Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Future Fuel For Aviation?  
User currently offlineJoFMO From Germany, joined Jul 2004, 2211 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2270 times:

We actually see that oil is becoming more and more expensive every day. As far as I see it aviation is the most dependent mode of transportatiopn to oil. Every other mode of transportataion has more or less other opportunities already invented.

I remember that I somewhere read that hydrogen is not an ideal solution as it is for cars because hydrogen is even more dangerous in the sky than cerosine.

But what about liquid gas?

Do you have any ideas how oil could be substituted?

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineThumper3181 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2237 times:

I may be wrong but Liquid Natural Gas or LNG is basically methane. It is almost as volotile as hydrogen. Further for a given volume it has less energy than Kerosene. You would need big fuel tanks, a way to keep the gas cold so it stays in liquid form and you would need a lot if it.

I think if it ever really becomes a problem we would do as the Germans did in WWII and manufacture petroleum products from coal and shale. The process is well know but expensive. Who knows if it really comes down to it, the application of modern manufacturing techniques could make it more price competitive with oil pumped from the ground.


User currently offlinePlaneDane From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2226 times:

Very recent articles I have read provide some exciting news in this area. Scientists are perfecting ways to extract oil from other sources such as "heavy oil" and "oil sand" found in abundance throughout western U.S. and Canada.

The amount of oil available is vast and is expected to last us (the world) for many, many hundreds of years. It will also be refined to be near zero emissions!!

At the same time, it'll be much cheaper and better quality than today's petroleum products. We're talking about $15 a barrel again!

The last article I read said to expect all this by 2015, which isn't that far away.

Good news, I think!


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13302 posts, RR: 100
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2212 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 2):
It will also be refined to be near zero emissions!!

Impossible for a hydrocarbon fuel. Heavy oil and "tar sands" both have higher carbon ratios than most crudes. Thus, more natural gas will need to be burned to generate "radical H or CH" atoms to "lighten" these fuels.

Long term the solution is an algea or bacteria based bio-diesel, but that many years away.  Sad

There seems to be a thread a week on this topic now...

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2202 times:

PlaneDane

The oil sands (Canada) and oil shale (Western US) are only profitable at $45 per barrel or so. And how do you intend for them to be zero-emissions?

For what it's worth, though, the U.S. has more petroleum in oil shale than the rest of the world has in conventional oil deposits. The hard part is doing something with it.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinePlaneDane From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2194 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 3):
Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 2):
It will also be refined to be near zero emissions!!

Impossible for a hydrocarbon fuel. Heavy oil and "tar sands" both have higher carbon ratios than most crudes. Thus, more natural gas will need to be burned to generate "radical H or CH" atoms to "lighten" these fuels.

I know what I read and I didn't misread it. The author said scientists have discovered breakthrough technology that'll produce near zero emissions fuel from even this awful junky oil.


User currently offlineThumper3181 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2158 times:

The basic technology for extracting oil from oil shale and converting it from coal is over 60 years old. As I stated in an earlier post it has already been done on a large scale in WWII by Germany. Currently the problem is that it is both costly and energy intensive.

The cost will come down as the technology is used and refined. When the price of oil is high as it is now the economics using current technology becomes attractive.

An interesting way to get around the high energy use is to use nuclear energy to produce the heat (in the form of an electric furnace) to extract/convert the oil.

This is all very do-able today. If you lay aside the global warming argument, there really is no shortage of petroleum. It is just a bit more costly to produce.

Edited to add the following:

a quick Google search shows that coal to oil conversion is indeed starting to become reality in the US. See

http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbc.../COLUMNS03/509200303/1238/business

[Edited 2005-09-29 07:22:09]

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2151 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 4):
The oil sands (Canada) and oil shale (Western US) are only profitable at $45 per barrel or so. And how do you intend for them to be zero-emissions?

That's the issue. While it is above $45 now, if these methods were to go into widescale use, they would likely lower the cost below the point of profitability, with the help of nations who want to protect their position (OPEC, Venezuela, etc.).

Further, without any added refining capacity, oil shale doesn't help much. It takes a different kind of refinery, and which environmental obstruction lobby is going to roll over and let them build it (or mine the shale) anywhere in the US.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineHalophila From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 646 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2145 times:

Wind power  Smile

I'd imagine that some kind of biodiesel would be a viable alternative, except environmentally, the air quality effects would be about the same if not worse than fossil fuels. Perhaps this is where near-orbit travel would come in handy.

Actually the use of 'hybrid' technologies may be the way to prolong the use of fossil fuels. Although I do not know how this might happen in a/c.



Flown on 707, 717, 727, 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 741 742 743 744 74SP 757 753 762 763 772 773 77W D10 DC9 M11 M80 M87
User currently offlineThumper3181 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2141 times:

Actually the price of oil needs to be around 30-35 per barrel for conversion to make sense

" Another key factor driving the project is China's interest in development strategic yet fairly cost-competitive alternatives to crude oil imports. While Shenhua officials believe the new project will provide a decent return on investment (close to 15%), this depends upon crude oil prices staying above $20/barrel.

In contrast, a similar project in the U.S. -- if ever attempted strictly on commercial terms -- would require long-term world crude prices to hover around $33 to $35/barrel, HTI's Lee explains. Such levels haven't been sustained for any lengthy period in world history."

From http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...m0CYH/is_15_6/ai_89924477#continue

I would discount the last sentence. While crude may not stay above 60 a barrel long term, I would be willing to bet they stay above 35.


User currently offlinePlaneDane From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2141 times:

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 5):
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 3):
Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 2):
It will also be refined to be near zero emissions!!

Impossible for a hydrocarbon fuel. Heavy oil and "tar sands" both have higher carbon ratios than most crudes. Thus, more natural gas will need to be burned to generate "radical H or CH" atoms to "lighten" these fuels.

I know what I read and I didn't misread it. The author said scientists have discovered breakthrough technology that'll produce near zero emissions fuel from even this awful junky oil.

Or, maybe, I did misread it. The near zero emissions is for coal technologies. But, isn't coal primarily carbon?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science.../2005-09-25-oil-alternatives_x.htm


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2827 posts, RR: 42
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2023 times:

Quoting Thumper3181 (Reply 1):
I think if it ever really becomes a problem we would do as the Germans did in WWII and manufacture petroleum products from coal and shale. The process is well know but expensive. Who knows if it really comes down to it, the application of modern manufacturing techniques could make it more price competitive with oil pumped from the ground.

Oil shale was the big darling in the west during the last gulf blackmail scheme. Once OPEC saw that the US was going ahead into developing independent energy reserves, they dropped the price so much that the projects were closed down.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 4):

The oil sands (Canada) and oil shale (Western US) are only profitable at $45 per barrel or so. And how do you intend for them to be zero-emissions?

Actually, the number is closer to $20 from latest reasearch.

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 5):

I know what I read and I didn't misread it. The author said scientists have discovered breakthrough technology that'll produce near zero emissions fuel from even this awful junky oil.

There is a difference between zero emission on generation and zero emission on consumption. Oil shale is definitly not zero emission on consumption any more then regular oil is. Some of the new technology allows it to be emission on generation, which was a problem with the old method.

Quoting Thumper3181 (Reply 6):
The basic technology for extracting oil from oil shale and converting it from coal is over 60 years old. As I stated in an earlier post it has already been done on a large scale in WWII by Germany. Currently the problem is that it is both costly and energy intensive.

The basic technology was to dredge everything up to the surface, bake it at a few thousand degrees and then extract the oil.

The new proccess which is being tested in Colorado (which has the largest reserves of shale on the planet) is in place. Electric heaters are dropped down into the ground. They bake the oil out of the shale. To keep emissions and contaiminants from seeping out into the groundwater, a "ice barrier" is put into place around the shale deposit. Once all of the oil has been extracted, the area is flushed out with water, which is then evaporated. Once the evaporated steam comes up clean you are done.

The density of the oil in Colorado and the surrounding regions is amazing. If they can actually use it it will be great. If it works, I expect to hear complaining in 20 years that the US waited until everyone elses reserves ran out before it tapped it's own.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1985 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 11):
The density of the oil in Colorado and the surrounding regions is amazing. If they can actually use it it will be great. If it works, I expect to hear complaining in 20 years that the US waited until everyone elses reserves ran out before it tapped it's own.

And who says we have no long-term sustainable energy policy? Sounds like we are planning to dominate the energy market in the future, or as some like to say "leaving something for our children."



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offline777WT From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 877 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1974 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 11):
Oil shale was the big darling in the west during the last gulf blackmail scheme. Once OPEC saw that the US was going ahead into developing independent energy reserves, they dropped the price so much that the projects were closed down.

Let's pull that off again!


User currently offlineThumper3181 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1953 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 11):
Oil shale was the big darling in the west during the last gulf blackmail scheme. Once OPEC saw that the US was going ahead into developing independent energy reserves, they dropped the price so much that the projects were closed down.

I am not so sure OPEC is the culprit here. Some of them seem to be pumping for all it is worth right now. I think our present "shortage" is a combination of "enronesque" (ala California electircy shortages several years ago) market manipulation, a weak dollar, and a shortage of refining capacity. Anyway one way or another eventually the price will come down whether we start up a synthetic fuels program or the crooks get caught.


Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 11):
The new proccess which is being tested in Colorado (which has the largest reserves of shale on the planet) is in place.

I read about that late last night. I think it is called in situ productiojn or something like that. After a small successful test, Shell is supposed to try it on about 160 acres this winter. Pretty exciting as the US has enough oil shale in a small enough area to supply something like 1000 years worth of petroleum products.

There really is no excuse for complaining, there are many other areas in the world that have oil shale deposits also. No one stopped anyone from doing this in the past.

Even if the price of convetional crude falls through the floor I would be willing to pay a premium for using our own domestically produced oil.

Just think of what could be done if all the money spent to buy oil overseas is kept here. In fact we could even supply our European friends with all th eoil they need and they would no longer have to kiss the asses of the middle east sheiks.

On the other side of the coin the arabs would be broke and there would be no one left to buy Airbuses!

Sorry I could not help myself on the last one.


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2827 posts, RR: 42
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1892 times:

Quoting Thumper3181 (Reply 14):
I read about that late last night. I think it is called in situ productiojn or something like that. After a small successful test, Shell is supposed to try it on about 160 acres this winter. Pretty exciting as the US has enough oil shale in a small enough area to supply something like 1000 years worth of petroleum products.

Yep. If in-situ works, and we _really_ are in a peak oil situation (where OPEC does not have enough control over prices to artificially lower them) this may be a viable option.

Quoting Thumper3181 (Reply 14):
There really is no excuse for complaining, there are many other areas in the world that have oil shale deposits also. No one stopped anyone from doing this in the past.

Yep. Mostly Australia and Canada.

Quoting Thumper3181 (Reply 14):
Even if the price of convetional crude falls through the floor I would be willing to pay a premium for using our own domestically produced oil.

I think most Americans would agree at this point.

Quoting Thumper3181 (Reply 14):
Just think of what could be done if all the money spent to buy oil overseas is kept here. In fact we could even supply our European friends with all th eoil they need and they would no longer have to kiss the asses of the middle east sheiks.

1) Since when have European governments needed a excuse to kiss anyone's postier?

2) Arab oil will always be a attractive option to Europe, Russia and China simply because of accessability to that resource.

3) The biggest point about this is that I would prefer to have a energy resource that we don't have to have a bidding war with China over. China already is prickly because we don't like the growing nationalism and repression of civil liberties there. Adding in "slurping up all of our resources" is really going to make them irritated ala Japan in 1938.


User currently offlineThumper3181 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1884 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 15):
3) The biggest point about this is that I would prefer to have a energy resource that we don't have to have a bidding war with China over. China already is prickly because we don't like the growing nationalism and repression of civil liberties there. Adding in "slurping up all of our resources" is really going to make them irritated ala Japan in 1938.

Why not start WWIII sooner rather than later? Seriously, if Arab oil is cheaper than synthetic oil you and I like everyone else will be using Arab oil. We will not put (should not anyway) ourselves at an economic disadvantage in regards to other nations no matter how good it makes us feel. Five or ten percent would be the limit for me.

I just read today that the Saudis are trying to develop additional oil field so that they an raise production by 30%. Seems they do not like the idea of no longer being king of the oil patch. It's a good article.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/050929/nf200509290610_db016.html

I knwo that we are getting a bit off track but this stuff is pretty interesting.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Future Prospects For Civil Aviation? posted Fri Dec 13 2002 20:24:56 by Windshear
EU Want To Tax Aviation Fuel For Passenger Flights posted Fri Mar 10 2000 19:42:31 by Dstc47
How Much Extra Fuel For This? posted Sat Nov 25 2006 05:54:49 by Bisbee
No Need For Aviation Magazines Anymore posted Wed Oct 25 2006 06:41:27 by Boeingforever
USAirways Has Hedged 41% Of Fuel For 2nd Quarter posted Fri Jul 7 2006 20:38:59 by KarlB737
Swiss Center For Aviation Competence posted Wed Jun 21 2006 10:43:38 by HBDAN
What Does The Future Hold For JetBlue? posted Wed Apr 26 2006 05:29:32 by JetBlueAUS
Future Aircraft For Small Airlines Like Cape Air? posted Wed Apr 12 2006 03:06:13 by AviationAddict
"Back To The Future" For B6 posted Mon Mar 20 2006 16:01:30 by FLALEFTY
Why ATC Privatization Is Bad For Aviation Safety.. posted Mon Jan 30 2006 23:28:02 by Alberchico