Biofuels: sustainable energy for jet airplanes.

[JohnDBarrow]

It seems as biofuel is a sustsainable energy source for aviation that can replace fossil fuels for this purpose 100%.  I would have to say, use biofuels only where they are absolutely necessary. You cannot power jet planes, or any aircraft that flies as fast and as far as jet planes, from electricty or batteries as far as I know. The earth has a limited amount of arable land area to produce fuels by ag. Farming is still needed to feed us and our domestic animals. I would have to say produce electricity by as many renewable sources as possible that does not take up a lot of land area. How sustainable is nuclear power even? Does man have enough materials to continue to make electricity by nuke technology until the sun burns out or intelligent life becomes extinct on earth, whichever comes first? I understand it takes rare elements as plutonium and uranium to make nuclear power. How much of these elements do we have left to much how much power for how many years to come? Of course, we throw electricity by wind, sun, river current and sea tide into the mix too. I would say that, as a fossil fuels replacement, electricty produced by renewable energy resources (other than by farming) is the way to go for land based vehicles and ground equipment. 

 

From the Lab to the Sky: Five Things to Know about Biofuel-Powered Flights | Department of Energy

PS- To get rid of all that nasty radioactive waste from nuke power plants, simply load it into a rocket and shoot it into space as soon as enough of it is collected to justify the cost of a rocket shot. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/18/growing-share-of-americans-favor-more-nuclear-power/#:~:text=Advocates for nuclear power argue,among both parties since 2020.

 

Edited July 3 by JohnDBarrow

[swansont]

41 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

PS- To get rid of all that nasty radioactive waste from nuke power plants, simply load it into a rocket and shoot it into space as soon as enough of it is collected to justify the cost of a rocket shot.

Because rocket launches never fail and deposit their payload back on earth (either immediately or from a decaying orbit).

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, JohnDBarrow said:

It seems as biofuel is a sustainable energy source for aviation that can replace fossil fuels for this purpose 100%. 

Are the crops used for biofuels being grown without using fossil fuels to run the farm equipment or process the crops?

The track record for biofuels, in this regard, is not good.  Also, arable land for food is not increasing but hungry mouths are.  

[iNow]

Testing planes powered by hydrogen is more common right now, with batteries as the next great hope, AFAIK. Challenge is batteries are heavy so currently are not as plausible for commercial planes as they are for sport tuned and smaller aircraft. 

Biodiesel planes have been flown for a long time, including by Iowa farmers using them to spray the corn they’ll be later selling for ethanol. 

Edited July 4 by iNow

[JohnDBarrow]

23 hours ago, TheVat said:

Are the crops used for biofuels being grown without using fossil fuels to run the farm equipment or process the crops?

The track record for biofuels, in this regard, is not good.  Also, arable land for food is not increasing but hungry mouths are.  

No, but they should be using renewable energy of some kind to run those farm tractors and harvesters. Perhaps solid-state battery electrics for those. 

The hungry mouths problem might also be a global population problem. 

Something is going to have to give somewhere so that man can live a sustainable modern, comfortable and eco-safe lifestyle. 

 

22 hours ago, iNow said:

Testing planes powered by hydrogen is more common right now, with batteries as the next great hope, AFAIK. Challenge is batteries are heavy so currently are not as plausible for commercial planes as they are for sport tuned and smaller aircraft. 

Biodiesel planes have been flown for a long time, including by Iowa farmers using them to spray the corn they’ll be later selling for ethanol. 

Commercial planes are also jets and fast. I can't see how you can run a jet on batteries. Biofuels probably should be restricted to commercial aviation and nostalgic railroads. Even oil-burning steam locomotives could heat their boilers with it. Some excursion trains with diesel-electric engines are burning 100% biodiesel already. Modern trains for Class A, B and C railroads for freight and long-distance passenger service could be run on electrified railways. Everything on the ground can be run on some sort of electric technology. Solid-state batteries will open new doors. Merchant ships for freight can also be nuclear powered like naval warships. 

Edited July 4 by JohnDBarrow

[iNow]

56 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

I can't see how you can run a jet on batteries

Your incredulity isn’t relevant tho 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Biofuels probably should be restricted to commercial aviation and nostalgic railroads

That's a weird combination. Why should biofuels be restricted to commercial aviation and nostalgic railroads (whatever that is).

[JohnDBarrow]

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

That's a weird combination. Why should biofuels be restricted to commercial aviation and nostalgic railroads (whatever that is).

Nostalgic railroads are those fun train rides with old steam locomotives and earlier 20th century diesel electrics.  Having electrification for these train rides would not be aesthetically pleasing.  It is not practical to try to produce biofuels for such large scale as automobiles. Biofuels production consumes precious farmland. Train rides with vintage rolling stock for amusement and airplanes are just a small percentage of the world's overall energy consumption. 

 

I still don't see how one can power a jumbo jet by electricity or without any combustible fuels.  It all has to do with the quantity of energy resources and the various needs and wants for energy consumption.  Some forms of energy consumers are on a much larger scale than others. The world's collective automobiles have a much higher demand for energy produced in mass quantities than do the world's collective aircraft. There is only so much energy in its various forms available at any given time for whatever purposes man wants to use it. I think electricity by nuclear plants is the most abundant way to make mass-produced energy worldwide.  Many more things can be practically made to run on electricity than things that absolutely require combustible fuels for aesthetics (vintage locomotives) or physical necessity (jetliners).

 

Biofuels take up a lot of real estate for farming. Nuclear reactors take up much less real estate. The earth's surface is covered in 70% water. Plenty of cooling provisions for nuclear plants. Land is a precious resource that has to be budgeted like energy and materials. They could even build nuke power plants off shore submerged below the ocean's surface so they don't look ugly to beachgoers. Nuke plants could even be submerged in the Great Lakes. Outta sight, outta mind! 

Edited July 5 by JohnDBarrow

[zapatos]

How are you going to charge batteries in tanks, Formula 1 racing cars, military aviation, rocket launches, oil tankers, cruise ships, etc.?

[JohnDBarrow]

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

How are you going to charge batteries in tanks, Formula 1 racing cars, military aviation, rocket launches, oil tankers, cruise ships, etc.?

Automobile racing is a stupid, unnecessary sport. Bicycle racing is much better for health. Military aviation could use biofuels.  Perhaps biofuels use could be extended to military ground vehicles and field power equipment. Ships can still be nuclear or sailing. I would say use biofuels wherever electricity, batteries, green hydrogen or nuclear power is not possible, cost-effective, feasible and/or practical.  The military and the motorsports industry is not going to have fossil fuels available to piss away forever also. The military could also go back to the cavalry and fight on horseback. 

 

Man's discovery and use of petroleum has made militaries so much more destructive worldwide than ever before in human history. Man's military fighting power was quite limited when he relied upon horses, not motor vehicles, observation hot air balloons, not airplanes and helicopters, coal or wood-burning steam locomotives for rail transport and sailing ships for sea power. 

 

 

Edited July 5 by JohnDBarrow

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Automobile racing is a stupid, unnecessary sport.

Who in the f*** do you think you are that you get to decide that people are allowed to enjoy nostalgia trains but not car racing?!?!

21 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

The military could also go back to the cavalry and fight on horseback. 

Now you are just trolling. I'm done here.

[TheVat]

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5118313/2023/12/07/f1-sustainable-fuels-regulations/

 

F1 currently uses E10 fuel, which contains 10 percent renewable ethanol, while Formula Two and Formula Three used a 55 percent “drop-in” sustainable fuel during the 2023 season. But come 2026, F1 will use 100 percent sustainable fuel with its new era of power units....

One major difference between developing road fuels and race fuel is that F1 is not allowing manufacturers to use co-processing, which is when renewable feedstocks and crude oil are processed simultaneously. This is a critical component for achieving scale while building new plants, Hirsz said, because it’s using existing refineries to produce the low-carbon fuels.

 

3 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Automobile racing is a stupid, unnecessary sport.

Be a shame if that judgemental attitude were directed at your pastimes.  Have a seat.

[JohnDBarrow]

Uranium supplies are limited, but this material is recyclable. 

 

 

Edited July 6 by JohnDBarrow