Page 1 of 1

cleaner jet fuel may not fly

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2021 6:11 pm
by MohawkWeekend
In an article written by David Koenig AP Airlines Writer, he describes the challenges that substainable jet fuel will face. It's a good read.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/busine ... 50423.html


Excerpt -
WHITE HOUSE, touting Biden’s steps to involve the government, aircraft makers, airlines and fuel suppliers to boost the use of cleaner fuels: The measures “will result in the production and use of billions of gallons of sustainable fuel that will enable aviation emissions to drop 20% by 2030 when compared to business as usual.”

THE FACTS: That's a giant step that will be highly difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

Only 2.4 million gallons of sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF, were produced in the United States in 2019, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. In contrast, airlines burned 21.5 billion gallons of regular fuel that year. That means just over 0.01% of the nation’s supply currently comes from sustainable fuel.

Re: Biden’s goal for cleaner jet fuel may not fly

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2021 6:19 pm
by travaz
Its all PR and an attempt to Greenwash the current policy. Aviation contributes 3.5% to Global Warming. Read the science.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation

Re: Biden’s goal for cleaner jet fuel may not fly

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2021 6:41 pm
by 32andBelow
travaz wrote:
Its all PR and an attempt to Greenwash the current policy. Aviation contributes 3.5% to Global Warming. Read the science.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation

So they shouldn’t try to improve?

Re: Biden’s goal for cleaner jet fuel may not fly

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:00 pm
by N62NA
32andBelow wrote:
travaz wrote:
Its all PR and an attempt to Greenwash the current policy. Aviation contributes 3.5% to Global Warming. Read the science.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation

So they shouldn’t try to improve?


Emissions controls efforts should be focused on areas that will provide more of a reduction in CO2 emissions. Think Chinese coal fired power plants.

Re: Biden’s goal for cleaner jet fuel may not fly

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:36 pm
by mxaxai
N62NA wrote:
Emissions controls efforts should be focused on areas that will provide more of a reduction in CO2 emissions. Think Chinese coal fired power plants.

It's not either-or, it should be both.

Re: cleaner jet fuel may not fly

Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:41 pm
by FlyingElvii
The airlines will do fine with $100 a gallon fuel, before added taxes. NOT….
But then again, that is likely the point of the entire enterprise.

Re: Biden’s goal for cleaner jet fuel may not fly

Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:24 am
by N62NA
mxaxai wrote:
N62NA wrote:
Emissions controls efforts should be focused on areas that will provide more of a reduction in CO2 emissions. Think Chinese coal fired power plants.

It's not either-or, it should be both.


Resources to accomplish these things are not unlimited. "Everything" can't be done all at once.

Re: cleaner jet fuel may not fly

Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:06 am
by PatrickZ80
MohawkWeekend wrote:
Only 2.4 million gallons of sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF, were produced in the United States in 2019, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. In contrast, airlines burned 21.5 billion gallons of regular fuel that year. That means just over 0.01% of the nation’s supply currently comes from sustainable fuel.


That's the current situation, however it doesn't have to stay that way.

Currently the production process of SAF is still being optimized, they're still looking for the perfect formula coming closer small steps at a time. Once they've figured that out the production can be upscaled, it makes no sense to upscale before that.

Re: Biden’s goal for cleaner jet fuel may not fly

Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:23 am
by Aaron747
mxaxai wrote:
N62NA wrote:
Emissions controls efforts should be focused on areas that will provide more of a reduction in CO2 emissions. Think Chinese coal fired power plants.

It's not either-or, it should be both.


That makes no sense. 3.5% is a drop in the bucket - the focus should be on sea shipping and agriculture first. There's 75% of the problem right there.

Re: Biden’s goal for cleaner jet fuel may not fly

Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2021 12:16 pm
by mxaxai
Aaron747 wrote:
That makes no sense. 3.5% is a drop in the bucket - the focus should be on sea shipping and agriculture first. There's 75% of the problem right there.

Sea shipping and agriculture are, arguably, more necessary for our daily lives than aviation. Ships in particular are also vastly more efficient per ton of cargo compared to air freight - sea lanes only contribute about as much CO2 as aviation while carrying vastly more.

Agriculture directly and indirectly emits more, true; approximately 4 times as much as either aircraft or ships. Still only approx. 10-15% of the total amount. A significant reduction could be achieved easily by growing less cattle, but many people are unwilling to eat less meat, while flying is more of a luxury for most. Nevertheless, I support efforts to reduce pollution across all sectors.

Re: Biden’s goal for cleaner jet fuel may not fly

Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2021 2:29 pm
by Dutchy
travaz wrote:
Its all PR and an attempt to Greenwash the current policy. Aviation contributes 3.5% to Global Warming. Read the science.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation



Surely in America, it is a higher percentage, and it is no reason not to act. We need it all to meet the Paris agreement goal: max. 1,5c rise above pre-industrial levels to mitigate the worst of Climate Change. Currently, we are heading towards a 3degree rise scenario and all kinds of feedback loops could be triggered above the 2degrees.

Aviation is a tuff nut to crack. But we need to do it, otherwise, we might be forced to abandon aviation altogether.

Re: cleaner jet fuel may not fly

Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2021 4:09 pm
by EAARbrat
I agree there is room for improvement in every segment. The reality is the improvements are relatively small in the first world as the population in these countries multiplied by the small improvements have little to no effect reducing the global total. Not to mention the massively, massively higher cost of these small incremental improvements versus the low hanging fruit in the second and third world. As an example the first world could go zero emissions and there would be no change due to China and Indias emissions. To reiterate again I agree we can all do our part but the pain factor for minute improvements needs to be mitigated as it will take decades for the two worst polluters to catch up with where the first world in today let alone where we'll be with reasonable incremental improvements over the coming two decades.

Re: cleaner jet fuel may not fly

Posted: Thu Nov 11, 2021 12:59 am
by N1120A
Aviation is low hanging fruit and a victim of an old reputation as the mere providence of the rich. The narcissistic political leanings of some in the industry doesn't help that. The reality is that there is so much more that is far more harmful to the environment that gets a pass.