Future Infrastructure Developments

[Len Fish]

Read an article yesterday on the development of bio fuels for aviation being produced from wet food waste. When mixed with normal kerosene this produces far less emissions and also saves such waste going to landfill where it decomposes and produces large quantities of climate changing methane. Naturally the green lobby have dismissed this out of hand saying the only solution is to reduce flying. This is the kind of blinkered, entrenched attitude we’re having to deal with, typified by the likes of ER and their hangars on such as GALBA. “There are none so blind as those who will not see”.

 

[gcoabc1]

Read an article yesterday on the development of bio fuels for aviation being produced from wet food waste. When mixed with normal kerosene this produces far less emissions and also saves such waste going to landfill where it decomposes and produces large quantities of climate changing methane. Naturally the green lobby have dismissed this out of hand saying the only solution is to reduce flying. This is the kind of blinkered, entrenched attitude we’re having to deal with, typified by the likes of ER and their hangars on such as GALBA. “There are none so blind as those who will not see”.

I read the same very interesting article and thought exactly the same.
Developments are moving quickly on the progression towards zero/ near zero emissions for aviation fuel and whilst this is early in the process in the meantime other fuel aviation mixes are also helping to reduce emissions. Even hydrogen or electric propulsion will produce some emissions within the whole of the manufacturing process. Buildings, equipment, production, delivery and use. Even trawling of the sea bottom might produce a more devastating impact on CC than aviation but no mention of this. A meaningful debate should cover ALL evidence and science including realistic timescales over which it can be achieved. Give credit where it is due regardless of which side of a debate you stand on. Will we get this debate internationally, nationally or even regionally? Not unless someone with sufficient scientific kudos and recognised expertise comes forward.

 

[White Heather]

The attitude of the likes of GALBA to such positive news shows them for what they are. Anti aviation NIMBYs. They have one interest in life and it's killing off aviation at LBA - nothing at all to do with the planet.

 

[Mick_LUFC]

I fear you're correct WH.

 

[deepdale2]

Point taken and will save my finger's from having to type too much!

 

[Bigman]

..and here we go again. Look North bulletin this morning banging on about 78 official protests gone in to the SofS about the new terminal.

 

[Heathrowflyer]

I don't listen to the news anymore about LBA ...too stressful.

 

[Wardair166]

I'm sure RJ will treat these 'people' with the contempt they deserve

 

[Aviador]

..and here we go again. Look North bulletin this morning banging on about 78 official protests gone in to the SofS about the new terminal.

The Secretary of State will probably get used to seeing the same names on every objection he receives.

 

[Wardair166]

He will also notice how fundamentally flawed their arguments are and how their views week of ignorance.

 

[White Heather]

It was mentioned on the 9 am news that supporters had also written to Jenrick, but of course the opponent's are always the main focus. Apparently MPs, Councillors, Environmental Groups (NIMBYs) and Community Associations have all asked him to block it.

Something is fundamentally not right when Leeds Councillors refuse to accept the democratic process that led to the approval - they are opposing the decision of their own Council. .

It really is vital that Jenrick ignores them or it sends the signal that no aviation scheme will ever see light of day whether approved by the Planning Authority or not. Apart from anything else he needs to see that this approval is about a terminal building not expansion.

 

[Wardair166]

I have repeatedly emphasised the point that this is a modernisation scheme and not an expansion scheme. The objectors choose to ignore this fact.

 

[White Heather]

I have repeatedly emphasised the point that this is a modernisation scheme and not an expansion scheme. The objectors choose to ignore this fact.

Of course they do. They don't have a case otherwise.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Hopefully the new airport director, who we know to be aware of these untruths and conflations will step in and put the record straight.

 

[Bigman]

Can someone remind me what the deadline date if for Mr Jenrick to cave into the NIMBY's and order a public enquiry?

 

[Len Fish]

“(1) The Secretary of State may give directions restricting the grant of permission by a local planning authority, either indefinitely or during such a period as may be specified in the directions, in respect of any development or in respect of development of any class so specified.”
I take this as meaning that he can put a hold on the planning permission for any length of time he wants whilst he decides what to do.

 

[Seasider]

I thought that someone had posted that he had to call it in within "so many weeks", but I can't remember how many.

 

[gcoabc1]

I read the same very interesting article and thought exactly the same.
Developments are moving quickly on the progression towards zero/ near zero emissions for aviation fuel and whilst this is early in the process in the meantime other fuel aviation mixes are also helping to reduce emissions. Even hydrogen or electric propulsion will produce some emissions within the whole of the manufacturing process. Buildings, equipment, production, delivery and use. Even trawling of the sea bottom might produce a more devastating impact on CC than aviation but no mention of this. A meaningful debate should cover ALL evidence and science including realistic timescales over which it can be achieved. Give credit where it is due regardless of which side of a debate you stand on. Will we get this debate internationally, nationally or even regionally? Not unless someone with sufficient scientific kudos and recognised expertise comes forward.

Just to bring the pro aviation CC efforts to the fore I have just read an article in simplyflying.com on 24/3/21 titled “ The Future Planes of Airbus: Zero Emission Hydrogen Aircraft”
I wonder what if any response would be likely if we posted it to GALBA etc?. I won’t hold my breath!

 

[White Heather]

We thought Leeds Council was bad over the time they took when debating the terminal but as of 2320 today, Eastleigh Council are still considering Southampton Airports 165m runway extension, and warning it may be necessary to continue on Friday, with a midnight limit set.

Amazingly, Bournemouth Airport objected to this runway extension on the grounds of climate change! Clearly they are not happy at their neighbouring airport becoming more capable.

The objectors reeled off all the same nonsense as GALBA including that the airport is in the wrong place (translated this means it's near the objector) and that it's a tin pot airport. Sound familiar? Perhaps there is a 'How to object to your local airport' pamphlet that the anti airport objectors all use as their bible?

Interesting that a poll of locals returned 79% in favour of the extension.

 

[Heathrowflyer]

Thanks WH ...very interesting...I'm astonished by Bournemouth Airport's objection!! I've seen everything now.