10 reasons why sustainable aviation fuels will help us outfly the looming climate change catastrophe.

“The day the sky fell” changed life on earth (source). The dinosaurs probably never saw it coming. In contrast, we have been staring at (or ignoring) the looming threat of a 2nd mass extinction for decades. We know the many dangers of climate change are real, growing, and omnipresent. We also know the causes and effects of global warming (source). Many millions of years of evolution have passed since the age of the dinosaurs. Yet, what does our home-grown and evolving spiral of self-destruction say about the state of human achievements?

Hope is not lost, though. Around the world, many have already committed their careers or devoted their lives to developing and driving life-saving climate action. However, enormous barriers to lasting progress, change, and transformation are everywhere. For instance, there is no agreed-on and unifying climate change assessment. Although science and everyday facts are undeniable, polarizing opposites, destructive rhetoric, and shocking standstills are common. From my point of view, fear is one of the all-important reasons for each dead-end. One side seems to be extremely scared of

• Giving up power and control
• Admitting to error and responsibility
• Committing to change and inconvenience
• And accepting reality.

I will let economists, psychologists, scientists, and others discuss and try to resolve these fear challenges. Instead, I will focus on some positive climate action developments. I was motivated to share my perspective after reading two articles.

• US military seeks to brew jet fuel from the air (Publisher: The Hill. Date: February 28, 2023. Author: Saul Elbein.)
• ‘They need to get real’: Airlines slammed for betting on alternative fuels to reduce emissions (Publisher: CNBC. Date: July 21, 2022. Author: Sam Meredith.)

These articles hit a nerve because I have been thinking about sustainable aviation fuels (and e-fuels) for many months. Although I welcome the authors’ reporting, I was not pleased with the articles. In my opinion, they

• Concentrate on the perceived disadvantages and mistakes
• Exclude many advantages and promises
• Fail to raise awareness, encourage support, and inspire action
• And miss focusing on solutions.

I am trying to cover these 4 points above in this opinion piece and look forward to receiving your feedback.

1. Sustainable aviation fuels – Overview

Sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) are (aviation) “fuels derived from non-fossil sources or ‘feedstock’,” (source). Crops or used cooking oil and animal fat are widely-used sources.

Air Company is one of the recently focused SAF innovators. The company manufactures mobile fuel factories. These units, the size of shipping containers, generate “CO2-derived sustainable aviation fuel”, i.e., make SAF using carbon dioxide pulled from the atmosphere.

The US Department of Defense is an early SAF adopter and recent Air Company partner (source). The US military is after two main SAF benefits:

Gain independence. The goal is to disrupt and upend the long jet fuel supply chain by

• winning jet fuel from the air
• decentralizing jet fuel production
• localizing jet fuel production
• and scheduling jet fuel production.

Reduce incidents. The goal is to reduce and eliminate dangerous events such as supply chain attacks and refueling accidents.

Jet Blue, an Air Company investor (source), and other air carriers are most interested in civilian SAF production and use. The aviation industry wants (and needs) to achieve its climate action commitments. A sustainable, long-term alternative to fossil fuels is necessary to stop and reduce global warming. Carbon dioxides, created by jet and other fossil fuel-powered engines, are among the driving causes of climate change. For that reason, SAF could be a primary means of decarbonizing flights. Furthermore, air carriers would realize fuel and supply chain cost savings from using SAF.

2. Sustainable aviation fuels - The negatives

SAF critics and opponents state the following disadvantages or failures. I listed them in alphabetical order. To make clear where I stand, I added my thoughts on why a more detailed view is required.

2.1 Alternative power. The only climate action-compliant options for air carriers are battery-powered (electricity) or fuel cell-powered (hydrogen) planes.

I am challenging these options because we are years, if not even decades, away from transitioning airplanes (and any other fossil fuel-powered engines) to the alternatives. SAF are at least a critical intermediate mean towards zero-carbon travel.

2.2 Bio-diesel. Air Company’s fuel production depends on waste emissions from bio-diesel production. Bio-diesel is made from crops (e.g., corn and soy) that require fossil fuels (e.g., to manufacture fertilizers, drive farm vehicles, and ship crops). The result is additional emissions (e.g., nitrous oxide, a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (source) and more carbon released from the soil.

I am not calculating and comparing the environmental impact (fossil fuels used, emissions released, etc.) of fossil fuel to bio-diesel. However, I value bio-diesel research and development, application and testing, and critical assessment. Creating any sustainable fuel source requires budget, time, effort, and willingness to compete against global fossil fuel dominance and dependence. After two centuries of releasing carbon dioxide (and other gases) to power the industrial revolution, we cannot expect to run from fossil fuel-start to sustainable fuel-finish in under 9 seconds. Bio-diesel is a critical hurdle we have to learn from on our ultra climate action marathon.

2.3 Circular closed-loop. SAF do not remove or reduce any atmospheric carbon. They only create a circular closed-loop of carbon capture (fuel production) and release (fuel use).

I do not support the belief that a carbon capture and release loop does not present climate action value. We need to discover many ways to reduce and prevent new and remove existing carbon. These three goals are not mutually exclusive. We have to pursue them simultaneously. Imagine how much of a difference a world of circular closed-loops would already make.

2.4 Demand management. The intermediate climate action-compliant option is demand management, which ranges from stopping air travel growth to grounding planes, until alternative-powered engines make zero-carbon air travel possible.

I do not consider these options realistic for several reasons:

• It is naive to assume that air travel can be limited and remain available for a selected few. It is already a fact that we cannot limit traffic (from cars to cruise ships), plastic production, growing and consuming livestock, etc. Moreover, after two centuries of growth, progress, and emissions across developed countries, it is impossible to demand that less developed countries abandon their prosperity journeys.
• People will not change as radically as the climate crisis requires. Consider what would be more effective. We offered people an alternative that does not change their experience, habits, etc. Or we asked them to abandon their choices altogether?
• I estimate it will be decades before a global fleet of alternative-powered engines makes zero-carbon air travel possible. We do not even fully know how many resources are needed to achieve sustainable air travel, how much it will cost, what challenges battery and hydrogen competition will create, etc.

2.5 Increased emissions. SAF intensify global warming because jet/plane emissions at high altitude damage the atmosphere’s composition. Thus, more solar energy can break through and warm the planet.

This argument is used against fossil aviation fuels, too. It does not support any possible climate action.

2.6 Marginal benefits. Switching from fossil fuel to SAF is like switching from regular to low-tar cigarettes. The benefits achieved are only marginal.

Once more, I suggest we acknowledge how few people make and stick to radical change(s). The list of reasons and excuses why humans only change extremely slowly is long. Add to the list the various national challenges and opportunities that matter to people, and radical change is not even a moonshot concept.

I do not think we will see radical change on the supply side that only some demand and are willing to support with their wallets either.

2.7 Resource competition. Any demand for SAF increases global deforestation. It also leads to more competition between crop and food production.

Lands are used and exploited for crop or food production or other purposes. Regardless of the reason, we need to monitor and protect our lands as much as invest in better and new ways of production. SAF are neither the only nor the most dangerous threat.

In summary, ineffective action. SAF only deliver strategic resilience but not effective climate solutions.

I do not believe any SAF assessment is as simple as a black-and-white comparison. I urge everyone to understand, measure, monitor, and resolve every SAF challenge.

3. Sustainable aviation fuels - The positives

My listing of SAF advantages and promises is longer but not perfect. I put them in alphabetical order.

3.1 Carbon products. Air Company has already produced and sold some non-fuel products made from carbon oxide (e.g., vodka, hand sanitizer, and perfume).

I expect this is just the beginning of a rich and diversified carbon product discovery journey. Maybe (solid) carbon can be used as a construction material to build safer, energy-efficient buildings and houses faster and cheaper.

3.2 Civil application. The US military has different means of generating electricity (e.g., generators, nuclear reactor research, and self-charging vehicles). I expect the underlying technologies will be available and used in civilian, commercial applications soon worldwide because of the US military’s partnership with Air Company that steers (some of) their strategic investments to this new technology.

Effective climate action requires massive investments into potential carbon-neutral and carbon-negative solutions. Many military applications will trigger the civilian use of materials, systems, and technology.

3.3 Carbon-neutral. While the production of SAF is not carbon-neutral, it will be at some point. In the meantime, many climate action commitments contain goals to reach carbon neutrality by a specific date. These commitments and (subsequent) actions are mission-critical, in addition to the more challenging objectives of reducing or removing carbon.

3.4 Decentralized production. A decentralized fuel supply chain would not only be a game changer for the US military but turn the global civilian aviation, public transport, and motor vehicle domain upside down. Localized fuel production will reduce transport challenges (e.g., time, personal, cost, and emission), increase fossil fuel and OPEC independence, democratize fuel production globally, boost availability and competitiveness (maybe even lower prices), and upend the long, cumbersome, and dangerous supply chain.

Imagine cost-efficient (mobile) networks of self-serving shipping container-sized sustainable fuel units capable of 24/7 fuel production and delivery or even safe subscription-based fuel deliveries to your house.

3.5 Innovation. Neither the US military nor Air Company can turn carbon dioxide, water, and sustainable electricity into jet fuel. I expect either their partnership has the potential to deliver the needed breakthrough innovation in the near future. Or others will find the solution and commercialize it.

Regardless, effective climate action requires investments by military and civilian entities across the globe. Innovation and positive outcomes will follow.

3.6 Inspiration

Investments and actions are the lifeblood of change we need. The more we realize the numerous opportunities for sustainable growth and growing sustainability, the more we can contribute to solutions. We have to highlight the many SAF advantages and promises of SAF and transform the SAF disadvantages and failures into new opportunities.

3.7 Progressive legislation. The US Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 provides incentives for the production of alternative fuels. It will help Air Company and others make SAF cost-competitive with fossil fuels at lower production volumes. It will also encourage many to invest in research and development. Moreover, other countries will follow the US example and create rules and regulations to support SAF and sustainability innovations.

In parallel to supportive legislation, there are restrictive regulations. Relying on any governing body to draw effective laws fast is impossible. It is essential to push for support based on opportunities and agree to restrictions based on evidence at all times.

3.8 Public commitments. The US military has rolled out broad climate action commitments. These commitments are the first step. They include much more than cutting greenhouse gases and achieving carbon neutrality. I expect the race for climate action to produce guiding (actions and) results.

It is of utmost importance that each and everyone commits to climate actions that address the world’s many sustainability challenges.

3.9 Ripple effect. Investments like the US military Air Company partnership can change sustainability innovation (breadth, width, and speed). Effective climate action requires explosive inspiration, awareness, risk-taking, testing, experimentation, investments, innovations, failures and learnings, etc.

It demands many different pieces to move together to drive innovation. However, each of those individual pieces has the power to trigger unexpected progress, too.

3.10 Technology scaling. The US military partnership has the potential to help scale Air Company’s technology solutions and change the US military’s operations. The US military will be able to produce SAF independently. Then the mainstream civilian, commercial SAF applications will be within reach.

In summary, future-forward action. We must recognize, pursue, and multiply the SAF advantages to deliver short and long-term climate actions.

4. Conclusion

I do not have the answers to the outlined SAF challenges. But I will take the arguments on both sides of the SAF discussion seriously if they rely on science and facts. At the same time, I do not subscribe to the notion that one side is always right and the other is always wrong. The world is too full of opposing viewpoints, immobile stands, and ignorant beliefs. The consequences are often dire and destructive.

Instead, I advocate for recognizing and pursuing the SAF advantages and monitoring and resolving the SAF challenges in parallel. I am convinced that this two-pronged approach will enable us to develop multiple SAF solutions that are as inclusive as possible. In addition, this way forward will also kick start a wide-ranging positive ripple effect that may very likely extend beyond SAF research and applications globally. I do not think any naysayers can ever achieve this much-needed outcome.

Of course, neither SAF nor any other sustainability solution provides us with the “green” bullet that will eliminate existing and new carbon. The world needs all of us to find many ways to reduce, replace, and remove carbon. Renewable energy from various known (e.g., fusion, hydrogen, solar, wind, and other) and unknown sources will not only support the creation of fully sustainable aviation fuels. They will also create alternative power solutions, assuming we can overcome energy storage gaps.

Finally, greenhouse gas emissions are not the only global green problem. Many other sustainability issues endanger our planet, make us sick, or threaten our livelihood.

Plain and simple, we got lots of work, actions to embrace, and change to drive. All nations have to collaborate, are forced together in the sustainability race, and will either win or lose. I am very eager to take a lead role in driving sustainable growth and growing sustainability. I have sat on the sidelines for too long. How about you?