A lot of french fries went into Airbus’ latest sustainability photo op. The planemaker flew its first flight test A380 with one engine burning 100 percent sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) made from used cooking oil and other waste fats on two flights last Friday and Monday, putting more than five hours on the carbon neutral clock. “The flight test met all of our requirements, which will enable us to carry out the next phase of the project consisting of specific engine maneuvers,” Airbus test pilot Wolfgang Absmeier said. 

The A380 was the third aircraft Airbus has flown on SAF. It earlier used an A319 and an A350 to try it out. All Airbus jets can use up to 50 percent SAF now and the company hopes to have net zero emission jets by 2035. It’s also not finished with that well-used A380 test article. That same first-off-the-line airframe will become the test bed for a hydrogen powered engine. Last December, United Airlines used 100 percent SAF to power one of the engines on a Boeing 737 on a revenue flight.

10 COMMENTS

  1. The point is to appease the eco-mentalists and continue to operate turbines as necessary.

    A lousy situation for sure but I get it.

    Following the science is lost on these people, and they hold the cards politically at present, and even more so in the future.

    I say this because of the government school indoctrination of the future voters of our fine nation.

  2. How many tons of fried food are cooked to produce enough waste oil to fill the tank of an airliner? This is about as stupid as using crops such as corn and soybeans for petroleum substitutes. If the original production of waste fats and crop oil products are not carbon neutral and they are certainly not, then how can this be carbon neutral? This is pretend woke virtue signaling at it’s worst.

    • Totally agree – this silly. Used cooking oil is already being converted to fuel for diesel trucks and other diesel engines – increasing the price to make it for aircraft has negative impact – but looks good for the aircraft manufacturers to say “look, we’re environmentally friendly.”

      Solutions are simple – huge carbon sequestering in places with cheap solar energy – like deserts around the world, or near nuclear power plants which ground power regularly, increases in battery technology for ground transport, and we keep burning oil in ships and aircraft, since it’s just not yet feasible to do otherwise.

      • Solutions? Sure, you can come up with “solutions”. The logic error occurs because there is no condensed and defined problem. Unless there is one clearly defined problem then ANY “solution” is just as misguided. I had hoped that Humanity had progressed beyond superstitions by now.