I don’t understand why anyone thinks than turning hydrocarbons into food then turning them back into fuel is a good idea. Nothing about biofuels is sustainable or green. Unless you consider greenwashing green.

Supposedly SAF results in 80% CO2 emissions vs regular jet fuel.

https://www.iata.org/en/programs/environment/sustainable-avi...

Even if it’s true that a gallon of saf is less co2 than a gallon of gas the total lifecycle co2 emissions has to be higher due to all the conversions taking place. Any gains are likely due to incomplete accounting of co2 sources

I think sustainable is one of those meaningless terms. Like "carbon neutral".

True but All the terms to describe the phenomenon are meaningless. It’s like we have been robbed of words to even describe the problems and they have all been replaced with buzzwords

The CO2 in plants is 100% from the air, and then goes back into the air when burned

Too simple of a model. If you used non industrial agriculture it would be mostly correct but industrial agriculture and fertilizer use consumes vast amounts of petroleum products so that’s where the issue lies

What % of the carbon of the plant is fertilizer production?

One word: Fertilizer.

Fertilizer itself isn’t carbon. Are you referring to the fertilizer production line or fertilizer itself

It's because replacing jet fuel with batteries is not a technical option right now.

Banning jets isn't an option either so we'll have to use more fringey solutions.

>so we'll have to use more fringey solutions.

Except this isn't really a solution.