Posted on 05/12/2021 12:00:19 AM PDT by Olog-hai
One third of fuel used in domestic flights by 2030 will come from sustainable sources, according to a new German roadmap on the market ramp-up of power-to-liquid (PtL) kerosene unveiled on Friday (7 May).
The plan for increased use of sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) aims to have an annual production of 200,000 tonnes of green kerosene by 2030.
Politicians and representatives of interest groups came together on Friday (7 May) to announce that they had come to an agreement on the German roadmap towards production of sustainable PtL kerosene, a type of electro-fuel.
“By switching to electricity-based kerosene, we can save millions of tons of CO2 emissions in aviation,” said Andreas Scheuer, Germany’s transport minister, adding that the PtL roadmap will further the technological leadership of German companies. […]
PtL kerosene is created from water, CO2 and electricity. If the electricity used stems from renewable sources, PtL kerosene is practically carbon neutral.
PtL kerosene is still far from competitive, which is why the German plan foresees a two-pronged approach of subsidizing research as well as production of PtL kerosene. It furthermore envisions a demand-side opt-in program by which the relevant industries agree to purchase certain quantities of the fuel despite the higher price point. …
(Excerpt) Read more at euractiv.com ...
Can they turn lead into gold too?
Ich bin ein kerosiner.
Because politics and truth never mix, prices are the most honest data available for estimating the total greenhouse gas emissions. It's trivial to track down where "green" energy pollutes more: just follow the money.
It's possible to grow oil on the free ocean using genetically optimized algae. That's where all the energy in fossil oil originally came from. The main trick is how to harvest the dispersed energy cheaply before the bacteria do. Floating AI robots will eventually make it economical to farm 70% of Earth's unused surface.
Germany will soon have planes dropping out of the sky at the fastest rate since the Battle of Britain. Zing!
Look for one or more of the airliners using this fuel to appear on “Air Disasters” in the near future.
Right when economies ought to be investing in ways that societies can adapt to and mitigate effects of “climate change” the green-industrial-empires are getting nations to raise their costs for energy, by trillions, just for chasing CO2, and diluting the capital that would be better spent elsewhere.
Because no matter how “green” Germany gets, or California or anywhere in the western world, it will not change the fact that the total accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere will continue to increase just on the contributions of China, India and the less developed world. And worse. Even if they could take the most dramatic CO2 related changes now, it would be 100 to 200 years before the atmospheric level of CO2 would peak and possibly afterward gradually, very gradually reverse.
But if instead societies started investing now in the means of adapting to and mitigating effects of “climate change”, instead of chasing CO2 by making all energy more expensive, then no matter what happens societies would be better prepared to deal with whatever changes come.
Full disclosure: I am not an alarmist on “climate change”. However using the very same “science” of the alarmists, it is clear their “solutions” deny critical elements of that science and they ignore those “solutions” will eat up money chasing CO2 and leave everyone unprepared for their own predictions because their chase of CO2 will not stop what they predict - based on their own “science”.
wild fantasy. BTW buried in the last sentence of the article is reference to “stagnating growth of wind turbines” on which this whole boondoggle depends. Germany is at the point where wind turbines are wearing out and are not being replaced. The whole energiewende is falling apart and no one will face up to reality.
The Germans invented the means to make synthetic fuels. They are the world leaders in it. During WWII nearly every drop they used was synthetic millions and millions of gallons on a scale that humans had not seen and since. They export their technology the South Africans use it every day to make millions of gallons of jet fuel, diesel and petrol. This process adds a step to well established economically viable technology. Instead of using coal or natural gas to generate singed(CO,H2) in a one to two ratio they are using CO2 and cracking that to the carbon monoxide CO and then cracking water H2O to H2 the hydrogen they need from that point forwards it’s 1930s technology that the Germans rule the world in. The question is what’s the cost per gigajoule to crack CO2 , water electrolysis is well established industrial process with known cost metrics.
The Navy as in the U.S. Navy has been testing making fuels from seawater for the C,O2 and H2 for years they flew an F18 on it a few years ago. The plan is to use the carriers nukes to crack the seawater into fuel. They have the cost at $6 per gallon which is cheap compared to underway replenishment by a fleet oiler shipping fuel half way around the planet into a contested waters. The cost for oiler delivered fuels has hit $400 a gallon and avg over $25 all those numbers are available by the GAO.gov btw.
1) Spending money is identical to consuming energy and generating pollution. Using current and foreseeable technology, it is not possible for government to spend the money collected from a carbon tax without emitting even more carbon than before, and having less GDP to show for it.
2) Energy is the root cost of all economic activity. If energy is made more expensive, that ripples down to everything else. If energy costs 50% more, the third law of thermodynamics requires that quality of life decline 50%.
3) Earth does not have a CO2 problem, but a growing waste heat problem. The real problem to solve is how to cheaply radiate unwanted heat off Earth, and we'll need to know how to do that before we switch to nuclear alternatives. Solve that and we can manage the climate the same as we do inside buildings. Destructive hurricanes will cease to exist.
There is no free lunch with energy. Where will they get the electricity to make their soy boi fuel?
In re: “3) Earth does not have a CO2 problem, but a growing waste heat problem. The real problem to solve is how to cheaply radiate unwanted heat off Earth, and we’ll need to know how to do that before we switch to nuclear alternatives. Solve that and we can manage the climate the same as we do inside buildings. Destructive hurricanes will cease to exist.”
1. (a) What would you say is/are the source/sources of “growing waste heat”. (b) And why is it growing.
2,I do not think humans should be thinking we are now (or will be in 100-200 years) smart enough or capable enough to think we can manage the climate, even just it’s “heat”. In 1,000 years we might be sophisticated enough to, but not now.
3. Why must “managing” our “growing waste heat” be an endeavor that MUST be done BEFORE switching to greater use of nuclear power?
2) Hurricanes are a smaller problem that could be tackled. That mainly involves getting rid of excess heat. If that could be done, that also gets rid of the CO2 warming hysteria.
3) A fusion reactor operates at 100+ million degrees Celsius and requires a large amount of energy consumption onsite for cooling and magnet power. Beyond that, once someone figures out how to produce anti-matter cheap enough, energy consumption and waste heat will power a new age of great wealth. Total waste heat will double about every 10 years. That unnatural heat will have to be radiated off Earth beyond what occurs naturally.
1. (a) OK - Energy consumption (my lights, my TV, my washer & dryer, my car, my air condition, ect all) create heat. Got it. And so does energy production - an electric power plant for instance fueled in any manner creates heat. (b) Are you saying “waste heat” via growing man-made energy use is the source of “global warming”?
2. (a) We are not smart enough to try to “tame” Hurricanes. (b) They have existed from long before humans began creating “waste heat” from man-made energy production & consumption. (c) Earth’s own climate dynamics naturally creates them, where it creates them naturally. (d). No we should not think we can tame that without vast unintended consequences. We are not G-d and should not think we can play G-d.
3. (a) There is no working commercial fusion reactors in use. We are we don’t know how long before fusion will replace fission in nuclear power production. (b) There is more than one design of small safe nuclear power plants that turns the heat generated in the nuclear process back into the electric generation process - essentially reusing all its waster heat.
What “waste heat”?
I just had a frost alert a couple of nights ago on the weather forecast. I should have been running the AC by now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.