So Beardy Branson has saved aviation

[SteamyTea]

Really

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1032866/rolls-royce-shares-up-1-6-following-sustainable-jet-fuel-news-1032866.html

 

The same amount of emissions will happen, that is just chemistry.

 

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by SteamyTea

[joe90]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

Really

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1032866/rolls-royce-shares-up-1-6-following-sustainable-jet-fuel-news-1032866.html

 

The same amount of emissions will happen, that is just chemistry.

 

 

Evidence?

[SteamyTea]

14 minutes ago, joe90 said:

Evidence?

2 C₁₂H₂₆(l) + 37 O₂(g) → 24 CO₂(g) + 26 H₂O(g)

[joe90]

14 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

2 C₁₂H₂₆(l) + 37 O₂(g) → 24 CO₂(g) + 26 H₂O(g)

English (fir the rest of us)

[SteamyTea]

10 minutes ago, joe90 said:

English (fir the rest of us)

Just how kerosene burns in oxygen.

The carbon reacts with the oxygen to make carbon dioxide, the hydrogen reacts with the oxygen to make water vapour.

As the kerosene molecule has to be torn apart, the energy that is needed for that conversion is released as thermal energy (because energy can only change its form).  Bit like sweaty gym bunnies, they eat breakfast (as it is the most important meal of the day, even though there is no evidence for that), then start working out (posing in leggings), their wholemeal breakfast reacts with oxygen and converts the carbon in the grains and pulses to CO₂, H₂O and methane.  When they stop posing on the cross trainer, the body stills carries on reacting and release thermal energy.

This is why they glow under the sweat.

Edited November 28, 2023 by SteamyTea

[joe90]

So apart from not taking fossil fuel out of the ground it’s just as polluting?.

[ProDave]

3 minutes ago, joe90 said:

So apart from not taking fossil fuel out of the ground it’s just as polluting?.

Yes, the same sort of greenwash that says burning trees is good.

[SteamyTea]

3 minutes ago, joe90 said:

So apart from not taking fossil fuel out of the ground it’s just as polluting?.

Yes.  That is the chemistry of combustion.

 

The argument is that the crops regrow within a short space of time, reabsorbing the CO₂.

But as my Long Read, shows, there is usually better ways to use land.

If we had a lower atmospheric level of CO₂, say 250 ppm instead of 420 ppm, then one can argue that biomass is closer to carbon neutral.

But as we are seeing, the high CO₂ levels are already causing weather instability, so we have to reduce them, not keep them the same.

This does not mean we will have a stable and predicable global weather system (chaos comes out of predictability, chaos is not randomness), it means we will have less extremes and variation, which is what agriculture needs.

The other problem is that plants are dreadful at converting solar energy and atmospheric CO₂ into a liquid fuel that is suitable for combustion and storage.

If you take a square metre of ground that receives 100 kWh of solar irradiance every year, a PV module will give you about 10 kWh of electricity. A plant will give you about 0.25 kWh, and that then needs converting to a fuel.

[joth]

3 hours ago, ProDave said:

Yes, the same sort of greenwash that says burning trees is good.

There's a very real difference though. Non polluting options exist for heating a home, so it's hard for a clear thinking person to accept a greenwash polluting alternative.

 

Aviation is much tougher. Every current and credible future technology will create some degree of pollution, and it's unrealistic to enact a global ban on all air travel, so we're left looking for the least worst option. Obviously it's very easy for those that never fly to insist no one should, but honestly good luck to you in finding a political party you can vote for that will be successful turning that soap boxing into action.

 

[SteamyTea]

21 minutes ago, joth said:

Every current and credible future technology will create some degree of pollution,

True, but claiming that this fuel is sustainable is not a step forward.

 

One thing that could be done to improve the emissions of flying is to reduce the number of flights.  This is not the same as reducing the number of seats.

If airlines were to share their bookings, then on most busy routes you could probably save one flight a day.

Edited November 28, 2023 by SteamyTea

[saveasteading]

8 hours ago, ProDave said:

greenwash that says burning trees is good.

Confused. You have a woodburner don't you?

[Mr Blobby]

8 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

2 C₁₂H₂₆(l) + 37 O₂(g) → 24 CO₂(g) + 26 H₂O(g)

 

Don't forget the reality will be an incomplete combustsion to release a bit of NOx and CO.  (Just like the unwanted emissions from our petrol and diesel cars) 😉

 

[SteamyTea]

8 minutes ago, Mr Blobby said:

Don't forget the reality will be an incomplete combustsion

Yes

Like this.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by SteamyTea

[Mr Blobby]

2 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Yes

Like this.

 

 

 

Ah yes, I forgot the carbon (aka soot/particulates) 🤦‍♀️

[SteamyTea]

3 minutes ago, Mr Blobby said:

 

Ah yes, I forgot the carbon (aka soot/particulates) 🤦‍♀️

Why cars are fitted with DPF now.

[ProDave]

1 hour ago, saveasteading said:

Confused. You have a woodburner don't you?

I have a wood burner because we have ample wood and without it I would be giving it away to someone else to burn.  So it is free heat.  I have never claimed it is eco friendly or carbon neutral.

[Mattg4321]

What’s the carbon footprint of posting on this forum 😆

[saveasteading]

31 minutes ago, ProDave said:

would be giving it away to someone else to burn. 

But you could help the planet by letting it rot and feed insects and nature generally.

 

I use wood burners too. It's a pragmatic choice. 

Waste wood and prunings first. Locally produced logs next.

90% efficient if all best practices are followed, and isn't that better than anything else?

[Mr Blobby]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

Why cars are fitted with DPF now.

 

In theory.  In practice too many people where I live get the garage to remove the DPF and 'fix' the sensor. 

 

A lady in her 70's who recently told me her diesel golf goes much better after the garage removed the DPF was confused by my dissaproval.  She couldn't see anything wrong with it at all.

 

[SteamyTea]

14 minutes ago, Mr Blobby said:

 

In theory.  In practice too many people where I live get the garage to remove the DPF and 'fix' the sensor. 

 

A lady in her 70's who recently told me her diesel golf goes much better after the garage removed the DPF was confused by my dissaproval.  She couldn't see anything wrong with it at all.

 

Yes, I don't understand that either.  I know someone that has a Passat, he never got the software update to stop the defeating during emission testing because he heard, from a 'friend' on facebook that it would ruin his engine and make his car slower, less economical and turn his hair grey.

He is a ginger tosser from St. Agnes mind.

Edited November 28, 2023 by SteamyTea