Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ElJamoquio t1_j0lj65f wrote

Yeah I think the accounting to call that 'net zero' is pretty spurious.

279

bob0979 t1_j0ln2h7 wrote

'net zero'

I'm curious how they got zero emissions from 70% emission reduction of processed waste oils. Like I get it's better but net zero isn't even a stretch, it's just a lie.

Carbon removal credits are nonsense from a functional standpoint although bureaucratically they're amazing. All it says is this company dumped money at a product that could be placed virtually anywhere to reduce emissions and we're using that benefit to pretend the negatives of what's it's attached to don't exist.

Edit: typos

89

billy_tables t1_j0nb57p wrote

It's not zero emissions, it's biomass - the carbon was originally captured by the plant material. Exact same as rapeseed oil vehicles, which are carbon neutral

20

Vencaslac t1_j0mjrrh wrote

the carbon in cooking oil comes from the athmoaphere where it's absorbed from by plants so the only way it's not net zero is because the equipment used in farming/production is likely not net zero... beats the hell out of fossil oil tho

29

ElJamoquio t1_j0nfmld wrote

Enormous amounts of diesel are used in the production of fertilizer alone.

There's no way it's 'net zero', and they're insulting our intelligence when they lie to us about it.

11

billy_tables t1_j0mwry1 wrote

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

7

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?

6

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

7

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.

3

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?

2

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.

2

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%

4

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.

1

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.

6

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?

2

quikfrozt t1_j0lkflz wrote

Yeah there is a lack of a global standard that is scientifically proven and enforced

3

summerfr33ze t1_j0o1923 wrote

Well there would be no need for the term "net zero" at all if all we were talking about were using fuel that produced zero carbon emissions. The "spurious" accounting is where the term comes from.

1

SafetyMan35 t1_j0lullu wrote

This is your captain speaking. We have been told by the tower that we are going to have to circle for a while due to bad weather in Chicago. We apologize for the delay.

On a related note, the fresh French fry service in First Class will suspended. We need additional fuel.

48

OptimalConcept143 t1_j0lsacm wrote

More corporate green washing. Call me back when planes are using hydrogen sourced from green energies like fusion.

40

nautical_sea t1_j0n635x wrote

> More corporate green washing.

Absolutely agree.

> Call me back when planes are using hydrogen sourced from green energies like fusion.

Absolutely not lmao.

Have you heard of the Hindenburg?

We aren’t even allowed to use regular WD-40 to fix squeaky seat rails in the flight deck (flammable). What on earth makes you think they’d re-adopt a volatile gas that combusts with 1/10th the energy of gasoline? On top of that, jet fuel is much more stable than regular gasoline.

Ground based vehicles are one thing. You can pull over and stop. Get out. Almost immediately. Airplanes can have an engine on fire, and in thousands of those events, the fire either is extinguished or (in even rarer events of uncontrolled burn) may cause structural failure to the metal in the wing before it becomes a massive fireball. Hydrogen being stored in the wing right above the engine itself will almost certainly cause a higher risk of un-contained explosions.

There is room to grow, but modern jet engines are pretty bulletproof, and will burn a wide variety of combustable, relatively-stable liquid fuels.

12

NotoriousREV t1_j0p6lok wrote

>what on earth makes you think that they’d re-adopt a volatile gas that combusts with 1/10th the energy of gasoline?

Probably the fact that aircraft manufacturers are actively adopting it?

2

nautical_sea t1_j0q9nwb wrote

Interesting. To be honest, I’m an airline pilot and this is the first I’ve heard of this. I will reserve judgment post-testing, this seems like perhaps more of a pet-project than any serious development.

Couple observations:

> All three ZEROe concepts are hybrid-hydrogen aircraft.

> The liquid hydrogen storage and distribution system is located behind the rear pressure bulkhead.

First, they are concept aircraft. I think we’re all familiar with what a concept car from even an established car manufacturer looks like. Lofty, futuristic, without any serious intent of entering production.

Secondly, it’s a hybrid, meaning the majority of propulsion will be from standard jet fuel, not the hydrogen. I know this because the rear pressure bulkhead is the furthest away from the engines as it could be, at the extreme edge of weight and balance limits. The datum is insane. Any substantial weight that far along will be almost impossible without significantly changing the aerodynamics and design of the aircraft. There’s a reason why the fuel and the engines are typically near the centre of the aircraft. Yes hydrogen is relatively light, but still, maybe more of a “green washing” project rather than a serious R&D attempt.

1

NotoriousREV t1_j0q9w8i wrote

They hybrid part is using hydrogen fuel cells to supplement the power with electric.

1

nautical_sea t1_j0qbuhe wrote

I see that, I’m just saying the scale seems so small, I’m not sure how it could be meaningful. Aircraft engines already create tremendous amounts of electricity through the onboard generators. It’s a by-product of something spinning consistently and incredibly fast.

1

NotoriousREV t1_j0qcjhu wrote

Take it up with Airbus, given you seem to have all the answers.

1

nautical_sea t1_j0qdrvy wrote

It’s just a discussion. You don’t have to like or agree with my thoughts :) Just thought it was relevant and interesting given my expertise in the industry in general.

1

NotoriousREV t1_j0qeju0 wrote

You’ve tried to argue it’s not a serious R&D attempt, and you’ve argued that Airbus are doing it wrong, all in order to avoid saying “Wow, I didn’t know that, I was wrong”. That’s not a discussion.

I don’t know you, but I’d be certain that Airbus have considered this far more deeply, and with far more expertise than you have. If you want argue it, you need to argue with them. I’m sure they’ll appreciate your valuable input.

1

nautical_sea t1_j0qg0fg wrote

You sound quite bothered by this, and I apologize if that’s the case. Was never my intent. It was not serious at all on my end.

> you’ve argued that Airbus are doing it wrong, all in order to avoid saying “Wow, I didn’t know that, I was wrong”.

I did state prior to that:

> To be honest, I’m an airline pilot and this is the first I’ve heard of this. I will reserve judgment post-testing, this seems like perhaps more of a pet-project than any serious development.

I am definitely not an expert in aircraft manufacturing, or engineering; though I am an expert in airline operations. Just applying a hot take simply from my lens, from what I’ve been taught and experienced over decades in the industry.

The way they are describing things gives me clear signals about the limitations of such technology, though again, it’s simply from my perspective. I’m not bothered one way or the other if they actually do it, just curious if it makes sense to, based on what I know about our industry thus far, and some of the complex challenges that entails.

Have a good day.

1

iwascompromised t1_j0n54ta wrote

Until it’s a 100% perfect solution I don’t care about it and it doesn’t count!

6

lughnasadh t1_j0lmp3y wrote

Airbus's plans for their hydrogen powered A380 jumbo jet seem more like the future of aviation.

19

drondendorho t1_j0mu6iw wrote

The hydrogen production that would be required to fully replace carbon fuels in aviation is monumental: the near future of aviation is either degrowth, or climate change denial with a bit of hydrogen on top. I'm afraid we are heading for the second option.

7

Adler4290 t1_j0n4klq wrote

> the near future of aviation is either degrowth

This is my worst nightmare as a traveler. It would mean traveling would be rich people only and us 99.9% normies would pick one country to go every decade and just watch the rest on YT like during Covid.

10

drondendorho t1_j0n8zif wrote

This can either be regulated by the prices (only the rich can afford) or by the quantities (everyone is allowed a limited amount of travels in their life). I wish for the latter, but wouldn't bet much on it; having either would already be a big step. As for travelling, this could be the occasion of a big revisiting of what doing tourism means: it would still be possible to change continent once in a while, just not for the weekend. Trains can get your pretty far in Eurasia. Boats also need a fuel revolution but will hopefully get there.

0

tofubeanz420 t1_j0n23al wrote

Not to mention airport infrastructure is not setup for hydrogen fuel. Not saying they couldn't do it but it would probably cost a lot of money.

1

spoogekangaroo t1_j0meh1d wrote

How is it net zero? Carbon emissions were produced at every stage of the use and creation of this fuel. Carbon emissions will be.priduced during the flight. This isn't green.

15

Omikapsi t1_j0mfubc wrote

It's not net zero. It just makes for a catchy title. They're calling it that because they bought a pile of carbon credits. It's not really sustainable if you spend even a moment examining the full process.

11

mnvoronin t1_j0mn6ld wrote

>Carbon emissions were produced at every stage of the use and creation of this fuel.

Well, growing plants is, I believe, a carbon-negative process. But that's the only stage that is negative.

3

torpedospurs t1_j0ner1y wrote

This does depend on the amount of fertilizer and pesticides used, right? I've been told that US corn based ethanol, for instance, is no less carbon intensive than gasoline when both are used in cars.

5

Avalanche2 t1_j0m3hfj wrote

Do people really put any value in the lies of "net zero" or "carbon neutral"? they are BS buzzwords that dont mean what they imply.

8

symonym7 t1_j0mdg0m wrote

Spend 10 minutes on LinkedIn. I dare you.

6

Avalanche2 t1_j0mknpe wrote

I'm with you there. I work for a corporation, I have to bite my tongue 12 hours a day.

2

symonym7 t1_j0mmgze wrote

I’d be legitimately unsurprised if my skipping the quarterly manager “outing” (which involved going to a thing after work on a fucking Tuesday night, and would’ve doubled my commute time home) eventually resulted in being let go. Thus, I’m now professionally laconic. -_-

3

thecultcanburn t1_j0n6w57 wrote

Burning cooking oil instead of jet fuel gets you net zero emissions how?

3

billy_tables t1_j0nbkwb wrote

jet fuel is carbon dug out of the ground and burned into the atmosphere

plant oils are carbon sucked out of the atmosphere, turned into oil via plants, then put back. So no net new carbon in the atmosphere

1

Zee2A OP t1_j0lh11e wrote

The United Kingdom government has revealed that Virgin Atlantic will fly a historic net zero London-New York flight in 2023. Virgin Atlantic won a competition to receive government funding for the first net zero transatlantic flight. “For decades, flying from London to New York has symbolized aviation’s ability to connect people and drive international progress. It’s now going to be at the forefront of cutting carbon emissions from flying,” said British transport secretary Mark Harper. The development is a huge step forward for the airline industry's greener dreams.

Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines will power the airline's flagship Boeing 787s as it flies green. However, this will not be a typical commercial airline flight; rather, it will be the first passenger flight in the history of commercial aviation that uses only sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). This flight is anticipated to be powered by SAF, which is mostly made from used cooking oil and other waste oils and fats. Compared to conventional fossil jet fuel, SAF can reduce lifecycle carbon emissions by nearly 70% when entirely replacing aviation kerosene: https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/virgin-atlantic-net-zero-transatlantic-flight-saf/index.html

2

CreamFilledLlama t1_j0lxtaa wrote

> it will be the first passenger flight in the history of commercial aviation that uses only sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).

Ah, was looking for this. There is already regular freighter service using it. The biggest issue right now is that supply of the fuel is very small.

4

cmb297 t1_j0o3ahv wrote

This genuinely might be one of the dumbest subs on Reddit

2

FuturologyBot t1_j0llekj wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Zee2A:

The United Kingdom government has revealed that Virgin Atlantic will fly a historic net zero London-New York flight in 2023. Virgin Atlantic won a competition to receive government funding for the first net zero transatlantic flight. “For decades, flying from London to New York has symbolized aviation’s ability to connect people and drive international progress. It’s now going to be at the forefront of cutting carbon emissions from flying,” said British transport secretary Mark Harper. The development is a huge step forward for the airline industry's greener dreams.

Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines will power the airline's flagship Boeing 787s as it flies green. However, this will not be a typical commercial airline flight; rather, it will be the first passenger flight in the history of commercial aviation that uses only sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). This flight is anticipated to be powered by SAF, which is mostly made from used cooking oil and other waste oils and fats. Compared to conventional fossil jet fuel, SAF can reduce lifecycle carbon emissions by nearly 70% when entirely replacing aviation kerosene: https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/virgin-atlantic-net-zero-transatlantic-flight-saf/index.html

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/zo92rx/worlds_first_netzero_transatlantic_flight_fly/j0lh11e/

1

The_Cysko_Kid t1_j0mdf3w wrote

Greasl has been around for a while. Ive never understood why no one took a closer look at it.

1

ramriot t1_j0mzxqw wrote

If memory serves from smelling such vehicles passing, it's going to be interesting on the flight line & likely going to make all the baggage loaders etc very hungry for fried food.

1

gmoney1259 t1_j0mzzob wrote

Just in case I hope they serve French fries on the flight.

1

TheRealBrewballs t1_j0o07qq wrote

787s have had a lot of focus in eco demonstration. It's a misnomer because yes, it's still av-gas.

1

hoehater t1_j0o3y4h wrote

They’re about 30 years late on the biodiesel train…

1

TheRealVillain666 t1_j0o5ggj wrote

If I put used cooking oil in my car I'd be arrested.

1

S550Stang t1_j0pukbm wrote

How did the used cooking oil first get made? Then transported to the first user.. then cleaned... then transported to the plane... then pumped.. not quite net zero... but a good effort... net zero is a lie...

1

MapleBlood t1_j0m0506 wrote

It's nice it's not hydrocarbons but burning food to fly planes is pretty crap.

0

ultramanus t1_j0mo0j3 wrote

Im not afraid of flying, I love it but I still do not think I like the idea to be flying in something than runs on used cooking oil..

0

Godzilla-kun t1_j0o9lvz wrote

It doesn't matter what you are burning. You add CO2 to the atmosphere. Physics doesn't care for your excel sheet tricks.

0

o2bprincecaspian t1_j0m3m5x wrote

They can refuel them at the airport fast food court. Suck down all the fry oil to transport the lard asses across the pond.

−1

No-Garden-Variety t1_j0ln0zf wrote

lol.. still causes polution and that lovely smell of burnt french fries or pop corn.. I absolutely hate being anywhere near a vehicle that uses cooking oil.. that smell makes me want to lose my lunch.

−2