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%


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


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


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