A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.
2024-11-11
Thankfully the article addresses the shortcomings of synthetic fuels, too bad you have to scroll all the way to the end for that.
But I feel like synthetic fuels are a crutch: they still emit greenhouse gasses and they are marketed as emitting less than traditional fuels when in fact they are just re-emitting gas than has been captured, making them "net zero" or "net less whatever"
The whole net zero thing is really just a publicity stunt too, it’s like an accountant cooking the books when in reality nothing is actually being changed or reduced. Corps will just purchase carbon credits to make “net zero” while not modifying anything about how they operate
I feel like companies are "double dipping" by selling these carbon credits. Getting to "net zero" by itself is good. Sourcing CO2 "from an ethanol refinery in neighboring Oregon and, later, from pulp and paper facilities in Washington" means it's coming from biomass, which is almost as good as using any hypothetical direct capture air scrubbers (do we have any functional examples of those yet or are they entirely fiction so far?). Sourcing electricity from hydro is good. (Sourcing from "fossil gas and a small amount of coal" is not.) We do need jet fuel. All continental routes should be replaced with high-speed trains, but we still have transoceanic travel. We can either give that up entirely or find a carbon-neutral way to make jet fuel.
But when you make this almost-zero carbon jet fuel, but THEN ALSO sell carbon credits, who actually gets to brag about being carbon-neutral? Is it the airlines who use the alternative fuel, or the GHG-emitting industries who bought the credits? "We paid someone to make alternative jet fuel which saved 1000 tons of oil from being pumped out of the ground, so we get to burn 1000 tons of coal at our factory guilt-free." No! That doesn't count if the airline ALSO gets to burn those 1000 tons of fuel.
At the very least the airline should lose the right to brag about using carbon-neutral fuel and be forced to go buy its own carbon credits elsewhere.
Yeah, exactly. Just because you offset doesn't mean you don't emit greenhouse gasses.
Its just unrealistic to use anything else at the moment. Current batteries are only at like 250 wh per kg while av-gas sits at around 12,000. And liquid fuel gets lighter as it is consumed. This is not an impossible hurdle for something like a car, where fuel is a tiny fraction of total weight, but for an aircraft its totally unrealistic unless you are willing to dramatically cut speed and cargo capacity.
One of my main gripes is that this speech sells airplanes as sustainable when we should instead reduce their use. I understand that air travel companies are not willing to go this way, but for our long-term survival we should.
Its not really the airlines in charge on this one. Maintaining a strong domestic aviation industry is an absolutely critical national security concern for...well, every industrialized country on the planet. At a minimum they want a pool of pilots and mechanics that could be drawn from in the event of war. For wealthier countries, the industrial capacity to build and maintain aircraft is vital to maintain an independent defense posture.
Better than digging up more oil, but that doesn't really make it sustainable.
new co2 pipeline has locals worried about a leak. my backyard, glad I live on high ground. https://www.google.com/search?q=biourja+co2+pipeline&newwindow=1&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS903US903&sxsrf=AB5stBjtpUQ_Qcsl1d7RtyE-Zyh5me21Wg%3A1690482184938&ei=CLbCZKfsOKqlptQP9KGzuAs&ved=0ahUKEwinkIfxwK-AAxWqkokEHfTQDLcQ4dUDCBA&oq=biourga+co2+pipeline&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiFGJpb3VyZ2EgY28yIHBpcGVsaW5lSABQAFgAcAB4AJABAJgBAKABAKoBALgBDMgBAOIDBBgAIEE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#cobssid=s