Above: a tweet by the French Minister of Transportation on June 14, 2021 -- translated into English.
This post is not directly about hydrogen, but it deals with the capability of our politicians of planning on any field related to energy. Mr. Djebbari shows such a total misunderstanding of the quantitative aspects related to the energy transition that goes beyond mere incompetency. It cannot be a bug, it must be a feature of the system.
Djebbari's tweet was noted by Jean-Marc Jancovici, who posted a comment on Linkedin. Here it is, translated into English.
Our Transport Minister sent a tweet last night (French time) to rejoice in the upcoming flight of an A320 with only biofuels, calling it "ecology": https://lnkd.in/dWp-NpK
A few things will help to put this information in context:- on the day the tweet was sent, there were 85000 commercial flights worldwide (https://lnkd.in/dBFQaXx). If, in order to repay a debt of EUR 85000, you tell your banker that you have found EUR 1 of income, it is unlikely that he will consider that this fundamentally changes the problem.- currently, deforestation is responsible for 10% of greenhouse gas emissions each year. This deforestation has one main determinant: to remove forests to obtain agricultural land. Therefore, a question arises: does not any area devoted to energy crops be tantamount to exacerbating deforestation, by domino effect? If this same area were devoted to food, would we not avoid the associated deforestation? However, if it induces deforestation (directly or indirectly), the production of an agrofuel generates more emissions per liter than oil.In its report "being able to fly in 2050", The Shift Project and SUPAERO DECARBO (which is made up of former students of ISAE, and currently working in the aeronautical sector, so they are not "painters" it seems to me) recalled that, even by selecting all the technical improvements to come in a very, very optimistic way, air traffic had to decrease for this sector to comply with the Paris Agreement. If this conclusion does not seem to you to be well-founded, it should be refuted with convincing "counter-calculations", and nothing else.
And I think it is enough to understand how wrong was Djebbari in praising Airbus and Safran for having engaged in a task that's nothing more than a good example of a greenwashing stunt. Air travel will never be based on biofuels, at least not on this planet. But just in case you would like to have some more detailed data, take a look at this post where I try to estimate how many people would die of starvation according to the fraction of the world's food supply would be allocated to produce aviation fuels.
The situation with hydrogen is not very different, although there is no obvious limit to the amount that could be produced using renewable energy, the problems involved in converting the aviation industry to using hydrogen as fuel are nightmarish, to say the least.
Whether we deal with biofuels or with hydrogen, I think there are at least 4 hypotheses to frame the issue
1. Politicians are truly unable to grasp the simplest quantitative aspects of energy production. They are truly ignorant and careless and they refuse to be taught by those who know more than they do. That's called at times the "Dunning-Kruger Effect," but no matter how you call it, it is very common.
2. Politicians know that they are lying, but they lie for political reasons ("white man speak with two forked tongue") In this case, the French Minister Djebbari thought he could gain a little visibility for himself by means of a potshot at Greenpeace and it is just what he did.
3. Politicians lie because they are on the payroll of powerful lobbies. In this case, we would have to imagine that the aviation lobby, or the fossil fuel lobby, organized a little PR stunt by flying a plane on 100% biofuels and they enlisted the transport minister to give visibility to it. Of course, in this case, everybody knows it is a scam, but then this is how PR works.
4. All the three hypotheses above are true to a certain extent.
So, given the situation, our government system can be defined as "by the lobbies, for the lobbies, in the name of the lobbies." I don't have to tell you that the challenge to to solve problems that are not just urgent, but vital is a little difficult.
