Cathay buys into US biofuels developer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay buys into US biofuels developer
From Flight Global.... CX does something right for a change. I'm not naive, its all about $$$$ and not the environment for them I'm sure, but it's still a good step in the right direction.
Cathay Pacific Airways has announced that it will invest in US based alternative fuels developer Fulcrum BioEnergy.
Cathay has also entered into a long-term supply agreement with Fulcrum that will see it initially take 375 million US gallons of biofuel over 10 years.
“We are pleased to have identified Fulcrum as a strategic business partner that has the necessary vision and technological know-how to help Cathay Pacific pursue the use of biojet fuels,” says the airline’s chief executive Ivan Chu. “These fuels are an important component of our sustainable development strategy, under which we aim to achieve carbon-neutral growth from 2020.”
The airline did not disclose the size of the transaction, nor the stake that it will hold in Fulcrum.
Fulcrum focuses on converting municipal solid waste into aviation fuel, and has plans to build its first commercial-scale production facility later this year. The company claims that its fuels cut lifecycle carbon emissions by more than 80%.
Cathay has also entered into a long-term supply agreement with Fulcrum that will see it initially take 375 million US gallons of biofuel over 10 years.
“We are pleased to have identified Fulcrum as a strategic business partner that has the necessary vision and technological know-how to help Cathay Pacific pursue the use of biojet fuels,” says the airline’s chief executive Ivan Chu. “These fuels are an important component of our sustainable development strategy, under which we aim to achieve carbon-neutral growth from 2020.”
The airline did not disclose the size of the transaction, nor the stake that it will hold in Fulcrum.
Fulcrum focuses on converting municipal solid waste into aviation fuel, and has plans to build its first commercial-scale production facility later this year. The company claims that its fuels cut lifecycle carbon emissions by more than 80%.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I could not disagree more.
Biofuels at present have NO distinctive advantage over other fuels and have largely been costly boondoggles. The problem is one of supply; there is a very limited supply and a HUGE amount of energy lost in the conversion cycle.
As an example, the ethanol cycle is only about 30% efficient in real net energy gain after processing losses and takes up real crop space meant for human consumption. Ethanol mandates kill people. They dramatically raise food prices and effectively starve--killing humans--in third world nations.
We have money to blow on schemes like this but not on a payrise ?!!? What about the opportunity cost of invested captial and return on investment ? A for-profit airline's job is to show a profit--and the best profit it can--PERIOD--and the profit motive is an absolutely wonderful thing.
There is NO such thing as "green" energy and the CO2 scam has been proven to be a myth used by miscreants to tax energy. When one does an energy balance any contribution by all forms of CO2 is wholly negligible compared to variations in input of solar energy caused by sun power flux, earth wobble and orbital instability, etc. This is why historically over time man has had absoutely no input to median earth temperature ranging from ice ages to widespread warming. Contributions of ALL forms of CO2 are at least 2 orders of magnitude below any ability to measure "heat in" from solar sources which do vary depending on orbit and solar output. It's impossible to draw regulatory conclusions from this. Every form of energy has externalities--including so called renewables.
"Carbon Neutrality" is the modern day equivalent of human sacrifices to appease the agricultural gods for good crops. While it might have some buzzword marketing aspects if these are based on a false premise I can't support it in any way. The bottom line will be the bottom line. Any fuel provider who uses "carbon emissions" as a selling point throws ALOT of red flags at profitibility--as does one who proports "low carbon" jet fuel. Hydrocarbons are what give the fuel the thermodynamic energy it has. E85 users have discovered this to their chagrin--finding out that even SUBSIDIZED (i.e. with my tax money which I now don't get to spend or invest) ethanol has significantly lower energy than gasoline. And that when burning E85 they actually can LOSE money by lower mileage as well as lower engine power output that more than offsets any pricing advantage. A fuel provider should have the same goal as any OTHER company--turning large profits by providing a quality product at a competitive price. Doesn't matter if it's kerosene or biokerosene or Di-Lithium crystals.
The BEST form of energy is the one which is the cheapest. The market determines this. If we can negotiate a contract which provides a stable source of jet fuel well below current market prices (and futures prices) at the exclusion of others (i.e. get this fuel cheaper than other carriers) then fine. I have serious doubts this is actually the case.
Even if it were, why not simply pay the prevailing price for Jet fuel (or BioJet if this ever comes to fruition and there really does become a stable supply of BioJet) and invest the money instead in growing the airline or some other decent investment with a decent return ?
The human race has never run out of energy. As needs for energy demand increase private companies evolve to provide these independent of subsidization--driven only by profit motive. There's plenty of oil and plenty of supply which evloves with demand; price increases have largely been caused by the devaluation of currencies worldwide by folks who think they can get something for nothing (this ALSO hikes labour costs--a fact we need to come to terms with). When oil REALLY starts running out (we're not close yet), for-profit independent companies will evolve on their own to provide the next step--and this probably won't involve traditional hydrocarbons in the form we know them--recycled or otherwise.
If it does save money in the long run, fine. But blowing money that could better be used elsewhere IMHO is not the right way to make decisions. If it really does provide cheaper fuel why not simply wait until the parent company demonstrates its viability in the marketplace without investing real, hard earned capital or get roped into an agreement which ends up costing real money ?
My bet is it'll be another Solyndra. I hope if we get roped into this I'm wrong but don't think I am.
Biofuels at present have NO distinctive advantage over other fuels and have largely been costly boondoggles. The problem is one of supply; there is a very limited supply and a HUGE amount of energy lost in the conversion cycle.
As an example, the ethanol cycle is only about 30% efficient in real net energy gain after processing losses and takes up real crop space meant for human consumption. Ethanol mandates kill people. They dramatically raise food prices and effectively starve--killing humans--in third world nations.
We have money to blow on schemes like this but not on a payrise ?!!? What about the opportunity cost of invested captial and return on investment ? A for-profit airline's job is to show a profit--and the best profit it can--PERIOD--and the profit motive is an absolutely wonderful thing.
There is NO such thing as "green" energy and the CO2 scam has been proven to be a myth used by miscreants to tax energy. When one does an energy balance any contribution by all forms of CO2 is wholly negligible compared to variations in input of solar energy caused by sun power flux, earth wobble and orbital instability, etc. This is why historically over time man has had absoutely no input to median earth temperature ranging from ice ages to widespread warming. Contributions of ALL forms of CO2 are at least 2 orders of magnitude below any ability to measure "heat in" from solar sources which do vary depending on orbit and solar output. It's impossible to draw regulatory conclusions from this. Every form of energy has externalities--including so called renewables.
"Carbon Neutrality" is the modern day equivalent of human sacrifices to appease the agricultural gods for good crops. While it might have some buzzword marketing aspects if these are based on a false premise I can't support it in any way. The bottom line will be the bottom line. Any fuel provider who uses "carbon emissions" as a selling point throws ALOT of red flags at profitibility--as does one who proports "low carbon" jet fuel. Hydrocarbons are what give the fuel the thermodynamic energy it has. E85 users have discovered this to their chagrin--finding out that even SUBSIDIZED (i.e. with my tax money which I now don't get to spend or invest) ethanol has significantly lower energy than gasoline. And that when burning E85 they actually can LOSE money by lower mileage as well as lower engine power output that more than offsets any pricing advantage. A fuel provider should have the same goal as any OTHER company--turning large profits by providing a quality product at a competitive price. Doesn't matter if it's kerosene or biokerosene or Di-Lithium crystals.
The BEST form of energy is the one which is the cheapest. The market determines this. If we can negotiate a contract which provides a stable source of jet fuel well below current market prices (and futures prices) at the exclusion of others (i.e. get this fuel cheaper than other carriers) then fine. I have serious doubts this is actually the case.
Even if it were, why not simply pay the prevailing price for Jet fuel (or BioJet if this ever comes to fruition and there really does become a stable supply of BioJet) and invest the money instead in growing the airline or some other decent investment with a decent return ?
The human race has never run out of energy. As needs for energy demand increase private companies evolve to provide these independent of subsidization--driven only by profit motive. There's plenty of oil and plenty of supply which evloves with demand; price increases have largely been caused by the devaluation of currencies worldwide by folks who think they can get something for nothing (this ALSO hikes labour costs--a fact we need to come to terms with). When oil REALLY starts running out (we're not close yet), for-profit independent companies will evolve on their own to provide the next step--and this probably won't involve traditional hydrocarbons in the form we know them--recycled or otherwise.
If it does save money in the long run, fine. But blowing money that could better be used elsewhere IMHO is not the right way to make decisions. If it really does provide cheaper fuel why not simply wait until the parent company demonstrates its viability in the marketplace without investing real, hard earned capital or get roped into an agreement which ends up costing real money ?
My bet is it'll be another Solyndra. I hope if we get roped into this I'm wrong but don't think I am.
Last edited by Shep69; 8th Aug 2014 at 02:30.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The is P.C. Marketing BS. It is almost laughable, certainly sad, that CX had no problem buying into yet another failed venture (ACC anyone) on top of all those fines for unethical business practices. This is marketing 101. It has nothing to do with reality, but it costs real money. This money could have been invested into hiring, training, and retaining proper pilots. You know, the ones that keep the wheels going round and round safely. But no, another slap in the face. It's really a sad state of affairs at CX these days.
PS - I have to wonder if this is some Obama government negotiated investment in exchange for more flying rights. I would not be the least bit surprised. Maybe Al Gore gets a nice chunk for his private jet and mansions. What a f"""""g circus this world has become.
PS - I have to wonder if this is some Obama government negotiated investment in exchange for more flying rights. I would not be the least bit surprised. Maybe Al Gore gets a nice chunk for his private jet and mansions. What a f"""""g circus this world has become.
