In 2005 those in charge at Heathrow Airport officially published a report that detailed plans for a third runway and a sixth terminal, and in 2007, the transport secretary of the time Ruth Kelly ratified the proposals, setting out in more specific terms how the project aims would be achieved.

The announcements were met with strong dissent. Some estimated that the construction would mean the demolition of some 700 homes, and others feared that its effect on pollution levels would not be reconcilable.

With Terminal 5 completed this year, critics are now voicing their concerns once again; Terminal 6 is not due for completion until 2020, but it is suggested that it will bring British emissions levels over its allocated limit. As reports show that Britain has the highest annual CO2 emissions from air trips across the whole of Europe, the concerns of critics are certainly not unfounded.

Indeed the E.U have reportedly warned the British government about Terminal 6 and the third runway, believing that it may not concur with their pollution guidelines; their nitrogen oxide limits, which come into force in 2010, and must be met by 2015, will hit dangerous levels in Britain if current airport expansion goes ahead. The E.U have also warned that expansions at Heathrow would put nitrogen oxide levels far beyond the maximum limit, even when the caps are first brought into force. That means that the government and Heathrow officials would have just five years to reduce levels to the accepted maximum, and that date corresponds with planned completion estimates for Terminal 6.

In short, then, supporters of the expansion project will have a difficult time justifying the plans given this apparent condemnation from Europe's governing body; the benefits of the project - increased revenue and improved job opportunities, to name the perhaps the most significant - struggle to outweigh the disadvantages that are associated with increased air travel; CO2 emissions, most generally, but now official caps on a variety of harmful greenhouse gases.

When Ruth Kelly gave the green light to finalised plans for the project last year, she announced that it would not breach emissions guidelines because of advances in aircraft technology; but Dr. Gunter Wilfert, part of the New Aero Engine Core Concepts (NEWAC) team, suggests that engine technology for aeroplanes might develop more slowly than is specifically needed for projects like the Heathrow case:

"Large sums of money have recently been committed in Europe to reducing the negative environmental effects of aircraft use, and research is already developing technologies which can improve the performance of engine components. However, the limitations of the existing technologies mean that the industry cannot reach the goals set in the Vision 2020 report made by the Advisory Council of Aeronautical Research in Europe (ACARE). New engine core configurations with heat management and active systems, as well as advanced combustor technology, have to be investigated to reduce CO2 and NOx [Nitrogen Oxide] emissions...NEWAC will validate the new technologies in rigs or core engine demonstrators between 2008 and 2010. This will enable the engine manufacturer to introduce these innovative technologies in the next generation of aero engines which will make it to market around the years 2013-2015."

What is clear, then, is that NEWAC research does not concur with comments made over recent years from supporters of the Heathrow expansions project; once again the initiatives that would reduce the emissions of Terminal 6 will only come into effect after nitrogen oxide limits are in force.

If expansion at Heathrow is to be a legitimate success, it is an issue that needs to be resolved quickly and effectively.

Articles Source :http://www.212articles.com/articles/21821/1/The-Expansion-of-Heathrow-Airport-and-Its-Effect-on-the-Environment/Page1.html

Know the Author : http://www.212articles.com/authors/3060/Chris-Woolfrey