• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Sustainable Fuels

theprestige said:
According to Wikipedia, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) has about the same energy density as petrochemical aviation fuel, but is three times more expensive and accounts for about 1% of the market. One of the cited obstacles to further expansion of the SAF scheme is competition with food growers for suitable land. This makes me think that we're probably nowhere near on track for Net Zero 2050.


I also have questions about what "sustainable" is supposed to mean, in this context.

To me, it means full self-sufficiency of the entire production process. I.e., once you get it going, it sustains itself. Something like this:
  • You grow enough biofuel to power the entire agricultural process. Sowing, watering, fertilizing, harvesting, storing - all powered by the of the fuel you're growing. This includes things like the collection, transportation, storage, and distribution of water. The production, etc. of fertilizer. The manufacture and operation of farm equipment.
  • AND you grow enough additional biofuel to power whatever industry you intend to be sustainably bio-fueled.
So when someone says "sustainable aviation fuel", I wonder how close you actually are to having a biofuel plantation that pays for itself, with enough left over to fuel the entire aviation industry.

I suspect that's not what most people mean by "sustainable" fuel, though.

Caveat: While nuclear is not strictly "sustainable" in my view, supplanting biofuel with nuclear power to make the entire scheme self-sufficient would satisfy me.


Tangentially, it seems to me that we have approximately three main sources of energy available to us:
  1. Solar energy - sustainable over human timeframes.
  2. Tectonically-stored biomass - the so-called "fossil" fuels.
  3. Supernova fallout - the radioisotopes.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Here's some more information on Sustainable Aviation Fuel from the SAF Coalition:

Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is a globally accepted, industry umbrella term that covers a range of non-conventional fuels made from a variety of biogenic and non biogenic feedstocks and processing technologies such as used cooking oils, council waste, plant oils, agricultural residues and non-biological sources. Biogenic SAF has the potential to reduce lifecycle emissions typically by up to 80% compared to conventional jet fuel. Non-biogenic SAF — or synthetic fuel / efuels — is a pathway which utilises carbon dioxide, green hydrogen and significant amounts of renewable electricity to synthesise a liquid fuel with favourable sustainability characteristics (emissions can be reduced on a lifestyle basis by up to 90% compared to fossil fuels).

In order to be a 'drop in' compatible with existing aircraft and fuelling infrastructure, SAFs are required to be blended currently with fossil jet fuel up to a 50% blend limit. The industry is moving towards a 100% SAF blend and we expect that to occur in the second half of this decade.

With our goal to reach net zero by 2050, we're entering into partnerships with the aim of accelerating the use of SAF across our fleet, and the development of a SAF industry in Australia over time. While SAF is currently only a small part of our fuel mix, comprising 0.2% of our fuel use, we're targeting 10% of our fuel to come from SAF by 2030 and 60% by 2050.

 
acbytesla said:
More than anything else on a car, I maintain the brakes. I want the peace of mind that when I push the pedal down the car will stop. As opposed to hitting the car in front of me.
Click to expand...
I make sure mine can accelerate for exactly the same reason. Imma go around him.

I try to keep about a quarter tank of gas in it. Not much more, cuz I don't want it going up in a very expensive ball of flame.

I think every truck I sent to the scrap yard went in on fumes with the low fuel light giving its empty pleading fot the last time.
 
acbytesla said:
More than anything else on a car, I maintain the brakes. I want the peace of mind that when I push the pedal down the car will stop. As opposed to hitting the car in front of me.
Click to expand...
Yabbut, if you use the car in front of you as a buffer stop, you won’t need brake pads at all.
Savings!!
 
We will not needs SAFs by 2050 because very few are going to (a) be able to afford to fly once they've paid the the increased costs brought about by climate change, environmental pollution and rent to the ultra-wealthy and (b) want to go to anywhere with even more extreme weather and a damaged environment than they have at home.

Welcome to the lobby of Hell. The door has been closed and bolted shut. It only gets worse from here.
 
sinnikal said:
It depends on the definition of 'sustainable'. We know that oil and gas aren't sustainable because the planet only has a limited amount available. If by 'sustainable' it is meant that it able to be renewed, eg, plant oil, that doesn't help. It still produces CO2 which will add to global heating.
It needs to mean a fuel such that the planet is able to continue to sustain human life.
Click to expand...
Plus growing plants for fuel replaces crops grown for food, which is not sustainable either.
 
Orphia Nay said:
Thanks for that. Here's some more information on Sustainable Aviation Fuel from the SAF Coalition:

Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is a globally accepted, industry umbrella term that covers a range of non-conventional fuels made from a variety of biogenic and non biogenic feedstocks and processing technologies such as used cooking oils, council waste, plant oils, agricultural residues and non-biological sources. Biogenic SAF has the potential to reduce lifecycle emissions typically by up to 80% compared to conventional jet fuel. Non-biogenic SAF — or synthetic fuel / efuels — is a pathway which utilises carbon dioxide, green hydrogen and significant amounts of renewable electricity to synthesise a liquid fuel with favourable sustainability characteristics (emissions can be reduced on a lifestyle basis by up to 90% compared to fossil fuels).

In order to be a 'drop in' compatible with existing aircraft and fuelling infrastructure, SAFs are required to be blended currently with fossil jet fuel up to a 50% blend limit. The industry is moving towards a 100% SAF blend and we expect that to occur in the second half of this decade.

With our goal to reach net zero by 2050, we're entering into partnerships with the aim of accelerating the use of SAF across our fleet, and the development of a SAF industry in Australia over time. While SAF is currently only a small part of our fuel mix, comprising 0.2% of our fuel use, we're targeting 10% of our fuel to come from SAF by 2030 and 60% by 2050.

Click to expand...
Problem with all that is that it's propganda writ by the crowd wanting to sell you their magic panacaea.
 
I think it's hilarious that the OP is talking about Formula One. Motor racing. That is (a) completely unnecessary, and (b) also fighting tooth and nail to keep electric cars out, because electric cars will obviously be able to leave ICE cars standing when specific development for racing performance is undertaken.
 
Rolfe said:
I think it's hilarious that the OP is talking about Formula One. Motor racing. That is (a) completely unnecessary, and (b) also fighting tooth and nail to keep electric cars out, because electric cars will obviously be able to leave ICE cars standing when specific development for racing performance is undertaken.
Click to expand...
There's already a Formula E.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
Plus growing plants for fuel replaces crops grown for food, which is not sustainable either.
Click to expand...
There are areas of land where no food crops can be grown, but plants for biofuel do work. And we have massive amounts of plant debris from things like grain and maize which are inedible and can be used.
 
Rolfe said:
I think it's hilarious that the OP is talking about Formula One. Motor racing. That is (a) completely unnecessary, and (b) also fighting tooth and nail to keep electric cars out, because electric cars will obviously be able to leave ICE cars standing when specific development for racing performance is undertaken.
Click to expand...
Many things are completely unnecessary, yet people enjoy doing them or watching them. If F1 is prepared to spend the money to help develop genuinely sustainable fuels, and, in the process, also provide entertainment for millions of fans, what is the downside?
 
I just think it's going to wither away as the internal combustion engine becomes more obsolete and electric racing cars become more refined.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
There are areas of land where no food crops can be grown, but plants for biofuel do work. And we have massive amounts of plant debris from things like grain and maize which are inedible and can be used.
Click to expand...
Hmm, if only someone had done the math on that.


Sustainable energy implies citizens of US, European and other nations with similar levels of economic development using a lot less energy, including flying. SAFs as an excuse to maintain or grow the aviation sector are yet another lie fed to us by the high (and not so high)-functioning psychopaths we call "leaders".
 
Rolfe said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
The high probability that one outclassed the other somehow when raced side by side.

Big money teams like Ferrari and Mercedes would raise enough stink to cripple a billion dollar sport.
They would rather have a separate team for the Eversion and it's foibles. Or not have an entry in it.
 
World record formula E is around 200mph. The guy who comes in last in Formula 1 exceeds that. They'd be lapping the E car.
 
Rolfe said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
Different power trains, different energy budgets.... It'd be like racing apples and oranges. You'd have to come up with all kinds of weird and arbitrary conversion factors. How much charge equals how many gallons of of fuel?

It makes much more sense to me to race like with like. If EVs were trying to force their way into F-1, I'd fight tooth and nail against it. Not because EVs outperform ICEs. They don't. But because it's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid contest.
 
theprestige said:
Different power trains, different energy budgets.... It'd be like racing apples and oranges. You'd have to come up with all kinds of weird and arbitrary conversion factors. How much charge equals how many gallons of of fuel?
Click to expand...
There's this common unit called Joules. Combined with drivetrain efficiencies this could easily be calculated.
theprestige said:
It makes much more sense to me to race like with like. If EVs were trying to force their way into F-1, I'd fight tooth and nail against it. Not because EVs outperform ICEs. They don't. But because it's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ stupid contest.
Click to expand...
Electric motors will always outperform ICE. An electric motor can provide full torque from 0rpm. We already have electric cars that can out-accelerate an ICE F1 car.

F1 sticking with the ICE is because the companies involved want to sell more ICE-powered cars to (mostly) men.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom