There's no mention of biofuel in the article. But yes any technology designed to reduce the impact of the fuel production/use cycle. In F1 it's branded as synthetic fuel right? It's like a natural gas derived fuel but could be derived from anything the scientists engineers can make work. Jet fuel is heavier so starting with an oil derived from bio matter might make more sense. Either way something designed with less impact than drilling for fuel.
The fuel mentioned in the article — "sustainable aviation fuels, or SAF" — is biofuel I believe, not synthetic fuel.
oh gotcha. To me it's all in the same. Some engineered alternative that produces less carbon. it's terribly semantic though because every fuel today is engineered to produce less emissions.
Right, agreed - it's an improvement over what we currently use! From what I read E-fuel is very expensive to produce, so I was surprised by the possibility of airplanes switching to it.
Sounds more feasible than electric planes though. That never made viable sense to me. At least they could build a 737 sized alternative fuel plane today.
It's a huge part of the 2026 rule changes.
E-fuel is different from SAF that is described in this article. E-fuel is carbon-neutral and SAF is low-carbon (made from tallow, algae, etc).