The first flight of an A380 operating one engine on 100% sustainable aviation fuel follows successful flight test campaigns involving an A350 and an A319neo last year. This latest milestone once again demonstrates Airbus’ commitment to achieving certification of unblended SAF for commercial use by 2030.
Reminder that this is a test but it looks promising.
Cooking oil won’t run out… but it also doesn’t scale. If you need ten times as much cooking oil next year as this year, that’s maybe doable.
If you need x10,000 more cooking oil, it’s totally fucking impossible.
So no, this isn’t sustainable. Especially when you’re talking about using food so you can go on a vacation to Europe to pretend that your tourism makes you educated or enlightened or whatever the fuck is you get out of it.
I know enough to know better than to believe fluff science journalism is equivalent to science proper, or worse… to think of a press release as science. Like, wtf.
I get your idea and its not bad but I personally do not see it, maybe on lower scale. I am all for combining several things to get the best of it. I think solving problems start - in this case - with the engine and fuel.
Some problems are intractable. They have no solutions. For instance, the problem you pose as “without removing airplanes”.
Relax the constraint. Remove airplanes. There, problem’s no longer intractable. The solution doesn’t even need to be spoken aloud once you do that.
But if you say I’m cheating, I can do better. I can almost solve it without removing them. It looks something like this:
“Only the billionaires and VIP government officials (heads of state, essentially) get air travel.” Because that’s about how far this trick scales. Yes, you still have the problem of the shoeless peasants mucking around in the shit-covered fields while Hillary Clinton rides to her next campaign stop in a biodiesel limosine, but hey, can’t have everything. You’re a sacrifice she’s willing to make.
Yeah instead of removing airplanes altogether you remove the humans from it, well its one way or another the same.
I do not see why billionaires should get any priority, there are other things that are more important like heart transplants, or help for ukraine, military etc.
Point is you and I have no solution without crippling air travel or removing everything. Every school kid knows that but this is not how you approach society problems because those methods are not practical. Little CK wants his flight into the US eating ice cream under the statue of liberty, that is how the world works.
solution
If you want my end solution, that is killing every single human including myself which would be ethical correct solution for our earth but this is not how you address it.
I do not see why billionaires should get any priority,
That’s ok. They get it whether you see why or not. They already have the priority, and you can’t take it from them.
there are other things that are more important like heart transplants,
If I were coldly-calculating, I’d tell you that those things aren’t important at all. Why would they be? It’s someone already half-dead who, even if the surgery is successful, will always be in ill health and needing to take expensive immune suppressant drugs. Sure, maybe one or another of them is a genius of the sort you can’t just let die, but as often as not they’re some utterly replaceable worker who doesn’t warrant the sorts of expense you propose to allocate to them.
Point is you and I have no solution without crippling air travel
If the climate crisis is as big of a deal as you and the rest make it out to be (I remain skeptical), then which of us is the bigger fool here? You’re saying that it’s so important that everyone must give up air travel… BUT HOW DO WE DO THAT WHILE STILL GIVING THEM AIR TRAVEL?!?!?!.
It’s bizarre. Sure, supposing that this is some sort of slow motion disaster, it’s always possible that someone will come up with some miracle technology that solves this. In the “1-in-a-number-so-big-that-there-are-fewer-atoms-in-the-universe” sense of possible. That ain’t going to happen. And the longer you wait to figure that out, the worse things get.
Every school kid knows that but this is not how you approach society problems because those methods are not practical.
Well, here’s a thought. Instead of fellating press releases about sustainable aviation fuel, you could ignore them and if anyone ever asks why you (and the others you convince to ignore them) why you are doing that… you can say that it’s because you can smell bullshit. You can’t, but they won’t know that if you fake it really well.
Giving in to the public lie, pretending you believe it too, just makes it more powerful. Make them own up and be honest, that they’re ruining the planet and that they don’t give a shit if they do.
If you want my end solution, that is killing every single human including myself which would be ethical correct solution for our earth but this is not how you address it.
That’s ok. Most people have arrived at the same solution, they’re just planning on being the exceptions to it. My ethics forbid doing such, or suggesting such, they allow me to acknowledge that I’ve recognized others as having thought of it.
My plans are for my descendants to still be here once all of that nonsense is sorted out, so for those of you who think that it should be “everyone without exception”, you should prepare for disappointment in your final moments.
Most things do not even need a flight, lots of things can be done over the internet. The irony is you still have a carbon footprint, it is less but even the internet itself depends on some stuff.
Climate crisis is not the only big threat for humanity. It is very likely we get new viruses, atomic war etc.
I would not call potential solutions or ideas bullshit, you improve tech over time … baby steps… always baby steps… it is important to point out new research and new ideas, for me this is not bullshit it falls under process.
I would not per-see call society nonsense or air travel or any other amusement nonsense, it might has meaning but not in a bigger scale that helps the earth.
Problem is, society expects practical solutions and ideas you can apply in the real world. And doing nothing and resign is something lots of people will not accept, it is like genocide people will resist even if that is more or less what would help the planet on a larger scale. Instead we even try to cheat death, trying to create copies of ourselves to become immortal or go to other planets and do the same all over again. Who are we in the universe to decide such things.
I do not see life or death as good nor bad. I see it as irrelevant because we are all made out of stars, the irony is that in the process maybe other plants and others got killed to create us and the same will happen again and again in and endless cycle … which makes life and death in that sense obscene and obsolete because this is how the universe works.
Well I think that is enough OT now, point remains, no one here has any practical solutions, which is clear otherwise people would just post them and I trust the eggheads that they know what they are proposing and that they considered climate related things. I trust science and scientists more than random people here telling everything is wrong, they know all better but never posting any ideas or solutions… I make that really that simple.
would not call potential solutions or ideas bullshit, you improve tech over time … baby steps… always baby steps
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of technology. Yes, LEDs will get brighter and smaller and use less energy… and whatever the limit to that improvement is it’s pretty absurd and grounded in physics.
There is another class of problems. It is scaling. It starts when someone says “I can make an amazing widget, it’s beyond incredible!”. The first question you ask shouldn’t be “how much does it cost”. Because indeed, cost will come down with time. It shouldn’t be “how efficient is it”, because that too will improve.
The question is “how many can you make”. Ask that. And the truth here is that they couldn’t ever hope to make enough. And that jets are fast approaching or have already met the fundamental limits of physics as far as being fuel efficient.
This means that this can never be a solution. We’re not going to suddenly have less interest in flying. It’s fucking convenient to be able to pay some company $300, and be in a city a 2000 miles away in just 4 hours. There won’t be fewer people (or, if so, not until 2100-something, when falling fertility shows everyone that we’re on a path to extinction).
This can’t ever be a solution.
it is like genocide people will resist even if that is more or less what would help the planet on a larger scale.
I don’t know how to respond to the assertion that fighting for survival against genocide is comparable to fighting for your right to fly to Italy and have your idiot friend take the picture of you pretending to hold up the Tower of Pisa.
I do not see life or death as good nor bad.
I suspect that this is a symptom of profound mental illness. Life is, without reasonable dispute, wonderful. I acknowledge that when people are tortured and tormented that they seem to change their opinion on that, and they have my deepest sympathies. I hope to live to see effective treatment for their illness.
I do not understand those who hold this opinion minus the torture, but perhaps ennui and middle-class wankery over the “meaning of life” is its own special kind of self-torture. I blame the weird parenting fads of western culture.
the irony is that in the process maybe other plants and others got killed to create us
Then your crime’s all the greater, to have been given what they were denied, and to waste it.
what they are proposing and that they considered climate related things. I trust science and scientists more
The linked article was not written by Science with a capital S. It’s an abstract concept (and not even unflawed). It was not written by scientists. Generally, they are too busy to write articles for public consumption, and also generally, they are untalented at the sort of writing needed for the public to be able to understand it. Furthermore, to be good at science requires a certain sort of personality that embraces the sort of tunnel vision that makes them difficult to understand.
Thus, you are not listening to scientists here. You’re not listening to someone who listened to scientists. My own bad estimate is, that for a typical article like this, there is a chain of up to 4 interpreters between you and the scientists, starting with the administrative staff of major research institutions, their public relations department, science journalists, and then editors themselves.
Cooking oil won’t run out… but it also doesn’t scale. If you need ten times as much cooking oil next year as this year, that’s maybe doable.
If you need x10,000 more cooking oil, it’s totally fucking impossible.
So no, this isn’t sustainable. Especially when you’re talking about using food so you can go on a vacation to Europe to pretend that your tourism makes you educated or enlightened or whatever the fuck is you get out of it.
Cringe…
I know enough to know better than to believe fluff science journalism is equivalent to science proper, or worse… to think of a press release as science. Like, wtf.
Please tell us your solution without removing airplanes, we all listen buddy.
deleted by creator
Zeppelins, modern or not are considerable slow.
I get your idea and its not bad but I personally do not see it, maybe on lower scale. I am all for combining several things to get the best of it. I think solving problems start - in this case - with the engine and fuel.
deleted by creator
Some problems are intractable. They have no solutions. For instance, the problem you pose as “without removing airplanes”.
Relax the constraint. Remove airplanes. There, problem’s no longer intractable. The solution doesn’t even need to be spoken aloud once you do that.
But if you say I’m cheating, I can do better. I can almost solve it without removing them. It looks something like this:
“Only the billionaires and VIP government officials (heads of state, essentially) get air travel.” Because that’s about how far this trick scales. Yes, you still have the problem of the shoeless peasants mucking around in the shit-covered fields while Hillary Clinton rides to her next campaign stop in a biodiesel limosine, but hey, can’t have everything. You’re a sacrifice she’s willing to make.
Yeah instead of removing airplanes altogether you remove the humans from it, well its one way or another the same.
I do not see why billionaires should get any priority, there are other things that are more important like heart transplants, or help for ukraine, military etc.
Point is you and I have no solution without crippling air travel or removing everything. Every school kid knows that but this is not how you approach society problems because those methods are not practical. Little CK wants his flight into the US eating ice cream under the statue of liberty, that is how the world works.
solution
If you want my end solution, that is killing every single human including myself which would be ethical correct solution for our earth but this is not how you address it.
That’s ok. They get it whether you see why or not. They already have the priority, and you can’t take it from them.
If I were coldly-calculating, I’d tell you that those things aren’t important at all. Why would they be? It’s someone already half-dead who, even if the surgery is successful, will always be in ill health and needing to take expensive immune suppressant drugs. Sure, maybe one or another of them is a genius of the sort you can’t just let die, but as often as not they’re some utterly replaceable worker who doesn’t warrant the sorts of expense you propose to allocate to them.
If the climate crisis is as big of a deal as you and the rest make it out to be (I remain skeptical), then which of us is the bigger fool here? You’re saying that it’s so important that everyone must give up air travel… BUT HOW DO WE DO THAT WHILE STILL GIVING THEM AIR TRAVEL?!?!?!.
It’s bizarre. Sure, supposing that this is some sort of slow motion disaster, it’s always possible that someone will come up with some miracle technology that solves this. In the “1-in-a-number-so-big-that-there-are-fewer-atoms-in-the-universe” sense of possible. That ain’t going to happen. And the longer you wait to figure that out, the worse things get.
Well, here’s a thought. Instead of fellating press releases about sustainable aviation fuel, you could ignore them and if anyone ever asks why you (and the others you convince to ignore them) why you are doing that… you can say that it’s because you can smell bullshit. You can’t, but they won’t know that if you fake it really well.
Giving in to the public lie, pretending you believe it too, just makes it more powerful. Make them own up and be honest, that they’re ruining the planet and that they don’t give a shit if they do.
That’s ok. Most people have arrived at the same solution, they’re just planning on being the exceptions to it. My ethics forbid doing such, or suggesting such, they allow me to acknowledge that I’ve recognized others as having thought of it.
My plans are for my descendants to still be here once all of that nonsense is sorted out, so for those of you who think that it should be “everyone without exception”, you should prepare for disappointment in your final moments.
Problem is, society expects practical solutions and ideas you can apply in the real world. And doing nothing and resign is something lots of people will not accept, it is like genocide people will resist even if that is more or less what would help the planet on a larger scale. Instead we even try to cheat death, trying to create copies of ourselves to become immortal or go to other planets and do the same all over again. Who are we in the universe to decide such things.
I do not see life or death as good nor bad. I see it as irrelevant because we are all made out of stars, the irony is that in the process maybe other plants and others got killed to create us and the same will happen again and again in and endless cycle … which makes life and death in that sense obscene and obsolete because this is how the universe works.
Well I think that is enough OT now, point remains, no one here has any practical solutions, which is clear otherwise people would just post them and I trust the eggheads that they know what they are proposing and that they considered climate related things. I trust science and scientists more than random people here telling everything is wrong, they know all better but never posting any ideas or solutions… I make that really that simple.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of technology. Yes, LEDs will get brighter and smaller and use less energy… and whatever the limit to that improvement is it’s pretty absurd and grounded in physics.
There is another class of problems. It is scaling. It starts when someone says “I can make an amazing widget, it’s beyond incredible!”. The first question you ask shouldn’t be “how much does it cost”. Because indeed, cost will come down with time. It shouldn’t be “how efficient is it”, because that too will improve.
The question is “how many can you make”. Ask that. And the truth here is that they couldn’t ever hope to make enough. And that jets are fast approaching or have already met the fundamental limits of physics as far as being fuel efficient.
This means that this can never be a solution. We’re not going to suddenly have less interest in flying. It’s fucking convenient to be able to pay some company $300, and be in a city a 2000 miles away in just 4 hours. There won’t be fewer people (or, if so, not until 2100-something, when falling fertility shows everyone that we’re on a path to extinction).
This can’t ever be a solution.
I don’t know how to respond to the assertion that fighting for survival against genocide is comparable to fighting for your right to fly to Italy and have your idiot friend take the picture of you pretending to hold up the Tower of Pisa.
I suspect that this is a symptom of profound mental illness. Life is, without reasonable dispute, wonderful. I acknowledge that when people are tortured and tormented that they seem to change their opinion on that, and they have my deepest sympathies. I hope to live to see effective treatment for their illness.
I do not understand those who hold this opinion minus the torture, but perhaps ennui and middle-class wankery over the “meaning of life” is its own special kind of self-torture. I blame the weird parenting fads of western culture.
Then your crime’s all the greater, to have been given what they were denied, and to waste it.
The linked article was not written by Science with a capital S. It’s an abstract concept (and not even unflawed). It was not written by scientists. Generally, they are too busy to write articles for public consumption, and also generally, they are untalented at the sort of writing needed for the public to be able to understand it. Furthermore, to be good at science requires a certain sort of personality that embraces the sort of tunnel vision that makes them difficult to understand.
Thus, you are not listening to scientists here. You’re not listening to someone who listened to scientists. My own bad estimate is, that for a typical article like this, there is a chain of up to 4 interpreters between you and the scientists, starting with the administrative staff of major research institutions, their public relations department, science journalists, and then editors themselves.
So… In summary: “Trust the technocracy and just look past the issues and vested interests” for any solution World Economic Forum &co. Propose?