Reminder that this is a test but it looks promising.
Sustainable how? Like, if humanity decided to outlaw fossil fuels tomorrow, how many gallons of this stuff could be made in 2024, or even in 2034?
Enough for one thousand billionaires to jet around where they go, or enough for the middle class to get $250 NY-to-Paris fare? If only the former, it’s doubtful that anything like an A380 is even viable as a product, because billionaires don’t fly on those. And we all know it’s not the latter.
ICAO information on the various feedstocks used for SAF (“sustainable aviation fuel”):
https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/SAF_RULESOFTHUMB.aspx (archive.ph)
A380 is not made for billionaires and unrelated to billionaires at all, it is actually for the average working class like you and me, there is a first class section in the nose but the goal of A380 is to avoid 3 traditional airplanes and only use one big instead which reduces the footprint on paper and shown already in test flights. This is just another test and attempt to reduce it even further which is a good thing.
Cooking oil will not run out in the next lets say 1000+ years.
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.
- Scientists … spending 100 million dollars, 10k hours of work into research and solutions.
- Community … nooohh U I know everything better … do this and that …
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.
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.
If SAF is 100% cooking oil, the planet has nowhere near enough cooking oil to exclusively supply aviation.
- 213 million tons of ALL vegetable oil production per year, globally.
- 300 million tons of fuel used in 2019, by commercial jet aviation alone, globally.
Waste cooking oil available would be a miniscule fraction of the 213 million tons produced, so any further use or production for biofuels either takes food out of peoples’ bowls and/or destroys ecosystems.
That said, it could be done in a sustainable way, as suggested by this world economic forum paper. I don’t know enough to criticise the reasoning in that paper. I suspect there could be major negative implications for some solutions for shifting the worlds’ liquid fuel supply to biofuels.
Sailing ships and global rail networks for the win.
I doubt it is natural vegetable oil, more like a mix of waste so your math does not apply here. Your fuel calculation is also based on traditional fuel, not what the topic is about.
Your papers are useless in this example since this is a test and this is not yet the standard, so no reference can be applied here as because there are no data for such claims.
There is always a trade-off between things, but we are talking about a substance that is considered waste for most countries, it is still a better solution than what your charts are referring too, the traditional methods.
progress comes in little steps.
