Virgin Atlantic to run 747 on Biofuel

[Pangloss]

I thought folks here might find this story interesting. Apparently Virgin Atlantic ran run one of its 747s on 20% biofuel (80% regular avgas) today on a no-passengers run from London to Amsterdam.

 

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/187798,virgin-atlantic-boeing-makes-first-bio-fuelled-flight.html

[Ozone]

I did some rough calculations for the fun-of-it. The values are mole-based and adjusted for densities, etc., but do not account for processing energy, transport or high-heating value differences in fuel types (Maybe I'll do that later). Pimentel would, no doubt, wag his finger at me!

 

Assuming a fuel capacity of 217053 L (http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/747/ ) and a trip range of approximately 356 km (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distances.html?n=136 ), 20 % biodiesel (normalized to methylstearate) made from soybeans at (a conservative) 11.50 USD/bu (they broke 12 USD/bu recently) at roughly 27.2 kg/bushel (20 g/100g oil) we would need:

 

6985 bushels of soybeans (80,330 USD, on beans *alone*) to fill the tank (at 20 % biodiesel) or 183 bushels for the trip. Waste would include approximately 83 L of crude glycerol/trip or 3146 L/tank.

 

Whilst I am in firm support of biofuel use wherever feasible (Thumbs-up to Virgin), these (admittedly back-of-the-napkin) calculations seem to point out that:

 

1. We need cheaper (and less food/land intensive) sources of oil for biodiesel than soybeans (rape will go up too). Sources may include bacteria/yeasts or algae.

 

2. We will be up-the-wazoo in almost worthless waste glycerol in no time.

 

3. We are still using lots Avgas.

 

Thanks for the heads-up!

 

Cheers,

 

O3

[Pangloss]

Meanwhile we have a wheat shortage and prices that growers haven't seen in their lifetime due to wheat crops being changed to "ethanol crops". Alternative fuels were supposed to SAVE us from inflation; instead it's CAUSING it.

[ecoli]

Meanwhile we have a wheat shortage and prices that growers haven't seen in their lifetime due to wheat crops being changed to "ethanol crops". Alternative fuels were supposed to SAVE us from inflation; instead it's CAUSING it.

that's the danger of heavy subsidization... this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

[Ozone]

I agree with you both. But, still, it's cool that a non-petroleum source of liquid fuel is involved.To lighten things up, a little, I bring you a flight to Amsterdam powered using...

 

Amazon Nuts!

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2451986620080224?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

 

I couldn't resist. Anyway, at least it's not soybeans!

 

Jatropha, anyone (the nuts made me think of it:D)?

 

Cheers,

 

O3

[ecoli]

I agree with you both. But, still, it's cool that a non-petroleum source of liquid fuel is involved.

true, but should we be risking the economy and taxpayer dollars because something is "cool"?

[Pangloss]

I wonder how much petrol was consumed transporting the nuts from South America to Europe.

[DrP]

being fair to Mr Branson - I saw a TV interview with him sunday morning - he stated that it was an experiment to prove that their are alternate possibilites - they know their biofuel isn't the final answer, their test was just to show/prove that alternative CAN be used. They are hoping to develop their ideas further and come up with something sustainable and 'greener' than kerosine - it cant be a bad thing in the long run.

[Mr Skeptic]

I wouldn't worry too much about it. They won't likely be running their plane on biofuels until it is very cost-effective to do so, other than for testing purposes (and maybe publicity). I think it is important that they do some testing so that they will be ready to switch to biofuels when the time comes.

[CaptainPanic]

true, but should we be risking the economy and taxpayer dollars because something is "cool"?

 

Lol, my view is completely opposite from yours. I think we should try not to risk our climate and our one and only planet. We know how to rebuild an economy (western civilization at least has done this several times, in the 1930's, after WW2 - ok, ok, I may oversimplify "rebuilding the economy", but the massive devastation that stopping using fossil fuels will cause is also overestimated by economists)...

 

The thing is: we don't know how to rebuild a climate.

 

I just hope that that 747 was not flying on some stupid oil that comes from a tropical country where forest was burned to make space for plantations. Nothing wrong with higher prices, nothing wrong with bio-fuels, very many things wrong with burning forests.

[swansont]

true, but should we be risking the economy and taxpayer dollars because something is "cool"?

 

I think there are orders of magnitude difference between risking the economy and doing a demonstration, or even extensive R&D, of taxpayer-subsidized alternative fuels. The problem appears to be that we're past the R&D stage and have gone into active production mode of fuels chosen for some reason other than energy yield.

[Norman Albers]

Farmers working with the USDA grew and monitored production of switchgrass which can now be broken down to yield alcohol. They state in Sci.Am. that biorefineries are now being built. They offer the figure of 540 percent more energy returned than cost of growing. Corn gives 25%!! (Forgive me if this is not the best place to post this; feel free to tell me where to go...)

[Psycho]

Farmers working with the USDA grew and monitored production of switchgrass which can now be broken down to yield alcohol. They state in Sci.Am. that biorefineries are now being built. They offer the figure of 540 percent more energy returned than cost of growing. Corn gives 25%!! (Forgive me if this is not the best place to post this; feel free to tell me where to go...)

 

Yes but it is still taking farm land away from food production plus the fact that it isn't really solving anything, if everything turned to biofuel it wouldn't lower CO2 emissions they would just balance out, what you need is a fuel that can easily be transported and produced that doesn't produce CO2, otherwise we aren't really getting anywhere, cause biofuels at best are a short term fix which companies are wasting R&D money on when it could be better spent on more "radical" projects.

[Norman Albers]

I agree with your point about taking land out of food production. I think you miss the point about growing fuel rather than taking sequestered hydrocarbons out of the earth. This is a large step.

[Psycho]

I agree with your point about taking land out of food production. I think you miss the point about growing fuel rather than taking sequestered hydrocarbons out of the earth. This is a large step.

It doesn't solve anything though, instead of adding something that was not there, you are taking something that was there and adding it again, it is a futile cycle.

 

It doesn't add anything, but it doesn't take anything away either, with most ideas you do the same activity without adding CO2 so it is negative CO2 emissions compare to using a fraction of oil, where as this is just on par, or even still positive as you still have to grow the crops and make the biofuel which won't be 100% efficient.

[swansont]

But not adding CO2 is still better than adding CO2, if your goal is to limit the amount of CO2. Not adding CO2 is a bonus, if your goal is to avoid importing oil.

[Psycho]

But not adding CO2 is still better than adding CO2, if your goal is to limit the amount of CO2. Not adding CO2 is a bonus, if your goal is to avoid importing oil.

 

Yes, but it isn't looking towards the future, they are just looking for some quick fix.

[iNow]

Don't we need all of the fixes we can muster to successfully even have a future? Also, which "they?"

[Norman Albers]

Psycho you are hung in a loop of false logic.

[Mr Skeptic]

It doesn't solve anything though, instead of adding something that was not there, you are taking something that was there and adding it again, it is a futile cycle.

 

If by futile you mean sustainable, sure. Any other method (overall adding or overall removing CO2) would be unsustainable. After we have a carbon neutral system, we can let nature balance out the CO2 or do additional carbon sequestration. Currently, we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

[Norman Albers]

There are several layers to these considerations, and I am just getting my thoughts straight also. I only recently remembered or realized that heating my home with local firewood, easily available from a steady-state (sustainable) naturally watered hardwood forest, is carbon-neutral. Thus even when I tire of the physical effort this takes I might hire younger people to do the hard stuff. (I love my electric garden cart!) In the large picture, consider three distinct levels: 1) producing energy by fossil fuels; 2)living a carbon-neutral existence by harvesting fuels from the biosphere; 3) living with no intrusion at all in the carbon cycle by other sources. Maybe Psycho has reason to argue that we could never produce enough in the second scenario. If not then I will agree with him that we must go to the third. There are further second-order confusions to get straight. I asked last summer about neighboring vineyardists with many acres of cane cuttings to dispose of. They are difficult to handle and easy to burn. What is the difference between shredding and composting them, or burning? If we agree they would break down and liberate their carbon in 2-3 years, then after that span of time it would make hardly any difference what we had done. It is only a transient addition. Is it worth trying to add up transient gains?