Are new fuels the cleaner future of flying? | Transforming Business
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 июн 2024
- Air travel is taking off again post-Covid, with passenger numbers to almost quadruple by 2050. But our sky-high dreams make for even bigger impacts on the climate. Could new fuels be the key to changing that?
#transformingbusiness #GuiltFreeFlying #airtravel
0:00 Intro
0:39 Plane engines and new fuels
01:53 The promise of sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs)
03:44 Delta: betting big on SAFs
04:56 The challenges
07:29 The policy push
09:18 SAFs: the right way to go?
Subscribe: ruclips.net/user/deutsche...
For more news go to: www.dw.com/en/
Follow DW on social media:
►Facebook: / deutschewellenews
►Twitter: / dwnews
►Instagram: / dwnews
►Twitch: / dwnews_hangout
Für Videos in deutscher Sprache besuchen Sie: / dwdeutsch
Passenger numbers are predicted to increase 5 fold from today by 2050 while these new fuels have the potential of maximally reducing pollution by 80%. If I understand that correctly, that means air travel will at very best pollute at the very same level in 2050 as it does today. Great news ! :)
If this is the case, shouldn't one already start discussing how to reduce passenger numbers too?
Delta aiming for 10% SAF by 2030 seems remarkably unambitious. One might almost think they are using the commitment as greenwashing....
I see lots of brands in Malaysia like Arus Oil or capitol oil collect waste oil to turn to biofuel which is 88% cleaner than diesel just wished Malaysia would accept using it.
There is a simple way to reduce emissions from flights: anti-aircraft guns.
Alternative Forms of transportation for certain routes like High-speed Rail would reduce flights taken. That may work domestically in the United States, but once you get to International routes and long haul flights. It can become more complicated because of how wide the United States is.
For example, people would most likely still take a plane from San Francisco to NYC. But a high-speed rail would be preferred for routes that are close in time compared to a flight. If not a bit longer than a flight due to the ease of taking a train compared to going to an airport.
It's all a scam rich and powerful trying to control the masses you don't get it?
Wow, a whole 20 seconds devoted to not flying so much. Spending vast sums to solve a self inflicted problem, when we could just not perpetually grow the self harm. But, profits for the masters of the universe.
3:45 Why does it remind me of the "Asian man dragged off United Airlines flight" when I see Delta Airline, pfft....
Bla Bla Bla
Nice video! Some people/governments are making lots of money but I believe this is not the answer. There has to be a way of making a jet engine way more efficient/clean burning with the fuels we have. Using trees , compost, used french fry oil, and corn can’t be seriously pursued. We need to be able to release the energy in oil a different way? Come up with a new engine or technique of releasing oils energy in a new way? Oh well good luck with this !
Cheers everyone
or just lack of fuel
Carbon Free Flying - the flyer is not paid for the CO2 they emit as a result of breathing.
CO2 increase = houses built of wood where the trees once stood.
CO2 increase = Deforestation & Population Increase of Humans & our Animal Meat Livestock.
Not feeling any guilt
Co2 NEEDS TO RISE OR WE'RE ALL GOING TO STARVE TO DEATH!!
We need to ban the majority of flying. Only emergency situations.
Only 2-3X more expensive than jet fuel? What a bargain!
Once again, government regulations distorting the market in favor of one industry (biofuels in this case) rather than letting market forces decide when and how an industry (aviation in this case) achieves lower emissions. Wait for the unintended consequences that inevitably follow.
I'm all in favour of not distorting the market by government regulation. Let's start by withdrawing all the tax breaks, subsidies and legal advantages granted to big oil in the US and elsewhere. The market is already distorted - it's just that right wingers think that current distortions are the norm.
@@malcolmrose3361 You'll get no disagreement from me about removing tax breaks, subsidies, etc. All of them. All industries.
"...it's much easier to avoid flight than to have to go all the way towards building fuel". 😂😂😂
The most efficient and only solution is to reduce the human population!
In my opinion the whole transportation section (aviation and cars) should be left alone. The developments are going in the right direction, becoming more efficient and with less emissions, but it's ridiculous to suggest it might be so easy so avoid flights or car driving. People often have to fly in a globalized world, but most importantly, people love travelling and flying goes with it. This is too emotional for everyone. Even the most leftist people fly regularly.
If you're really concerned about climate change, better to focus on wasting less resources and food, food choices and teaching people to eat less meat (and I'm by far no vegetarian and love meat).
Time to go vegan then :) good call
I've last flown 10 years ago - I can assure you it is not needed for travelling. 24h bus rides are quite doable. train rides even more so.
@@__________________________---_ it might look good, but it will stay a fantasy. It's too radical for most people - therefore not a good option ;)
@@MrTohawk Maybe for you, and that's good, but certainly not for most people. Train tracks need a looooot of time, resources and maintenance which also creates huge CO2 emissions, whereas you just need two airports and an airplane to have the system working.
We are 20 years late, extreme weather conditions are and will be more often, exactly because we didn't push enough companies who contributed with CO2 the most and your solution is to do nothing? Systemic regulations in specific industries are desperately needed.
It's too late to begin to think about alternatives. Stop with the B.S.