|
Going beyond the hoopla, there is a whole passel of issues that are glossed over by the folks touting the current approach to SAF.
The contention is that when the demand for SAF grows, so will the supply, and the cost will go down.
Facts not in evidence, y'all.
Actually, facts are in short supply.
Burning Clean Isn't The Only Criterion. There is no question – or not much of one – that current SAF technology can power a jet engine. There’s no question that it theoretically can be produced. But there are gigantic other issues that the flight illuminated, most notably that there has been little apparent scrutiny of if a "sustainable" supply chain for SAF can be developed.
Let’s dissect the official story that the media is treating like groupies at a Grateful Dead concert:
Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) can be made from waste streams, which otherwise would be thrown away (such as used cooking oil).
An Observation: “Used cooking oil?” Try as I may, I cannot find any research regarding the volumes of petered-out Mazola that can come on the market. Nor, if a cost-effective central system can be established to collect the stuff once grandma and restaurants and fast-food joints get done with it.
Beyond a maybe a future government mandate that consumers gobble more greasy food to increase the availability of SAF, the supply issue is completely unknown.
It can also be produced using renewable feedstocks such as agricultural or forestry waste. When produced from renewable feedstocks SAF only emits the same amount of carbon to the atmosphere as was previously absorbed by its feedstock, thereby closing the carbon loop.
An Observation: “Agricultural and Forestry waste?” What exactly is this? And, since it is noted as a key part of the current SAF picture, what is the volume of this stuff? If it can be fully identified, what is the future production from these farms and arbors? The comment about the “carbon loop” seems to sound like technobabble.
This reduces emissions, significantly lowering the aviation industry’s carbon footprint and dependency on fossil fuels.
An Observation: A prudent question is how much energy will be needed to develop the production and supply chains of gathering cooking oil and materials that are now being wasted in forests, plus the other condiments needed to make it all work. And, importantly, are there enough of these to really support aviation?
Tailpipe Fixation: Blotting Out Comprehensive Research. This is not to imply that attempts to find alternative fuel are misguided or impossible.
The fear is that this SAF program has all the danger signs of what’s going on with the Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) program, where facts about battery supply and cost, as well as major program failures (Tecnam and NASA) have been completely ignored.
It’s a serious issue.
Like SAF, there are lots and lots of positive – and accurate – projections of what AAM may represent. But zero – none, nada, mei-you – coverage of the fact – fact – that unless major breakthroughs with battery production, supply and distribution are made, it’s going to be more hot air than air travel.
There have been no credible data to determine the cost of batteries once the supply chain comes out from under a range of pesky issues. Like slave labor cobalt mines. Like the environmental damage from lithium production. Like wresting control of battery production from the criminal regime running China.
The questions regarding Sustainable Aviation Fuel are just as pertinent.
The entire process working back from the tailpipe must be taken environmentally seriously. The media circus around Virgin Atlantic Flight 100 is not comforting.
Just some observations. Not in context with the consensus.
But provided for thoughtful consideration.
_____________
_____________
| 
