Press Releases

Stephanie Duvall
Pratt & Whitney Military Engines
860.557.1382
[email protected]

EAST HARTFORD, Conn., Jan. 6, 2011 - A Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 engine recently powered its first biofuel test flight of a U.S. Air Force F-15 Eagle at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. This flight test, powered by alternative jet fuel, comes on the heels of engine ground testing completed earlier this year at Arnold Engineering Development Center in Tennessee. These tests directly support the U.S. Air Force’s goal of acquiring half of its domestic jet fuel requirements from alternate sources by 2016. Pratt & Whitney is a United Technologies Corp. (NYSE:UTX) company.

This is Pratt & Whitney’s second military engine to successfully complete ground and flight tests using biofuels. A C-17 Globemaster III, powered exclusively by four Pratt & Whitney F117 engines, completed testing in August. Similar tests are planned for the F119 in the near future.

“We are pleased with the performance of our military engines using alternate jet fuels during ground and flight tests,” said Bev Deachin, vice president, Military Programs and Customer Support, Pratt & Whitney. “These successful tests are in direct support of our U.S. Air Force customer’s goal to acquire and use alternate jet fuel sources for its fleet.”

The flight tests blended Hydrotreated Renewable Jet (HRJ), an eco-friendly alternative from sources including animal fats or plant extracts such as camelina, with traditional JP-8 jet fuel. Ground testing also included a blend of JP-8 jet fuel, HRJ, and a synthetic fuel made from coal.

Pratt & Whitney military engines include the F135 for the F-35 Lightning II, the F119 for the F-22 Raptor, the F100 family that powers the F-15 and F-16, the F117 for the C-17 Globemaster III, the J52 for the EA-6B Prowler, the TF33 powering AWACS, Joint STARS, B-52, and KC-135 aircraft, and the TF30 for the F-111. In addition, Pratt & Whitney offers a global network of Maintenance Repair and Overhaul and Military Aftermarket Services focused on maintaining engine readiness for our customers.

Pratt & Whitney is a world leader in the design, manufacture and service of aircraft engines, space propulsion systems and industrial gas turbines. United Technologies, based in Hartford, Conn., is a diversified company providing high technology products and services to the global aerospace and building industries.

This press release contains forward-looking statements concerning future business opportunities and operational engine performance. Actual results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to changes in funding related to F100, F117 and F119 engines, changes in government procurement priorities and practices or in the number of aircraft to be built; challenges in the design, development, production and support of advanced technologies; as well as other risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to those detailed from time to time in United Technologies Corp.'s Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

# # #

 

I agree. In addition to the lower freezing point, butanol has a lot higher energy/btu content than ethanol. It is much closer to our current petroleum based fuels. One of the big problems with ethanol is that a significantly higher volume of it would need to be carried to get the same amount of energy that we get with jetA. It makes it a less viable alternative fuel.

It turns out that ethanol isn't really that much better for the environment (possibly worse) than its petroleum counterparts. From what I remember from my Chem-E days, the process for manufacturing butanol from corn yields a large proportion of ethanol which keep the cost of ethanol lower, and probably still gives ethanol a lower environmental impact than butanol.
With that being said, we should be looking into all available alternatives because the cost of oil is going to inevitably sky rocket out of affordability.


These articles have been an interesting read.

 

Ethanol is not a good substitute for petroleum fuels, it only thrives in the US because of the political power of the mid-west agriculture lobby. A few other nations use it because they have more biomass than petroleum reserves.

 

Also, this thread is titled "Future Fuels for JETS". We want jet fuels, not alcohol or gasoline. Jet-A made from algae feedstock is the best choice in this area. Several large companies are tooling up to do it. We can start a broader thread on ethanol and butanol but this one is about jet fuels and mostly about jet bio fuels, although synthetics are also included. Making ethanol to then turn around and make jet fuel with it also makes little sense although I guess it can be done. If you want to argue that, please support it with something.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Purdue researcher: Ethanol has peaked.
Has the use of ethanol in the U.S. reached its saturation point?

(E. Weddle, 01/10/11, JCOnline) Yes, or says the conclusion of a Purdue University agricultural economics professor who has studied federal data about how ethanol is consumed and about the growth potential in the industry to meet an upcoming federal mandate for renewable fuel use. Wally Tyner says developing next-generation biofuels, such as ones produced from algae or another biomass, is the only way to reach the mandate due to a lack of infrastructure in the U.S. for ethanol. "You can produce bio-gasoline or green diesel as cellulosic fuels. You don't have to produce ethanol," Tyner said of fuels that still are in the development stage. "It goes right into the pipeline and can go right into the system and blend with the gasoline..."

---------------------------------------------------------------

An unusually pessimistic view of biofuel R&D is presented by the next writer. Some of his points I agree with but either way you do not see a contrary view like this very often. The gist of his perspective is based on the historical fact that fuels always become cheaper and more energy dense as time rolls on rather than the reverse which is true of biofuels. The problem with this is the cost picture will change. Whether it is 15 years or 1500 I think it is safe to assume fossil fuels will get radically more expensive with time. The issue of energy density will not matter as much when the cost is so high. For all we know the low energy-density issue for biofuels may not be as bad if algael biofuel production is successfully pioneered. The real issue in my mind is getting the development done while fossil fuels are still cheaply available so when they run out we have biofuels and other forms of energy at the ready.

---------------------------------------------------------------


Aviation Biofuels: Real or Green Fantasy?

(AvWeb, 01/17/11, P. Bertorelli) Sometimes, the more you learn about a thing, the more information you gather and the more people you talk to about a specific topic, the harder it is judge. That's definitely the case with aviation biofuels which are, in a sense, leading the charge towards a greener, bio-based fuel economy. I have pored over dozens of reports, research presentations, studies and news articles on this topic and conducted a number of interviews.

The impression I get is of an industry operating on an underlying assumption that biofuels are an inevitability. The typical headline reports on some new development or milestone that's been achieved, but down in the body of the story, you rarely see the offsetting qualifier noting that the entire edifice isn't out of the R&D phase yet. There's a strong tendency to green wash everything, including editorial coverage. When you ask, "how much," people stop talking.

There are aspects of this story that I find encouraging and some that I find worrisome. Specifically, the sheer amount of research work in this area is staggering. There are probably dozens of processes using just as many bio feedstocks and the fact that the Navy and Air Force are throwing money at the problem will have inevitable spinoffs for the commercial side. The fuels themselves—specifically hydrotreated renewable jet—seem to perform well, so well in fact that the Navy is satisfied that the principle part of its testing is done. It wants to run all of its airplanes and ships on a 50/50 blend of petroleum by 2020, an ambitious timeline.

On the piston side, Swift fuel continues its research. Although Swift was initially pitched as a biofuel, I now believe that's a misnomer. It can be a biofuel, if its acetone-based feedstock is derived from biomass. But in my view, the reality is more agnostic than that. Swift's work has concentrated on the downstream side—how to turn acetone into high-octane binary fuel—not the upstream side, which is making the acetone from biomass in the first place. Right now, Swift's largest challenge is finding cheap acetone, regardless of its source...

 

[Salicornia] Plant seeds could produce jet fuel

(1/21, V. Todorova, The National) The unassuming salicornia bigelovii - commonly known as the dwarf glasswort - has succulent stems and leaves and thrives in salty water, where many other plants cannot. But those properties give little indication of the American plant's greatest treasure: its seeds are one-third oil, which has raised the hopes of researchers that it might just be the sustainable source of biofuel the aviation industry has been looking for. Biofuels are considered carbon-neutral because the plants or vegetation from which they are produced assimilate carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as they grow, compensating for what is released as the fuel is burned. After conducting a preliminary, year-long study, the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology has concluded that the plant holds enough promise to move ahead on a project designed to extract fuel from the salicornia's seeds.In partnership with the Boeing Company, Etihad Airways and Honeywell, Masdar is searching for a suitable location to cultivate the plant...

Alternative Fuels Don’t Benefit the Military, a RAND Report Says

(T. Zeller, NYTimes.com, 1/25) The Navy has been leading the foray into advanced algae-based fuels. The Riverine Command Boat (Experimental) is run on a blend of algae-based and marine fuels. The United States would derive no meaningful military benefit from increased use of alternative fuels to power its jets, ships and other weapons systems, according to a government-commissioned study by the RAND Corporation scheduled for release Tuesday. The report also argued that most alternative-fuel technologies were unproven, too expensive or too far from commercial scale to meet the military’s needs over the next decade. In particular, the report argued that the Defense Department was spending too much time and money exploring experimental biofuels derived from sources like algae or the flowering plant camelina, and that more focus should be placed on energy efficiency as a way of combating greenhouse gas emissions. The report urged Congress to reconsider the military’s budget for alternative-fuel projects. But if such fuels are to be pursued, the report concluded, the most economic, environmentally sound and near-term candidate would be a liquid fuel produced using a combination of coal and biomass, as well as some method for capturing and storing carbon emissions released during production. The findings by the nonprofit research group, which grew out of a directive in the 2009 Defense Authorization Act calling for further study of alternative fuels in military vehicles and aircraft, are likely to provoke much debate in Washington. The Obama administration has directed billions of dollars to support emerging clean-energy technologies even as Congress has been unwilling to pass any sort of climate or renewable energy legislation. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is seeking to improve the military’s efficiency and reduce its reliance on fossil fuels over the coming decade, devoting $300 million in economic stimulus financing and other research money toward those goals. RAND’s conclusions drew swift criticism from some branches of the military — particularly the Navy, which has been leading the foray into advanced algae-based fuels. “Unfortunately, we were not engaged by the authors of this report,” said Thomas W. Hicks, deputy assistant secretary of energy for the Navy. “We don’t believe they adequately engaged the market,” he said, adding, “This is not up to RAND’s standards.” The analysis has also irked environmental groups and biofuels proponents, who argued that RAND had underestimated the commercial viability of algae and overestimated the availability and efficacy of carbon capture and storage technology.

The Air Force is engaged in extensive testing of biofuel blends in its aircraft, and the Navy received 20,000 gallons of algae-based fuel for testing and certification from the California company Solazyme last summer. Solazyme signed a contract with the Defense Department to deliver another 150,000 gallons this year. Proponents of these endeavors argue that the military, with its substantial buying power, can help spur the expansion of renewable fuel markets into the civilian sphere. “This would not be the first example of a military-driven research project where the civilian benefit far outweighs the military benefit,” said Paul Winters, a spokesman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization in Washington. “Witness the Internet,” he said. Mr. Hicks of the Navy also took issue with the notion that there was no military benefit to the pursuit of oil alternatives. “We are doing this because there are energy security issues at play,” he said. “Every barrel of oil we can replace with something that’s produced domestically, the better we are as a nation, and the more secure and more independent we are.” In the report, however, James T. Bartis, a senior policy researcher at RAND and the lead author of the analysis, argued that while the military consumes substantial amounts of liquid fuels — about 340,000 barrels each day — this accounts for less than 2 percent of the nation’s total use, which is estimated to be 19 million barrels a day. As such, the greenhouse-gas benefits arising from the military’s efforts along these lines are likely to be minuscule. The authors argued that both the Defense Department and Congress should “reconsider whether defense appropriations should continue to support the development of advanced alternative fuel technologies.” Further, the report said that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 required that any alternative and synthetic fuels bought by federal agencies for “mobility-related use” must have lower greenhouse gas emissions — or at least no greater — than those of conventional fuels...

 

Air Force OKs biofuel jet fuel mix in aircraft

(CNET, 2/14/11) The Air Force has approved a blend of jet fuel and plant-based fuels to work with an aircraft for first time.The certification, announced yesterday[/URL], covers the C-17 Globemaster III, a transport aircraft made by Boeing and used for moving troops and cargo.The Air Force tested a blend of up to 50 percent of biofuel, called hydrotreated renewable jet fuel, and JP-8 jet fuel, and found no degradation in performance for pilots. The biofuel mix will burn cleaner, reducing the amount of sulfur compounds emitted and will further the military's goal of reducing its use of petroleum-based fuels, the Air Force said. "When blended as we've done, this is a potential drop-in solution for jet fuel for our aircraft, requiring no modification to systems or special handling or monitoring," Jeff Braun, the Air Force's alternative fuel certification office chief, said in a statement. Because of its buying power and security risks from transporting fuels, the military is a very significant customer to prove out renewable energy products. A base in Afghanistan developed a solar power system[/URL] to reduce the amount of diesel it uses in generators and the Air Force is also going to try out a waste-to-energy system later this year. In the commercial world, biofuel company Solayzme this week a partnership to develop aviation fuels with Quantas. Biofuel and chemicals company Gevo, which makes biobutanol, went public this week, one of the few biofuels companies to reach that point in scale. One of the products it intends to make is a "biojet blendstock" made by converting butanol to kerosene, a component of jet fuel.

Boeing Wants Biofuel Market By 2015.

The AP (2/15, Tibbits) reports Boeing "hopes aviation biofuels will be practical for the market by around 2015, but it's going to take a lot of work." Richard Wynne, Boeing Commercial Airplane's director of environment and aviation policy, spoke on the issue on Monday. Wynne reportedly called biofuel development "critical" as more planes are launched in the coming years. "Boeing doesn't plan to make biofuel itself, but will be a "facilitator" for its adoption, Wynne said."

Airbus, Tarom To Build Biofuel Factory.

Flight International (3/23, Reals) reports Airbus and Tarom will construct an aviation biofuel facility in Romania "as part of the European airframer's plan to develop at least one such facility on every continent." Currently, a "feasibility study" is underway to see where it would be located. "Airbus and Tarom are hoping to be able to produce enough biofuel in the short term to carry out a series of flight tests," with the goal to eventually sell the biofuel to other airlines.

 

Boeing Says Jatropha-Curcas Biofuel Has Significant Potential.

The Puget Sounds Business Journal (4/1) reports Boeing "said a study of using the jatropha-curcas plant as biofuel showed 'significant potential'" after it sponsored a study of the fuel by Yale University. In a statement, Boeing said, "The study shows that, if cultivated properly, jatropha can deliver strong environmental and socioeconomic benefits in Latin America and greenhouse gas reductions of up to 60 percent when compared to petroleum-based jet fuel."

 

Nice to see Boeing putting another foot forward on this, also good that they are focusing on economic viability as well as all the touchy-feely carbon stuff. Lends a touch of credibility to the concept.

 

Algae Holds Promise as Renewable Fuel — Just Not Yet.

(A. Schultz, CNBC, 4/18) Algae is fast becoming a promising renewable biofuel because it can grow nearly anywhere, be blended with, or replace most traditional fuels, and can't be used as food. But algae is far from a perfect solution. Industry observers say it will take anywhere from five to 15 years for algae to be produced on a scale that would be meaningful to the nation’s fuel needs.“There’s a significant amount of capital required for algal oil producers to scale up to commercial meaningful quantities,” says Jim Rekoske, general manager at Honeywell’s UOP division, which provides technologies to the gas processing, refining and petrochemical industry. Still, several privately held companies as well as academic institutions are actively pursuing practical, cost-effective methods of developing algae for use as a fuel. Several major energy companies—including Valero, ConocoPhilips and Chevron — are working with university research efforts, providing financing for small companies, or both.That’s because maybe, someday, big oil companies can consider algae a fuel source for their existing extensive networks of refineries and pipelines, industry sources say.Today, the U.S. uses about 150 billion gallons of gasoline a year, and 50 billion gallons of diesel and jet fuel, says Philip Pienkos, acting group manager of the applied science group at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Algae could be used to address all those fuel needs as a stand-alone fuel, or if it’s blended with other fuels, depending on the refinery process used, Pienkos says. Unlike corn-based ethanol, the most common biofuel, algae production does not contribute to rising food prices by diverting production away from consumption.“It has the potential to impact our entire petroleum-based fuel portfolio,” he says...

Algae Biofuel For Aviation Not Expected To Be Cost Effective Soon.

(Flight International, 4/19, Reals) reports, "Algae is touted as holding the greatest potential as a long-term replacement for kerosene, but cost issues, combined with insufficient investment, leave experts generally agreeing that its widespread use in aviation is at least a decade away." Odile Petillon, head of operations at the EADS Innovation Works Energy and Propulsion Technical Capability Center, said algae has the "highest potential" over the "mid- to long term," but it is still early in its development. Michael Lakeman, regional director of biofuel strategy at Boeing Commercial Airplanes, "agreed" with this assessment that the fuel is not cost effective yet. "Airline demand is unlikely to be strong until costs come down."

NASA Tests Biofuels Made From Animal Fat.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (4/26, Cohen) "Boeing and Aerospace News" blog reports NASA "tested fuel made from chicken and beef fat in one engine of a DC-8 in late March and early April, the agency reported Monday." During the ground tests, other engines used Hydrotreated Renewable Jet Fuel, Jet Propellant 8, and a 50-50 blend of those two fuels. Ruben Del Rosario, manager of the Subsonic Fixed Wing Project, said the "results seem to support the idea that biofuels for jet engines are indeed cleaner-burning, and release fewer pollutants into the air." The engine using the fuel derived from chicken and beef fat "emitted 90 percent less black carbon emissions at idle and almost 60 percent less at takeoff thrust, while also producing much lower sulfate, organic aerosol and hazardous emissions, according to Bruce Anderson, the experiment's chief scientist."

 

New biofuels to spar with ethanol.

(P. Brasher, 05/09/11, DesMoines Register) What's at stake: Iowa has become the nation's No. 1 ethanol producer, with 40 plants that produce about one-third of the nation's ethanol supply. The industry generates $13 billion to the state's economy and it's contributed heavily to recent increases in commodity prices and farm income. Ethanol accounted for more than one-third of the $1.65 a bushel increase in corn prices that took place between 2006 and 2009, according to a recent Iowa State University study. Iowa's economy depends on agriculture for between 25 and 30 percent of its gross domestic product. WHAT'S CHANGING: NEW FEEDSTOCKS Federal mandates call for the next generation of biofuels to be made from feedstocks other than corn, such as corn cobs, stalks, grasses and wood chips, which don't compete with food uses. Iowa's status in the biofuel industry of the future could change depending on which feedstocks, types of fuel, and conversion processes get used. Ethanol's answer: The industry envisions expanding existing distilleries to process the cobs or stalks as well as the grain. WHO'S CHALLENGING: OIL REFINERS: Oil refiners could become major producers of next-generation biofuels. ConocoPhillips is funding research at Iowa State University into different processes for converting cellulose, or plant matter, into conventional fuels. Refiners and other companies are looking at turning corn stover into another alcohol, called butanol, that doesn't have the same drawbacks as ethanol, or into new versions of gasoline and other conventional fuels. WHAT IOWA HAS TO LOSE: BIOMASS MARKET: Farmers could supply the cobs and stalks needed for ethanol or other biofuels. But collection is a challenge and other biomass sources in other regions could prove more efficient...