Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Far Are We From Independence Of Crude Oil?  
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2688 posts, RR: 10
Posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3554 times:

I may sound incredibly stupid here, but I seriously have no clue about the details of the 787. I am well aware the 787 is being powered largely by electronics, and currently dependence on crude oil is killing the airline industry. I'm thinking that we might not be too far seeing as how Honda has developed the Hybrid Accord. can the 787 be compared in anyway to a Hybrid? I'm just not sure how dependent on electronics and crude oil it is.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3520 times:

Many systems on previous airplanes have been powered by bleed air....hot compressed air taken off the engine. In the 787, generators on the engine will powered these systems instead. All the energy is coming from the same place, it is just in a different form. Therefore, the 787 is as dependant on crude oil as any other airplane.

User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2688 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2691 times:

Crap...seems as if we are stuck with oil then...sorry guys, thought I heard the 787 was more electronic than it actually was.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1607 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2675 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Power for electronics has to come from somewhere. I haven't seen a drawing of a 787 with any long extension cord, so it must come from the engines, which burn refined crude oil.

User currently offlineA380900 From France, joined Dec 2003, 1102 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2653 times:

One George Bush away.

User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2617 times:

You are partly the victim of enviro-propaganda.

Hybrid cars may (or may not) be an improvement on gas-guzzlers. In the first place there is no such thing as an electric powered car. Not even a golf cart that gets plugged in every night to recharge is actually powered by electricity.

It is powered by burning coal, or damming rivers or by nuclear energy. Electricity just transports that energy to the wheels.

When they come up with one that does not have to be plugged into the grid to recharge we might have something. Directly solar powered might be worth talking about.

Recovering some of the wasted energy is probably a good start but we are a very long way from any meaningful alternative energy for moving vehicles.

[Edited 2005-03-17 16:45:40]


Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineLeanOfPeak From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2599 times:

SlamClick, you're absolutely right. However, since the grid does not need to be portable and is a larger-scale source of energy, more alternative energy forms are feasible on the grid than trying to power each and every car.

Forms of energy that are feasible to power the grid but not to power individual vehicles include hydroelectric, wind, solar (I'll explain later), nuclear, tidal, etc.

I say solar is more feasible on the grid than for a car because, powering the grid, it doesn't change how people use their cars. People (At least most I know) prefer to garage their cars, and optimal energy collection with a solar car would require the car to be left outside during all the daylight hours. In fact, a solar-collecting car would likely not redeem the energy it took to produce the photovoltaic cells before the bulk of the fleet was scrapped if it were parked inside for as little as half the daylight hours every day. It also means that any driving in tunnels or under bridges is lost energy and that you can't park under trees (As many also like to do) without adversely affecting the repayment of the energy it took to produce the photovoltaic cells.


User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2688 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2575 times:

Looks like we are stuck depending on Arabs for awhile. Hallelujah  grumpy 


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3145 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2565 times:

Quoting Thrust (Reply 7):
Looks like we are stuck depending on Arabs for awhile. Hallelujah

Thrust, A majority of the oil the US consumes is from the Gulf of Mexico and South America. This is why prices spiked when the strike in Venezuela arose about two years ago. Most Arab oil is being used in Asia and Europe. The problem is that the industry is so globalized that what happens to one affects all.

One of the major contributing factors to the increases in oil prices that isn't mentioned often in the media is China. They are seeing a rapid growth in their automobile industry. Many people are trading the bicycles for cars. Needless to say, the demand increases rapidly and the supply stays the same.



DMI
User currently offlineDc10hound From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 463 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2561 times:

We're closer than you may think. From Penn State News:

Coal Source of Jet Fuel for Next Generation Aircraft

March 29, 2004

Anaheim, Calif. – New fuel for the next generation of military aircraft is the goal of a team of Penn State researchers who are demonstrating that jet fuel can be made from bituminous coal.


http://www.psu.edu/ur/2004/jp900.html

Considering that there is an estimated 450 year reserve of coal in North America, all it may take is the political will to act on this research.



"Eagles soar. But weasels never get sucked into jet intakes.."
User currently offlineLekohawk From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2497 times:

Hydrogen power is about as close as we're going to get to shying away from burning fossil fuels any time in the next 30 or so years. Which isn't to say that hydrogen doesn't require some fossil fuel combustion to refine into quantities and qualities suitable for power generation, but my understanding is that the technology would drastically reduce the amount of oil/coal/natgas/etc that we would have to burn to maintain our energy usage. If we do that, and couple it with a reasonable reduction in energy usage (smaller cars, more energy efficient airplanes, etc.)... the Chinese can have the Arabic oil. We won't need it in the States.


If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
User currently offlineSlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 68
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2492 times:

Quoting A380900 (Reply 4):
One George Bush away.

Good to know that simple minds are not confined to this continent.

Ahh, yes, if Kerry had been elected we'd all be drinking that free Bubble-Up and eating that rainbow stew.



Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2462 times:

there is a LOT of misinformation in this thread. a whole lot.

"Hybrid cars may (or may not) be an improvement on gas-guzzlers"

that's a pretty unsupported assertion. A Hybrid never gets plugged into any grid. The gas engine produces electricty as a by product, and the car simply uses it to power a motor. You now need a smaller gas engine, and a small electric motor. Car goes faster, with less gas needed.

---------
Alternative Fuels?

Hydrogen takes more energy to make than it holds.


SOLUTION?

Imagine $2 Billion/week working on making our country smarter, more efficent, and more competitive against the world.

Nuclear Power might be a nice place to start. Coal Plants produce more radiation than any Nuclear plant ever could, and the Coal plants spit it all into the air. (do research before you disagree with that claim, it's scientific fact)

How bought the government spending money to inscrease the efficency of PV cells? lalalala

It can be done, but since the CONSUMER won't do it until it hurts their paycheck (hence gas prices going way up is GREAT for this country) maybe the government can take the lead (ha...) and invest in our future at home.



They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlineLekohawk From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2455 times:

Quoting BlatantEcho (Reply 12):
Hydrogen takes more energy to make than it holds.

The people who are paid to know this stuff will tell you that there are promising leads towards being able to refine hydrogen out of the air in very interesting and efficient ways. Granted, there is no free lunch here... it still takes more energy to produce than can be consumed. However, with a reduction in demand, we can supply the energy to produce hydrogen ourselves, instead of relying on the Saudi's and Kuwaiti's to provide it for us. We have lots of resources right here in the States (ever driven through Iowa?) that are cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels. They may not be very worthwhile if everyone runs them in their car/airplane engines... but if we run them in a plant that produces hydrogen? Suddenly we're cheaper and cleaner, with only a slight drop in efficiency.



If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2423 times:

agree completely. I mean, if this country had nuclear energy in any volume, producing Hydrogen would be easy and efficent.

And the promising leads you talk about? I have no doubt they exist. I wonder how fast they would come to the forefront if this country dropped $2Billion/week on good science instead of fighting for dirty oil.


------
has this thread been derailed enough for anyone yet?  Smile



They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlineCorey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2525 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2407 times:

Has anyone actually stuck a Stirling engine into a plane yet, or is that way too expensive for what it's worth?

User currently offline57AZ From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2550 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2387 times:

Uhh...we're eons away from being dependant on oil. I've got plenty of examples to illustrate this but not enough time to post them at the moment (I'm at work). Incidentally, Harold Schobert is my late second cousin's husband.


"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
User currently offlineLekohawk From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2356 times:

Quoting BlatantEcho (Reply 14):
I wonder how fast they would come to the forefront if this country dropped $2Billion/week on good science instead of fighting for dirty oil.

Good work, BlatantEcho. Welcome to my respected users list.



If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
User currently offline57AZ From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2550 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2331 times:

One thing that most people do not realize is that oil allows us to produce many products other than fuel grade petroleum (diesel, gasoline, aviation fuel, etc). Chemical byproducts of the refining process are used for just about every application under the sun, from producing every grade of plastic to paints and the composite materials being used in the next generation airplanes and hybrid automobiles. Until we come up with suitable replacements for those chemicals, we will still be an oil based economy. Also, it must be remembered that just because an alternative energy source seems cleaner or more efficient at first glance, the true impact may not be realized until later on. Back in the 1950s, atomic power was all the rage until we had a clearer understanding of the hazardous byproducts produced (radioactive spent fuel) and the potentially great risks. At one time the railroads had proposed atomic powered locomotives and the aviation industry envisioned atomic powered airplanes in the distant future. Once the true potential for destruction was fully realized, those ideas flew about as well as a lead balloon.


"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
User currently offlineLekohawk From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2315 times:

I believe the US has enough in its oil reserves/wells to create the products you're talking about 57AZ. The process of plastics recylcing is also getting more and more efficient in producing higher-grade polymers suitable for use in more than soda bottles and Ford parts.

So, I'll reiterate... I believe that with the proper conservation efforts applied, and the appropriate technological advances achieved (all very possible within the next 10 or 15 years, if people drop their gas guzzlers and become genrally less wasteful)... the United States can drop its dependance on oil to a level it can sustain around 80 or 90% domestically for a significant period of time. Which is significantly better than what we're doing now.

The trick isn't to completely stop using petroleum... it's to slow it down enough that we can produce it domestically... and not rely on the Saudis to do it for us. Given the instability in the Middle East which is sure to drag on for longer than anyone (including those living there) care for it to... it would be the most prudent course of action for the US to focus its importing dollars elsewhere. Only way to do that is to reduce our dependance on foreign oil to a more manageable level, and then to cut it out completely.



If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6385 posts, RR: 54
Reply 20, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2242 times:

The limiting factor may not be the fuel reserves, but the atmosphere of the planet Earth. Every time we extract fuel from the underground and burn it in the atmosphere, we change the composition of the atmosphere more or less permanently. It is an accumulative process which is already harming us.

Some people judge hydrogen as a primary fuel like oil or coal, It is not. Hydrogen is a way to store energy like a rechargeable battery.

When we burn hydrogen we create water. When we create hydrogen we split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Or we use another acid related chemical process which demands at least as much energy as we get from burning hydrogen.

Unfortunately we cannot dig hydrogen out of the ground. And we cannot extract it from the atmosphere because there just ain't any.

A realistic future scenario is to grow fast growing plants and convert them into methanol which would be a pretty good fuel for aircrafts. But not nearly as good as kerosene. Plants would extract carbondioxide from the atmosphere and rainwater from the ground. Burning methanol delivers back the water and carbondioxide.

Methanol could not be used on really long range airliners since one pound of mathanol contains considerably less energy than one pound of kerosene. It would be quite demanding to make a mathanol powered airliner which can cross the North Atlantic, and any range more than that will be next to impossible.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineOzLAME From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 338 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2166 times:

I'm sure we all realise that a turbine engine can run on anything that will burn. The Garrett TPE-331 has scheduling adjustment on the FCU for all sorts of different fuels, Australian turbine-powered Ag aircraft used to be run on Diesel (as it was cheaper and easier to obtain in the bush) and the major Australian gas pipeline from South Australia to Sydney uses pumps powered by Pratt & Whitney ST-6s, which are just PT-6s sitting in a booth and fuelled by the natural gas they are helping to pump. You can run them on vodka if you want to (yes I know it contains less energy per unit volume but it can still be burnt), the only real constraint is that kerosene is still the cheapest fuel (I'll probably get howled down for that statement).

Does anyone really think that when the crude oil runs out BP, Shell and the others are going to go the way of the dinosaurs? I'm sure that the oil companies are sitting on research and technology to replace crude oil, it's still just too cheap and easy to keep on pumping stuff out of the ground. When the need is there the technology will be 'discovered'. Remember, the Nazis had a huge synthetic oil production capability.



Monty Python's Flying Circus has nothing to do with aviation, except perhaps for Management personnel.
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6385 posts, RR: 54
Reply 22, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2055 times:

Quoting OzLAME (Reply 21):
Australian turbine-powered Ag aircraft used to be run on Diesel (as it was cheaper and easier to obtain in the bush)

The only really significant difference between Jet A and diesel fuel when burned in a turbine engine is that the diesel fuel will freeze in the wing tanks at airliner cruising altitude.

That's hardly much of a problem on an AG aircraft in Australia.

Diesel has no price advantage over Jet A at the refinery gate. In Europe, where we are now moving to 10 PPM sulfur diesel fuel, the diesel fuel is now significantly more expensive at the refinery gate than Jet A kerosene. Such "clean" diesel fuel is good for the cities, but significantly more expensive to produce than ordinary Jet fuel.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic How Far Are We From Independence Of Crude Oil?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Building A New Runway: How Far From Buildings? posted Tue Aug 15 2006 22:08:36 by GodBless
How Good Are Door Seals? posted Thu Aug 31 2006 20:29:03 by ALbyDAL
How Similar Are The 707 And The 720? posted Sat Aug 5 2006 19:28:57 by Duke
How Big Are The Overhead Bins On The E-Jets posted Thu Jul 6 2006 02:17:23 by Tangowhisky
How Loud Are Eicas Master Warning Sirens? posted Sun Jun 18 2006 08:11:07 by AerospaceFan
Flight Engineers, How Important Are They posted Fri Dec 23 2005 19:30:50 by Aileron11
How Similar Are 757 And 767 Cockpits? posted Tue Dec 6 2005 18:17:46 by Mozart
How Many G's Are Usually Pulled In A Civil Flight? posted Fri Oct 14 2005 02:08:47 by TheSonntag
How Do Winglets Differ From Each Other? posted Sat Jul 30 2005 02:23:58 by Aerlingus330
What Are Pilots' Seats Made Of? posted Thu Jun 30 2005 23:41:37 by TS

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format