What I mean is if you have been reading these alternative fuel news clips for years like some here have been
, definite patterns emerge and the details become more of distraction than anything else. Some news clip about so and so airline is trying a 10% blend of biofuel to see if it works or not is like saying there is a new tree in the forest this week, while skipping over the state of the total forest. There have been a ton of these clips in the last two years and some trends I see are
• Biofuel feedstocks which compete with food production are not a good idea (corn ethanol for example)
• Carbon credits (think Europe) are the prime driver of aviation biofuel or alternative fuel adoption worldwide
• All forms of biofuels and synthetics are currently not viable for serious consumption due to high cost per unit.
• Industry is gradually tooling up to produce economical alternative fuels (biofuel, synthetics) but the industry as a whole is in its infancy
• Air Force and Navy are on the forefront of consumption/R&D for biofuels for military purposes
• USDA (I think) is dumping money into it
• The best feedstocks are jatropha, algae, and switchgrass
• It is possible to manufacture enough biofuel or synthetics to completely replace fossil fuels with enough land, even in the US.
• Earliest serious use of biofuels, ie. more than 50% blends with fossil fuels, is years off. Think 2020.
• Complete switch to biofuel is decades off but likely. Think 2050.
• Surface vehicles may prefer to go with electricity rather than biofuels, especially if a breakthrough battery ever happens.
These are just the first few thoughts I had. It is a great subject.