As the FT notes this morning:
New climate-friendly biofuels will “never achieve the price of jet fuel”, Boeing chief Dave Calhoun has warned, pouring cold water on a central pillar of the aviation sector's strategy to slash emissions. Sustainable fuels currently account for less than 1 per cent of global aviation consumption and cost twice as much as traditional jet fuel.
I asked yesterday when consumers might catch up with the fact that flying is no longer sustainable in the way we do it now.
It would seem that the answer is that they won't need to do so. Regulation requiring net zero will do it for them as aircraft manufacturers are simply unable to imagine a world where cheap flight and net zero will ever be compatible.
So, what does that say about the economic sustainability of every airline? This is why we need sustainable cost accounting.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Hi Richard,
What is stopping SCA becoming an industry norm?
Ben
Industry fear that it will reveal their lack of preparedness for climate change
Hi Richard
Would you conclude then that the current government is saving the blushes of major corps to the detriment of the planet?
Ben
We do need SCA but we also do we need aviation fuel to be taxed like car fuel?
Cheap flights are the biggest ever distortion of a market that I have ever seen.
The real cost is just not recovered in any way. And when you think about the State getting slagged off when it intervenes and being accused of distorting markets?
We need both
The problem is somewhat bigger than we may think. AENA is the Spanish airport operator which covers Spain + Canaries. It handles around 250 million passengers per year and circa 1.8 million flights. Taking some very very crude averages this is circa 3000 to 5000 flights per day and 665,000 passengers per day (assuming a equal distribution over the year – unlikely). Things can take one of two routes: price CO2 emissions to reflect impacts (produce zero-carbon fuel) or move people by zero carbon transport (= trains).
I struggle to imagine the production of enough “biofuel” to meet Spanish demand. This leaves trains. A TGV duplex can carry circa 500 passengers. Let’s assume that out of the 665,000 passengers, circa 400,000 can be served by TGVs. Thats only 800 TGVs. Doubtless Alsthom et al are salivating. Of course, it is unlikely that the existing train network could support trains sets (circa one train every 2 minutes on the existing network – hmm). I’d suggest that the days of low cost Costa del Sol holidays are coming to an end. In turn this has implications for the unpleasant developments that disfigure the Spanish Med coast.
Warren Buffett who clearly knows a thing or two about where to put his money famously said that he didnt invest in airlines as they never made a profit.
And thats before you factor in environmental and fuel cost issues
I don’t think I can quite bridge the fact that I am ‘off-thread’ by referencing free flights to Rwanda; but I wanted to draw attention to the latest Suella Braverman disaster for Sunak: according to The Independent she is now accused of failing to declare an interest in a Rwanda charity she was involved in; staff of which are now apparently in the Rwanda Government that negotiated the UK asylum deal.
I just saw that….
A relative of mine is an aviation engineer (amongst other things he’s worked on airship design), and he tells me that there is very little chance of seeing significant improvements in jet engine efficiency. There’ll no doubt be some other efficiencies from improved wing design and such.
He says the future of air travel if it is to be “climate-friendly” (that is assuming the fuel can be carbon neutral) will most likely be “low and slow” (e.g. turbo-prop engines and flight speeds lower than 700 km/h and lower flight ceilings with bumpy rides!).
Very short haul (with few passengers) electric is possible.
Hydrogen is a potential fuel, and can be produced without CO2 emissions, but its very low energy density, even under high compression and very low temperatures (with all the energy losses that involves, not to mention the many issues with storage) makes it seem unlikely (imagine an A380 with no economy class, as that space will be fuel tanks).
Air cargo (and passenger travel) would be possible with airships (low and slow) ~ again, if the fuel is carbon neutral.
I just can’t see the military ever giving up on jet fuel!
There will no doubt be dodges of various kinds – like the recent eFuel nonsense in Europe that will ensure ICEs are manufactured for many more decades, and the military will of course have the good old “national security” pass.
Thanks
Warning: Contains pedantry
Sustainable Cost Accounting (SCA) is a poor name for accounting for the impact of Sustainability Costs within a business.
Sustainable Cost Accounting conveys to me a way in which Cost Accounting is carried out sustainably in a green working environment.
Are we not accounting for the vital costs of sustainability across a business which would be SCA – Sustainability Cost Accounting?
I’ll think about it