United dragged by Twitter over greenwashing with its ‘100% sustainable fuel’ flight
Misleading marketing alert
Story byIoanna Lykiardopoulou
Ioanna is a writer at TNW. She covers the full spectrum of the European tech ecosystem, with a particular interest in startups, sustainabili(show all)Ioanna is a writer at TNW. She covers the full spectrum of the European tech ecosystem, with a particular interest in startups, sustainability, green tech, AI, and EU policy. With a background in the humanities, she has a soft spot for social impact-enabling technologies.
Get the TNW newsletter
Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.
Also tagged with
Related Articles
More TNW
About TNW
1. The plane didn’t actually use 100% SAF
And it’s clear enough if you read thepress release, as some of Twitter’s users did.
In fact, one engine was running with 100% SAF and the other with traditional jet fuel.
That’s because the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) allows for a 50% total of SAT to be used during a flight, United explains.
For this reason, SAF is basically employed by airlines as a drop-in fuel that gets blended with the conventional one at a 50-50 ratio. United decided to fly its plane with one SAT-powered engine and one fossil fuel-powered to demonstrate that “there are no operational differences between the two.”
That’s definitely an admirable experiment, but Twitter folks are right to call United’s statement misleading, even if they’re not in the aviation industry.
2. SAF is sustainable but not 100%
Naturally, many Twitter users asked not only how SAF is made, but also how sustainable it really is. One wondered, “What is sustainable fuel for planes? Curious…”
Indeed, SAF focuses on this type of feedstock to make its lifecycle as green as possible. However according toIATA, “there are emissions produced during the production of SAF, from the equipment needed to grow the crop, transport the raw goods, refine the fuel and so on.”
But when Twitter user Michael Polanyi, Policy and Campaign Manager atNature Canada, asked about the greenhouse emissions involved in the production of SAFs, United offered no reply.
3. SAF isn’t easily scalable
Actually, that’s the comment I would have posted on Twitter.
United’s flight is meant to demonstrate the “scalable uses of SAF by all airlines in the future”, but that’s easier said than done.
According toIATA, current volumes of SAF represent less than 1% of the total jet fuel demand. And scaling up the volume is actually a very big challenge.
A recent paperby the International Council on Transportation (ICCT) has focused on the EU to estimate SAFfeedstock availability to meet the growing aviation demand.
Here are two alarming conclusions:
And that’s for the EU alone. I don’t even want to imagine the numbers if the same study was applied to the US.
Besides the production challenges, there’s one more important factor to consider: the elevated cost of SAF. According toIHS Markit, SAF prices are aboutfive times higher than prices for conventional jet fuel.
So what does that mean for us, the customers? That’s right: higher prices.
Either way, I’m actually in favor of SAF and support any green initiative aiming to help us tackle climate change.But the truth is that alternatives such as SAF are like using a bandage for a wound that requires stitches.
I believe the following tweet perfectly summarizes the situation and gives us some food for though. I don’t know who Timlagor is but they make an interesting point:
