California Inks Sustainable Aviation Fuel Deal With Major Airlines

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.

Agreement to form a committee

[ShanghaiBill]

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

That's all.

Re:

[NoWayNoShapeNoForm]

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.

Re:

[saloomy]

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?

Not enough arable land in the world

[Pinky's Brain]

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.

Re:

[Pinky's Brain]

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:

[DrMrLordX]

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.

Re:

[saloomy]

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

[ShanghaiBill]

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:

[Ichijo]

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.

Re:

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

Re: Not enough arable land in the world

[AnnoyingBastard]

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.

Re:

[Pinky's Brain]

We don't eat that much.

Re: Not enough arable land in the world

[edi_guy]

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

They will pass the bill to travelers

[newsdee]

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:

[thegarbz]

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.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

So a company based in the EU and drinking the EU Kool-Aid and singing the EU goose-stepping songs has no rational outlook on life itself. Got it. Thanks for the update.

Re:

[saloomy]

Why is it a fantasy target? Is the fuel more expensive or harder on the engines, reducing service life? Why not just use this fuel?

umm..but they dont make fuel

[bill_farty]

what a bunch of dodos.

California should secede

[RightwingNutjob]

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

Ah the old 'Biomass' trick.

[Fly Swatter]

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.