this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2025
14 points (93.8% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5808 readers
844 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The basic problem is that "sustainable" aviation fuels, if based on biofuels, would substantially compete with food production. This limits their scale pretty significantly, so they can't easily scale up to the levels that the airline industry wants, which means that the cost will remain quite high.

The top-level post uses a gift link which may have a view count limit. If it runs out, there is an archived copy of the article

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

I'll preface this by saying that SAF by itself isn't a silver bullet that solves all problems with carbon use in aviation. It can, however, be an important piece of a larger solution. Additionally, even in isolation without a larger plan it has a net benefit on carbon reduction which is a win in the battle against climate change.

The basic problem is that “sustainable” aviation fuels, if based on biofuels, would substantially compete with food production.

Certainly possibly, but not absolutely.

Virgin feedstocks (the stuff needed to feed in to make SAF) would support your position because the plants grown specifically for harvest to be turned into SAF would displace food crops, or possibly support destruction of other non-agricultrual land to grow net more crops. I agree with you that both of these situations would be a net negative to SAF.

However, virgin feedstocks aren't the only nor even most desired feedstocks for SAF. There are many ways to produce the fuels that fall into the definition of SAF. Things that we would otherwise consider waste streams can be SAF feedstocks such as the following:

source

There are other pathyways being explored too such as the waste water runoff from dairy farms and beer breweries:

"To that end, the Argonne Lab scientists look to using carbon-rich wastewater from dairy farms (and breweries, for other reasons) as feedstock for SAF production. The study author at Argonne, Taemin Kim, said that the energy savings come in two ways. “Both [dairy farms' and breweries'] wastewater streams are rich in organics, and it is carbon-intensive to treat them using traditional wastewater treatment methods. By using our technology, we are not only treating these waste streams, but [also] making low-carbon sustainable fuel for the aviation industry.”"

Source

Unless we as a global society choose to simply eliminate air travel for people and cargo, we have to accept that a better approach to energy used for air travel is needed to meet reality. SAF is an important part of that in my mind.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Are there really people who believe in "sustainable airplane fuel"?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, I'm one.

Like most things, not one thing will fix a problem. SAF is one piece that measurable makes our situation better. The fact you can possibly fly on a plane today partially with SAF is an amazing achievement and the result of lots of hard work by lots of people trying to make a positive difference.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Food. Food oils in particular.

It's a real thing in the sense that you can produce it sustainably in small quantities, kind of like how California is turning 40% of US soybean oil into diesel fuel, thereby displacing ~40% of the state's fossil diesel usage.

If we got rid of ethanol as a motor fuel in the US by electrifying passenger cars, we might be able to support 20% or so of current aviation using it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

My concern with that is that it creates a choice between:

  • feeding airplanes (or cars)
  • feeding humans

It's not as obvious with international markets for agriculture inputs and overproduction, but it's happening right now if you understand how inputs and land work. It's the same with meat and dairy. This is going to become more obvious if climate chaos (or other problems) create unstable conditions for agriculture, leading to lower yields and the end of decades of overproduction.

Here's a documentary like podcast on these topics if you want to get a solid intro to the problems. /u/photon_[email protected]

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Food. Food oils in particular.

While certainly possible technologically, for the main efforts in North America you are incorrect on the use of food (meaning something humans can eat) for SAF.

The largest producer of SAF in the USA is in California (and partially fuels LAX airport, BTW). This operation is using waste from other processes and not food that would otherwise be eaten.

source

[–] [email protected] 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, they make a big PR thing about the fact that waste oils are incorporated into the final product. But at the end of the day, those are in quite limited supply. Any meaningful increase in the use of food-type oils for fuel results in their being removed from the food supply. There's a fairly extensive government report documenting this from last year

[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

First, that is a great link. I don't follow biodiesel efforts very closely and always appreciate the data from a real world execution perspective.

That said, while the article contains a number of criticisms you're pointing out, the article is mostly focused on biodiesel and not necessarily SAF, and even less applicability to California where the majority of North American SAF is produced. The article even called this out with the distinction that biofuels (SAF in this case) from virgin feedstocks doesn't qualify for the Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) laws in California that make SAF economically viable. Meaning there is far lower incentive to try to produce SAF from virgin feedstocks, which I believe is your primary criticism of SAF.

"Additionally, the Producer’s Tax Credit, coupled with the California LCFS, will heighten the demand for lower carbon-intensity feedstocks like tallow, UCO, and corn oil. Under the LCFS, west-coast market demand is stronger for feedstocks that provide greater carbon-emission reductions than virgin vegetable oils like canola and soybean oil. These policies will continue to pull available global feedstocks into the California renewable diesel market, and boost U.S. import demand for feedstocks that make lower carbon-intensity biofuels that generate additional credits in the California market."

from your provided source

The other point your article highlighted was the bottleneck to using less virgin sources was the need to increase the non-virgin sources of feedstocks. As in, the market is demanding more biofuel from non-virgin feedstock than can supplied. This is important as it goes back to the work identifying and introducing further non-virgin feedstocks that I linked in my other post on this topic here.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

It doesn't really matter whether you're producing biodiesel or SAF; it's a slightly different length of carbon chain coming out of the refinery. The same problem of competing with food is there because that's where you're sourcing carbon and hydrogen from.

There really aren't other huge non-virgin feedstocks to bring in at this point; what's left is largely doing things like intentionally contaminating palm oil to make it look like a waste product.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

It doesn’t really matter whether you’re producing biodiesel or SAF; it’s a slightly different length of carbon chain coming out of the refinery.

The difference isn't the slight variation in chemical structure of the molecule between the two products, its the drastic difference in the applicable use case of the resulting product, and the economic incentives to produce one vs the other. These are what make the SAF and biodiesel gigantically different product with hugely different economic, climate and geopolitical implications.

No amount of B5, B20 or B100 grades of biodiesel are going to enable carbon neutral air travel where SAF can. However, alternate fuels or methods of ground transportation can offset or replace diesel or biodiesel. With today's technology only a number of small electric prop planes (certainly no commercial jets) can operate with anything close to carbon neutrality without SAF. Commercial aviation is a reality in our world and we can choose to find carbon neutral alternatives or embrace its carbon rich nature and try to make drastic carbon cuts elsewhere. I believe the latter is much less likely than the former. Alternatively we can simply turn a blind eye to our climate and reap the consequences. I'm not ready to throw in the towel and embrace that yet.

The same problem of competing with food is there because that’s where you’re sourcing carbon and hydrogen from.

Even if a portion of input feedstocks that go into producing SAF today are food or competing with food, how are you holding the position that municipal waste, used cooking oil, and agricultural waste are sources of food? I've posted sources that show the alternates available and possibly upcoming that would enable more non-virgin SAF. Are you holding the position that humanity will simply never achieve anything except fossil based fuel for aviation or something else I haven't understood of your position yet?

Further yet, what is the connection you're making a food supply with regard to hydrogen? Are you referring to fertilizer?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, they're different products, but their chemical similarity means they have the same constraints on sustainable production. There is a single limit on how much of the two can be produced in total without causing significant environmental damage.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 15 hours ago

At the extremes one is, as far as our technology allows, irreplaceable as a carbon neutral fuel. That being SAF. The other other viable alternatives even today. Why are you presenting a scenario where both would be needed to be created in equal measures?

So what if they can both come from the same feedstocks? There will be a day we likely don't need diesel in any capacity. We'll need SAF long before that. Why would we divert the valuable carbon neutral feedstocks to something like biodiesel if our goal is carbon neutrality for both?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That is a very important question. SAF is a name for a bunch of different fuels produced from sustainable sources. I posted a larger reply to the main article that details some of the input feedstocks which answers your question here.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago

And I posted a different comment here: https://slrpnk.net/post/18679785/13966072

You're not getting the fact that those feedstocks have their own feedstocks.

Using waste is also misleading, the goal needs to be to reduce waste, not make the waste a co-product. Cooking oil waste isn't something that's going to be some reliable feedstock either. In the context of economic "drama", you can expect restaurants to close down much more or to reuse that oil a lot more times. Even too much: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutter_oil The biodiesel processors won't be able to rely on that source, there's going to be a growing need for the virgin feedstocks.

Your position is essentially the same one as the meat and dairy industries, who are the competitor for that ~~feedstock~~ feed. That includes 'waste'.