I'm at REFF-West -- a clean tech conference in Seattle -- today. These conferences are a dime a dozen these days, so I probably won't bombard you with tons of posts. But as I was listening to Kostya L. Zolotusky of Boeing, I had a thought.
Aviation is considered one of the top evil-doers by green campaigners. Not only do planes spew tons of greenhouse gases, but they spew them far up in the atmosphere where they do exponentially more damage. Greens worldwide (particularly in Europe) are basically trying to shut down or substantially curtail aviation.
Meanwhile, Boeing is saying that biofuel flying is three years away.
The inevitable reaction from enviros is to assume that this is, um, bullsh*t -- that Boeing is going to mix its carbon-spewing fuels with biodiversity-destroying ethanol and claim a PR victory. That is: enviros assume Boeing is greenwashing.
But watching Zolotusky talk, you'd have trouble distinguishing him from one of those activists. He rejected corn ethanol in incredibly strong terms. He almost aggressively dismissed most of the current biofuel efforts in the U.S. -- "call them subsidy efforts, not environmental efforts." He had an engineer's sort of swagger, like he was eager to crack the sustainable aviation fuel puzzle, just because people kept saying he couldn't. Why would a guy like that want to get by on BS?
This is not to start a big debate over aviation (remember: performance standards, not mode preferences!). It is just to say that the environmental activist's stereotype of the slimy corporate greenwasher is entirely divorced from what I've personally experienced, having rubbed shoulders which quite a few business types in the last few years. This is not to say that particular industries aren't spinning wildly, or that there aren't wildly deceptive green claims flying around, but from what I've seen, the corporate world is increasingly filled with people who are fired up to find genuine solutions to environmental problems.
Remember: These are proud, ambitious people. They want to kick ass and crush competition, no matter what goal they're pursuing. Lying, spinning, and greenwashing might please some execs, but most people below that level find it manifestly unsatisfying.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations
Ask Umbra on bike helmets
Comments
View as Threaded
josullivan58 Posted 10:28 am
28 Oct 2008
Many lawyers, for example, the priority is 100% compliance, not getting their companies around the law. On future regulations they'll willingly accept very strict limits if it means uniform and stable standards.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:36 am
28 Oct 2008
Turbine engines should have few problems burning biodiesel blends. Jet engines just are not very picky about what you feed them. You can't use it legally until the FAA has approved it. Safety is all important in aviation. Cold temperatures that could cause biodiesel to become overly viscous is probably the main concern, along with microbes growing in the fuel. From the linked to article:
Boeing expects planes to operate on a 30% blend of biofuel. It also believes they could operate on a 100% blend, but says there would not be enough biofuel to supply an industry that consumes 85bn gallons of kerosene a year.
That will be a 30% blend of soy, canola, or palm oil, guaranteed.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Jonas Posted 11:20 am
28 Oct 2008
All the rest is greenwashing, etc.
Permalink
fiasole Posted 11:35 am
28 Oct 2008
you say "people" should...again, have you taken more than your one flight?
Bishop of London was quoted last year as saying something to the effect that flying is a sin...then it was uncovered that said Bishop travels extensively by air.
Do what I say, not what I do....
Permalink
fiasole Posted 12:06 pm
28 Oct 2008
please read, it articulates quite clearly where aviation is headed.
Its all about transparent, independant, auditable supply chains that meet these criteria. Via the RSB process, clear, actionable sustainability practices can and will be in place. RSB is slow and painful, but it will result in solid standards.
Its unlikely that canola, soy, palm will make the cut owing to the type of land needed, but you miss the point. EPA will shortly come out with a ruling that soy biodiesel won't qualify for the RFS, owing to land use change--just one for instance of how things are going. Feedstocks aren't the problem, its really quite specific to where and how a feedstock is grown and that can and will be determined by end users demanding sustainability.
are there never going to be downsides? Of course not. Its about bringing smart, knowledgeable people, who don't have an interest in biofuels per se, into the process for setting up these supply chains.
The current missing link is end users enforcing sustainable supply chains using independant auditors.
this is what corn ethanol, palm and soy folks paid no attention to. They got it wrong, and now its time to do it right.
And counter to your assertion, in fact there are many attractive terrestrial options that will work well on non food crop land where there is low biodiversity value. Algae will be great if/when the technical hurdles are solved, but its not all about algae either.
you are probably not plugged in, and thats fine, you will become aware in time...
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:10 pm
28 Oct 2008
I see it coming now. The airline industry, hell bent to keep its fuel supplies, jumps into the fray. Air travel as we know it today will become a much rarer occurance, biofuels or no biofuels.
The NRDC uses the argument that if we don't give the airlines biofuels, they will use oil from tar sands! That's ridiculous. They will use whichever is cheaper. Why don't they work to shut down the tar sands instead of promoting more agriculture? It's irrational.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Jonas Posted 8:02 pm
28 Oct 2008
But flying in air planes is a sin indeed. Just like driving a car is. Or eating kiwis imported from New Zealand.
There's no real need to do all this. You can just sit in your own garden under an apple tree, and wait till an apple drops into your hand. That's the essence of life. If you don't like it, then please go away.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 12:25 am
29 Oct 2008
There are three options for fuel cells : Hydrogen, Boron gas, and syn-fuels based on hydrocarbons.
Hydrogen would make a good choice only if the airplanes are redesigned as blimps (slower, but more comfortable travel). This is also more fuel efficient. Compressed Hydrogen takes up too much volume, which will be uneconomical in normal airplane designs.
The second option is Hydrocarbon based syn-fuels. These are the easiest way out, they do not require redesigning the engines. But producing these kind of fuels sustainably is a big problem. We can incinerate biomass, or cultivate algae over ponds, or grow energy plants for cellulosic ethanol. All of these take too much land, water and sometimes (nuclear or fossil fuel) energy inputs. In any case, hydrocarbon based air travel becomes feasible only if we sacrifice several other uses of hydrocarbons, such as in road travel or in fertilizers. Further, if adopting such a strategy, we should be on the lookout for biodiversity abuses.
The third option is fuel cells powered by Boron gas. This is very interesting, because the energy density of Boron is very high, both per volume and per mass. This makes it a good carrier for fuel cells. Already, Boron slurry is used in some forms of rocket ignition and jet fuels. Airplanes should pump in some money to investigate the use of Boron fuel cells. Used up Boron (Boria) can be treated with nuclear / solar power and reconverted to fuel cells.
Personally, I like the third option the most.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
fiasole Posted 1:51 am
29 Oct 2008
the whole point here, if you'd take an honest, real look at things is to develop options that help obviate the need for liquid coal and tar sands as a marginal source for new demand. Yes, demand needs to be minimized, of course, but thats not enough. marginal growth will happen and it then become a matter of "where do you want your liquid fuel to come from?"
real time: the liquid coal and tar sands folks are fighting for massive subsidies. more coal folks than tar sands. the arguement the coal guys are making is lower carbon options arent going to be real, ever, so just give us (liquid coal people) all the $$ for subsidies. This isn't an abstraction, its quite real
aviation, nrdc, others are in the middle of this and realizing there is in fact a window to encourage the development of lower carbon, more sustainable fuels (yes, its hard, yes requires innovation, no it can't be farmer crop fuel), and that is exactly what you describe: simultaneously undercutting the case for liquid coal and tar sands, whilst encouraging innovation on lower carbon, more sustainable options. Why on earth can you not GET THIS?
so, keep up what you are saying, for the net net of that line: you help the liquid coal and tar sands folks make their case. Seriously.
So, if you cross plot where the liquid coal plants are slated to be located, you find a very interesting situation: they are all in the soy, corn, rice, and some wheat belts. amongst the many problems with liquid coal is its immense water use. There are already real and looming, chronic shortages of irrigation water for crops in these places. Add massive liquid coal and tar sands water use and you quickly get into situation where its fuel versus water, which as you well know, becomes fuel versus food, which then gets right back to driving land use change
So, you all have a choice: continue myopically knee jerking against aviation on this and however minutely helping the liquid coal and tar sands people, or get fully aware of the situation and look at this holistically, fly less if you choose and use your time and energy to help pull for more sustainable options.
Its about personal responsibility: do none of you get on planes? if not, great, good for you. I suspect the answer is you do get on planes. So, take responsibility for that and help solve the supply side of the challenge. Recognize that you are part of the demand, so own up to it and be honest with yourselves, unlike the Bishop of London.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:46 am
29 Oct 2008
However, that idea does not scale to airliners, which can't achieve similarly huge improvements in mileage. Unlike cars, gas mileage has always been a critical part of the design envelope.
They will always consume gargantuan amounts of fuel because the whole idea behind air travel is speed, and speed requires overcoming drag, and drag is an exponential function of speed.
Electrification is also not an option for aviation.
Short of finding some substitute for an incredibly dense and relatively inexpensive liquid source of energy that you simply pump out of the ground and crack, air travel is going to undergo a major contraction as peak oil slams home (airline tickets are going to get even more expensive). General aviation went through a huge contraction from its heyday and we managed to adjust just fine.
I don't see that as the end of the world. Biofuels can't fix that because they won't be cheap. Roughly 40% of the cost of your airline ticket is the fuel you will burn. If you pay $400, about $160 is for the fuel you will consume on your journey.
http://www.gfn.com/sowhatsyourpoint/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/airline-fuel.jpg
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
DavidL Posted 3:07 am
29 Oct 2008
Responding to the article, I see more of the environmental movement within Corporate America as a grass roots effort. Beyond compliance and regulations, most of the what gets done within a company is off the backs of those who strive to make their company number one. Middle management and below. I think the upper management within US Corp live their lives one quarter at a time and only plan to the next share holders meeting. There is something inspirational about this that smart managers see as opportunity. Their petrification is my open day to success...
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:13 am
29 Oct 2008
So, why doesn't the NRDC put all of their time and money into fighting those subsidies? What logical sense does it make to instead fight for subsidies for other fuels so they can compete against other subsidized fuels?
I'm all for fuel substitute research. I'm not for subsidies and mandates for carbon sink/biodiversity destroying food usurping biofuel production (which exist primarily because they buy votes).
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:50 am
29 Oct 2008
Most people mean well. It's hard for many environmentally conscious types to believe that coal and nuclear proponents really believe that their livelihood is truly a good and needed product that makes people's live better, but they do, as do corn ethanol famers, palm oil plantation owners, and on and on and on.
Is it possible that Hitler thought he was doing the right thing? I strongly suspect he did. And please people, I'm not comparing any individual to Hitler here. Also, Godwin's Law only argues against overuse of Hitler comparisons, not the elimination of them.
My point is that it really does not matter a wit if you have good intentions. The road to hell blah, blah.
We are all susceptible to our human natures. Rationalization bias is with us every waking hour and probably in our dreams as well. All we can do is present our arguments.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Jonas Posted 5:35 am
29 Oct 2008
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:37 am
29 Oct 2008
"Quit labeling people who disagree with you as fascists?"
And you were not particularly apologetic about it. No sir, when you call someone a fascist, you mean it. I recall when you accused one of your professors of being a fascist along with various and sundry members of the United Nations as well.
And nice try on the Hitler accusation, but I made it perfectly clear that I was not comparing anyone to Hitler.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:42 am
29 Oct 2008
grist.org
Permalink
lizbb Posted 1:55 pm
30 Oct 2008
As the author of the Switchboard blog at issue, I want to say emphatically that we are "busting our butts" to borrow again from David to fight the tar sands and other dirty fuels and all the subsidies that are going or might have gone to support them. Go to our dirty oil page - http://www.stopdirtyfuels.org - for the latest. This fall we fended of a repeal of Section 526 of the new energy bill of 2007 and numerous other dirty fuels amendments. Sadly, a nearly billion dollar subsidy for expanding tar sands and oil shale refineries got through as part of the tax extenders package that was hitched to the bailout bill.
But we ARE there - that is the main focus of our work. That said, we are also putting energy into creating alternatives. I totally agree that there can be a serious debate about air travel but the reality is there is going to be air travel and the sector is growing so we should do what we can.
Please do read through the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users group pledge, which you can see on my Switchboard blog (switchboard.nrdc.org/archive_bydate.php?ym=200809 - 36k), which lays out the criteria for these next generation fuels. Oil - and tar sands oil especially - would flunk out right out of the gates. It would be pretty amazing to see a fuel come onto the market that could meet all the criteria laid out by SAFUG and the RSB.
And we better keep an eagle eye on aviation. The Air Force is really pushing these dirty fuels - especially liquid coal - and the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative (CAAFI) is trying to certify a mixture of coal and biomass. We want to see a strong alternative out there. Hopefully, SAFUG (inspiring acronym, eh?) can do it.
Thanks all. It was fun reading your posts. Just glad my colleague Ian Wilker caught the back and forth about NRDC's work in this area so I could dive in.
Liz Barratt-Brown
Permalink