Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Transportation

California Inks Sustainable Aviation Fuel Deal With Major Airlines 65

Posted by BeauHD from the major-step-forward dept.
California signed an agreement with major airlines to increase the use of sustainable aviation fuels, aiming to reach 200 million gallons by 2035 or about 40% of the state's air travel demand. The Hill reports: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Airlines for America (A4A) -- an industry trade group representing almost a dozen airlines -- pledged to increase the availability of sustainable aviation fuels statewide. Sustainable aviation fuels -- lower-carbon alternatives to petroleum-based jet fuels -- are typically made from nonpetroleum feedstocks, such as biomass or waste. At a San Francisco International Airport ceremony Wednesday, the partners committed (PDF) to using 200 million gallons of such fuels by 2035 -- an amount estimated to meet about 40 percent of travel demand within the state at that point, according to CARB. That quantity also represents a more than tenfold increase from current usage levels of these fuels, the agency added.

Among A4A member airlines are Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Atlas Air Worldwide, Delta Air Lines, FedEx, Hawaiian Airlines, JetBlue Airways, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines and UPS, while Air Canada is an associate member. To achieve the 2035 goals, CARB and A4A said they plan to work together to identify, assess and prioritize necessary policy measures, such as incentivizing relevant investments and streamlining the permitting processes. A Sustainable Aviation Fuel Working Group, which will include government and industry stakeholders, will meet annually to both discuss progress and address barriers toward meeting these goals, the partners added. A public website will display updated information about the availability and use of conventional and sustainable fuels across California, while also providing details about state policies, according to the agreement.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Inks Sustainable Aviation Fuel Deal With Major Airlines More

California Inks Sustainable Aviation Fuel Deal With Major Airlines

Comments Filter:

  • Agreement to form a committee (Score:5, Informative)

    by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Friday November 01, 2024 @08:27PM (#64913847)

    This is an agreement to form a committee to discuss the issue.

    That's all.

    • This is an agreement to form a committee to discuss the issue.

      That's all.

      But in the gub'mint world that is politician's proof that they are actually doing something. Just don't look too close at WHAT they are doing.

      • I am confused about this. Why would the airlines need a government agreement to use less-polluting fuels? Do they increase wear and tear on engines?

        • Why would the airlines need a government agreement to use less-polluting fuels? Do they increase wear and tear on engines?

          Biofuels are more expensive.

          So, if a single airline uses biofuels, it is at a competitive disadvantage.

          But if the government has them all agree, then no airline has an unfair advantage.

          • At what point do these just get regulated to the "Environment clean up will raise costs for everyone" headlines stack?

            These are always painted into 3 sections

            - Lots of facts, quotes, maybe-facts all explaining in rosy terms how great the proposed or advocated for change will be
            - One or two questions about the change; and maybe a doubt or two
            - A tiny mention, if any, of increased government spending, increased inflation of costs to consumers, etc.

            I'm neither for or against the proposed change.

            I just want fac

    • Yes, a committee to discuss a well-worn biofuels path that has already turned out to be worse than just burning traditional biofuels: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a... [nih.gov] & https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a... [nih.gov]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Biofuels aren't the only sustainable option.

        Ireland is home to quite a few airlines (for tax reasons), and is looking at becoming a hydrogen fuel powerhouse. They have a vast amount of wind energy available, and hydrogen production can ramp up and down to match supply. The basic plan is for the whole country to be mostly powered by onshore wind, and most of the offshore wind to be hydrogen production.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
          Hydrogen has been touted as an aviation fuel since at least the 1950s. The issues then, as now, is energy density and containment to improve on that energy density. In currently designed aircraft, hydrogen is pointless as there is not enough internal structure to hold a meaningful amount of fuel. It is likely to require radically different airliner designs, which will take one to two decades to appear, even if there was a will to develop them, and circa 50 years or more to replace the existing fleet unless

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            There are various ways to go about it, one being to only use hydrogen for part of the flight, where emissions are the biggest problem.

            The current state of the art has hydrogen fuel about 1/4 the energy density of jet fuel in a practical tank. Not great but usable for some routes. Aircraft rarely carry their maximum capacity of fuel, and there are lots of routes where the aircraft could carry 4x the fuel if required. Aircraft will continue to get more efficient, and having liquid hydrogen available for cooli

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

              There are various ways to go about it, one being to only use hydrogen for part of the flight

              That would add additional complexity (and failure modes) and weight, even assuming one set of engines could efficiently use multiple types of fuel.

              The current state of the art has hydrogen fuel about 1/4 the energy density of jet fuel in a practical tank.

              It also needs containment, which is heavy. A 747-400 carries up to 57,164 gallons of fuel (US gallons) and a 7,285 nmi maximum range. Cut the range to 1/4 (which ignores the weight of containment, but you'd have to cut the number of passengers to compensate for that) and it won't even get across the Atlantic. That would make it an intracontinental aircraft unles

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                I agree that high speed rail is the best solution, but realistically many countries are completely unable to build it. Can you really see the US or UK building a load of new high speed rail lines?

                • Not the US or UK, more for political reasons than practical ones, but the rest of Yurp & south-east Asia seem to be doing fine, very realistically. China has recently overtaken Spain for the highest number of km of high speed rail. They're building it out at breakneck speed. Meanwhile, in Yurp, the already fairly comprehensive network is being extended to smaller cities in further away places, e.g. Santiago de Compostela in Galicia, in the north-west of Spain, recently got connected to Madrid, cutting t

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
                  Both the USA and UK should be entirely capable of building high-speed rail if they managed to deal with the apparent lack of competence and political will from recent efforts. Many other countries achieve it, so it should be possible.

          • Hydrogen has been touted as an aviation fuel since at least the 1950s.

            Worked for the Hindenburg in the 30's!

        • If you know how to get hydrogen to work feasibly as an aviation fuel, great! Please let us know how you've solved the many known issues with it.

          • It would make more sense if you just would join some blogs about the future of hydrogen.
            There are hundreds of ideas and prototypes for everything we currently can imagine.

            But nay sayers everywhere ... there is no way around Hydrogen or perhaps NH4.

  • Between airplanes, shipping and food we'll need a couple earths.

    Biomass needs the ridiculous amounts of lands people pretend PV needs and then some.

    • PS. nuclear doesn't help much either, CO2 capture at net zero and fuel synthesis are bigger cost problems than the cost of hydrogen.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
        Some have suggested a cost of hydrocarbon fuels from capture at about 2 to 3 times current oil prices, but I am not entirely convinced. Doubling the cost of aviation fuel would certainly make high speed rail more attractive for many people, at least for a proportion of intracontinental travel, even if it took longer.

    • Supposedly, California produces 22-23 million tons of organic waste per year, at least as of 2022:

      https://civileats.com/2022/03/... [civileats.com]

      How much aviation fuel can you make from that? Plus there are synthetic fuel options that don't require biomass. They're more energy-intensive.

      • Is this like burning alcohol instead of gasoline? What is the downside to using these fuels? Lower engine lifespan?

    • Re:Not enough arable land in the world (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Friday November 01, 2024 @09:02PM (#64913907)

      Biomass needs 50 times as much land as PV for the same amount of usable energy.

      Biomass needs good quality agricultural land.

      PV panels can be installed in deserts.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ichijo ( 607641 )

        Biomass needs 50 times as much land as PV for the same amount of usable energy.

        Then let's use food scraps for that biomass so it needs 0% as much land as PV.

        • Then let's use food scraps for that biomass so it needs 0% as much land as PV.

          Then, we need twice as much fuel to power all the trucks and machinery gathering, transporting, and processing the food scraps.

        • It's better to recycle foodscraps into the food chain as feed for pigs/chicken/whatever animals you keep, or to compost it. Using organic matter as input for fuel is a one-way ticket for phosphates (and other critical nutrients) to leave the food chain forever.

        • We don't eat that much.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by q_e_t ( 5104099 )

          Biomass needs 50 times as much land as PV for the same amount of usable energy.

          Then let's use food scraps for that biomass so it needs 0% as much land as PV.

          There aren't enough food scraps. You are better off using the food scraps as food, feeding to animals, or whatever, and look for other alternative methods, be that high speed rail in some instances (Europe is working on this, China too), synthetic hydrocarbon fuels (or possibly ammonia), or electric propulsion for short haul.

      • Biomass needs 50 times as much land as PV for the same amount of usable energy.

        This is an interesting claim—could you point me to any studies or sources that illustrate this 50:1 ratio? I’d like to understand where this figure comes from, especially since different types of biomass have varying levels of energy yield and land requirements. Seeing the specific data behind this comparison would be helpful.

        Biomass needs good quality agricultural land.

        I’d appreciate any details on why biomass would need "good quality agricultural land" specifically. Is this true for all types of biomass, or are there certain crops

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mjwx ( 966435 )

        Biomass needs 50 times as much land as PV for the same amount of usable energy.

        Biomass needs good quality agricultural land.

        PV panels can be installed in deserts.

        I live 1000's of miles from the nearest desert and within a month there will be fewer than 8 hours of daylight... this is when our homes need heating.

        Whilst I've nothing against solar, it's not suitable everywhere.

        Also you cant run a plane on it.

        The holy grail of SAF(Sustainable Alternate/Aviation Fuel) is to find a way to turn cheap biomass into fuels. The kinds of things that grow everywhere but we cant readily use. Surely something that's worth looking into.

    • Never say never. Time has a way of making stuff come true. Lotsa things that were seemingly out of reach 10-15 years ago are manifest today. Reusable rockets, Waymo, LLM, widespread cheap solar, cheap LiPO, Etc.

      I wouldnâ(TM)t put it past the scientists and engineers to develop a solution. Slowly at first, then slowly so me more and then quickly all at once. And no, not likely the failed ethanol corn experiment

      • Even if we fill everything near the equator with fresh water resources with palm trees, it will still be nowhere near enough. Do you expect to find some fuel source with over an order of magnitude better area efficiency than palm?

        There is only so area-efficient biology can get at creating sugar/oil before it completely loses its ability to compete, we can enclose it in a hermetic bioreactor to fix that ... but then things get expensive. You can make PV with much less bulk material than a bioreactor and you'

        • I'm absolutely nto expert in the field, but the area of aviation fuel, definitely seems to fall into a category of eminently doable in a 10-15 year timeframe. This with incremental improvements to the chemistry, efficiency of the planes, and changes in processes that aren't currently economically viable, but will be so in the near future.

          Probably will not involve what is implied above where some version of 'crops' are harvested. Rather one can imagine the basics either being a microorganism-based source (

          • Microbes don't work outside of bioreactors either, ocean has bugger all nutrient density, open pools have too much competition and evaporate precious fresh water.

    • Between airplanes, shipping and food we'll need a couple earths. Biomass needs the ridiculous amounts of lands people pretend PV needs and then some.

      Color me skeptical. Not ready to plonkfile you, yet, but...I'm curious about the comparison you're making between biomass and PV (solar) land needs. Could you provide specific examples or studies that outline the relative land demands for biomass production versus photovoltaic installations? When it comes to energy density, PV can indeed use less land overall due to conversion efficiency, but I'd love to see if there's data supporting your...exaggerated...perspective.

    • Bio mass needs algae tanks.
      And not earths.

  • France already does this. And Air France gives you an option to pay extra to subsidize further use of SAF. They will give you an estimate of carbon emissions of your trip, and offer various choices to pay for SAF to offset it. Funding SAF for the whole trip costs about 25% of your ticket pricr.

    That does not feel right. It's like being an European and going to NYC and witness the omnipresent tip culture. Now the airlines expect a tip too?

    • Re:They will pass the bill to travelers (Score:5, Informative)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Friday November 01, 2024 @08:47PM (#64913891)

      Err no. Saying France does "this" is like saying someone walking down the street is running the Chicago marathon. France mandates 1% SAF in the fuel demand, and most airlines fail to reach that goal too.

      40% is a fantasy target.

    • France is doing more sensible things to reduce energy consumption, such as banning short-haul flights & investing in rail infrastructure. The message is simple: If you want to get around France & neighbouring countries it's quicker, more energy efficient, more convenient (city centre to city centre with local train connections in the same building), more comfortable (bigger seats, more legroom, wider isles, & groups of 4 can sit round a table if they want), & sometimes cheaper by train than

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
        It's actually a Europe-wide initiative on rail. Most major capitals to be linked up as directly as possible via high speed rail by 2030 (I don't know how this is to be achieved in detail) and connections beyond that by 2050 (and no, I don't know exactly which bits will be connected; I've just read the headlines).

        • Most of them are already connected.
          But: Europe got bigger, in terms of, east Europe is no longer in the Warsaw pact.
          And into that direction, we have lots to do.

          On the other hand, "normal" people would not use a train from London to Athens.

          • Spain, Italy, Switzerland (yes, trains can go over & through mountains), France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc., are all already pretty well hooked up. Because some journey times can be quite long (Seville to Geneva is about 15 hours), they're also re-introducing sleeper trains as a more convenient overnight option; certainly better than airport hotels. As you go north-west, it gets problematic because of the terrain & big bits of water that get in the way but they're working on that; those

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
            As I understand it, it's also reducing the need to transfer between trains for travel between capitals. I'd like to be able to get on Eurostar in London and be able to get to, say, Berlin without needing to change trains. Currently, I think the furthest I can get without changing is Lille. But UK is not in the EU.

      • And you have a restaurant ...

        • ...& a bar, & most stations have supermarkets & takeaways nearby so picking up something to eat & drink along the way is no big deal.
  • what a bunch of dodos.

  • Then they can mandate whatever they want and it's they're problem, and no one else's.

  • Ah the old 'Biomass' trick. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Friday November 01, 2024 @09:55PM (#64913959) Homepage
    What they mean is crops, the land for which should actually be used for growing food. Usually it is corn, which is just about the worst crop to grow if you want to maintain a fertile soil for future use.

    If they were serious about reducing fossil fuels they would just restrict the number of planes flown, which is something that can be done right now.
  • California can't build a fast choo-choo? C'mon, if Yurp, south-east Asia, & other regions can ride fast choo-choos, why can't the USA?

    Well, at least it's not Canada, which has never had any kind of fast choo-choo & is unlikely to ever have one. Just short, simple commuter journeys by train around Toronto are slow & pretty patchy & often partly or wholly replaced by even slower buses.

  • All that hay currently going to feed cows and horses will now be used to fuel airplanes. A lot of new job openings for hay shovellers to keep the airplanes up in the air.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?

Close