FAA to spend $300 million on netzero projects
FAA to spend $300 million on netzero projects
09-28-2023, 06:27 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 147
I have yet to see anyone propose a realistic path on SAF ever becoming economically viable.
Everything I've seen ultimately relies on some level of "and then the magic happens, and SAF takes over." Whether it's some magical way around the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, or some meteoric rise in oil prices to the stratosphere that all of a sudden makes SAF viable.
Much like eVTOL and other similar things, it all just seems like another climate-change grift.
Perhaps. And maybe it doesn't even matter anymore, considering the millions and billions we're printing, and throwing into various rat holes (Ukraine, etc). But for the average Joe or Jane who's watched the prices of food, gas, housing, and everything else climb out of sight; they might take offense to $300M being thrown at a bunch of make-work nonsense.
Everything I've seen ultimately relies on some level of "and then the magic happens, and SAF takes over." Whether it's some magical way around the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, or some meteoric rise in oil prices to the stratosphere that all of a sudden makes SAF viable.
Much like eVTOL and other similar things, it all just seems like another climate-change grift.
Originally Posted by rickair7777
If it makes you feel better $300M is a drop in the bucket in that context.
09-29-2023, 12:03 AM
#4
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,292
Originally Posted by fasteddie800
I have yet to see anyone propose a realistic path on SAF ever becoming economically viable.
Silver lining, some of has better specific energy than even Jet A, so that helps a bit.
Ultimately it might be more viable for airlines to simply pay for carbon capture to offset their emissions.
09-29-2023, 04:20 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 3,595
Originally Posted by rickair7777
It won't be economically viable by today's standards. But if they ban Jet A, then the industry will have to adapt to a fuel that costs 2-3 times what they're used to.
Silver lining, some of has better specific energy than even Jet A, so that helps a bit.
Ultimately it might be more viable for airlines to simply pay for carbon capture to offset their emissions.
Silver lining, some of has better specific energy than even Jet A, so that helps a bit.
Ultimately it might be more viable for airlines to simply pay for carbon capture to offset their emissions.
09-29-2023, 05:46 AM
#6
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,503
$300 million is quite literally chump change compared to what DOD is spending - while barracks deteriorate and they can’t get recruits.
https://www.defense.gov/spotlights/t...limate-crisis/
https://www.defense.gov/spotlights/t...limate-crisis/
09-29-2023, 05:53 AM
#7
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,503
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Ultimately it might be more viable for airlines to simply pay for carbon capture to offset their emissions.
https://youtu.be/q9yAfQ3CTnc?si=gJyDod_gYw6Q6eoW
While China continues to open coal fired power plants.
https://energyandcleanair.org/public...the-bandwagon/
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
