May 10, 2021 - No. 36



In This Issue 
: Trans-Atlantic rivalry brews over Airbus A321 converted freighter 
:  Wright Electric Advances Plans For Electric Airliner 
: Nigeria's new flag carrier to be private-sector financed 
: GE Aviation moves production of four land/marine turbine parts from casting to metal additive manufacturing 
: GKN PRODUCES ROLLS-ROYCE ENGINE COMPRESSOR CASE USING 3D PRINTING TECHNOLOGY 
: Electric aircraft partnership in France 
: Zero-emission, guilt-free flights from Hong Kong to Da Nang may soon be possible 
: ITB Berlin sends a clear message from the global travel industry by appealing to policymakers for action 
: Net zero faces fierce criticism 
: Chinese Rocket Debris Lands in Indian Ocean, Draws Criticism From NASA 
: A SpaceX booster now trails only 4 space shuttles in flight experience 

 



Trans-Atlantic rivalry brews over Airbus A321 converted freighter
 
A second manufacturer is gearing up to produce Airbus A321 converted freighters in the U.S. this summer, taking on a European engineering firm that is gaining sales momentum eight months after entering the market in the single-aisle freighter segment where the Boeing 737-800 has a three-year head start. 
 
The two companies will compete head-to-head as well as against the Boeing product. Aviation experts say the A321 is highly desirable for express delivery and regional air cargo operations. 
 
On Thursday, Dublin-based leasing company GTLK Europe ordered four aircraft reconfigured to carry cargo on the main deck, Elbe Flugzeugwerke, the company doing the work, announced. EFW is scheduled to convert three of the aircraft this year and the fourth in 2022.
 
Dresden, Germany-based EFW, a joint venture between Airbus and Singapore’s ST Engineering, recently opened a second assembly line in China and said it plans to open another one in the U.S. this year. It has already delivered three of the aircraft — one each to Titan Airways, Qantas Freight and Latvia-based SmartLynx Airlines. The Qantas and SmartLynx planes are hauling packages for Australia Post and DHL Express, respectively.
 
At least 17 A321 passenger-to-freighter conversions have been ordered by leasing companies Vallair, BBAM and GTLK so far. 
 
321 Precision Conversions, a U.S. joint venture between Precision Aircraft Solutions and publicly listed leasor and air cargo carrier Air Transport Services Group (NASDAQ: ATSG), two weeks ago received U.S. Federal Aviation Administration certification for its A321-200 design modification, marking the completion of a three-year development program.
 
ATSG subsidiary PEMCO, a conversion facility in Tampa, Florida, is starting up a production line and expects to begin work on its first A321 in June, Chief Executive Rich Corrado said Thursday in an earnings call with analysts. 
 
Avocet Aviation in Sanford, Florida, will also be a designated conversion site, Zachary Young, director of sales for 321 PC confirmed.
 
Joint venture officials have previously indicated the customer for the first aircraft is Luxembourg-based aircraft leasing and services firm Vallair. Young said the PEMCO and Avocet facilities each have one A321 parked on site ready to be inducted for conversion in June.
 
ATSG will make money through 321 Precision Conversions selling the conversion kits and royalties for the supplemental type certificate, as well as PEMCO’s engineering work. 
 
The company plans to procure A321s through its Cargo Aircraft Management arm, convert them itself at PEMCO and lease them to express carriers and other customers, such as Amazon Air (NASDAQ: AMZN) and DHL (DXE: DPW). The  A321 will supplement the rental opportunities ATSG currently enjoys with Boeing 767 converted freighters. Its business model is to wrap services — crew operations, maintenance, ground handling — around leased aircraft for customers that want a turnkey product. Officials say the model diversifies the revenue stream and makes customers stickier than if they simply lease an asset.
 
The A321 presents a broader opportunity for ATSG because it shares in the supplemental type certificate and can also do the touch-labor conversion, which isn’t the case with the 767, Corrado explained at an investor conference in March. Israel Aircraft Industries does the 767 conversions for ATSG.
 
Narrow-body cargo jets are in high demand from express and postal operators contending with rising package volumes as e-commerce grows in popularity. Boeing (NYSE: BA) this week opened another production line to convert 737-800s in Costa Rica.   
 
“The A321 is a fantastic airplane for express operators. It can compete with both the 737-800 and offers a great opportunity for replacement in the 757-200, which up until about a year and a half ago, was the most prolific express aircraft in the networks of the large FedEx, DHL express operators,” Corrado said.
 
The A321 converted freighter is the first in the narrow-body class to offer containerized loading on both the main and lower decks. It has a payload of about 61,800 pounds and a range of more than 2,300 nautical miles. The 737-800 can only fit loose cargo in the belly hold. 
 
Aviation specialists expect plentiful supply of relatively new, affordable A321s to be available for conversion after airlines downsized in response to lower passenger demand and retired many of the aircraft sooner than planned, with many shifting to the newer, more fuel-efficient A320neo. 
 
321 Precision Conversions and EFW have already been chirping at each other, with 321 PC saying its version features the lowest operating empty weight, more standard range and payload, better crew amenities, and a better cargo door design and cargo handling system. For its part, EFW claims it has an advantage in life-cycle value and maintenance because it is the original equipment manufacturer. It also contends it’s version has a better center-of-gravity and coverage for all weight variants of the A321.
 
Corrado said ATSG is negotiating to procure some A321s and hopes to convert three or four in 2022.
 
“We view the plane as a great replacement for the 757 as that plane gets up there in terms of age. Very efficient; we also think it’s a good upsell from the 737-800 and we think it’s a global airplane,” ATSG Chief Commercial Officer Mike Berger said at the investor presentation. “We think the airplane has application in the U.S. and North America, but very much so in Europe as well as Southeast Asia, India, etc. So the airplane can be utilized, based on the size of it, in a number of different ways as the market evolves and some other airplanes age. 
 
“And certainly from a geographic standpoint it sets up very nicely to service markets across the globe,” he said.
 
China-based Sine Draco Aviation Technology is also developing an A321-200 passenger-to-freighter conversion program and could receive regulatory approval in the next year.
 
737-800 EU mod
 
Meanwhile, Miami-based Aeronautical Engineers Inc., announced Friday the European Union Aviation Safety Agency has signed off on its proprietary design for retrofitting the Boeing 737-800. The certification will allow AEI, which developed its own conversion kit separate from Boeing’s program, to convert aircraft for use in Europe.
 
AEI said it has received multiple expressions of interest for the 737-800 conversion from potential European customers.
 
The AEI converted 737-800 freighter offers a main deck payload of up to 52,700 pounds, with 11 full-height container positions plus room for a smaller container. Modifications include installation of a main cargo door, a cockpit barrier and reinforced floor beams.
 
Since November, AEI has secured 40 orders for the B737-800SF. AEI has 14 simultaneous freighter conversion production lines at licensed partners, nine of which are dedicated to the 737-800 freighter. The company said it is on track to deliver 24 various freighters in 2021 and more than 30 in 2022.
 
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/trans-atlantic-rivalry-brews-over-airbus-a321-converted-freighter


 



 Wright Electric Advances Plans For Electric Airliner 
 
Wright Electric has completed what it says will be a key element in its plans to develop an electric propulsion system that could potentially power a single-aisle airliner to enter commercial service by 2030. The U.S. company reported late last week that it has successfully demonstrated the inverter that will convert DC power from batteries to the AC power that will drive electric motors.
 
The next phase of development work will now focus on integrating the inverter with a 2 MW motor that the Wright team is developing in-house. The company plans next year to conduct high-altitude chamber testing with the configuration as part of the process of qualifying it for flight testing. The following year it would perform testing in an actual airplane at 40,000 feet. Wright CEO Jeff Engler told AIN that the company is planning for a program launch in 2024.
 
Whether or not Wright actually assembles the airplane or contributes its technology to a program by another airframer remains undetermined, however. “We're right now having those discussions about who's going to do the manufacturing and things like that,” said Engler. “I think we're heads down on proving out that the motors and inverters work on the ground and then at 40,000 feet, And I would say everything else is a future decision.”
 
Wright engineers are developing a propulsion system to be scalable for a power rating of between 500 kW and 20 MW. The company claims the technology will deliver a 99.5 percent efficiency level, representing a six-fold improvement over current aviation inverters and resulting in significantly lower thermal management loads.
 
In a May 6 statement, the company said the propulsion system will carry a power density of 30 kW/kg. Given that currently, available technology delivers only between 10 and 20 kW/kg, such an increase would result in a weight savings equivalent to carrying an extra five to 10 passengers on each flight in a standard single-aisle airplane.
 
Engler said that Wright’s electrics could apply to any of three kinds of propulsion systems: full electric, hybrid electric, or hydrogen. But whatever shape the final product takes, it will require a design approach that differs dramatically from a typical jet-fuel-powered machine.
 
“We think of ourselves as experts in, number one, motors and inverters, and, number two, aerodynamically and efficiently configuring the airplane using those motors and inverters…If you look at, for example, a Tesla…a Tesla isn't just a Mercedes where you take out the engine and you put electric motors. To the passenger, it’s the same, but under the hood, it's very different.”
 
Engler added that the company plans to make additional announcements about progress with its integrated propulsion system in the next few months. “The level of performance demonstrated with our new inverter will become the baseline for any new electric aircraft and is a key technology in our megawatt system,” he commented.
 
The Albany, New York-based company formed in 2016 to develop an electric power system for a 186-seat airliner that would fly to a range of 800 miles. It says that it has held discussions with air carriers EasyJet and VivaAerobus to inform development priorities. It also has signed development contracts with NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy’s ARPA-E program. The 15-employee start-up has financial backing from Y Combinator and the Clean Energy Trust, as well as from various venture capital groups and private investors.
 
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2021-05-10/wright-electric-advances-plans-electric-airliner
 

 




Nigeria's new flag carrier to be private-sector financed
 
Nigeria’s envisaged new national carrier, Nigeria Air (Lagos), is to be private-sector driven and financed, with the government proposing to hold no more than 5% of its shareholding.
 
This is according to a leaked document of the country’s Federal Ministry of Aviation, which provides a long-awaited first update on the Nigerian Federal Government’s roadmap towards the new flag carrier, which was first announced in 2018.
 
The document, seen by Economic Confidential, a Nigerian economic news magazine, proposes that a consortium of private investors raise USD250 million to start up the airline, with the government providing financial guarantees and “fiscal incentives”.
 
“The national carrier project will be private sector-driven, with the government holding not more than 5% of the shares. The private sector consortium may comprise reputable international airlines, leasing companies, aircraft manufacturers, financial, and institutional investors. USD250m approximately is to be raised to start up the airline by private investors,” the document reads.
 
The government would provide the required support by creating the enabling environment in terms of sustainable policies, allocation of routes, provision of financial guarantees, and ensuring "fiscal incentives to sustain the success of the airline".
 
The document indicates that the development phase of the project has been completed, with the procurement phase slated as the next step. It says an outline of the business case has been completed. “The next set of steps will involve the commencement of [the] procurement phase by placing [an] advert for a request for qualification in the national dailies and the foreign media," the document reads.
 
ch-aviation research found that a compliance certificate was already issued on July 8, 2018, by the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC), an agency of the Federal Government responsible for the development and implementation of public-private partnership frameworks. The ICRC in 2018 had also completed a feasibility study of the proposed airline.
 
As previously reported, plans for Nigeria Air were first revealed at the July 2018 Farnborough Air by Aviation Minister Hadi Sirika. Two months later, the government shelved the idea due to objections within its ranks to using public funds to set up the airline. The airline was incorporated as a private entity on July 18, 2018, according to the official document - lodged with the Corporate Affairs Commission of Nigeria - seen by ch-aviation.
 
Then, in May 2019, Sirika announced the government had now earmarked NGN47.43 billion naira (USD132 million) in the 2019 budget for the proposed airline. The funding was to enable the start-up to launch operations before the introduction of private equity funds.
 
In November 2020, the Aviation Ministry announced it had again earmarked funds for the establishment of Nigeria Air within its NGN78.96 billion (USD204.9 million) 2021 budget for the implementation of the aviation roadmap, which it said, would be implemented through a public-private partnership. All necessary agreements and arrangements with other partners had been worked out, "making 2021 the year the new national carrier would be realised," Sirika had said.
 
According to project information on the ICRC website, the new flag carrier would start with a domestic and regional airline service with a narrow-body fleet and early-on add international services to Europe and the US with B787s or A350s.
 
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/103419-nigerias-new-flag-carrier-to-be-private-sector-financed


 




GE Aviation moves production of four land/marine turbine parts from casting to metal additive manufacturing
 
GE Aviation has projected cost savings of 35% after switching the production of four land/marine turbine bleed air parts from casting to metal 3D printing.
 
The aerospace company worked with GE Additive to additively manufacture the four bleed air components, with the cost savings expected to be enough to retire the old casting moulds forever. Harnessing 3D printing, GE Aviation also saw significant time reductions through the conversion process, getting to a final prototype inside ten months, where as it has previously taken between 12 and 18 months when developing turbine parts.
 
As they look to step up their application of the technology for land/marine turbine parts, they have already identified ‘scores of other parts on a variety of engines’ as potential additive parts.
 
“This is a game-changer,” commented GE Aviation Additive Manufacturing Leader Eric Gatlin. “This is the first time we did a part-for-part replacement, and it was cheaper doing it with additive than casting. To make sure we demonstrated cost competitiveness, we had four outside vendors quote the parts and we still came in lower with additive manufacturing.”
 
GE Aviation has a rich history in applying additive manufacturing technology, consolidating 20 parts into for its LEAP engine fuel nozzle tip and 855 parts into ten for its new turboprop engine. These success stories has led the company to deploy 3D printing technology on the LM9000 land/marine turbine, which has been derived from the GE90 turbojet and is being built for Baker Hughes, another renowned user of additive manufacturing.
 
Starting early last year after GE Aviation’s annual audit of castings and an evaluation of the 3D printers it had at its disposal, the project had identified 180 cast parts for which they thought 3D printing could save money. These included low-volume replacement parts and production-volume components for new programmes like the LM9000 engine.
 
As the pandemic hit, GE Aviation was able to turn its focus to other projects at its additive production facility in Auburn, AL, where parts for other GE Aviation engines are typically made. Narrowing down the number of parts that had passed through initial screening and additional analysis, the team at Auburn focused on parts that could fit inside a Concept Laser M2 machine and would return significant cost savings. The four parts they would proceed to additively manufacture were adapter caps for the LM9000’s bleed air system.
 
All four parts measure around 3.5 inches in diameter and 6 inches in height. They were printed in Cobalt-chrome to ensure they could handle the hot compressed air from the turbine’s compressor section. The four parts, which were one-to-one replacements with no redesign or part consolidation, were printed within the same build. Simulation and analysis showed them to replicate the performance of the cast parts, while test bars were built with each print to allow for the integrity of each production run to be measured. GE Aviation and GE Additive believe the project to be a major success.
 
“The thing that stuck out to me was that we could take an existing casting design, replicate it quickly on our printers, and within weeks of starting the project, the final parts were the same quality as their cast counterparts,” offered Jeff Eschenbach, a Senior Project Manager and Project Lead at GE Aviation’s Auburn facility. “This project serves as a template for future work.”
 
“From a business perspective, Auburn showed muscle we didn’t have in the past and now we have a bank of parts that we can go after next,” added Kelly Brown, Senior Technical Leader at GE Additive. “What the team has done is remarkable and it really showcases their capabilities.”
 
https://www.tctmagazine.com/additive-manufacturing-3d-printing-news/ge-aviation-moves-production-of-four-landmarine-turbine-part/


 




GKN PRODUCES ROLLS-ROYCE ENGINE COMPRESSOR CASE USING 3D PRINTING TECHNOLOGY
 
Aerospace supplier GKN Aerospace has successfully manufactured a partially 3D printed intermediate compressor case (ICC) for aircraft engine OEM Rolls-Royce.
 
Set to be used in a demonstrator program for Rolls-royce’s upcoming UltraFan engine, the ICC was developed as part of Clean Sky 2, Europe’s largest aeronautics research program focused on reducing the CO2 emissions and noise levels of today’s aircraft engines. With funding from the EU’s Horizon 2020 program and aviation industry, Clean Sky 2 aims to strengthen collaborative ties in the sector while also promoting healthy competitiveness.
 
Henrik Runnemalm, Vice President of GKN Aerospace’s Global Technology Centre in Sweden, said, “The delivery of the UltraFan engine ICC to Rolls-Royce is a true milestone. It reaffirms the success of the Clean Sky 2 collaboration programme and we are excited to have implemented our latest sustainable technologies in the ICC’s development. We are extremely proud to be a partner of the Rolls-Royce team and to contribute to this energy efficient aero-engine of the future.”
 
The UltraFan engine
 
The latest entry to the Rolls-Royce engine portfolio is UltraFan. Reportedly offering 25% greater fuel efficiency when compared to the first generation of Trent engines, UltraFan features a new engine core architecture. The system has a 140” fan diameter and has previously been described as a new route to ‘sustainable air travel’.
 
With carbon titanium fan blades and a composite casing, the new engine can reduce the weight of an aircraft by up to 680kg. It also comes complete with a new geared design that delivers efficient power for high thrust and a high bypass ratio. Rolls-Royce intends to do a full engine ground test in 2022, with flight testing set to follow shortly after.
 
“Our first engine demonstrator, UF001, is now coming together and I’m really looking forward to seeing it built and ready for test,” said Chris Cholerton, Rolls-Royce’s Civil Aerospace President. “It is arriving at a time when the world is seeking ever more sustainable ways to travel in a post-COVID-19 world, and it makes me and all our team very proud to know we are part of the solution.”
 
Manufacturing the UltraFan ICC
 
As a core partner in both Clean Sky 2 and the demonstrator program, GKN was responsible for designing and manufacturing the ICC. The critical structure is built to be housed between compressor cases, carrying the rotor gas loads down to the engine casing and thrust mounts.
 
While the majority of the ICC was manufactured using traditional casting techniques, several of the attaching parts were fabricated via metal 3D printing. The production process also included a novel welding method based on computer simulations, optimized bleed system aerodynamics and acoustics, and a shorter aggressive duct design. GKN Aerospace’s ICC manufacturing process received support from the Vinnova-funded IntDemo project and the Västra Götaland Region in Sweden.
 
With projects like UltraFan, the additive manufacturing of end-use turbine engine components is slowly but surely being ushered in. Earlier this year, energy technology company Siemens Energy developed a novel digital repair chain specifically to 3D print new features onto conventionally manufactured gas turbine blades. Beyond just blade MRO, the chain is intended to provide upgrades, specifically by implementing intricate cooling channels into blade tips to alleviate the risk of cracks and defects.
 
Elsewhere, sister technology companies GE Aviation and GE Additive recently 3D printed four new gas turbine engine parts for the very first time. Citing costs and lead times as primary factors in the decision, GE Aviation made the switch from investment casting to metal additive manufacturing, despite already having a set of established casting molds for the bleed air adapter caps.
 
https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/gkn-produces-rolls-royce-engine-compressor-case-using-3d-printing-technology-189890/


 




Electric aircraft partnership in France
 
Two French technology companies have teamed up to develop two electric aircraft.
Paris-based engineering firm Akka Technologies is working with aircraft manufacturer Aura Aero in Toulouse on a 19 seat ERA (Electric Regional Aircraft) as well as an aerobatic electric aircraft.
 
Akka will use its expertise from its aeronautics and automotive business to support Aura in both projects over the next two years with the development of several technology blocks for the ERA as well as to the development and the integration of a BMS for the INTEGRAL-E aerobatic electric aircraft.
 
Akka expects to build an experienced team of 40 engineers at its two Toulouse-based Engineering and Aviation Centres of Expertise to provide R&D capabilities to Aura Aero. Airbus also has a major engineering plant in Toulouse. The move comes as another French aircraft maker, Safran, starts development of an 8 seater electric regional aircraft.
 
“We are very pleased to be able to work with Akka to develop the new Aura Aero programme,” said Jérémy Caussade, President and co-founder of Aura. “The skills provided will strengthen our internal expertise and will contribute to the development of our new ERA aircraft, a 19-seat electrically powered regional aircraft that is eco-efficient and innovative. More than ever, we are aware that women and men are at the heart of our current and future success.”
 
“This partnership illustrates Akka’s agility in leveraging its deep domain expertise in the aeronautical sector out of Occitanie to contribute to the development of projects set to pave the way to the future of the aviation,” said Stéphane Latieule, SVP Aerospace at Akka France.
 
Akka has been recovering from the effects of the pandemic, says Mauro Ricci, chairman and CEO.
 
“We have accelerated our business repositioning with multiple initiatives to leverage our core business, diversifying our capabilities in digital across all our sectors, and in R&D with Akka Research,” he said. “On the strength of our work on getting our organisations leaner and tightly managing our cost base with a relentless focus on cash management, we are already bearing the first fruits. The profit of each and every one of our business units is back in the positive territory, while the revenue growth in Q3 and in Q4 confirm the gradual recovery of the activity.”
 
“We expect the gradual and moderate upturn to continue in H1 2021 and to accelerate in H2 2021 with good momentum in our digital activities and in most of our sectors,” he said.
 
https://www.eenewseurope.com/news/electric-aircraft-partnership-france


 




Zero-emission, guilt-free flights from Hong Kong to Da Nang may soon be possible
 
This November, Britain will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, delayed by one year due to the coronavirus pandemic. On the docket will be discussion of aircraft emissions and the impact tourism has on the environment.
The upside of being grounded by the pandemic has been that for much of the past year, air pollution has been perceptibly lower. Though in recent months as economies such as China have picked up substantially, so has the level of dirty air. Certainly, at COP26, there will be a lot to talk about. 
The political momentum is already building towards November with activists such as Greta Thunberg starting to surface again, ready for the event. To counter their inevitable criticism of slow environmental progress there has been a speedy move to bring forward climate targets around the globe, particularly now the Americans are back on track under President Joe Biden, reversing climate sceptic Donald Trump’s pull-out of the Paris Climate Accord and recently hosting a “streaming” climate summit.
 
COP THAT
First up was British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, boldly bringing the UK’s climate target forward by about 15 years with a plan to cut carbon emissions by 78 per cent by 2035, which would put the country in a leading position. Importantly, the British government has announced that a new “climate law” will be extended to cover international aviation – possibly the last thing aircraft manufacturers wanted to hear. The Labour Party knocked it back, but let’s give BoJo the benefit of the doubt here as he had an ace up his sleeve.
 
For the average UK household, these tough new targets will mean a wider adoption of electric cars, more encouragement to walk or use a bicycle, better home insulation, lower meat and dairy consumption, and finally more renewable energy – the UK is already one of the leaders in wind power, which takes care of about a quarter of daily energy consumption. That all sounds good to me, as long as they don’t ban authentic sausages. But undoubtedly, flying will become more expensive, which is bad news for those cheap easyJet flights to the continent for less than you’d pay for a round of drinks in newly reopened UK pubs.
Now, as Johnson released his bold targets, Britain had just unveiled the world’s first commercial hydrogen-powered plane. The aircraft is not a strange spider’s web contraption of super-light materials covered in cling-film, but rather a perfectly standard Piper six-seat aircraft retrofitted with zero emission propulsion by a US start-up, ZeroAvia, developed with partners in the UK which include British Airways. This revelation somewhat took me aback. Only two weeks ago I had been convinced by friends in the industry that a hydrogen, or hybrid hydrogen-electric aircraft, would not be seen in our lifetime. And yet, there it is, flying out of Cranfield Airport in Bedfordshire.
 
There is an ongoing debate about the impact of aviation on CO2 emissions. From a 2013 study, estimates were being passed around that 8 per cent of all greenhouse gases could be traced back to tourism, and about 40 per cent of that to aviation, about 3.2 per cent of the total. More recent modelling is more conservative, suggesting that aviation generates 1.9 per cent of all greenhouse gases, and 2.5 per cent of global CO2 dumped into the atmosphere. That doesn’t sound so bad, but it is significant when you consider that it is about the total output of countries like Japan or Germany.
LEAVING ON A GASPLANE
With the backing of the UK government, ZeroAvia projects that the plane will be able to commercially carry 20 passengers for 350 nautical miles as early as 2023. That is about as far as you would normally fly between most UK airports, and it would also get you to the continent – Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport is 188 nautical miles from London Heathrow. By 2026, the aircraft is expected to fly 500 nautical miles with an 80-seat capacity. That would get you, say, from Hong Kong to Taipei or Hanoi. By 2030, single-aisle jets with 100 seats would get you from Hong Kong all the way to Sapporo.
 
By 2035, Johnson’s target date, a plane with 200 seats and a range of 3,000 nautical miles is currently thought possible, which would put just about all European destinations well within reach from the UK. Airbus has also boarded the future and aims to have its own hydrogen aircraft in operation by 2035. But with an upstart like ZeroAvia in the air to challenge the incumbents, the race is on. There will be other, smaller manufacturers looking in earnest at the technology.
 
Zero emissions from the aircraft is paramount to the success of ZeroAvia’s project, but to really have zero emissions from a flight, hydrogen fuel needs to be extracted in a way which doesn’t add CO2 to the atmosphere and so there is now a rush to produce ‘green’ hydrogen.
GREEN IS GOOD
Green hydrogen is bothersome to produce in quantity at the moment, though the process sounds deceptively simple. When seawater is electrolysed, oxygen and hydrogen are created, leaving only salt. But the process requires huge amounts of electricity, preferably solar, wind, hydro or geothermal power. So the most efficient place to make it is somewhere where clean energy and seawater coexist. As long as the electricity is clean, the hydrogen is green.
Somewhere sunny or windy and coastal is ideal, which suggests that North Africa, large tracts of the Middle East and perhaps parts of Asia would work. Saudi Arabia is at the start of a mammoth project to produce green hydrogen, a new plant is being built in Taiwan’s Hsinchu Science Park by Air Liquide Far Eastern Ltd., a venture between Paris-based Air Liquide and Taiwan’s Far Eastern Group, and just last week the Australians announced multiple countrywide electrolyser projects funded by the federal government.
 
Retrofitting drivetrains in small aircraft is one thing. But to compete with short-haul, single-aisle aircraft like the Boeing 737 or Airbus A320, a more complex design for handling hydrogen as a fuel is required. It’ll likely mean increased use of carbon fibre, if only to contain the hydrogen. Carbon fibre has been a growing component in commercial aircraft, and it is a market that has been cornered by a handful of Japanese companies; Toray, Mitsubishi Rayon and Teijin, whose share prices are still substantially far from their long-term highs.
Long-haul travel using hydrogen on the kinds of aircraft we’re used to may be beyond the scope of the technology for the foreseeable future. But as aircraft manufacturer Airbus found to its chagrin with the A380, and regional airlines like Cathay Pacific and Singapore Airlines also discovered, to operate such large equipment with high capital costs and having to consistently fill almost 600 seats per flight, makes them less of a commercial viability.
 
FLY THE FLAG
With backing from British Airways, you’d think ZeroAvia’s development in propulsion would give the aviation industry a significant kick, from aircraft manufacturers, engine suppliers through to functional materials suppliers. Boeing disagrees.
In its Q4 2020 earnings call with investors in January, Boeing president and CEO Dave Calhoun dismissed hydrogen as something just to experiment with at the “low end”. At the airframe size Boeing focuses on, the technology is just not there. Whereas Airbus has some expertise in smaller airframes through its 75 per cent ownership of Bombardier, Boeing terminated its joint venture talks with Embraer in the middle of 2020, which would have led to 80 per cent ownership in the regional aircraft maker. If hydrogen takes off at the “low end”, that might prove to have been a missed opportunity.
Perhaps Calhoun is right, and hydrogen is all just an experiment for small planes. Or maybe he’s betting on a return to power of US Republicans, which would surely delay any American move away from petroleum based fuels. Either way, this seems to represent a divergence in strategy for two aircraft manufacturing giants who have historically competed in the same market with much the same equipment.
 
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/3132659/zero-emission-guilt-free-flights-hong-kong-da-nang-may-soon-be


 




ITB Berlin sends a clear message from the global travel industry by appealing to policymakers for action
 
Global travel industry CEOs demand an expansion of vaccination and testing capacity to rapidly re-open safe travel in these times of the pandemic, and call for political support to improve sustainability, equitable opportunities and digital services.
 
Never before have political decisions impacted travel so seriously as during the coronavirus pandemic. With the ITB Berlin Travel and Tourism Declaration, the World’s Leading Travel Trade Show for the first time concisely summarises the concrete measures demanded by national and international travel industry leaders for an economic recovery. With it, the trade show sends a clear message from the industry and gives leaders from many areas of tourism an opportunity to have their say. Compiled in an online brochure and presented in a video, their reactions, demands and suggestions provide urgently needed orientation and ideas for political decision-makers to overcome the crisis and future challenges.
 
Bild
The coronavirus pandemic has all parts of the global travel industry firmly in its grip, from airlines, tour operators, the hotel industry and cruise lines to technology providers, OTAs and tourism associations. Correspondingly, the ITB Berlin Travel and Tourism Declaration reflects a cross section of the industry and impressively highlights its impact and relevance. As well as naming concrete measures for re-opening tourism in these times of the pandemic, leaders also call for improving sustainability, equitable opportunities and digital services.
 
Thus, Norbert Fiebig, president of the German Travel Association (DRV), demands the introduction of an internationally recognised digital vaccination certificate and a uniform testing procedure to enable safe travel again as soon as possible. Mark S. Hoplamazian, president and CEO of Hyatt, sees vaccinating, testing and contact tracing as key. For Dara Khosrowshahi, CEO of Uber, safety is paramount too. He calls for expanding Covid vaccinations as soon as possible. According to Gloria Guevara Manzo, president and CEO of the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), in addition to an internationally recognised digital vaccination certificate, efficient international mobility protocols could help to restart international travel. Patrick Andrae, CEO of HomeToGo, calls for holiday apartments to re-open first, as they are among the safest type of accommodation.
 
Focus on sustainability
Without doubt, the pandemic marks a break for the entire industry. In order to be able to deal with future challenges Lisa Lutoff-Perlo, president and CEO of Celebrity Cruises, says better preparation is needed to confront future crises: “The future needs to look different." For Ed Bastian, CEO of Delta, protecting the environment plays a key role: “One of the most pressing issues we face collectively is sustainability." Accordingly, the aviation measures now being discussed should create incentives for investing in a sustainable future. Stephanie M. Jones, founder and CEO of National Blacks, part of the Travel & Tourism Collaborative, calls for greater diversity, inclusion and equitable opportunities in tourism, to help ensure their growth and sustainability in the industry. Olga Heuser, founder and CEO of Dialogshift, is convinced that policymakers need to take a different view of the industry: “In the long run, we should include tourism policy in economic policy in a way that reflects its share in overall economic performance and its importance for the labour market."
 
What is clear from the statements of these industry leaders is that with comprehensive safety measures, testing capacity and rising vaccination numbers, the urgently needed recovery of the tourism industry can succeed. Now it is up to policymakers to offer the industry new prospects as soon as possible.
 
https://www.traveldailynews.com/post/itb-berlin-sends-a-clear-message-from-the-global-travel-industry-by-appealing-to-policymakers-for-action


 




Net zero faces fierce criticism
 
"The enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect one"
 
Carl von Clausewitz, 1780-1831
 
The backlash is underway. And it's coming from the unlikeliest of quarters.
 
For much of the past two years the global push to deliver net-zero emissions has enjoyed a remarkable golden run. National and state governments have rushed to announce long term net-zero emissions goals, to the point where around two-thirds of global GDP is covered by some form of target. Businesses and investors have followed suit, with over 2,100 of the world's largest corporates having set net-zero goals under the U.N.-backed Race to Zero campaign while asset managers and owners worth trillions of dollars have pledged to deliver net-zero emission portfolios by mid-century at the latest.
 
These various goals have helped trigger billions of dollars of investment in low carbon infrastructure and R&D, as well as an entire new ecosystem of campaigners, academics, regulators, investors, politicians, and business executives who are working round the clock to translate long-term net-zero ambitions into credible near term decarbonization strategies. While still daunted by the epic and tragic scale of the climate crisis, this community has been buoyed by the way in which their work already has helped deliver both plummeting clean technology costs and a decoupling of greenhouse gas emissions and global GDP.
 
Less than six years on from the Paris Agreement, the combination of the landmark accord's 1.5 degree Celsius temperature goal and its commitment to "achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century" has unleashed one of the fastest and most consequential corporate trends since the inception of the first Industrial Revolution. It is, in many regards, one of the most successful environmental campaigns in history.
 
And now it is facing fierce criticism not just from the perennial climate-denying opponents of climate action, who allege the net-zero mission is an exorbitantly expensive and unnecessary pipe dream, but also from a growing number of the world's most influential and respected environmental campaigners and scientists.
 
Trials and tribulations
It seems each story announcing a fresh net-zero pledge now sparks outraged warnings on social media that "net-zero is not zero" or heartfelt explanations as to why net-zero commitments are meaningless "greenwash" and what is needed is "real zero," like, yesterday.
 
This critique has been amplified by Greta Thunberg, who has used her huge Twitter platform and vital position as one of the world's only functioning accountability mechanisms to warn that "net-zero targets" are "being used as excuses to postpone real action." "Yes we need to balance out some emissions that can't be eliminated (agriculture etc)," she argued in April. "But as it is now I dare to claim that these distant net-zero targets aren't about that, rather they're about communication tactics and making it seem like we're acting without having to change." She also shared a "Friends" meme which offered a similar, if pithier, analysis:
 
These widespread and understandable concerns were expanded upon in an article for The Conversation from three of Europe's leading environmental scientists. Under the headline "Climate scientists: concept of net-zero is a dangerous trap," the University of Exeter's James Dyke, the University of East Anglia's Robert Watson and the University of Lund's Wolfgang Knorr condemned the "fantasy of net-zero" and concluded "current net-zero policies will not keep warming to within 1.5C because they were never intended to." The article was quickly shared by Thunberg, who hailed it as "one of the most important and informative texts I have ever read on the climate- and ecological crises."
 
In further evidence that Shakespeare was right about the way in which trials and tribulations can lead to "strange bedfellows," these attacks on the net-zero movement's entire conceptual underpinning already has been seized upon by traditional opponents of climate action who wilfully misunderstand environmentalists' legitimate concerns about the efficacy of emissions targets and twist their analysis to argue decarbonization goals are all a crock. As one observer noted to me privately, when The Australian newspaper is praising Thunberg for exposing "the emptiness" of climate promises then something has gone pretty awry.
 
Why now?
So, what is going on here? Why is the concept of net-zero emissions under fire just as it emerges as the "North Star" for economic and industrial strategy in many of the world's most powerful economies? And does it matter? Will well-intentioned critiques of demonstrably inadequate net-zero strategies catalyze more ambitious decarbonization plans or will they inadvertently undermine a trend that has helped successfully push climate issues up the corporate and political agenda?
 
The first thing to say is that much of the criticism of net-zero strategies from Thunberg, Dyke, Watson, Knorr, et al is entirely justified.
 
There is an old jokey disclaimer deployed by journalists where we protest that we "don't write the headlines." It is a defense against the condemnation that comes our way when an eager subeditor uses a headline to overstate or simplify the details contained in the rest of an article. Last month's long read in The Conversation is something of a case in point. The headline may bluntly describe net-zero as a "dangerous trap," but the article itself offers a nuanced and in-depth assessment of the risks attached to the net-zero concept. It acknowledges the goal of ensuring residual emissions of greenhouse gases are balanced by technologies to remove them from the atmosphere is "a great idea, in principle," just as it accepts how "in principle there is nothing wrong or dangerous about carbon dioxide removal proposals."
 
But it also warns that the net-zero narrative's focus on negative emissions technologies and techniques — all of which face massive technological, economic and land use challenges when used at scale — risks being used to justify continued investment in fossil fuel infrastructure and distract from the urgent need to deliver "sustained radical cuts to greenhouse gas emissions in a socially just way." Amen to all of that.
 
It is possible to disagree with the authors' belief that "net-zero has licensed a recklessly cavalier 'burn now, pay later' approach which has seen carbon emissions continue to soar" and share their concerns that emerging negative emissions technologies and techniques, such as biomass with carbon capture and storage, direct air carbon capture, mass nature-based solutions and even geo-engineering, can be used to bolster the business case for extremely high risk investments in new fossil fuel infrastructure.
 
It is possible to reject the idea that net-zero policies are primarily designed to perpetuate business as usual and still share the fears of Dyke et al that such policies in their current guise are often poorly defined, insufficiently ambitious and inadequately policed. It is possible to think Thunberg's attacks on net-zero goals could prove counterproductive if they are not very carefully targeted and still think she is one of the best things to happen to the environmental movement in years and a vital voice holding governments and businesses to account.
 
Every one of the prospective negative emissions industries — whether they are focused on tree-planting or mechanically scrubbing the atmosphere of its CO2 — face immense technical, financial and political barriers hampering their adoption at scale.
As analyses from the likes of Carbon Tracker and CDP repeatedly have stressed, many net-zero pledges put forward by the world's leading carbon intensive corporates and investors are deeply flawed and are not backed by credible strategies to wind down fossil fuel infrastructure and pivot towards clean technologies at sufficient pace. These inadequate strategies have been enabled by the continuing failure to establish clear standards that properly define what delivering net-zero emissions entails — a problem that was highlighted recently by Mark Carney's quickly repudiated suggestion that a portfolio containing fossil fuel-related assets could describe itself as "net-zero" so long as it also invested in renewables.
 
Meanwhile, at the national level you would be hard pressed to find a government with a genuinely comprehensive net-zero strategy. The U.K. was the first major economy to set a net-zero target, has the most impressive decarbonization track record of any industrialized country, and has just set some of the world's most ambitious medium-term emissions goals. And yet the government is still tying itself in knots as it combines support for a world-leading renewables industry and a relatively rapid phase out of internal combustion engine vehicles with plans for a new coal mine and a refusal to rule out a fresh wave of North Sea oil and gas exploration.
 
Against this backdrop Thunberg's fear net-zero targets can be used as cover for continued investment in fossil fuel assets is completely legitimate and understandable. As Dyke et al argue every one of the prospective negative emissions industries — whether they are focused on tree-planting or mechanically scrubbing the atmosphere of its CO2 — face immense technical, financial, and political barriers hampering their adoption at scale.
 
And yet they are routinely factored into official decarbonization models at both a governmental and corporate level, disguising the fact there is a very real risk these negative emissions strategies could fail and necessitate even steeper emissions cuts to deliver on the goals of the Paris Agreement. It amounts to an extremely high risk, perhaps even reckless strategy, even before you consider the existential dread that comes with recent news from the IEA that global emissions are already spiraling back towards pre-pandemic levels.
 
The entire global economy continues to resemble an obese man ordering a box of doughnuts because he has just read that a diet pill trial has delivered some modestly encouraging results.
 
Defending net-zero
And yet, I can't help feel these legitimate critiques of the weaknesses of various net-zero strategies risk tipping over into a knee-jerk dismissal of the concept as a whole — a concept that will be right at the heart of any attempt to avert a climate catastrophe, regardless of the rhetorical framing deployed.
 
The elision of "net-zero" and "not zero" may be largely confined to social media, but as it gathers momentum it risks tarnishing the credibility of all the myriad good faith attempts to harness a portfolio of solutions to slash emissions as quickly as possible and deliver on the goals of the Paris Agreement. A blanket dismissal of the net-zero concept demands not that polluters come forward with credible strategies that could work in both principle and in practice, but rather fuels the impression any and all plans are "greenwash" and are not worthy of consideration.
 
Counterintuitively, it establishes a discourse that makes life easier for "greenwashers" and makes it harder to distinguish between those net-zero strategies that will help the world deliver on its climate goals and those that nefariously seek to delay meaningful action.
 
Dyke et al allege net-zero targets "were and still are driven by a need to protect business as usual, not the climate." It is a serious charge to level at the architects of the Paris Agreement and the many businesses around the world striving to transform themselves as part of an epoch-shaping attempt to drive the fastest industrial revolution in history. It is certainly true of some net-zero strategies. But it is a funny sort of business as usual that has in the space of five years helped create a scenario where the bulk of the global auto industry is publicly committed to electrifying all their models, renewables are the default source of new capacity in most markets around the world, coal companies are going bankrupt and oil majors are totting up their write-downs, national climate laws are being rushed onto statute books, the public is routinely demanding climate action is treated as a top priority and billions of dollars of R&D funding is flowing into green aviation and shipping, smart grids and energy storage, and, yes, nature-based carbon sinks and carbon capture and use technologies.
 
This edging away from business as usual undoubtedly has come decades too late and thus far only has delivered a plateauing of global emissions. As such the sense of anger and frustration that pervades attacks on the net-zero movement is both palpable and understandable. But it is also true the Paris Agreement and the net-zero ambitions it has unleashed has established the conditions in which a shift away from coal mines, oil refineries, gas boilers, and internal combustion engines, and towards renewables, hydrogen, heat pumps and batteries looks not just possible but all but inevitable.
 
The world is still a long way from being on track to meet its net-zero targets, but a global emissions peak is finally within grasp. Steep emissions reductions could then follow, powered by the pursuit of those much-disparaged net-zero goals.
 
A blanket dismissal of the net-zero concept demands not that polluters come forward with credible strategies that could work in both principle and in practice, but rather fuels the impression any and all plans are not worthy of consideration.
It is at this point I have to acknowledge that as a defender of the net-zero concept I am somewhat compromised. BusinessGreen reports every day for a sustainable business community that has been invigorated by the net-zero trend. Back in 2018 we launched the "Net Zero Now" campaign, which I am proud to say played a small role in the successful push to get the U.K. government to put a net-zero goal on the statute book. That led to last year's Net Zero Festival, the biggest and most commercially successful event BusinessGreen has hosted in its 14-year history. Under the banner "faster, together" the festival brought together over 1,400 people and secured support from a wide range of businesses, including some carbon intensive organizations.
 
If I think some criticism of net-zero strategies risks tipping over into knee-jerk anti-capitalist agitprop, is that because I've become "The Man"? A wind-farm-owning philanthropist hasn't privately given me tens of thousands of pounds to renovate my flat, but I obviously have a professional interest in the success of the net-zero transition, alongside my personal desire for the biosphere to remain broadly habitable.
 
I accept this is a naïve aspiration in an age of social media polarization, but hopefully my declaration of interest does not detract from the wider arguments in support of the net-zero transition, because they are both wide-ranging and compelling. The recent attacks on the idea of net zero may have shone a necessary spotlight on some of the concept's potential flaws, but they are also guilty of glossing over its many strengths.
 
Scientifically robust
First up, as even its detractors accept, net-zero is scientifically sound. If you want to stop the world warming, you need to stop concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from rising. To do that you need emissions into the atmosphere and absorption of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere to be in balance (and if you want to lower temperatures back towards pre-industrial levels you need rates of absorption that are higher than rates of emissions so as to deliver net negative or "beyond zero" emissions). It's that simple.
 
You could argue that balance can be achieved by halting anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions altogether, by getting to "real zero." But given inevitable emissions from agriculture and the huge technical difficulty of fully decarbonizing aviation and certain industrial practices within the required timeframes "real zero" targets surf the line between implausible and impossible. We can and must argue about how much greenhouse gas absorption is feasible — how big the "net" in net-zero can be. But the overarching concept is scientifically robust.
 
And that scientifically robust goal is at the center of the entire global framework that is attempting, in the most challenging of circumstances, to avert a climate catastrophe. Net-zero is the beating heart of both the original U.N. Climate Convention of 1992 and the Paris Agreement. Given what is at stake, the commitment to "achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century" is one of the most important lines in any treaty in human history.
 
As a fascinating long read from Climate Home News documented back in 2019, getting that crucial line into the final accord represented one of the biggest diplomatic coups since the Second World War. And now some observers who are close to ongoing U.N. negotiations in the runup to the crucial COP26 Summit fear blanket attacks on the net-zero concept "risk throwing the Paris Agreement under the bus just when it is getting traction."
 
Real world action
The ripples that have flowed from the inclusion of a de facto net-zero target in the Paris Agreement would take a book, or more accurately a library of books, to document. But it is worth highlighting just some ways it has triggered real world climate action.
 
As previously mentioned, two-thirds of global GDP is generated in economies that now have some form of net-zero goal in place, but crucially in scores of countries those targets have been put on a legal footing. The U.K.'s trail-blazing Climate Change Act was strengthened in 2018 to turn a target requiring an 80 percent cut in emissions against 1990 levels into a net-zero target. France, Denmark, Sweden and New Zealand quickly followed suit. A similar new climate law from the EU soon will ensure the world's largest market has a legal net-zero target. President Joe Biden may have no chance of getting similar legislation past Trumpist Republicans in Congress, but state governments across the U.S. are putting net-zero goals into law. China could soon follow.
 
For all the companies simply setting fantastical multi-decadal net-zero targets and chucking money at questionable carbon offset firms, many more are approaching this endeavor in good faith.
Putting net-zero targets onto statute books has real legal and institutional value. As the U.K. has demonstrated, it informs ministers' day-to-day policy decisions on pain of legal challenge, it provides a legislative underpinning for the net-zero mandates that subsequently have been awarded to the Bank of England, numerous key regulators and the proposed National Infrastructure Bank, and it hands civil society a legal stick with which to batter current and future governments if they start to miss decarbonization goals.
 
It also provides an explicit signal to businesses and investors that the net zero transition is non-negotiable and irreversible, providing them with greater confidence that while decarbonization policies may be reformed over time they will persist through multiple parliamentary cycles.
 
Businesses have responded with literally thousands of new net zero targets and strategies. The U.N.-backed Race to Zero campaign includes more than 2,100 businesses, 120 investors, 20 regions and 500 universities. The Net Zero Asset Owners Alliance hold $5.7 trillion of assets, the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative boasts nearly 90 signatories with $37 trillion of assets under management. The investors and blue chips that are leading this charge are already exploring how to use their lobbying, shareholder and purchasing power to ensure net zero strategies spread through their labyrinthine portfolios and supply chains.
 
Thunberg is right: Some of these businesses are attempting to game the net-zero system and use long term climate goals to protect the fraying social license that allows them to continue to pollute.
 
But for all the companies simply setting fantastical multi-decadal net-zero targets and chucking money at questionable carbon offset firms, many more are approaching this endeavor in good faith. They are setting hugely ambitious emissions targets for five and 10 years hence. They are investing billions of dollars in deploying renewables, developing zero emission transport technologies, pioneering the manufacture of green steel and completely reimagining their operating models. They are serious when they say they want to drive a purpose-led Green Industrial Revolution, partly because it is the right thing to do, partly because that is where the biggest commercial opportunities of the 21st century lie and partly because they know as well as any climate scientist that 3-plus degrees Celsius of warming would be catastrophic.
 
Enlightened self-interest is an actual thing.
 
Moreover, the pioneers in this transition are, as in all industrial transitions throughout history, sparking a snowball-effect as they start to outcompete their more conservative rivals. Studies detailing how clean tech and sustainable businesses outperform their rivals abound. Net-zero targets at the national level beget net-zero targets at the corporate level, which helps drive net-zero technology development, which in turn helps enable more ambitious net-zero policies that serve to accelerate net-zero technology deployment, which forces more companies to adopt credible net-zero targets.
 
At the same time, net-zero investment goals require even carbon intensive companies to disclose their climate risks and come forward with their own net-zero strategies. The robustness of those strategies will be assessed by investors and financiers and, as credit rating giant Moody's noted in late April, inform the cost of capital for carbon intensive projects, further ramping up pressure on polluters to deliver credible net-zero strategies. There are now more interlocking virtuous circles in play than a Bridget Riley retrospective.
 
These complex changes have been most evident in the European electricity market where renewables have come to dominate and fossil fuel majors have seen value destroyed, but the same dynamics are well underway in other energy markets around the world and, crucially, in the global auto market. Multiple other sectors soon will start to follow the same playbook.
 
Dynamic process
A key thing missed by the blanket critiques of net-zero is the combination of the concept's catalyzing effect and the way in which it is a dynamic process, not a solid state. Some companies may miss their net-zero goals or overstate their efficacy, but others will pull forward their target dates and rapidly minimize their reliance on carbon sinks and credits. For example, currently a steel company that wants to claim net-zero status would have to invest millions in carbon offset schemes, but as soon as effective green steel production techniques are shown to be viable at scale, that will change and the sector will have to eradicate its direct emissions. Steel producers will want to make this transition, partly because of the reputational flak they would take for remaining reliant on offsets, but mainly because they would want to rid themselves of a massive bill funding carbon sinks in perpetuity.
 
Meanwhile, the governance architecture for net-zero targets is improving all the time. For example, the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) recently published a detailed new framework setting out how investors could develop net zero portfolio strategies that deliver real world emissions reductions. And in late April, the Race to Zero campaign strengthened its criteria for companies signed up to the campaign to clarify the need for robust interim targets, immediate action to cut emissions and the role of carbon sinks in addressing only residual emissions.
 
It could be argued these efforts were prompted by the recent public attacks on the credibility of net-zero targets, but Race to Zero's work with Oxford University to strengthen the criteria predates the latest critiques. The truth is there is widespread understanding of the net-zero transition's potential weak spots and lots of work underway to try to shore up any cracks in the strategy that could be exploited by bad actors. The next decade will see a wave of standards, guidelines and regulations that will both drive further investment in net-zero infrastructure and marginalize those businesses that want to use net zero targets to keep on polluting. "Trust but verify," as President Barack Obama used to say.
 
We are, as in all human discourse, arguing about definitions. What constitutes an "unavoidable" or "residual" emission? What amounts to a "credible" carbon offset or sink? Only with those definitions established can a firm conclusion be reached as to which industries should aim for net-zero emissions and which have to fully decarbonize. It is right and proper that this debate proceeds, but it should be possible to have it without undermining the entire concept of a net-zero transition.
 
All-encompassing
This work in defense of net-zero is vital because it serves to entrench a concept blessed with characteristics that explain why it has proved so much more effective than previous attempts to push climate action up the political and corporate agenda, which have, to put it bluntly, largely failed.
 
It is true that part of the success of the net-zero narrative lies in fortuitous timing. It emerged at a time when clean technologies had matured to a point where they could finally compete on cost with fossil fuel incumbents, when climate impacts had become so tragically visible that denialist narratives were left looking absurd, and when a vast majority of the public finally awoke to the true scale of the crisis. The world was ready.
 
Even when net-zero strategies are flawed, incomplete and perhaps even intended as deliberate greenwash, they still can help drive down emissions and marginalize fossil fuels.
But the net-zero concept also has three inherent strengths. Firstly, as many commentators have noted, net-zero is all encompassing. Just a few years ago when the U.K. had a target to cut emissions by 80 percent by 2050, it was possible for carbon intensive sectors to convince themselves they would be responsible for the remaining 20 percent of emissions and as such did not really have to engage with decarbonization. This is not a theoretical fear; it is what actually happened.
 
Critics of the net-zero concept argue there should be more focus on more ambitious short-term emissions targets, and they are right: there should. But almost no matter how ambitious you get, the same problem occurs without an overarching net-zero framework. If you somehow managed to engineer a peaceful political revolution that saw an 80 percent cut in emissions by 2030 target adopted, then without a longer term net-zero target to back it up the aviation and oil industries would revert to arguing that the remaining 20 percent of the carbon budget should belong to them.
 
It could be argued that net-zero simply has shifted this argument on to new territory. Now heavy emitters are hoping to carve up the "net" n net-zero and secure "negative emissions" for their industry. Again, this is a legitimate concern, but it also represents massive progress that has catalyzed long-delayed investment in technologies that could decarbonize hard to abate industries while providing seed investment for those negative emissions industries that, like it or not, are going to be needed. With short-term emissions targets airlines and fossil fuel giants can argue they have a pass, with short-term emissions and net-zero targets they have to at least start to engage with the idea of deep decarbonization. Many are going far beyond starting to engage and are investing heavily in the technologies that could yet make the most carbon intensive sectors net-zero compatible.
 
Secondly, net-zero is already remarkably popular and well understood, especially given the huge complexity those two short words belie. As Tim Lord, a former top civil servant and current senior fellow for net-zero at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, observed recently, "net-zero is a term that's relatively easy to understand — and public/consumer understanding is reasonably high, at least compared to some of the other jargon we use on climate and energy." The most recent U.K. government Public Attitudes Tracker found that in December 76 percent of people were aware of the concept of "net zero," up from 52 percent in March 2020. It is a level of name recognition most politicians or brands would kill for.
 
And thirdly, net-zero strategies do not have to be 100 percent perfect to still deliver meaningful and rapid progress. Even when net-zero strategies are flawed, incomplete and perhaps even intended as deliberate greenwash, they can still help drive down emissions and marginalize fossil fuels.
 
As Freuds' CEO Arlo Brady told my colleague Cecilia Keating in late April, even the most "small and spurious" of targets have the potential to spark much-needed change within companies. "This is where that question of 'greenwash' gets quite nuanced," he said. "When thinking about a theory of change within companies, I think the campaigning world has to think carefully before attacking too vocally those businesses making the right noises, even if they aren't exactly right. Because you may inadvertently slow the transition to a more sustainable world rather than accelerate it. The way to accelerate it is to create a big tent. That is what COP26 needs to be in Glasgow, a very big tent."
 
No environmentalist wants to defend fossil fuel companies given their deeply damaging, and at times outright criminal, track record. But while an oil major pumping billions of dollars into electric vehicle and renewable energy infrastructure may be engaging in a hedging strategy if you are being generous or blatant greenwash if you are not, they are still pumping billions of dollars into electric vehicle and renewable energy infrastructure. They are, inadvertently or not, helping to create the conditions for the demise of their polluting operations.
 
Similarly, investments in nature-based solutions or carbon capture can be used to provide cover for continued investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, but they are also laying the groundwork for an expansion of the world's negative emissions capacity. Such investments need to be policed using everything from satellite tracking and robust regulation to public protests and covert surveillance, but it seems reckless to dismiss them out of hand just because they fit into a net-zero framework.
 
Some companies are undoubtedly working to game the net-zero narrative. But it is possible to envisage a scenario where even half-hearted engagement with the pursuit of net-zero targets triggers the technological developments and business model changes that suddenly bring those distant goals within reach. And that is why targeted criticism of weak net-zero strategies, as opposed to blanket criticism of the entire concept is so important. Applying constant pressure on polluters to deliver on their net-zero strategies in a credible and coherent way — to actually do what they have said they will do — has the potential to trigger either the transformation or the retirement of even the most intractable of polluting industries. Net-zero initially may be seen as an enabler of what American writer Alex Steffen calls "predatory delay," but it could become the weapon that brings that cursed era to an end.
 
Ultimately, net-zero's all encompassing nature gives it real psychological value. An overarching principle of behavior change, whether you are trying to lose weight or decarbonize a global economy, is to tell people your goal. Tie them in to your endeavor and increase the internal pressure on yourself to deliver on the expectations you have publicly set. No one wants to embarrass themselves. As Kurt Vonnegut famously observed, "We are what we pretend to be."
 
Now, I am painfully aware all this risks sounding naively panglossian. Global emissions have risen since the Paris Agreement was signed. Many governments are doubling down on fossil fuel infrastructure to power their post-pandemic recoveries. We are still on track for around 3C of warming this century and even if the various net zero goals of the past few years are met — targets, lest we forget, that necessitate the fastest industrial revolution in human history — we'd still likely experience more than 2C of warming. Such a scenario would represent remarkable progress, but would still obliterate ecosystems, fuel geopolitical and economic instability and condemn millions of people to untold suffering.
 
One of many tragedies of working on climate change is the realization nothing is ever enough, that too much damage already has been done. In this context it is easy to see how all progress looks inadequate, because, let's be honest, it is.
 
What else have ya got?
But there is one last challenge to those who dismiss net-zero as a "trap" or a "distraction," which it is impossible to express without sounding blunt: What else have ya got?
 
Where is the alternative plan that is more credible than the admittedly flawed and imperfect attempt to assemble the largest coalition in human history to deploy a portfolio of solutions to first halve emissions by the 2030s, and then achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 at the latest? What is the strategy that navigates the many roadblocks in the real and political economy so as to drive the fastest transformation in the way civilization powers itself?
 
"Listen to the science" or "real zero" or "end capitalism" are great slogans, but they've been deployed for decades and pollutocratic capitalism is still here and still polluting. There are various alternative decarbonization frameworks to net-zero available, be they focused on sectoral emissions targets, shorter term goals or ever more robust political protest, but the idea that they can suddenly defeat the bad actors that are working to exploit loopholes provided by a net zero framework seems ahistorical. As Lord noted, "no matter what the terminology/objective, the problem that some people/orgs will try to debase the term, or present insufficient action as compliant with it, isn't going away. So saying we have to be e.g. compliant with 1.5 degrees won't solve the issue."
 
The risk of net-zero targets being gamed is not really a function of the net-zero concept. It is a function of the way a fossil fuel industry that has driven the global economy for over two centuries has immense in-built political, societal and financial inertia, and orchestrating its near complete retirement within three decades is a gargantuan task. Whether you deploy net-zero or an alternative frame as your guiding principle for tackling the climate crisis, greenwashers and bad actors would still exist, sunk costs and vested interests would still wield considerable power, stranded assets and economic dislocation would still threaten to trigger a public backlash against efforts to decarbonize. This stuff is hard.
 
The foundations are fast being laid for a net-zero emission global economy that could yet avert climate catastrophe, whilst delivering myriad co-benefits in terms of health, quality of life and social justice.
The fact is net-zero is better at exposing such bad actors and tackling such intractable economic dilemmas than other strategies. Net-zero forces opponents of climate action to fight on the battlefield of environmentalists choosing while operating within a framework that soon will demand the complete transformation of their business models. Net-zero requires all governments, investors and businesses to plan for a long term transition and actively minimize the risk of financial and societal stranding. Net-zero is capacious enough to incorporate different technologies and political tribes, but restrictive enough to demand deep and rapid decarbonization. It is, like Winston Churchill's democracy, "the worst form of climate action, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
 
Critics of net-zero strategies are right. They need to be strengthened at every turn. The world is already facing an environmental catastrophe and is not yet responding as such. Governments and corporates need to be much bolder and move much faster. Most importantly they need to recognize that while some form of negative emissions industry will emerge, that in no way precludes the need to slash direct emissions at pace and scale.
 
That in turn means the fossil fuel industry has to shift into wind-down mode. As such, it would good to see campaigners step up pressure for legally binding 1.5C compatible net-zero targets accompanied to be accompanied by legally binding 1.5C compatible net-zero strategies. Because while embedding the net-zero transition as the defining economic and political priority of the guarantees nothing, it does increase the likelihood of the world finally moving on to a decarbonization trajectory.
 
There is no alternative to net-zero. Or rather there is an alternative that doesn't bear thinking about. As climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe has said, we will respond to the climate crisis with a mix of "mitigation, adaptation and suffering." The pursuit of net-zero emissions provides the best hope of delivering serious mitigation. Far from isolating and exposing those looking to exploit the net zero narrative to delay climate action, indiscriminate attacks on the concept as a whole only emboldens them. Net-zero is not a "trap," it is the only available path through the minefield.
 
And it's working. Every week brings fresh evidence of survival technologies and genuinely sustainable business models being deployed. It is self-evidently true that is has come too late. With every year that passes it becomes more obvious that the failures of the Kyoto and, most egregiously, the Copenhagen Summit represent were two of the most disastrous events in modern history.
 
But the foundations are fast being laid for a net-zero emission global economy that could yet avert climate catastrophe, whilst delivering myriad co-benefits in terms of health, quality of life and social justice. It promises to ignite a new epoch in human affairs where we move past the extractive model that has dominated since the first human's learnt how to harness fire and engineer something that is in genuine balance with the only habitable planet in the known universe. Something beautiful. Something worthy of the world we call home.
 
Will the consensus around the net-zero mission hold? It should. It has made too much progress and is too integral to modern politics and economics to fracture in the face of the first sign of criticism. It has survived Trumpism and the worst the pollutoctratic elite can throw at it. It has been one of the most successful environmental campaigns ever seen. Its strengths far outweigh its weaknesses. It is also working every day to respond to legitimate and welcome critiques of its potential flaws. But ultimately for advocates of the net-zero transition the only way to convince its detractors it offers the best route forward is to embrace the first and last rule of any successful narrative: show, don't tell.
 
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/net-zero-faces-fierce-criticism


 




Chinese Rocket Debris Lands in Indian Ocean, Draws Criticism From NASA
 
Remnants of China's biggest rocket landed in the Indian Ocean on Sunday, with most of its components destroyed upon re-entry into the atmosphere, ending days of speculation over where the debris would hit but drawing US criticism over lack of transparency.
 
The coordinates given by Chinese state media, citing the China Manned Space Engineering Office, put the point of impact in the ocean, west of the Maldives archipelago.
 
Debris from the Long March 5B has had some people looking warily skyward since it blasted off from China's Hainan island on April 29, but the China Manned Space Engineering Office said most of the debris was burnt up in the atmosphere.
 
State media reported parts of the rocket re-entered the atmosphere at 10:24am Beijing time (7:45am IST) and landed at a location with the coordinates of longitude 72.47 degrees east and latitude 2.65 degrees north.
 
The US Space command confirmed the re-entry of the rocket over the Arabian Peninsula, but said it was unknown if the debris impacted land or water.
 
"The exact location of the impact and the span of debris, both of which are unknown at this time, will not be released by US Space Command," it said in a statement on its website.
 
The Long March was the second deployment of the 5B variant since its maiden flight in May 2020. Last year, pieces from the first Long March 5B fell on Ivory Coast, damaging several buildings. No injuries were reported.
 
"Spacefaring nations must minimise the risks to people and property on Earth of re-entries of space objects and maximise transparency regarding those operations," NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, a former senator and astronaut who was picked for the role in March, said in a statement after the re-entry.
 
"It is clear that China is failing to meet responsible standards regarding their space debris."
 
Anxiety over potential debris zone
 
With most of the Earth's surface covered by water, the odds of populated area on land being hit had been low, and the likelihood of injuries even lower, according to experts.
 
But uncertainty over the rocket's orbital decay and China's failure to issue stronger reassurances in the run-up to the re-entry fuelled anxiety.
 
"It is critical that China and all spacefaring nations and commercial entities act responsibly and transparently in space to ensure the safety, stability, security, and long-term sustainability of outer space activities," Nelson said.
 
Harvard-based astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell told Reuters that the potential debris zone could have been as far north as New York, Madrid or Beijing, and as far south as southern Chile and Wellington, New Zealand.
 
Since large chunks of the NASA space station Skylab fell from orbit in July 1979 and landed in Australia, most countries have sought to avoid such uncontrolled re-entries through their spacecraft design, McDowell said.
 
"It makes the Chinese rocket designers look lazy that they didn't address this," said McDowell.
 
The Global Times, a Chinese tabloid, dismissed as "Western hype" concerns the rocket was "out of control" and could cause damage.
 
"It is common practice across the world for upper stages of rockets to burn up while reentering the atmosphere," Wang Wenbin, a spokesman at China's foreign ministry, said at a regular media briefing on May 7.
 
"To my knowledge, the upper stage of this rocket has been deactivated, which means most of its parts will burn up upon re-entry, making the likelihood of damage to aviation or ground facilities and activities extremely low," Wang said at the time.
 
The rocket, which put into orbit an unmanned Tianhe module containing what will become living quarters for three crew on a permanent Chinese space station, will be followed by 10 more missions to complete the station by 2022.
 
https://gadgets.ndtv.com/science/news/china-rocket-crash-land-indian-ocean-debris-long-march-5b-nasa-2438755


 




A SpaceX booster now trails only 4 space shuttles in flight experience
 
SpaceX crossed a significant milestone on Sunday morning with yet another launch of 60 Starlink Internet satellites.
 
These Starlink launches have become routine—and dare we say it, a little boring?—as SpaceX builds out its constellation to deliver broadband Internet around the world from low Earth orbit. However, the rate at which SpaceX has begun to reuse its Falcon 9 first stages is decidedly not monotonous.
 
For Sunday morning's launch, SpaceX used a first stage that had flown into space nine previous times. After this launch, the B1051 booster landed safely on a drone ship, completing its tenth flight to space. This is a notable milestone because, in 2018, SpaceX founder Elon Musk said the goal for its Falcon 9 rocket would be to fly each first stage booster 10 times before requiring significant maintenance.
 
Recently, Musk said the company has found no showstoppers as it flies Falcon 9 first stages more and more times. The company plans to continue to use these older rockets for Starlink missions, thus risking its own payloads in flight rather than those of a paying customer. Musk said the company has set no predetermined limit on the lifetime of a Falcon 9 rocket and that SpaceX would fly some of its Falcon 9 rockets to failure in an effort to identify these limits.
 
This particular first stage went to orbit for the first time on March 2, 2019, for the first demonstration mission for NASA's commercial crew program. During this flight, a Crew Dragon spacecraft docked with the International Space Station for about five days, paving the way for the first crewed flight in May 2020. This first stage has also been used to launch two commercial satellites and seven Starlink missions.
 
It is now approaching historic status. B1051 trails only NASA's Discovery, Atlantis, Columbia, and Endeavour space shuttle orbiters in terms of spaceflights. Three of those shuttles are now in museums. Columbia was lost in a fatal accident in 2003.
 
In flying 10 times since early March 2019, this single booster has now flown nearly as many missions as SpaceX's primary US launch competitor. Since the first flight of B1051, United Launch Alliance has flown a total of 11 missions with expendable rockets—two Delta IV launches, two Delta IV Heavy missions, and seven Atlas V rockets.
 
Thanks to its ability to reuse rockets, SpaceX has been able to increase its cadence of launches. This year in particular, the company has set a blistering pace. Through Sunday's launch, SpaceX has launched 14 orbital missions in 2021, 11 of which have been Starlink flights. That is an average of one launch every nine days, and those missions have been spread across just six different Falcon 9 first stages.
 
The company's next orbit launch, its 27th launch of operational Starlink satellites, could come as early as this Saturday from Kennedy Space Center, in Florida.
 
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/05/spacex-hits-major-reuse-milestone-with-rockets-10th-flight/


 




Curt Lewis