Biofuel takes flight with Virgin Atlantic
 

http://www.news.com/8301-11128_3-987...l?tag=nefd.top

"
Virgin Atlantic Airways flew a 747 from London to Amsterdam on Sunday powered in part by a biodiesel made from tropical oils.
The fuel used by the plane is a combination of regular kerosene-based jet fuel and a biodiesel from Imperium Renewables composed of babassu oil and coconut oil. Babassu comes from a tree in Brazil. In fact, 80 percent of the fuel consumed by the plane was kerosene-based. Only 20 percent of the fuel used on the flight came from plant oils. Still, it's a first, says Virgin.
The oils came from existing plantations, Imperium said. No modifications were required to the plane's engines.
Biodiesel is similar to regular diesel, but instead of being processed from fossil fuels it is made from plant oils. Biodiesel gets slightly lower mileage than regular diesel, but it spews far less polluting compounds into the air. It is also carbon neutral in that the carbon in the fuel comes from plants that are already on the surface of the Earth, which had sucked carbon dioxide from the atmosphere when they were growing. Fossil fuels are said to add carbon because they unlock molecules that have long been buried.
Although less polluting, biodiesel generally also costs more. In the U.S. the federal government offers subsidies ranging from 50 cents to $1 a gallon to biodiesel refiners. Carbon regulations, however, will likely make alternative fuels like biodiesel more economically attractive in the future.
Imperium has also cut deals with cruise ships to use biodiesel. Besides tree oils, Imperium is also experimenting with algae-based biodiesel with a company called Solazyme which could be cheaper. (Imperium last year opened up a 100 million gallon a year refinery. It also switched CEOs and delayed an IPO.)
Meanwhile, Richard Branson, he of the Virgin empire, has been investing in green start-ups."

I saw this news in a similar but different article.

I found it interesting that the focus of that article and the test was to reduce carbon emissions and that there was criticism of bio fuel for not significantly reducing emissions.

What wasn't mentioned in the article was that it is a great leap forward in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and potentially reducing the cost of air travel once Bio Jet Fuel is in mass production. I would rather give money to American farmers then rich Saudi princes.

Carbon based bio fuels verses Jet A for instance...
 

Bio fuels aren't what they're cracked up to be..

The engines have to produce power right?

Jet A's British Thermal Units or BTU's per pound is 40-50% higher than the bio-fuels.

Using bio-fuel to produce the same amount of power from the engines will require substantially more pounds of bio-fuel than Jet A.

More fuel weight means higher fuel burn.

Less emissions? I don't think so.

Coco - loco fuel is just a gimmick.

Boy won't those technicians be surprised when they find that out..bummer.

Do they smell like French Fries when they taxi by?

fish and chips

All the eco friendly, "green" is about PR not the environment.

Yup. The problem with biofuels and emmissions is that biofuels don't spring magically from the ground like oil...you have to cultivate the land, harvest, transport, and proccess the feedstock.

All of that takes energy, which usually produces emissions. My guess is the reduction in exhaust emissions of the biofuel engine is not enough to make up for the emissions generated by the production of the biofuel in the first place. Typical fuzzy logic :rolleyes:

But the reduction in oil dependency and the renewable aspect might make it worth persuing.

deleted, just not funny or informational - sorry!

You have to start somewhere. Most technology isn't cost-effective in it's infant stages. Remember, we went to the moon on computers that took up entire rooms and had less power than a typical smart phone.

Biodiesel isn't that bad. In a vehicle it just requires a newer model. The main reason being that bio-diesel requires earlier combustion phasing for peak efficiency. So you need a modern on-board computer to make the changes. Kinda like how new vehicles can run premium or down to 87 octane.

In a jet engine these issues don't really matter. Biodiesel makes 67% less hydrocarbons than regular diesel which is a HUGE plus, however it does create more NOX which in airplanes I think is the biggest issue. At altitude the sun reacts with NOx causing a chain reaction that produces O3(ozone) which causes birth defects, respiration issues, and (I'm not 100% on this) I think it even kills the immune system. I have no clue if putting O3 out at higher altitudes is a good or a bad thing. They are always complaining about the ozone layer so perhaps in the upper altitudes it helps.

Diesel has on average= 129,500 btu/gal and a density of .85g/cm3

B100(100% biodiesel)= 118,296 btu/gal with a density of .88g/cm3 (8.65% less power producing ability while weighing 3.53% more than conventional No. 2 diesel)

B20 = 127,259btu/gal @ .856g/cm (1.73% less power producing ability while weighing only .7% more)

There's also a B2 blend but there's no point in it. 1-2% could barely be noticed if at all. In automotive diesel there can be a 15% variance in the btu/gal depending on the manufacturer and time of season. When I lived on the Mexican border I'd fill up over there for half the price and get 23mpg going 80mph in a 4dr Dodge diesel :O

It will be interesting to see what data they manage to produce from the test. I'd like to see a comparison of the reduction in hydrocarbons vs the reduction in fuel economy. If we get a 5-10%+ reduction in hydrocarbons with only a 1-2% loss in fuel economy that would be incredible. My math says that 20% BD could reduce hydrocarbons by 13.4%. 1-2% loss in power for a 13.4% decrease in hydrocarbons is amazing if it pans out that way. On the other hand I could have easily screwed the math up by making it too easy.