top of page
Search

Decarbonizing Canadian Aviation with NucDACSF: Cost, Feasibility, and Alternatives

  • Writer: Eric Anders
    Eric Anders
  • Apr 26
  • 18 min read

NucDACSF (nuclear-powered direct air capture synthetic fuels) is an ambitious concept: using Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) to power Direct Air Capture (DAC) of CO₂, combined with hydrogen from water electrolysis, to synthesize carbon-neutral jet fuel. The goal is to replace all of Canada’s aviation fuel consumption with carbon-neutral synthetic fuel. How much would this endeavor cost in capital and operating expenses, and is it a practical climate solution? We break down the numbers and compare this approach to the alternative of hydrogen-powered aircraft, which companies like Airbus are actively developing.

Canada’s Aviation Fuel Demand in Context

To appreciate the scale, consider Canada’s jet fuel consumption. In pre-pandemic 2019, Canadian aviation burned around 159 thousand barrels of jet fuel per day (Canada Jet fuel consumption - data, chart | TheGlobalEconomy.com) – roughly 9.5 billion liters per year (or about 7.5 million tonnes of jet fuel). Each liter of jet fuel burned emits ~2.5 kg of CO₂, so annual emissions on the order of 20 million tonnes of CO₂ result from Canadian aviation. Any carbon-neutral replacement fuel must match this huge demand for energy. The NucDACSF scenario envisions building enough DAC and synthetic fuel capacity to produce the same quantity of jet fuel but with captured CO₂, closing the carbon loop.

The NucDACSF Plan: Infrastructure and CAPEX

Assumed Build-Out: 80 DAC plants + 80 SMRs. Each DAC plant is modeled after Carbon Engineering’s design (pioneered in Squamish, BC) and each SMR provides carbon-free energy for one DAC/fuel plant. The capital expenditure (CAPEX) estimates are as follows:

  • DAC Plants: 80 × $1 billion each ≈ $80 billion total. This unit cost is in line with a Carbon Engineering-type DAC facility. (Occidental’s planned DAC plant in Texas, using Carbon Engineering technology, is estimated at ~$1 billion for ~0.5 million tons CO₂ capture per year (Direct air capture: An expensive, dangerous distraction from real climate solutions - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists).) Scaling up to larger 1 MtCO₂/year plants could still cost on the order of $1 billion each under optimistic assumptions.

  • SMR Power Plants: 80 × $1.5 billion each ≈ $120 billion total. SMRs (Small Modular Reactors of a few hundred MW each) are costly nuclear installations, though smaller than traditional reactors. Estimates suggest a 300 MW SMR might cost on the order of $1 billion (some optimists put it as low as ~$900 million (GE Hitachi Nuclear delivers BWRX-300 Small Modular Reactor application to British regulators | EnergyTech), while a first-of-a-kind unit in Poland is quoted at €1.1 billion ( Poland / Capital Expenditure On First BWRX-300 SMR Project Estimated At €1.1 Billion )). Using $1.5B per reactor allows for additional costs and early deployment hurdles. This ~$120B would fund ~24 GW of nuclear capacity (80 reactors × ~300 MW each, for example) dedicated to running the DAC and fuel synthesis operations.

  • Hydrogen Production Infrastructure: Electrolyzers and fuel synthesis units. To make synthetic jet fuel, we need large quantities of hydrogen (H₂) to combine with captured CO₂. If not already included in the DAC plant cost, additional CAPEX is needed for water electrolysis systems. Each synthetic fuel plant would require on-site hydrogen production capacity, likely powered by its accompanying SMR. At current prices of ~$500–$1,000 per kW for electrolyzers, a single DAC plant might need hundreds of MW of electrolysis (to produce hydrogen at the scale of thousands of tonnes per year), adding perhaps $0.2–0.5 billion per plant. For 80 plants, this could be on the order of $16–40 billion extra. (We will assume much of this is encompassed in the above totals or that future costs fall, but it’s important to note this as a significant capital item.)

Total CAPEX: Roughly $200 billion (easily $200–250+ billion when including hydrogen systems) to build the 80 DAC facilities, 80 nuclear reactors, and associated fuel production infrastructure across Canada. For comparison, this is an enormous sum – on the same order as Canada’s entire annual GDP for a few months, or building dozens of large conventional power plants. It represents a massive industrial undertaking. The scale of construction is unprecedented: by contrast, Canada today has just 19 operating nuclear reactors (all in Ontario), so building 80 new reactors would require a hugely accelerated nuclear program.

Annual OPEX: Operating Costs for DAC, SMR, and Fuel Synthesis

Building these plants is only part of the challenge – running them year after year would also be extremely expensive. We must consider the operational expenditure (OPEX) for three components: the DAC plants, the SMRs, and the synthetic fuel synthesis process (which includes hydrogen production). Key cost drivers are energy, maintenance, labor, and consumable materials.

  • DAC Plant OPEX: Direct air capture is energy- and materials-intensive. Each DAC facility will employ large air contactors (fans, chemical solvents or sorbents, heating/cooling systems) that require continuous power and periodic replacement of chemicals (for Carbon Engineering’s process, think of tonnes of calcium oxide, potassium hydroxide, etc. cycling through). In analyses of DAC economics, operating costs alone are estimated to be in the hundreds of dollars per ton of CO₂. Even after capital is paid, simply powering and maintaining the system can cost >$300 per ton CO₂ captured (Direct air capture: An expensive, dangerous distraction from real climate solutions - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists) (Direct air capture: An expensive, dangerous distraction from real climate solutions - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists). For example, the Oxy/Carbon Engineering DAC plant will “cost hundreds of dollars per ton of CO₂ to operate” and even generous government subsidies may not fully cover those operating costs (Direct air capture: An expensive, dangerous distraction from real climate solutions - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists). If each Canadian DAC plant captures ~1 million tons CO₂/year, OPEX could be on the order of $300+ million per plant per year (at ~$300/ton). Across 80 plants, that’s $24+ billion annually just to capture the CO₂ required for fuel. Even if we assume some economies or smaller capture volumes, the DAC OPEX would likely be tens of billions per year. This includes the costs of running fans, pumps, thermal regeneration processes, and chemical inputs – all of which are substantial.

  • SMR OPEX: Nuclear reactors have relatively low fuel costs but non-negligible fixed operating costs (staffing, maintenance, regulatory compliance). A ballpark assumption is that annual O&M for an SMR might be 2–5% of its capital cost. At $1.5B each, that’s roughly $30–75 million per reactor per year. Multiplying by 80 reactors gives roughly $2.4–6.0 billion per year to operate the nuclear fleet. In return, the reactors supply the heat and electricity for DAC and electrolysis. (Notably, nuclear energy is relatively cheap per kWh once the plant is built (GE Hitachi Nuclear delivers BWRX-300 Small Modular Reactor application to British regulators | EnergyTech), so most of this cost is fixed manpower and maintenance – the “fuel” (uranium) might only account for a small fraction of the $/MWh.) We might expect around 24 GW of nuclear capacity online if all reactors run ~300 MW, providing an enormous ~210 million MWh per year of carbon-free energy to drive the processes.

  • Hydrogen & Fuel Synthesis OPEX: Converting H₂ and CO₂ into liquid fuel (via Fischer–Tropsch or similar synthesis) involves compressors, reactors, catalysts, and refining steps. The process might be exothermic (producing some heat), but it still requires operating labor and upkeep. The main cost, however, is the electricity for hydrogen production – which in our scenario is supplied by the SMRs. In effect, the cost of electricity is folded into the nuclear OPEX. If each ton of synthetic jet fuel requires on the order of 4–5 MWh of electricity for hydrogen (plus additional for CO₂ capture), the energy is already accounted for by the reactors’ output. The remaining OPEX for the fuel synthesis plant might be, say, $50–100 per ton of fuel for catalyst, maintenance, etc. This could add another few hundred million per year across all plants (a relatively small slice compared to DAC and reactors). We should also consider the cost of water for electrolysis and any carbon dioxide cleanup/compression – again minor in the big picture.

Total OPEX Estimate: Summing these rough figures, the annual operating cost for the entire NucDACSF system could easily be on the order of $10–20+ billion per year. To illustrate, just the CO₂ capture operations needed to neutralize all of Canada’s jet fuel might cost about $500 per ton CO₂ (Direct air capture: An expensive, dangerous distraction from real climate solutions - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists). Cleaning up the ~20 million tons of CO₂ from Canadian aviation would thus run ~$10 billion annually (in operating expenses, not even counting the reactor capital) (Direct air capture: An expensive, dangerous distraction from real climate solutions - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists). In other terms, this adds about $6 per gallon of jet fuel in carbon removal cost (Direct air capture: An expensive, dangerous distraction from real climate solutions - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists) – and that’s before accounting for the cost of making hydrogen and synthesizing the fuel. In practice, synthetic electro-fuels for aviation are projected to cost several times the price of conventional jet fuel on a per-liter basis, at least until technology improves drastically. (Even optimistic forecasts put e-jetfuel at perhaps $3–$6 per liter in the near future, versus ~$0.80/liter for fossil jet fuel). The NucDACSF approach may drive those costs down eventually by providing abundant nuclear energy, but the sheer scale of infrastructure and operation suggests a very high price tag for the fuel it produces.

It’s worth emphasizing just how inefficient this approach is in terms of energy and money: We would be using nuclear power to first pull CO₂ out of the extremely dilute air, then using more power to make hydrogen, then combining them to make fuel – all to avoid emissions that could have been prevented by tackling the problem at the source. The opportunity cost is massive. As one critique noted, “separating CO₂ from air… is outrageously expensive”, and every dollar spent on such high-cost carbon removal could have avoided far more CO₂ if spent on other solutions (Direct air capture: An expensive, dangerous distraction from real climate solutions - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists) (Direct air capture: An expensive, dangerous distraction from real climate solutions - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists). In fact, at ~$500/ton, a dollar spent on DAC avoids only 1/20th the CO₂ that the same dollar could avoid if spent on cleaner energy or efficiency measures (Direct air capture: An expensive, dangerous distraction from real climate solutions - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists). This raises the question: is NucDACSF a sensible way to decarbonize aviation, or are there more direct and cost-effective solutions?

Hydrogen-Powered Aviation: An Emerging Alternative

Rather than making synthetic hydrocarbon fuel to burn in today’s jet engines, another path to decarbonize aviation is to burn hydrogen directly (or use hydrogen in fuel cells) to power aircraft. This approach eliminates carbon emissions at the source – hydrogen fuel contains no carbon, so its use produces no CO₂, only water. Until recently, hydrogen in aviation was considered technically daunting, but major progress is underway that could make hydrogen flight a reality in the next couple of decades.

Airbus’s Hydrogen Projects: Airbus, one of the world’s largest aircraft manufacturers, has committed heavily to exploring hydrogen as the future of flight. Its ZEROe program (launched in 2020) has been developing hydrogen-powered aircraft concepts. Initially, Airbus unveiled three conceptual designs (including a turboprop, a turbofan, and a blended-wing body) using hydrogen combustion or hybrid fuel cell systems. By 2025, Airbus narrowed its focus to a fuel-cell-based electric propulsion concept as the most promising route (Airbus showcases hydrogen aircraft technologies during its 2025 Airbus Summit | Airbus) (Airbus showcases hydrogen aircraft technologies during its 2025 Airbus Summit | Airbus). The latest ZEROe concept features a 100-seat class aircraft with four 2-megawatt electric motors, each powered by hydrogen fuel cells, and fed by liquid hydrogen tanks (Airbus showcases hydrogen aircraft technologies during its 2025 Airbus Summit | Airbus). In 2023, Airbus successfully demonstrated a 1.2 MW hydrogen fuel cell powertrain on the ground (Airbus showcases hydrogen aircraft technologies during its 2025 Airbus Summit | Airbus) – a major milestone showing that multi-megawatt hydrogen systems are feasible. Airbus is now integrating these systems and aims to begin in-flight testing (using a modified A380 as a hydrogen testbed) by the late 2020s (Airbus showcases hydrogen aircraft technologies during its 2025 Airbus Summit | Airbus). The goal is ambitious: a hydrogen-powered commercial airliner in service by the mid-2030s (Airbus showcases hydrogen aircraft technologies during its 2025 Airbus Summit | Airbus) (Airbus showcases hydrogen aircraft technologies during its 2025 Airbus Summit | Airbus). As Airbus’s Head of Future Programs stated, “Hydrogen is at the heart of our commitment to decarbonise aviation” (Airbus showcases hydrogen aircraft technologies during its 2025 Airbus Summit | Airbus), indicating the company sees this as a key long-term solution alongside sustainable aviation fuels.

Hydrogen propulsion can be done in two main ways: burning hydrogen in modified gas turbine engines, or using hydrogen in fuel cells to produce electricity for electric motors (as in the ZEROe fuel-cell concept). Combusting hydrogen in a turbine is technically straightforward (it has even higher flame speed and different characteristics, but demonstrators have shown jet engines can be adapted to run on hydrogen). However, fuel cells promise higher efficiency: an electric motor powered by a hydrogen fuel cell can be more efficient than a combustion engine, meaning less energy required per flight. Airbus appears to favor the fuel cell route for smaller aircraft, which could eventually scale up.

Smaller-Scale Progress: Outside of big OEMs, startups have also made headlines. In early 2023, for example, startup ZeroAvia flew a 19-seat Dornier 228 test aircraft with one of its two engines powered by a hydrogen fuel cell system (the world’s largest aircraft yet to fly on hydrogen-electric power). Another company, Universal Hydrogen, retrofitted a regional ATR-72 turboprop with a hydrogen fuel cell in one of its propeller engines and conducted test flights in 2023. These demonstrations show that hydrogen propulsion is not just theoretical – it’s happening in prototype form. While these small planes are far from a full-size airliner, they prove the concept and are paving the way for hydrogen in aviation.

Challenges for Hydrogen Aviation: Hydrogen as a fuel brings its own challenges. The main issues are volume and infrastructure. Hydrogen has much lower energy density by volume than jet fuel, even in liquid form. Liquid hydrogen (LH₂) at cryogenic temperatures (−253°C) has about 1/4 the energy per liter of jet fuel. This means aircraft must have larger fuel tanks, which often means a bulkier fuselage or sacrificing cargo/passenger space. Airbus’s designs compensate with novel configurations or by storing LH₂ in the rear fuselage, etc. There’s also the need for heavy insulation and robust tanks to keep hydrogen cold. Another challenge is the infrastructure at airports: a whole supply chain for liquid hydrogen (production, liquefaction, transport, storage, refueling) would need to be built. This is non-trivial, but many airports and fuel companies are now exploring what hydrogen refueling would entail, often drawing on expertise from the space industry (which has handled liquid hydrogen for rockets). Safety is also a consideration – hydrogen is very flammable – but with proper handling (ventilation, leak detection) these risks can be managed (hydrogen’s safety risks are different but not necessarily worse than jet fuel, which itself is highly energetic).

Despite these challenges, the cost trajectory for green hydrogen is on a downward trend. Electrolyzer technology is improving and scaling up, and if one has abundant carbon-free electricity (nuclear or renewables), producing hydrogen becomes ever more affordable. Many estimates project green hydrogen costs dropping to ~$2 per kilogram in the next decade in favorable locations (which is roughly equivalent to ~$0.50 per liter of jet fuel in energy content, though hydrogen engines/fuel cells are more efficient so the effective cost per flight could be even lower). Direct hydrogen use skips the costly step of CO₂ capture and conversion – essentially, it cuts out the middleman and uses the zero-carbon energy directly for propulsion. This makes the energy utilization far more efficient. For a given quantity of electricity, you could likely fly several times farther using hydrogen in a fuel cell plane than you could by first making synthetic jet fuel to burn in a conventional plane. Thus, if hydrogen aircraft can be realized, they promise a more cost-effective long-term path for aviation decarbonization compared to synthetic fuel derived from DAC.

Synthetic Fuel vs. Hydrogen: Which is More Realistic and Cost-Effective?

Given the analysis, which approach seems more viable for decarbonizing aviation – massive DAC + synthetic fuel (NucDACSF), or direct use of hydrogen in next-generation aircraft? Let’s compare:

  • Technological Readiness: Synthetic fuels (often called “Power-to-Liquid” or e-fuels) can leverage today’s aircraft and engines – a drop-in replacement for jet fuel is attractive because it requires no new aircraft. Pilot plants (in locations like Chile and Norway) are already beginning to produce small batches of synthetic jet fuel using captured CO₂ and renewable hydrogen. The chemistry is known, just costly. Hydrogen aircraft, on the other hand, require completely new designs. No commercial hydrogen plane exists yet. Airbus’s timeline (2035 entry-into-service) is aggressive but not guaranteed – it depends on significant R&D and regulatory progress. So, in the short term (2020s and early 2030s), synthetic fuels can be used in existing fleets, whereas hydrogen will likely not come into play until the mid-2030s at earliest, and even then will start with smaller planes/routes.

  • Energy Efficiency & Cost: Hydrogen wins this category. As discussed, making synthetic fuel via DAC is extremely energy-intensive. You essentially lose a lot of energy in the roundabout process of carbon capture and conversion. Direct hydrogen use avoids that. This translates to higher costs for synthetic fuels. Even with cheap nuclear power, the NucDACSF approach has a multi-step energy conversion that inherently wastes energy. The cost per ton of CO₂ avoided is very high – on the order of hundreds of dollars (Direct air capture: An expensive, dangerous distraction from real climate solutions - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists) – meaning the cost per unit of fuel will likewise be high. By contrast, using hydrogen directly (especially in fuel cells) can be more efficient. For example, a fuel cell electric propulsion system might achieve 50% overall efficiency from hydrogen energy to useful work, whereas a synthetic fuel burned in a jet engine might achieve 30% efficiency and had additional losses in its creation. For the same initial energy (electricity), hydrogen gives more flight output. In terms of operational cost, a hydrogen plane (once developed) could be cheaper per flight if hydrogen fuel becomes cheap. The price of synthetic e-fuel is expected to remain high due to the complex process; hydrogen, benefiting from broader economy-of-scale (across many industries like trucking, power, industry), could drop in price faster.

  • Infrastructure and Capital: This is a tough comparison. NucDACSF requires building two new industries from scratch in parallel – a fleet of DAC-fuel plants and a fleet of nuclear reactors to power them. The timeline and complexity of constructing 80 DAC plants and 80 SMRs in Canada would be enormous, likely taking decades. The nuclear aspect especially faces regulatory hurdles, public acceptance issues, and project management challenges (nuclear projects are infamous for cost overruns). Hydrogen infrastructure, while also a big undertaking, might leverage existing industrial hydrogen production knowledge and ongoing investments in hydrogen for other sectors. Airports would need LH₂ tanks and handling facilities – a significant but not inconceivable investment, especially if only major hubs do it first. Aircraft replacement is the other big capital need: airlines would have to buy new hydrogen-fueled planes. This happens gradually as fleets turn over (airliners typically last 20-30 years), and could be incentivized by policy. From a national strategy viewpoint, one could ask: Is it easier to build 80 nuclear plants and synthetic fuel factories, or to build a few dozen hydrogen supply hubs and transition to new aircraft over time? The latter might well be more feasible, especially given international momentum for hydrogen.

  • Safety and Environmental Impact: Both synthetic fuel and hydrogen options aim for net-zero carbon. The DAC synthetic fuel cycle would indeed neutralize CO₂ emissions (capturing CO₂ from air and re-emitting it via fuel is a closed loop, assuming all CO₂ is captured in equal measure). However, it doesn’t reduce other emissions like NOx or contrails any more than normal jet fuel (combustion of synthetic kerosene produces similar engine emissions). Hydrogen, if burned in engines, can produce some NOx at high temperatures, but if used in fuel cells it produces zero emissions (just water). Hydrogen combustion also eliminates soot/particulates (no carbon in the fuel). Contrail formation could be different (hydrogen produces more water vapor per unit energy, potentially affecting contrail frequency – an active area of research). On safety: nuclear-powered DAC has the risks inherent to nuclear (radioactive materials, need for safe operation and waste handling) plus the stored CO₂ (though that’s not particularly dangerous) and hydrogen for fuel production. Hydrogen aviation has the safety considerations of storing a cryogenic, flammable liquid on aircraft and at airports. Both approaches require careful engineering to manage risks. Neither is obviously “more dangerous” overall – nuclear accidents are low-probability but high-consequence, whereas hydrogen accidents (fires) might be more localized but potentially more frequent if not managed. In the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article that critiqued direct air capture, the authors call DAC (especially when promoted by oil interests) an “expensive, dangerous distraction from real climate solutions” (Direct air capture: An expensive, dangerous distraction from real climate solutions - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists). The “danger” they refer to is likely the risk of diverting resources and perhaps the hazards of the infrastructure. If we interpret it broadly, pouring resources into DAC+synthetic fuels (and nuclear) could be seen as a distraction if it delays or draws funding away from more straightforward decarbonization measures like renewable energy, efficiency, or indeed hydrogen tech.

In light of the above, direct hydrogen fueling appears a more realistic and potentially cost-effective path in the long run for aviation, especially for new short- to medium-range aircraft introduced from the 2030s onward. Synthetic fuels via DAC (NucDACSF) might still play a role – for example, in fueling existing aircraft (especially long-haul jets) where hydrogen is impractical. It’s quite possible that in 2050 we’ll see a mix: hydrogen-powered short-haul planes on domestic and regional routes, and synthetic or sustainable fuels used in long-haul jets that can’t easily switch to hydrogen. However, even for producing those synthetic fuels, pure DAC might be the last resort – cheaper sources of CO₂ (like biogenic CO₂ from biomass, or point-source carbon capture at industrial sites) could supply carbon for fuels at lower cost than pulling from ambient air. Moreover, biofuel-based SAF (sustainable aviation fuel) made from waste oils or other biomass can also supplement supply in the near term, though feedstock constraints limit how much biofuel can scale.

Conclusion: Is NucDACSF Practical or a Costly Distraction?

Replacing all of Canada’s aviation fuel with carbon-neutral synthetic fuel from DAC, powered by 80 nuclear reactors, would be a monumental undertaking with a price tag in the hundreds of billions. The ongoing operating costs (on the order of tens of billions per year) and the inherent energy inefficiency of this approach make it questionable from a cost-effectiveness standpoint. It’s technically feasible to create carbon-neutral jet fuel – companies like Carbon Engineering have proven that on a small scale – but doing so at the scale of an entire nation’s aviation industry, and doing it via dedicated nuclear-powered DAC, borders on the fantastical when you consider the economics. As one analysis put it, “air capture is among the most expensive of all climate mitigation options” (Direct air capture: An expensive, dangerous distraction from real climate solutions - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists). Pouring resources into such a high-cost solution while cheaper carbon reductions remain undone could actually delay climate progress. In the vivid analogy of climate experts, spending billions on DAC-based solutions before exhausting easier measures is like “buying gold-plated thimbles to bail out the bathtub instead of turning off the faucet” (Direct air capture: An expensive, dangerous distraction from real climate solutions - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists). In other words, it addresses the symptom (CO₂ in the air) in an incredibly convoluted way, rather than tackling the cause (emitting less CO₂ to begin with).

Hydrogen-powered aviation, on the other hand, tackles the cause by eliminating carbon from the fuel. While hydrogen aircraft won’t solve all aviation emissions overnight and require significant innovation, they offer a path that could ultimately be more energy-efficient and cost-effective for a large chunk of air travel. Airbus’s commitment to a 2030s hydrogen airliner (Airbus showcases hydrogen aircraft technologies during its 2025 Airbus Summit | Airbus), and the successful hydrogen flight demos in recent years, signal that this is not mere science fiction. By the time a massive NucDACSF program could be built and running (likely the 2040s, given how long nuclear projects take), we may already have hydrogen planes taking off and rendering the need for synthetic jet fuel less pressing – at least for certain routes.

In summary, the NucDACSF concept is technically possible but economically daunting. Its practicality is low given cheaper alternatives and the time value of climate action – we need solutions that can deploy sooner and at scale. Direct air capture will likely have niche roles (perhaps for offsetting unavoidable emissions or drawing down carbon after we’ve decarbonized everything else), but using it as the primary means to decarbonize aviation appears to be, as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists critique suggests, “an expensive, dangerous distraction from real climate solutions” (Direct air capture: An expensive, dangerous distraction from real climate solutions - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists). Canada – and the world – might be better off investing those hundreds of billions into accelerating aircraft efficiency improvements, sustainable biofuels, and crucially, green hydrogen technologies for aviation. Turning off the faucet (i.e. not putting carbon up there in the first place) is almost always cheaper than frantically bailing out the tub later.

Sources:

 
 
 

Comments

Contact us

© 2025 Earthrise Accord

bottom of page