies, though government can play a role. It's Boeing and other large commercial airplane manufacturers. However, I do not believe that airplanes are as inefficient and cars are. Engineers at Rolls Royce and Boeing are top notch, they take these things into account. Considering gas prices, especially the cost of jet fuel, I'd imagine these airplane manufacturers receive a lot of pressure from airline corporations to save money everywhere possible, such as fuel efficiencies. I imagine the only reason pollution seems relatively high at airports is because airplanes use so much more fuel. What one car may burn in a 20 mile stretch can be equivalent to maybe a few seconds flight time in a Boeing 747. (If anyone actually reads this and cares, I'll look up the numbers and stuff for you). Point being, though pollution is stronger, it may not be because of airplanes' engine design, but simply the mass of gasoline burned. So whether the government should get involved may be a moot point. And anyone, please feel free to correct me, I am not entirely sure on this matter and any new info would be much appreciated.
I agree with everyone that we should have more fuel efficient airplanes. What people may not know is that there is extensive research going on for the developement of carbonfiber planes that will lighten airplanes and make them more fuel efficient.
Here is an interesting link
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2007-06-05-carbon-fibers-usat_N.htm
Going off of what Franklin said, i believe that the private airplane companies also dont have much incentive to better the efficiency of their planes. It costs a lot of money to build a single plane and to research for more efficient engines would cost even more. This fact and the fact that airplane companies havent been doing the best recently, may have something to do with it as well.
I agree with all the comments here. Poor friends in Millbrae. Do you think a lot of the air particles get to San Mateo?
After rereading my comment, I realized I was rather unclear. My stance is that they are pressured into making fuel efficient planes because airlines want to save money wherever possible. Considering the prices of jet fuel and how far planes have to go, I'd imagine even a 5% increase in efficiency will save thousands of dollars over a few flights. However, the smaller private jet manufacturers, going off Ellery, might not have as much incentive though there are so few of them anyway, I don't see it being too big an issue.
I think a government incentive would be helpful because as Ellery stated, private companies have no incentive to increase efficiency in their planes. Except to help the earth. But they really want money. Because the airplanes do fly for a significant amount of time and emit so many pollutants, I think the government should give incentives because the (most) private companies just aren't willing to do it. Government incentives might not do much, but at least it's SOME reason to engineer more efficient airplanes.
Wow, I'm pretty surprised that there is so much pollution in the airports. I agree with Ellery as it is true that private airplane corporations have no incentives to make or update their planes to be more efficient. It would not be economically reasonable at a business standpoint. I believe if the pollution becomes a greater problem and more people are concerned with it, then having the Congress pass regulations would be the most realistic way of having the companies spend money to change their planes.
I agreeeeeeee. Regulation or incentives would definitely get them to design better airplanes. But I think pollution is a pretty great problem right now as it is. We don't need to further pollute the air and our lungs to understand that it's a big problem. It's not just detrimental to our planet.. which most people know and seemingly accept, but it's detrimental to our health (which I don't think most people think about).
Post a Comment