NBAA-BACE participants flying into Orlando Executive Airport for the annual convention next week will have the opportunity to leave a smaller carbon footprint on their way home. Avfuel is supplying two truckloads, or a total of 16,000 gallons, of Neste MY Sustainable Aviation Fuel to its branded FBO Sheltair at the airport. Avfuel also sent SAF to Embraer’s Melbourne, Florida, plant and Textron’s Wichita facilities so those OEMs could fly display and support aircraft to the big show on the greener fuel.
Keith Sawyer, Avfuel’s manager of alternative fuels, said use of the SAF will keep a substantial amount of carbon out of the environment. “Together, we are able to avoid adding 76 metric tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere over the fuel’s lifecycle with the four loads—that’s the amount of carbon created by charging nearly 9.25 million smartphones, which is really astounding when you put SAF’s benefit into perspective.”
A “green fuel” for a bizjet?
I’ll bite. Why not just take a scheduled airline or carpool drive there in a 50mpg car and be reasonable?
Great suggestion!
I often look for a reference or metaphor to illustrate–in this case, it seems to be “sackcloth and ashes.” From the Old Testament–Someone wanting to SHOW REPENTANCE FOR COMMITTING A WRONG would often wear sackcloth (a coarse material made from goats hair)–sitting in ashes or pouring them over the top of their head–or rending their own clothes. The would-be penitent might also engage in self-flagellation–whipping oneself–again, for “show of penitence.”
Of course, the act was only for demonstration–they were free to go back to their old ways after the “show”–and that’s all this is–an act of pretend penitence.
No airline service at ORL. You want to airline into MCO with all the families with noisy children on board going there to go to Disney World go ahead! I wonder, does this SAF fuel require a STC to use it?
Point is that if it was “important” then you DO put up with those mild inconveniences if you really believe in something.
50 mpg car? Surely you jest. Carpool in their Tesla PLAID’s.
Great! Our trees will have more CO2 to breath and be stronger. As the debacle of carbon foot print keeps getting stronger, I will be shouting out as much as I can. “the planet” has been healthier when CO2 levels were way higher then now. Vegetation needs CO2 to survive! Carbon foot print slogan is a debacle! It’s an agenda politicians together with corrupt “scientists” are forcing us to accept their arrogant and tyrannical control. Wake up guys!
Hello Lewis, I’m awake. Your thesis is invalid.
Since data is not matching the theory, we need a new theory. The data suggest that we need to investigate why surface temperatures have warmed slightly w/o the corresponding large atmospheric warming predicted in the original Hansen theory.
Unfortunately the search to explain what’s really happening will never be done as long as 100% of the grant money is given to those looking in the wrong place.
Evidence needed Lewis. Of course, you can’t produce any to support your ridiculous claims.
The tinfoil hats are out and about today I see.
Lewis is correct. CO2 levels were much higher in millenia past, before there were internal combustion engines and the industrial revolution. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and global warming. Do your homework.
Dennis- you are conflating long term changes in atmospheric CO2 over geological timescales vs the rapid increase in CO2 concentration over the past 100-150 years. The correlation with global temperatures is well documented as well (of course, local effects vary).
Of course CO2 levels have been higher (and lower) in the past; it’s the rate of change due to human CO2 generation that is concerning. I’m not arguing this is extinction-inducing or other hyperbolic nonsense, but at least be honest that CO2 can lead to change on a global scale. There’s no serious debate about this.
I’ve done my homework- feel free to view the raw data on this here if you’d like to do yours:
climate.nasa. gov/nasa_science/data/
So how many will express the need and pay extra to “feel good” and virtue signal about fueling their jets? Just because the fuel is not made directly from petroleum does not make it carbon neutral. Look into the processes and see what feedstocks they use and how those are produced and you will find petroleum or other fossil fuels were used. Note the truck delivering the product – fossil fuel free? And there is good scientific evidence that the earth’s vegetation is responding positively to the increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere even if Bill R does not want anyone to know it.
Where did anyone claim this was carbon neutral?
If this product is THIS GOOD, why doesn’t Sheltair stock it ALL THE TIME–instead of this “virtue signaling”?
Might it mean that it is more expensive, and people won’t pay the extra money? Might it mean that there is no market for it? Might it mean that people don’t yet have confidence in it?
It would be interesting to see what percentage of fuel sales were SAF if BOTH products were offered at FBOs. Given a choice–I don’t think there is a market for it at a price difference from Jet-A.
Might it mean that there’s a small market for it, and they realize that this event will allow them to satisfy that market and make a profit?
For all of the “woke folk”–have they ever considered the cost (financial and ecological) of trucking this special fuel to Wichita and to Florida–vs. jet-A delivered by pipeline?
Another “save the planet” stunt that (like most government programs) ends up costing more than it saves–financially and ecologically). Put SAF on the market (WITHOUT mandates)–compare costs with Jet-A–I don’t believe most operators will pay the extra cost–but OK to TRY it.
Another boondoggle. And CO2 is the fuel for life. Makes the earth greener. And a warmer earth is good for human productivity and food growth. Lewis is spot on. Global warming, climate change, whatever, is just another move by the leftists to exert their power and restrict our freedoms. Not theirs, mind you. Oil and carbon fuels have been the single biggest contributor to the advancement of civilization. If you want to turn civilization back to the 19th century, just keep pushing this carbon neutral b.s. and try to produce our electrical needs with windmills and solar panels. Would someone pass me the popcorn?
“If you want to turn civilization back to the 19th century, ”
Good point. The “Greenies” would have us riding bicycles again, or Segway’s. I’m surprised that they haven’t suggested going back to REAL “Horsepower”–like in the 1800s. They forget that the internal combustion engine MADE the U.S.–in cars, farm tractors, aircraft, railroads, and even lawn mowers.
What would life be if these “back to the landers” achieved their mission? The U.S. would be an isolated country (reached by sailing ships, again)……land travel would be by horse (and in the cities, be careful where you step due to the “droppings” that cover the streets.) “Long Distance Travel”–forget about it–we can’t have wood or coal burning “steam engines” emitting smoke. The U.S. would return to a land cut off from the rest of the world–with industry little changed from the coal burning days–and each State its own “country”–with little in common with the states outside the region. In effect, we would all be isolated again.
But then, the “Woke Greenies” would FEEL GOOD about themselves. As for me, I’ll do my part by NOT traveling to NBAA for a dose of “virtue signaling.” Here’s hope that NBAA gets back to promoting aviation.