Home Artists Posts Import Register

Content

 [This is a transcript.]

Last week, Virgin Atlantic chartered the world’s first-ever transatlantic flight powered by sustainable aviation fuel. Their Boeing 787 flight from London to New York was powered by a mix of waste oil and biofuel and intended to test the performance.

Sustainable Aviation Fuels, SAF for short, are a catch-all phrase for several different types of fuels. What they have in common is that they chemically resemble kerosene but that they cause much lower carbon dioxide emission as the usual stuff that’s derived from fossil fuels. Sustainable fuels include synthetic fuels that can be created from renewable energy. They also include biofuels that are created from plants. These plants take carbon dioxide out of the air when they grow, so when you burn the stuff that doesn’t increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. And since airplane engines aren’t known to be picky eaters, you can feed them with used oil, for example the stuff that your French fries have bathed in .

Airlines and the Biden administration are pushing SAFs as the most feasible way to decarbonize aviation, but the idea has some problems. First and most importantly, there isn’t remotely enough of it. Last year, the U.S. produced just about 16 million gallons of it, which is less than 0 point 1 percent of the consumption by US airlines.

Then there is the land use. One of Virgin’s main SAF suppliers is the American company Virent. Their biofuel is made from corn sugars, wood and agricultural waste, but growing this stuff competes with land use for food supply.  

Since there’s only so much waste oil and the land use of biofuels is high, to me synthetic kerosene seems the most viable option. It has the added benefit that since it’s chemically extremely pure it basically doesn’t create contrails which some climate scientists think contribute to global warming. Again, though the issue is that there isn’t remotely enough of it. Synthetic fuel production from renewables, sometimes called “power to liquid” is a great idea in principle, but in practice it so far only exists in small trials.

Either way, the US seems dead set on investing in the technology, with the Biden administration calling for SAF production to hit 3 billion gallons by 2030.

Though I really think they’re missing a major marketing scheme. Save the world by eating more fries!


Files

First transatlantic flight with sustainable fuel. Is this the future of flying?

Last week, Virgin Atlantic chartered the world’s first-ever transatlantic flight powered by sustainable aviation fuel. Their Boeing 787 flight from London to New York was powered by a mix of waste oil and biofuel and intended to test the performance. What are sustainable aviation fuels and is this the future of flying? The complete science news playlist is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QyezOfkuEM&list=PLwgQsqtH9H5cX997cyJ94Ob7gZXqoV4Jh 🤓 Check out our new quiz app ➜ http://quizwithit.com/ 💌 Support us on Donatebox ➜ https://donorbox.org/swtg 📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ https://sciencewtg.substack.com/ 👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ https://www.patreon.com/Sabine 📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ https://sabinehossenfelder.com/newsletter/ 👂 Audio only podcast ➜ https://open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXlKnMPEUMEeKQYmYC 🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yNl2E66ZzKApQdRuTQ4tw/join 🖼️ On instagram ➜ https://www.instagram.com/sciencewtg/ #technology #technews #shortly

Comments

Anonymous

Thomas, you are quite right about synthetic fuels being helpful things to have, same as special culverts for wildlife to cross safely below train tracks on embankments. But overall, what you wrote would be an entirely correct proposition IF the world is assumed to inevitably have to work much in the same way as it does now and it has for some decades already. But I firmly believe the changes in climate will make that impossible. I agree that more authoritarian governments are likely. This may not be good, but it could be worse. That is the least of my worries: War for disappearing vital resources, both civil wars and wars between nations. And historical migrations, as have happened in centuries past, from places where people starve to those where they can eat (marching in, weapons in hand, as organized armies, not humbly begging for admission anymore) along with a possible, small at first, then growing and growing very quickly all the way to an all-out thermonuclear war is another serious probability. With more and more countries already having, or working hard to develop their own nukes. What I am proposing is that, instead of dying in many interesting if gruesome ways, we do *adapt* by taking things easier. There have been always those that need to travel frequently, and none that I have written precludes it. Less than a century ago people travelled across oceans by ship, that took one or two weeks, depending on the ocean, the route, the weather, etc, in communication with others by radio, and most necessary things got done. It is going to be faster than in those days with dirigibles and high-tech sail ships. And, between points accessible continuously by rail, with slower electric trains. Or does anyone believe, seriously, that modern life was impossible before long-distance flight on fixed-wing aircraft, or even before jets? (For those who do, there is always Mars. Don't wait, call Elon to book a one-way trip now! Not many places left, and those are going fast!)

Anonymous

I must add that there always be a limited role, much smaller than it is now, for fixed and rotating wing aircraft, to reach places where dirigibles cannot land. In particular for emergency evacuations from places only accessible with such machines, as well as for taking people to hospitals and delivering necessities to families living in isolated places, as bush pilots do today.

Anonymous

The only sustainable fuel is hydrogen from water using electricity from fast breeder reactors. Biofuels are simply stupid.