Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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%