Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTOP)   Boeing trials a plan to reduce the carbon footprint of future 737 Max crashes   (wtop.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, US Airways, United Airlines flight, Delta Air Lines, sustainable fuel, aviation history, much sustainable aviation fuel, Southwest Airlines, Washington Wednesday  
•       •       •

1531 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Dec 2021 at 10:15 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



36 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-12-01 7:42:03 PM  
Good
 
2021-12-01 8:13:14 PM  
Since it is United they are probably squeezing the fuel directly from the passengers and charging them a fee for it.
 
2021-12-01 10:18:45 PM  
The new definition of cornbinder
 
2021-12-01 10:20:30 PM  
The fact that they are running it in only one engine does not give me full confidence that they have full confidence in the fuel... I get it, it's risk management, but there should never need to be additional risk management measures taken with passengers on board. Paying passengers are not test subjects.
 
2021-12-01 10:21:41 PM  
That's the nicest euphemism for scrapping a program i've ever heard...
 
2021-12-01 10:28:12 PM  

loudboy: The fact that they are running it in only one engine does not give me full confidence that they have full confidence in the fuel... I get it, it's risk management, but there should never need to be additional risk management measures taken with passengers on board. Paying passengers are not test subjects.


They probably have run empty flights before. This is their first official flight with passengers.

/I think
 
2021-12-01 10:29:26 PM  
Airlines are currently only permitted to use a maximum of 50% sustainable aviation on board

That's some weird rule. Is it because the lobbyist of the non sustainable fuel is working hard?
 
2021-12-01 10:33:29 PM  

loudboy: The fact that they are running it in only one engine does not give me full confidence that they have full confidence in the fuel... I get it, it's risk management, but there should never need to be additional risk management measures taken with passengers on board. Paying passengers are not test subjects.


TFA says regulations only allow 50% sustainable fuel. Most airlines simply mix fossil and non-fossil fuel in their tanks, but this flight is running one of its engines on 100% sustainable fuel to demonstrate that it performs the same as fossil fuel and there's no need to limit its usage.

That said, the aviation industry is extremely cautious about introducing alternatives to proven technology.
 
2021-12-01 10:35:20 PM  
Oh sure...but when I fly half-tanked on corn distillates, it's "frowned upon"!
 
2021-12-01 10:37:58 PM  

loudboy: The fact that they are running it in only one engine does not give me full confidence that they have full confidence in the fuel... I get it, it's risk management, but there should never need to be additional risk management measures taken with passengers on board. Paying passengers are not test subjects.


Fergawdsake it's not the first time ever.  They've been doing it for years.  A 777 freighter flew 100% bio on both sides back in 2018.

So here they're using it on a commercial passenger route and they're being careful.  Is that good or not?

Boeing wants their entire commercial catalogue to run on bio by 2030 and are working towards that goal.  Is that good or not?
 
2021-12-01 10:42:11 PM  
What was the discount like on that flight? Want to fly on the plane that killed a few hundred people due to software issues? We fixed those. So how about that plane plus some random fuel in one of the engines? OK!
 
2021-12-01 10:45:11 PM  
Why does this have a fraction of the carbon footprint? Doesn't it still use carbon-based fuel? Is this mixed with hydrazine or something?
 
2021-12-01 10:48:10 PM  

andrewagill: Why does this have a fraction of the carbon footprint?


The fuel wasn't pulled from the ground.  Still burning carbon but the carbon was recently sucked out of the air by plants.  Literally the only way we'll have air travel in the future.

/ Electric aircraft are a pipe dream for non-trivial distances, for now.
 
2021-12-01 10:49:59 PM  

jaivirtualcard: Airlines are currently only permitted to use a maximum of 50% sustainable aviation on board

That's some weird rule. Is it because the lobbyist of the non sustainable fuel is working hard?


An abundance of caution, I think. I'm not an expert, but I sometimes play one on Fark, so here is what I think: a new aviation fuel needs to be proven to perform in some very extreme conditions with temperatures ranging between +50c when taking off from a desert runway to -50c to -60c at altitude within the same flight. Its density has to vary by a known percentage as temperature and pressure vary. It cannot cause long term damage to all the filters, valves, pumps and fuel lines in an airplane. Finally, airlines, manufacturers, and regulatory bodies have to understand what, if any, adjustments need to be made to aircraft maintenance schedules, and they have to do this for each aircraft model.
 
2021-12-01 10:54:54 PM  
Do the contrails smell like cow poop?
 
2021-12-01 10:58:02 PM  

andrewagill: Why does this have a fraction of the carbon footprint? Doesn't it still use carbon-based fuel? Is this mixed with hydrazine or something?


Bio fuels reintroduce carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere last week (okay, maybe a little longer) for a net gain of zero.

Fossil fuels reintroduce carbon that was sequestered over a period of hundreds of millions of years starting hundreds of millions of years ago. Any carbon emitted by these fuels is a net addition.
 
2021-12-01 11:00:29 PM  

Salmon: Do the contrails smell like cow poop?


100%, all natural, chemtrails.
 
2021-12-01 11:00:29 PM  

Salmon: Do the contrails smell like cow poop?


Yup. Just like your mom's.

/sorry
//low hanging fruit
 
2021-12-01 11:01:05 PM  

asymptonic: andrewagill: Why does this have a fraction of the carbon footprint?

The fuel wasn't pulled from the ground.  Still burning carbon but the carbon was recently sucked out of the air by plants.  Literally the only way we'll have air travel in the future.

/ Electric aircraft are a pipe dream for non-trivial distances, for now.


But you're still putting the same amount of carbon into the air, right?

Or is the difference in carbon footprint coming from the energy we spend refining the fuel?
 
2021-12-01 11:08:47 PM  

capt.hollister: andrewagill: Why does this have a fraction of the carbon footprint? Doesn't it still use carbon-based fuel? Is this mixed with hydrazine or something?

Bio fuels reintroduce carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere last week (okay, maybe a little longer) for a net gain of zero.

Fossil fuels reintroduce carbon that was sequestered over a period of hundreds of millions of years starting hundreds of millions of years ago. Any carbon emitted by these fuels is a net addition.


Not even close to net zero and that doesn't even count the water use.
 
2021-12-01 11:11:36 PM  

andrewagill: asymptonic: andrewagill: Why does this have a fraction of the carbon footprint?

The fuel wasn't pulled from the ground.  Still burning carbon but the carbon was recently sucked out of the air by plants.  Literally the only way we'll have air travel in the future.

/ Electric aircraft are a pipe dream for non-trivial distances, for now.

But you're still putting the same amount of carbon into the air, right?

Or is the difference in carbon footprint coming from the energy we spend refining the fuel?


No, it's about the net account of CO2 in the atmosphere over decades, plant based carbon chains use carbon pulled from CO2 that was in the atmosphere in the last year plus energy from sunlight. Petroleum based fuel use carbon chains from CO2 that was pulled out of the ground 100 million years ago. While they both result in the same number of CO2 molecules at the site of combustion one results in more net CO2 in the global atmosphere.
 
2021-12-01 11:12:14 PM  

loudboy: The fact that they are running it in only one engine does not give me full confidence that they have full confidence in the fuel... I get it, it's risk management, but there should never need to be additional risk management measures taken with passengers on board. Paying passengers are not test subjects.


I'm sure they've flown hundreds of hours with this fuel, in one engine and in both. Their lawyers wouldn't allow passengers without solid assurance that it's as safe as any other fuel. I suspect the "one engine only" is a requirement by the FAA for the first passenger flight.

If you were a passenger, wouldn't you want some proof that it's been tested thoroughly before you got on the plane? But then most folks will get on a plane without a single thought about who did the maintenance on the engines, or who tested the fuel before filling the tanks, or that the fuel manifest requested 3000 kg of fuel, and the fuel handlers read that as 3000 lbs, meaning your plane is going to run out of fuel halfway to the destination.
 
2021-12-01 11:17:31 PM  

RogermcAllen: capt.hollister: andrewagill: Why does this have a fraction of the carbon footprint? Doesn't it still use carbon-based fuel? Is this mixed with hydrazine or something?

Bio fuels reintroduce carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere last week (okay, maybe a little longer) for a net gain of zero.

Fossil fuels reintroduce carbon that was sequestered over a period of hundreds of millions of years starting hundreds of millions of years ago. Any carbon emitted by these fuels is a net addition.

Not even close to net zero and that doesn't even count the water use.


Still much less than fossil fuels.
 
2021-12-01 11:18:21 PM  

andrewagill: asymptonic: andrewagill: Why does this have a fraction of the carbon footprint?

The fuel wasn't pulled from the ground.  Still burning carbon but the carbon was recently sucked out of the air by plants.  Literally the only way we'll have air travel in the future.

/ Electric aircraft are a pipe dream for non-trivial distances, for now.

But you're still putting the same amount of carbon into the air, right?

Or is the difference in carbon footprint coming from the energy we spend refining the fuel?


Imagine you have a bathtub with 50 gallons of water.

You take out a gallon and put it back in 5 minutes later. Total amount of water in the tub is 50 gallons. This is the plant fuel.

You grab a gallon of water from the tap and add it to the tub. Total amount of water in the tub is 51 gallons. This is petroleum fuel.

In both cases, you added the same amount of water.
 
2021-12-01 11:23:20 PM  
Stop calling me Shirley!
 
2021-12-01 11:25:20 PM  
737 max... nope, not even if it was powered by angel farts.
 
2021-12-01 11:28:33 PM  
Sustainable aviation fuels have the potential to deliver the same performance of petroleum-based jet fuel with a fraction of the carbon footprint.


Absolute fantasy.

If you're a true believer in AGW, you'll stop flying this instant.
 
2021-12-01 11:29:34 PM  

loudboy: The fact that they are running it in only one engine does not give me full confidence that they have full confidence in the fuel... I get it, it's risk management, but there should never need to be additional risk management measures taken with passengers on board. Paying passengers are not test subjects.


Tell me you have never worked with the FAA
without telling me you never worked with the FAA
 
2021-12-01 11:31:49 PM  
So the planes fly on the same food they feed the passengers?
 
2021-12-01 11:32:05 PM  

asymptonic: andrewagill: Why does this have a fraction of the carbon footprint?

The fuel wasn't pulled from the ground.  Still burning carbon but the carbon was recently sucked out of the air by plants.  Literally the only way we'll have air travel in the future.

/ Electric aircraft are a pipe dream for non-trivial distances, for now.


Electric aviation is targeting 500 mile range by the 2030's and can probably get there. As that Gets farther it becomes exponentially harder.
 
2021-12-01 11:40:19 PM  
"The jet engine is fueled with non-petroleum feedstocks."

That's got to be like, what, 100,000 cow farts went into that?  Enough methane to launch a chemical warfare offensive.
 
2021-12-02 12:06:27 AM  
F*ck...I can only imagine how bad employee morale is right now.

/Used to work there.
 
2021-12-02 1:02:15 AM  

sex_and_drugs_for_ian: Sustainable aviation fuels have the potential to deliver the same performance of petroleum-based jet fuel with a fraction of the carbon footprint.


Absolute fantasy.

If you're a true believer in AGW, you'll stop flying this instant.


There have been a lot of comments that make the point, but I'll try to add more clarification to it. Using recently sequestered carbon (e.g. plants, trees, cow farts) is carbon neutral. It came out of the atmosphere, you put it back. Using fossil fuels puts carbon that was sequestered millions of years ago back into the atmosphere, where it hasn't been for a very long time. The bathtub analogy earlier was perfect; using biofuel is net zero. Using fossil fuels adds carbon to the atmosphere. You're right that stopping air travel would be ideal, except that unless you have a crazy amount of time available to get places, there is no option. Carbon neutral is the only way to get there sustainably in anything close to a reasonable time.
 
2021-12-02 7:51:57 AM  
Lemme guess: They're gonna remove the bathrooms so passengers can't make any solid or liquid carbon emissions.

/ as always, gaseous carbon emissions will be uncontrolled
 
2021-12-02 8:18:52 AM  

Sabre Toothed Engineer: sex_and_drugs_for_ian: Sustainable aviation fuels have the potential to deliver the same performance of petroleum-based jet fuel with a fraction of the carbon footprint.


Absolute fantasy.

If you're a true believer in AGW, you'll stop flying this instant.

There have been a lot of comments that make the point, but I'll try to add more clarification to it. Using recently sequestered carbon (e.g. plants, trees, cow farts) is carbon neutral. It came out of the atmosphere, you put it back. Using fossil fuels puts carbon that was sequestered millions of years ago back into the atmosphere, where it hasn't been for a very long time. The bathtub analogy earlier was perfect; using biofuel is net zero. Using fossil fuels adds carbon to the atmosphere. You're right that stopping air travel would be ideal, except that unless you have a crazy amount of time available to get places, there is no option. Carbon neutral is the only way to get there sustainably in anything close to a reasonable time.


Ian didn't need clarification. Nice explanation though. Anyone who uses the "no true believer" argument is just trolling.
 
2021-12-02 10:41:07 AM  

KarmicDisaster: Since it is United they are probably squeezing the fuel directly from the passengers and charging them a fee for it.


And beating them up a little.
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.