How Jet Fuel Is Made From Trash | WSJ

[@wdd3141]

Producing SAF is expensive! But then, I suppose the same was true for gasoline in the beginning, and as the manufacturing technology becomes more refined, the costs will come down. This is a worthwhile path to take.

[@lukeliu7162]

hydrogen

[@JWooden271]

Gasoline was originally a byproduct of refining kerosene. Cheap as free. Standard Oil would simply dump the stuff, until it's explosive properties found a market in the then-new automotive industry.

[@fvosteezyy]

What the other commentator said, Gasoline was never expensive upon its discovery. It was so worthless at the time, it was dumped as waste.

[@coltmccoy5864]

This is why the US needs better public transportation such as high speed rail. Being able to connect close locations together would cut aviation use.

[@GamerbyDesign]

I wouldn't hold my breath.

[@zack9912000]

I would never use that. It was a great glace to be robbed and assaulted.

[@mikejf4377]

About high speed rail, if they build it, it needs to be only for transportation of people. No commercial transportation on those rails so as not to damage the rail with wait. The last President reduced the regulation on trains and now we’re having many more problems with them because they make longer heavier trains and they are creating more problems. We need to reinstate the regulations and put money into the infrastructure to repair all our rail systems.

[@zixuanyu868]

It seems like train etiquette is a quite important factor about Japanese trains… I don't think US can use it.

[@seankim2743]

Good stuff. SAF probably will get more spotlights for investors as these projects pop up into reality.

[@ghostmourn]

As Great as putting Corn alcohol in the car fuel! Dohhh

[@roxaskinghearts]

@@ghostmourn 80% of our corn was used in feed before china stopped imports any more childish whatifism

[@roxaskinghearts]

@@Riorozen cost affective he says yeah its cost effective not needing to port anything on the back of a tankard for hundreds of miles specially when the trash is already there and then can be found new means to be funded into it like recycling 2.0

[@d.h.601]

This is not good stuff.

[@simonsmashup]

You mean more pump and dump? lol

[@fourthdeconstruction]

Of course, this makes more sense than electric planes or hydrogen power planes because it's a realistic approach.

[@h3xl4]

Interesting point. I would add that this approach also doesn’t require development of new planes and infrastructure to accommodate and scale up the usage of batteries or hydrogen for planes. This is a huge plus.

[@d.h.601]

Absolute malarkey.

[@fourthdeconstruction]

@@d.h.601 ghee. Someone that doesn't know about numbers and technology shows up. As far as I can tell you from my engineering background and from studying all cases, electric planes make sense until battery tech improves a lot, heck we don't even have enough battery material to produce all the EVs that we need. As for the hydrogen, it's just a waste of time to make it work in the airline industry or air cargo. Just hydrogen availability is a big problem as we can only produce black hydrogen and just a little then you have to break all the challenges of hydrogen storage both inside the plane and at the airports, then you have to deal with all issues with running a hydrogen powered jet engine and I can tell you that they're a lot of issues. But i guess that you can solve these issues by yourself. Right?

[@FourthWayRanch]

@@d.h.601 yup, people have been claiming they're going to do fischer tropsch chemsitry with garbage for years, too many problems, it's easier to just use coal to make liquid fuel.

[@FourthWayRanch]

@@fourthdeconstruction if you're an engineer do a little research, people have been slinging this trash to liquid fuel BS for years, it's got too many issues, mainly all work and energy goes into making that nice fluffy dry feedstock garbage you see in the beginning. if they're gonna do it best to just use coal like Sasol does.

[@BroAnarchy]

"... You mean Garbage can be used.... for GOOD??" ... this man speaks to me

[@elvispresley3340]

Great news - I hope it all adds up in the end. CHEERS from AUSTRALIA.

[@bananasenpai]

Fulcrum is still private. Would love to invest in a company that's working on something so important.

[@Gdsamplify]

Hope you go bankrupt

[@snakepl1skin]

Most are , my company uses already leftover animal fats and used cooking oils left overs to produce saf but sadly still private 😢

[@mhxxd4]

They dont need your money and want all their profits

[@sisk22]

@@mhxxd4that’s not how investments work

[@BangBangBang.]

duh they're waiting to go public with a ridiculous valuation

[@veteran011]

So, for context, 100,000 gallons of AvGas would equate to ~30hr of flight time in a 747 or ~50hr of flight time in an A350. That's miniscule.

[@vicentecorrea5267]

This is what is needed, honestly!

[@wrigpearchewing]

In the trash is plastic, a significant amount. Which is produced from oil. So it's still a fossile fuel.

[@peterfrantellizzi6639]

That's true but the Scope 3 emissions of the plastic are already baked in, versus pulling new fossil fuels out of the ground

[@StephenSmith304]

​​@@peterfrantellizzi6639ure but there's no way this will ever be net zero as they want if this is just a fossil fuel with extra steps. Only if the fuel source is direct air capture fueled by renewables with a full zero emission lifecycle analysis would this even be possible. This idea is just a distraction even if it was possible to scale it up. Calling this SAF is misleading at best. More accurately it's reusing existing carbon emissions, but like OP says the reprocessing emissions needs to be taken into account, which makes the whole thing extra dubious.

[@mikeguitar9769]

Most plastic is petroleum derived, however the plastic waste is being burned or buried anyway (due to high cost of recycling and limited recyclability of plastic). Fortunately, it turns out that plastic can be easily converted into jet fuel in a single step! It requires only a simple heating process, no FT synthesis required! This is inexpensive and scalable. As a bridge solution it could help lower the high cost of an SAF blend while also addressing the problem of plastic waste piling up. The quality of plastic waste in the U.S. is 1.3 lbs/person/day, (0.6 kg/person/day), a similar weight to the consumption of jet fuel (1.3 lbs/person/day). If all the currently non-recycled plastic were converted, it could in theory supply up to 1/3 to 1/2 of the total jet fuel use.

[@jimbernard6112]

Questions: 1) What powers that huge refinery and all of the heavy equipment used to produce SAF from trash? 2) When SAF is burned in a turbine engine, what are the products of combustion? In other words, what is coming out of the exhaust if it's not carbon?

[@111dddcca]

1) Fossil fuels and potentially renewables. This process does emit co2 2) CO2 however it is CO2 that was recently captured from the atmosphere. I.e it was absorbed by the plants that were used to make the SAF Overall SAF reduces emissions by 80% depending how it's made. Not completely because like you suggest the refinery and equipment is powered by fossil fuels.

[@EntonDelMonte]

Jep that’s the most important question. When the energy invested in the Fischer-Tropsch process is not renewable itself, the SAG is more wasteful than normal fossil fuels.

[@vasylshevchenko9001]

It may be possible for some of the feedstock to be burned as fuel for generating the energy needed on site to run the process, thus reducing energy costs. On top of this, there are many sources of feedstock other than trash that can be used as feedstock for SAF, such as dried sewage sludge and agricultural residue and forest debris.

[@AnDrEw17876]

Lots of european airlines have been using SAF for years already

[@LastGoodHandle]

How much energy is required to produce a unit of SAF?

[@iankelley7592]

Can't speak to the synthesis of specific biofuels, but for the initial phase - the gasification of carbon waste you can use any fuel source, coal, natural gas, or most likely the synthetic NG produced during gasification. If you use the syn gas produced by the system in the system, you should only need a small amount of start-up fuel before it becomes self-sustaining. Basically instead of all of your substrate being converted into fuel, a certain percentage is used/lost in creating the heat for gasification. The syn gas will be produced regardless of the parameters of gasification so you might as well use it. Short answer, it shouldn't require a lot of external energy.

[@etsequentia6765]

@@iankelley7592 Self sustaining... I like the idea. Efficient.

[@Neojhun]

That's the problem speicifically Fischer-Tropsch Process is energy intensive. Needs mainly lots of heat.

[@Random19573]

FT is highly exothermic. The challenges are providing a syngas

[@quantumascension2035]

I have been told that India has a lot of trash and feedstock all over their country. My thought is that it may be financially helpful to India and US to be able to utilize and clean up the feedstock areas to create SAF as well as give India a more healthy and cleaner environment and enhance the reduced carbon emissions of airline travel. This could also help the country financially if a deal or contract could be made one that supports all nations and people not just US. I am sure there are other countries which could unite in this amazing new sustainable fuel emissions goal. Just a thought. This should be talked about a lot more. Not just in the US. What are your thoughts?

[@Boo-pv4hn]

This is something I like to hear! Let’s stop wasting things that could be commodities. They’ve forgotten that there are also options of using animal waste and human waste to replace fuels. This could be huge and also improve our rivers and save money for the people who pay sewage and save a lot for the companies as people and animals dedicate daily

[@CAPHENIA]

"Great insights shared in this video! The discussion on "How Jet Fuel Is Made?" was particularly informative and well-presented. As someone deeply involved in the technology and sustainability sectors, I found this content highly relevant and thought-provoking. Keep up the excellent work, and I look forward to more enlightening content in the future. Thank you for sharing." "Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is the hero of the aviation industry's sustainability journey, and CAPHENIA's cutting-edge technology is leading the way. CAPHENIA's commitment to innovation in SAF production is setting a remarkable standard for the industry.

[@patrickr2790]

Greenwashing for sure, it doesn’t sound as good if the title of the video is “how jet fuel is made from trash and animals”. The fats needed would probably be fuelling already unsustainable or ghastly intense farming practices, adding to their emissions. Any numbers on the expected effect on the farming industry emissions and animal welfare WSJ?

[@etutorshop]

I could be wrong, but I felt like someone is lying threw their teeth. The reason being they say that SAF is going to cost 4 times more than regular fuel and that consumers are looking for cheaper flights and that the airlines are running on a tight budget. If that is the case, I cannot see a clear path on how this would work as companies exist for profit.

[@Carlos1116]

@@etutorshop They basically telling people "We will be using more and more SAF in the future, but we will put up the flight tickets price because of the cost increase" They are business and it's always about cost and revenue.

[@kickassnetwork]

​@@etutorshop Easy, it's in the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act). Airlines get tax credit for using SAF to offset the increase cost. While the tax credit doesn't cover all cost. The airline will back it if it's cheap enough (and it seems like the tax credit is high enough) and also it's an investment in alternative supply source for fuel to help absorb shocks in the Oil market (As you may note, kinda frequently recently). SAF should go down in price over time as newer better technology and infrastructure comes out. Oil prices though will probably go up. In the long term, SAF probably makes tons of sense. It would offer a more resistant supply chain and look good PR wise. Prices too should eventually come down. The IRA though is kickstarting it by offsetting a lot of the initial cost and price, making new industries and creating the demand earlier than it would otherwise might be commercially viable.

[@curiositycapturesofficial]

You guys could use the huge amount of trash in the pacific to make fuel. This is a great idea!!

[@etsequentia6765]

I agree.

[@Fellowtellurian]

The way you make this happen is to put a price on carbon and then those with high emissions will pay more to decarbonize. The supply issue isn't a supply issue, it is a willingness to pay issue, ie demand from airlines.

[@FindingtheX]

Summit Next Gen

[@biobossx99]

Does the SAF math work out? What is the energy input?

[@pius_xiv]

Unlikely to get a clear answer to this question just the same way there’s little discussion about the environmental catastrophe caused by electric car battery production

[@pius_xiv]

The decrease of centralized pollution in cities, traded off for strip mining the earth using child labor. But it’s ok since we can’t see it. So yes, indeed, the dangers of car batteries.

[@dannielledoerr4085]

Use non condensable gases to help run process

[@treefarm3288]

Third World countries have a lot of trash, too. Maybe they could benefit by developing trash to SAF themselves.

[@gr8bkset-524]

We can put a price on carbon equivalent to the damage it does to the planet. This would make fossil fuel prices higher and make SAF more competitive. It would also lower demand for unnecessary flying. Someday, if we survive climate change, we'll look back at this era as when we burned everything up so we can zip around the planet,.

[@freedomfan3277]

Carbon doesn't damage the planet it feeds plants.

[@wades_world22]

wow - this is incredible, from TRASH to jet fuel

[@hbarudi]

This is something I can get behind easily.

[@CommissionerLofi]

Nice 👍

[@WolfeSaber]

And people said trash is trash. Fulcrum has now added another recycling system to the world, helping to battle climate change.

[@jtwilliams8895]

And it turned out that recycling has been a scam. Have you missed those headlines? They’ve been out there for years. Guess what? Human induced Climate change is too

[@mr.stonerUDX714]

climate changes lolololollolololololololololololololololololololololo

[@ryankratzer5210]

It’s going to have the same carbon emissions it’s just biodiesel. Honestly probably more carbon emissions because of how much more it’s going to take to manufacture it

[@guderian6177]

Cool idea but how do they process the garbage without carbon emissions? Also, how is relying on garbage sustainable? Even US gargantuan stock of garbage would be used up pretty quickly with serious expansion in capacity.

[@emmy7437]

correct me if im wrong but SAF is still fuel so burning it still produces c02 they may reduce trash but it doesn’t solve aviation c02 problem

[@carholic-sz3qv]

Di you even watch the video!? They actually use the carbon from trash plus hydrogen from the splitting of garbage

[@AngryTango]

What an incredible ability to innovate solutions to climate change while making good profits.

[@irenefarmer3840]

They usually bury these kinds of innovations

[@widodoakrom3938]

Seems like very expensive and also the process making it required LNG as catalyzer in gasification process

[@DanCambell]

the location i work at in NJ is starting construction on SAF production location. @ one of Duponts old facilities

[@lokesh303101]

I encourage the SAF but need to target the other Industries like Railways.

[@kevinfernandez9999]

Why ? Railways are already green

[@laughlot]

So now we know why Doc Brown needed fuel for the Delorean in Back to the Future 2

[@alexanderhofvander2945]

It is a good reason go empty the pacific garbage patch in order to make this synthetic fuel for transportation.

[@etsequentia6765]

Good idea!

[@StephenSmith304]

IMO saf is greenwashing. I would only consider it sustainable and having a chance at net 0 if the carbon came from air capture and was processed only with renewable energy. At the end of the day, burning SAF releases more carbon that wasn't there before and isnt captured as part of the SAF lifecycle so this just looks like greenwashing. To be clear, I'm not saying we shouldn't use "SAF" because it's not perfect, I just think it's misleading and greenwashing to call it "sustainable" and tout it as a path to net zero when waste to fuel containing petroleum products will always be net positive. It's fine as a way to reduce carbon footprint, just be honest about it instead of presenting it as a complete solution to aviation sustainability.

[@carholic-sz3qv]

What is the better solution then!? Import oil from foreign countries!? This is significantly better even tho it's not perfect what is your solution then!?

[@StephenSmith304]

@@carholic-sz3qv Literally any actually renewable hydrocarbon based fuel - hydrocarbons from renewables and carbon capture, hydrogen from renewables, literally anything that's not adding net positive carbon. Not sure why you suggest importing oil because oil has the same amount of carbon whether it's domestic or foreign so that's a silly idea. I have no problem with using waste as a fuel to reduce carbon footprint, but like I said, claiming it's sustainable and touting a roadmap to net zero on fuel from waste which includes petroleum products is misleading and green washing. I'm not saying that it should be not used because it's not perfect - I think it's a great alternative but they need to stop lying and greenwashing by calling it sustainable when it's not. Just be honest about what it is.

[@sharedcow]

A new SAF facility just broke ground in Moses Lake, WA. It will use co2 and water and renewable power to convert. This type of facility should be the only ones getting to use the SAF term.

[@StephenSmith304]

@@sharedcow Agreed. Calling waste to fuel "SAF" runs into the same problem as hydrogen power, where the umbrella term carries a renewable connotation while there are like 7 or more different "colors" grading it from entirely carbon emissions based hydrogen to complete green renewable hydrogen. It muddies the water so much and makes it very easy to mislead people by funding what people think is renewable and net zero while it could be causing tons of emissions.

[@nathanbanks2354]

@@StephenSmith304 At least engines developed for Grey hydrogen will also work with Pink or Green hydrogen. The only redeeming feature of SAF from a global warming perspective is that it could prevent methane from being released if the trash was stored in a landfill.

[@Mr.Engineer662]

This is great idea for commercialization

[@zanzillahsaruji9966]

Sarawak state in East Malaysia and Japanese Chitose company is producing SAF from Microalgae and one of the main producer of SAF in Asia....

[@noe_122]

Great ad🙂

[@billwhite1603]

Are they counting electricity to run refinery??

[@andis9076]

Which company and stock?

[@ScaryBunnyMonster]

Can it melt steel beams?

[@peter0702]

can someone explain how SAF reduces CO2? Is it just a net reduction, or it fundamentally has more energy per volume?

[@justincoleman7856]

So according to Skynrg, all SAF does is recycle co2 instead of adding to it. However, all this tech is still in the early stages, so I'm pretty sure that this will become more simplified later on.

[@zapfanzapfan]

It's like heating your home with a wood fire instead of using oil or natural gas.

[@PapaphobiaPictures]

​@@Riorozenit's not bookkeeping. It's just that it doesn't ADD any additional CO2 overall to the atmosphere; it doesn't reduce it

[@PapaphobiaPictures]

If you use fossil fuels, you're adding the additional carbon into the system. SAFs use organic matter (plants) that are comprised of carbon that has already been drawn from the atmosphere, so releasing it back means no additional carbon

[@alexandrechen3081]

It will still generate CO2, how does that solve the problem of zero carbon emission?

[@alexandrechen3081]

Well it does solve some problems of waste and reduce the consumption in oil reserve that we have. This is positive

[@calibratedoralogues9546]

@@alexandrechen3081 so did Charles Sweeney think before.......san, ni, ichi... kaboom !

[@ghostmourn]

Such a waste of Money - this and all the Hydrogen stations in California that no one ever uses. --- hand outs. Thats all this is

[@fdangleshadang-a-lang7149]

Seems like a win-win to me

[@SimonNgai-d3u]

Net zero SAF is better than nothing honestly. Can't complain too much as I fly airplanes too.

[@88corinutza]

if they can make billions of gallons SURELY we can make a few hundred gallons at home for our cars 😍😍

[@CHMichael]

Need a diesel engine for it.

[@TheAmericanCatholic]

@@CHMichaeland additives because pure kerosene isn’t ideal for diesels

[@CHMichael]

@@TheAmericanCatholic ideal ... frying oil isn't ideal either... but it works.

[@barryj388]

Basically you'll pay for this through taxes used to subsidized SAF and the government will mandate its use so no airline has a choice in the matter which makes using SAF a non-competitive factor among airlines and then they'll all pass the costs on to the traveler.

[@phoenixx_rising]

And they've since gone under. But there is a better way and one that actually can work. Fulcrum's issue was one of scale [too big] as well as the logistics of the hub and spoke approach.Shipping feed stock to satellite production facilities and then shipping it again to a finishing refinery won't work. Check out Next Energy Fuels' vertically integrated process. It's the future.

[@maxwalker1159]

Interesting

[@ioanbota9397]

I like this video

[@treyshaffer]

What are the byproducts of SAF production?

[@vladimirdoyle3934]

I believe we should shipping in trash from the rest of the world. Plus using biochar plants to extract bio oil and syngas, from agriculture waste and yard waste could help us meet those goals. And producing this state domestic would help lower the cost.

[@fakename8856]

The problem the HUGE amount of energy needed to make this garbage. It’s garbage. They should ONLY Abe allowed to do this with renewable energy sources. Such a waste of time. It’s just marketing.

[@janklaas6885]

📍5:47

[@LifeUnscriptedPod]

Very sustainable

[@Kevin-ur9us]

So..... We're taking carbon we put in the ground and instead burning into the air? How is this carbon neutral??

[@calibratedoralogues9546]

Shooo, don't make the obvious obvious to the smug & sustainable herd. You will be trashed as conspiratorial fossil fuel.

[@mirabovs215]

I love the idea that trash has finally found a use, but idk why but I feel like the SAF production plants might be producing more CO2 wastes too producing this

[@aesma2522]

Ethanol as produced is far from carbon neutral (nor environmentally neutral). One major feedstock should be hydrogen made from renewable energy/nuclear, and carbon captured from processes that absolutely need it, or better from the air.

[@david41z]

How much fuel is needed to process all that waste to useful fuel and how will these emissions affect the health of people and the environment? Jet fuel has many more additives today than they did just a few years ago. A small amount in the atmosphere may be negligible but millions of tons could be disastrous. Where are the studies and long term health effects from independent studies? Government removed lead from gasoline and added other chemical agents . Is our gas better or worse? Or are these other additives just cheaper? We are no longer living longer or healthier than our grandparents. So what's changing?

[@astrowuff]

It's still turning carbon that's in physical solid form into a liquid fuel that will then be turned into carbon dioxide, thus adding to the greenhouse gases. This doesn't help the environment the way people think it does. carbon dioxide from crude oil or carbon dioxide from trash fuel is the same result.

[@widodoakrom3938]

True

[@pressurizer1]

Why would you get fuel that's four times more expensive in a period of inflation? SAF: Subsequent Asinine Fuel.

[@patchitdoc]

Mining the Great Pacific Garbage Patch has already started.

[@byloyuripka9624]

title of video: "how jet fuel is made" reality of video: "add trash to magic gasification tower which we wont go into any detail on"

[@peasley9]

RIP fulcrum bioenergy

[@mattcollins4550]

This is idiotic... first off there is nothing wrong with carbon. Secondly, it seems like it costs more energy to produce SAF than yiu get out of it.

[@calibratedoralogues9546]

That's exactly where the profit is. That's why kopi luwak is so expensive!

[@marktucker208]

This is clearly a good thing BUT it's not really a great solution because it can't be produced at a large enough volume to even touch the sides of plane emissions

[@HKim0072]

So, basically it's the Back to the Future car. Pulling trash out of Marty's trash can.

[@mrslinkydragon9910]

The areas with massive mountains of plastic waste are going to be mined!

[@jordy1751]

GEVO stock for SAF investing.

[@nickyyyyy]

How is burning trash sustainable? Recycling is sustainable... This is stupid.

[@FourthWayRanch]

nobody admits the problem with gasification, you need dry feedstock, there is a lot of work and energy goes into making that nice dry fluffy "garbage" they show in the beginning. It's much easier to make fuel from coal, they've done it in South Africa for a long time, the germans figured it out in the second world war, Fischer Tropsch chemsitry. sorry it's a nice idea but it's just a pr ploy

[@bencalhoun8216]

If SAF smells like trash, I will continue to support the current petroleum fuel.

[@justincoleman7856]

So my only issue with this video is at the very end talking about the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act).

[@kektacular]

2:39 incredible gassy reference

[@lonemaus562]

Seems like instead of carbon we are putting micro plastic in the air

[@sisk22]

We’ve lost our minds.

[@nathanbanks2354]

Umm...doesn't this put CO2 into the atmosphere that would otherwise be stored underground?

[@WolfeSaber]

Well, what are the downsides for storing the CO2 in the ground compared to reusing it?

[@nathanbanks2354]

@@WolfeSaber It takes space in the ground and wouldn't help people fly, but it also wouldn't heat the planet up by releasing greenhouse gasses.

[@WolfeSaber]

@@nathanbanks2354 There are gases that are worse than CO2 when it comes to greenhouse emissions, like a thousand times worse.

[@WolfeSaber]

@@nathanbanks2354 Plus if not careful, trash being buried would contaminate groundwater.

[@widodoakrom3938]

Nope it still produce CO2

[@CannabisTechLife]

Woah woah woah, when did Oscar the Grouch stop sounding grouchy?

[@taipizzalord4463]

Is this just greenwashing so companies LOOK like they are playing their part but are actually not?

[@abbybonilla4511]

As if air travel wasn't expensive already.

[@danielfegley2735]

Why isn't this done for cars battery will cause pollution when they are buried and the mines are causing problems also plus a 2 hour drive becomes a 4 hour drive because you have to stop and wait to charge

[@DarienDrakee]

Buzz word of the day… Feed stock 🙄

[@elluisito000]

This business is going to take off

[@danieljurca2113]

Everytime I fart I move forward

[@oWispify]

US needs high speed rail

[@kganzon]

Fuel for the deloreon!

[@santy07bangbang83]

Why can't make fuel for cars from garbage?

[@tomast9034]

there is nothing green on this. it makes just independent from fosil fuels. but still great idea.

[@j2simpso]

This is one of the few reasons I continue to fly United regularly is that I can ensure my travel is carbon neutral. To think that flying all the way from London Heathrow to Sydney, Australia (connecting in Los Angeles) was carbon neutral is amazing and means I get to travel more with a clear conscience.

[@xXAbdulBaqiXx]

SAF is not even 1 percent of their total fuel

[@zack9912000]

lol you are not saving the earth

[@tars48979]

Spoiler, then same amount of CO2 comes out of the jets tailpipe as regular jet fuel. The CO2 savings are manipulated on paper and everyone involved gets a gold star.

[@jameszclark]

More than twice as expensive and can barely cover 1% of demand...

[@peterfrantellizzi6639]

It's a nascent technology and low volume leads to higher prices. Hopefully with economies of scale these prices will come down.

[@StephenSmith304]

It's also still emitting too, it's taking carbon that came from the ground and still putting it into the air. Just with a detour as plastic to confuse people. Calling it sustainable is a lie, at best it's making the carbon do double duty but they need a total life cycle assessment to prove it helps considering the extra energy needed to process it.

[@alex0589]

that's what we said about ev in the 90's

[@StephenSmith304]

@@alex0589 The critical difference is that EVs can be powered by renewables. SAF even if scaled up is still creating new emissions. SAF from waste will never be net zero unless it's changed to carbon capture as the exclusive source of fuel, which is not what they're trying to scale up here.

[@williamdrijver4141]

Sounds like typical big company greenwashing....

[@KarlenBell]

So burning trash in the air, nice

[@jeetpatel6087]

I wonder what they are doing for the carbon emissions released from humans breathing and active volcanoes

[@johnhulet8462]

Take taxes from the populace to fuel airlines?

[@Reotha]

Too bad the company went bust. I love recycling of materials.

[@lighttheoryllc4337]

Is Trash made Jet Fuel ⛽️ "SAF" enough? 😅

[@santanu-io]

And what about the carbon footprint coming from the production of this fuel? The transport of the trash, all the energy used for cleaning, chemical processing and the complex production? Oh, they do not have any carbon footprint, only the aviation has the carbon footprint. Hmmm 🤫