|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3187029)
Meh. When I switched careers back in the 90's I actually did a very serious analysis of "Peak Oil". There wasn't even the hint of any sort of replacement for petro jet fuel at the time. Today we can fuel the current jets on 100% SAF if necessary. It's more expensive but not unsustainably so, and economy of scale will help with that.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/27/polit...den/index.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5SM1duWDMY Bend over and grab your ankles. It's coming raw, dry, and abrasive. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3187029)
Meh. When I switched careers back in the 90's I actually did a very serious analysis of "Peak Oil". There wasn't even the hint of any sort of replacement for petro jet fuel at the time. Today we can fuel the current jets on 100% SAF if necessary. It's more expensive but not unsustainably so, and economy of scale will help with that.
|
Originally Posted by 9mikemike
(Post 3187585)
MEH, Wrong for sure on SAF. Not viable, not available, not scaleable and not affordable. Of course that can all be fixed like all other green technologies with punitive government measures for traditional energy and 100% percent forced taxpayer support of the “green technology. One more way for the super-elites to become more elite. Sickening
It can become available, and is certainly scalable... not all SAF is a boutique biomass process, you can make it out of air, water, and electricity. That scales infinitely. It will cost more than Jet A, but at current niche production scale it's about 4 times more expensive so based on typical industrial scalability it should ultimately cost less than twice what Jet A costs. That's not great but presumably there will be subsidies and ultimately the industry can adapt to it. We're obviously not switching over all at once. But technically I don't see any alternative, other than catastrophic regulatory caps on dinosaur-powered air travel. SAF is a "drop-in" fuel, that current aircraft designs can use. Alternatives like hydrogen would require total and radical re-designs of the the airplanes $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Unless the green politics can be defeated, but I'm not seeing that either. I've given up whining about it. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3187626)
Unless the green politics can be defeated, but I'm not seeing that either. I've given up whining about it.
|
Originally Posted by 9mikemike
(Post 3187585)
MEH, Wrong for sure on SAF. Not viable, not available, not scaleable and not affordable. Of course that can all be fixed like all other green technologies with punitive government measures for traditional energy and 100% percent forced taxpayer support of the “green technology. One more way for the super-elites to become more elite. Sickening
lol ok nice display of moral outrage Green Energy is good for the economy, it creates well-paying jobs, and the fear-mongering towards it on these boards is hilarious. For all the talk about the threat of China on here, you would think trying to lead the world in innovation in a new sector would be of national security interest. |
Originally Posted by furloughfuntime
(Post 3187949)
Never hear people who are butt hurt over green energy subsidies complain about the billions of dollars in subsidies to the oil and gas lobby over the last several decades. It's okay when the government throws money at the oil barons, but it's a bridge too far when it comes to Green Energy?
lol ok nice display of moral outrage Green Energy is good for the economy, it creates well-paying jobs, and the fear-mongering towards it on these boards is hilarious. For all the talk about the threat of China on here, you would think trying to lead the world in innovation in a new sector would be of national security interest. |
Originally Posted by furloughfuntime
(Post 3187949)
Never hear people who are butt hurt over green energy subsidies complain about the billions of dollars in subsidies to the oil and gas lobby over the last several decades. It's okay when the government throws money at the oil barons, but it's a bridge too far when it comes to Green Energy?
Originally Posted by furloughfuntime
(Post 3187949)
Green Energy is good for the economy, it creates well-paying jobs, and the fear-mongering towards it on these boards is hilarious. For all the talk about the threat of China on here, you would think trying to lead the world in innovation in a new sector would be of national security interest.
The problem is that taking a slash-and-burn approach to ESTABLISHED economic sectors (such as petroleum and airlines) is actually quite bad for the economy, and a few jobs in the windmill industry aren't going to make up for that. For example what's the typical pilot going to do in green energy, drive a truck? For 20% of his pilot wages? If GOVERNMENT is going to meddle catastrophically in major economic sectors then GOVERNMENT needs to develop the plan for job transitions. If they just regulate your job and lifestyle out of existence, and say "let them eat cake", they'll get the predictable results, complete backlash against policy and motives, and that extends even to legit underlying science (if any). Frankly any government plan to drive a major shift out of petroleum is going to require putting a lot of people on a very generous dole for life. Politically there's no other way. 51% of the population can't just vote away the lives, dreams, and financial future of the deplorable 25-30%... that's how you get insurrections (real ones, not dumbass rioters). Basically they have to build the new system, and then invite the people in the old system to come on over. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3187987)
Most people have no idea. Politicians brag openly and hold press conferences when they grant "cool" subsidies. But they don't do that for most other things.
Sure it's good for the economy. The problem is that taking a slash-and-burn approach to ESTABLISHED economic sectors (such as petroleum and airlines) is actually quite bad for the economy, and a few jobs in the windmill industry aren't going to make up for that. For example what's the typical pilot going to do in green energy, drive a truck? For 20% of his pilot wages? If GOVERNMENT is going to meddle catastrophically in major economic sectors then GOVERNMENT needs to develop the plan for job transitions. If they just regulate your job and lifestyle out of existence, and say "let them eat cake", they'll get the predictable results, complete backlash against policy and motives, and that extends even to legit underlying science (if any). Frankly any government plan to drive a major shift out of petroleum is going to require putting a lot of people on a very generous dole for life. Politically there's no other way. 51% of the population can't just vote away the lives, dreams, and financial future of the deplorable 25-30%... that's how you get insurrections (real ones, not dumbass rioters). Basically they have to build the new system, and then invite the people in the old system to come on over. As far as the threat to pilot's jobs, that's just more fear-mongering. Nothing Biden has suggested could lead a reasonable person to believe that. Creative destruction is part of technological change and innovation, and it's necessary. If you want them to "build the new system" so people can transition, that's exactly what these subsidies are for. Help a burgeoning industry gain its footing while we move to a more sustainable model. |
Originally Posted by furloughfuntime
(Post 3187995)
Did you read the article? Biden halted new leases on federal lands and announced his intention to buy electric vehicles. How is that a "slash and burn approach" or "meddling in major economic sectors"? I am trying to understand. The very fact that oil companies are allowed to lease federal lands shows that the federal government is not trying to destroy the industry. Would it also be meddling if the government bought cars with internal combustion engines? I don't see how this is slash and burn, but I guess we may have different definitions.
I don't care if the government opts not to buy IC cars, that's their prerogative, and part of market forces. The problem is when they tell the rest of is that we can't. BTW, if you don't have a technical background, airliner engines are all IC, and there's no remotely practical alternative to that for 90-99% of airline ops... you might just be able to run very small, short range regional prop planes on batteries. But anything with much more than 20 seats is going to be economically infeasible.
Originally Posted by furloughfuntime
(Post 3187995)
As far as the threat to pilot's jobs, that's just more fear-mongering. Nothing Biden has suggested could lead a reasonable person to believe that.
Originally Posted by furloughfuntime
(Post 3187995)
Creative destruction is part of technological change and innovation, and it's necessary. If you want them to "build the new system" so people can transition, that's exactly what these subsidies are for. Help a burgeoning industry gain its footing while we move to a more sustainable model.
What makes people insanely angry is when their jobs, careers, lifestyles and futures are specifically targeted by the government for liquidation. POTUS is not the only politician in DC, I'm talking about the AOC/squad wing. If government's going to go there, they need to make it smooth and relatively painless, and that's not going to be cheap. |
the entire aviation industry will not exist in ten years all in the honor of the carbon footprint. cheers.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:47 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands