Airtravel, how bad is it?
It is therefore very important to consider the environmental impact of air travel – for instance, a single transatlantic flight consumes over 400 kilograms of fuel per passenger and releases around 4000 kilograms of CO2 equivalents (greenhouse gases). This significant carbon footprint contributes to the growing issue of greenhouse gas emissions.
But can we really travel without using planes? With so many people flying every day how are we going to minimise the carbon footprint of Air Travel?
Are supersonic aeroplanes coming back?
| Aeroplane manufacturers are also looking into new materials and technologies to make planes lighter, more aerodynamic and more resistant to wear and tear. United Airlines thinks they can get to carbon neutrality while reintroducing supersonic flight (cen.acs.org, n.d). However, there has been some debate if the use of a supersonic flight would actually be more sustainable. We have not had any commercial supersonic aeroplanes since the Concorde was taken out of commission in 2003, so why would it be a good idea to reintroduce supersonic air travel now? This very technical paper on supersonic flights with new types of aviation fuel suggests that the impact will actually have a cooling effect rather than a warming effect. LINK But this is not a settled debate by any means, and these are still a lot of other types of impacts, like cost and Noise, from flying faster than the speed of sound. |
 |
Credit: Yang H. Ku/C&EN/Shutterstock- It would be more expensive - researcher from Nasa estimated that it would cost 83% more than a regular flight
- United Airlines bought 15 supersonic aeroplanes from airlines company Boom Supersonic, while stating that they will reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. It is interesting however that Boom has rarely commented more on this
- Most countries have put a restriction on supersonic flights, as they are very loud (cen.acs.org, n.d).
Is SAF the jet fuel for the future?
| Nowadays the air travel industry is trying to be more sustainable, for example they are trying to switch from traditional fossil-derived jet fuels to more renewable sources and have lower emissions during the production. The newest development in jet fuel technology is called SAF or Sustainable Aviation Fuels. ‘SAF made from renewable biomass and waste resources has the potential to deliver the performance of petroleum-based jet fuel but with a fraction of its carbon footprint, giving airlines solid footing for decoupling greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from flight.’ Source: LINK |
 |
So, jet fuel made from biomass, just like biodiesel, could help offset the Co2 footprint, since the biomass used in the production is not adding trapped Co2 from the Oil and coal sediments to the atmosphere, and so the plants that are used for the production have “recently” been using the Co2 to grow, that is now being emitted by burning the fuel. Using oil-based fuels adds Co2 that was trapped in the earth in distant times, and so will add to the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere.
But SAF will also be more expensive to produce:
‘In 2020, the overall cost of jet fuel was $0.5 per litre. Meanwhile, the cost of SAF was $1.1 per litre. So, SAF was more than double the price of conventional jet fuel.’
Source: LINK
For a quick walk through of the Carbon cycle you can watch this short video: (LINK)
