5 ms·

I don’t understand why anyone thinks than turning hydrocarbons into food then turning them back into fuel is a good idea. Nothing about biofuels is sustainable

I don’t understand why anyone thinks than turning hydrocarbons into food then turning them back into fuel is a good idea. Nothing about biofuels is sustainable or green. Unless you consider greenwashing green.

qgin 3y ago
Supposedly SAF results in 80% CO2 emissions vs regular jet fuel. https://www.iata.org/en/programs/environment/sustainable-aviation-fuels/ https://www.iata.org/en/programs/environment/sustainable-avi...
- userinanother 3y ago
  Even if it’s true that a gallon of saf is less co2 than a gallon of gas the total lifecycle co2 emissions has to be higher due to all the conversions taking place. Any gains are likely due to incomplete accounting of co2 sources
sillywalk 3y ago
I think sustainable is one of those meaningless terms. Like "carbon neutral".
- userinanother 3y ago
  True but All the terms to describe the phenomenon are meaningless. It’s like we have been robbed of words to even describe the problems and they have all been replaced with buzzwords
jackweirdy 3y ago
The CO2 in plants is 100% from the air, and then goes back into the air when burned
- userinanother 3y ago
  Too simple of a model. If you used non industrial agriculture it would be mostly correct but industrial agriculture and fertilizer use consumes vast amounts of petroleum products so that’s where the issue lies
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jackweirdy 3y ago
    What % of the carbon of the plant is fertilizer production?
- hypertele-Xii 3y ago
  One word: Fertilizer.
  - jackweirdy 3y ago
    Fertilizer itself isn’t carbon. Are you referring to the fertilizer production line or fertilizer itself
wkat4242 3y ago
It's because replacing jet fuel with batteries is not a technical option right now. Banning jets isn't an option either so we'll have to use more fringey solutions.
- tonyedgecombe 3y ago
  >so we'll have to use more fringey solutions. Except this isn't really a solution.

qgin 3y ago

Supposedly SAF results in 80% CO2 emissions vs regular jet fuel. https://www.iata.org/en/programs/environment/sustainable-aviation-fuels/ https://www.iata.org/en/programs/environment/sustainable-avi...

userinanother 3y ago
Even if it’s true that a gallon of saf is less co2 than a gallon of gas the total lifecycle co2 emissions has to be higher due to all the conversions taking place. Any gains are likely due to incomplete accounting of co2 sources

sillywalk 3y ago

I think sustainable is one of those meaningless terms. Like "carbon neutral".

userinanother 3y ago
True but All the terms to describe the phenomenon are meaningless. It’s like we have been robbed of words to even describe the problems and they have all been replaced with buzzwords

jackweirdy 3y ago

The CO2 in plants is 100% from the air, and then goes back into the air when burned

userinanother 3y ago
Too simple of a model. If you used non industrial agriculture it would be mostly correct but industrial agriculture and fertilizer use consumes vast amounts of petroleum products so that’s where the issue lies
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jackweirdy 3y ago
  What % of the carbon of the plant is fertilizer production?
hypertele-Xii 3y ago
One word: Fertilizer.
- jackweirdy 3y ago
  Fertilizer itself isn’t carbon. Are you referring to the fertilizer production line or fertilizer itself

wkat4242 3y ago

It's because replacing jet fuel with batteries is not a technical option right now. Banning jets isn't an option either so we'll have to use more fringey solutions.

tonyedgecombe 3y ago
>so we'll have to use more fringey solutions. Except this isn't really a solution.