Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
JetBlue pushing the way, how many would follow? >

JetBlue pushing the way, how many would follow?

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

JetBlue pushing the way, how many would follow?

Old 12-17-2006, 09:11 PM
  #1  
Che Guevara
Thread Starter
 
ToiletDuck's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
Default JetBlue pushing the way, how many would follow?

JetBlue seems to be getting a little creative. Pushing for alternative fuel tax cuts so I'm guessing their jets would be running with this ASAP. Could this be a savior for airlines dropping prices to $40 a barrel?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061217/bs_nm/coal_fuel_dc


By Steve James Sun Dec 17, 1:18 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - When railroads ruled, it was the sweating firemen shoveling coal into the furnace who kept the engines running.
ADVERTISEMENT

Now, nearly two centuries after Stephenson's "Rocket" steam locomotive helped usher in the Industrial Revolution, that same coal could be the fuel that keeps the jet age aloft.

But with a twist: The planes of the future could be flown with liquid fuel made from coal or natural gas.

Already the United States Air Force has carried out tests flying a B-52 Stratofortress with a coal-based fuel.

And JetBlue Airways Corp. (Nasdaq:JBLU - news) supports a bill in Congress that would extend tax credits for alternative fuels, pushing technology to produce jet fuel for the equivalent of $40 a barrel -- way below current oil prices.

Major coal mining companies in the United States, which has more coal reserves than Saudi Arabia has oil, are investing in ways to develop fuels derived from carbon.

The technology of producing a liquid fuel from coal or natural gas is hardly new. The Fischer-Tropsch process was developed by German researchers Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in 1923 and used by Germany and Japan during World War II to produce alternative fuels. Indeed, in 1944, Germany produced 6.5 million tons, or 124,000 barrels a day.

And coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuel is already in use elsewhere, like South Africa, where it meets 30 percent of transportation fuel needs.

In addition to being cheaper than oil, advocates point out that the fuel is environmentally friendlier and would also help America wean itself of foreign oil imports.

"America must reduce its dependence on foreign oil via environmentally sound and proven coal-to-liquid technologies," said JetBlue's founder and chief executive, David Neeleman. "Utilizing our domestic coal reserves is the right way to achieve energy independence."

In a recent briefing to power and energy executives, Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, said bio-diesel fuels offer little in the way of reduced carbon dioxide emissions, have enormous production costs and present "serious transmission and infrastructure" problems.

In contrast, CTL transportation fuels are substantially cleaner-burning than conventional fuels.

Popovich warned that the United States risks falling behind economic competitors such as China, which plans to spend $25 billion on CTL plants.

America is "already behind the curve" when it comes to tapping the vast liquid fuel potential that coal offers, said John Ward, of natural resources company Headwaters Inc. (NYSE:HW - news), which builds CTL plants.

He said plants in America would likely each produce 40,000 barrels of CTL fuel per day, with a typical plant using 8.5 million tons of coal per year. In contrast, China is focused on building plants capable of producing 60,000 barrels of CTL fuel per day, he said.

"There is significant investor interest in what could be a major growth opportunity," said Paul Clegg, an alternative energy analyst with Natexis Bleichroeder.

"It is a viable technology, but the question is where do hydrocarbon prices go now? Will we continue to see oil above $40 a barrel forever?"

In October, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer and a consortium of energy and technology companies announced the state will be home to one of America's first CTL energy plants.

The $1 billion Bull Mountain plant is slated to produce 22,000 barrels per day of diesel fuel and 300 megawatts of electricity -- enough to power 240,000 homes -- in six years.

Schweitzer and the companies behind the plant, including Arch Coal (NYSE:ACI - news) and DKRW Advanced Fuels LLC, say the production of fuel and electricity will not release the greenhouse gases associated with coal-generated electricity.

Arch has a 25-percent stake in DKRW and the companies are also developing a CTL plant in Medicine Bow, Wyoming.

At a recent coal industry conference, the heads of two of America's Big Four producers talked up CTL development.

Arch Coal Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Steven Leer said it "could be a game-changer." Chemical companies and railroads were asking him about using coal-based liquid fuels.

"It's a whole new group of potential customers," he said.

Peabody Energy (NYSE:BTU - news) Chief Executive Gregory Boyce said of CTL: "Stay tuned, as the sector continues to evolve.

"I have heard reports that China can produce oil for $25 per barrel from coal. We see it more in the $45 range here."

Peabody recently announced an agreement with Rentech (AMEX:RTK - news) to evaluate sites in the Midwest and Montana for CTL projects. The plants could range in size from producing 10,000 to 30,000 barrels of fuel per day and use approximately 3 million to 9 million tons of coal annually.

Another alternative fuel company, Syntroleum (Nasdaq:SYNM - news), said recently that its ultra-clean jet fuel was successfully tested in a USAF B-52 at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. The bomber flew with a 50/50 blend of CTL and traditional JP-8 jet fuel.

"The program ... is the first step in opening up new horizons for sourcing fuel for military purposes," said Bill Harrison, a fuels expert with the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio.

The flight test was part of the
Department of Defense's Assured Fuel Initiative to develop secure domestic sources for the military's energy needs. The
Pentagon hopes to reduce its use of crude oil and foreign producers and get about half of its aviation fuel from alternative sources by 2016.
ToiletDuck is offline  
Old 12-17-2006, 09:49 PM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ryane946's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: FO, looking left
Posts: 1,057
Default

I read this article earlier today. Liquid coal?? Sounds interesting. It could be the next great thing that will lower energy prices and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Sounds great. Where do I sign up??


JUST KIDDING. There is one BIG problem with this solution. Coal is still a fossil fuel. The long term solution for energy cannot depend on something that will eventually run out.

Here is my take on what needs to happen/ what will happen for the future of energy.

We cannot achieve stable energy prices using fossil fuels. There will always be a supply issue. I feel that we are moving towards 100% electric cars. Hybrid's are just a stepping stone. I believe lithium-ion batteries have the potential to power cars (without the drawbacks of limited range/power). They are still falling in price. Cars could then be plugged in at night when the power grid is underused. Electricity is the CHEAPEST known way to power an automobile. Electricity generally comes from oil, coal, or nuclear. In California, I know about 30% of the energy is from renewable sources (hydro, wind, solar). But to deal with the massive increase that would be required to power cars, I believe we will be using much more efficient solar energy. Solar panels are incredibly inefficient (6-10% efficient, up to 15% efficient, but very costly). With the advances in nanotechnology, we WILL make quantum leaps in solar efficiency. Someone would win a nobel prize if they designed an 80% efficient solar sell. That would be enough to allow cars to be driven off electricity.

Ethanol/Methanol are not a solution. E85 is a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline that has been hyped up recently. The fact is that you get about 60% of the BTU's you would get from normal gasoline (basically, you need more gallons of E85 to get the same kick as gas), eliminating any cost savings.
And plane and simple... By using ethanol for energy, you are trying to solve one of the worlds big problems (demand for energy), but hurting the world's BIGGEST problem, and that is world hunger!!
In order to make enough ethanol for the US, we would have to use 75% of our farmland. Not an option. Ethanol will not work.

Hydrogen powered cars may become practical one day, but not in widespread use for MANY, MANY years. Even though hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, h2 is rarely found on earth. It is too reactive. It usually reacts to form water. So to get h2 fuel, we have to run the reverse reaction (2 h2o --> 2 h2 + o2), and that takes a good amount of electricity. Hydrogen is very dangerous and powerful (see Hindenberg or Hydrogen bomb). Have you ever seen the ground wires that hydrogen cars must use during fueling? They are massive. The hydrogen needs to be stored at 4 degrees kelvin (approximately -270 C and -500 F) and 10,000psi (can you say explosion). Even at 10,000psi, hydrogen will take up a decent amount of room. Plus you need heavy and thick metal to enclose that that hydrogen (more weight, less room). I cannot see this fuel being used on an airplane, EVER!! Just too dangerous and too many negative aspects to flight (weight, room, etc...)

So I feel you will see all electric cars down the road. Solar energy will help power these. Perhaps hydrogen fuel. This will drastically reduce the demand on crude oil, leaving it much cheaper for use in airplanes (and without the volatile price fluxuations).


I admire JetBlue's attempts to lower oil prices, but any changes here would only be temporary and cause very slight drop in the price of fuel. The real solution to our energy problems will come with the developement of batteries capable of storing lots of electricity, and solar cells that are both efficient and cheap to manufacture!
ryane946 is offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 02:33 AM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Fins Up's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Passed out in my hammock
Posts: 299
Default

The article says our coal has more energy than what's in Saudi's oil but I have read reports saying we have more energy than the oil of all the OPEC nations COMBINED. As the article stated it's proven technology and being used today by other countries.

I'd love to be able to tell countries like Iran and Venezuela to take their oil and SHOVE IT!
Fins Up is offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 03:22 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 3,717
Default

Originally Posted by ryane946 View Post
I read this article earlier today. Liquid coal?? Sounds interesting. It could be the next great thing that will lower energy prices and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Sounds great. Where do I sign up??


JUST KIDDING. There is one BIG problem with this solution. Coal is still a fossil fuel. The long term solution for energy cannot depend on something that will eventually run out.
But don't you feel that any new process that eliminates the dependence on foreign imported oil is a good thing? Be it for cars, trains or even planes. Seems to me that the major reason we still have such a great dependence on foreign oil is that our domestic (Ford, Chrysler, GM) manufacturers haven't really done a good job with the development of a vehicle of any real fuel efficiency. You can't tell me that we can put a man on the moon, but we can't find some way to tweak cars to get an average of 100 MPG. We need to get on with the technology of conservation of these resources, however, our leaders, for whatever reason, still are not putting the correct amount of pressure on the manufacturers to produce 1) cleaner burning fuels to help fight global warming, and 2) more efficient vehicles, to preserve the fossil fuels that are still in the ground.

So any new fuel type that relies less on foreign oil and foreign governments is, in my mind a good thing. Until the technology and inventiveness of the world improves, we still need to rely on oil and coal. Hopefully for not much longer, but the day of the "wind powered" airplane is still some time off. However, once that day does come, and it hopefully will, a year or two later, no one will remember anything of Saudi Arabia, UAE, and for the most part, the other oil-rich, third world countries.
Jetjok is offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 04:23 AM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Daytripper's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2005
Position: Capt. B737
Posts: 329
Default

Montana's gov. has been crowing about this ever since oil climbed above $70/barrell. Especially when Katrina knocked out "some" refining capacity. Like I've said before on another thread, it's been tried already in this country. A plant in Missouri I believe during the '50's produced up to about 200,000 gals a day. (Interesting how they got shut down!) How do you distribute it? The oil companies already control everything from the time it leaves the ground.....'til the time you squeeze the handle on the pump. Look at ethanol.......where could I find an E85 station locally? Not one. You'd have to figure out a way to get it to the consumer....bypassing big oil money....and politics. Good luck!
Daytripper is offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 06:26 AM
  #6  
Che Guevara
Thread Starter
 
ToiletDuck's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,408
Default

Ethanol is a loss. You lose 55,000BTU's per gallon when everything is taken into account. It takes roughly 26.1lbs of corn to make it. Which with the average production per acre means 1k acres would make rougly 250k gal. However ethanol plants use TONS of water.

It sounds good in GM commercials ect but in reality it's not worth the paper it's written on. THe only place where ethanol becomes efficient is when it's produced from human waste which about 60% can be made into it.
ToiletDuck is offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 07:25 AM
  #7  
With The Resistance
 
jungle's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
Default

The article is a clever puff piece aimed to capture the "green" public opinion with a favorable light on JBs "efforts" to seek alternate fuel. If normal sources of dino oil go to $150+ per barrel you may see some of this happen, but not from a JB initiative.
jungle is offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 09:28 AM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ryane946's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: FO, looking left
Posts: 1,057
Default

It just bothers me that we are spending MILLIONS/BILLIONS of dollars trying to develop alternative fuels from natural resources when that same amount of money could be invested into battery/solar cell development, and our energy needs could be solved FOREVER!!!

-E85 will not work. (made from food, we'd need to use 75% of our nation's farmland to produce enough energy to supply our nation)
-Coal will not work. (Natural resource that will eventually run out)
-Oil will not work (fossil fuel that will run out, we send money to enemy nations)
-Hydrogren cars will not work (still need lots of electricity to create H2, hydrogen is a poor way to store energy (see my above post))

-Biodiesel, cars that run off cooking oil, etc....

None of these are a long term solution to our nations energy policy! Sure, they can be used as fuel which helps slightly reduce demand for oil, but each and every one has drawbacks. Pooring tons of money into development of these fuels is a waste of money, and takes away time and money from research and development of batteries and solar cells to produce electricity. These are the future!

I agree that American automakers should be doing everything in their power to raise the efficiency of gasoline powered cars. But I disagree about the 100mpg car comment. Sure, US automakers could probably build a car that gets 100mpg in the near future. But why aren't they being produced??
Well, how about Mach 5 airliners. Can we build a Mach 5 airliner. Of course we can. I could design one for you. It would cost an incredible amount of money to build, it would cost an incredible amount of money to fuel, it would have terrible range... Same goes with this 100mpg car. We could probably build one, but it would cost so much that it would not be practical.

For instance, to build a 100mpg car, it would have to be VERY lightweight. Lightweight material would generally translate to being weaker. Now you have a problem if the car crashes. The solution to this would be use lightweight material that is strong. But that would cost A LOT! This is your problem. The same is true for any component we analyze (aerodynamic efficiency, weight efficiency, engine efficiency, etc...) To get these cars more efficient would make the car cost more, and less practical for use.

Engines are actually pretty efficient. No matter how much you increase the efficiency of the engine, energy is still being converted to heat, and the overall entropy is increasing. Plain and simple. We will eventually reach the upper bound for engine efficiency. Then it is dependent upon more clever techniques to increase the MPG, and these are even tougher (reduce weight, change the aerodynamic shape of the car, etc..)


Anyway... US automakers should do their best to increase the MPG of their automobiles. But just realize that by increasing the MPG, there are trade offs such as strength, size, range, and especially COST.
We should stop investing in these alternative energy sources like E85, coal, hydrogen, cooking oil,..., and start investing in battery development and solar cell devleopment.
ryane946 is offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 09:43 AM
  #9  
With The Resistance
 
jungle's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
Default

If we really want lots of cheap power without dependence on foreign sources in a reasonable time without excessive cost -nuke plants, and lots of them, are the way to go.
Internal combustion will be with us for a long time, right now the turbo diesel is the most efficient form. The markets will decide what works best, you cannot legislate technology. Just look at California and their farcial demand for zero emmissions. People won't buy electric cars until they can compete in price and performance.
jungle is offline  
Old 12-18-2006, 11:37 AM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ryane946's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: FO, looking left
Posts: 1,057
Default

you cannot legislate technology. Just look at California and their farcial demand for zero emmissions. People won't buy electric cars until they can compete in price and performance.
Remember that 30% of our power comes from renewable sources (wind, hydro, solar), and that is something that is legislated. And that percentage % increases in the near future.

Also, we have legislated the toughest the toughest emissions laws in the country. And all automakers and designing to meet the standards that California has put in place. Why?? Well we have over 30 million people in this state, and California by itsself is the 5th largest economy in the world. It would be unwise to neglect this large portion of the market.

Legislation cannot be written requiring electric cars today because they simply are not feasable. They have poor range. They are very small. And the power grid cannot support 30 million electric cars!
But, if we invest in the devleopment of batteries and solar cells (like I have been advocating in all my posts), then these WILL come down in price, and be very feasible. I believe that California is the place where this will start!
ryane946 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
fireman0174
JetBlue
6
08-24-2006 05:06 PM
LeeFXDWG
JetBlue
16
05-02-2006 08:30 AM
RockBottom
Major
4
04-09-2006 04:23 PM
mike734
JetBlue
8
02-14-2006 11:07 PM
Sir James
Major
0
07-29-2005 07:02 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices