Bio-Fuel and you...
01-09-2009 | 07:32 AM
#21
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,895
Likes: 690
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
There are a number of "synthetic" fuels being tested, but herein lies the difference...
The USAF is proving that its entrie fleet can be flown using jet-fuel made from converted coal. I can't remember the name of the process. You essentially end up with Jet-A that was made by cracking coal. The US has, I believe, the largest coal reserves in the world.
Virgin flew a 747 (only one engine used the bio-fuel) that was made from coconut oil. It worked, but is for all practical purposes, a publicity stunt. Coconuts grow too slowly and do not produce great enough density (biomass per acre) to be economically viable. And think what would happen to the price of Coppertone if all that coconut oil started going into jet engines...
CAL and Air New Zealand flew jets (again, I think only one engine used biofuel) on Jatropha-based fuel. Jatropha is interesting because it is a weed that will grow just about anywhere. Its density and regeneration are such that it can produce a significant biomass for conversion, and requires almost no cultivation (hands-off farming).
Thawednook, I too read that Jatropha Biofuel (I will call it "Jet-J" from now on) has a lower freeze point than Jet-A. It's an issue on long flights, such as the polar flights from the US to Asia. My one experience with it was in a 747-400, and our fuel got down to 3 degrees above the freeze point--the limit before you have to change course, altitude, or speed.
What isn't addressed is the "lubricity," or effectiveness of fuel's lubricating properties, as the temperature drops. This is important in systems such as fuel pumps. Just because the fuel isn't frozen doesn't mean it still is lubricating the pump. This probably still requires research for Jet-J.
In all these alternatives, proof that it will work doesn't mean it is economically viable. Can't remember exactly, but seems the USAF's cracked-coal (Jet-C?) costs over $50 a gallon to produce, in its current limited quantities. Other biofuels are also currently very expensive.
For the near future (I would estimate 5 years) biofuels will be big news items, but it won't become significant until it is cheaper than petroleum-based fuels.
The USAF is proving that its entrie fleet can be flown using jet-fuel made from converted coal. I can't remember the name of the process. You essentially end up with Jet-A that was made by cracking coal. The US has, I believe, the largest coal reserves in the world.
Virgin flew a 747 (only one engine used the bio-fuel) that was made from coconut oil. It worked, but is for all practical purposes, a publicity stunt. Coconuts grow too slowly and do not produce great enough density (biomass per acre) to be economically viable. And think what would happen to the price of Coppertone if all that coconut oil started going into jet engines...
CAL and Air New Zealand flew jets (again, I think only one engine used biofuel) on Jatropha-based fuel. Jatropha is interesting because it is a weed that will grow just about anywhere. Its density and regeneration are such that it can produce a significant biomass for conversion, and requires almost no cultivation (hands-off farming).
Thawednook, I too read that Jatropha Biofuel (I will call it "Jet-J" from now on) has a lower freeze point than Jet-A. It's an issue on long flights, such as the polar flights from the US to Asia. My one experience with it was in a 747-400, and our fuel got down to 3 degrees above the freeze point--the limit before you have to change course, altitude, or speed.
What isn't addressed is the "lubricity," or effectiveness of fuel's lubricating properties, as the temperature drops. This is important in systems such as fuel pumps. Just because the fuel isn't frozen doesn't mean it still is lubricating the pump. This probably still requires research for Jet-J.
In all these alternatives, proof that it will work doesn't mean it is economically viable. Can't remember exactly, but seems the USAF's cracked-coal (Jet-C?) costs over $50 a gallon to produce, in its current limited quantities. Other biofuels are also currently very expensive.
For the near future (I would estimate 5 years) biofuels will be big news items, but it won't become significant until it is cheaper than petroleum-based fuels.
The USAF estimated a cost equivalent to about $80-90/bbl crude oil once they go into production. They are not just conducting a demonstration...their intent is to run the air force on a 50/50 mix of FT and Jet A. Since their concern is foreign oil dependence, and not so much cost, I think we will see it go forward.
Plummeting oil prices are not encouraging the development of alternatives, but I think enough folks got the message in 2008...if it happened once, it can happen again.
I think the assumption is that bio-fuels can eventually be had for under $100/bbl equivalent, maybe less than $50. Unlike oil, you can always grow more...and if the price gets high enough, somebody will!
01-09-2009 | 09:32 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,333
Likes: 0
Instead of simply comparing the cost of producing bio-fuel versus regular oil, we should add all terrorism related charges to the OPEC oil. If you include the cost of atrocities committed by terrorists which usually are supported by OPEC scums the regular oil is actually very expensive.
That's why I seriously think we should put whatever "terrorism fee" necessary on all oil produced by OPEC countries to make bio-fuel viable. If it costs $20 a barrel to produce one barrel of Saudi oil I say put a $100 levy on it and subsidize bio-fuel with that $100...
I know it's idealistic but that's how I feel and I wish there was a way to punish the OPEC (and Russia) scumbags...
02-26-2012 | 02:02 PM
#23
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,543
Likes: 0
From: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Three years later, I was wondering what progress has or has not been made on the biodiesel front 1) for aviation 2) for all other forms of transportation? Also, anyone running biodiesel or greasel, in their vehicle?
02-26-2012 | 02:27 PM
#24
Day puke
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,865
Likes: 0
From: Out.
It will be a commodity just like oil, cotton, or wheat. As a commodity, the price will fluctuate based on supply and demand, both real and imagined; and rumor. (see: Trading Places).
02-27-2012 | 02:28 AM
#25
With The Resistance
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,191
Likes: 0
From: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
I beg to differ, it's no economically viable NOW because we don't use the correct comparison of the true costs.
Instead of simply comparing the cost of producing bio-fuel versus regular oil, we should add all terrorism related charges to the OPEC oil. If you include the cost of atrocities committed by terrorists which usually are supported by OPEC scums the regular oil is actually very expensive.
That's why I seriously think we should put whatever "terrorism fee" necessary on all oil produced by OPEC countries to make bio-fuel viable. If it costs $20 a barrel to produce one barrel of Saudi oil I say put a $100 levy on it and subsidize bio-fuel with that $100...
I know it's idealistic but that's how I feel and I wish there was a way to punish the OPEC (and Russia) scumbags...
Instead of simply comparing the cost of producing bio-fuel versus regular oil, we should add all terrorism related charges to the OPEC oil. If you include the cost of atrocities committed by terrorists which usually are supported by OPEC scums the regular oil is actually very expensive.
That's why I seriously think we should put whatever "terrorism fee" necessary on all oil produced by OPEC countries to make bio-fuel viable. If it costs $20 a barrel to produce one barrel of Saudi oil I say put a $100 levy on it and subsidize bio-fuel with that $100...
I know it's idealistic but that's how I feel and I wish there was a way to punish the OPEC (and Russia) scumbags...
Most countries that are major oil producers invest heavily in western economies, little of that money goes to terrorist groups. Terror won't end with windmills, biofuel or solar panels-it is a cheap byproduct of ideology.
There is plenty of oil, coal and NG available, using Fischer-Tropsch and other well known and proven technologies we are not going to have a major disruption. The largest mistake we could make would be to subsidize inefficient and costly energy with an already overburdened financial system.
The ethanol farce was a perfect example of the wrong way forward in energy self-sufficiency.
02-27-2012 | 03:36 AM
#26
Moderator
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 6,056
Likes: 0
From: ATP, CFI etc.
Future Fuels for Jets
Future Fuels for GA
02-27-2012 | 04:35 AM
#27
veut gagner à la loterie
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 23,286
Likes: 0
From: Light Chop
It is a mistake to think terrorism is merely a product of oil production, we get a lot of oil from Canada yet we don't have a problem with Canadian terrorists.
Most countries that are major oil producers invest heavily in western economies, little of that money goes to terrorist groups. Terror won't end with windmills, biofuel or solar panels-it is a cheap byproduct of ideology.
There is plenty of oil, coal and NG available, using Fischer-Tropsch and other well known and proven technologies we are not going to have a major disruption. The largest mistake we could make would be to subsidize inefficient and costly energy with an already overburdened financial system.
The ethanol farce was a perfect example of the wrong way forward in energy self-sufficiency.
Most countries that are major oil producers invest heavily in western economies, little of that money goes to terrorist groups. Terror won't end with windmills, biofuel or solar panels-it is a cheap byproduct of ideology.
There is plenty of oil, coal and NG available, using Fischer-Tropsch and other well known and proven technologies we are not going to have a major disruption. The largest mistake we could make would be to subsidize inefficient and costly energy with an already overburdened financial system.
The ethanol farce was a perfect example of the wrong way forward in energy self-sufficiency.
02-27-2012 | 07:44 AM
#28
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,543
Likes: 0
From: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
I have been monitoring this for years, look here. I stopped clipping articles as much lately because they all seem to say about the same thing.
Future Fuels for Jets
Future Fuels for GA
Future Fuels for Jets
Future Fuels for GA
02-27-2012 | 07:59 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,628
Likes: 15
From: blueJet
02-27-2012 | 08:06 AM
#30
Moderator
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 6,056
Likes: 0
From: ATP, CFI etc.
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.
, 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.
