Hi, grat video! I am currently writing my master thesis about possible policies to support the use of green hydrogen in the aviation sector and I am focusing on Synthetic fuels so your video is a nice overview. Could you tell us which sources you have used next to the McKinsey report? I guess, it could be very helpful for the first part of my thesis. Thank you for the clear and short summary about the topic!
I'd check out this recent report: www.transportenvironment.org/discover/2050roadmap/ I'd suggest considering whether green hydrogen should be most efficiently used to hydrotreat kerosene to remove aromatics, rather than to make biofuel or e-fuel. Reduce fossil fuel aromatics will reduce soot and thus non-CO2 emissions (which cause 2/3rds of aviations climate impact).
@@GreenSkyThinking Thanks a lot! I will have a closer look on the report today and will keep your comment in mind! It's a super interesting and hot topic so I am grateful for all the impact and different ideas and views! :)
Sorry for spamming but Europe has changed the policy which they will go for hydrogen and battery only, not SAF. SAF still emits CO2. Please get your update about the recent policy change here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_22_3854/IP_22_3854_EN.pdf
Hi Brett, Alcohol-to-jet has not been proven to work at scale yet, so not a technology we can place our hopes on. Anyway, assuming it does work and scale up, without causing in-direct land use change impacts, take a look at this paper: theicct.org/publications/cost-supporting-alternative-jet-fuels-european-union Specifically Figure 2 within the paper so see that it costs at least 4x conventional aviation fuel. So we need emissions pricing on the conventional kerosene.
Any hydrocarbon will emit CO2. Sorry for spamming but Europe has changed the policy which they will go for hydrogen and battery only, not SAF. SAF still emits CO2. Please get your update about the recent policy change here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_22_3854/IP_22_3854_EN.pdf
Carbon pricing, for example the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act in the US Congress, has widespread support among scientists, economists. Check it out. The future is ours to choose. If we work together.
2. Biomass Fuel - Uses agricultural waste, municipal waste, used cooking fuel. None of them can be scaled sustainably 3. Synthetic Fuel - Meaning Liquid Hydrocarbon Produced : Synthesizing Hydrogen with Carbon Hydrogen can be produced from electrolysis Carbon can be captured from atmosphere using DAC DAC - Direct Air Capture Critical issue - Technology is in it's early infancy. SO cost are incredibly high All of the processes are energy intensive Solution - Increasing emissions' price to make fossil fuel more expensive and synthetic fuel more cost competitive
Hello, thank you! So as per conventional fuel: 1kg of alternative fuel still produces 3.15kg of CO2, no difference there. When it comes to non-CO2 emissions such as soot, and other combustion side-products there is room for improvement because you can tailor the fuel chemistry to minimise those side-products. This is good for health impacts near the airport from ground operation, but also these by products like soot are nucleation points in the sky for ice crystals and contrail cloud cirrus to form. Such contrails can increase the global warming potential of the CO2 alone by a factor of 3. So there is good reason to use alternative fuel for specific routes, flights, and weather conditions which are susceptible to high levels of non-CO2. Now: the issue with this is that the non-CO2 impacts of aviation are not currently accounted for in any existing regulations: the national greenhouse gases (GHG) inventory submissions to the UNFCCC, the CORSIA scheme, nor the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). They are currently dismissed by the International Civil Aviation Organizational (ICAO) as being too scientifically uncertain to warrant necessary action. This draws unfortunate parallels with the tobacco industry and fossil fuel industry’s past tactics of emphasising scientific uncertainties in cancer and global warming studies. Hopefully this response was informative - please let me know if you'd like sources for any of this - happy to provide.
@@GreenSkyThinking Thanks for your answer. Do you see potential in microturbine generators being used in ships and boats as range extendors for hybrid-electric setups? I heard microturbines are much cleaner than traditional piston engines.
@@cryptohouse1676 a lot of boats do have gas turbines. You're still burning fossil fuel. You might get an efficiency improvement but this is meaningless without emissions pricing for shipping also. The international maritime organisation (IMO) have a similarly poor grasp on this, in the same way ICAO have an awful system (CORSIA) for international aviation. So my point being: technology efficiency improvements are worth nothing without effective policy, emissions accounting and regulation. This is lacking from both the international shipping and aviation sector.
Sorry for spamming but Europe has changed the policy which they will go for hydrogen and battery only not SAF. Please get your update about the recent policy change here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_22_3854/IP_22_3854_EN.pdf
Hi! Thank you so much for the educational videos. I love aviation but I am increasingly hating the industry, because there are a lot of lies. Since you were here talking about the alternative fuels, could you give me your opinion about this SAF, specially from Neste? I guess they are the same as biofuel as they come from crops or waste like cooking oil, but the reduction of co2 emissions can account to 80%. I did my own research and you see a lot of news (specially from energy companies like bp, Repsol...) about how important it is and confirm this emission reduction. But is it true? I did a course on sustainable aviation and this component SAF can account around half of the availability of conventional kerosene fuel, so that would not be a major problem in the short/medium term (other problems should be the availability in airports and so on, but not really the problem that biofuel has). I am very confused tbh. Thank you so much!
Yes, Neste are based in Finland and specialise in "HEFA". HEFA is from waste oils and fats. Such feedstocks are more efficiently processed into biodiesel for road & shipping fuels (although jet fuel can be a relatively small co-product of this process). Neste also still use PFAD (palm oil fattty distillate) as a major feedstock, and animal fat, both are byproducts from fundamentally unsustainable industries (palm oil and livestock plantations respectively). Even if these industries WERE sustainable (they're not and need to be scaled down rapidly), the max feedstock avaliable is relatively tiny and only able to provide say 2-5% of current jet fuel consumption. In short: dead end. If this does or doesn't make sense to you please let me know. I reckon you're confused by the quantity of greenwash out there. If you do your research and find new evidence and info please feedback 🙏 us environmental campaigners need to work together to change the system!
Also, the "80% emissions reduction" is dodgy accounting - which needs to assume the biomass (waste oil or other biomass feedstock) wouldn't be used for any other purpose. This is a bit of a ridiculous assumption because there are so many competing uses for these feedstocks and greater emissions savings result from the other uses. So viewed holistically, using biomass (or renewable electricity) to produce jet fuel, rather than other, will lead to actively *higher* emissions. Again, let me know if you follow this line of logic?
@@GreenSkyThinking I do understand your first point. Thank you for the extra info. But I do not understand your second point about the emission reduction. Are you telling me that the use of this biomass (that comes from non sustainable industries, an therefore, more availability means also more emissions in the other side) for aviation goes with more emissions because other industries that also wants this source will pollute more? Could you give an hypothetical example? And of course I will let you know about my research. The numbers don't add up, we see companies (aviations, logistics) telling us that they will reduce their gh emissions with SAF but at then end, it can be more polluting than kerosene? Sorry for the confusion but I am very messed up about what they tell and about what they don't tell. Thank you!
@@emilioiglesias7401 OK so there is a finite amount of sustainable energy in the world right? So in 1 year there is only X amount of renewable electricity and X amount of sustainable biomass waste. Maybe its something like 10,000 TWh... whilst total human energy demand is currently something like 150,000 TWh. This means if you use renewable energy or biomass to make jet fuel, you could have used it for many other uses that still rely on fossil fuel. I'm saying that the energy goes further if used for something else and will save more emissions. See page 11 if this report for a good example: www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Sector-summary-Electricity-generation.pdf (that's for 1MWh of electricity but pretty much same goes for 1MWh of biomass waste right?)
@@GreenSkyThinking finally I got your point! Thanks thanks for your response and the report, really interesting and helpful. So in this point, what should logistics/aviation companies do? They will pursue their interest-profit and offer more and more flights as you have shared. Biofuels is not the best option right now because other alternatives are more efficient, but in the meantime... which could be a good solution? Yes tax the fuel but... from the irresponsable company view? thanks!!
Hey, so some of this comes from the EU FCH Hydrogen Aviation report: www.fch.europa.eu/sites/default/files/FCH%20Docs/20200507_Hydrogen%20Powered%20Aviation%20report_FINAL%20web%20%28ID%208706035%29.pdf e.g jump to page 48 and you can see the cost curve I used towards the end of this video. Also page 44 of the same report shows the huge energy requirements for LH2 or synthetic e-fuel. "Decarbonizing the aviation sector via LH2 and synfuel would thus triple to quintuple the renewable energy produced globally today - in other words, demand for renewable energy would be 20-30 times as high as renewable energy produced in Europe." My similar calculation for the UK is done taking jet fuel use = 12Mt/year, multiplying it by energy density of kerosene = 12kWh/kg, to get 145 TWh. Then divide by 0.6 to get input renewable energy required for e-fuel production at 60% efficiency. Should get about 250TWh. That's being very optimistic as you can see from page 44 of the source above, the aviation industry report says 22% power-to-liquid efficiency. 60% is approaching theoretical limit. Biofuels are bad news. See Section 7.1 here: drive.google.com/file/d/1ImrCJXdt0s8EahZBiL6fLaRzgHuyPsFh/view?usp=sharing See section 4.5.1 of this report also: www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/TE-aviation-decarbonisation-roadmap-FINAL.pdf Remember, this is theoretical maximum supply, and we need limited sustainable biomass for other things e.g. BECCS.
Sorry for spamming but Europe has changed the policy which they will go for hydrogen and battery only, not SAF. SAF still emits CO2. Please get your update about the recent policy change here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_22_3854/IP_22_3854_EN.pdf
Hi Ian, absolutely and great question. Firstly, algae biofuel just hasn't taken off yet, the technology is still at lab scale and hasn't been made commercially viable at larger scale. Big investors have pulled out, etc. so we can't rely on it in any case until its proven. You might think "OK but if its a good solution maybe we should fund lots of development?" Well if you look into some studies, you start to realise its not all its sold to be - you need huge amounts/areas of water and the environmental impact is not great. Next... Let's just say we DO discover a low environmental impact, low cost algae feedstock for bioenergy? This is a BIG assumption, but forget that for now: why would we use that bioenergy for aircraft fuel rather than a bioenergy power plant on the ground? - A bioenergy power plant is way more efficient than an aircraft engine (+60% vs. 20-40% efficiency). - per tonne of biomass you displace a greater amount of fossil fuel, and therefore abate more GHG emissions - you can add a CCS filter to the exhaust and capture the GHG emissions there and then - you don't have the issues of contrails with aircraft that produce 2/3rd of aviations climate impact due to exhaust forming contrail cirrus clouds at high altitude Summary: - can't bet on algae and not ready and development has run into lots of issues - it still has a negative environmental impact and should be minimised - any low impact, low cost algae you can grow should be sent straight to a BECCS plant (we are currently planning to cover an area 1-5 times the size of India in bioenergy crops for CCS by the end of the century... so could do with algae coming good for that and utilise it for that rather than burning it in a plane) Further reading: www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/campaigns/biotech-for-biofuels/ Let me know your thoughts, and thanks for the question!
So all we need is a new type of algae be found that runs on seawater/waste water and is as cheap to process as fossil fuel and can be grown in a ditch where crop will not grow? I disagree on the BECCS bit. Efficiency-wise nothing beats renewable electricity generation. Photosynthesis alone will cost you 80-90% of the solar energy. Biofuels should therefore be used only when there are no electric alternatives, when either the energy density or the carbon itself is essential for the purpose. This is almost philosophical: when more people are raised above the poverty line maybe around 2050 (despite those still under constant hunger), more will want to travel, a big part of them will want to travel by air, and airlines will want to fulfill these demands. How do you suggest they do that cleaner than what they do now if hydrogen and electric are still far away and probably cannot fly farther than from france to germany?
@@ianhu7755 "all we need" is an understatement - it's almost impossible to do that. I agree on bioenergy being an inefficient conversion of solar energy into stored energy - that's why I say in this video that biofuels cannot be scaled sustainably and should be removed from consideration. This applies to any biofuel crop, whether its land-based or marine such as algae or seaweed. I would advocate for solar produced synthetic fuel as you suggest - that's what I'm saying in this video yes? Synthetic fuel CAN be scaled... its expensive though vs. untaxed kerosene/jet fuel so we need increased emissions pricing/tax of fossil fuel.
You could combine the 2 - upgrade biomass with hydrogen (e.g. electrodimerisation of some lignin compounds like furfural to get a C10 backbone, then hydrogenate it).
We can't scale up biofuels to large quantities without incurring significant risks in terms of land use change, biodiversity loss, loss of soil nutrients etc. That includes lignocellulosic biomass (although no such biofuel processes have been demonstrated at commercial scale) as there is competition with other sectors e.g. the large amount of BECCS relied on within all IPCC pathways.
@@GreenSkyThinking well as one example, hundreds of millions of tonnes of bagasse are burnt in the sugar industry. But sugar refineries can be made all electric, running off heat pumps and renewables. That frees up a lot of biomass. I think you've taken an assumption from a low grade use of biomass (burning it for electricity) and applied it too broadly. The idea will be to add energy value (including with Green hydrogen and renewable electricity) to low grade and waste biomass. Defeatism won't save the planet.
Hi@@fehzorz thanks, defeatism won't save the planet - but equally a lack of realism will kill it. I'm not defeatist about our abilities, we can turn it around, but we do need to be realistic. Burning sugar (or other agricultural) crop waste clearly isn't a good scenario. But our option isn't a binary decision between 1. Burn it. Or 2. Make jet fuel from it. Fermenting sugar bagasse is one of the easiest lignocellulosic biofuel pathways but again, we have limited feedstock and how can you justify using it for aviation fuel rather as BECCS to displace fossil generation on the grid + capture and store the CO2? Would be interested in your views on the conclusions made in this report: www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2018/dead-end-road/ You might have some insights that Biofuelwatch don't.
@@GreenSkyThinking the key is to think of a hierarchy for uses of biomass. In my view, food is at the top, and rotting to methane is at the bottom. Various forms of leaving it alone (where it doesn't end up as methane) are also high of course, as are long lived products (e.g. construction materials). At the lower end, you need to think about the difficulty of abating the alternative use - so burning it for electricity, or biofuels to run small engines in vehicles that could easily be electric are not ideal. Even high temperature process heat hydrogen and electric arcs might do the trick. But Jet Fuel is an excellent high value use of biomass. Fundamentally what I'm talking about is something that should be easier than synthetic fuels from direct air capture CO2. People talk about BECCUS and DACCUS, all I'm saying is don't forget the U. Nature did the hard work to fix the carbon and even put it into relatively long chains, now use that backbone to get the most useful carbon containing product (using various chemical processes). Not limited to fermenting cellulose either (what the linked report talks about). What I mentioned was based on a lignin byproduct. The lowering costs of Green Hydrogen will change a lot and we'll need to pull out some very old chemistry textbooks to best figure out how to upgrade biomass. Definitely cut down on flying whenever possible (e.g. in areas where rail is an alternative). But we will need long haul flights for a globally connected world, and that's the only kind of world that will be able to solve a global challenge like climate change. At the very least, why not take a look at where biomass is already being used, and see if it can be displaced for better uses. So for example, the Drax woodchip burning power plant, the global fuel ethanol industry (largely to run cars that could be EVs), or the burning of sugar bagasse.
@@fehzorz yeah that's a good idea and I have written down a hierarchy which I can share with you if you're interested by emailing greenskythinking@outlook.com. Yeah we need to protect biodiversity and preserve carbon sinks ahead of agriculture, so that also suggests minimising livestock farming. The important point is we only have a very finite amount of truly sustainable biomass waste available globally. Some X million tonnes of corn stover, sugar bagasse, rice husks, etc. Some. Of these things we can turn into useful products and keep the carbon captured e.g. Building materials, home insulation or plastic replacements e.g. Reusable coffee cups. If we use for bioenergy, we should use it for something that will maximise the emissions saved and stored per tonne of biomass used. If you burn it in a BECCS ppwer station then you displace coal/gas from the electrical grid, which goes far further than the amount of kerosene you can displace by it turning it into jet fuel. This is due to the inefficiency of the fuel production process but also using it in an inefficient vehicle combustion engine. Furthermore, you can fit CCS equipment to capture the carbon emissions at the exhaust then store geologically. You can't do that on a vehicle such a truck or plane due to weight and volume issues. So if we have 10 million tonnes of biomass, I wouldn't advocate for policies that subsidise the production of jet fuel over use in BECCS. I also wouldn't advocate for subsidies that divert it from road transport to air transport. Fuel refineries are more efficient if they maximise biodiesel out out rather than biojet. So if you divert feedstock to aviation it reduces economy-wide decarbonisation. We are nowhere near taking all combustion engines off the road - particularly HGV lorries, so will continue to need biodiesel for decades yet.
What about it? Where are you getting your wood fibre from? Saw dust from mills? Because that's already used for other stuff. Branches and twigs from forestry? Because that's super diffuse, located at disparate locations, and very low energy density by weight and volume, so high transport emissions just getting it to a processing facility. And, if that processing facility is close, I'd recommend using it to produce fuel for powering the very vehicles doing that forestry/agriculture work right there and then... rather than shipping/trucking it miles to an airport and generating even more emissions. Just some initial thoughts on why this seems like a pretty bad idea, I could go on. Google "THE CURIOUS CASE OF RED ROCK BIOFUELS" and look for the article by Biofuelwatch for an example of this not really working very well, if at all.
@@TimSmith-vl4qk you create jet fuel from used coffee grounds? Personally? We do actually know that coffee grounds cna be used as an effective fertiliser for reforestation www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/forest-on-caffeine-how-coffee-helps-forests-grow-faster so maybe a better use than turning into jet fuel?
green methanol will be cheaper one day. 2nd, Methanol can be used via a Direct Fuel Cell instead of and engine. And this is far more energy efficient because heat loss is less.
hey I watched your video and come up with a question. I'm writing a practical work in university about bio fuel and I need some information: 1. How much time do the company need to change ordinary fuel for bio one? 2. Approximately, how much can it cost for aviation company to switch to biofuel? I would be grateful if you'll answers 😊 Greetings from Ukraine 🙏🏻💙💛
1. Not possible: the only commercialised aviation biofuel pathway is HEFA, and can only be scaled to roughly 2% of total jet fuel use. So if the airline in question wanted to change all its fuel to biofuel, there wouldn't be much left at all for other companies. 2. For HEFA the cost is 2-4 times the cost of untaxed kerosene. Prices depend on kerosene price (affected by oil price) and competition for the (limited) HEFA feedstock. HEFA is currently 2-4 times the price I believe. Other fuel types can be much higher cost, e.g. 5-10x higher. Search for: theicct.org/publication/the-cost-of-supporting-alternative-jet-fuels-in-the-european-union/
@@oliatsarenko7010 again, there is competition for the feedstocks of the other aviation fuel pathways, so I'd advise you actually consider whether using aviation biofuels at all is a good thing from a true "sustainability" perspective? And if so, how much and why?
Sorry for spamming but Europe has changed the policy which they will go for hydrogen and battery only, not SAF. SAF still emits CO2. Please get your update about the recent policy change here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_22_3854/IP_22_3854_EN.pdf
No, we can only get to small %s using waste oil and fat and can't scale it much further, there isn't the available feedstock: "High near-term targets for SAF blending may only incentivize the diversion of waste oils from existing uses in the road sector, approaching approximately 2% of 2030 jet fuel demand from waste oil alone." - theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Sustainable-aviation-fuel-feedstock-eu-mar2021.pdf (page 1) A recent UK report estimated it could only provide "0.3 to 0.6% of the total amount of jet fuel used every year in the UK." - royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/net-zero-aviation/net-zero-aviation-fuels-policy-briefing.pdf (page 24)
Also, most renewbales papers I've seen suggest that because renewables are so much cheaper than nuclear on an LCOE basis, we will overbuild our national grid capacity 2 or 3 times JUST for the worst few weeks of winter. But what to do the rest of the year with 2 or 3 times your national grid? Synthetic jet fuel sounds like a great function for this "Super-Power" (as Tony Seba calls it.)
Solar = 1% and Wind 2% of current global energy use. We are a long way off having overcapacity... many decades off yet. This is about what happens over the next 5, 10, 15 years, we might double or triple our renewable capacity etc. But our energy *demand* will still greatly outweigh it (hence continued fossil fuel exploration and extraction). So we need to reduce energy demand to stop this happening. Therefore, scaling the most inefficient use of energy (jet fuel production) doesn't feel very clever?
@@GreenSkyThinking I agree - I think I was imagining further down the track. In the meantime unless governments legislate airlines HAVE to clean up by some deadline - I just don't see it happening. Sorry - feeling a bit cynical this morning. I just hope solar keeps doubling every 4 years as eventually doubling curves explode out at the end! But in the meantime airlines are going to extract every cent they can from this game.
Bosch and Porsche seem to be projecting that the cost of synthetic fuel will be the same as normal petrol and diesel by 2030. The main cost of these synthetic fuels will be electricity. And it seems like the cost of the cheapest electricity in the world will be dropping quite low by then. In some places it is already about 1/10th the cost of average US electricity.
No matter the cost of electricity, it is still a cheaper and more efficient thing to use EVs rather than hydrogen/synfuel right? www.transportenvironment.org/file/4477 and flying is an inefficient mode of transport vs. ground transport. So it is the least efficient use of renewable energy you can think of. Use of synfuel for cars is more bonkers than hydrogen fuel cells... I think Porsche are just hoping to hang on to their combustion engine assets for as long as possible + hope very rich people will pay the high price for the fuel to keep using the old tech. Clearly it's a waste of limited renewable energy resource though... and should be regulated against (i.e. should pay a higher cost for electricity to discourage)... which will make it more expensive again. Price parity of synfuel with fossil fuels seems very unlikely by 2030 and indeed by 2040... I expect it'll be 2-4 times the cost still in 2040, based on Royal Society report, Fig. 7: royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/synthetic-fuels/synthetic-fuels-briefing.pdf
@@GreenSkyThinking For smaller vehicles I think batteries are best. I also am not sure efficiency is the most important thing, but rather total cost. For example: Covering only about 1% of the Saharan dessert in solar cells will give enough electricity to power the entire Earth! So I think in the medium to long run, renewable energy is not limited. It is limited right now, because it is mostly government subsidized, organized and not profitable enough yet. The main limitation for renewables at the moment is profitability. The more profitable it becomes the more it will be used. So I think we should welcome any new industry that is profitable with renewable energy. I also think these synfuel companies are planning on setting up their own renewables, so it doesn't really affect the other efforts to use renewables. Rather, it brings demand and thus more innovation and lower costs for the whole renewable sector. Also, making synfuels can be done in remote areas with the cheapest possible renewable electricity. The synfuel would essentially be used like a battery and then exported with existing infrastructure. The alternative would be to set up ultra long power lines (also with substantial losses) and giant battery banks (very very expensive) hooked up to the renewables, but I suspect this will not be as profitable. So, in conclusion I don't think it is a zero sum game, and we are just waiting for renewables to cross the profitability threshold (relative to fossil fuels). I think this is happening right now, but only for certain sectors and in certain locations first. There have been many predictions on battery costs and renewable costs over the years, and if I remember correctly, most of them where way to conservative in predicting how fast the costs would drop. So I am quite optimistic. I don't think we should regulate the space, by mandating who gets to use renewables etc. Perhaps the solution is a carbon tax.
@@GreenSkyThinking For comparison, average household electricity in the US is about $0.13 / kWh and the cheapest wind/solar energy in the world is less than $0.02 / kWh. And the prices are probably going to drop even more. The amount of renewable electricity worldwide is going to explode once it finds a way to be profitable.
@@cryptohouse1676 the problem is that our total global energy consumption is also growing every year and has actually been rising faster than renewables growth... so fossil fuel consumption (and thus greenhouse gas emissions) have been rising too. Just look at the stats: ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels Bottom line is that fossil fuel companies love anything that increases energy consumption as it means the use of fossil fuels will be prolonged. Flying, bigger cars, bigger (poorly insulated) houses, higher data use etc. So we need to both grow renewables AND decrease energy consumption through a) promoting high efficiency activities b) regulating against low efficiency activities. With flying, we need to a) encourage switch to ground transport where possible, b) encourage shorter and slower flights, c) have mandates for synfuel, d) tax remaining fossil fuel use. If synfuel is definitely going to be so cheap then where are the government roadmaps showing high % mandates by 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040? The only country I'm aware of is Germany which is 2-5% alternative fuel by 2030 (mostly biofuels). If it's gonna be price-parity by 2030, then we could implement a 100% synfuel mandate by then right? Also we could ban the use of biofuels? The problem with these extrapolations for cost reduction, is that they are enabled by economies of scale and technology development... so somebody has to pay for it initially when it's small scale, undeveloped, and expensive. If anybody is doing it, surely it should be the relatively rich, relatively high-emitting minority who are flying? Therefore, flying needs to get more expensive, before it gets cheaper?
Thanks for your series of great videos ! I would have 3 questions if you have time: 1- Biofuel: given the amount of waste we have on Earth, why do you think there is not enough “raw material” to produce them in large quantities ? I tend to think the same but I’m looking for “proofs” 2- Do we agree then when biofuel are burnt, they release the SAME quantity of CO2 than fossil kerosene ? However radiative forcing is les intensive, correct ? 3- When e-fuels are burnt, do they release no CO2 at all ? Thanks again, Julien
Hi Julien, thanks for the questions. 1. As an example to illustrate scale: if we produced our 2018 levels of global jet fuel consumption using biofuel from wheat, we'd need the equivalent of the entire global human calorific requirement. Bear in mind the aviation industry wants to *double* air traffic from 2019 levels by 2040. Think about all the biomass "waste" we generate too... is it really "waste" or could we compost it and use it to replace fossil fuel fertiliser... thus reducing emissions far more? If we have non-food waste, do we not need to try to reduce this: remember "reduce, reuse, recycle"? Turning non-biogenic waste into fuel is particularly bad... and a lot of our current waste has non-biogenics (e.g. plastics) mixed in. Even if you find some sustainable supply of biomass waste that can't be composted etc... there are better, more-efficient uses for bioenergy such as grid back up (which can have CCS applied to the exhaust) and biodiesel for long-range trucks and ships. 2. Yes, same CO2 released... non-CO2 effects are being studied, and partial reduction appears possible which is good... but this is counteracted by the greater CO2 reduction you would have got elsewhere if turning the biomass into e.g. road or shipping fuel (requires less biomass input for a given output of fuel). 3. E-fuels release the same quantity of CO2... as with biofuels, the agreement is that you sequestered atmospheric CO2 in the first place to *create* the fuel... so "no net CO2 taken from underground and released to the atmosphere"... of course the reality is different, and actually the huge energy consumption of e-fuel production would be likely to prolong fossil fuel extraction/burning in order to meet the energy demand. For example, producing current levels of global jet fuel consumption with e-fuels would even optimistically still use more than our current global renewable generation capacity... and most of that is currently hydro which can't be scaled (Wind currently supplies 2% and Solar 1% of global energy use). Let me know if you follow this - good questions!
Europe Europe has changed the policy which they will go for hydrogen and battery only, not SAF. SAF still emits CO2. Please get your update about the recent policy change here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_22_3854/IP_22_3854_EN.pdf
Would you say that these synthetic fuels are also the so-called electrofuels or e-fuels? In my class they did the distinction between bio and electro fuels but I dont know if it refers to the same as you are mentioning here. Thanks for the amazing video ❤️
Yes in hindsight my terminology isn't the best, as both biofuel and electro fuel (e-fuel) can be 'synthetic' or synthesised using the 'Fischer Tropsch' process. The importance is that biofuel uses carbon from a biological source (e.g. plants or waste) and electro-fuel uses carbon from a non-biological origin (e.g. carbon capture powered by electricity). E-fuel is often called 'synthetic fuel' or 'synfuel' or 'power-to-liquid' fuel though. Biofuel fact sheet: stay-grounded.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/SG_factsheet_8-21_Biofuels_print_Lay02.pdf Synthetic fuel fact sheet: stay-grounded.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/SG_factsheet_8-21_Synthetic-E-fuels_print_FIN_A4_Korr.pdf I helped write both of these fact sheets, so let me know if any questions!
@@GreenSkyThinking Super clarifying! Thank you again for your videos on the topic and your answers. Im recently growing more and more interest for the green-fuels topic, and I am really considering focusing my thesis on this topic now :)
Sorry for spamming but, Europe has changed the policy which they will go for hydrogen and battery only, not SAF. SAF still emits CO2. Please get your update about the recent policy change here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_22_3854/IP_22_3854_EN.pdf
Hi Dan, unfortunately the vast majority of land is already deforestated to make way for agriculture and this is set to continue as global population continues to expand. Many regions are also experiencing droughts, rising sea levels and adverse weather conditions which reduce agricultural yield. This combination of factors is leading to rapid deforestation of the planet and we haven't yet been able to reverse that trend. Maybe when we have we can talk about biofuels (but in any case they are an inefficient conversion of sunlight into stored energy vs. solar photovoltaic panels). It's worth also looking into bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) which most governments are dangerously banking on for "negative emissions" over the coming decades. The requirements for BECCS alone could involve an agricultural area twice the size of India or the US. Put simply: we don't have enough available and fertile land.
Not when you look at how much bioenergy we're banking on for bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which could "mean water shortages for 4.5 billion people": www.newscientist.com/article/2270227-carbon-negative-crops-may-mean-water-shortages-for-4-5-billion-people/ Here is also a paper from Sept 2020: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1758-5899.12827 which says "the sustainability of large-scale BECCS is questionable given its extensive land, water, and energy requirements for feedstocks and the competing necessity of these resources ... BECCS on a more limited scale, however, could have more benign impacts if feedstocks were restricted to wastes and residues." which makes me question how we can assume any wastes/residues will remain for aviation?
Yes, although alternative synthesised fuels do have lower "aromatic" content (impurities) which mean they burn a bit cleaner and are slightly more efficient and produce less soot and particulate matter. This in turn means they form less contrails behind aircraft and produce less non-CO2 warming... BUT they can't be scaled fast enough!
@@GreenSkyThinking Do you know if it can be said that the longer you travel at the highest possible altitude the less of a warming effect SAF could have? Due to less atmospheric density and therefore less reaction opportunities. For instance boom aims to have a travel altitude of 60,000 feet. I don’t know how long they want to sustain that altitude.
@@jaslarja some of the problems for supersonic travel: - you burn about 5x the amount of jet fuel to transport the same passengers the same distance (just faster) - water vapour global warming impact increases with altitude and the global warming from this is likely to dwarf CO2 emissions. theicct.org/publication/aviation-global-supersonic-safs-feb22/
Sorry for spamming but Europe has changed the policy which they will go for hydrogen and battery only, not SAF. SAF still emits CO2. Please get your update about the recent policy change here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_22_3854/IP_22_3854_EN.pdf
a higher carbon price isn't a solution, that just makes air travel unaffordable need to tackle the cost challenges head on, better catalysts to improve efficiency, mass produced modular nuclear reactors for thermolysis to produce H2 cheaper, extracting CO2 from the sea rather than the air is probably more efficient, just going to have to keep working on these problems and beat these current cost projections, or else radically rethink air travel (eg. hydrolox powered suborbital rockets?), air travel getting more expensive is an unacceptable outcome
Hello Chronokun, you appear to be suggesting that nuclear-powered synthetic fuel could be used, without air travel becoming more expensive ? For info, I used to work at Rolls-Royce, who make both aircraft engines and nuclear reactors - and the CTO proposed this to me also. I did a calculation using their numbers for Small-Modular Reactors and worked out you'd need about 5,000 of them to meet the projected aviation fuel consumption in 2050... at a cost of roughly $4 trillion to build. So, some questions to you: - why would an airline voluntarily pay for this incredibly expensive fuel? - if airline customers aren't paying for the vast quantity of nuclear power stations required for this... then who is? - if conventional jet fuel (kerosene) remains far cheaper, why would airlines not just keep using this instead?
@@GreenSkyThinking take a look into the projected capital investment into Oil & Gas exploration, extraction and refining for 2050, its more than 5x as much, $4 trillion to meet global demand is cheap, which is why the fuel would ultimately end up cheaper
@@GreenSkyThinking Lucid Catalyst did a report that ran a similar cost comparison to this, although they weren't looking specifically at kerosene, but rather displacing oil with H2 produced from modular reactors www.lucidcatalyst.com/hydrogen-report intuitively it makes sense, fuel has to be refined anyway, and exploration and transport only adds cost, so if you can provide process heat for cheaper than it costs to drill and ship oil, then why shouldn't synthetic fuel be cheaper? and undeniably nuclear fuel is higher density and cheaper, so the issue is then driving down reactor costs with mass production, and simpler, intrinsically safe designs
@@DjChronokun if $4 trillion is cheap then can we add the cost to air fares so that those using it are paying for it then? The industry doesn't propose this... the only synthetic e-fuel mandate being proposed is by Germany and its less than 1% in 2030. We'll have blown our global carbon budget for 1.5degC by then. If synthetic e-fuel was cheap then the industry would be planning to use that rather than dangerously ramping up biofuel to 500m tonnes by 2050 as per their "Clean Skies for Tomorrow" WEF report. If green hydrogen can be produced cheaply and abundantly, then why are governments planning for lots of blue hydrogen facilities? Again, synthetic e-fuels are possible and should be scaled in favour of biofuels... but those using it need to pay... and any kerosene being used needs to be taxed according to an effective emissions price.
@@GreenSkyThinking ok, fair points regarding "why isn't this being done?"... the answer is technological readiness, both the reactors and the thermochemical cycles are still unproven, but it is being worked on, eg. Hyundai, USNC and KAERI, are partnering to develop thermochemical H2 production from MMRs, we will likely have to wait for more concrete cost figures after pilot projects are built before we will known for sure if the costs work out, then I suspect we will see large scale investment follow (assuming public sentiment around nuclear doesn't ruin things) carbon taxes or e-fuel mandates might help drive investment in this direction sooner/faster, so they're not necessarily bad, but we need more focus on decreasing costs from advanced nuclear (both fission and fusion), the world is never going to accept moving to zero carbon energy if it means energy costs more, zero carbon needs to be the cheaper option by 2050 for net-zero to be achievable
Why not focus on capturing and storing CO2 in areas whith the absolute lowest cost, and then use an equivalent amount of fossil fuel to keep things neutral. Could be cheaper than making e-fuels from scratch and exporting them around the globe.
Hi Jim, yes I tend to agree. My view on e-fuels has matured since I made this video shall we say. E-fuels can only be scaled if we have abundant low-carbon electricity... and we don't. Producing hydrogen and producing e-kerosene are very inefficient processes and they should be minimised... which illustrated the need to minimise air traffic in order to minimise total jet fuel use. What we do use will be very expensive though, so the point being made in this video stands: we'll need emissions pricing for kerosene (you'd need this to raise money for Direct Air Capture of CO2) and alternative e-fuels will be more expensive. Agreed that burning kerosene and powering Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) will likely use far less energy and be cheaper as a result than producing e-fuel. Page 11 of this report shows that: www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Sector-summary-Electricity-generation.pdf and I have also helped produce a detailed fact sheet on e-fuels which lays out some of the challenges with e-fuels: stay-grounded.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/SG_factsheet_8-21_Synthetic-E-fuels_print_FIN_A4_Korr.pdf Let me know what you think?
Carbon capture is not economical. Sorry for spamming but Europe has changed the policy which they will go for hydrogen and battery only, not SAF. SAF still emits CO2. Please get your update about the recent policy change here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_22_3854/IP_22_3854_EN.pdf
The cost of energy is largely dictated by supply vs. demand. The majority of the world's energy demand is provided by fossil fuels. Wind energy only provides 2% and Solar Energy 1% of global demand currently. Global energy demand is rising every year. We also rapidly need to phase-out fossil fuel extraction. This tells us demand will massively exceed supply of available energy and energy costs will soar, unless we greatly reduce energy-intensive processes. Bear in mind the producing synthetic electro-fuel and burning that in an aircraft is one of the most energy-intensive things you can do. This all points to the cost of flying massively increasing over the coming decades. This is my understanding of the physics and the economics - happy to be given alternative views though?
@@GreenSkyThinking To start, I would disagree on the supply and demand theory for energy prices. Because energy is a commodity, it is traded. The anticipation of supply reductions or an increase in demand increase energy prices, not necessarily the actual supply and demand. I have also heard we have over 500 years worth of oil remaining to be welled - so supply is plenty. -- From an economic perspective, the keyboard I'm typing on reached my house from China because of oil. If we increase the costs of energy, the keyboard price (with shipping charges built into it) will increase. It's basically inflation, as energy is used make and transport all material things within our economies. Prosperity and wealth for all nations depends on cheap reliable energy. Expensive energy reduces production, decreases economic activity, and leads to less prosperity. If you can create an engine (fuel cell) that can convert chemical energy to mechanical at 80% efficiency instead of an ICE at 25%, you can pay 3x the cost for the fuel and still get an economic advantage. I don't think we should ever intentionally create necessity through hardship (through taxation or other price increasing measures which will damage prosperity) to promote innovation. Instead we could create necessity through innovation challenges and grants.
You are wrong that we cannot use e-fuels for aviation. Point source CO2 and green hydrogen from alkaline electrolysis are coming down in price rapidly. We cannot blame shift onto carbon pricing and if we don't replace jet fuel with e-fuels at an accelerated rate, we will lose the climate battle anyway. Your video looks very polished and you sound very professional, but I'm afraid this does the climate agenda more harm than good.
Hi Michelle, we can absolutely use e-fuels for aviation - I'm pretty sure I say that's possible in the video? Let me know if that's not clear. My point is that a) they are very energy intensive and expensive, b) they shouldn't be incentivised by governments as they'd use huge amounts of electricity. So yes airlines can use e-fuel, but they'll need to pay for it... and they won't if fossil jet fuel is 5 times less expensive... so we need to tax fossil jet fuel in order to reduce emissions (alongside any mandate for e-fuel).
@@GreenSkyThinking hi. I think we need more granularity in the discussion. If you look at the techno-economics for using power-to-x with a point source CO2 with AEL, they are much better than for DAC/PEMEL. Unfortunately these aspects are not covered in your presentation and the overall impression is that the technology is higher up the technology-cost curve than in reality. It worries me that this kind of video is very convincing but doesn't unpack the different technology options and relative costs for making e-fuels.
@@michepreneur yes it's a high level video intended for an entry-level audience. Does my conclusion not hold: "power-to-liquid (e-fuels) will remain more expensive than fossil fuel for decades, unless we increase the emissions price of fossil fuel"? I'm happy to be corrected with evidence. Figure 7 on pg29 of this Royal Society report indicates synfuel produced from point-source CO2 will still remain more significantly more expensive than fossil fuel for decades to come: royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/synthetic-fuels/synthetic-fuels-briefing.pdf I'd note for anybody else reading these comments that point-source CO2 is from carbon capture on the exhaust of an industrial process or power station... therefore if you process that captured carbon into a fuel and burn it in an aircraft... you've still ultimately emitted that carbon and are increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations... so should really then pay for DAC to re-sequester it again (at > £500/tCO2 currently).
@@GreenSkyThinking I think it's sooner than decades. As I said it's dependent on the technology route. I study this for a living and wrote a leading multiclient recently on power-to-x. We expect to be at gigascale e-fuel production by 2030. Also note that we are talking about hard-to-abate sectors here. We have no choice but to use a synfuel because electrification is not possible at least for decades. Therefore the CO2 will be emitted as well as all the GHG from oil and gas extraction unless we use e-fuels which have already prevented CO2 molecules from point sources from entering the atmosphere. So they do not add (as much) CO2 as the current situation. The alternative of course is not to fly or drive a car and I'm all in favour of that as I've commented elsewhere publicly.
@@michepreneur great to have an expert commenting - thank you! What is your most optimistic price for a kg or litre of e-kerosene in 2030 and 2040 from the study? Just to re-emphasise my position on this: I'm not saying e-fuels aren't possible (in fact I point out their scale-up should be favoured over biofuels) but what I AM pointing out is that e-fuels are energy intensive, and therefore fundamentally expensive. So airlines will not pay for them unless mandated to do so and unless emissions pricing is applied to fossil jet fuel to price in the climate impact. It's also all very well saying "their price will drop in the future" but that will be based on economies of scale and tech development which will only happen if somebody buys the stuff now whilst it's more expensive... all of this points to customers having to pay more for airfares... and a near-term limit on air traffic growth. The aviation industry doesn't acknowledge that and there are currently very few mandates for synfuel (e.g. Germany has recently announced one mandating less than 1% by 2030...meanwhile we may have blown our 1.5degC carbon budget before then... all of that points to the need for a kerosene tax in the meantime, and yes less flying).
@@GreenSkyThinking SAF from biofuel is being scaled as we speak (NESTE, GEVO, LanzaJet, etc). show me synthetic fuels scaled at the same rate as biofuels. Agriculture is currently playing an enormous role in Biofuel. If you would take the time to read what is being done by companies like GEVO, you would understand. Oil companies are actively seeking to invest in SAF from biofuels.
@@caribbeanheartmender great, they also said the same thing in the 2000s, but it's 2022 and how much quantity of biofuel 'SAF' was produced in 2021? 0.05% of jet fuel use. Neste uses palm oil fatty distalate (PFAD) and palm oil plantations are a major driver of deforestation. Check out: www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Cellulosic-biofuels-report-2.pdf
@@GreenSkyThinking so your goal is just to minimize air travel, disregard biofuel, and rely on better engine tech? You must be smarter then all of the other people collaborating in this industry. Have to question people who put so much energy In opposing reasonable solutions.
If we rise the price of oil for the good of humankind people would love you and the fat cats in wall street would hate you...so as a guy from main street I say to you "GOOD IDEA 💡"
Europe has changed the policy which they will go for hydrogen and battery only not SAF. Please get your update about the recent policy change here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_22_3854/IP_22_3854_EN.pdf
That's not a policy paper... it's the Zero Emissions Aircraft (ZEA) Alliance... which no surprise is looking at "Zero Emissions" aircraft like electric and hydrogen. If you look at EU policy: www.easa.europa.eu/en/light/topics/fit-55-and-refueleu-aviation you'll see that Europe is aiming for 63% SAF by 2050, 28% e-fuels.
What about plastic can it ne a feedstock for saf?
Hi, grat video! I am currently writing my master thesis about possible policies to support the use of green hydrogen in the aviation sector and I am focusing on Synthetic fuels so your video is a nice overview.
Could you tell us which sources you have used next to the McKinsey report? I guess, it could be very helpful for the first part of my thesis.
Thank you for the clear and short summary about the topic!
I'd check out this recent report:
www.transportenvironment.org/discover/2050roadmap/
I'd suggest considering whether green hydrogen should be most efficiently used to hydrotreat kerosene to remove aromatics, rather than to make biofuel or e-fuel. Reduce fossil fuel aromatics will reduce soot and thus non-CO2 emissions (which cause 2/3rds of aviations climate impact).
@@GreenSkyThinking Thanks a lot! I will have a closer look on the report today and will keep your comment in mind!
It's a super interesting and hot topic so I am grateful for all the impact and different ideas and views! :)
Sorry for spamming but Europe has changed the policy which they will go for hydrogen and battery only, not SAF. SAF still emits CO2. Please get your update about the recent policy change here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_22_3854/IP_22_3854_EN.pdf
What about the alcohol-to-jet pathway?
Hi Brett,
Alcohol-to-jet has not been proven to work at scale yet, so not a technology we can place our hopes on.
Anyway, assuming it does work and scale up, without causing in-direct land use change impacts, take a look at this paper: theicct.org/publications/cost-supporting-alternative-jet-fuels-european-union
Specifically Figure 2 within the paper so see that it costs at least 4x conventional aviation fuel. So we need emissions pricing on the conventional kerosene.
Any hydrocarbon will emit CO2. Sorry for spamming but Europe has changed the policy which they will go for hydrogen and battery only, not SAF. SAF still emits CO2. Please get your update about the recent policy change here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_22_3854/IP_22_3854_EN.pdf
Carbon pricing, for example the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act in the US Congress, has widespread support among scientists, economists. Check it out. The future is ours to choose. If we work together.
2. Biomass Fuel -
Uses agricultural waste, municipal waste, used cooking fuel.
None of them can be scaled sustainably
3. Synthetic Fuel -
Meaning Liquid Hydrocarbon
Produced : Synthesizing Hydrogen with Carbon
Hydrogen can be produced from electrolysis
Carbon can be captured from atmosphere using DAC
DAC - Direct Air Capture
Critical issue -
Technology is in it's early infancy. SO cost are incredibly high
All of the processes are energy intensive
Solution - Increasing emissions' price to make fossil fuel more expensive and synthetic fuel more cost competitive
Great video! Apart from CO2, how clean will synthetic aviation fuel burn? Are there other harmful emissions?
Hello, thank you!
So as per conventional fuel: 1kg of alternative fuel still produces 3.15kg of CO2, no difference there. When it comes to non-CO2 emissions such as soot, and other combustion side-products there is room for improvement because you can tailor the fuel chemistry to minimise those side-products. This is good for health impacts near the airport from ground operation, but also these by products like soot are nucleation points in the sky for ice crystals and contrail cloud cirrus to form. Such contrails can increase the global warming potential of the CO2 alone by a factor of 3. So there is good reason to use alternative fuel for specific routes, flights, and weather conditions which are susceptible to high levels of non-CO2.
Now: the issue with this is that the non-CO2 impacts of aviation are not currently accounted for in any existing regulations: the national greenhouse gases (GHG) inventory submissions to the UNFCCC, the CORSIA scheme, nor the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). They are currently dismissed by the International Civil Aviation Organizational (ICAO) as being too scientifically uncertain to warrant necessary action.
This draws unfortunate parallels with the tobacco industry and fossil fuel industry’s past tactics of emphasising scientific uncertainties in cancer and global warming studies.
Hopefully this response was informative - please let me know if you'd like sources for any of this - happy to provide.
@@GreenSkyThinking Thanks for your answer. Do you see potential in microturbine generators being used in ships and boats as range extendors for hybrid-electric setups? I heard microturbines are much cleaner than traditional piston engines.
@@cryptohouse1676 a lot of boats do have gas turbines. You're still burning fossil fuel. You might get an efficiency improvement but this is meaningless without emissions pricing for shipping also. The international maritime organisation (IMO) have a similarly poor grasp on this, in the same way ICAO have an awful system (CORSIA) for international aviation.
So my point being: technology efficiency improvements are worth nothing without effective policy, emissions accounting and regulation. This is lacking from both the international shipping and aviation sector.
Sorry for spamming but Europe has changed the policy which they will go for hydrogen and battery only not SAF. Please get your update about the recent policy change here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_22_3854/IP_22_3854_EN.pdf
Hi! Thank you so much for the educational videos. I love aviation but I am increasingly hating the industry, because there are a lot of lies. Since you were here talking about the alternative fuels, could you give me your opinion about this SAF, specially from Neste? I guess they are the same as biofuel as they come from crops or waste like cooking oil, but the reduction of co2 emissions can account to 80%. I did my own research and you see a lot of news (specially from energy companies like bp, Repsol...) about how important it is and confirm this emission reduction. But is it true? I did a course on sustainable aviation and this component SAF can account around half of the availability of conventional kerosene fuel, so that would not be a major problem in the short/medium term (other problems should be the availability in airports and so on, but not really the problem that biofuel has). I am very confused tbh. Thank you so much!
Yes, Neste are based in Finland and specialise in "HEFA". HEFA is from waste oils and fats. Such feedstocks are more efficiently processed into biodiesel for road & shipping fuels (although jet fuel can be a relatively small co-product of this process). Neste also still use PFAD (palm oil fattty distillate) as a major feedstock, and animal fat, both are byproducts from fundamentally unsustainable industries (palm oil and livestock plantations respectively). Even if these industries WERE sustainable (they're not and need to be scaled down rapidly), the max feedstock avaliable is relatively tiny and only able to provide say 2-5% of current jet fuel consumption. In short: dead end. If this does or doesn't make sense to you please let me know. I reckon you're confused by the quantity of greenwash out there. If you do your research and find new evidence and info please feedback 🙏 us environmental campaigners need to work together to change the system!
Also, the "80% emissions reduction" is dodgy accounting - which needs to assume the biomass (waste oil or other biomass feedstock) wouldn't be used for any other purpose. This is a bit of a ridiculous assumption because there are so many competing uses for these feedstocks and greater emissions savings result from the other uses. So viewed holistically, using biomass (or renewable electricity) to produce jet fuel, rather than other, will lead to actively *higher* emissions. Again, let me know if you follow this line of logic?
@@GreenSkyThinking I do understand your first point. Thank you for the extra info. But I do not understand your second point about the emission reduction. Are you telling me that the use of this biomass (that comes from non sustainable industries, an therefore, more availability means also more emissions in the other side) for aviation goes with more emissions because other industries that also wants this source will pollute more? Could you give an hypothetical example? And of course I will let you know about my research. The numbers don't add up, we see companies (aviations, logistics) telling us that they will reduce their gh emissions with SAF but at then end, it can be more polluting than kerosene? Sorry for the confusion but I am very messed up about what they tell and about what they don't tell. Thank you!
@@emilioiglesias7401 OK so there is a finite amount of sustainable energy in the world right? So in 1 year there is only X amount of renewable electricity and X amount of sustainable biomass waste. Maybe its something like 10,000 TWh... whilst total human energy demand is currently something like 150,000 TWh. This means if you use renewable energy or biomass to make jet fuel, you could have used it for many other uses that still rely on fossil fuel. I'm saying that the energy goes further if used for something else and will save more emissions. See page 11 if this report for a good example: www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Sector-summary-Electricity-generation.pdf (that's for 1MWh of electricity but pretty much same goes for 1MWh of biomass waste right?)
@@GreenSkyThinking finally I got your point! Thanks thanks for your response and the report, really interesting and helpful. So in this point, what should logistics/aviation companies do? They will pursue their interest-profit and offer more and more flights as you have shared. Biofuels is not the best option right now because other alternatives are more efficient, but in the meantime... which could be a good solution? Yes tax the fuel but... from the irresponsable company view? thanks!!
Hey, could you add a link to your sources and the graphs showed? :)
Hey, so some of this comes from the EU FCH Hydrogen Aviation report: www.fch.europa.eu/sites/default/files/FCH%20Docs/20200507_Hydrogen%20Powered%20Aviation%20report_FINAL%20web%20%28ID%208706035%29.pdf e.g jump to page 48 and you can see the cost curve I used towards the end of this video. Also page 44 of the same report shows the huge energy requirements for LH2 or synthetic e-fuel. "Decarbonizing the aviation sector via LH2 and synfuel would thus triple to quintuple the renewable energy produced globally today - in other words, demand for renewable energy would be 20-30 times as high as renewable energy produced in Europe." My similar calculation for the UK is done taking jet fuel use = 12Mt/year, multiplying it by energy density of kerosene = 12kWh/kg, to get 145 TWh. Then divide by 0.6 to get input renewable energy required for e-fuel production at 60% efficiency. Should get about 250TWh. That's being very optimistic as you can see from page 44 of the source above, the aviation industry report says 22% power-to-liquid efficiency. 60% is approaching theoretical limit.
Biofuels are bad news. See Section 7.1 here: drive.google.com/file/d/1ImrCJXdt0s8EahZBiL6fLaRzgHuyPsFh/view?usp=sharing
See section 4.5.1 of this report also: www.transportenvironment.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/TE-aviation-decarbonisation-roadmap-FINAL.pdf
Remember, this is theoretical maximum supply, and we need limited sustainable biomass for other things e.g. BECCS.
@@GreenSkyThinking awesome! I really appreciate the quick and extensive reply. Thank you!
Sorry for spamming but Europe has changed the policy which they will go for hydrogen and battery only, not SAF. SAF still emits CO2. Please get your update about the recent policy change here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_22_3854/IP_22_3854_EN.pdf
I love ur summaries at the end, rly rly helpful to consolidate!
Thanks! Let me know if you've got any questions!
Thanks à lot again very clear explanations
I'd be keen on your thoughts on algae fuels?
Hi Ian, absolutely and great question.
Firstly, algae biofuel just hasn't taken off yet, the technology is still at lab scale and hasn't been made commercially viable at larger scale. Big investors have pulled out, etc. so we can't rely on it in any case until its proven.
You might think "OK but if its a good solution maybe we should fund lots of development?"
Well if you look into some studies, you start to realise its not all its sold to be - you need huge amounts/areas of water and the environmental impact is not great.
Next... Let's just say we DO discover a low environmental impact, low cost algae feedstock for bioenergy?
This is a BIG assumption, but forget that for now: why would we use that bioenergy for aircraft fuel rather than a bioenergy power plant on the ground?
- A bioenergy power plant is way more efficient than an aircraft engine (+60% vs. 20-40% efficiency).
- per tonne of biomass you displace a greater amount of fossil fuel, and therefore abate more GHG emissions
- you can add a CCS filter to the exhaust and capture the GHG emissions there and then
- you don't have the issues of contrails with aircraft that produce 2/3rd of aviations climate impact due to exhaust forming contrail cirrus clouds at high altitude
Summary:
- can't bet on algae and not ready and development has run into lots of issues
- it still has a negative environmental impact and should be minimised
- any low impact, low cost algae you can grow should be sent straight to a BECCS plant (we are currently planning to cover an area 1-5 times the size of India in bioenergy crops for CCS by the end of the century... so could do with algae coming good for that and utilise it for that rather than burning it in a plane)
Further reading: www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/campaigns/biotech-for-biofuels/
Let me know your thoughts, and thanks for the question!
So all we need is a new type of algae be found that runs on seawater/waste water and is as cheap to process as fossil fuel and can be grown in a ditch where crop will not grow?
I disagree on the BECCS bit. Efficiency-wise nothing beats renewable electricity generation. Photosynthesis alone will cost you 80-90% of the solar energy. Biofuels should therefore be used only when there are no electric alternatives, when either the energy density or the carbon itself is essential for the purpose.
This is almost philosophical: when more people are raised above the poverty line maybe around 2050 (despite those still under constant hunger), more will want to travel, a big part of them will want to travel by air, and airlines will want to fulfill these demands. How do you suggest they do that cleaner than what they do now if hydrogen and electric are still far away and probably cannot fly farther than from france to germany?
@@ianhu7755 "all we need" is an understatement - it's almost impossible to do that.
I agree on bioenergy being an inefficient conversion of solar energy into stored energy - that's why I say in this video that biofuels cannot be scaled sustainably and should be removed from consideration. This applies to any biofuel crop, whether its land-based or marine such as algae or seaweed.
I would advocate for solar produced synthetic fuel as you suggest - that's what I'm saying in this video yes? Synthetic fuel CAN be scaled... its expensive though vs. untaxed kerosene/jet fuel so we need increased emissions pricing/tax of fossil fuel.
@@GreenSkyThinking Hello there,
Now we're using algae biofuel, so what are your thoughts now?
@@myconerd Have you got a link to a news story article? Confirming process, quantity, price, etc?
You could combine the 2 - upgrade biomass with hydrogen (e.g. electrodimerisation of some lignin compounds like furfural to get a C10 backbone, then hydrogenate it).
We can't scale up biofuels to large quantities without incurring significant risks in terms of land use change, biodiversity loss, loss of soil nutrients etc. That includes lignocellulosic biomass (although no such biofuel processes have been demonstrated at commercial scale) as there is competition with other sectors e.g. the large amount of BECCS relied on within all IPCC pathways.
@@GreenSkyThinking well as one example, hundreds of millions of tonnes of bagasse are burnt in the sugar industry. But sugar refineries can be made all electric, running off heat pumps and renewables. That frees up a lot of biomass.
I think you've taken an assumption from a low grade use of biomass (burning it for electricity) and applied it too broadly.
The idea will be to add energy value (including with Green hydrogen and renewable electricity) to low grade and waste biomass.
Defeatism won't save the planet.
Hi@@fehzorz thanks, defeatism won't save the planet - but equally a lack of realism will kill it. I'm not defeatist about our abilities, we can turn it around, but we do need to be realistic.
Burning sugar (or other agricultural) crop waste clearly isn't a good scenario. But our option isn't a binary decision between 1. Burn it. Or 2. Make jet fuel from it.
Fermenting sugar bagasse is one of the easiest lignocellulosic biofuel pathways but again, we have limited feedstock and how can you justify using it for aviation fuel rather as BECCS to displace fossil generation on the grid + capture and store the CO2?
Would be interested in your views on the conclusions made in this report:
www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2018/dead-end-road/
You might have some insights that Biofuelwatch don't.
@@GreenSkyThinking the key is to think of a hierarchy for uses of biomass. In my view, food is at the top, and rotting to methane is at the bottom. Various forms of leaving it alone (where it doesn't end up as methane) are also high of course, as are long lived products (e.g. construction materials). At the lower end, you need to think about the difficulty of abating the alternative use - so burning it for electricity, or biofuels to run small engines in vehicles that could easily be electric are not ideal. Even high temperature process heat hydrogen and electric arcs might do the trick. But Jet Fuel is an excellent high value use of biomass.
Fundamentally what I'm talking about is something that should be easier than synthetic fuels from direct air capture CO2. People talk about BECCUS and DACCUS, all I'm saying is don't forget the U. Nature did the hard work to fix the carbon and even put it into relatively long chains, now use that backbone to get the most useful carbon containing product (using various chemical processes). Not limited to fermenting cellulose either (what the linked report talks about). What I mentioned was based on a lignin byproduct. The lowering costs of Green Hydrogen will change a lot and we'll need to pull out some very old chemistry textbooks to best figure out how to upgrade biomass.
Definitely cut down on flying whenever possible (e.g. in areas where rail is an alternative). But we will need long haul flights for a globally connected world, and that's the only kind of world that will be able to solve a global challenge like climate change.
At the very least, why not take a look at where biomass is already being used, and see if it can be displaced for better uses. So for example, the Drax woodchip burning power plant, the global fuel ethanol industry (largely to run cars that could be EVs), or the burning of sugar bagasse.
@@fehzorz yeah that's a good idea and I have written down a hierarchy which I can share with you if you're interested by emailing greenskythinking@outlook.com.
Yeah we need to protect biodiversity and preserve carbon sinks ahead of agriculture, so that also suggests minimising livestock farming.
The important point is we only have a very finite amount of truly sustainable biomass waste available globally. Some X million tonnes of corn stover, sugar bagasse, rice husks, etc. Some. Of these things we can turn into useful products and keep the carbon captured e.g. Building materials, home insulation or plastic replacements e.g. Reusable coffee cups.
If we use for bioenergy, we should use it for something that will maximise the emissions saved and stored per tonne of biomass used. If you burn it in a BECCS ppwer station then you displace coal/gas from the electrical grid, which goes far further than the amount of kerosene you can displace by it turning it into jet fuel. This is due to the inefficiency of the fuel production process but also using it in an inefficient vehicle combustion engine. Furthermore, you can fit CCS equipment to capture the carbon emissions at the exhaust then store geologically. You can't do that on a vehicle such a truck or plane due to weight and volume issues.
So if we have 10 million tonnes of biomass, I wouldn't advocate for policies that subsidise the production of jet fuel over use in BECCS.
I also wouldn't advocate for subsidies that divert it from road transport to air transport. Fuel refineries are more efficient if they maximise biodiesel out out rather than biojet. So if you divert feedstock to aviation it reduces economy-wide decarbonisation. We are nowhere near taking all combustion engines off the road - particularly HGV lorries, so will continue to need biodiesel for decades yet.
what about wood fiber blended with 50% with traditional jet fuel
What about it? Where are you getting your wood fibre from? Saw dust from mills? Because that's already used for other stuff. Branches and twigs from forestry? Because that's super diffuse, located at disparate locations, and very low energy density by weight and volume, so high transport emissions just getting it to a processing facility. And, if that processing facility is close, I'd recommend using it to produce fuel for powering the very vehicles doing that forestry/agriculture work right there and then... rather than shipping/trucking it miles to an airport and generating even more emissions. Just some initial thoughts on why this seems like a pretty bad idea, I could go on. Google "THE CURIOUS CASE OF RED ROCK BIOFUELS" and look for the article by Biofuelwatch for an example of this not really working very well, if at all.
@@GreenSkyThinking i use used coffee grounds
@@TimSmith-vl4qk you create jet fuel from used coffee grounds? Personally? We do actually know that coffee grounds cna be used as an effective fertiliser for reforestation www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/forest-on-caffeine-how-coffee-helps-forests-grow-faster so maybe a better use than turning into jet fuel?
Super easy explanation ! Amazing 🤲🏼
Thanks!
green methanol will be cheaper one day.
2nd, Methanol can be used via a Direct Fuel Cell instead of and engine.
And this is far more energy efficient because heat loss is less.
hey I watched your video and come up with a question. I'm writing a practical work in university about bio fuel and I need some information:
1. How much time do the company need to change ordinary fuel for bio one?
2. Approximately, how much can it cost for aviation company to switch to biofuel?
I would be grateful if you'll answers 😊
Greetings from Ukraine 🙏🏻💙💛
1. Not possible: the only commercialised aviation biofuel pathway is HEFA, and can only be scaled to roughly 2% of total jet fuel use. So if the airline in question wanted to change all its fuel to biofuel, there wouldn't be much left at all for other companies.
2. For HEFA the cost is 2-4 times the cost of untaxed kerosene. Prices depend on kerosene price (affected by oil price) and competition for the (limited) HEFA feedstock. HEFA is currently 2-4 times the price I believe. Other fuel types can be much higher cost, e.g. 5-10x higher. Search for: theicct.org/publication/the-cost-of-supporting-alternative-jet-fuels-in-the-european-union/
@@GreenSkyThinking thanks a lot for your help👍🏻👍🏻😉
@@oliatsarenko7010 again, there is competition for the feedstocks of the other aviation fuel pathways, so I'd advise you actually consider whether using aviation biofuels at all is a good thing from a true "sustainability" perspective? And if so, how much and why?
Sorry for spamming but Europe has changed the policy which they will go for hydrogen and battery only, not SAF. SAF still emits CO2. Please get your update about the recent policy change here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_22_3854/IP_22_3854_EN.pdf
Biofuel doesnt necessarily be produced from biomass but also waste cooking oil or animal fat. That quantity is sufficient to cover the demand for saf
No, we can only get to small %s using waste oil and fat and can't scale it much further, there isn't the available feedstock: "High near-term targets for SAF blending may only incentivize the diversion of waste oils from existing uses in the road sector, approaching approximately 2% of 2030 jet fuel demand from waste oil alone." - theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Sustainable-aviation-fuel-feedstock-eu-mar2021.pdf (page 1)
A recent UK report estimated it could only provide "0.3 to 0.6% of the total amount of jet fuel used every year in the UK." - royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/net-zero-aviation/net-zero-aviation-fuels-policy-briefing.pdf (page 24)
Also, most renewbales papers I've seen suggest that because renewables are so much cheaper than nuclear on an LCOE basis, we will overbuild our national grid capacity 2 or 3 times JUST for the worst few weeks of winter. But what to do the rest of the year with 2 or 3 times your national grid? Synthetic jet fuel sounds like a great function for this "Super-Power" (as Tony Seba calls it.)
Solar = 1% and Wind 2% of current global energy use. We are a long way off having overcapacity... many decades off yet. This is about what happens over the next 5, 10, 15 years, we might double or triple our renewable capacity etc. But our energy *demand* will still greatly outweigh it (hence continued fossil fuel exploration and extraction). So we need to reduce energy demand to stop this happening. Therefore, scaling the most inefficient use of energy (jet fuel production) doesn't feel very clever?
@@GreenSkyThinking I agree - I think I was imagining further down the track. In the meantime unless governments legislate airlines HAVE to clean up by some deadline - I just don't see it happening. Sorry - feeling a bit cynical this morning. I just hope solar keeps doubling every 4 years as eventually doubling curves explode out at the end! But in the meantime airlines are going to extract every cent they can from this game.
Bosch and Porsche seem to be projecting that the cost of synthetic fuel will be the same as normal petrol and diesel by 2030. The main cost of these synthetic fuels will be electricity. And it seems like the cost of the cheapest electricity in the world will be dropping quite low by then. In some places it is already about 1/10th the cost of average US electricity.
No matter the cost of electricity, it is still a cheaper and more efficient thing to use EVs rather than hydrogen/synfuel right? www.transportenvironment.org/file/4477 and flying is an inefficient mode of transport vs. ground transport. So it is the least efficient use of renewable energy you can think of.
Use of synfuel for cars is more bonkers than hydrogen fuel cells... I think Porsche are just hoping to hang on to their combustion engine assets for as long as possible + hope very rich people will pay the high price for the fuel to keep using the old tech. Clearly it's a waste of limited renewable energy resource though... and should be regulated against (i.e. should pay a higher cost for electricity to discourage)... which will make it more expensive again.
Price parity of synfuel with fossil fuels seems very unlikely by 2030 and indeed by 2040... I expect it'll be 2-4 times the cost still in 2040, based on Royal Society report, Fig. 7: royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/synthetic-fuels/synthetic-fuels-briefing.pdf
@@GreenSkyThinking For smaller vehicles I think batteries are best. I also am not sure efficiency is the most important thing, but rather total cost. For example: Covering only about 1% of the Saharan dessert in solar cells will give enough electricity to power the entire Earth! So I think in the medium to long run, renewable energy is not limited. It is limited right now, because it is mostly government subsidized, organized and not profitable enough yet.
The main limitation for renewables at the moment is profitability. The more profitable it becomes the more it will be used. So I think we should welcome any new industry that is profitable with renewable energy. I also think these synfuel companies are planning on setting up their own renewables, so it doesn't really affect the other efforts to use renewables. Rather, it brings demand and thus more innovation and lower costs for the whole renewable sector.
Also, making synfuels can be done in remote areas with the cheapest possible renewable electricity. The synfuel would essentially be used like a battery and then exported with existing infrastructure.
The alternative would be to set up ultra long power lines (also with substantial losses) and giant battery banks (very very expensive) hooked up to the renewables, but I suspect this will not be as profitable.
So, in conclusion I don't think it is a zero sum game, and we are just waiting for renewables to cross the profitability threshold (relative to fossil fuels). I think this is happening right now, but only for certain sectors and in certain locations first.
There have been many predictions on battery costs and renewable costs over the years, and if I remember correctly, most of them where way to conservative in predicting how fast the costs would drop.
So I am quite optimistic. I don't think we should regulate the space, by mandating who gets to use renewables etc. Perhaps the solution is a carbon tax.
@@GreenSkyThinking For comparison, average household electricity in the US is about $0.13 / kWh and the cheapest wind/solar energy in the world is less than $0.02 / kWh. And the prices are probably going to drop even more. The amount of renewable electricity worldwide is going to explode once it finds a way to be profitable.
@@cryptohouse1676 the problem is that our total global energy consumption is also growing every year and has actually been rising faster than renewables growth... so fossil fuel consumption (and thus greenhouse gas emissions) have been rising too. Just look at the stats: ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels
Bottom line is that fossil fuel companies love anything that increases energy consumption as it means the use of fossil fuels will be prolonged. Flying, bigger cars, bigger (poorly insulated) houses, higher data use etc. So we need to both grow renewables AND decrease energy consumption through a) promoting high efficiency activities b) regulating against low efficiency activities.
With flying, we need to a) encourage switch to ground transport where possible, b) encourage shorter and slower flights, c) have mandates for synfuel, d) tax remaining fossil fuel use.
If synfuel is definitely going to be so cheap then where are the government roadmaps showing high % mandates by 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040? The only country I'm aware of is Germany which is 2-5% alternative fuel by 2030 (mostly biofuels). If it's gonna be price-parity by 2030, then we could implement a 100% synfuel mandate by then right? Also we could ban the use of biofuels?
The problem with these extrapolations for cost reduction, is that they are enabled by economies of scale and technology development... so somebody has to pay for it initially when it's small scale, undeveloped, and expensive. If anybody is doing it, surely it should be the relatively rich, relatively high-emitting minority who are flying? Therefore, flying needs to get more expensive, before it gets cheaper?
Thanks for your series of great videos !
I would have 3 questions if you have time:
1- Biofuel: given the amount of waste we have on Earth, why do you think there is not enough “raw material” to produce them in large quantities ? I tend to think the same but I’m looking for “proofs”
2- Do we agree then when biofuel are burnt, they release the SAME quantity of CO2 than fossil kerosene ? However radiative forcing is les intensive, correct ?
3- When e-fuels are burnt, do they release no CO2 at all ?
Thanks again,
Julien
Hi Julien, thanks for the questions.
1. As an example to illustrate scale: if we produced our 2018 levels of global jet fuel consumption using biofuel from wheat, we'd need the equivalent of the entire global human calorific requirement. Bear in mind the aviation industry wants to *double* air traffic from 2019 levels by 2040. Think about all the biomass "waste" we generate too... is it really "waste" or could we compost it and use it to replace fossil fuel fertiliser... thus reducing emissions far more? If we have non-food waste, do we not need to try to reduce this: remember "reduce, reuse, recycle"? Turning non-biogenic waste into fuel is particularly bad... and a lot of our current waste has non-biogenics (e.g. plastics) mixed in. Even if you find some sustainable supply of biomass waste that can't be composted etc... there are better, more-efficient uses for bioenergy such as grid back up (which can have CCS applied to the exhaust) and biodiesel for long-range trucks and ships.
2. Yes, same CO2 released... non-CO2 effects are being studied, and partial reduction appears possible which is good... but this is counteracted by the greater CO2 reduction you would have got elsewhere if turning the biomass into e.g. road or shipping fuel (requires less biomass input for a given output of fuel).
3. E-fuels release the same quantity of CO2... as with biofuels, the agreement is that you sequestered atmospheric CO2 in the first place to *create* the fuel... so "no net CO2 taken from underground and released to the atmosphere"... of course the reality is different, and actually the huge energy consumption of e-fuel production would be likely to prolong fossil fuel extraction/burning in order to meet the energy demand. For example, producing current levels of global jet fuel consumption with e-fuels would even optimistically still use more than our current global renewable generation capacity... and most of that is currently hydro which can't be scaled (Wind currently supplies 2% and Solar 1% of global energy use).
Let me know if you follow this - good questions!
Europe Europe has changed the policy which they will go for hydrogen and battery only, not SAF. SAF still emits CO2. Please get your update about the recent policy change here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_22_3854/IP_22_3854_EN.pdf
Would you say that these synthetic fuels are also the so-called electrofuels or e-fuels? In my class they did the distinction between bio and electro fuels but I dont know if it refers to the same as you are mentioning here. Thanks for the amazing video ❤️
Yes in hindsight my terminology isn't the best, as both biofuel and electro fuel (e-fuel) can be 'synthetic' or synthesised using the 'Fischer Tropsch' process. The importance is that biofuel uses carbon from a biological source (e.g. plants or waste) and electro-fuel uses carbon from a non-biological origin (e.g. carbon capture powered by electricity). E-fuel is often called 'synthetic fuel' or 'synfuel' or 'power-to-liquid' fuel though.
Biofuel fact sheet:
stay-grounded.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/SG_factsheet_8-21_Biofuels_print_Lay02.pdf
Synthetic fuel fact sheet:
stay-grounded.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/SG_factsheet_8-21_Synthetic-E-fuels_print_FIN_A4_Korr.pdf
I helped write both of these fact sheets, so let me know if any questions!
@@GreenSkyThinking Super clarifying! Thank you again for your videos on the topic and your answers. Im recently growing more and more interest for the green-fuels topic, and I am really considering focusing my thesis on this topic now :)
Sorry for spamming but, Europe has changed the policy which they will go for hydrogen and battery only, not SAF. SAF still emits CO2. Please get your update about the recent policy change here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_22_3854/IP_22_3854_EN.pdf
not sure how it cannot be scaled up. There's millions of acres of potential farmland all over the world, how can this not be feasible?
Hi Dan, unfortunately the vast majority of land is already deforestated to make way for agriculture and this is set to continue as global population continues to expand. Many regions are also experiencing droughts, rising sea levels and adverse weather conditions which reduce agricultural yield. This combination of factors is leading to rapid deforestation of the planet and we haven't yet been able to reverse that trend. Maybe when we have we can talk about biofuels (but in any case they are an inefficient conversion of sunlight into stored energy vs. solar photovoltaic panels). It's worth also looking into bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) which most governments are dangerously banking on for "negative emissions" over the coming decades. The requirements for BECCS alone could involve an agricultural area twice the size of India or the US.
Put simply: we don't have enough available and fertile land.
No enough waste for bio fuels??
Not when you look at how much bioenergy we're banking on for bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS), which could "mean water shortages for 4.5 billion people": www.newscientist.com/article/2270227-carbon-negative-crops-may-mean-water-shortages-for-4-5-billion-people/
Here is also a paper from Sept 2020:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1758-5899.12827
which says "the sustainability of large-scale BECCS is questionable given its extensive land, water, and energy requirements for feedstocks and the competing necessity of these resources ... BECCS on a more limited scale, however, could have more benign impacts if feedstocks were restricted to wastes and residues." which makes me question how we can assume any wastes/residues will remain for aviation?
There remains the problem of byproducts from burning hydrocarbons. Even if the fuel is de facto carbon neutral.
Yes, although alternative synthesised fuels do have lower "aromatic" content (impurities) which mean they burn a bit cleaner and are slightly more efficient and produce less soot and particulate matter. This in turn means they form less contrails behind aircraft and produce less non-CO2 warming... BUT they can't be scaled fast enough!
@@GreenSkyThinking Do you know if it can be said that the longer you travel at the highest possible altitude the less of a warming effect SAF could have? Due to less atmospheric density and therefore less reaction opportunities. For instance boom aims to have a travel altitude of 60,000 feet. I don’t know how long they want to sustain that altitude.
@@jaslarja some of the problems for supersonic travel:
- you burn about 5x the amount of jet fuel to transport the same passengers the same distance (just faster)
- water vapour global warming impact increases with altitude and the global warming from this is likely to dwarf CO2 emissions.
theicct.org/publication/aviation-global-supersonic-safs-feb22/
Sorry for spamming but Europe has changed the policy which they will go for hydrogen and battery only, not SAF. SAF still emits CO2. Please get your update about the recent policy change here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_22_3854/IP_22_3854_EN.pdf
If it's possible to efficiently pull carbon from the atmosphere, then we have a solution to excess carbon in the atmosphere. (hint: it isn't)
Yes exactly the point being made here
a higher carbon price isn't a solution, that just makes air travel unaffordable
need to tackle the cost challenges head on, better catalysts to improve efficiency, mass produced modular nuclear reactors for thermolysis to produce H2 cheaper, extracting CO2 from the sea rather than the air is probably more efficient, just going to have to keep working on these problems and beat these current cost projections, or else radically rethink air travel (eg. hydrolox powered suborbital rockets?), air travel getting more expensive is an unacceptable outcome
Hello Chronokun, you appear to be suggesting that nuclear-powered synthetic fuel could be used, without air travel becoming more expensive ?
For info, I used to work at Rolls-Royce, who make both aircraft engines and nuclear reactors - and the CTO proposed this to me also. I did a calculation using their numbers for Small-Modular Reactors and worked out you'd need about 5,000 of them to meet the projected aviation fuel consumption in 2050... at a cost of roughly $4 trillion to build.
So, some questions to you:
- why would an airline voluntarily pay for this incredibly expensive fuel?
- if airline customers aren't paying for the vast quantity of nuclear power stations required for this... then who is?
- if conventional jet fuel (kerosene) remains far cheaper, why would airlines not just keep using this instead?
@@GreenSkyThinking take a look into the projected capital investment into Oil & Gas exploration, extraction and refining for 2050, its more than 5x as much, $4 trillion to meet global demand is cheap, which is why the fuel would ultimately end up cheaper
@@GreenSkyThinking Lucid Catalyst did a report that ran a similar cost comparison to this, although they weren't looking specifically at kerosene, but rather displacing oil with H2 produced from modular reactors
www.lucidcatalyst.com/hydrogen-report
intuitively it makes sense, fuel has to be refined anyway, and exploration and transport only adds cost, so if you can provide process heat for cheaper than it costs to drill and ship oil, then why shouldn't synthetic fuel be cheaper? and undeniably nuclear fuel is higher density and cheaper, so the issue is then driving down reactor costs with mass production, and simpler, intrinsically safe designs
@@DjChronokun if $4 trillion is cheap then can we add the cost to air fares so that those using it are paying for it then?
The industry doesn't propose this... the only synthetic e-fuel mandate being proposed is by Germany and its less than 1% in 2030. We'll have blown our global carbon budget for 1.5degC by then.
If synthetic e-fuel was cheap then the industry would be planning to use that rather than dangerously ramping up biofuel to 500m tonnes by 2050 as per their "Clean Skies for Tomorrow" WEF report.
If green hydrogen can be produced cheaply and abundantly, then why are governments planning for lots of blue hydrogen facilities?
Again, synthetic e-fuels are possible and should be scaled in favour of biofuels... but those using it need to pay... and any kerosene being used needs to be taxed according to an effective emissions price.
@@GreenSkyThinking ok, fair points regarding "why isn't this being done?"...
the answer is technological readiness, both the reactors and the thermochemical cycles are still unproven, but it is being worked on, eg. Hyundai, USNC and KAERI, are partnering to develop thermochemical H2 production from MMRs, we will likely have to wait for more concrete cost figures after pilot projects are built before we will known for sure if the costs work out, then I suspect we will see large scale investment follow (assuming public sentiment around nuclear doesn't ruin things)
carbon taxes or e-fuel mandates might help drive investment in this direction sooner/faster, so they're not necessarily bad, but we need more focus on decreasing costs from advanced nuclear (both fission and fusion), the world is never going to accept moving to zero carbon energy if it means energy costs more, zero carbon needs to be the cheaper option by 2050 for net-zero to be achievable
Why not focus on capturing and storing CO2 in areas whith the absolute lowest cost, and then use an equivalent amount of fossil fuel to keep things neutral. Could be cheaper than making e-fuels from scratch and exporting them around the globe.
Hi Jim, yes I tend to agree. My view on e-fuels has matured since I made this video shall we say. E-fuels can only be scaled if we have abundant low-carbon electricity... and we don't. Producing hydrogen and producing e-kerosene are very inefficient processes and they should be minimised... which illustrated the need to minimise air traffic in order to minimise total jet fuel use. What we do use will be very expensive though, so the point being made in this video stands: we'll need emissions pricing for kerosene (you'd need this to raise money for Direct Air Capture of CO2) and alternative e-fuels will be more expensive. Agreed that burning kerosene and powering Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS) will likely use far less energy and be cheaper as a result than producing e-fuel. Page 11 of this report shows that: www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Sector-summary-Electricity-generation.pdf and I have also helped produce a detailed fact sheet on e-fuels which lays out some of the challenges with e-fuels: stay-grounded.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/SG_factsheet_8-21_Synthetic-E-fuels_print_FIN_A4_Korr.pdf
Let me know what you think?
Carbon capture is not economical. Sorry for spamming but Europe has changed the policy which they will go for hydrogen and battery only, not SAF. SAF still emits CO2. Please get your update about the recent policy change here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_22_3854/IP_22_3854_EN.pdf
Increasing the cost of energy is not the answer.
The cost of energy is largely dictated by supply vs. demand. The majority of the world's energy demand is provided by fossil fuels. Wind energy only provides 2% and Solar Energy 1% of global demand currently. Global energy demand is rising every year. We also rapidly need to phase-out fossil fuel extraction. This tells us demand will massively exceed supply of available energy and energy costs will soar, unless we greatly reduce energy-intensive processes. Bear in mind the producing synthetic electro-fuel and burning that in an aircraft is one of the most energy-intensive things you can do. This all points to the cost of flying massively increasing over the coming decades. This is my understanding of the physics and the economics - happy to be given alternative views though?
@@GreenSkyThinking To start, I would disagree on the supply and demand theory for energy prices. Because energy is a commodity, it is traded. The anticipation of supply reductions or an increase in demand increase energy prices, not necessarily the actual supply and demand. I have also heard we have over 500 years worth of oil remaining to be welled - so supply is plenty. -- From an economic perspective, the keyboard I'm typing on reached my house from China because of oil. If we increase the costs of energy, the keyboard price (with shipping charges built into it) will increase. It's basically inflation, as energy is used make and transport all material things within our economies. Prosperity and wealth for all nations depends on cheap reliable energy. Expensive energy reduces production, decreases economic activity, and leads to less prosperity.
If you can create an engine (fuel cell) that can convert chemical energy to mechanical at 80% efficiency instead of an ICE at 25%, you can pay 3x the cost for the fuel and still get an economic advantage.
I don't think we should ever intentionally create necessity through hardship (through taxation or other price increasing measures which will damage prosperity) to promote innovation. Instead we could create necessity through innovation challenges and grants.
You are wrong that we cannot use e-fuels for aviation. Point source CO2 and green hydrogen from alkaline electrolysis are coming down in price rapidly. We cannot blame shift onto carbon pricing and if we don't replace jet fuel with e-fuels at an accelerated rate, we will lose the climate battle anyway. Your video looks very polished and you sound very professional, but I'm afraid this does the climate agenda more harm than good.
Hi Michelle, we can absolutely use e-fuels for aviation - I'm pretty sure I say that's possible in the video? Let me know if that's not clear. My point is that a) they are very energy intensive and expensive, b) they shouldn't be incentivised by governments as they'd use huge amounts of electricity. So yes airlines can use e-fuel, but they'll need to pay for it... and they won't if fossil jet fuel is 5 times less expensive... so we need to tax fossil jet fuel in order to reduce emissions (alongside any mandate for e-fuel).
@@GreenSkyThinking hi. I think we need more granularity in the discussion. If you look at the techno-economics for using power-to-x with a point source CO2 with AEL, they are much better than for DAC/PEMEL. Unfortunately these aspects are not covered in your presentation and the overall impression is that the technology is higher up the technology-cost curve than in reality. It worries me that this kind of video is very convincing but doesn't unpack the different technology options and relative costs for making e-fuels.
@@michepreneur yes it's a high level video intended for an entry-level audience. Does my conclusion not hold: "power-to-liquid (e-fuels) will remain more expensive than fossil fuel for decades, unless we increase the emissions price of fossil fuel"?
I'm happy to be corrected with evidence.
Figure 7 on pg29 of this Royal Society report indicates synfuel produced from point-source CO2 will still remain more significantly more expensive than fossil fuel for decades to come: royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/synthetic-fuels/synthetic-fuels-briefing.pdf I'd note for anybody else reading these comments that point-source CO2 is from carbon capture on the exhaust of an industrial process or power station... therefore if you process that captured carbon into a fuel and burn it in an aircraft... you've still ultimately emitted that carbon and are increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations... so should really then pay for DAC to re-sequester it again (at > £500/tCO2 currently).
@@GreenSkyThinking I think it's sooner than decades. As I said it's dependent on the technology route. I study this for a living and wrote a leading multiclient recently on power-to-x. We expect to be at gigascale e-fuel production by 2030. Also note that we are talking about hard-to-abate sectors here. We have no choice but to use a synfuel because electrification is not possible at least for decades. Therefore the CO2 will be emitted as well as all the GHG from oil and gas extraction unless we use e-fuels which have already prevented CO2 molecules from point sources from entering the atmosphere. So they do not add (as much) CO2 as the current situation. The alternative of course is not to fly or drive a car and I'm all in favour of that as I've commented elsewhere publicly.
@@michepreneur great to have an expert commenting - thank you! What is your most optimistic price for a kg or litre of e-kerosene in 2030 and 2040 from the study?
Just to re-emphasise my position on this: I'm not saying e-fuels aren't possible (in fact I point out their scale-up should be favoured over biofuels) but what I AM pointing out is that e-fuels are energy intensive, and therefore fundamentally expensive. So airlines will not pay for them unless mandated to do so and unless emissions pricing is applied to fossil jet fuel to price in the climate impact.
It's also all very well saying "their price will drop in the future" but that will be based on economies of scale and tech development which will only happen if somebody buys the stuff now whilst it's more expensive... all of this points to customers having to pay more for airfares... and a near-term limit on air traffic growth. The aviation industry doesn't acknowledge that and there are currently very few mandates for synfuel (e.g. Germany has recently announced one mandating less than 1% by 2030...meanwhile we may have blown our 1.5degC carbon budget before then... all of that points to the need for a kerosene tax in the meantime, and yes less flying).
You are wrong about the crops. Educate yourself on that part
Hi Carlos, thanks for the comment, what specifically is incorrect?
@@GreenSkyThinking SAF from biofuel is being scaled as we speak (NESTE, GEVO, LanzaJet, etc). show me synthetic fuels scaled at the same rate as biofuels. Agriculture is currently playing an enormous role in Biofuel. If you would take the time to read what is being done by companies like GEVO, you would understand. Oil companies are actively seeking to invest in SAF from biofuels.
@@caribbeanheartmender great, they also said the same thing in the 2000s, but it's 2022 and how much quantity of biofuel 'SAF' was produced in 2021? 0.05% of jet fuel use. Neste uses palm oil fatty distalate (PFAD) and palm oil plantations are a major driver of deforestation. Check out: www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Cellulosic-biofuels-report-2.pdf
@@GreenSkyThinking do you have a LinkedIn page or some place with your credentials?
@@GreenSkyThinking so your goal is just to minimize air travel, disregard biofuel, and rely on better engine tech? You must be smarter then all of the other people collaborating in this industry. Have to question people who put so much energy In opposing reasonable solutions.
If we rise the price of oil for the good of humankind people would love you and the fat cats in wall street would hate you...so as a guy from main street I say to you "GOOD IDEA 💡"
saf is greenwashing
Europe has changed the policy which they will go for hydrogen and battery only not SAF. Please get your update about the recent policy change here ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/ip_22_3854/IP_22_3854_EN.pdf
That's not a policy paper... it's the Zero Emissions Aircraft (ZEA) Alliance... which no surprise is looking at "Zero Emissions" aircraft like electric and hydrogen. If you look at EU policy: www.easa.europa.eu/en/light/topics/fit-55-and-refueleu-aviation you'll see that Europe is aiming for 63% SAF by 2050, 28% e-fuels.