Originally Posted by
Longtimer
"The real downside of biofuel for aircraft is the amount of arable land that would have to be taken away from growing food crops to provide the materials for biofuels.
Fuel consumption for international
aviation could be as high as 852 million tonnes (Mt) by 2050 (ICAO, 2016), and could
require 426 Mt of
bio-jet to meet the GHG emissions-reduction goals. Current
production, however, is currently very limited, at less than 0.1% of global total consumption of all types of jet fuels."
Foillowing is a goto to a paper on the subject:
https://www.irena.org/documentdownlo...ation_2017.pdf
Precisely.
Read closely what regulator ICAO say of hydrocarbon based fuel. They have no replacement, the "strategy" is to offset by planting trees in some place; out of sight, out of mind, all the while the industry will consume more and more of the hydrocarbon based fuel.
They have no viable alternative such that by mid century aviation will be a substantial emitter. Unlike their sisters in maritime, ICAO are not proposing a phasing out of hydrocarbon based fuel and there is one very simple reason: There is no commercially viable alternative.
Their ETS (only on international aviation) doesn't start until 2027 all the while the industry continues to grow at around 5% per annum.
Biofuel is technically feasible, but commercially a nonsense: The sheer amount of land required to grow the stuff means a crowding out of food crops...
Electric aircraft sound lovely in theory, as do laminar flow wings and all the rest. Ignoring the limits of battery technology, the redesign of the world's airports, all done by diesel powered equipment, ICAO will continue to fly around the world in business class like any other branch of the UN..