4 ms·

Numbers I found are that global SAF production in 2023 was 6e8 liters, which corresponds to about 4000 transatlantic flights. So not a huge amount but also not

Numbers I found are that global SAF production in 2023 was 6e8 liters, which corresponds to about 4000 transatlantic flights. So not a huge amount but also not nothing. Edit: ah I missed the "electricity alone" part. That I don't know.

anovikov 2y ago
Yeah because that's what those guys are advocating for. I know it is technically possible and appears economically approachable. But i'm afraid of it becoming a thing like cellulosic ethanol 15 years ago: no one doubts the possibility and yet no one seems to be able to do it in practice, on scale.
pfdietz 2y ago
It's not clear SAF needs to be made from electricity alone. The carbon has to come from somewhere, and waste biomass would seem to be a reasonable place (deliberately grown biomass, probably not). There's more than enough waste biomass to provide for the carbon for current aviation fuel consumption. One could add energy from electricity to boost the yield per unit of biomass, for example ensuring that all the carbon in it ends up in SAF, with none wasted to CO2 instead.
- anovikov 2y ago
  It can be done through carbon capture, using electricity alone. Question is how to do it in a way that makes money.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    Direct air capture is quite expensive, and also adds the question: if you can capture CO2 from air, why not just continue to use petroleum-based jet fuel and capture and sequester the CO2?
    - anovikov 2y ago
      Objvious difference: no one who's calling the shots, is really worried about climate change or CO2. It's about switching away from non-renewable fuels to enable future economic growth. But because for leftists, "economic growth" sounds like "making the rich even richer" and switching away from non-renewable fuels threatens their sources of inspiration - Putin's Russia and Arab petrostates - they found a way to phrase the same in a manner the leftists will like "hey the Earth is burning, we need to do something about it!".
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        That was remarkably non-responsive to my question.
        anovikov 2y ago
        That's the response: doing as you suggest mitigates global warming, but does nothing to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, which is the actual half-hidden goal of all serious efforts to mitigate global warming. This is also why CCS went nowhere.

anovikov 2y ago

Yeah because that's what those guys are advocating for. I know it is technically possible and appears economically approachable. But i'm afraid of it becoming a thing like cellulosic ethanol 15 years ago: no one doubts the possibility and yet no one seems to be able to do it in practice, on scale.

pfdietz 2y ago

It's not clear SAF needs to be made from electricity alone. The carbon has to come from somewhere, and waste biomass would seem to be a reasonable place (deliberately grown biomass, probably not). There's more than enough waste biomass to provide for the carbon for current aviation fuel consumption. One could add energy from electricity to boost the yield per unit of biomass, for example ensuring that all the carbon in it ends up in SAF, with none wasted to CO2 instead.

anovikov 2y ago
It can be done through carbon capture, using electricity alone. Question is how to do it in a way that makes money.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Direct air capture is quite expensive, and also adds the question: if you can capture CO2 from air, why not just continue to use petroleum-based jet fuel and capture and sequester the CO2?
  - anovikov 2y ago
    Objvious difference: no one who's calling the shots, is really worried about climate change or CO2. It's about switching away from non-renewable fuels to enable future economic growth. But because for leftists, "economic growth" sounds like "making the rich even richer" and switching away from non-renewable fuels threatens their sources of inspiration - Putin's Russia and Arab petrostates - they found a way to phrase the same in a manner the leftists will like "hey the Earth is burning, we need to do something about it!".
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      That was remarkably non-responsive to my question.
      - anovikov 2y ago
        That's the response: doing as you suggest mitigates global warming, but does nothing to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, which is the actual half-hidden goal of all serious efforts to mitigate global warming. This is also why CCS went nowhere.