hydrogen

Gasoline was originally a byproduct of refining kerosene. Cheap as free. Standard Oil would simply dump the stuff, until it's explosive properties found a market in the then-new automotive industry.

What the other commentator said, Gasoline was never expensive upon its discovery. It was so worthless at the time, it was dumped as waste.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

I would never use that. It was a great glace to be robbed and assaulted.

About high speed rail, if they build it, it needs to be only for transportation of people. No commercial transportation on those rails so as not to damage the rail with wait. The last President reduced the regulation on trains and now we’re having many more problems with them because they make longer heavier trains and they are creating more problems. We need to reinstate the regulations and put money into the infrastructure to repair all our rail systems.

Interesting point. I would add that this approach also doesn’t require development of new planes and infrastructure to accommodate and scale up the usage of batteries or hydrogen for planes. This is a huge plus.

Absolute malarkey.

@@d.h.601 ghee. Someone that doesn't know about numbers and technology shows up. As far as I can tell you from my engineering background and from studying all cases, electric planes make sense until battery tech improves a lot, heck we don't even have enough battery material to produce all the EVs that we need. As for the hydrogen, it's just a waste of time to make it work in the airline industry or air cargo. Just hydrogen availability is a big problem as we can only produce black hydrogen and just a little then you have to break all the challenges of hydrogen storage both inside the plane and at the airports, then you have to deal with all issues with running a hydrogen powered jet engine and I can tell you that they're a lot of issues. But i guess that you can solve these issues by yourself. Right?

@@d.h.601 yup, people have been claiming they're going to do fischer tropsch chemsitry with garbage for years, too many problems, it's easier to just use coal to make liquid fuel.

@@fourthdeconstruction if you're an engineer do a little research, people have been slinging this trash to liquid fuel BS for years, it's got too many issues, mainly all work and energy goes into making that nice fluffy dry feedstock garbage you see in the beginning. if they're gonna do it best to just use coal like Sasol does.

As Great as putting Corn alcohol in the car fuel! Dohhh

@@ghostmourn 80% of our corn was used in feed before china stopped imports any more childish whatifism

@@Riorozen cost affective he says yeah its cost effective not needing to port anything on the back of a tankard for hundreds of miles specially when the trash is already there and then can be found new means to be funded into it like recycling 2.0

This is not good stuff.

You mean more pump and dump? lol

Hope you go bankrupt

Most are , my company uses already leftover animal fats and used cooking oils left overs to produce saf but sadly still private 😢

They dont need your money and want all their profits

@@mhxxd4that’s not how investments work

duh they're waiting to go public with a ridiculous valuation

1) Fossil fuels and potentially renewables. This process does emit co2 2) CO2 however it is CO2 that was recently captured from the atmosphere. I.e it was absorbed by the plants that were used to make the SAF Overall SAF reduces emissions by 80% depending how it's made. Not completely because like you suggest the refinery and equipment is powered by fossil fuels.

Jep that’s the most important question. When the energy invested in the Fischer-Tropsch process is not renewable itself, the SAG is more wasteful than normal fossil fuels.

It may be possible for some of the feedstock to be burned as fuel for generating the energy needed on site to run the process, thus reducing energy costs. On top of this, there are many sources of feedstock other than trash that can be used as feedstock for SAF, such as dried sewage sludge and agricultural residue and forest debris.

Good idea!

Can't speak to the synthesis of specific biofuels, but for the initial phase - the gasification of carbon waste you can use any fuel source, coal, natural gas, or most likely the synthetic NG produced during gasification. If you use the syn gas produced by the system in the system, you should only need a small amount of start-up fuel before it becomes self-sustaining. Basically instead of all of your substrate being converted into fuel, a certain percentage is used/lost in creating the heat for gasification. The syn gas will be produced regardless of the parameters of gasification so you might as well use it. Short answer, it shouldn't require a lot of external energy.

@@iankelley7592 Self sustaining... I like the idea. Efficient.

That's the problem speicifically Fischer-Tropsch Process is energy intensive. Needs mainly lots of heat.

FT is highly exothermic. The challenges are providing a syngas

I agree.

Unlikely to get a clear answer to this question just the same way there’s little discussion about the environmental catastrophe caused by electric car battery production

The decrease of centralized pollution in cities, traded off for strip mining the earth using child labor. But it’s ok since we can’t see it. So yes, indeed, the dangers of car batteries.

Use non condensable gases to help run process

Summit Next Gen

That's true but the Scope 3 emissions of the plastic are already baked in, versus pulling new fossil fuels out of the ground

​​@@peterfrantellizzi6639ure but there's no way this will ever be net zero as they want if this is just a fossil fuel with extra steps. Only if the fuel source is direct air capture fueled by renewables with a full zero emission lifecycle analysis would this even be possible. This idea is just a distraction even if it was possible to scale it up. Calling this SAF is misleading at best. More accurately it's reusing existing carbon emissions, but like OP says the reprocessing emissions needs to be taken into account, which makes the whole thing extra dubious.

correct me if im wrong but SAF is still fuel so burning it still produces c02 they may reduce trash but it doesn’t solve aviation c02 problem

Di you even watch the video!? They actually use the carbon from trash plus hydrogen from the splitting of garbage

Carbon doesn't damage the planet it feeds plants.

And it turned out that recycling has been a scam. Have you missed those headlines? They’ve been out there for years. Guess what? Human induced Climate change is too

climate changes lolololollolololololololololololololololololololololo

Well it does solve some problems of waste and reduce the consumption in oil reserve that we have. This is positive

@@alexandrechen3081 so did Charles Sweeney think before.......san, ni, ichi... kaboom !

Why ? Railways are already green

Need a diesel engine for it.

@@CHMichaeland additives because pure kerosene isn’t ideal for diesels

@@TheAmericanCatholic ideal ... frying oil isn't ideal either... but it works.

So according to Skynrg, all SAF does is recycle co2 instead of adding to it. However, all this tech is still in the early stages, so I'm pretty sure that this will become more simplified later on.

It's like heating your home with a wood fire instead of using oil or natural gas.

​@@Riorozenit's not bookkeeping. It's just that it doesn't ADD any additional CO2 overall to the atmosphere; it doesn't reduce it

If you use fossil fuels, you're adding the additional carbon into the system. SAFs use organic matter (plants) that are comprised of carbon that has already been drawn from the atmosphere, so releasing it back means no additional carbon

I could be wrong, but I felt like someone is lying threw their teeth. The reason being they say that SAF is going to cost 4 times more than regular fuel and that consumers are looking for cheaper flights and that the airlines are running on a tight budget. If that is the case, I cannot see a clear path on how this would work as companies exist for profit.

@@etutorshop They basically telling people "We will be using more and more SAF in the future, but we will put up the flight tickets price because of the cost increase" They are business and it's always about cost and revenue.

​@@etutorshop Easy, it's in the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act). Airlines get tax credit for using SAF to offset the increase cost. While the tax credit doesn't cover all cost. The airline will back it if it's cheap enough (and it seems like the tax credit is high enough) and also it's an investment in alternative supply source for fuel to help absorb shocks in the Oil market (As you may note, kinda frequently recently). SAF should go down in price over time as newer better technology and infrastructure comes out. Oil prices though will probably go up. In the long term, SAF probably makes tons of sense. It would offer a more resistant supply chain and look good PR wise. Prices too should eventually come down. The IRA though is kickstarting it by offsetting a lot of the initial cost and price, making new industries and creating the demand earlier than it would otherwise might be commercially viable.

Shooo, don't make the obvious obvious to the smug & sustainable herd. You will be trashed as conspiratorial fossil fuel.

SAF is not even 1 percent of their total fuel

lol you are not saving the earth

True

Well, what are the downsides for storing the CO2 in the ground compared to reusing it?

@@WolfeSaber9933 It takes space in the ground and wouldn't help people fly, but it also wouldn't heat the planet up by releasing greenhouse gasses.

@@nathanbanks2354 There are gases that are worse than CO2 when it comes to greenhouse emissions, like a thousand times worse.

@@nathanbanks2354 Plus if not careful, trash being buried would contaminate groundwater.

Nope it still produce CO2