Jump to content

Talk:Aviation biofuel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV concern

[edit]

I see the phrasing "X is not adversely affected by Y".

In a topic which is about basing a resource on plants, this is disingenuous phrasing when used to support replacing a different plant-based resource (rubber trees are plants, or at least Rubber was originally from such a source) with a synthetic which is not cross linked and may be a trademarked/patented product.

The expectation that the fuel will force a part to expand during use should include that the expectation is based on wide-spread industry usage, and could cross reference the history section of a petroleum article, or reference the company growth of aviation. We can't assume any given reader knows how wide-spread a given rubber is within the parts for an aviation fuel-system, nor how crucial, fragile, or easily repaired currently.

Does it make things not work, or does it make them fail sooner, or does it make them better but under less circumstances? If it's not been studied formally, can we say it on wikipedia at all, maybe it's just opinion?

However conflating "parts dependency" with "source of part" is against NPOV in my opinion. The fuels are being made, and how the industry accepts them is its business. Current phrasing implies that X will replace because it solves a concern; even though it does not use the word "replace" I think it's a predictive attempt, and not Neutral.

Separating them and still mentioning it may be valid.

I would support rephrasing into "concerns raised by whom" and some subsections, as I don't think commercial aviation is the only involved party. We might do well to separate financial concern from commercial entities, from technical aspects, and from legal or social ones. I'd also expect requirements to be separated clearly from loud desires, and links referenced.

From an encyclopedia, I'd expect to see how much effort airlines go to when they retool their engine lines, if there are references to past events where the industry at large was forced or accepted a major initiative to do so. If there are no such references, please cleanup phrases implying or claiming difficulty.

Support for my concern (plant): wikipedia's words related to rubber redirect their links to the plant based rubber primary page, and from there, additional links to synthetics exist.

Support for my concern (predictive): mentioning specific replacement products might count as original research. We discuss a topic of current change, discoveries are still being made and tests designed for a different fuel are being applied to this variety of them. More than the fuel itself may change; this article is only about the fuel. -- Starshine (yes I know I'm not logged in right now) 99.51.74.201 (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge to Aviation biofuel --Elekhh (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COI Edit Requests

[edit]

I have a financial COI with Honeywell in that they’ve recruited me to help them navigate through Wikipedia and COI Best Practices. I have the following content suggestions for consideration. Corporate 16:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns and Challenges

[edit]

I would like to correct the Concerns and Challenges section. The problem it discusses is actually the opposite (low temperatures, not high). The proposed revised is as follows:

Biodiesel that is stored for long periods of time is more likely to oxidize, especially at low temperatures, causing it to gel. Some additives improve the cold weather tolerance of biodiesel, but only by a few degrees.[1] Nitrile-based rubber materials expand in the presence of of aromatic compounds found in conventional petroleum fuel. Pure biofuels that aren't mixed with petrolum and don't contain paraffin-based additives may cause rubber seals and hoses to shrink.[2] Manufacturers are starting to use a synthetic rubber substitute called Viton for seals and hoses. Viton isn't adversely affected by biofuels.[3]

Feedback from other editors

[edit]

Thanks, Corporate, the text is independently referenced and appears balanced. Unfortunately the link in the 2nd ref is dead. If you could provide a copy of the source or an alternate reference, I am happy to approve the edit. 1292simon (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I improved the sourcing, as well as the content itself based on some additional research. Corporate 15:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corporate, thanks for your contribution. It is well referenced and seems unbiased, therefore I approve you to make the edit:

1292simon (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstration Flights

[edit]

I would like to submit for consideration adding to the list of demonstration flights. Corporate 19:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date Operator Platform Biofuel Notes
June 2011 Honeywell Gulfstream G450 Camelina The first transatlantic biofuels flight using a 50/50 blend of camelina-based biofuel and petroleum-based fuel.[4][5]
November 2011 Continental Airlines Boeing 737-800 Algae United / Continental flew a biofuel flight from IAH to ORD on algae jet fuel supplied by Solazyme. The fuel was partially derived from genetically modified algae that feed on plant waste and produce oil. It was the first biofuel-powered air service in the US.[6]
November 2011 Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 and Bombardier Q400 Algae Alaska Airlines and its sister carrier, Horizon Air, converted 75 flights on their schedules to run on a fuel mixture of 80% kerosene and 20% biofuel derived from used cooking oil. The biofuel was made by Dynamic Fuels, a joint venture of Tyson Foods and Syntroleum Corp.[7]

References

  1. ^ "Renewable and Alternative Energy Fact Sheet" (PDF). Agricultural Research and Cooperative Extension. Penn State College of Agricultural Science. Retrieved March 7, 2012.
  2. ^ "Technical Report: Near-Term Feasibility of Alternative Jet Fuels" (PDF). Sponsored by the FAA. Authored by MIT staff. Published by RAND Corporation. Retrieved August 22, 2012.
  3. ^ "Biodiesel FAQ" (PDF). University of Kentucky College of Agriculture. 2006. Retrieved August 22, 2012.
  4. ^ Cattermole, Tannith (June 26, 2011). "Gulfstream G450 crosses the Atlantic on 50/50 biofuel-jetfuel blend". GizMag. Retrieved March 7, 2012.
  5. ^ Paur, Jason (June 17, 2011). "Trans-Atlantic Biofuel Flights Kick Off Paris Air Show". WIRED. Retrieved March 7, 2012.
  6. ^ Hilkevitch, Jon (November 11, 2011). "Continental Airlines flight is first in U.S. to use biofuel". LA Times. Retrieved April 16, 2012.
  7. ^ "Alaska Airlines Launching Biofuel-Powered Commercial Service In The United States" (Press release). Alaska Airlines. November 7, 2011. Retrieved December 30, 2011.

Discussion

[edit]

I think these are OK except the Alaska airlines source is a press release, so I think the text needs to say: "according to Alaska Airlines". -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Aviation biofuel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 March 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Closed no consensus. (non-admin closure) Chidgk1 (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Aviation biofuel → Sustainable aviation fuel – It is not just biofuel but also electrofuel.[1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.flightglobal.com/flight-international/how-sustainable-fuel-will-help-power-aviations-green-revolution/143044.article

– Chidgk1 (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable aviation fuel currently redirects here, to the Aviation biofuel#Sustainable fuels section. You are putting the cart before the horses: first there should be a presentation of electrofuel/synthetic fuels (why two articles on the same subject?!) before even thinking about changing the name, and even then, WP:commonname should incite to keep the more widespread, and more understandable biofuel above the sustainable fuel techno-jargon, unless the biofuel and synthetic fuel parts are similar in size. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am not sure if I am convinced by the evidence there per Marc Lacoste -- I am wondering what those other kinds of fuels should exist. But describing just the biofuel content as sustainable -- is kindof greenwashing on first impression, Sadads (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Lacoste Although the electrofuel article is small it is a particular kind of synthetic fuel, and I don't think it should be merged into the parent article, because it has potential to grow. If I had known about electrofuel at the time SAF was merged in here by AJSteer I might have suggested merging the other way around. On the other hand I take Sadads's point that if the word sustainable is in the title it excludes any aviation biofuel which is judged unsustainable. So given that both aviation biofuel and aviation electrofuel are claimed to be sustainable do you think SAF should become a disambiguation? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: Go ahead, create a #synthetic fuel section in this article, if it grows enough, renaming the article Sustainable aviation fuel would be much more straightforward. Unsustainable biofuel could be noted as such if necessary.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting confusing. I don't know the subject well enough and don't want to spend too much time on it. So I think I will leave these articles for other people. Closing this request. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chidgk1. Sustainable aviation fuel should not redirect to Aviation biofuel#Sustainable fuels section. Reasoning - aviation biofuel or bio-jet fuel or bio-aviation fuel (BAF) is a subset of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) not SAF in it's entirety. A potential solution could be - link from Sustainable Aviation Fuels to Aviation biofuel, also electrofuel/synthetic fuels, and other emerging technologies. Shell.Clarke (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saffire

[edit]

See

https://energypost.eu/saffire-cheap-sustainable-aviation-fuel-from-agricultural-waste/

Now one source (and possibly primary at that) doesn't make an article, but it's one to watch.

Also raised at Talk:Saffire#Aviation fuel. Andrewa (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger versus biofuels

[edit]

The article reads like one-sided promotion of biofuels, pushed by the world’s rich flying class at the expense of the majority of the world’s population who don’t have a voice. If a billion people don’t have enough to eat, the best way to reduce emissions from flying is to tax flying so people fly less. While research snd development in SAFs is welcome, the solution is not to set up a competition between food supplies and biofuels without at the same time reducing flying. If these issues are not carefully addressed the article approaches greenwashing. We need to realize from the outset that aviation is producing 2.5% of the world’s CO2 and 5% of the warming due to other greenhouse gases and that these proportions are currently expected to grow even if at the same time the use of biofuels increases. Clearly, biofuels are not the solution, although they can be part of a larger solution. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032117305786 194.118.241.218 (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

feel free to edit the article although you might like to find a more recent source Chidgk1 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

""E-SAF"" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect "E-SAF" has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 3 § "E-SAF" until a consensus is reached. Blethering Scot 22:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aviation_biofuel&oldid=1255249584"