it’s the most expensive to build/operate and much safer than typically perceived. Accidents are spectacular and rare.

  • bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Synt fuel is still loads of co2 in the atmosphere, and just because you bought a forest it doesn’t remove it from the atmosphere. Would you talk about hydrogen planes then I’d agree with you, but synth fuel? That’s the biggest bullshit of the air industry.

    • ekky43@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      As far as I understand, the idea behind synthesized fuel is to bind CO2 to create the fuel, which theoretically should make it net neutral, if one ignores power consumption and chemical usage, as well as the CO2 probably not being sourced from the atmosphere.

      In other words, the technology should be sound enough, but it will most likely not be used for good, as per my first post.

      Then we come to the other issues I mentioned. The fuel should theoretically be CO2 neutral, but the plane does not fly where the factory is located. It flies some ~10km above surface, which means that we are pumping CO2 into the middle layers of the troposphere, which probably is bad idea.

      Edit: i realize that I formulated myself in a rather unlucky way in the first comment, whelp.

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        With the climate change we need more than net neutral. Net neutral is plain bullshit, greenwashing for those who don’t want to see the reality of the problem. We need to fully stop ejecting co2 in the atmosphere, full stop.

        Hydrogen engines are much more promising. They could be ready by 2035.