Virgin Atlantic Flies 747 with Biofuel

[tonyw]

As much as I think Richard Branson's a publicity #####, I have to give him credit for this one.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/tech/20080224-0733-britain-biofuelflight1stld-writethru.html

Virgin Atlantic carried out the world's first flight of a commercial aircraft powered with biofuel on Sunday in an effort to show it can produce less carbon dioxide than normal jet fuels.

Sunday's flight was partially fueled with a biofuel mixture of coconut and babassu oil in one of its four main fuel tanks.

 

[Patrick]

Its the same argument as any other alternative fuel: how much energy was expended creating the biofuel? I'm willing to bet its not a winning situation, as plenty of diesel was burned in the production of that biofuel, and it likely has a lower energy density than standard Jet-A, so more will be burned to get the same performance.

The problem is simply that crude oil is far too convenient. You pump it out of the ground (a very proven science at this point), refine it (also very proven) and its available for transport and use.

 

[mpenguin1]

As much as I think Richard Branson's a publicity #####, I have to give him credit for this one.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/tech/20080224-0733-britain-biofuelflight1stld-writethru.html

Virgin Atlantic carried out the world's first flight of a commercial aircraft powered with biofuel on Sunday in an effort to show it can produce less carbon dioxide than normal jet fuels.

Sunday's flight was partially fueled with a biofuel mixture of coconut and babassu oil in one of its four main fuel tanks.

In other news, the price of coconuts jumped 20% Using food as a fuel source is not the way to go.

 

[MQAAord]

In other news, the price of coconuts jumped 20% Using food as a fuel source is not the way to go.

Ah, but using food product waste is! Cellulosic ethanol is where I think development should be. That uses biowaste product, like the left over stalks of sugar cane (just as an example) and turns that leftover product that companies usually have to pay to have removed, into a fuel source! Using straight corn works, but I think that science needs to expand further on it and I think it could be a wonderful thing.

I think that plant matter=fuel is not a long term solution, but I think it will help us bridge the gap between fossil fuel reliance and the next "big thing". I think solar power is vastly underutilized, and I'd like to see more development into solar power.

 

[tonyw]

We can bury our heads in the sand and say, it's too hard or we can go and try things.

It's a good first step. Is it perfect? Nope.

But it beats not trying.

 

[berge7f9]

First I have a question for anyone who can answer it.

Does today's situation where gasoline-driven automobiles dominate the American landscape cause an increase in Jet fuel prices?

If the answer is yes, then it seems the best way to lower Jet fuel prices is to convert all new cars manufactured to be electrically powered by batteries. Now the question is how to produce enough energy to charge the batteries. With electricity produced from nuclear powerplants. Its proven to be safe (look at France) and produces practically UNLIMITED quantities of electricity.

Of course this idea is not going to happen in the U.S. because of our stupid and ridiculous fear of nuclear power. When someone says the word 'nuclear' it instantly brings up negative connotations similar to the idea of 'practicing stalls' to an ill-informed private pilot student. Most uneducated people think of fallout, death, and calamity when one hears the word 'nuclear.' If it so unsafe, tell me please why France has used nuclear power for many many years and has no proven to have died or gotten cancer related to the use of nuclear power.


The solution is there; we just dont want to do it

 

[Swen]

We can bury our heads in the sand and say, it's too hard or we can go and try things.

It's a good first step. Is it perfect? Nope.

But it beats not trying.

Indeed.

First I have a question for anyone who can answer it.

Does today's situation where gasoline-driven automobiles dominate the American landscape cause an increase in Jet fuel prices?

If the answer is yes, then it seems the best way to lower Jet fuel prices is to convert all new cars manufactured to be electrically powered by batteries. Now the question is how to produce enough energy to charge the batteries. With electricity produced from nuclear powerplants. Its proven to be safe (look at France) and produces practically UNLIMITED quantities of electricity.

Of course this idea is not going to happen in the U.S. because of our stupid and ridiculous fear of nuclear power. When someone says the word 'nuclear' it instantly brings up negative connotations similar to the idea of 'practicing stalls' to an ill-informed private pilot student. Most uneducated people think of fallout, death, and calamity when one hears the word 'nuclear.' If it so unsafe, tell me please why France has used nuclear power for many many years and has no proven to have died or gotten cancer related to the use of nuclear power.


The solution is there; we just dont want to do it

You freaked me out early in your post, but I settled down after reading the rest. So I concur with you sentiments.

Most people calling for plug in cars don't understand that grid electricity doesn't come from jellybean fields; they basically do not understand that replacing gasoline automobiles with electric cars is just a feel-good alternative based on how the current eltricity grid is powered.

 

[mpenguin1]

First I have a question for anyone who can answer it.

Does today's situation where gasoline-driven automobiles dominate the American landscape cause an increase in Jet fuel prices?

If the answer is yes, then it seems the best way to lower Jet fuel prices is to convert all new cars manufactured to be electrically powered by batteries. Now the question is how to produce enough energy to charge the batteries. With electricity produced from nuclear powerplants. Its proven to be safe (look at France) and produces practically UNLIMITED quantities of electricity.

Of course this idea is not going to happen in the U.S. because of our stupid and ridiculous fear of nuclear power. When someone says the word 'nuclear' it instantly brings up negative connotations similar to the idea of 'practicing stalls' to an ill-informed private pilot student. Most uneducated people think of fallout, death, and calamity when one hears the word 'nuclear.' If it so unsafe, tell me please why France has used nuclear power for many many years and has no proven to have died or gotten cancer related to the use of nuclear power.


The solution is there; we just dont want to do it

Need to look at the reason for the rise in gas prices, & the reason is more complex than people are lead to believe.


1. Increase of the Industrial base of China & India
2. Rise of the middle class in China & India
3. Fear of a dwindling supply of oil, which there is not.
4. Unstable governments in the areas that supply oil.
5. Lack of refineries internationally (just 1 example, for all the oil Iran has, they do not have enough refineries for their own consumption)


Before cars are converted to battery generated electric, the infrastructure needs to be in place for the cars to plug in, and can the current power generator grids handle it.....

Clean coal technology & Nuclear are the short term solutions. Fusion, Solar & Wind technology are the future.

New houses in Las Vegas, California, Hawaii, Arizona, etc, should have solar panels installed.....

 

[berge7f9]

Need to look at the reason for the rise in gas prices, & the reason is more complex than people are lead to believe.


1. Increase of the Industrial base of China & India
2. Rise of the middle class in China & India
3. Fear of a dwindling supply of oil, which there is not.
4. Unstable governments in the areas that supply oil.
5. Lack of refineries internationally (just 1 example, for all the oil Iran has, they do not have enough refineries for their own consumption)


Before cars are converted to battery generated electric, the infrastructure needs to be in place for the cars to plug in, and can the current power generator grids handle it.....

Clean coal technology & Nuclear are the short term solutions. Fusion, Solar & Wind technology are the future.
.....

I agree that future fusion, solar, and wind technology advances will help the situation greatly. But how far into the future are we talking about? 10, 50, 100 yrs?

I agree that in order for the electric car society to function properly, there needs to be an infrastructure in place. But as a layperson, I feel the technology for electric service stations is much much closer than fusion, solar, and windand etc. It just needs a Herculean government effort to get it going.

Furthermore, of all the reasons (1-5) that you listed, which of those factors can we exert control over in such a way that will drive down oil prices to the point where the common airline can provide somewhat decent customer service again without sacrificing pensions, pilots, and peanuts?

 

[WAFlyBoy]

3. Fear of a dwindling supply of oil, which there is not.

Do you know something that the profession of geology does not?

5. Lack of refineries internationally (just 1 example, for all the oil Iran has, they do not have enough refineries for their own consumption)

The US is in this situation also.

Clean coal technology

HAHAHAHAHAHA LOLOLOLOLOL. I'm sorry.... did you just put clean and coal in the same sentence?

....Nuclear are the short term solutions.

Short term indeed. Ignoring the problem of waste disposal, is Uranium not a finite resource?

Fusion, Solar & Wind technology are the future.

Not to mention lifestyle changes in the direction of conservation.

New houses in Las Vegas, California, Hawaii, Arizona, etc, should have solar panels installed.....

Most of the homes of which you speak are part of suburban-sprawl communities; A community plan that, from what I can see, will likely become obsolete in this century, and perhaps in the next few decades. (Barring some miraculous and gigantic fossil fuel or technological discovery.)

None the less, we agree on one thing: the price of oil (and it's downstream products) is formulated through a complex series of market-force and political events that occur all over the globe. Trying to understand it without both privileged information and a good understanding of econometrics is probably an act of futility for most people. But it's fun to BS about.

 

[WAFlyBoy]

Of course this idea is not going to happen in the U.S. because of our stupid and ridiculous fear of nuclear power. When someone says the word 'nuclear' it instantly brings up negative connotations similar to the idea of 'practicing stalls' to an ill-informed private pilot student. Most uneducated people think of fallout, death, and calamity when one hears the word 'nuclear.' If it so unsafe, tell me please why France has used nuclear power for many many years and has no proven to have died or gotten cancer related to the use of nuclear power.


The solution is there; we just dont want to do it

Although I agree that nuclear power still has a stigma in the eyes of the American public, I do not believe this is to be the main reason it hasn't been more developed in the US.

As fossil energy has become more expensive and nuclear power technology has become more sophisticated, I believe we will see a shift of consumer interest in this power source. Perhaps one of the major road blocks to nuclear infrastructure is the lack of capital investment in this area. Early nuclear power programs looked good on paper to utility operators. Although they required a very large initial capital investment, the cost of operating them was projected to be very small. Unfortunately, due to a series of factors (nuclear accidents, interest rate fluctuations, increased government regulation, and lack of experience building reactors), these projects turned out to be financial disasters that wouldn't be forgotten for decades.

Recently, there has been evidence of a new interest in nuclear power. (Applications for project approvals has been on the rise in recent years.) Utilities and other investors are looking into nuclear power again, probably in part due to the success it's experienced in Europe. The amount of time required to construct a nuclear facility has been more predicable in recent years (which means construction costs are more predictable), the cost of other energy sources is increasing, and perhaps the two accidents that gave nuclear power a bad public image are now swept far enough under the carpet to allow us to give it another chance.

For bad or good, I believe nuclear power will rise again.