BIOFUEL FLIGHT: Jet fuel as good or better than that made from petroleum can be derived from plant oils.
Image: ©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM / STEPHEN STRATHDEE
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Jet fuels derived from algae, camelina and jatropha -- plants that pack an energy punch, are not eaten as food and do not displace food crops -- could be approved and replacing petroleum fuels in commercial flights as early as next year, a Boeing executive said yesterday.
Bill Glover, managing director of environmental strategy for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, which is leading an effort to develop, test and certify alternative jet fuels, said the technology is ready. Now, it is just a matter of growing enough non-food feedstock plants and refining enough of their oil.
In the past year and a half, commercial airlines have flown four successful test flights using a variety of biofuel-jet fuel blends. Boeing was involved in all four flights, including a Virgin Atlantic flight using a coconut- and babassu-derived biofuel blend; an Air New Zealand flight using a jatropha-derived biofuel blend; a Continental Airlines flight using a blend of algae- and jatropha-derived biofuel; and a Japan Airlines flight using an algae-, jatropha- and camelina-derived biofuel blend.
"We've proven the technical capability of biofuel as a drop-in replacement," Glover said. "It meets all jet fuel requirements and then some."
Not only has the industry proved the technical capability, but it also has shown that biofuels can improve overall fuel efficiency.
Air New Zealand said yesterday that using a 50 percent blend of biofuel with traditional jet A-1 fuel can improve fuel efficiency by more than 1 percent, according to data collected during the December 2008 test flight. On a 12-hour flight, that would save 1.43 metric tons of fuel and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 4.5 metric tons, the airline said.
Information like that likely will help the industry get second-generation biofuels certified as drop-in replacements for jet fuel.
"Certainly the data from our biofuel test flight will be a critical component towards helping biofuel become a certified aviation fuel," Air New Zealand's general manager of airline operations and chief pilot, Capt. David Morgan, said in a statement.
Next month, a coalition headed by Boeing will release a full report on all the test flights. And after that, the international standards board that approves fuels and chemicals could certify plant-derived biofuels as jet A-1 fuel within a year, Glover said.
Once the fuels are approved as jet A-1, they can immediately be used as drop-in replacements. "Airplanes are already certified to operate on anything known as jet A-1," Glover added.
Glover and other executives said they think the approval process will be smooth because after processing plant oils, "We leave a hydrocarbon that looks exactly like petroleum fuel," said Jennifer Holmgren, the general manager of renewable energy and chemicals at UOP, the company that derived the plant-oil refining and processing treatment for the Air New Zealand, Continental and Japan Airlines test flights.
And the certification does not have to be feedstock-dependent, Holmgren said, because UOP's process can produce the same end product from all the feedstocks.
"The report will not be feedstock-specific," Glover said. "It will be generic to whoever can meet the performance requirements."
Which feedstock is best?
Some feedstocks show more promise than others -- at least in the short term.
Tom Todaro, CEO of Targeted Growth, a molecular biology firm that tweaks camelina and algae genes to create productive feedstocks, said algae is eight to 10 years away from production, whereas camelina is ready now.
Boeing's Glover, who also serves as co-chairman of the Algal Biomass Organization, agreed that algae-derived fuels are in their early stages.
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentSo how long before scaled-down turbine engines start powering cars?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy not blend the biofuels w/ liquefied natural gas, instead of regular jet fuel? That would help reducing oil imports.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlant oils and especially algae are not going to do much for aircraft fuel. What they need to do is FT the stalks, other waste biomass into any HC you want by change the catalyst, temp and pressure.
Nor are aircraft going to be doable except for the very rich as fuel costs are too high. High speed trains for land and high speed WIGE vehicles, basically seaplanes that fly in ground effect wil be the future trends as they are the most cost effective. Even the HStrains should use ground effect oner track beds for low drag and noise.
Turbines are too ineff to every drive cars, EV drives are the most eff for that.
Why these? Because oil is $63/bbl yesterday even in a deep recession. When we recover it's going to shoot back up to $150/bbl and more.
LNG tanks weigh too much for aircraft. Could/should be done for WIGE craft.
Gas turbine engine is efficient for cars, Chrysler built it commercially back in the 70s.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car
If it was today it could be made even more efficient.
I was not talking about LNG which needs to be kept in pressurized tank; there is another type of liquid fuel produced from natural gas that does not require pressured fuel tank.
Abrams tanks also use gas turbine engine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGas turbine engine also uses much less number of parts. So it costs cheaper to produce; it is smaller and lighter; it would need a lot less repairs. It would be especially good for a hybrid vehicle.
What this article shows is that there are certain applications for which bio-fuels will make sense. In essence, the military will always have access to hi energy density compact easy to transport and handle fuel sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is important to be clear how we define biofuel technologies. Biofuels are made from two sorts of feedstock.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first demands cultivating the feedstock which requires large quantities of fertilisers, themselves obtained from fossil fuels. So this first method actually doubles CO2 emissions!
If the feedstock is not cultivated, biofuels are carbon-neutral.
See www.eprida.com for a satisfactory CCS sheme.