this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Technology

59680 readers
3280 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
0
Using sustainable aviation fuels could reduce emissions by up to 80%, scientists find (www.manchester.ac.uk)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Using sustainable aviation fuels could reduce emissions by up to 80%, scientists find::A team of scientists have completed tests to quantify the emissions from the combustion of sustainable aviation fuels, revealing a profound reduction when compared to regular jet fuel.Researchers from the National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS), including those from The University of Manchester, compared standard jet fuels with several di...

top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is a huuuge load of crap. Nowhere does this clearly say that CO2 emissions are cut by 80%, just "ultrafine black carbon" which is a pollutant more than a greenhouse gas. Aviations worst impact is by far the greenhouse gases.

The "sustainable fuel" that is so mysteriously alluded to, turns out to be made from "renewable biomass". Plant-basid fuels have been around for a while, usually as a greenwashing stunt by industries that consume a lot of fossil fuels. The amount of farmland needed to produce even a small fraction of what's needed in aviation is astronomical. Approaching 9 billion eaters, we can't afford to make food vs fuel a debate (again).

This whole article reads like it was written by the aviation company that paid for the research in the first place. This isn't science, it's propaganda.

[–] Tetsuo@jlai.lu 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The whole aviation industry is coping imo.

There is no way it will be an energy efficient or remotely green mean of transportation in the near future so a lot of people in this industry are quite worried they will be the next target for people attempting to fight climate change.

A good example is this video of a large YouTube channel on aviation:

https://youtu.be/dXdvZCT8sIg?si=rVfdyelHQHVHxrXE

It's a whole lithany of bullshit excuse while pointing the finger at these silly french people trying to reduce completely unnecessary emissions (short flights with an high speed train underneath their paths).

It's like the coal industry, they feel it's the end of an era for the aviation industry and they don't like it.

I say that acknowledging that some planes are absolutely necessary but nowhere near as much as we currently have.

[–] Nudding@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

It's part of the reason why we are far too late to change course. So many industries will fight progress tooth and nail, some violently I imagine.