The fuel is still burning though right? I can see this is better than normal jet fuel, but while smoking 15 cigarettes a day is better than 20, its still smoking.
[deleted]
>Waste gases from a steelworks and household rubbish could be used to fuel aeroplanes for “guilt-free flying”.
>
>The projects will cut CO2 emissions by an average of 200,000 tonnes a year, once fully up and running.
>
>One of the projects will be based at Port Talbot steelworks and will convert steel mill off-gases into fuel.
>
>Another scheme will develop a plant creating fuel using carbon captured from a gas-fired power station and hydrogen made from renewable electricity.
So the CO2 will be captured, combined with hydrogen generated from water using renewable electricity, turning it into fuel, and then burned in an aeroplane.
So it’s not carbon capture with storage, it’s carbon capture and utilisation. The concentrated CO2 from the waste goes on one extra trip around the cycle before being released to the atmosphere as diffuse CO2.
The argument is that you’re still displacing extra CO2 that would be emitted using regular jet fuel?
The base assumption there is that the air travel **has** to happen. Which is questionable.
If you *didn’t* have the flight, the renewable energy used to generate the hydrogen could have been used to displace fossil grid generation? And the hydrogen could have been used for other, more essential and equitable forms of transportation like ships and trains and HGVs. And the captured concentrated CO2 could have been stored underground for long term sequestration.
This only makes sense if you’re completely oblivious to the opportunity costs of deciding to do use these resources for air travel instead of other more useful things.
>They will also produce 300,000 tonnes of sustainable aviation fuel a year – enough to fly to the moon and back about 60 times.
The UK uses **11,200,000** tonnes of aviation fuel annually. This 300,000l of potential fuel represents **~2.7%** of *current* aviation fuel usage. The UK plan for aviation is **growth** of 70%.
Also, current SAF costs 2-5x compared to normal aviation fuel. This article makes no mention of the potential cost of the fuel from this project.
3 comments
The fuel is still burning though right? I can see this is better than normal jet fuel, but while smoking 15 cigarettes a day is better than 20, its still smoking.
[deleted]
>Waste gases from a steelworks and household rubbish could be used to fuel aeroplanes for “guilt-free flying”.
>
>The projects will cut CO2 emissions by an average of 200,000 tonnes a year, once fully up and running.
>
>One of the projects will be based at Port Talbot steelworks and will convert steel mill off-gases into fuel.
>
>Another scheme will develop a plant creating fuel using carbon captured from a gas-fired power station and hydrogen made from renewable electricity.
So the CO2 will be captured, combined with hydrogen generated from water using renewable electricity, turning it into fuel, and then burned in an aeroplane.
So it’s not carbon capture with storage, it’s carbon capture and utilisation. The concentrated CO2 from the waste goes on one extra trip around the cycle before being released to the atmosphere as diffuse CO2.
The argument is that you’re still displacing extra CO2 that would be emitted using regular jet fuel?
The base assumption there is that the air travel **has** to happen. Which is questionable.
If you *didn’t* have the flight, the renewable energy used to generate the hydrogen could have been used to displace fossil grid generation? And the hydrogen could have been used for other, more essential and equitable forms of transportation like ships and trains and HGVs. And the captured concentrated CO2 could have been stored underground for long term sequestration.
This only makes sense if you’re completely oblivious to the opportunity costs of deciding to do use these resources for air travel instead of other more useful things.
>They will also produce 300,000 tonnes of sustainable aviation fuel a year – enough to fly to the moon and back about 60 times.
The UK uses **11,200,000** tonnes of aviation fuel annually. This 300,000l of potential fuel represents **~2.7%** of *current* aviation fuel usage. The UK plan for aviation is **growth** of 70%.
Also, current SAF costs 2-5x compared to normal aviation fuel. This article makes no mention of the potential cost of the fuel from this project.