Jumpalot 0 #1 March 8, 2006 Hi, I like to consider myself a relatively environmentally conscious person, particularly considering the current and future problems of climate change and all the rest. I recycle whenever possible, get public transport to work, use re-useable containers... etc. HOWEVER, as you can imagine, I have a minor problem justifying skydiving when it comes up in such environmentally concerned conversations given that one spends all day going up and down in an aeroplane. This is not even beginning on inter-continental trips one makes to go to a cheaper dropzone. I have tried to hug a few trees to see what they think but haven't yet got much positive feedback. So, does anybody know: - The approx. carbon emissions of a "normal" jump plane? ie. Porter, Dornier G92, Twin Otter... - How these compare to travelling on a commercial airplane? - What would be the best way to offset the effects of jumping? - If it is an appropriate solution, how many trees (or relative donations to an environmentally good cause) you would need to plant to offset the cost of let's say 100 jumps / year? Thanks in advance for your help. Ciao, Jumpalot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
johnny1488 1 #2 March 8, 2006 Well Im not sure about all that but there is always Base jumping! And it might not justify it, but there is no way to experience nature than to view her from 13k. Johnny --"This ain't no book club, we're all gonna die!" Mike Rome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
velvetjo 0 #3 March 8, 2006 Sounds like you need a hemp jumpsuit! I'm a PM for a LEED platinum building right now, and it's been a real education. Between the fabrics used for rigs & canopies, fuel burn, etc. it would be hard to say that skydiving is an eco-friendly endeavor. The one exception is the long life we squeeze out of jump aircraft. This is more due to the economic involved, but if you compare it to autos we're getting a lot more bang for the eco-buck through maintenance. A tethered & winched helium balloon might be one way to get folks to altitude that meets your criteria, but there are lots of logistical problems with a 13,000' vertical tether... Lance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billbooth 10 #4 March 8, 2006 General aviation carbon emissions are less than negligible, simply because there is so little activity...and skydiving makes up just a tiny portion of that. If you do some research, I think that you will find that sheep farts are a far greater problem. I understand they are the single greatest source of pollution in New Zealand anyway. Why don't you direct your efforts in that direction. Let me know what you come up with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
old_rookie 0 #5 March 8, 2006 QuoteHi, I like to consider myself a relatively environmentally conscious person, particularly considering the current and future problems of climate change and all the rest. I recycle whenever possible, get public transport to work, use re-useable containers... etc. HOWEVER, as you can imagine, I have a minor problem justifying skydiving when it comes up in such environmentally concerned conversations given that one spends all day going up and down in an aeroplane. This is not even beginning on inter-continental trips one makes to go to a cheaper dropzone. I have tried to hug a few trees to see what they think but haven't yet got much positive feedback. So, does anybody know: - The approx. carbon emissions of a "normal" jump plane? ie. Porter, Dornier G92, Twin Otter... - How these compare to travelling on a commercial airplane? - What would be the best way to offset the effects of jumping? - If it is an appropriate solution, how many trees (or relative donations to an environmentally good cause) you would need to plant to offset the cost of let's say 100 jumps / year? Thanks in advance for your help. Ciao, Jumpalot Just justify it as public transportation. That plane is going up whether you're on it or not... kind of like a bus goind down the street. you gotta be shitting me... who really cares Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
monkycndo 0 #6 March 8, 2006 This is just a different type of ride sharing. If you went up solo, that would be wasteful.50 donations so far. Give it a try. You know you want to spank it Jump an Infinity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 March 8, 2006 QuoteGeneral aviation carbon emissions are less than negligible, simply because there is so little activity...and skydiving makes up just a tiny portion of that. If you do some research, I think that you will find that sheep farts are a far greater problem. I understand they are the single greatest source of pollution in New Zealand anyway. Why don't you direct your efforts in that direction. Let me know what you come up with. in the abstract, sure. But on a per person basis... how many gallons of av gas is an Otter burning going to 13k? Say 3 or 4 gallons per jumper? By 5 loads, that would be 15 gallons of fuel, or perhaps 500 gallons per year. That's greater than the auto fuel I use in a year. And it sure doesn't seem like the exhaust is remotely as clean. Of course, until the NPS is put up against the wall, what choice have we? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Praetorian 1 #8 March 8, 2006 Quotehow many gallons of av gas is an Otter burning going to 13k? If your in an otter burnig av gas I'd be shocked, are their piston powerd otters at any DZ?? should be JET fuel the TURBINE is burning (nit pick complete ... sorry ) Good Judgment comes from experience...a lot of experience comes from bad judgment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
altichick 1 #9 March 8, 2006 Recycle all the beer bottles and cans on the DZ at the end of the weekend... that should earn you lots of good eco-karma Don't sweat the petty things... and don't pet the sweaty things! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #10 March 8, 2006 >Say 3 or 4 gallons per jumper? Per Bryan Burke, about 1 gallon/jumper. Per Rob the pilot, a little more (1.5 gal/jumper.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John4455 0 #11 March 8, 2006 T shirt idea......... " I hate the smell of jet fuel in the morning" I know, I couldn't help myself.... How do ya like it Johnny? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #12 March 8, 2006 Quote>Say 3 or 4 gallons per jumper? Per Bryan Burke, about 1 gallon/jumper. Per Rob the pilot, a little more (1.5 gal/jumper.) that's not so bad. Then it's less than the fuel I burn driving to/from the DZ. Less reason to be afraid of $10/gallon fuel too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dqpacker 7 #13 March 8, 2006 It may be more gas than you use personaly, but think of all the automoblies in the world. Also skydiving is way less wasteful than most motor sports. Most motor sports only one or two people are using the same amount of fuel that say 23 people(otterload) are using. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #14 March 8, 2006 Wow you provided me another thing to worry about in this dangerous world we live in. Guess I will have to boycott all products made from sheep from now on. No more wool clothing or lamb chops for me anymore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dqpacker 7 #15 March 8, 2006 Actually eating more lamp chops will help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reginald 0 #16 March 8, 2006 Save the planet! Eat lamb chops and wear polyester! "We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things." CP Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bob.dino 1 #17 March 8, 2006 QuoteGeneral aviation carbon emissions are less than negligible, simply because there is so little activity...and skydiving makes up just a tiny portion of that. So? You, personally, are also responsible for a negligible percentage of worldwide emissions. Does that mean you shouldn't care? Jumpalot asked about a way of measuring the damage that he, personally, is doing to the environment, so he can work on offsetting it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #18 March 8, 2006 Your motives are highly ethical, and I commend you. May I suggest that you're over-engineering the problem by trying to compute your personal share of the impact, so that you can offset it. The fact is - you are already offsetting it - by recycling, taking public transportation, trying to lead a reasonably Green life, educating others on conservation and respect for the environment. So how do you offset your personal "sheep farts?" Simple - keep doing what you're doing, do it diligently, maybe expand your efforts by becoming an active member of a local conservation group, and educate the next generation to do the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #19 March 8, 2006 One thing we could do differently... No more Bonfires! A lot of pollution of all sorts, including radioactive!People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZigZagMarquis 9 #20 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuotehow many gallons of av gas is an Otter burning going to 13k? If your in an otter burnig av gas I'd be shocked, are their piston powerd otters at any DZ?? should be JET fuel the TURBINE is burning (nit pick complete ... sorry ) ... ummmm... actually, you can burn AV Gas in a a turbine, like an Otter, it will run, maybe not quite right, but it will run... turbines are fairly forgiving when it comes to this, besides JetA, JP-4, JP-5, JP-8, Diesel, Kerosene, I'd bet they'ed all get a PT-6 to light and run (they just don't like water, solids or biologicals in their fuel)... anyway... there is usually a limit to how long you can do it though... about 50 hours seems to ring a bell in my mind... if you don't believe me, next time you're at the DZ, ask the DZO or Pilot to pull out the manual for the Otter, its in there somewhere, probably something like "alternate fuels" or "burning AV Gas" or "AV Gas use" would be words I'd key on looking for. Anyway... sorry for the nit-pick on a nit-pick... Now back to your regularly scheduled thread topic! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jumpalot 0 #21 March 9, 2006 Agreed! That is why I would like to try and minimise my impact! Ciao, Jumpalot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jumpalot 0 #22 March 9, 2006 Fair enough. But having grown up in New Zealand I would say that sheep farts don't seem to be posing many pollution problems!! I guess all the wind just blows it all away... or perhaps even still we don't have that many sheep?? Ciao, Jumpalot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jumpalot 0 #23 March 9, 2006 Thanks all for the replies by the way. And... maybe the aircraft emissions are neglible, and it really doesn't make that much difference, but as Bob.Dino said, we are producing some emissions and should we not try to reduce or offset these in some way? As skydiving is a "luxury" sport for a very small percentage of fortunate people in the world, surely we are in a good position to try and do something about the emissions we are producing from our sport and in other areas (even if they are not actually that much). And what do you mean "who cares"? Do you like jumping over Perris through a thick cloud of industrial haze? (OK, it is not caused by skydiving, but by humans in general). Or would you rather see the ground? I won't begin on rates of fuel consumption as this is maybe a slightly different topic (consumption as opposed to emissions). However, wouldn't it be nice to find an alternative to oil for jump planes? We can all see that the supply is getting less, the price is rising, and in 10-20 years skydiving could be an even more expensive and exclusive sport... maybe not feasible for a large % of us??? Approx. 6 years ago you could jump in AZ for $10. I don't see many of those deals around anymore. Anyway, I love jumping, and want to keep it going for as long as possible with as minimum impact as possible ;-)))) Ciao, Jumpalot Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billbooth 10 #24 March 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteGeneral aviation carbon emissions are less than negligible, simply because there is so little activity...and skydiving makes up just a tiny portion of that. So? You, personally, are also responsible for a negligible percentage of worldwide emissions. Does that mean you shouldn't care? Jumpalot asked about a way of measuring the damage that he, personally, is doing to the environment, so he can work on offsetting it. No, it simply means that we often spend too much time worrying about things that don't really matter, when our time could be far better spent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eule 0 #25 March 11, 2006 Quote- The approx. carbon emissions of a "normal" jump plane? ie. Porter, Dornier G92, Twin Otter... I don't know so much about turbines. For something like a Cessna with a flat-6 engine, I guess it would probably be comparable to a US automotive engine from the late 1960s to early 1970s with about the same displacement and horsepower. The carbon and the other emissions would be about the same; catalytic converters and stuff that really knocked down the emissions didn't really get going until the mid-1970s or so. The US Department of Energy or perhaps the California Air Resources Board may have some numbers for you - CARB especially may have earlier numbers, because California started regulating auto emissions much earlier than the feds did. One advantage that piston/reciprocating aircraft engines have over automobile engines is that the aircraft engines operate over a much narrower RPM range than automotive ones. They can be tuned to be very efficient over that narrow range. Speeding up and slowing down is what kills your fuel mileage in a car; once you're cruising at a steady speed, it takes a relatively small part of the engine's output to keep the car moving. One source (Bosch Automotive Handbook, 5th ed.) suggests that for a conventional sedan form, with a drag coefficient of 0.4-0.55 and a frontal area of 2 m^2 (think a mid-80s Honda Accord, Toyota Camry (or equal), Ford Fairmont), it only takes about 34 hp to keep the car moving at 75 mph on a level road with no wind. (28 hp to push air and 6 hp for the resistance of the tires.) A typical car of that size in that era would have had an engine with something like 100 to 120 hp of peak output - you have to lug around three or four times as much engine so you can accelerate in a reasonable time, climb hills, etc. If you could magically use something else to accelerate and decelerate, you could have a 40 hp engine and double or triple your gas mileage. If you make the magic something else be a battery and an electric motor, congratulations, you just invented the hybrid car. :) One thing I do know about turbines is that they are not very efficient at middle power settings. If you cut the load of a piston engine in half, it'll burn about, say, half as much fuel. If you cut the load of a turbine in half, it'll burn about, say, three-quarters as much fuel. For a ballpark figure, you can find out how many gallons per load (or whatever) the Otter is burning, look up the heat content of Jet-A, and take around 30% of that figure for what gets turned into thrust; the other 70% turns into exhaust. Quote- How these compare to travelling on a commercial airplane? Hard to say. Taking off and landing both take a lot of energy, and commercial flights tend to get a lot more time in between these events than jump planes. On the other hand, they are on a much larger scale. If you prod the Boeing and Airbus Web sites a bit, I know they will give you ranges in miles and you may be able to find the fuel capacity in gallons or pounds and you can work out how efficient they are. Someone else brought up that keeping an old 182 in the air is also a form of energy efficiency. It costs a lot of energy to make a new plane or car or whatever - especially for the plane because of the way that aluminum is made. If you keep an old plane flying, you're spreading that cost out over more useful work that you got out of the airplane. My personal guesstimate is that in the near term, if fuel prices continue to rise, mechanical fuel injection on reciprocating aircraft engines will get more popular. This may be followed by electronic fuel injection, if it provides enough of a boost. Further out, it might be interesting to stick one of the new, small, common-rail injection diesel engines being sold in Europe into a general-aviation aircraft. The diesel engine is probably heavier, but there's more energy in a pound of diesel than there is in a pound of av-gas, and the new diesel engines get a lot more out of it. I think that you won't see any electric or nuclear aircraft; they'll still have internal combustion engines burning a liquid hydrocarbon fuel, simply because of the weight requirements. Quote- What would be the best way to offset the effects of jumping? If you can work out how much carbon/smog/whatever comes from a jump plane run, see if you can reduce that much carbon/smog/etc out of your or your friends' cars, etc. All of the silly little things they tell you to do (change the air filter, check the tire pressure, etc) only buy you 1 or 2% each but on the average unmaintained car, doing a few of them will save around 30 gallons of gas a year, which is a considerable amount of emissions saved. I hang out with mechanical engineering students that build hybrid cars from scratch for fun, so that's why I wrote such a dissertation above. :) I hope this helps! EulePLF does not stand for Please Land on Face. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
