By Chris Eliot
The airline industry is desperate to show their environmental progress but jet fuel is critical to the industry. SAF, or so-called “sustainable” aviation fuel, is the idea that synthetic jet fuel can be made from renewable sources. Unfortunately, I think the industry has prematurely endorsed SAF without having a credible plan to implement this solution. Lara Sullivan wrote about this on March 3 (see “My Turn: Kudos for piece on sustainable aviation fuels“). The scale of the aviation industry is the fundamental problem.
There are many ways to create SAF but they all fall into three broad categories.
- It is technically possible to produce SAF from energy crops. According to a recent Department of Energy report, BETA-2023, this would require 76 million acres of land worth $76 billion to $760 billion. This amount of land is between the total size of Arizona and New Mexico. On the face of it, devoting this much land to the aviation industry seems excessive. It would result in higher food prices due to the amount of crops that would be used to fuel planes rather than feed people. In addition, it would inevitably lead to deforestation either in the United States or elsewhere, which will increase global warming. This means that producing this form of SAF would cause the very problem that the production of SAF aims to solve. Attempting to produce SAF from energy crops seems infeasible and may not actually address the climate change problem.
- It is technically possible to produce SAF from a wide variety of miscellaneous sources such as used cooking oil, wood chips, seaweed, municipal waste, etc. Unfortunately, all of these sources put together only address a small percentage of the quantities needed by the current and projected growth of the aviation industry. These miscellaneous sources do not solve the problem.
- Finally, SAF can be produced from component chemicals of hydrogen and carbon. This path is often called “e-fuel.” It may be described as a combination of carbon capture and hydrogen production by electrolysis. Jet fuel is chemically a hydrocarbon and there are industrial processes to combine gaseous hydrogen and carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons, although large amounts of energy are required. This process can be implemented with existing technology. However, it is impossible to scale up in the next half-century. The fundamental problem is that too much energy is needed to produce the required hydrogen.
The energy required would exceed the entire current capacity of the U.S. electrical grid. We already have to significantly increase our production of green electricity to support electric cars, houses, and industry. Doubling this effort in the available time frame would be almost impossible to do. However, aviation might drain our energy supply to satisfy their need for SAF and then disclaim responsibility for the problem.
The aviation industry denies all these problems and proposes that economy of scale is all that is required to cause a transition to SAF. I believe this is wishful thinking at best. The record of the fossil fuel industry as a source of truth about climate change speaks for itself.
The scale of the aviation industry is simply too large to fully transition to SAF, although some SAF will be produced and will contribute to a small percentage of the solution. There will always be a place for aviation, but it cannot massively grow and almost certainly must modestly shrink to fit within a limited supply of climate-friendly fuel. Alex Chatfield wrote on February 23 about the need to limit private jet usage (see “My Turn: Proposed private-jet Hanscom expansion is a climate bomb in sheep’s clothing“). The massive propaganda campaign currently attempting to portray SAF as a viable solution is greenwashing and ignores the fundamental limitations of this technology.
The new CEO of Massport suggested that we should “let them try” to create SAF to address aviation’s contribution to climate change. The problem with this is the same as false medical treatment: while aviation is pursuing the false hope that SAF will solve the problem, they are spending money and time going down a false path instead of investing that money and effort into addressing the real problem. Meanwhile, the Earth is rapidly approaching irreversible climate changes that will make life difficult for everyone, impacting food, water, livable space, and quality of life.
I oppose putting any public money into support for SAF unless and until there is a complete and viable production plan in place. We should not invest in promises that are vague and scientifically unsound. SAF at this time is a fantasy and distracts attention from the real problem. The aviation industry must be forced to develop a credible and executable plan to become climate friendly.
What can you do?
Be informed. Double-check my analysis and satisfy yourself that my research makes sense. Then, talk to your friends and explain the situation to them. This is a large and complex problem that won’t be solved quickly, but we need to convince people to push for a real solution and not to accept the false promise being pushed by the aviation and oil industry.
Chris Eliot of Lincoln is chair of the four-town Hanscom Field Advisory Commission.
“My Turn” is a forum for readers to offer their letters to the editor or views on any subject of interest to other Lincolnites. Submissions must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Items will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Submissions containing personal attacks, errors of fact, or other inappropriate material will not be published.
