This post is taken from the newsletter “Human warmth”sent every Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. Every week, journalist Nabil Wakim, who hosts the Chaleur Humaine podcast, answers questions from Internet users on the climate challenge. You can register for free by clicking here.
Question of the week
“Hello, my question concerns the options for replacing fuel oil in aircraft. My understanding is that biofuels are not a very good idea, but could synthetic fuels be a good option? Can this replace oil sustainably? » (Question asked by Gabriel at chaud [email protected])
My response: No. We should not rely on biofuels or synthetic fuels to replace kerosene in planes – they may play a role for some flights, but this will not achieve our climate goals. (For an overall view on flying and the climate, I refer you to this episode of “Human Heat” Should we stop flying? with researcher Isabelle Laplace)
1. What are we talking about?
The term we use is that of SAF, for “sustainable aviation fuels” in English, often translated as “sustainable aviation fuels”. This brings together several realities: we generally think of biofuels, coming from agricultural production – somewhat on the same model as that which is used for cars. They can also be produced from used cooking oil. Another family includes synthetic fuels, sometimes called e-fuels, which are produced in factories, for example by mixing CO2 to hydrogen.
These SAFs currently represent less than 1% of fuels globally in the aviation sector. Their main advantage is that they can now fuel planes by mixing them with kerosene. We thus integrate a few percent of these alternative fuels into the oil used in planes.
2. Why is this a problem?
Well, let’s be honest, there are a number of difficulties, and to think that these SAFs will replace a large part of the oil in planes by 2050 is an illusion.
First problem: the production of biofuels is very small compared to needs. And to multiply it, it would be necessary, for example, to use a lot of agricultural land, with a risk of competition for food, among other things. Especially since other sectors of the transition will have similar needs (for example, to produce biogas). Not to mention that this risks having the consequence of accelerating deforestation, which would be catastrophic in terms of carbon footprint.
You have 55.11% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
