When I was at Boeing, I spent a considerable amount of time on this topic around 2000, with a few good answers due to energy density. To a degree, finished SAF solves the energy density issue, but it has a negative externality on the ground that is often ignored.
For example, ethanol produces DDGs, with a huge negative CI. And Soy oil waste is meal. When you flood the market with cheap meals and DDGs, livestock consumes the cheap proteins, but this form of feed drives an imbalance in omega 3/6, harming humans, and lowers the feed conversion ratio, increasing the number of trucks that have to move feed around.
Everything has negative eternalities. The more correct answer would be to know that the DDG negative eternality is in play, and then move to higher protein soy, with a bit less oil content. The higher-quality protein avoids the need for DDGs. A system solution would involve a SAF, Processor, Feed, and genetics, unifying a systems approach with SAF and high-protein feed as two SKUs.
However, no SAF producer thinks this way because they don't bear the cost of the DDGs. Or the negative eternality on humans/livestock. The dumping of meals also alters the price signal in markets. Therefore, we will develop a system with a sub-optimized structure and introduce rigidity. Then the SAF lobby will fight any optimization of feed. Planes will fly with less carbon output, humans will die from inflammation, and livestock will be targeted for their poor CI.
Secretary Kerry will fly around on his private SAF jet, saying food is the problem, while he gets dividends from Heinz.
When I was at Boeing, I spent a considerable amount of time on this topic around 2000, with a few good answers due to energy density. To a degree, finished SAF solves the energy density issue, but it has a negative externality on the ground that is often ignored.
For example, ethanol produces DDGs, with a huge negative CI. And Soy oil waste is meal. When you flood the market with cheap meals and DDGs, livestock consumes the cheap proteins, but this form of feed drives an imbalance in omega 3/6, harming humans, and lowers the feed conversion ratio, increasing the number of trucks that have to move feed around.
Everything has negative eternalities. The more correct answer would be to know that the DDG negative eternality is in play, and then move to higher protein soy, with a bit less oil content. The higher-quality protein avoids the need for DDGs. A system solution would involve a SAF, Processor, Feed, and genetics, unifying a systems approach with SAF and high-protein feed as two SKUs.
However, no SAF producer thinks this way because they don't bear the cost of the DDGs. Or the negative eternality on humans/livestock. The dumping of meals also alters the price signal in markets. Therefore, we will develop a system with a sub-optimized structure and introduce rigidity. Then the SAF lobby will fight any optimization of feed. Planes will fly with less carbon output, humans will die from inflammation, and livestock will be targeted for their poor CI.
Secretary Kerry will fly around on his private SAF jet, saying food is the problem, while he gets dividends from Heinz.
Subsidies screw up proper systems architecture.
I agree that externalities are everywhere, although I think the land use change externality is likely worse than the health effects of DDGs
How much more cultivation do you think it will drive?
I will have an answer to that soon.