The SAF discussion is an important one to have, although difficult on this forum do to the political background noise and trolling. Unfortunately a common problem for anyone pointing out the advantages of aviation.
If you want to discuss SAF and it's impact on the aviation industry than maybe you should, you know, start a thread on that topic rather than promote it (SAF) as a justification for an airport.
You know kind of like how other's on this forum might promote battery trains, or hydrogen trains (though not without their own religious fervor), can do so by talking only about the technology and don't, for example, use it as a reason to justify oh I don't know a proposed rail station such as the Pearson Transit Hub. You know why? Because the technology used to get the trains to the station is irrelevant to the justification of/for the station.
Make sense?
I would like to highlight its relevance to Pickering Airport. The number of flights is expected to double in the next several decades. A worldwide trend, even in Europe It is projected to increase by at least 50%. Local accessible aviation capacity is important to make these flights as efficient as possible. Efficiency is not just landing slots, it is ground support buildings, taxiways etc. The more efficient our aviation infrastructure, the less fuel burned.
these flights need to be carbon neutral, and although electric flight is on its way, the majority of aircraft flights between now and 2050 will utilize jet fuel. SAF is a drop in replacement fuel able to reduce emissions , potentially to net zero depending on how the SAF is produce.
There is no relevance to Pickering. Flights will increase, yes. There is a desire to reduce emissions from planes, yes. These will occur with or without Pickering. There is arguably capacity at Pearson, Hamilton, etc to absorb at least some of those flights. SAF will not be a competitive advantage for Pickering, ..., because if SAF goes mainstream it will be available at ALL airports.
Canada used 7 billion litres of Jet A in 2019
the US produced 9 billion litres of bio diese fuel of all types in 2019.
Canada, although it has the potential to out produce the US in BioDiesel, produced less than 400 million lites in 2019 and almost none of that was utilized as SAF.
We need to do better, starting with a recognition of the importance of local production of SAF.
right now our efforts are inhibited but a misapplied carbon tax on SAF, politics of the far left that want to shut down aviation due to its role in the global economy.
Again irrelevant to Pickering. If you want to promote the development of a Biodesel/SAF fuel manufacturing industry in Canada, than that is what you should be promoting.
Is SAF even commercially available in such a way that it's sale is taxed (and particularly carbon taxed)? Also ah the mask comes of "politics of the far left" good one
Some of the provinces get it, for instance
Europe’s dominant airframe maker has committed to invest in SAF development and production in North America.
www.ainonline.com
What is needed now is federal leadership with production incentives and for the industry to switch over to SAF.
Please create a thread promoting SAF instead of posting in a thread that is trying to, and twisting the technology into a reason for building Pickering