3 ms·
EDIT: My horrible, ostentatioous BAD! I mixed up the GE headline with the viral United Airlines tweet about the same exercise: https://twitter.com/united/sta
by vanusa 5y ago
EDIT:
My horrible, ostentatioous BAD! I mixed up the GE headline with the viral United Airlines tweet about the same exercise:
https://twitter.com/united/status/1466045020473942020 https://twitter.com/united/status/1466045020473942020
In which they took care not to mention the second engine using standard fuel, going so far as to say (this time quoting correctly):
Today, United will be the first in aviation history to fly a passenger flight using 100% sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).
This flight will serve as a turning point in the industry's effort to combat climate change.
So I definitely should have read the GE headline more closely (which doesn't make this obfuscation). But that's what happens when these companies keep lying, and lying, and lying - at some point your senses go numb, your eyes start to bleed... and you lose track of detail.
But at the end of the day - my bad!
Earlier, ill-thought transmission (from me) follows below, as-is:
The point isn't the testing protocol, or that two different fuel types were used.
It's that these companies are trying to play with our heads.
- dijonman2 5y agoThe modern media is at fault here, not nessecarily the company.
- animal_spirits 5y agoNothing about it being modern is relevant to them missing specific information here. That's happened for centuries. But I agree nonetheless, we shouldn't fault the company for having a fail-safe
- thatguy0900 5y agoA little unfair to blame the company here, no? The fuel is 100% sustainable and it would be illegal to use more than 50% of it here
- HWR_14 5y agoIt's also unfair to blame the article. The actual press releases headline was correct and precise about this. The only place it got messed up was the HN headline.
- robotresearcher 5y agoThe linked article is a press release from GE, the engine manufacturer, and its headline says 'in one engine' clear as day. Do you mean the HN headline? As far as I can see, that's the source of consternation.
- nsxwolf 5y agoIt would probably fly if it were in both engines, yeah?
- woeirua 5y agoA 50% reduction in the emissions associated with flying, with no additional changes to the infrastructure involved is a game changer. If we can do this for planes, then ships and trains aren't far off.
- vanusa 5y agoYup - that's exactly the take-away they would like the reader to have. But (as noted in the article I linked to), apparently has significant scalability issues, and (because of sourcing and transport issues) is not "100 percent" emissions-free.