The hoax of sustainable supersonic flights

Boom Supersonic was founded in 2014 with the mission of making supersonic flight sustainable. The company's goal is to develop a supersonic aircraft that can fly at Mach 2.2 (2,400 mph), twice the speed of current commercial aircraft. Boom claims its Overture aircraft will be net zero carbon by 2025, using 100% sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).

The idea of sustainable supersonic flight appeals to many people. Supersonic travel would drastically reduce travel times, making it possible to fly from New York to London in just three hours. This would open up new possibilities for business and leisure travel, and could help connect people from all over the world more easily.

However, there are some challenges that need to be overcome before sustainable supersonic flight can become a reality. One challenge is the cost of SAF. SAF is currently much more expensive than traditional jet fuel, and it is not yet clear whether the demand for SAF will be high enough to drive the price down.

And even in the hypothetical case that all aircraft in flight were to use SAF fuel, there would not be the capacity to manufacture as much SAF fuel as would be necessary.

Another challenge is the environmental impact of supersonic flight. Even when SAF is used, supersonic aircraft will still produce more emissions than subsonic aircraft. This is because supersonic flight creates more sonic booms, which are caused by shock waves formed when a plane travels faster than the speed of sound.

To minimize the environmental impact of supersonic flight, Boom says it has designed its Overture aircraft with a number of features aimed at reducing noise and emissions. These features include a new type of engine that is more efficient, a lighter airframe, and a more aerodynamic design.

If Boom is able to overcome the challenges of sustainable supersonic flight, the Overture aircraft could have a significant impact on the travel industry. The company has already received orders for 70 Overture aircraft from United Airlines, and other airlines are expected to follow suit. If the Overture aircraft is successful, it could usher in a new era of supersonic travel that is fast and sustainable.

But I don't believe in the myth of supersonic and sustainable flight. I think it's a hoax and those who promote it transmit partial and therefore misleading information, and they don't tell us that this way of traveling generates enormous consumption per passenger, much higher than normal flights.

A recent study by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) found that even when using the most sustainable fuel, supersonic flights would consume up to 9 times more fuel per passenger per kilometer than their fellow travelers. subsonic. In addition to implying a greater environmental impact, this would also compromise its economy.

The ICCT study also found that the environmental impact of supersonic flight would be particularly damaging in the Arctic, where thin air and low temperatures would drive even higher emissions. This is a huge concern, as the Arctic is already one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change.

For all these reasons, it is clear that sustainable supersonic flight is not a viable option. The environmental and safety concerns are simply too great. If we are serious about reducing our impact on the planet, we must focus on developing sustainable forms of transportation that do not rely on supersonic flight.

Conclusion

The promise of sustainable supersonic flight is attractive, but the reality is that it is not sustainably viable. Even when using the most sustainable fuel, supersonic flights would produce far more emissions than subsonic aircraft. The environmental and safety concerns associated with supersonic flight are also too great.

If we are serious about reducing our impact on the planet, we must focus on developing sustainable forms of transportation that do not rely on supersonic flight. This means investing in high-speed trains, electric vehicles, and other forms of transportation that are better for the environment.

The rest are hoaxes.