TheSamba.com :: View topic

Wed Dec 25, 2024 12:34 pm

Anyone familiar with sustainable aviation fuels ? Are they viable for the commercial market, or just another scam to get govt money?

Wed Dec 25, 2024 1:29 pm

At 3 to 5 times the cost of regular jet fuel, it appears SAF is a scam.

https://www.avbuyer.com/articles/aircraft-ownershi...nge-113860

Wed Dec 25, 2024 1:59 pm

From https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969723025044......

"Our critical analysis has brought to the fore a wide range of issues related to SAF that are not sufficiently debated. This recalcitrance stems from the path dependencies that maintain a system's status quo. The science is clear that transformational change is required in all sectors and aviation's continued reliance on fossil fuel (about 30 % of energy needs, even in decarbonisation roadmaps) raises questions. In particular, the desire to maintain long-haul travel, which cannot be served with electric planes, presents major challenges to net zero emissions commitments. We have argued here that large-scale SAF deployment could undermine global climate efforts as aviation mitigation may be a form of energy cannibalism from a system-wide abatement perspective. SAF will clearly play some role in replacing fossil jet fuel but more debate on the notion of ‘essential’ flights would be useful."

The global warmists here admit that SAF may not work, that the SAF cannibalize other low carbon energy choices. They call into question if what they call non essential flights can be allowed in their net zero utopia. I gather that the rich will however be allowed to fly and only us common folks be deemed non essential fliers. Al Gore need not worry, he will have all the legroom he desires on his unlimited first class flights :roll:

Thu Dec 26, 2024 4:09 pm

No, SAF isn´t a scam. Scam is what the government in my neck of woods does: I pay, say, $1.68 for a liter of gasoline, yet, just $.80 of it is the thing, the remaining is taxes and fees & whatnot...
That is a scam!! Lucky me that I do not own any 911, as I would need to empty a 90 liter tank, burning 98Ron fuel, priced nearly $2 per liter.
Man, I hate Scams!!

Now, on the other hand, no one should expect renewable fuels, synthetic fuels or any engineered fuels to have a retail cost on the same level as regular fuels.
Things do not run like that. And we have to realize mobility is changing, and have to change. At least, new mobility. We are lucky to have some regular form to keep running old cars, but new cars also deserve to have a future down the road, some will survive the next 80 or 100 years. I hope those, will not need to run on regular gasoline...

Thu Dec 26, 2024 4:22 pm

TornadoRed06 wrote: No, SAF isn´t a scam. Scam is what the government in my neck of woods does: I pay, say, $1.68 for a liter of gasoline, yet, just $.80 of it is the thing, the remaining is taxes and fees & whatnot...
That is a scam!! Lucky me that I do not own any 911, as I would need to empty a 90 liter tank, burning 98Ron fuel, priced nearly $2 per liter.
Man, I hate Scams!!

Now, on the other hand, no one should expect renewable fuels, synthetic fuels or any engineered fuels to have a retail cost on the same level as regular fuels.
Things do not run like that. And we have to realize mobility is changing, and have to change. At least, new mobility. We are lucky to have some regular form to keep running old cars, but new cars also deserve to have a future down the road, some will survive the next 80 or 100 years. I hope those, will not need to run on regular gasoline...

It is a scam. high cost with little if any impact of so called global warming. Your government may well be scamming you too.

Sun Dec 29, 2024 10:19 am

The reason I asked about this is , my daughter got a job with Newrise renewables. In Reno nv . I was wondering if this was legit ,or a fly by night outfit.

Sun Dec 29, 2024 12:11 pm

It IS NOT a SCAM!

However, neither is it currently ...even remotely...affordable. I will say this again at the end of this. SAF would increase the fuel cost by a minimum of 200-300% for any flight in the US. The method is good technology. But...we do not have the scale or infrastructure to make it affordable right now. And, its not just about throwing money at it.

I hate when people use the word "SCAM" in the wrong way. It would be a scam if the technology to convert waste oil and garbage to VIABLE fuel did not exist. However it does exist. Its just not currently affordable.

Same thing with solar electric....people say its a scam. No, its not. Its just being used incorrectly. It currently is not able to make base load and power the grid but it is capable of getting houses off of the grid.

Its not hard to find good info about SAF.

In a nutshell:

1. its a lower energy fuel. They can only use up to 50% of SAF blended with normal aviation fuel.

2. It is certified to use on many if not most commercial aviation engines and fuel systems...but again ...only up to a maximum of 50%.

So one might say..."Hey...thats not all bad...at least you can make 50% of the jet fuel green/sustainable right?"

3. Uh...no. The problem with SAF is that its up front energy requirement to convert feed stocks is an easy 3005-500% of the energy cost just for refining petroleum into jet fuel.

In general, most of this is done through "pyrolysis".....basically taking specific waste products like cooking oils or plastics and locking them into a pressure vessel or "retort" and cooking them at a specific temperature...into vapor. That vapor is condensed into liquid and then has to be refined and probably catalytically cracked.

They can make anythuing from basic to complex solvents, paint thinners, fuels or take it right back to plastic feedstocks to make pellets for molding.

The added problem is that ...for instance....with plastics....the plastics have to be identified by type and have a specific mix. Adding in the wrong kind of plastics will poison the mix and make nothing but scrap.

And, the plastics need to be CLEAN....so they have to be identified, sorted, shredded, washed....and thats a lot of energy and water. That water is either a waste product or needs to be treated, filtered and hopefully (but rarely) reused.

So waste engine oils...cooking oils, animal renderings...fast food oils...yes..they can be used. But....there is a lot of crap in that oil stream that creates a waste product. A lot of it needs to be hydrotreated.

Yes, you can make fuel from it but its much lower energy fuel by far which is why even the best SAF can only be used in a 50% blend....at best.

Making SAF...is a great way to get rid of a specific waste stream and make useful products from it....but it is not even remotely cost efficient. Its very costly.

And....the last issue.... and....there have been many attempts over the years to get rid of a lot of our urban/city waste stream through pyrolysis. Its solid technology....but almost every one of them have failed.

The reasons for failure are two-fold:

1. In order to make it financially succesful (which means viable)....the scale of the process must be HUGE...like Chinese great wall construction huge!

In order to support that...energy wise...once you crank it up it has to run constantly.
This is the same energy budget issue with co-generation systems that burn trash and make steam to generate electricity. To do this...thousands of tons of waste products need to be on hand, pre-sorted (accurately) cleaned and ready to feed into the unit. You cannot let the process cool off.

This takes railheads, shipping waste by train and truck across states and accross state lines just to feed the unit. Thats another fuel expense. Most of that violates laws and requires permits.....and the "not in my backyard" attitude...keeps these plants from being built large enough to feed themselves.

Then you have a huge process site with literally mountains of outdooe waste feedstock and large abatment ponds from the waste wash water and rinse. Seagulls...rats...smell...leakage into the water table...No one wants to live near that.

I believe it can be done and should be done....but no one in the country is ready for that level of development of this technology.

2. The biggest problem especially with plastic pyrolysis...back to fuel, solvent or plastics....is getting the plastic waste stream uniform. To make it work...as I noted....only specific plastics can be used in each recipe. Sorting modern plastic waste accurately enough to keep from poisoning the system ...is currently...almost impossible.

That means that every other "batch" during the development period....gets scrapped into a large steaming pile....that they have to pay to send to a landfill....and they made no money on the batch and incurred huge energy costs.

They quickly go out of business, shut off the lights and walk away...leaving a massive super fund site.

This happened just a few years back when the city of Denver (might be Boulder) set up a pyrolysis plant with a company in Utah....who erroneously claimed they could take the entire city waste stream of sorted plastic .......including food service film and metalized film waste.....and pyrolyze it back into plastic or fuel.

As it turned out...they cannot do the food service films or metalized plastic foils. It spoiled the recipes, screwed up the equipment and bankrupted them, leaving the city holding the bag for the massive clean up.

SAF production.... is a great way to get rid of a waste product. However its not affordable and nowhere near the volume capability required to feed even a few percent of what the commercial aviation industry would require even at 50% usage.

How useful would it be....if 50% of the fuel you use on each airliner flight....was 400% more expensive? That is a 200% increase in fuel costs over and above what the current fuel cost for jet fuel might be.
Ray

Sun Dec 29, 2024 4:30 pm

IT IS A SCAM

It is so cuase I stated it in BOLD!!!!!!

It wont effect the climate as its proponents claim

It aint sustainable either.

Global warming is a scam, SAF is a scam.

If the fuel is too expensive, it aint viable, if it aint viable, it is a scam.

The other thing is if the plant and animal feed stocks are used for SAF, then that simply takes that feed stock from other "sustainable" uses, so it is like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Is it really sustainable to replace our petroleum based fuel with plant and animal based fuel?
Given the volumes need, the answer is no. thus it is a scam to call it "sustainable".

Pehaps it should be called plant aviation fuel, or PAF. but not SAF.

Sun Dec 29, 2024 6:04 pm

zerotofifty wrote: IT IS A SCAM

It is so cuase I stated it in BOLD!!!!!!

It wont effect the climate as its proponents claim

It aint sustainable either.

Global warming is a scam, SAF is a scam.

If the fuel is too expensive, it aint viable, if it aint viable, it is a scam.

The other thing is if the plant and animal feed stocks are used for SAF, then that simply takes that feed stock from other "sustainable" uses, so it is like robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Is it really sustainable to replace our petroleum based fuel with plant and animal based fuel?
Given the volumes need, the answer is no. thus it is a scam to call it "sustainable".

Pehaps it should be called plant aviation fuel, or PAF. but not SAF.

Ah...yes!....My bad! :D

I missed the climate change angle altogether!

In the respect that those who think it will reduce global warming....or reverse it ......by making recyled and/or plant based (yes, you could make some of the feed stock from plant based mash)...jet fuel....

Of course it won't! It takes burning 3-5X more fuel just to make this stuff!

So in that light....stating it will fix climate change....IS THE SCAM!

But...I still stand by what I said. When the word SCAM is overused (just like the word HOAX)....it screws up the transfer of information.

Both of those words have differring definitions depending on where you are from.

Calling SAF and pyrolysis a "scam"....makes too many people think its BAD technology. Its not.
How they are USING it and what they are "saying" it will do....is the scam.

Ray

Mon Dec 30, 2024 10:21 pm

Well my congressman sent me a letter today, a form letter, telling in glowing terms his accomplishments for the year.
Included is how he authored a provision in the FAA 2024 Reauthorization Act "that will help address climate change by investing in modern, green alternatives to aviation fuel".

Yes there it is a scam, as he is addressing climate change with this. (cant call it global warming any more cause they found that they were wrong about it warming, so now they covered both bases warming and cooling, that is pretty crafty salesmanship :roll: )

You know they could reduce airplane CO2 (not that it is a problem) simply by reducing the number of flights by requiring planes to be flown full of more passengers by putting more seats in the planes, no more first class leg room, or business class, just make all seats tiny narrow economy class, with little leg room. They can do this without expenditure of the taxpayers money on new green fuels. Of course there is little opportunity for graft and corruption when no taxpayer money is involved, no lobbyist money to be passed around to politicians if the politicians dont come up with a way to spend yours and my taxes
I kind of like the idea of fuller airplanes to reduce fuel use, it is easy to accomplish, and no tax money is required for it. After all why should the rich elite be allowed to destroy our planet just so they can have more leg and elbow room??? Of course you can bet my Congressman flies between California and Washington DC first class on the taxpayers dime, he is too important to fly economy class. He probably wants to get folks like me out of our gasoline cars too, we are the problem, while he lives large.

Total SCAM.

The next question is how much did the green aviation fuel lobbyists pay these sons of bitches off?

scam, scam, scam.

Tue Dec 31, 2024 12:55 am

calvinater wrote: The reason I asked about this is , my daughter got a job with Newrise renewables. In Reno nv . I was wondering if this was legit ,or a fly by night outfit.

When you are young , any startup where the paychecks cash good is a great place to learn about business and how things fail. Go for it. I’ve done 19 startups and 6 made it.

Tue Dec 31, 2024 9:22 am

Abscate wrote: calvinater wrote: The reason I asked about this is , my daughter got a job with Newrise renewables. In Reno nv . I was wondering if this was legit ,or a fly by night outfit.

When you are young , any startup where the paychecks cash good is a great place to learn about business and how things fail. Go for it. I’ve done 19 startups and 6 made it.

Yes!^^^^
Totally!

The real key with any of these start up jobs (whether they are successful or not) ....is learning new processes, seeing and working with existing and new technologies, getting known in one or more industry sectors.....meaning experience.....and a good entry on the resume.

Newrise renewable may or may not get anywhere with aviation fuel, not because of anything they may or may not be doing....but just because of the actual issues of using it, available feedstocks and the required scale for it to be successful.

This does not mean it's not viable technology. It just may not YET be practical in the short term.
That being said, Newrise has already been making useful progress on an already practical front that they are already known for and that is refining diesel from waste vegetable oils.

I would say go for it roo!

I have worked with quite a few start-ups as well. Getting 6 successful out of 19 is actually above average!

To zerotofifty....

Is making aviation fuel from waste scam TECHNOLOGY? No....it's not.

If it did not make actual working fuel.....yes it would be scam technology.

However, to your point.....THE USE OF....SAF aviation fuel technology to reduce greenhouse gases and reduce/prevent/reverse.....climate change.....THAT is the scam.

This is the point I have been making.

My beef is that instantly...generally.....calling something that is working with important and successful technology a scam.....purports that it's baseline technology does not work. That's not true and not useful.

This is very similar in concept to the people who run around screaming that guns kill people. In reality....people kill people. Not the guns by themselves.

Do not beat down the technology. Beat down the assholes using it the wrong way.

To me, the real usefulness of the pyrolysis and refining technology....can go hand in hand with modern cogeneration and filtration.....and in the long run say....25 years down the line, this could totally get us away from the shitty habit we have of making giant mountainous land fills.
Virtually all of what is in going into landfills (other than plastics, metals and glass) could be either incinerated and produce energy from steam (as a byproduct to cover cost). The plastics separation problem .....we already have technology to do that but it will take a law to force plastics mfgs to add single spectrum trace additives to each type of plastic so that common multi-spectrum vision systems on the sorting flex picker robots that are coming into play in garbage and recycling plants everywhere.....can sort plastics accurately and quickly.
That type of tracer is CHEAP and non-toxic. It requires about 2oz of tracer per ton of plastic. That's about 25 cents.

The plastic can get pyrolyzed on large scale and produce anything from industrial solvents to diesel. Or go right back to plastic feed stock.

So it's good technology. It will not be within my lifetime that we decide to build a system on that scale to take care of our trash problem.

Ray

Tue Dec 31, 2024 11:19 am

raygreenwood wrote: Abscate wrote: calvinater wrote: The reason I asked about this is , my daughter got a job with Newrise renewables. In Reno nv . I was wondering if this was legit ,or a fly by night outfit.

When you are young , any startup where the paychecks cash good is a great place to learn about business and how things fail. Go for it. I’ve done 19 startups and 6 made it.

Yes!^^^^
Totally!

The real key with any of these start up jobs (whether they are successful or not) ....is learning new processes, seeing and working with existing and new technologies, getting known in one or more industry sectors.....meaning experience.....and a good entry on the resume.

Newrise renewable may or may not get anywhere with aviation fuel, not because of anything they may or may not be doing....but just because of the actual issues of using it, available feedstocks and the required scale for it to be successful.

This does not mean it's not viable technology. It just may not YET be practical in the short term.
That being said, Newrise has already been making useful progress on an already practical front that they are already known for and that is refining diesel from waste vegetable oils.

I would say go for it roo!

I have worked with quite a few start-ups as well. Getting 6 successful out of 19 is actually above average!

To zerotofifty....

Is making aviation fuel from waste scam TECHNOLOGY? No....it's not.

If it did not make actual working fuel.....yes it would be scam technology.

However, to your point.....THE USE OF....SAF aviation fuel technology to reduce greenhouse gases and reduce/prevent/reverse.....climate change.....THAT is the scam.

This is the point I have been making.

My beef is that instantly...generally.....calling something that is working with important and successful technology a scam.....purports that it's baseline technology does not work. That's not true and not useful.

This is very similar in concept to the people who run around screaming that guns kill people. In reality....people kill people. Not the guns by themselves.

Do not beat down the technology. Beat down the assholes using it the wrong way.

To me, the real usefulness of the pyrolysis and refining technology....can go hand in hand with modern cogeneration and filtration.....and in the long run say....25 years down the line, this could totally get us away from the shitty habit we have of making giant mountainous land fills.
Virtually all of what is in going into landfills (other than plastics, metals and glass) could be either incinerated and produce energy from steam (as a byproduct to cover cost). The plastics separation problem .....we already have technology to do that but it will take a law to force plastics mfgs to add single spectrum trace additives to each type of plastic so that common multi-spectrum vision systems on the sorting flex picker robots that are coming into play in garbage and recycling plants everywhere.....can sort plastics accurately and quickly.
That type of tracer is CHEAP and non-toxic. It requires about 2oz of tracer per ton of plastic. That's about 25 cents.

The plastic can get pyrolyzed on large scale and produce anything from industrial solvents to diesel. Or go right back to plastic feed stock.

So it's good technology. It will not be within my lifetime that we decide to build a system on that scale to take care of our trash problem.

Ray

dude, you is preaching to the choir. If not for government funding and mandates, SAF would not be ramping up, spending tax payers money, to solve some doubtful problem. That is the scam part, taxpayers forced to fund it under false pretenses. And as reports have stated, every bit of animal or plant material diverted to aviation fuel is that much less that can be diverted to say bio diesel fuel. We have a limited amount of animal and plant waste, so why not convert it to fuel in a less expensive, less life safety critical fuel? I am sure that if there is a problem with a biodiesel fuel batch, that it is less of a safety issue than a faulty bio SAF fuel. airplane fuel fails and planes fall out if the sky, if diesel fuel is defective, trains and truck stop, a diesel engine damaged by bad bio fuel js a lot less
pricey to repair than a airplane jet that is damaged by biofuel.

the concept of bio SAF fuels is bad when we already have cheap proven low risk bio diesel to be made with our limited amount of bio materials. if CO2 reduction is the goal, and you get the same reduction of CO2 per pound of bio diesel verses Bio SAF, why not use the low safety risk, less expensive to produce Bio diesel alternative instead? until we have excess bio waste to convert, I say pick the less expensive, less safety risk alternative fuel for bio production. I am sure this SAF funding is all driven by non technical, infact technical illiterate politicians who are lobbied, wined and dined, given donations etc... by the SAF financial backers. This is horrible use of our taxes, a scam on the taxpayers.

Tue Dec 31, 2024 3:29 pm

Yeah....we are saying tbe same thing. :lol:

Actually the making of "fuels" of some kind with this technology .....has been around and in use for decades.

They just tweaked a few things and added the "SAF" name.

Ray