Fossil Blends
The Air Force, meanwhile, plans to certify its entire fleet of aircraft on Fischer-Tropsch process synthetic fuels derived from methane or coal by 2011 and plans to purchase enough such fuel to power at least 50 percent of the fleet in the continental U.S. by 2016. Tests began in November on the performance of the purer synfuel in the jet afterburner engines that are used for supersonic flight.
"That's about 400 million gallons [1.5 billion liters] of fuel," Anderson says, compared to 281,000 gallons [1.06 million liters] purchased this year and an estimated 500,000 gallons [1.9 million liters] next year. "It may only be marginally [environmentally] better in 2016. Carbon neutral? Probably not."
Although such synfuels may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, depending on how they are produced, they will deliver some independence from the tyranny of petroleum. "The coal in the ground in the U.S. at current use will last 400 to 500 years. If you double, triple or quadruple the use of coal, it won't be 400, of course, it'll be 100 or 50 years," Anderson notes. "But it's 50 more years to get to the carbon-free economy."
Before then, the impact on Earth's climate can be limited by blending relatively small amounts of biofuels into such synfuels—an option DARPA, for one, rejects for logistical reasons—or capturing the carbon dioxide from synfuel production and using it to enhance the growth of the plants to be turned into fuel. "Put as little as 20 percent biofuel into nonrenewable fuels—coal-to-liquid and gas-to-liquid—you can be carbon neutral in a mix," CAAFI's Altman says.
Such a 20 percent mix would not require any modifications to existing aircraft engines or infrastructure, Green Flight International's Rodante says. "Jet fuel and biofuel mix is something that is easily done," he says "I don't believe 100 percent biofuel is the answer."
Oil prices at $100 per barrel are already well above the $40 per barrel level at which synfuel producing facilities break even, and even the $70 per barrel level that might make carbon capture economically feasible. "The biggest challenge is production capacity—and staying the course," FAA's Maurice says. "If the price of crude were to drop, can we sustain the interest?"
Still, the combination of factors involved: energy security, diversity of supply and the environment may sustain commercial aviation's interest, though its overall goals are smaller—certifying synfuel blends next year, full synfuels by 2010 and biofuels in 2013. "There is an underlying demand for something better than $90 per barrel oil, that has better domestic supply and can help cope with increasing environmental pressure," ATA's Heimlich says. "I have yet to see that silver bullet magic fuel."
In the interim, many airlines are offering ways to offset the greenhouse gas emissions associated with air travel, such as U.S.-based Delta Air Line's program with The Conservation Fund to plant trees in return for $5.50 that passengers are given the option of adding to the price of a domestic round-trip ticket or $11 for international round-trip flights. Britain-based Virgin Atlantic has a similar agreement with myclimate (a Swiss offset provider), who uses added flyer fees, which vary depending on ticket price, to fund renewable energy projects in developing countries such as India. It remains unclear, however, how much such passenger-funded partnerships do to alleviate climate change and they are a poor substitute for a carbon-neutral alternative jet fuel.
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentPerhaps a bit friendlier, but certainly not good for the climate. (1) The fuel is still about 1/2 fossil. (2) Contrails are bad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery true Robert, as I note in the story. The key will be developing some kind of closed loop biorefinery system. But let's face it. The Air Force's goal is focused first and foremost on domestic sourcing and only secondarily on environmental benefit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd the airlines are just looking for cheap.
If contrails are an issue, and I think they are. Perhaps we should also be concerned about passenger mile per lb of H2O in the jet's exhaust. Perhaps this synthetic fuel is better in that regard. If it is not then perhaps the synthetic fuel should be used at ground level and continue to use conventional fuel in the jets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFly with hydrogen from Aluminum. The aluminum is regenerated by electricity:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.instructables.com/id/SODA-CAN-HYDROGEN-GENERATOR/
Bring back dirigibles filled with helium. The Hindenberg was luxury liner after all. They can be designed more aerodynamically aand given enough motor power to go pretty fast and much less energy use. And less noise. And less room for runways, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTank water in the aircraft. Water does not burn. Water is the new fuel for the airlineindustry. Lead water through pipes to the engines. At the the jet engine before injection into jetstreamchamber where the air is compressed and hot, split before injection the water into hydrogen and oxygen. The inject the oxygen and water mix into hot compressed chamber of a jet engine. There it ignites and expand a lot like jet fuel. Water is a unlimited resource. It is cheap to exept in deserts by why not plan airports appropiate distance from waterresources. This way we could power any cars, busses, trains, ships, boats, bikes, aeroplanes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is another solution too. That you ignite mixture of the oxygen and hydroxen without compressed air and let the expanded gas(water) thrust a jetturbine, use ax to transmit force.
Third solution spilt water in engine let oxygen out, let hydrogen react with hot and compressed air in jetengine.
The thing is to find a way to split water suffiently fast enought.
The spaces ferries of NASA has engine-thrust from hydrogen.
"[Brazil] has weaned itself from foreign oil by embracing ethanol domestically produced from sugarcane."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSugar cane ethanol is a fraction of Brazil's oil independence (~12% of Brazil's energy needs), much more of the credit goes to Petrobras for becoming better at extracting and refining oil (~88%).
Brazil produces the oil equivalent of about 300,000 barrels per day of sugar cane ethanol, and its total oil consumption (according to the Energy Information Administration) is 2,500,000 barrels per day. Petrobras produces about 2,400,000 barrels per day of oil. In other words, 88% of Brazil's energy needs come from oil.