I was in Palmdale and the Chem-trail pollution was off the charts

a reply to: D8Tee

Not a clue. I was maintenance, not POL. The only time I dealt with fuel was guiding the next fuel truck into place on a quick turn.

Contrails don't stay long and break up due to atmosphere.

Chemtrails form large wide lines, whisping out into cloud formations, certain lenses or when the light is right you may see chemtrails rainbows from the aeresol.

a reply to: anotherside

Contrails don't stay long and break up due to atmosphere.

False. What does "due to atmosphere" mean?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Wikipedia indicates it's up to 1000 ppm Sulfur.
Worldwide usage of over 5 million barrels a day.
Now there's an industry that would do well to get the sulfur out of their fuel.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Zaphod58

Would you know the sulfur content of jet fuel?

There are several different types of jet fuel. The most common, Jet A-1, per ASTM D 1655, is less than .25% mass with less than .002% mass of mercaptan sulphur. Europe is on the brink of mandating a reduction of sulphur in jet fuel. The ultra-low-sulphur diesel, in comparison is less than 10ppm.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: anotherside

Contrails don't stay long and break up due to atmosphere.

False. What does "due to atmosphere" mean?

no I've seen it. I know it happens. It means temperature variations cause "con trails" to break up depending.

a reply to: anotherside

Actually, it has more to do with relative humidity than temperature (other things being equal). If the humidity at the altitude at which the planes are flying is high enough contrails will persist. If the air at the altitude the planes are flying at is supersaturated with respect to ice, the contrails will persist and spread.

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Zaphod58

Would you know the sulfur content of jet fuel?

There are several different types of jet fuel. The most common, Jet A-1, per ASTM D 1655, is less than .25% mass with less than .002% mass of mercaptan sulphur. Europe is on the brink of mandating a reduction of sulphur in jet fuel. The ultra-low-sulphur diesel, in comparison is less than 10ppm.

Glad to see the Europeans mandating a reduction in the Sulfur and going after real pollution instead of focusing soley on C02.
Ultra Low Sufur Diesel spec is 15 ppm, you lose some lubricity by taking the sulfur out, but that can be dealt with in a variety of ways.
A far cry from Jet A-1 which is 2500 ppm.

a reply to: D8Tee

Glad to see the Europeans mandating a reduction in the Sulfur

Is that what was said?

instead of focusing soley on C02.

Is the US restricting CO2 emissions from aircraft?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee

Glad to see the Europeans mandating a reduction in the Sulfur

Is that what was said?

instead of focusing soley on C02.

Is the US restricting CO2 emissions from aircraft?

Europe is on the brink of mandating a reduction of sulphur in jet fuel.

Yes that was what was said, why do you think otherwise?
No the US is not restricting C02 emissions from aircraft.

a reply to: D8Tee

Yes that was what was said, why do you think otherwise?

Because, unless you can point out any such legislation, it does not exist. Considered, yes.

The thing about using low sulfur fuels is that their production produces a lot of CO2. Something that the EU is concerned about. Even if you are not.
www.easa.europa.eu...

Because, unless you can point out any such legislation, it does not exist. Considered, yes.

The thing about using low sulfur fuels is that their production produces a lot of CO2. Something that the EU is concerned about. Even if you are not.
www.easa.europa.eu...

I was going off what F4guy said, he's not steered me wrong in the past.
They tacked a Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel unit onto the heavy oil upgrader I worked at, started producing Diesel at 15 ppm instead of 500 ppm. Didn't know it greatly increased C02 production.

a reply to: D8Tee

I was going off what F4guy said, he's not steered me wrong in the past.

Then maybe you should actually read what he wrote.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee

I was going off what F4guy said, he's not steered me wrong in the past.

Then maybe you should actually read what he wrote.

Well thats a rather silly thing to say considering I've copied and pasted it too you, hard to do that with my eyes closed.
Sulfur is an actual pollutant, get it out of the fuel.
I couldn't see in the report where it stated that an increase of C02 was the reason why they were not going ahead with the desulfurization, can you point that out for me please?
In fact your argument has very little merit, if increased C02 production was a big issue with desufurization, the EU would not have moved to mandate Low Sulfur Diesel now would they have?
From your report:

A reduction in fuel sulphur content will provide benefits in terms of health and the environment. It is estimated that a reduction in average fuel sulphur content from the current 600ppm(m) to 10ppm(m) would result in a 0.07% decrease in aircraft landing-take-off (LTO) cycle PM–based mortality, possibly representing about 25% of aircraft-emission related premature mortality. At low sulphur contents (500ppm), health impacts may be further improved as gas turbine combustion test data suggests that the relative quantity of more harmful sub-10nm PM is significantly reduced. Other health and environmental benefits from LTO-based emissions are assessed to be small relative to the PM impact reduction.
Lack of scientific understanding over climate change mechanisms makes it difficult to predict the overall climate impact of reduced sulphur with any certainty. A slight increase in global warming potential is probable due to the reduced direct cooling effect from sulphate particulates. No further quantification has been attempted.

In Section 7.3.1, the effect of the hydrodesulphurisation process on energy density is described, concluding that the reduced fuel mass resulting from increased fuel energy density will provide an indicative global commercial fleet fuel saving of around 0.02%. Based on a total fuel used around 200Mt per year [36] this represents 120ktonne pa, with associated CO2 emissions savings of 375ktonne pa. This is, of course, 0.02% of aviation CO2 In Section 7.4 the effect of the hydrodesulphurisation process on the fuel carbon/hydrogen ratio is described. For aviation alone, going from fuel sulphur contents averaging 600ppm(m) to 10ppm(m), results in a decrease in EICO2 from 3.14901 to 3.14894. This is a 0.0022% decrease in EICO2, equating to a 13ktonne annual reduction in CO2 from the 2008 global commercial fleet. A reduction in CO2 emission is clearly a positive effect for aviation. However, the HDS process itself emits CO2. The IPCC report on Aviation and the Global Climate [1] quotes 0.0037 kg of CO2 would be produced in reducing fuel sulphur from 600 ppm(m) to zero per kilogramme of fuel. For the current (2006) annual usage of 200MT of aviation fuel, this equates to 740ktonnes of CO2, clearly far outweighing the potential CO2 benefits. More recent quantitative values are not available and are heavily dependent upon the desulphurisation process used, the amount of sulphur in the feedstock, the CO2-intensity of the energy sources used and the potential use of carbon capture. Potentially, this CO2 “cost” of desulphurisation could be significantly reduced but until this is assured, a potential increase of 0.1% of aircraft CO2 could result from a requirement for complete desulphurisation. Further data from the refining industry is urgently required here. There is also a small increase in EIH2O resulting from the desulphurisation process. Given the relatively small climate impact of total aviation H2O, this warming effect will be negligible.

Here we have the typical statements regarding climate change in the report, which basically says, we don't know what effect it will have.

Summary of climate impacts
In summary, noting the large uncertainty in the climate science understanding, reduction/removal of sulphur from aviation fuel is likely to result in:
• An increase in GWP associated with reduced direct impact from sulphate particles and perhaps also from slightly increased ozone in the lower stratosphere – of the order of a few percent of total aviation climate impact
• Potentially, a decrease in GWP up to a similar magnitude from changed contrail and cirrus optical properties. Uncertainty is high and this effect may be close to nil.
• An increase in GWP of up to 0.1% of aviation CO2 from refinery desulphurisation energy production. This will be partially offset by reduced aircraft CO2 emissions due to increased fuel energy density and lower fuel carbon content. It is considered that there is little to be gained from numerical analysis using this data. Improved scientific understanding and subsequent climate modelling are required to scope the actual direction and magnitude of the climate effect. From the data available here, the most probable climate impact from desulphurisation of fuel is a slight increase in global warming potential.

a reply to: D8Tee

the EU would not have moved to mandate Low Sulfur Diesel now would they have?

Have they done so? Please cite the legislation regarding low sulfur fuel.

In the meantime.
europa.eu...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee

the EU would not have moved to mandate Low Sulfur Diesel now would they have?

Have they done so? Please cite the legislation regarding low sulfur fuel.

In the meantime.
europa.eu...

Indeed
Been low sulfur for quite a few years Phage, quit focussing soley on C02 and start looking at real pollution.
EN228 and EN590

transportpolicy.net...:_Fuels:_Diesel_and_Gasoli ne

a reply to: Phage

The thing about using low sulfur fuels is that their production produces a lot of CO2. Something that the EU is concerned about. Even if you are not.
www.easa.europa.eu...

Show me where it says that increased C02 production is going to stop them from taking the sulfur out of the Jet fuel.

a reply to: D8Tee

Show me where it says that increased C02 production is going to stop them from taking the sulfur out of the Jet fuel.

Why would I say that?

EN228 and EN590

Which one has to do with aviation fuels? But is your claim that the US does not have emission standards? Of course, with the new administration, who knows.

a reply to: Phage

The thing about using low sulfur fuels is that their production produces a lot of CO2. Something that the EU is concerned about. Even if you are not.

Not sure why you said it.

Which one has to do with aviation fuels?

If you had clicked the links, you would see EN 228 is gasoline and EN 590 is Diesel. If you were to scroll up and read the thread, you will see that I was referring to diesel not jet fuel, but I'm certain you are aware of this.

Again, you said this:

The thing about using low sulfur fuels is that their production produces a lot of CO2. Something that the EU is concerned about. Even if you are not.

Define 'a lot of C02'. Obviously it wasn't deemed an obstacle to the legislation of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel.

a reply to: D8Tee

but I'm certain you are aware of this.

Yes. But since the current context is aviation fuels, I wasn't sure you were.

Define 'a lot of C02'. Obviously it wasn't deemed an obstacle to the legislation of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel.

Right. Because, in high concentrations like urban environments, high sulfur emissions are of greater concern than CO2 emissions. It does not mean that CO2 emissions are of no concern, no matter what the context.

But remember when you said this?

Glad to see the Europeans mandating a reduction in the Sulfur and going after real pollution instead of focusing soley on C02.

Do US regulations focus solely on CO2? Is the EU not concerned about fake CO2 pollution?

(And, in case you missed it.) europa.eu...


See, you seem to be espousing a false dichotomy. No? You seem to be claiming that the EU has enacted legislation about aviation sulfur emissions while disregarding CO2. Or did I get that wrong?