Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can we talk honestly about aviation biofuel?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Not_Karl View Post
    And even less for people daily driving in 4WD mode.
    We should install placards…or use a direct mechanical shift, and a flashing yellow light on the annunciator panel- 4WD engaged!

    And more training, oversight, regulation and public operator punishment…

    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      I read a potentially biased factoid: Fossil fuels contain 5000% more energy per pound than our current batteries…

      Maybe so, but I’m guessing that’s discussion worthy…combustion engines are about 30% efficient, so maybe the 5000% might be less when you talk useful energy…shoulder shrug.
      Incorrect. 1kg of matter contains 100,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy, no matter what matter.

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        You are starting to sound a lot like TeeVee now. I don't mean to leave it at that but I don't have time right now for the lengthy discussion.
        WTF?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by TeeVee View Post

          WTF?
          I don't remember WTF. That was back in July. Probably we (you and me) were having some other discussion / disagreement in some other thread which I found similar to the discussion with Evan. But I don't remember.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #20
            Maybe it was that discussion abut agrochemicals and the "natural" fallacy and "science". But I barely remember that discussion so I am not sure.

            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

            Comment


            • #21
              sorry, i dont believe i've ever argued like evan does/is. basically his current argument is to get rid of all forms of air travel. people like him that promote electric vehicles claiming that they are more eco-friendly are all full of crap. the pollution involved in building a tesla--data that tesla refuses to disclose timely and accurately. wonder why? wonder why tesla doesnt disclose that using conservative estimates, you have to drive a tesla roughly 20,000 miles just to get even with a non-electric vehicle, as far as tons of Co2 emitted are concerned. wonder why no one wants to talk about what happens to all the 10's of 1000's of batteries when they are dead?

              yeah evan, why bother improving things incrementally. we should do nothing until the "perfect" technology comes along, in say 500 years.

              remember the doomsayers several decades ago when acid rain was the death-of-us-all de jur?

              Comment


              • #22
                First of all, electric cars have a total-product-life-cycle carbon footprint that is WAY lower than ICE cars (like measured in folds improvements rather than in %). We don't need Tesla to tell us, there are several independent studies that show that. And a lot of companies making Li batteries, EVs, or both. But I acknowledge that carbon footprint is not all. What to do with batteries after their end of life is a concern, I agree, but one thing dead batteries don't do is release CO2. There are also concerns on the environmental impact of extracting the minerals for batteries, but then we also have the environmental impact of the fossil fuel industry (I am talking other than carbon footprint). And also the extraction of minerals for batteries is in some cases associated with human exploitation in a way that the oil industry seems not to be.

                That say, it is the chicken or the egg. The end result in a few decades (probably more decades that I have left to live) will be, I think, a world powered almost 100% by sustainable electricity (renewables but not just wind and solar, nuclear perhaps including fusion some day, and I don't know what else we may come up with). I mean all ground transportation will be electrical (except maybe some specialized niches like AG, nod to 3we), and fuel sources for ICEs for these niche applications as well as air and sea transportation will be either bio or synthetic. Your stove, oven, water heater and ambient heater will be electrical (there will be a huge problem during the transition period as all new houses are equipped this way and most old houses still rely on gas, with little incentive for the gas companies to keep investing in a shrinking market). Industrial furnaces will be all electrical too.

                On the other hand, if we magically made this transition tomorrow from the demand side, we would be screwed up because we would not have enough electricity, let alone sustainable electricity, and let alone consistently available renewable energy that doesn't rely on a sunny day or windy night. And if we had the generation capacity, then we still lack the transportation and distribution capacity. The problem is... supply and demand depend on each other. We need one to have the other, and the only way is to have both grow together.

                Sure, we have lots of things to improve on solar cells and in other pretty overlooked sources (tidal, marine waves, marine currents, geothermal is I think one of the most promising ones). Wind is the one I think we are already approaching the diminishing returns side of the curve in termos of technological advancements. But this learning is better done in parallel while we implement electrification both in the supply and demand sides.

                As you said, we can't wait until we have the ultimate solution to implement any solution. And I think that current electric cars are already great and they will become more sustainable (the current ones, not even talking about the future ones) as electricity generation keeps increasing its sustainable content. And more electric cars mean more incentive to increase the sustainable electricity capacity and also means more competition that will hopefully make the cars better and less expensive, and more advancements and volume of sustainable electricity will be an incentive to accelerate the home and industry sides of the electrification too, and so on.

                The problem is, I think, economical. Since these are very long term efforts that will exceed, by a lot, any office term even with reelection, governments of the developed world don't seem to be very committed to it (except with their mouths), and underdeveloped countries cannot do it (the are already paying the price of the contamination done by the developed countries).

                Oil is cheap, and still available in abundance. If it wasn't for the climate issue, it would make no business sense to shift now. So the incentives for the private sector are not there either.

                Given all that, I am pessimistic that we (as a society) are going to be rational with the transition. Rather we will drag our leg until we have no choice, and the next 2 or 3 generations will pay a huge human cost for the laziness, greed and short-sighted vision of our generation (and the next). We prefer to have a more comfortable live today at the expense of creating a humanitarian crisis for our grand children.

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #23
                  TeeVee, what these 2 when you have time

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pujOh4YaP7s

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi7U6Cj_2aI

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                    .

                    yeah evan, why bother improving things incrementally. we should do nothing until the "perfect" technology comes along, in say 500 years.
                    You debate like a politician. Package the opposing view in some reductionist capsule of distorted hyperbole and then scoff at the absurdity of that misinterpretation.

                    In this thread, I am not opposing electric or even biofuels, I am opposing greenwashing.

                    Why?

                    Because the core problem to overcome in saving the environment is consumption.

                    When you greenwash, you tell people that it is ok to continue or even escalate a high rate of consumption. You tell people it is ok to commute in dual-motor 400hp car instead of taking public transportation. You tell them it is ok to get around on an e-scooter rather than a bicycle or their own two feet. It won’t be possible to use energy without harming the environment for a very long time to come, perhaps until fusion is mainstream. Until then, even if your electric car is running on 100% solar, it is taxing that resource, causing fossil fuel generation elsewhere.

                    Aviation biofuel depends on an industry that contributes significantly to carbon imbalance through deforestation. It might be a net-neutral when combined with a reduction in consumption but it’s not a solution if it leads to greater consumption. Then it is not ‘climate neutral’.

                    The airlines—like almost all industries in our destructive age—are structured on growth, constant growth, for profit increases. The ‘climate neutral’ spiel is pure marketing sophistry intended to thwart consumers from curtailing their consumption out of concern for the future of the planet, and rather to consume freely with a clear conscience.

                    We call this greenwashing. It is as much as threat to the environment as fossil fuel.

                    The only way to save the environment is to consume less. Use less manufactured energy. Use more human energy. Fly less. Walk more.

                    The bans on short-haul flights in Europe are encouraging. But Europe has trains. The US needs to step up on electric mass public transportation. Tesla’s are just a cleaner form of greed and destruction.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      First of all, electric cars have a total-product-life-cycle carbon footprint that is WAY lower than ICE cars (like measured in folds improvements rather than in %). We don't need Tesla to tell us, there are several independent studies that show that. And a lot of companies making Li batteries, EVs, or both. But I acknowledge that carbon footprint is not all. What to do with batteries after their end of life is a concern, I agree, but one thing dead batteries don't do is release CO2. There are also concerns on the environmental impact of extracting the minerals for batteries, but then we also have the environmental impact of the fossil fuel industry (I am talking other than carbon footprint). And also the extraction of minerals for batteries is in some cases associated with human exploitation in a way that the oil industry seems not to be.

                      That say, it is the chicken or the egg. The end result in a few decades (probably more decades that I have left to live) will be, I think, a world powered almost 100% by sustainable electricity (renewables but not just wind and solar, nuclear perhaps including fusion some day, and I don't know what else we may come up with). I mean all ground transportation will be electrical (except maybe some specialized niches like AG, nod to 3we), and fuel sources for ICEs for these niche applications as well as air and sea transportation will be either bio or synthetic. Your stove, oven, water heater and ambient heater will be electrical (there will be a huge problem during the transition period as all new houses are equipped this way and most old houses still rely on gas, with little incentive for the gas companies to keep investing in a shrinking market). Industrial furnaces will be all electrical too.

                      On the other hand, if we magically made this transition tomorrow from the demand side, we would be screwed up because we would not have enough electricity, let alone sustainable electricity, and let alone consistently available renewable energy that doesn't rely on a sunny day or windy night. And if we had the generation capacity, then we still lack the transportation and distribution capacity. The problem is... supply and demand depend on each other. We need one to have the other, and the only way is to have both grow together.

                      Sure, we have lots of things to improve on solar cells and in other pretty overlooked sources (tidal, marine waves, marine currents, geothermal is I think one of the most promising ones). Wind is the one I think we are already approaching the diminishing returns side of the curve in termos of technological advancements. But this learning is better done in parallel while we implement electrification both in the supply and demand sides.

                      As you said, we can't wait until we have the ultimate solution to implement any solution. And I think that current electric cars are already great and they will become more sustainable (the current ones, not even talking about the future ones) as electricity generation keeps increasing its sustainable content. And more electric cars mean more incentive to increase the sustainable electricity capacity and also means more competition that will hopefully make the cars better and less expensive, and more advancements and volume of sustainable electricity will be an incentive to accelerate the home and industry sides of the electrification too, and so on.

                      The problem is, I think, economical. Since these are very long term efforts that will exceed, by a lot, any office term even with reelection, governments of the developed world don't seem to be very committed to it (except with their mouths), and underdeveloped countries cannot do it (the are already paying the price of the contamination done by the developed countries).

                      Oil is cheap, and still available in abundance. If it wasn't for the climate issue, it would make no business sense to shift now. So the incentives for the private sector are not there either.

                      Given all that, I am pessimistic that we (as a society) are going to be rational with the transition. Rather we will drag our leg until we have no choice, and the next 2 or 3 generations will pay a huge human cost for the laziness, greed and short-sighted vision of our generation (and the next). We prefer to have a more comfortable live today at the expense of creating a humanitarian crisis for our grand children.
                      i'm not a climate denier nor an oil evangelist. but let's face the facts: we have spent trillions of dollars on "renewables" and are barely producing a tiny fraction of what we need. yet, we keep on lauding renewables as the answer. waste of money, waste of resources, waste of time. meanwhile, the manufacturers of renewables are getting richer.

                      evan's half-cocked argument against alternative fuels for aviation is the same BS the pro-renewable party has been singing for years. "we must change NOW! nothing but 100% renewables is acceptable!" look at CA: they are asking people NOT to charge their ev's cuz they dont have enough electricity! they have the most expensive gas in the country because they have adopted anti-gas policies and on top of that, they tax the shit out of it. simply brilliant!

                      there is a reason tesla wont release the true data on the cars and it's not because they are so green. musk may be an asshole but he's not an idiot either. he has sold the world on his product and is hiding the full truth.

                      as to your last point, power generation to meet the increasing need for electricity is NOT going to come from renewables. its gonna come from natural gas or worse. the western US is looking at the catastrophic loss of enormous power generation due to the water crisis. no way in hell wind turbines and solar farms are gonna meet that need. and the ignorance of the masses related to nuclear will prevent the construction of any new nuke plants. that and the ridiculous cost and time to build them.

                      all of this will be solved one day. but rejecting interim technology as evan wants to, is certainly not the right path.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post

                        You debate like a politician. Package the opposing view in some reductionist capsule of distorted hyperbole and then scoff at the absurdity of that misinterpretation.

                        In this thread, I am not opposing electric or even biofuels, I am opposing greenwashing.

                        Why?

                        Because the core problem to overcome in saving the environment is consumption.

                        When you greenwash, you tell people that it is ok to continue or even escalate a high rate of consumption. You tell people it is ok to commute in dual-motor 400hp car instead of taking public transportation. You tell them it is ok to get around on an e-scooter rather than a bicycle or their own two feet. It won’t be possible to use energy without harming the environment for a very long time to come, perhaps until fusion is mainstream. Until then, even if your electric car is running on 100% solar, it is taxing that resource, causing fossil fuel generation elsewhere.

                        Aviation biofuel depends on an industry that contributes significantly to carbon imbalance through deforestation. It might be a net-neutral when combined with a reduction in consumption but it’s not a solution if it leads to greater consumption. Then it is not ‘climate neutral’.

                        The airlines—like almost all industries in our destructive age—are structured on growth, constant growth, for profit increases. The ‘climate neutral’ spiel is pure marketing sophistry intended to thwart consumers from curtailing their consumption out of concern for the future of the planet, and rather to consume freely with a clear conscience.

                        We call this greenwashing. It is as much as threat to the environment as fossil fuel.

                        The only way to save the environment is to consume less. Use less manufactured energy. Use more human energy. Fly less. Walk more.

                        The bans on short-haul flights in Europe are encouraging. But Europe has trains. The US needs to step up on electric mass public transportation. Tesla’s are just a cleaner form of greed and destruction.
                        ah, population control. good idea. prohibit people from traveling. better idea. go back to paleolithic times. BEST idea.

                        europeans are idiots by and large. it is near impossible to live and earn a living or own a business because they have hyper-regulated EVERYTHING. they, like you, feel the need (and act on it) to solve everything immediately and drastically. if you want to live that way, america's doors swing both ways. head on over and enjoy it. just dont preach to the rest of the world and try to control every aspect of life.

                        your interpretation of greenwashing is laughable. every single step toward less emissions is good and important. not perfect. not the ultimate. not the best. but good.

                        funny that a prolific poster on an aviation forum is advocating the end of aviation...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                          europeans are idiots by and large. it is near impossible to live and earn a living or own a business because they have hyper-regulated EVERYTHING.
                          I see. So that explains why the German economy is still dominated by thriving small and mid-sized businesses while the US economy is dominated by corporate conglomerations.

                          I can't argue across realities TeeVee.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by TeeVee View Post

                            i'm not a climate denier nor an oil evangelist. but let's face the facts: we have spent trillions of dollars on "renewables" and are barely producing a tiny fraction of what we need. yet, we keep on lauding renewables as the answer. waste of money, waste of resources, waste of time. meanwhile, the manufacturers of renewables are getting richer.
                            So your alternative proposal is?

                            every single step toward less emissions is good and important. not perfect. not the ultimate. not the best. but good.
                            Do you understand that when you are driving towards a cliff slowing down not enough as to be able to stop before the fall is, well, not enough?
                            Not to mention that we are not even slowing down. We are still emitting more CO2 each year than the year before (with the exception of 2020 with COVID, but 2021 recovered the 2019 levels and 2022 is projected to end exceeding 2019 by 1% despite the huge spike in price.

                            It seems that you didn't have time yet to watch the first video I linked.
                            Evan is right that greenwashing is counterproductive. Other than the video above I can give you a link to another one on carbon offset if you want.

                            That doesn't meant that I agree with Evan of fossil fuel for airplanes, or that the only solution is to consume less, or that we need to ditch the car and walk.
                            But at some level we WILL need regulation to get us out of here. Because decarbonization is a very bad business. As it happened with TEL, CFCs, asbestos, and to some extent cigarettes. And, in a similar way, the same as with work safety, industrial effluents, and exhaust catalyzers.
                            Free market (without incentives and penalties) is not going to save us because free market doesn't care about what is going to happen when we are not here anymore, it is all about dying rich.

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post

                              1. ***it is ok to commute in dual-motor 400hp car instead of taking public transportation.***

                              2. ***Aviation***

                              3. ***The US needs to step up on electric mass public transportation.***
                              Is there some interesting logic in comparing and contrasting 1 and 2?

                              A rubber wheel on hard pavement (or steel wheel on rail) provides almost endless lift for an extremely low energy penalty (vs the constant need to shove a LOT of air down to keep the A380 afloat.) And drag ~V^2.

                              You want a green world?, ban all airplanes. And while a 787 is a thing of beauty and beats the holy hell out of a 727 in butt-miles per gallon, an ocean liner is orders of magnitude more efficient.

                              Why are you trashing folks who want two 400 HP engines when chief executives ride the G-5 with two thousand HP engines?

                              As to #3. We have a great train ride from East Flyover USA to West Flyover USA. Pretty scenic and only 5 hours versus a 4 hour drive on a busy highway.

                              But some things to think about:

                              1) It's diesel powered, not electric.
                              2) It's often delayed by coal trains sharing the tracks.
                              3) It depends heavily on state subsidies (in fact, this particular train lives in constant peril of being cancelled.)
                              4) You'll spend a lot of $ on Uber after you arrive 5) Yeah, the cities need to spend a few billion on light rail networks- you can get around to a lot of places nicely in DC.
                              6. I've read a few too many articles on electric cars- they sound great for your daily job commute. But to travel in Flyover America (and to plow fields or spray glyphosate on them) results in extremely long recharge times for relatively short spurts of travel.
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                                Why are you trashing folks who want two 400 HP engines when chief executives ride the G-5 with two thousand HP engines?
                                [sigh]

                                One last attempt to be perfectly clear on this very simple message:

                                I am talking about greenwashing, not trashing aviation or people who want electric cars. 'Greenwashing' is when you falsely portray the energy source as clean and then intentionally leave out the part about energy conservation.

                                The hype I see in promotions from airlines about being 'carbon-zero by whenever' because they are transitioning to biofuels is:

                                a) disingenuous, to put it mildly,
                                b) intended to thwart efforts to curtail consumption, which is the real problem,
                                c) therefore is environmentally disastrous. As Gabriel saliently points out, slowing down as you approach a cliff isn't much good if you still go over that cliff. So this is disastrous.

                                The title of this thread asks if we can be honest about biofuels. That means telling the flying public that biofuels, not sourced from industries that contribute to deforestation (so no palm oil by products), combined with curtailed consumption, is the only means to carbon-zero aviation by whenever. Can the airlines say that? If not, they shouldn't be allowed to use the words 'carbon zero'.

                                And the despicable bastards in the private jets can all burn in hell. But that be should be abundantly clear to anyone at this point. Nobody should be allowed that kind of carbon footprint.

                                I don't want to ban airplanes. I like flying in them. I just like the Earth and its exotically rare, razor thin atmosphere a whole lot more. So I'm flying less. Taking the (electric) trains more. Biking and walking most of all. If we all did that, aviation could be sustainable.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X