Green jet fuel - problematical 1

[GregLocock]

While it will be very nice to see our elders and betters flying their private jets as they wish, unfortunately the poor people will have to starve so that the green jet fuel can be grown, on what was once productive farmland, or rainforest.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/14/sustainable-jet-fuel-report

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[TugboatEng]

The climatologists are claiming climate change caused the recent turbulence incident there resulted in a passenger dying from a heart attack despite 30 years of date showing no increase in turbulence related incidents.

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS2101.pdf

As an alleged climate denier I would suggest that airlines are "encouraging" pilots to maintain economical altitude and speed but we see no change in trend. Perhaps the one passenger was a regular consumer of green jet fuel aka ethanol.

 

[rb1957]

"The climatologists are claiming climate change caused the recent turbulence incident there resulted in a passenger dying" ... well, of course they would. Can you imagine that they'd say this is normal behaviour of the atmosphere, and an unfortunate coincidence of bad weather and a vulnerable passenger ?

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[GregLocock]

Are you sure it is the climatologists and not the climate attribution scum and journalists?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_event_attribution

Attribution science is the exact opposite of the scientific method. There are well funded organisations whose job is to 'prove' that extreme weather is caused by climate change, and then feed those headlines to journalists for the gullible to repeat.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[EnzoAus]

Tug,

Thanks for the link to the NTSB paper above. Having been a passenger on a Europe to Singapore flight less than 12 hours after the recent one where a passenger died during a severe turbulence event, I found it very interesting. The seatbelts sign was called twice that I recall during our flight, in what may have been precautionary moves due to the incident. Seeing the pictures of the blood stained overhead lockers and the large number of hospitalised passengers was a timely reminder why wearing seatbelts during the flight is advisable as reiterated by the NTSB report.

With regards the Fig 6 data quoted above however, are you sure that it applies to the world as a whole? I'm not that familiar with the NTSB processes, but the paper seems to be based on US carriers and US incidents. Table 6 for example lists only US case studies over a two year period. If so, then extrapolating the results to world wide trends would be misleading and the data might warrant a suitable caveat.

 

[GregLocock]

World Weather Attribution – Exploring the contribution of ...

World Weather Attribution

https://www.worldweatherattribution.org

Attribution and risk

The ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes

https://climateextremes.org.au

› attribution-and-risk


Climate Attribution: Home

climateattribution.org

https://climateattribution.org

Is attribution science the silver bullet that could help hold ...

Environmental Defenders Office

https://www.edo.org.au

› The Latest



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[LionelHutz]

Are you sure it is the climatologists and not the climate attribution scum and journalists?

Like the multiple threads on this site? Everyone who publishes in any manner wants headlines first.

 

[TugboatEng]

Enzo, the data was collected from aircraft subject to part 121 which is a FAA rule that covers scheduled flight, passenger and cargo. Even if it is USA based carriers only, that is quite a large sample.

https://www.aerolawcenter.com/what-is-faa-part-121/

 

[EnzoAus]

Tug,
If the dataset, albeit large, is constrained to a specific geographic area, the suggestion, respectfully, is that the results from any analysis of that data may not be representative of other geographic areas.
IF the NTSB are demonstrating no increase in turbulence related accident rates only in the US, it is still possible that the phenomenon is increasing in other specific areas of the globe.

 

[TugboatEng]

FAA inspected aircraft do operate all over the world.

 

[Tmoose]

https://turbli.com/historical-data/most-turbulent-flight-routes-of-2022/

 

[GregLocock]

Meanwhile the world's aircraft manufacturers aren't toeing the net zero line (and if they do then they'll be taken out by China's manufacturers who are very keen to see Boeing and Airbus commit financial suicide)

https://aviationweek.com/special-to...livery-projections-inconsistent-net-zero-2050

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[waross]

There are a couple of pilot plants making diesel fuel with CO2 extracted from the atmosphere. Truly carbon neutral.
But that is expensive.
I am paying a carbon tax on so many things now, why isn't that money going to support the added cost of carbon neutral sources.
We keep hearing about the added cost of "Green Fuel".
Considering that so many of us are already paying carbon taxes, that argument is wearing thin.


--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

 

[TugboatEng]

Why is it expensive? Air is free, no?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

While it will be very nice to see our elders and betters flying their private jets as they wish, unfortunately the poor people will have to starve so that the green jet fuel can be grown, on what was once productive farmland, or rainforest.

I'm not sure I agree. Food is an abundant and renewable resource right now. My hope is that we could build up an infrastructure around collecting food waste to make bio fuels. Heck, there are a lot of parts of plants that we can't eat (or don't want to eat) that can be part of the biofuels. I imagine animal waste might even be capable of being part of bio-fuels.

Afterall, there are a lot of water processing plants that collect the methane they produce and run their own power off of the methane (and or fuel cells) on site. Essentially, taking waste management and generating power out of it.

I'm not saying any of these things are a "solution" to any fossil fuel addition that we have. They're just all avenues where we can make incremental changes / improvements in what we're doing....

We shouldn't let the government pick winners and losers. But, there needs to be an economic incentive there. I'd say taxation on inefficient use of fossil fuels and tax benefits (not subsidies) for pursuing greener energy.

 

[TugboatEng]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that food is abundant and renewable. Nitrogen based compounds such as fertilizer (and gun powder) are in short supply right now and prices are very high. Also, California has just imposed permanent water restrictions on certain regions which may also impact the abundance of food.

 

[waross]

Eat less beef.
Food animals and particularly cattle are a significant source of greenhouse gasses.

Beef’s Big Water Footprint

People often ask, “What’s the best way to reduce my water footprint?” and the conversation always drifts to meat eating. That’s because meat, especially beef, has a large water footprint — 1,800 gallons of water per pound of beef produced.

FROM ANOTHER PAGE ON THE SAME SITE:
Beef: About 1852 gallons per pound.
Pork: About 720 gallons per pound.
Rice: About 292 gallons per pound.
Oatmeal: About 304 gallons per pound.
Wheat Flour: About 220 gallons per pound.
Corn Flour: About 152 gallons per pound.


--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!

 

[GregLocock]

Surely there's more nutrient value in 1 lb of beef than 3 lb of rice?


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[TugboatEng]

Waross, I'm very interested on your statement about the cost of diesel made from CO2 extracted from air. There is no shortage of air. Perhaps it's the energy required that makes the process expensive?

 

[waross]

Perhaps it's the energy required that makes the process expensive?

The pilot plant in Chile uses wind power for energy, making it truly green.
I understand that it is the cost and maintenance of the extraction equipment that is one of the major costs.
Considering capital cost and amortization, wind power is not really free either.

Further I believe that there is more than one CO[sup]2[/sup] extraction technology.
I dream of atmospheric CO[sup]2[/sup] extraction plants powered by nuclear energy or hydro power.
I could drive my diesel behemoth with no direct carbon footprint with atmospheric CO[sup]2[/sup].
Just think, this could make nuclear energy small scale portable with no added carbon footprint.
I am looking forward to atmospheric CO[sup]2[/sup] derived diesel fuel.
I am paying carbon taxes already, where is the return?

We have others here who may have better information and possibly corrections.

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!