The utopia of green flights: why scientists don’t think we’re close to flying without polluting

But the Royal Society (the British academy of sciences) concluded that there is currently no clear and specific alternative to traditional fuel. Air transport is responsible for 2.4% of greenhouse gas emissions and 8% of UK emissions. These gases warm the atmosphere, contributing to global warming and climate change.
Demand for flying is expected to increase, and governments and the aviation industry are experimenting with ways to reduce the climate impact of traditional kerosene-derived fuel.

The authors of the Royal Society report studied four green fuel options to replace the 12.3 tonnes of jet fuel consumed annually in the UK.

Their conclusion is that, in the short term, none of the four could replace hydrocarbon fuel.

Today, airlines use very small amounts of biofuels, mainly derived from crops. London’s Heathrow Airport is the world’s largest consumer of biofuels, but that amount is barely equivalent to 0.5% of the airport’s total fuel.

Producing enough biofuel to supply Britain’s aviation industry would involve using half of the country’s farmland, putting pressure on food supplies, the Royal Society says.

Another option is fuel made from hydrogen that is produced with green electricity. However, currently, the UK does not generate enough renewable electricity to produce green hydrogen.

Another major obstacle is that current overhead turbines cannot use hydrogen-derived fuels.

Ammonia and synthetic fuels are also being considered, but these need even more green hydrogen and it’s unclear whether current planes can use them.

The researchers say it is not yet known exactly how much each of the alternative fuels could reduce the climate impact of air travel.

However, they highlight the likelihood that, in the long term, an alternative fuel will be successfully developed, but that aircraft and airports will have to be redesigned.

In light of that, they are calling for more research into sustainable air fuels, suggesting the UK could become a global leader if it invests in solving the problem.

Frequent flyer tax?

A minority of people are responsible for the greatest damage to the environment caused by air travel, activists say. GETTY IMAGES

Any new fuel needs to be financially viable, secure, usable worldwide and have enough energy density to sustain long-haul flights, they said.

But environmental activists insist the government should also encourage people to fly less.

“Not every aspect of modern life in Western nations has an easy technical solution to correct the damage they do to the environment, and that’s no more true than in the realm of air transport,” says Leo Murray, director of innovation at Possible, a British NGO that advocates for a zero-carbon society.

That organization wants the government to tax a tax on frequent air travelers, that minority of people who take 70% of flights from British airports.

“A Frequent Flyer Tax would point to a reduction in demand among the group responsible for the greatest environmental damage today, while annual family vacations would not be touched,” he said.

Original source in Spanish