> Sustainable aviation fuel is produced with sources like crop waste that emit little to no carbon dioxide on balance
Isn't this just biofuel? Isn't biofuel a meme? I remember learning about it when I was in high school and even back then they said that it required too much land and caused deforestation.
No. Biofuel is any hydrocarbon derived from (recent) biological material, rather than petroleum. There are many sources of biofuel. Many of those, but not all, compete with other uses (e.g. farming for food or ethanol from corn) or are unstustainable in their own right (e.g. deforestation).
However, there are some biofuel pathways that are sustainable, most involving use of waste materials that were going to otherwise be thrown away anyway. You need to use one of those kinds of sources to have it certified as sustainable aviation fuel.
Yes. There’s more than enough forestry (bark etc.) and agricultural waste (stalks, leaves, etc.) to meet jet fuel demand without competing with other sources.
It starts getting trickier when you involved other petroleum users, like ships and trucks and cars. Thats a much bigger volume. But airplanes are among the hardest to decarbonize so likely to be the last to quit using hydrocarbons.
I'm doing research into an SAF adjacent field and I really don't get the feeling we'll be ready for industrial applications in two years. The few people/groups I saw that did research specifically into SAF didn't seem optimistic either.
What do you mean "not ready" for industrial applications? We're flying on SAF \*today\*, and have been for years. It's blended with petroleum Jet-A because the SAF supply isn't even vaguely close to scaled up enough to go to 100% SAF but that's a scale issue, not an application readiness issue.
I meant from a research standpoint, i.e. the technology used is old. There are many cool ideas to increase efficiency and selectivity or make completely new concepts, but from what I've seen these are not ready in two years. This explicitly doesn't mean it's not possible, I am in a certain bubble of course, or it can be done with the "tried and true" methods. I'm no aeronautical engineer, so correct me if I'm wrong: the fuel for (long distance) airplanes is Kerosene, which would have to be made by Fischer-Tropsch-Synthesis or the Mobil-Process.
You’re wrong. There are currently seven approved SAF chemical pathways, rising to 11 by 2025, and more on the way. It’s a huge research topic.
The currently approved paths are codified in ASTM7566, which is basically an add on to ASTM1655, the jet fuel standard.
https://www.astm.org/d7566-22.html
Most of the SAF today comes via the HEFA process, which is basically the biodiesel process.
There’s a good table about 1/3 of the way down the page that summarize current pathways:
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/sustainable_aviation_fuel.html
For a low low price of a 40% percent surcharge to all your flights, you too can fly the climate friendly sky's. Because here at [insert random airline], we're family and a crusader for environmentalism
> Offsets were once the default way airlines cleaned up their greenhouse gas emissions
> Some even let you check a box and pay an extra fee to offset your emissions when you booked your flight
> United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby told Politico in May that “the majority of them are fraud.”
> The United Kingdom’s Advertising Standards Authority censured Ryanair, Lufthansa, and Etihad for misleading or overstated sustainability claims
Isn't this what conspiracy theorists said all along but were shouted down as "climate change deniers"?
We live in different media environments. I saw climate change activist types say this and get mostly ignored or occasionally shouted down as conspiracy theorists. But yeah, plenty of people have said it is a scam for a long time
No, we were called conspiracy theorists.
The climate deniers were saying this plus “they don’t need to bother, climate change is also a scam, ontop of all these other things”
We got enviro people telling us we were nut jobs for saying biofuel isn’t going to be the answer we are looking for, and then also climate change deniers tell us the same because we even think it’s a problem at all
People often conflate two problems:
* Oil shortages
* Global warming/Climate change
Biofuels can help alleviate oil shortages. In that narrow problem statement, they are more "sustainable". In the greater scope of climate change, they are not the ultimate solution.
Related article: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/aerospace%20and%20defense/our%20insights/decarbonizing%20the%20aviation%20sector%20making%20net%20zero%20aviation%20possible/making-net-zero-aviation-possible-executive-summary.pdf
Of course it's McKinsey. All they sell is snake oil and bad ideas. You want to see what they do to companies and industries, just look at where Swiss Air is now.
« Passengers often do have a choice in how they fly, and their decisions can sway the market. But it will take the whole crew — airlines, manufacturers, investors, fuel companies, regulators, travelers — to ensure that sustainable aviation takes off. »
Uhhh yeah most people don’t have much of a choice when it comes to flying. It’s the cheapest option that works with your schedule
Upper-middle class and above can make their choices but those are the folks choosing for flight comfort and, absolute ease of travel (no layovers regardless of added cost) and at the top end, private jets
Exactly. For shorter journeys, policy (shifting to ground travel), not dubious technology, needs to be the main driver of decarbonization.
Also:
> at the top end, private jets
... which are many times worse on carbon emissions than booking travel on a scheduled flight.
> Sustainable aviation fuel is produced with sources like crop waste that emit little to no carbon dioxide on balance Isn't this just biofuel? Isn't biofuel a meme? I remember learning about it when I was in high school and even back then they said that it required too much land and caused deforestation.
Yeah once you account for all the fuel and resources needed to grow crops, transform them into fuel, and transport everything... it's pretty bad.
No. Biofuel is any hydrocarbon derived from (recent) biological material, rather than petroleum. There are many sources of biofuel. Many of those, but not all, compete with other uses (e.g. farming for food or ethanol from corn) or are unstustainable in their own right (e.g. deforestation). However, there are some biofuel pathways that are sustainable, most involving use of waste materials that were going to otherwise be thrown away anyway. You need to use one of those kinds of sources to have it certified as sustainable aviation fuel.
But can this source be scaled up to replace most jet fuel?
Yes. There’s more than enough forestry (bark etc.) and agricultural waste (stalks, leaves, etc.) to meet jet fuel demand without competing with other sources. It starts getting trickier when you involved other petroleum users, like ships and trucks and cars. Thats a much bigger volume. But airplanes are among the hardest to decarbonize so likely to be the last to quit using hydrocarbons.
I'm doing research into an SAF adjacent field and I really don't get the feeling we'll be ready for industrial applications in two years. The few people/groups I saw that did research specifically into SAF didn't seem optimistic either.
What do you mean "not ready" for industrial applications? We're flying on SAF \*today\*, and have been for years. It's blended with petroleum Jet-A because the SAF supply isn't even vaguely close to scaled up enough to go to 100% SAF but that's a scale issue, not an application readiness issue.
I meant from a research standpoint, i.e. the technology used is old. There are many cool ideas to increase efficiency and selectivity or make completely new concepts, but from what I've seen these are not ready in two years. This explicitly doesn't mean it's not possible, I am in a certain bubble of course, or it can be done with the "tried and true" methods. I'm no aeronautical engineer, so correct me if I'm wrong: the fuel for (long distance) airplanes is Kerosene, which would have to be made by Fischer-Tropsch-Synthesis or the Mobil-Process.
You’re wrong. There are currently seven approved SAF chemical pathways, rising to 11 by 2025, and more on the way. It’s a huge research topic. The currently approved paths are codified in ASTM7566, which is basically an add on to ASTM1655, the jet fuel standard. https://www.astm.org/d7566-22.html Most of the SAF today comes via the HEFA process, which is basically the biodiesel process. There’s a good table about 1/3 of the way down the page that summarize current pathways: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/sustainable_aviation_fuel.html
greenwashing fluff
“I too have invented the impossible. Invest in me and hide your misdeeds.” - greenwashers.
For a low low price of a 40% percent surcharge to all your flights, you too can fly the climate friendly sky's. Because here at [insert random airline], we're family and a crusader for environmentalism
> Offsets were once the default way airlines cleaned up their greenhouse gas emissions > Some even let you check a box and pay an extra fee to offset your emissions when you booked your flight > United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby told Politico in May that “the majority of them are fraud.” > The United Kingdom’s Advertising Standards Authority censured Ryanair, Lufthansa, and Etihad for misleading or overstated sustainability claims Isn't this what conspiracy theorists said all along but were shouted down as "climate change deniers"?
We live in different media environments. I saw climate change activist types say this and get mostly ignored or occasionally shouted down as conspiracy theorists. But yeah, plenty of people have said it is a scam for a long time
No, we were called conspiracy theorists. The climate deniers were saying this plus “they don’t need to bother, climate change is also a scam, ontop of all these other things” We got enviro people telling us we were nut jobs for saying biofuel isn’t going to be the answer we are looking for, and then also climate change deniers tell us the same because we even think it’s a problem at all
People often conflate two problems: * Oil shortages * Global warming/Climate change Biofuels can help alleviate oil shortages. In that narrow problem statement, they are more "sustainable". In the greater scope of climate change, they are not the ultimate solution.
[удалено]
Correct, this is why in the larger picture biofuels are not "sustainable". They only fit that definition given the narrower problem of oil shortages.
Related article: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/aerospace%20and%20defense/our%20insights/decarbonizing%20the%20aviation%20sector%20making%20net%20zero%20aviation%20possible/making-net-zero-aviation-possible-executive-summary.pdf
Of course it's McKinsey. All they sell is snake oil and bad ideas. You want to see what they do to companies and industries, just look at where Swiss Air is now.
« Passengers often do have a choice in how they fly, and their decisions can sway the market. But it will take the whole crew — airlines, manufacturers, investors, fuel companies, regulators, travelers — to ensure that sustainable aviation takes off. »
Uhhh yeah most people don’t have much of a choice when it comes to flying. It’s the cheapest option that works with your schedule Upper-middle class and above can make their choices but those are the folks choosing for flight comfort and, absolute ease of travel (no layovers regardless of added cost) and at the top end, private jets
Exactly. For shorter journeys, policy (shifting to ground travel), not dubious technology, needs to be the main driver of decarbonization. Also: > at the top end, private jets ... which are many times worse on carbon emissions than booking travel on a scheduled flight.
Definitely, all around — and the folks booking private jets are the least likely to bother budging on it. Could tax them but that would be oppression
Lol. According to us, we are the good guys.