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."

Re:New Computational Models?

[snl2587]

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.

And Totally Illegal to use.

[Beer_Smurf]

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:Hopefully this works.

[Orange Crush]

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:global dimming

[Phroggy]

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].

Re:This Is Ridiculous

[timmarhy]

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:And Totally Illegal to use.

[ColdWetDog]

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.

Re:Hopefully this works.

[dbIII]

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.

SPIN Translation = Synthetic Fuel from COAL !!!

[Zymergy]

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...

Hydrogen, lots of potential and a pain in the ass

[Shihar]

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, and marginally dangerous high pressure tank or C) both.

There are some potential tricks around this dilemma, but the truth is that we are still a fair ways off. The path towards hydrogen as a fuel source is less than obvious. Hydrogen has a lot of potential, but as it stands, it is a pain in the ass and expensive to make, it is a pain in the ass and expensive to store, and it really while shifts the environmental issues onto the grid where they are perhaps more easily tackled, it is not a silver bullet.

I am not poo-pooing hydrogen. Hell, I WORK for a hydrogen fuel cell company. I am just pointing out that the problem is much harder than it appears, and the golden future much further off than you might think. On top of that, there are lots of competing alternatives to hydrogen that might very well prove to be more utilitarian.

Re:New Computational Models?

[JonathanR]

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:And Totally Illegal to use.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no, you're wrong, each aircraft will have to be tested. Most of the problems will not be in the engines; they'll be in the o-rings, gaskets and sealants used in the fuel system. Much of that is in the aircraft, not the engine. So the GP is right, and you are wrong.

Concrete example, the Grumman AA-1 through AA-1C and AA5 and AA-5A have the engineering work done to allow them to burn ethanol free auto fuel. The AG-5B specifically does not. And yes, the reformulation with ethanol affects the aircraft fuel system, not as much the engine accessories (carb and fuel pump).

Every airframe will have to be tested.

Jet Fuel is Irrelivant

[rsantmann]

I would be suprised if jet fuel makes up .01% of CO2 emissions. Heating (35%), Electricity (42%), and Car Traffic (19%) together make up 96% of green house gas emissions.[1] This is just a convienent sales tactic to make people feel about themselves without actually doing anything. [1] http://www.ytv.fi/ENG/future/climate_change/greenhouse_gas_emissions/frontpage.htm [www.ytv.fi]

Re:global dimming

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrails aren't so much due to the emission of water vapor by the engines as that the engines are much hotter than their surroundings and emitting particles which causes the condensation of water vapor that's already present.