Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Coconut oil jet fuel matches kerosene's efficiency in engine tests

studyfinds.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 250 posts

Re: Coconut oil jet fuel matches kerosene's efficiency in engine tests

#41

Post by willtemperley »

mdp2021 wrote: post #9
clickety_clack wrote: post #6

Do coconuts grow particularly efficiently? Edit: The US created biofuel subsidies a few years ago and it’s led to poor use of land with questionable climate impact. It’s effectively become a wealth transfer to support poor rural American communities, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing but there’re probably more effective ways to do that intentionally.

They already grow, they are already harvested, and this process uses discarded parts of the harvest. It is putting in use what we already had but had no use for. Edit: the article speaks about possibilities that open. It also clearly notices that the a number of problems are unsolved. The infographic is direct: https://studyfinds.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Coconut-Bi... Note that if some product available in limi…

That infographic says it uses 16-20% more fuel per unit of thrust. That's a significant amount more weight for an aircraft to carry, but because carrying extra fuel also burns fuel, extra fuel use would compound exponentially. This would probably mean significantly more than 20% extra fuel would be required for long-haul flights.

Re: Coconut oil jet fuel matches kerosene's efficiency in engine tests

#42

Post by mdp2021 »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #34
steve1977 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best solution to flying and long distance travel is to reduce it as much as possible. This means no more travelling for hedonistic (touristic) purposes. I.e. measures like massive taxation (also for private jets of course).

So no tourist travel for the poor or middle class, just the elite rich? And no tourist income for the poor and middle class? This is a policy only the top .1% will enjoy.

But the purpose of money is exactly to be a currency to be spent on choices. And, I must unfortunately repeat myself with regards to what I wrote nearby, externalities can be charged as a cost - and it is probably the way to handle it. "You pollute, you pay" - then, you acquire money to invest it, especially in activities with downsides.

Re: Coconut oil jet fuel matches kerosene's efficiency in engine tests

#43

Post by giantg2 »

qeternity wrote: post #25
clickety_clack wrote: post #6

Do coconuts grow particularly efficiently? Edit: The US created biofuel subsidies a few years ago and it’s led to poor use of land with questionable climate impact. It’s effectively become a wealth transfer to support poor rural American communities, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing but there’re probably more effective ways to do that intentionally.

Is it not a bad thing to encourage poor people to continue doing the thing that has apparently made them poor? It's also very not true that farmers are poor in the US (median household income about 30% greater than general population). This mindset is like a century old.

"It's also very not true that farmers are poor in the US (median household income about 30% greater than general population)."

Most farmers work a "real" job in addition to the farm work.

Then you also have farm workers, who do not own the farm, and they tend to be poor.

Re: Coconut oil jet fuel matches kerosene's efficiency in engine tests

#44

Post by pudgywalsh »

qeternity wrote: post #25
clickety_clack wrote: post #6

Do coconuts grow particularly efficiently? Edit: The US created biofuel subsidies a few years ago and it’s led to poor use of land with questionable climate impact. It’s effectively become a wealth transfer to support poor rural American communities, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing but there’re probably more effective ways to do that intentionally.

Is it not a bad thing to encourage poor people to continue doing the thing that has apparently made them poor? It's also very not true that farmers are poor in the US (median household income about 30% greater than general population). This mindset is like a century old.

> Is it not a bad thing to encourage poor people to continue doing the thing that has apparently made them poor?

Right, we should tell the farmers to "learn to code"?

Too bad you can't ask Claude to grow potatoes. Though it probably uses the same amount of water and fuel to tell you it can't.

Re: Coconut oil jet fuel matches kerosene's efficiency in engine tests

#45

Post by 317070 »

Saline9515 wrote: post #33
317070 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s led to poor use of land with questionable climate impact. In the short term, yes, because they were unnecessarily using carbon energy to grow the fuel. But if we want to de-fossilise society in the long run, we need solutions for flying and long distance travel. Electric flying seems infeasible at the moment, and people are looking for suitable bio-fuels to make flying carbon neutral. Afaik the maximum planes…

I'm not sure that mass air transit has a place in a post-oil society were we try to leave at peace with the planet. Not just for the carbon impact, but also for the diversity of our species and cultures. Should every Chinese and Indian visit Venice, even though it destroys the city little by little? Should we send things as futile as watermelons by plane? Of course, the market wills it so some may think that it must…

> I'm not sure that mass air transit has a place in a post-oil society were we try to leave at peace with the planet.

Me neither, but that doesn't stop me from celebrating possible breakthroughs in decarbonisation.

Re: Coconut oil jet fuel matches kerosene's efficiency in engine tests

#46

Post by steve1977 »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #34
steve1977 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best solution to flying and long distance travel is to reduce it as much as possible. This means no more travelling for hedonistic (touristic) purposes. I.e. measures like massive taxation (also for private jets of course).

So no tourist travel for the poor or middle class, just the elite rich? And no tourist income for the poor and middle class? This is a policy only the top .1% will enjoy.

I didn't say tax everyone the same amount. Make it hurt. Tax the elite a million per flight.

And yes, no tourist income. It's dirty money.

Re: Coconut oil jet fuel matches kerosene's efficiency in engine tests

#47

Post by mdp2021 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #39
mdp2021 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> should not exist outside of Externalities can be made to bear a cost.

Currently, there is no effective way to put carbon back in the ground, and therefore no way to make the externality bear the cost. This is an excuse to justify high emission, low efficiency use cases. It’s capitalism cope meets buying a Catholic indulgence. “I am wealthy and deserve this and so I will pay a token amount that is meaningless to continue to justify this excessive, unnecessary consumption.” If the use ca…

> there is no effective way to put carbon back in the ground, and therefore no way to make the externality bear the cost

The cost applied to externalities can be spent to amend the specific damage, which is sometimes impossible, or can be commensurate to the estimate damage in order to create different benefit.

> indulgence

I concour with the analysis, but not necessarily with the moral evaluation. I have already mentioned nearby that money is a token to be spent on freedom in a framework of choice in allocation: Economics, science of Optimization, is the science of the management of Scarcity to some authors - and that scarcity is structural, existential (as evident in the case of Time). The purpose of resources is to invest them according to preference - some choices more loaded, but the computation compares the values of said "load" with the "preference" and the "resource (money etc.)".

The actual rebuttal: if you had to go "black vs white" in preferences, vs the continuous framework I proposed, than heating for example would be a problem - an externality bearing investment that we could not compensate with a reversal of the damage. But should we do without heating? You yourself defend touristic travel. Where can we put a threshold? At that point, it is best to quantify damages and charge the externalities.

Re: Coconut oil jet fuel matches kerosene's efficiency in engine tests

#48

Post by toomuchtodo »

mdp2021 wrote: post #47
toomuchtodo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently, there is no effective way to put carbon back in the ground, and therefore no way to make the externality bear the cost. This is an excuse to justify high emission, low efficiency use cases. It’s capitalism cope meets buying a Catholic indulgence. “I am wealthy and deserve this and so I will pay a token amount that is meaningless to continue to justify this excessive, unnecessary consumption.” If the use ca…

> there is no effective way to put carbon back in the ground, and therefore no way to make the externality bear the cost The cost applied to externalities can be spent to amend the specific damage, which is sometimes impossible, or can be commensurate to the estimate damage in order to create different benefit. > indulgence I concour with the analysis, but not necessarily with the moral evaluation. I have already men…

Mental model:

Electricity->Batteries, renewables, geothermal, hydro, transmission, cross country interconnectors

HVAC->Heat pumps, low carbon district heating, insulation, sand heat batteries

Mobility->Electric vehicles, bikes, scooters, light rail, heavy duty electric vehicles

Marine traffic->Low carbon produced methanol or ammonia

For air travel that must remain and cannot be replaced with an electrified or low carbon alternative (until low carbon solutions exist), the component that must remain be made as efficient as possible. Regardless of wealth, you fly commercial, just like everyone takes the subway, regardless of wealth or status, in cities with high quality mass transit. Your need is met, just within our collective societal tolerance for the harm incurred for the travel desired (Point A->B).

We may disagree, and that’s fine. I believe the climate data is clear as an input to this decisioning. Whether you’re wealthy should not be a factor in outsized carbon emissions (private jet travel, specifically) simply because the socioeconomic system is defective on this. I assume the appetite for this goes up as climate change consequences become more dire, compelling more appetite for extreme actions to course correct.

Re: Coconut oil jet fuel matches kerosene's efficiency in engine tests

#49

Post by runako »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #32
steve1977 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best solution to flying and long distance travel is to reduce it as much as possible. This means no more travelling for hedonistic (touristic) purposes. I.e. measures like massive taxation (also for private jets of course).

Electrified high speed rail solves this, with flying reserved for transoceanic needs. Private jets should not exist outside of scientific, medical, or other non luxury/personal use cases. Travel and tourism will always be with us, and should be imho. Carbon taxes, laws, whatever is needed to accomplish it.

> Electrified high speed rail solves this

Curious -- what speed are you assuming for such a high speed rail?

Re: Coconut oil jet fuel matches kerosene's efficiency in engine tests

#50

Post by pfdietz »

sixtyj wrote: post #29
317070 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s led to poor use of land with questionable climate impact. In the short term, yes, because they were unnecessarily using carbon energy to grow the fuel. But if we want to de-fossilise society in the long run, we need solutions for flying and long distance travel. Electric flying seems infeasible at the moment, and people are looking for suitable bio-fuels to make flying carbon neutral. Afaik the maximum planes…

How many coconuts are on one tree and how many tons of coconuts would be needed to replace kerosene globally? I am 100% for decarbonization as fast as possible. BTW Law of Conservation of Energy will be applied to coconut-based energy as well. Vaclav Smil mentions in his book that we should consume less. I see so many cheap weekender air tickets… it’s almost impossible to resist the temptation. Annually 5 billions pe…

Vaclav Smil so wildly mispredicted the trajectory of renewables that his worldview should be taken with heavy skepticism.
Post reply on HN