The Development of Ecologically Sound Jet Fuel

Roland Piquepaille writes "Researchers at Princeton University are currently working on two projects to reduce jet travel's role in global warming. The first one, a major project funded by the U.S. Air Force with $7.5 million, is focused on developing computational models that accurately simulate the burning of jet fuel, a complex process not well understood today. The second one, funded by NetJets, a company providing business jets, will help to develop new jet fuels with near-zero net greenhouse gas emissions."

global dimming

[stoolpigeon (454276)]

as long as they keep creating all those contrails that help keep the temperature down. we don't want to get rid of that.

Re:

[rustalot42684 (1055008)]

You're wrong. According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org], contrails have a negative effect. Anyways, the effect of the contrails is vastly outweighed by the carbon emissions. I remember hearing about a study that was saying that after the 9/11 attacks, when there was no air traffic, the temperature dropped. Of course, it's a small sample size, but you can't shut down all air traffic for a month to do a science experiment.

Re:global dimming

[stoolpigeon (454276)]

You're wrong. According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org] contrails have a positive effect. Anyways, I'm not saying that the carbon emissions are good so that is irrelevant. If all they do is switch fuels, but the engines operate under the same principles as they do now, then I imagine contrails will continue to exist as engines will continue to put out water vapor.
 
I don't think anybody has nearly as clear a picture of how our planet's weather as we would like. It sure would be nice. I could plan my days at the beach better and we could quit guessing about what is best for the environment and maybe get a little more consensus and action, though I doubt too much more. So are contrails in and of themselves good or bad? I don't think anyone can say.

Contrails are bad

[giafly (926567)]

So are contrails in and of themselves good or bad? I don't think anyone can say.

It's all in the name. If they were good they'd be called protrails. Also let's agree that I won't graffiti your plane if you won't graffiti my my sky.

Re:global dimming

[Phroggy (441)]

Actually, the difference between low temperatures and high temperatures increased by two degrees [cnn.com]. Whether the net result would be warming or cooling, we don't know for sure, because as you say it's too small a sample size.

You should read about global dimming [wikipedia.org].

And Totally Illegal to use.

[Beer_Smurf (700116)]

Unless this fuel meets the exact spec of existing jet fuel.
Each aircraft type will have to be tested and certificated for use with this fuel.
This is very, very costly and time consuming.

Re:

[stoolpigeon (454276)]

If a few large corporations can really clean up on this - it wont be a problem. You'd be amazed how fast laws can change when high profits can be tied to even the impression of environmental gain.

Re:And Totally Illegal to use.

[Scutter (18425)]

This is very, very costly and time consuming.

Exactly! I agree 100%! It's hard to do, so why even try?

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

If you can't justify the economics of doing so, most for-profit companies (especially the airlines, on razor-thin margins as it is) won't bother. You think any more people will fly because the jet they're traveling in makes them feel better about the environment? Think that'll offset the number who can't afford to fly anymore because their ticket price just quadrupled to afford retrofitting the entire fleet?

Re:

[john82 (68332)]

Given that one of these research projects is funded by NetJets, which is owned by Warren Buffett [netjets.com] and includes Bill Gates [wikipedia.org] on the Board of Directors, I would expect that there's something to this. Neither Buffett or Gates are particularly known for throwing their own money away in pointless exercises.

Re:

[rts008 (812749)]

While I have no real knowledge on jet fuels, I feel comfortable with most 'milspec' requirements. I could be very wrong (really!), but I always thought that JP4 was not much more than 'strict guidelines determined the final product' highly refined kerosene ('coal oil' to the greybeards- oh crap!....I'm turning grey....and BALD!!)

I can see where each type will have to test and certify this, and will be costly and time consuming. I have faith in the engineers involved to consider high altitude aircraft parame

Re:And Totally Illegal to use.

[ColdWetDog (752185)]

Each aircraft type will have to be tested and certificated for use with this fuel.

Nope, each aircraft engine type will have to be tested and certified. A PITA, sure - just do it once and your done.

Curses!

[FlyingSquidStudios (1031284)]

Of course, you know, this means the end of the horse-drawn zeppelin!

The perfect rocket/jet fuel.

[suv4x4 (956391)]

But of course: it's salami.

Or in the words of Mythbuster's Jamie: "This may look like a salami, it may smell like a salami, it may even taste like a salami, but it's rocket fuel."

One of the ingredients of Russian solid rocket fue

[melted (227442)]

Speaking of which, one of the ingredients of Russian solid rocket fuel (for military rockets) was rice husk - a byproduct of rice production. They actually cultivated short grain rice that would have a disproportionate amounts of husk specifically for this, and grew it in Southern Russia near Krasnodar. The grain itself was edible, of course, but it was not particularly good from the culinary point of view.

By all means lets go ahead and do this...

[Sosarian (39969)]

But haven't I read a number of stories just this week that Ocean Shipping and Cement Production are bigger CO2 emitters than airlines?

Ummm.... I have an easy solution

[wamerocity (1106155)]

It's so obvious, I don't know why they haven't done this earlier. They just need to make a HYBRID plane model! Just load it up with 5000 lbs of batteries. Silly scientists...

Re:

[tjl2015 (673427)]

Ask and ye shall receive!

Some guys in Japan made a piloted plane that flew on 160 AA batteries: http://www.primidi.com/2006/07/17.html#a1571 [primidi.com]

Still, I'm a little more impressed by what NASA pulled off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Prototype [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[Dr. Cody (554864)]

I just have this hilarious picture in my head of a light aircraft shitting AAA batteries as it soars through the air.

Don't get too excited

[Heir Of The Mess (939658)]

$7.5 million is nothing to the military, especially the Airforce. They blow $100 of millions on customized database applications, billions on building single aircraft, and trillions on R&D for Airframes. $7.5 million is like some spare change they give to some college students to work on a project for 5 years that will end up being canned.

BMW have probably invested a lot more into research into alternative fuels like hydrogen and still haven't come up with something that has us all dumping our hydrocarbon ways.

What needs to be worked on is a more novel way of taking in air and forcing it out the back, past that you need to work out how to apply external forces to aircraft. We're looking at a lot more than $7.5 mil for that kind of physics lab experimentation.

Re:

[r_jensen11 (598210)]

7.5MM is certainly nothing to sneeze at! In fact, that will almost get you 1/4 of an F-18!

http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f18.htm [fighter-planes.com]

General Characteristics, E and F models
Primary Function: Multi-role attack and fighter aircraft
Contractor: McDonnell Douglas
Unit Cost: $ 35 million
Propulsion: Two F414-GE-400 turbofan engines
Thrust: 22,000 pounds (9,977 kg) static thrust per engine
Length: 60.3 feet (18.5 meters)
Height: 16 feet (4.87 meters)
Maximum Take Off Gross Weight: 66,000 pounds (29,932 kg)
Wingspan: 44.9 feet (13.68 meters)
Ceiling: 50,000+ feet
Speed: Mach 1.8+
Crew:
A,C and E models: One
B,D and F models: Two
Armament: One 20mm M-61A1 Vulcan cannon;
External payload: AIM 9 Sidewinder, AIM 7 Sparrow, AIM-120 AMRAAM, Harpoon, Harm, Shrike, SLAM, SLAM-ER, Walleye, Maverick missiles; Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW); Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM); various general purpose bombs, mines and rockets.
First Flight December 1995

This Is Ridiculous

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

Several studies have indicated that despite the carbon emissions, the vapor trails of commercial jets actually create a net COOLING effect due to albedo. The conclusion of one research paper from a reputable institution stated that if we want to alleviate global warming due to CO2, we should actively encourage jet travel!

Jesus, people. In our zeal to protect the environment (which I share), let's concentrate on the REAL problems please! And stop all this irrelevant noise which just distracts us from those real problems.

Re:

[Cecil (37810)]

Venus is permanently covered in cloud and has the highest albedo in the solar system. I wonder how that's working out for them... oh, that's right, it's hotter than Mercury.

Cough up these studies, please.

Nice "Straw Man" Argument!

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

And I suppose that the thick atmosphere of Jupiter makes it warm, too?

I made a valid point. Don't be an ass.

Re:

[Cecil (37810)]

Do your own homework and research your own subjects.

I've [proquestk12.com] already [nasa.gov] done [colorado.edu] so [nature.com].

You're the one spewing empirically disproved ideas. The last link in particular is extremely pointed, direct and concise in its destruction of your blatantly false assertion.

And you have the audacity to accuse me of posing strawmen. Go back under your bridge, troll.

Re:

[Bongo Bill (853669)]

There's much more to environmentalism than global warming.

Re:

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

Yes. But according to the post TFA was about carbon emissions and global warming. Please try to follow the topic. Thanks.

Re:

[timmarhy (659436)]

Global warming is one such distraction. you all realise C02 isn't what creates the green house effect right?

there's various holes in the global warming C02 theory.

1. other planets are also warming

2. C02 lags temp. increases

3. The hottest years on record predate industrialisation.

The idea that jet travel is a green house problem is pure, undiluted bullcrap. infact it's reading on my bullshit meter cracked the guage.

Re:

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

I am certainly aware of this. In fact, the best evidence shows that historically, CO2 lags temperature increases by a full 800 years!

But I was not the one making a big deal out of something that, according to their own arguments, is a net benefit, not a problem. Go figure.

Re:

[dbIII (701233)]

It's a Roland article - the science does not have to make sense. At least it isn't perpetual motion this time.

Maglev

[BlueParrot (965239)]

For flights that don't cross the oceans it seems to me that Maglev trains is the way to go. They can actually reach higher speeds than a commercial airliner, and if you want to be really sci-fi you could operate them inside an evacuated tube, effectively eliminating air-resistance, and thus allowing velocities far above the speed of sound. Power would of course come from nuclear reactors, because as we all know, nuclear reactors cure cancer... ( no, really ).

Airport Security

[Airw0lf (795770)]

Some people would actively seek out the trains given how much of a hassle airport security is. Everything would of course be fine until some nutjob figured out a way to blow up a maglev train...

I can think of some problems

[Quadraginta (902985)]

Seems likely to me this suffers from several serious problems:

(1) I can't easily believe it's more efficient. Granted, you use a fair amount of energy raising a jetliner to 40,000 feet, but it can't be that much, compared to what you need to use to keep it levitated and push air out of the way at 600 knots for hours and hours -- and a maglev train needs to do that, too. Indeed, air resistance is surely much higher on the maglev train, which has to operate near sea level instead of at the significantly lower air pressures in the stratosphere.

(2) You've got an incredible infrastructure problem. Essentially, you've got to build the entire Interstate highway system over again -- only this time it can't be just smooth concrete, it's got to be ultrasmooth, ultrastraight rails kept in alignment to the nearest micrometer along thousands of miles, in rain or shine, snow or mud or hurricane or flood, and with marvelous superconducting magnet windings all along them that have to be kept in absolutely perfect working order all the time, because you can't afford one small booboo in your levitation when you're flying along near the speed of sound 1.5 inches off the ground. I can't even imagine how you're going to switch maglev trains from one track to another while they're blistering along at 600 MPH. Those are going to be some very, very expensive switches.

Thing is, with airplanes you only need to build airports, and that's really only just laying down a big long strip of concrete and installing radar. You don't need to build much stuff between destination cities. You also don't need to lay down power along the entire route of every route they fly, because the motor goes along with the carriage.

(3) You've got an amazing safety issue. In the stratosphere there's not much you can run into at jet speeds, fortunately. But on the ground? Say a 50 pound rock falls off a rock face and dings the marvelous superconducting track, so that when the maglev train comes along 20 minutes later it hits a "dry spot" and the carriage dips down 3 inches and hits the ground at 600 knots. BOOM. You'd have to identify the passengers by DNA analysis of tiny bone fragments.

(4) Noise? I live next to a major rail line, and those things are noisy enough at 60-80 MPH. If they came by at 600, it wouldn't be possible to live within half a mile of the track. How does that square with the fact that most of the travel would be to and through major urban areas? Thing about airplanes is, except for within a few miles of the airport, you can't hear them because they fly two miles or more above us.

Re:

[Quadraginta (902985)]

Well...

If the train levitates, there is no interaction between rail and train, and thus no noise except for the wind.

Imagine how much noise a tornado makes. And that's a mere 300 MPH wind. Now imagine a 600 MPH tornado. How close could you stand without losing your hearing?

Also this:

Subterrenean infrastructure usually costs a magnitude (if that is enough)

Not even a hair's breadth of a smidgen of close enough, when you are talking subterranean evacuated infrastructure. You might as well be talking about

SPIN Translation = Synthetic Fuel from COAL !!!

[Zymergy (803632)]

Jet turbine power plants have have 2 SIGNIFICANT advantages:
(1)They can operate with just about any type of chemically and thermally stable combustible fluid with a sufficient energy density having consistent and reliable combustion properties.
and
(2) They are not hampered by the well-known significant inefficiencies introduced by exhaust emissions systems such as mufflers, catalytic converters, EGR systems, etc..

NOTE: Modern Jet fuels are hydrocarbon BLENDS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel [wikipedia.org]
These blends are created as cheaply as possible to meet specific fuel properties and standards, including their energy content, and intended use: http://www.csgnetwork.com/jetfuel.html [csgnetwork.com]
There have been many well-intentioned pushes for "replacement" Jet fuels, including a "safer" version which was intended to reduce fire balls when Jets crashed, but it was a flop as it introduced safety concerns as the 'safety' additive increased the possibility of a flame-out (it basically made the flash point of the fuel higher and reduced the flammability of jet fuel mist) and it cost way too much for little if any margin of safety it would have introduced. (Most people in jet crashes do not die from a fireball of jet fuel, but from actually hitting the mountain, crashing into the ground/ocean, or basically some form of 'Aortic Dissection' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aortic_dissection [wikipedia.org] )

I say that this is really a SPIN and a PR campaign.

Everyone looks good waving the environmental flag, but when compared to boats, trains, and trucking, jets are NEVER environmentally friendly. (Jets have to fight gravity continuously when moving goods and people = INEFFICIENT)
TFA ( http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S18/96/92S56/index.xml [princeton.edu] ) is a Press Release about research into processing "Biomass" into Jet fuel And, oh ya BYW, COAL!! THAT'S RIGHT, COAL!
We are talking about fuel from "other than" OIL Sources = SYNTHETIC FUEL (AKA SynFuel), specifically SYNTHETIC "JET" FUEL. http://www.syntroleum.com/pr_individualpressrelease.aspx?NewsID=907157 [syntroleum.com]

This really has EVERYTHING to do with the price of oil being SKY HIGH (pun intended): http://www.peak-oil-news.info/new-synthetic-jet-fuel/ [peak-oil-news.info]
Everyone knows that Aviation drinks fuel of any kind faster than other transportation types (when you realize the efficiency ratio of Distance traveled with quantity of cargo compared to actual fuel used per unit cargo (person, metric ton, etc..) for that given distance)
We are talking about stirring up money to get more research into the conversion of Coal into Synthetic Jet fuel (and other fuels) and we'll get to work with biomass too.
Oil is so expensive these days it is becoming just as cheap to chemically engineer/create (from scratch!) synthetic Jet Fuels from Coal. (which the US still has hundreds of years worth)
Why expensively pump it out of the deep ocean, or the middle east, and then transport around the planet (BYW, they use ships for this because of their efficiency, not jet aircraft) when you can just dig up some local Coal or Bitumen Tar Sand deposit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands [wikipedia.org] and make your own synthetic fuel.
(Now observe the pollutants released and the energy required during the "upgrading" of Coal/Bitumen into the new Synthetic Jet Fuel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upgrader [wikipedia.org] )
FYI: The Germans made Synthetic Jet Fuel during WWII because they had Coal but not so much oil...

Re:

[snl2587 (1177409)]

I assume other teams are working on that other question. Given how much jet fuel is used daily, this small step towards reducing greenhouse gases is certainly welcome.

Re:New Computational Models?

[bucky0 (229117)]

How is better public transportation going to decrease the carbon emissions when I fly from Atlanta to London in a month? The article is about improving the efficiency of Jet transportation, not cars. Those emissions effect the atmosphere much differently because they're injected at a much higher atmosphere.

Re:New Computational Models?

[JonathanR (852748)]

The other point is that airplane travel is usually selected for huge travel distances, of the sort that you would avoid using your car. Quoting passenger miles per gallon or whatever (A380 is about 2.9 litres/100 passenger kilometres) and making comparisons to automobile fuel consumption (10-20 litres/100 kilometres) is a nonsense - you don't jump in your car and fly to the other side of the world quite like you do in a plane. It is quite possible to exceed your annual auto mileage with one international plane trip.

Re:New Computational Models?

[feepness (543479)]

So they're going to reduce the greenhouse gas output of planes in a vein bid to offset the greenhouse emissions caused by running their super computer to calculate ways of reducing the greenhouse emissions caused by planes?

Don't worry, another team is working on simulating the greenhouse gas output of supercomputer simulations of jet engines in a bid to better understand and reduce them.

Re:

[john82 (68332)]

Why don't they better model the public transport systems in many cities and develop better ways of moving dumb people about. Who hasn't noticed the 9-5 suit wearing office junkie driving their SUV in peak hour to the city then complaining about the hour(s) travelling time, the cost of fuel and parking? I'd sure they could do something about those people (possibly involving gasses) and really make the world a better place.

Judging from your comment, I have a hard time believing your own supposed superiority.

Re:

[rts008 (812749)]

"...in a vein bid..."
And I raise you an artery and two lymph nodes.

Sheesh, and YOU of all people throwing out the whole "dumb people" line. Hah!

Let's not forget this Super Genius (ala Wile E. Coyote) line of yours:
"I'd sure they could do something about those people (possibly involving gasses) and really make the world a better place."

'I'd sure they..." WTF? Where did you learn Engrish? 'All your base belong to us!' style of 'Skool of Interweb Riting'?

As for the gassing these dumb people to make the world a

Re:

[sqrt(2) (786011)]

You realize you can't sage threads on slashdot, right?

Re:Hopefully this works.

[Orange Crush (934731)]

this is the first "synfuel" I've seen that claims a near-zero greenhouse gas emission

Near-zero net emissions. The fuel itself releases CO2 when burned, while the plants from which the fuel is derived pull it right back out of the air for the next batch of fuel.

Re:Hopefully this works.

[Conspicuous Coward (938979)]

Except that what the article states makes no sense.

An "especially attractive feature" of processing coal and biomass together to make synfuels is that it requires only half the amount of biomaterial as pure biofuel production, while still making fuels with near-zero greenhouse gas emissions, Williams said.

If they're using 50% coal and 50% biomass won't the result will still be a hydrocarbon? In which case their actual CO2 emissions will be pretty much as normal, with around 50% of those emissions theoretically offset in the process of growing the biomass in the first place.
It's certainly not going to be anywhere near zero emissions unless they're proposing some way to filter the CO2 out of the jet exhaust.

Even a 50% reduction in net warming using this method seems unfeasible, because emitting greenhouse gases up in the stratosphere causes more net warming than emitting them on the ground, i forget the exact factor, I thinks it's estimated to be around 50% more. And that's still ignoring the fact that putting human beings and industry into competition for limited arable land resources is a horrible idea in the first place.

Maybe this is serious research and I'm just missing some important point, but it sounds horribly like airline industry FUD to me...

Re:

[dbIII (701233)]

I used to be pretty skeptical about sequestration but apparently it has been an oil drilling technique for years to push gas down to drive the oil out so we shouldn't dismiss it completely out of hand. I wouldn't expect the gas to stay there but there's a lot of methane etc. that has been down there for millions of years already. Note that I'm using the dictionary definition of gas and not US slang for fuel.

Re:

[JonathanR (852748)]

CO2 injection is a useful tool for oil engineers for maintaining the flow of oil within a reservoir. It is not really about keeping reservoir pressure up, but more about enhancing flow by lowering the effective crude viscosity. Having said that, what CO2 you pump into the reservior will also come up with the crude, resulting in additional CO2 handling costs.

So don't expect CO2 sequestration to be the climate change saviour. The use in oil production is still limited to certain field geologies and crude t

Re:

[apathy maybe (922212)]

Kerosene. Vegetable oil. Etc.

You know, what planes used to run on. Of course, we will have to stop using jets...

That'll mean taking longer to get from point A to point B, using less people etc. But I'm sure none of us will mind, what with the development of remote communications devices, soon all that pesky business travellers will be able to stay at home! (And go yachting remotely as well, sham that...)

Planes were in the air before jet fuel was created, and I'm sure they can keep going after the rock oil i

Re:

[mdsolar (1045926)]

The think about fuel for aviation is that you realy do need high energy density in both volume and mass. Hydrogen is a good fuel in terms of energy per unit mass, but it is difficult to get teh volume down. In current engine designs you want to watch the flash point as well as low temperature behavior. This is a big question alternative fuels. Developing alternatives is considered to be a military necessity owing to potential supply disruptions. This group is looking at synthetic fuel production form a

Hydrogen, lots of potential and a pain in the ass

[Shihar (153932)]

The energy/mass ratio is not and never really has been the issue with hydrogen. The issue with hydrogen is the energy energy/volume ratio. Hydrogen's big problem is that it takes a lot of energy to squeeze into a small enough space to be worth while. Even if you are willing to burn the energy to compress hydrogen down into something that is tolerably dense, you are now talking about either A) a very heavy and expensive cooling system that is keeping it in liquid form or B) an extremely heavy, expensive,

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[dintech (998802)]

Pretty much everything but the coast excluding Orange County and parts of San Diego.

This is confusing. I think we need a Venn diagram I think...