Climate change and the environment
#TheFutureIsYours Leading the way for a more sustainable future
Investing heavily in sustainable aviation fuels Investir massivement dans les carburants alternatifs durables pour l’aviation
Make Europe the world leader in the production and use of sustainable aviation fuels. The technologies seem to be available, so why waiting until 2030 to set a target of 5% sustainable fuel in aircraft tanks? Airlines need support from their governments and from the European Union to remain competitive with non-European airlines that do not have these targets. These fuels are currently 2 to 5 times more expensive than paraffin. Facilitating and increasing its production will automatically reduce its cost.
SAF allows a reduction in emissions of up to 80%.
Let's not wait!
Faire de l’Europe le leader mondial de la production et de l’utilisation des carburants alternatifs durables pour l’aviation (SAF sustainable aviation fuel). Les technologies semblent être disponibles, pourquoi attendre 2030 pour se fixer l’objectif de 5% de carburant durable dans les réservoirs des avions ? Les compagnies aériennes ont besoin de l’aide de leurs États ainsi que de l’Union européenne afin de rester compétitives face à des compagnies extra-européennes qui n’ont pas ces objectifs. Ces carburants coûtent actuellement 2 à 5 fois plus cher que le kérosène. Faciliter et démultiplier sa production engendra automatiquement une diminution de son coût.
Le SAF permet une réduction des émissions allant jusqu’à 80%.
N’attendons pas !
Related media
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Please log in
You can access with an external account
8 comments
I agree wholeheartedly. I did not see this idea when I added mine, which is along the same lines
Conversation
Si les SAF produisent effectivement moins de gaz à effet de serre, une étude chimique de leurs produits de combustion indiquent d'autres toxicités tout autant marquées. En fait on ne fait que déplacer les problèmes en jouant sur l'ignorance des gens ce qui convient à certains lobbies agricoles
La solution H2 vert est incontestablement plus satisfaisante via des piles à combustibles.
Dr Sc Chim E. Hannecart
Unfortunately, hydrogen (whether green or not - 90% of it is curently produced from methane, with CO2 as byproduct) could only ever power shorthaul aircraft. By 2040, it may be possible to fly from Frankfurt to Lisbon using hydrogen-powered planes, but intercontinental travel will continue to require hydrocarbon fuels for the foreseeable future. The limiting factor for H2 is volumetric energy density - this sadly can't be overcome.
SAFs, otoh, can be produced now. Rather than wait 20 years for H2-powered aircraft, we can reduce the harm caused by current planes. SAFs include eFuels which can be manufactured from H2O & CO2 - so if you're concerned about alcohol-to-jet and similar biofuels, then there are SAFs that avoid those pitfalls.
However, you are right that SAF combustion produces NOx & other byproducts. I would still argue that carbon neutral fuels are a huge step forward, even if they are not perfect solutions - if such a thing as perfect even exists.
Green hydrogen doesn't come from CH4 but from water electrolysis with modern cheap catalysts. There is a lot of PATTERNS litterature on this very hot subject. Why people discussing about the future of modern technologies don't read any patterns on the subject ?
E. Hannecart Prof Dr Sc
Deny short distance travelling by airplane. For shorter trips, there is the train - what we forgot undignified.
I am not sure what does it mean to you sustainable. If that is biofuel, pretty much nonsense as would require huge areas and resources to be produced. If you mean H2, then may be but depends how the H2 is going to be produced. I do not refer from fossil fuels but I refer from which primary material, eg water?! With which process, given hydrolisis is very energy expensive and would risk to make it nonsense? Moroever the primary problem here is: climate what? Did you perhaps know that the climate models (eg CO2 affecting anthropogenic climate warming) have not been validated ??? This should be the first step, anything else is a fraud that allows industrial sectors (in this case airlines) to be compensate for a change management they should themselves pay via R&D
Jet engines (there is quite a range) at high altitudes are very efficient; at least when compared to other powerplants. Similarly, the calorific value of Jet-A (jet fuel) is high. By all means conduct research but in terms of overall efficiency jet engines are effective.
There could be a minimum standard placed on ships. It is all too easly to by "inferior" fuel which pollutes factors more than high quality marine fuel. Marine use contributes about 3.1% of total emissions and aviation about 2.5% of total emissions (annually). These values compare with the lower end of polluting countries and nothing like
the ten or dozen major polluters.
Lastly, jet travel has reduced transaction costs by significant margins and it is in the interests of any country to reduce (commercial) transaction costs. Freight is still a big deal although video conferencing has diminished the need for physical meetings to some extent.
Essayer d'utiliser des carburants moins polluants pour les avions n'est pas une mauvaise idée, mais l'avion en soit n'est pas un mode de transport écologique, notamment parce que le décollage demande beaucoup d'énergie. Il serait donc préférable d'investir dans des moyens de transports moins demandeurs en énergie tels que le train, plutôt que de vouloir rester compétitifs dans des moyens de transports qui resteront malgré tout plus polluants.
Loading comments ...