Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Ryanair commits to 12.5% sustainable fuel by 2030

  • 29-04-2021 02:31PM
    #1
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭


    https://www.reuters.com/article/ryanair-carbon/ryanair-commits-to-12-5-sustainable-fuel-by-2030-idUSL8N2ML835

    Note that IAG have commited to 10%.

    I figure this is a wise decision as the Emmission Trading system will be strengthened and those airlines with old gas guzzlers who can't afford to modernise their fleet or rely on flying 1st Class and Business travellers will suffer most.
    Those who are packing the most passengers in to the most efficient planes will flourish.

    It will also hopefully silence some of the self-righteous who squawk whenever travelling by airplane for leisure is mentioned.


Comments

  • #2
    Locker10a
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,309 Mod ✭✭✭✭Locker10a


    It seems the green agenda is to quash cheap low fare travel that triggers a lot of leisure trips. I might pop to visit a friend in germany for a weekend because I can do so for €100 return, if it was €300 return I probably wouldn’t do so as often.
    So low cost airline cramming in seats may not be as safe as you think going forward. It will depend on who gets control of the regulations that will be inevitable in the coming years related to emissions


  • #3
    MrMusician18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,250 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    haphaphap wrote: »
    https://www.reuters.com/article/ryanair-carbon/ryanair-commits-to-12-5-sustainable-fuel-by-2030-idUSL8N2ML835

    Note that IAG have commited to 10%.

    I figure this is a wise decision as the Emmission Trading system will be strengthened and those airlines with old gas guzzlers who can't afford to modernise their fleet or rely on flying 1st Class and Business travellers will suffer most.
    Those who are packing the most passengers in to the most efficient planes will flourish.

    It will also hopefully silence some of the self-righteous who squawk whenever travelling by airplane for leisure is mentioned.

    It won't. The pandemic has shown that the vast vast majority of international travel is not essential so there is obviously going to be pressure from environmental activists to take this sector on from a carbon perspective. Add into this mix a belief that mass tourism itself has become unsustainable and you can see a shift in policy coming. In fact it's been flagged with the EUs green new deal - a deal which has to be paid for.

    12.5% sustainable fuel (essentially codename for bio-kerosene) won't count for much when they can say that bio fuels are not really sustainable and 87.5% of the fuel is not at all sustainable. Cars run on 5-7% bio at the moment (and have done for quite some time) and that hasn't killed the criticism of it.

    There is also good to be pressure from other industries looking at the treatment aviation gets and will want the same. A ton of carbon spent refining aluminium or growing beef is the same as a ton of carbon flying sun seekers to the Canaries - but one might be considered more essential. So a voluntary commitment to sustainable fuel is obviously an attempt to head off legislation which could be more onerous.

    The policies set for aviation in the next year will set the size and scope of the industry for the next ten years minimum. I suspect 12.5% reduction on 2019 levels won't be good enough, when the rest of the economy is looking at 50% by 2030.


  • #4
    Noxegon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,684 ✭✭✭Noxegon


    Locker10a wrote: »
    So low cost airline cramming in seats may not be as safe as you think going forward.

    Gosh, I hope so.

    I was reading a piece just today about a new airline in the US that has a sizeable portion of their seating configured with a 29" pitch. The mind boggles :/

    I develop Superior Solitaire when I'm not procrastinating on boards.ie.



  • #5
    MrMusician18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,250 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    Really surprised this thread hasn't got more attention since environmental policy is now likely to have a far longer lasting impact on aviation than anything else. Even today the Guardian have a headline article attacking the carbon offsetting schemes the airlines are trying.

    Hope does the airline industry grow in a climate of decreasing carbon budgets? In the absence of a major tech breakthrough in propulsion, is the industry strong enough to effectively resist. Or is carbon consciousness just a fad, like debt relief 15 years ago, or famine 30 years ago?


  • #6
    NH2013
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 411 ✭✭NH2013


    MrMusician18 wrote: »
    Really surprised this thread hasn't got more attention since environmental policy is now likely to have a far longer lasting impact on aviation than anything else. Even today the Guardian have a headline article attacking the carbon offsetting schemes the airlines are trying.

    Hope does the airline industry grow in a climate of decreasing carbon budgets? In the absence of a major tech breakthrough in propulsion, is the industry strong enough to effectively resist. Or is carbon consciousness just a fad, like debt relief 15 years ago, or famine 30 years ago?

    I don't think carbon consciousness is a fad, but I think there's much more low hanging fruit out there than aviation, electricity first and foremost has to be the easiest and most effective means of reducing carbon output, be it solar or wind energy, or nuclear, getting all home heating, industry, cars and vans converted to electricity it a much more managable aim.

    Aircraft being delivered today brand new will have lives of 20-30 years, and they rely on jet fuel, the next generation of aircraft won't be out for another 10-12 years, and likely will run on jet fuel as well so it'll be a long time off until aviation can decarbonise.

    I don't particularly think this is an issue though if it's only the likes of aviation left using fossil fuels, that probably is a sustainable level of emissions, we can certainly be carbon neutral or even carbon negative with only aviation using oil. Keep in mind it only accounts for 2-3% of carbon emissions globally, though that's growing. It will take a push though to convert much of our other high carbon outputs towards electricity, and ensuring that electricity is produced renewably or from nuclear.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    California Dreamer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,722 ✭✭✭California Dreamer


    The cynic in me looks at this and thinks if this is not benefiting Ryanair in some way then why are they doing it?


  • #8
    Stovepipe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,985 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    Aircraft being delivered today brand new will have lives of 20-30 years, and they rely on jet fuel, the next generation of aircraft won't be out for another 10-12 years, and likely will run on jet fuel as well so it'll be a long time off until aviation can decarbonise.

    Aircraft are being scrapped these days after 15 years of service,well before their expected end of service. Accountants are deciding that,not the pilots or engineers who make them work. Airliners are routinely capable of lasting for 30 or 40 years and to accumulate high airframe hours and cycles. Kerosene is cheap,plentiful, easy to make,move and store and has all of the qualities required of a jet fuel so it's going to be very hard to replace. Same goes for Marine diesel. Who or what is going to replace ships as the primary mover of goods around the globe and the airliner as the primary mover of humans around the globe? We're not going back to the age of sail. Biofuels are not a suitable replacement by a long shot.


  • #9
    Ubbquittious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,340 ✭✭✭Ubbquittious


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    Aircraft being delivered today brand new will have lives of 20-30 years, and they rely on jet fuel, the next generation of aircraft won't be out for another 10-12 years, and likely will run on jet fuel as well so it'll be a long time off until aviation can decarbonise.

    Aircraft are being scrapped these days after 15 years of service,well before their expected end of service. Accountants are deciding that,not the pilots or engineers who make them work. Airliners are routinely capable of lasting for 30 or 40 years and to accumulate high airframe hours and cycles. Kerosene is cheap,plentiful, easy to make,move and store and has all of the qualities required of a jet fuel so it's going to be very hard to replace. Same goes for Marine diesel. Who or what is going to replace ships as the primary mover of goods around the globe and the airliner as the primary mover of humans around the globe? We're not going back to the age of sail. Biofuels are not a suitable replacement by a long shot.






    Maybe we'll have aircraft filled with racks of PylonTech lithium ion batteries from China :pac:


  • #10
    Stovepipe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,985 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    ...and a fire extinguisher for every person. We already have PED bags on board in case a laptop or phone goes on fire and in my airline, it has already happened a couple of times.


Advertisement