FAA to spend $300 million on netzero projects
09-27-2023 | 07:03 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 4,208
Likes: 7
FAA to spend $300 million on netzero projects
09-28-2023 | 06:27 AM
#3
On Reserve
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 164
Likes: 8
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.
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.
09-29-2023 | 12:03 AM
#4
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,167
Likes: 803
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
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
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 4,208
Likes: 7
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: Jan 2018
Posts: 14,261
Likes: 259
$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: Jan 2018
Posts: 14,261
Likes: 259
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
