billy_tables t1_j0mwry1 wrote
Reply to comment by ElJamoquio in World’s first net-zero transatlantic flight: Fly London to New York on used cooking oil. Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines will power the airline's flagship Boeing 787s as they fly from London to New York in 2023. by Zee2A
It's ultimately biomass though; plants suck carbon out of the air, then we burn the stuff that we squeeze out of the plants, and return the same carbon back into the air
As opposed to fossil fuels where we suck it out of the ground and burn it into the air
Cesum-Pec t1_j0n6c9l wrote
Well if the plants are planted, grown, harvested, transported, processed, transported, used as fryer oil, stored, transported, reprocessed, transported, stored, and then used to fuel the plane without fossil fuels, it's net zero. So...maybe?
billy_tables t1_j0naxmp wrote
By that measure Nuclear is a fossil fuel because of the diesel used to transport it, electricity used to refine it, and concrete used to entomb the waste, and tidal power is a fossil fuel because of the diesel ships that have to deploy and maintain the equipment
It's fair to say the supply chain will have its own carbon footprint, but if burning the fuel only releases carbon that was originally in the atmosphere, that means net zero to me
Cesum-Pec t1_j0nbjgi wrote
No, bad analogy. Plant based fuels, which I endorse to a degree, require continuous inputs of fossil fuels at every step, which I was trying to demonstrate with the supply chain. Nuke fuels produce WAY more energy than the fossil fuels needed to get that system started. Nukes could power an electric maintenance fleet, plant fuels can not.
billy_tables t1_j0ndmmt wrote
You’re saying it takes more fossil fuel emissions to fly this plane from LHR-JFK with plant fuel than it would to fly it with Jet A?
ElJamoquio t1_j0nfdeq wrote
Your line of questioning really moves the goalposts. It's not net zero, even if it's a 50% reduction in CO2. It's taking in 100 units of CO2, along with 50 units of CO2 in transportation, fertilizer, etc. So it's a net of -50 thus far. It then outputs 100 units of CO2. So we're still worse off.
billy_tables t1_j0nhjb5 wrote
Worse off than not flying - but not worse off than Jet A? There is a 100% reduction in CO2 emissions from the fuel burn, so all that’s left to compare is the fossil fuel consumption of the Jet A and Plant based supply chains.
Those are nothing to do with the fuel itself - in countries with a 100% nuclear energy grid that would be 0. In the U.K. we were 60% renewable today, by the time this fuel is meant to be mainstream here (2050) that will be 100%
Cesum-Pec t1_j0nym74 wrote
>You’re saying it takes more fossil fuel emissions to fly this plane from LHR-JFK with plant fuel than it would to fly it with Jet A?
No. It's a good reduction in carbon emissions, but it's no where close to net zero.
ElJamoquio t1_j0nesrq wrote
> Well if the plants are planted, grown, harvested, transported, processed, transported, used as fryer oil, stored, transported, reprocessed, transported, stored, and then used to fuel the plane without fossil fuels, it's net zero. So...
So... ...not a flocking chance.
screwswithshrews t1_j0o3uph wrote
Also, wouldn't this used cooking oil just decompose into CO2 in a dump somewhere otherwise? Isn't it net zero because you're not pulling carbon from deep below the surface and putting it into the atmosphere?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments