Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Alternative Fuels For Airliners  
User currently offlineFlyby519 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1135 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2571 times:

The world needs mass amounts of airline service to feed other sectors of their economies. The skyrocketing operating costs of airlines (mainly due to fuel and labor) are beginning to strangle growth of the airlines and other industries in general. What is the realistic chance of having an alternative fuel that can be made available worldwide at a very cheap cost?

http://www.rentechinc.com/fuels.php

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-alternative-fuels-purchasing.html


These postings or comments are not a company-sponsored source of communication.
45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirnerd From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 254 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2538 times:

Will fuels be found for air travel? Yes. At a cheap cost? No. The cost of air travel will need to increase to reflect the actual cost of the energy use and environmental impact. IMHO.

User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5401 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2528 times:

Very cheap? Not much chance of that without using some totally different technology.

Relatively cheap, meaning less than twice today's price? It's reasonable to assume that alternative fuel mixtures will probably be in general use in a fewer than 10 years.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19497 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2437 times:



Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 2):

Relatively cheap, meaning less than twice today's price? It's reasonable to assume that alternative fuel mixtures will probably be in general use in a fewer than 10 years.

It's a question of scale. Algae biofuels are very promising and have a very strongly negative carbon balance. However, the production is not necessarily cheap at this point. This isn't because it's technically difficult, but because high-throughput refining hasn't been developed.

If we had hundreds of thousands of acres of desert populated with these closed-loop vertical algae photobioreactors (which require very little water and take up very little space, as opposed to the old mini-ponds), the refining process could be very inexpensive and the whole enterprise could power itself.

However, that will take time and a large initial capital investment. And proof that these fuels are appropriate to use in aircraft (which so far, they seem to be).


User currently offlineEx52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2418 times:

I try not to believe everything I hear, especially if I hear it from a politician. Jimmy Carter said in 1979 that the world would be out of oil in ten years, well that was 30 years ago. Some of the scientists that were screaming "Global Cooling" back in the mid 70's are screaming "Global Warming" now. Politicians want one thing over all else......POWER. Oil is as cheap and accessible as we want it to be, if we hamstring ourselves with unrealistic regulations and treaties, then oil will be a problem.

Alternative fuels tend to have side effects that make them economically unfeasible and cause as much if not more damage to the Eco-system as plain old oil.



"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 5, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2408 times:



Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 4):
Oil is as cheap and accessible as we want it to be

To be blunt, no it's not. Although taxes and regulatory compliance form a meaningful portion of total lifting cost, they're not even close to being in the majority. There is a lower limit on cost that's fixed by the cost of exploration, development, and production infrastructure. It can be cheaper than it is now, but not arbitrarily cheap or accessible.

Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 4):
Alternative fuels tend to have side effects that make them economically unfeasible and cause as much if not more damage to the Eco-system as plain old oil.

You're painting far too broad a brush. All fuels (alternative or otherwise) have side effects. Some fuels have side effects that make them economically unfeasible, but not all (e.g. ethanol in Brazil). But arguing about the levels of economics and side effects is dodging the issue; regardless of how long the time horizon is, oil is a finite resource. There is also a very significant security risk to continued reliance on oil (this is why the US armed forces are so interested in alternative fuels).

We will have to move to alternative fuels eventually; there are non-scarcity reasons that it's a good idea to start laying that groundwork now. For technical reasons, air transportation will probably be one of the last ones to switch over.

Tom.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2406 times:



Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 4):
Jimmy Carter said in 1979 that the world would be out of oil in ten years, well that was 30 years ago.

Actually it was a bit more nuanced than that. Anyone who produces figures is going to be wrong in detail, at least he did give some numbers.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html

Since Jimmy is so strongly misprepresented I will quote him at length:

I know that some of you may doubt that we face real energy shortages. The 1973 gasoline lines are gone, and our homes are warm again. But our energy problem is worse tonight than it was in 1973 or a few weeks ago in the dead of winter. It is worse because more waste has occurred, and more time has passed by without our planning for the future. And it will get worse every day until we act.

The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about six percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last five years. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil that it can produce.

The world now uses about 60 million barrels of oil a day and demand increases each year about 5 percent. This means that just to stay even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every nine months, or a new Saudi Arabia every three years. Obviously, this cannot continue.

We must look back in history to understand our energy problem. Twice in the last several hundred years there has been a transition in the way people use energy.

The first was about 200 years ago, away from wood -- which had provided about 90 percent of all fuel -- to coal, which was more efficient. This change became the basis of the Industrial Revolution.

The second change took place in this century, with the growing use of oil and natural gas. They were more convenient and cheaper than coal, and the supply seemed to be almost without limit. They made possible the age of automobile and airplane travel. Nearly everyone who is alive today grew up during this age and we have never known anything different.

Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power.

The world has not prepared for the future. During the 1950s, people used twice as much oil as during the 1940s. During the 1960s, we used twice as much as during the 1950s. And in each of those decades, more oil was consumed than in all of mankind's previous history.

World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.

I know that many of you have suspected that some supplies of oil and gas are being withheld. You may be right, but suspicions about oil companies cannot change the fact that we are running out of petroleum.

All of us have heard about the large oil fields on Alaska's North Slope. In a few years when the North Slope is producing fully, its total output will be just about equal to two years' increase in our nation's energy demand.

Each new inventory of world oil reserves has been more disturbing than the last. World oil production can probably keep going up for another six or eight years. But some time in the 1980s it can't go up much more. Demand will overtake production. We have no choice about that.

But we do have a choice about how we will spend the next few years. Each American uses the energy equivalent of 60 barrels of oil per person each year. Ours is the most wasteful nation on earth. We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan and Sweden.

One choice is to continue doing what we have been doing before. We can drift along for a few more years.

Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. Our cars would continue to be too large and inefficient. Three-quarters of them would continue to carry only one person -- the driver -- while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste.

We can continue using scarce oil and natural to generate electricity, and continue wasting two-thirds of their fuel value in the process.

If we do not act, then by 1985 we will be using 33 percent more energy than we do today.

We can't substantially increase our domestic production, so we would need to import twice as much oil as we do now. Supplies will be uncertain. The cost will keep going up. Six years ago, we paid $3.7 billion for imported oil. Last year we spent $37 billion -- nearly ten times as much -- and this year we may spend over $45 billion.

Unless we act, we will spend more than $550 billion for imported oil by 1985 -- more than $2,500 a year for every man, woman, and child in America. Along with that money we will continue losing American jobs and becoming increasingly vulnerable to supply interruptions.

Now we have a choice. But if we wait, we will live in fear of embargoes. We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs. Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil -- from any country, at any acceptable price.


2007 imports were 13.6 million barrels per day compared with about 9 million barrels in 1977 - but partly due to measure put in place by Carter. And oil imports do cost about 350 billion a year with every chance of rising.

FYI 1985 oil consumption/1977 oil consumption for USA = 85.3260869%. Mostly a result of Carter policies.

Wrong in detail, correct in principle and in predicting trends. Not too many forecasters have done better.

Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 4):
if we hamstring ourselves with unrealistic regulations and treaties, then oil will be a problem.

Care to specify these and what their effects are. Regulations against drilling in the Santa Barbara channel perhaps. Well that might be possible if you also had regulations that would prevent oil spills. Treaties? What treaties against going to war to "secure" oil???


User currently offlineEx52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2368 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 5):
To be blunt, no it's not. Although taxes and regulatory compliance form a meaningful portion of total lifting cost, they're not even close to being in the majority. There is a lower limit on cost that's fixed by the cost of exploration, development, and production infrastructure. It can be cheaper than it is now, but not arbitrarily cheap or accessible.

Here in the US our politicians are our own worst enemy when it comes to oil production. Constantly banning drilling and allowing legislation that ties our hands on production, we have not built a refinery in the US in almost 30 years, so there is a good reason why the costs of production are high. Then at the same time not batting an eye when the Chinese talk of drilling off the coast of Florida. The Canadians don't have any trouble drilling and selling their oil to the US, but here, within our own borders, we have enough oil to sustain our own demand. We are not allowed to go get it.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 6):
Care to specify these and what their effects are. Regulations against drilling in the Santa Barbara channel perhaps. Well that might be possible if you also had regulations that would prevent oil spills.

Care to specify on the last oil spill in Santa Barber and it's effect on the environment. There are risks in any production venture, so because it happens we should just not embark on it at all, would that be better? I know, we could go back to reading by candle light, and riding horses.......OH wait........horses give off high levels of methane and carbon monoxide.........I guess we can't do that either.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 5):
But arguing about the levels of economics and side effects is dodging the issue;

Economics is the issue, this world and it's economies run on oil. Anytime the price goes up the economies in the importing countries, which is the majority, go down. When you have a country such as the US, which has the resources to get it's own oil and refine it, if they would knock the stops out, then it should do just that. Then the big, mean, evil, US would not need to go to war over oil. Which as far as I can tell we are not swimming in Iraqi oil over here.



"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2359 times:



Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 7):
Care to specify on the last oil spill in Santa Barber and it's effect on the environment. There are risks in any production venture, so because it happens we should just not embark on it at all, would that be better?

1969 blowout of Union well. one report has 5 k barrels and another 80 to 100 thousand barrels, I think the latter is closer. The problem with Monterey oil is it has a high naphtheno-aromatic content which leaves a relatively stable and very toxic tar. So if you had to have a spill that was about the worst oil type to spill.

Don't have a beef with me, argue with the rich and famous who live along the coast there.

Oh the effect?

It was the Spark, "The blowout was the spark that brought the environmental issue to the nation's attention," said Arent Schuyler, lecturer emeritus in environmental studies at UC Santa Barbara. "People could see very vividly that their communities could bear the brunt of industrial accidents. They began forming environmental groups to protect their communities and started fighting for legislation to protect the environment."
http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~dhardy/19..._Santa_Barbara_Oil_Spill/Home.html
What the actual effect was barely matters any more. The politics have been poison ever since. And as it happens the residue from that oil is awful. Exxon have argued that a high proportion of the problems from Exxon Valdez relate not to the Prudhoe Bay oil but to an earlier Monterey spill - from the 40s IIRC.

You have to go back to the rules regulating drilling to ensure it cannot happen again, and THEN you have to go around and explain to all those well heeled folk that the new regs will work. Otherwise forget it and be happy that there is a reserve to draw on when you finally achieve that aim.

You seem to think I might have an interest in preventing drilling??

Why ever would that be??

Maybe not listening to the one politician who spent some time to understand the long term prognosis for the oil industry is holding you back.

Obviously Jimmy was not right in all he said, and some of his timing is probably out, but most of what he said is correct. And do not be too lulled by the current supply of natural gas. The first extra chestnut out of the fire was coal bed methane, now you have tight shale gas, but aside from gas hydrates there are no more magic puddings and exhaustion of tight shale gas reservoirs is likely to be quite rapid, the initial drilling is so highly productive. But once you are drilled out, you are drilled out.


User currently offlineEx52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2351 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 8):
1969 blowout of Union well. one report has 5 k barrels and another 80 to 100 thousand barrels, I think the latter is closer.

That was the last one I heard of 1969......40 years ago, not bad one in 40 years, still no reason to not drill. That is the risk I was talking about.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 8):
You seem to think I might have an interest in preventing drilling??

Sounds like it, and I am assuming you work in the airline industry. We need cheap oil, so that we can continue to move people about the globe, continue to have jobs, and so the economies of the world can continue to prosper. It's ok to not believe someone that tells you that "the earth has a fever", especially when they will financially benefit from you believing just that.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 8):
Maybe not listening to the one politician who spent some time to understand the long term prognosis for the oil industry is holding you back.

If Jimmy is talking I am definitely not listening. It took years to bring our economy back from the devastation he wrought. I was here I lived through it, I was in the military at the end of his term, we had nothing, we had to steal hardware off of broken jet engines to build the ones we were working on.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 8):
The first extra chestnut out of the fire was coal bed methane, now you have tight shale gas, but aside from gas hydrates there are no more magic puddings and exhaustion of tight shale gas reservoirs is likely to be quite rapid, the initial drilling is so highly productive. But once you are drilled out, you are drilled out.

We have one of the largest natural gas fields in the world off the the coast of Florida, but we can't go get it. Windmills, sunshine, and steam are not going to sustain our needs. They are good alternatives but will not stand on their own. Nuclear power is what is needed, lots of it  Wow! yes that is right the big terrible taboo.  stirthepot 



"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 10, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2342 times:



Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 7):
here, within our own borders, we have enough oil to sustain our own demand. We are not allowed to go get it.

The US domestic reserves are large, but they're not large enough or productive enough for the US to go fully independent without crippling the economy. The lifting cost on much of the domestic reserves is considerably higher than the imported stuff. It's just like alternative fuels...we can do it if we want to but, either way, it's going to cost a lot more than the current situation.

Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 7):
When you have a country such as the US, which has the resources to get it's own oil and refine it, if they would knock the stops out, then it should do just that. Then the big, mean, evil, US would not need to go to war over oil.

That's what I was talking about regarding ignoring the real problem. Switching to US production just defers the problem, it doesn't fix it. Oil is finite. The more we import now, the more domestic supply we'll have in the future when it becomes really difficult and expensive to get from other countries. It makes a lot of sense to import cheaper oil when it's (relatively) easy to do so and protect the domestic reserves for the future when we'll really need them. The US is in a fairly OK position in this regard, since Canada has more oil reserves (in oil sands) than Saudi Arabia, and it's pretty unlikely that Canada-US relations will degrade to the point that the Canadian supply to the US is threatened.

Tom.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2301 times:



Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 9):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 8):
The first extra chestnut out of the fire was coal bed methane, now you have tight shale gas, but aside from gas hydrates there are no more magic puddings and exhaustion of tight shale gas reservoirs is likely to be quite rapid, the initial drilling is so highly productive. But once you are drilled out, you are drilled out.

We have one of the largest natural gas fields in the world off the the coast of Florida, but we can't go get it.

Which one would that be? Are you talking about the Gulf coast, or the Atlantic coast? AFAIK, no major field has been discovered. I suspect you might talking about the prospects for the offshore Atlantic coast, in which case I direct you to the Cost B well write ups, they don't read all that well to me for major discoveries.

Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 9):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 8):
1969 blowout of Union well. one report has 5 k barrels and another 80 to 100 thousand barrels, I think the latter is closer.

That was the last one I heard of 1969......40 years ago, not bad one in 40 years, still no reason to not drill. That is the risk I was talking about.

The reason for no blow outs since 1969 off CA is that soon after drilling was banned in that area. For a selection of other blow-outs try:
http://www.energyindustryphotos.com/...ilfield_blowout_photos_and_rig.htm

Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 9):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 8):
You seem to think I might have an interest in preventing drilling??

Sounds like it, and I am assuming you work in the airline industry.

Er well, try the oil and gas exploration industry. Just at present we are working on material from a ten well program from an Australian basin, then two entirely different basins in Southern Africa, a spot of Greenland and early in the New Year US gas shales. In view of the amount of material from boreholes we look at, I think it is safe to say that I like drilling, but I also understand blow outs and the damage they cause.

Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 9):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 8):
Maybe not listening to the one politician who spent some time to understand the long term prognosis for the oil industry is holding you back.

If Jimmy is talking I am definitely not listening. It took years to bring our economy back from the devastation he wrought. I was here I lived through it, I was in the military at the end of his term, we had nothing, we had to steal hardware off of broken jet engines to build the ones we were working on.

Well there you go. You remind me a bit of a late cousin of mine who when very young was said by my mother to have told her when she tried to comfort him, "I want to cry and I am going to cry". However here it is, I am ignorant of what Carter said and I am determined to remain ignorant of what he actually did say.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 10):
Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 7):
here, within our own borders, we have enough oil to sustain our own demand. We are not allowed to go get it.

The US domestic reserves are large, but they're not large enough or productive enough for the US to go fully independent without crippling the economy. The lifting cost on much of the domestic reserves is considerably higher than the imported stuff. It's just like alternative fuels...we can do it if we want to but, either way, it's going to cost a lot more than the current situation.

This is going to get boring
* Domestic reserves large - sort of  checkmark  cos not really large re consumption.
* Not large enough........  checkmark   checkmark 
* Cost  checkmark   checkmark   checkmark 
* Alt fuels  checkmark   checkmark   checkmark   checkmark   checkmark 

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 10):
Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 7):
When you have a country such as the US, which has the resources to get it's own oil and refine it, if they would knock the stops out, then it should do just that. Then the big, mean, evil, US would not need to go to war over oil.

That's what I was talking about regarding ignoring the real problem. Switching to US production just defers the problem, it doesn't fix it. Oil is finite. The more we import now, the more domestic supply we'll have in the future when it becomes really difficult and expensive to get from other countries. It makes a lot of sense to import cheaper oil when it's (relatively) easy to do so and protect the domestic reserves for the future when we'll really need them. The US is in a fairly OK position in this regard, since Canada has more oil reserves (in oil sands) than Saudi Arabia, and it's pretty unlikely that Canada-US relations will degrade to the point that the Canadian supply to the US is threatened.

Here we go again.
* Defers .... Indeed  checkmark   checkmark  I always wonder if we do much of a favour other than to immediate shareholders when "we" (as an exploration industry) discover hydrocarbons. It always means that in three years time it is an even bigger struggle to maintain reserves.
* protect domestic reserves ......  checkmark   checkmark  My you have read Jimmy have you not!!  checkmark 
* tar sands ......  checkmark   checkmark  One day Canada-US relations are bound to be strained on this point. Eventually you guys will have the whip hand. So maybe a wobble in those  checkmark   checkmark  !!!

There you go, a geologist and an engineer seeing eye to eye, must be Christmas. Although I have to say Tds, I rarely find much in your posts to disagree with on just about any topic.  checkmark   bigthumbsup 

I suppose one bit to add about alternative fuels, it is not only that they will be expensive but that the CAPEX reqiured for any significant replacement of conventional oil with distort any economy that goes that way. South Africa is the only place to try after WWII, and it probably paid a high capital price although SASOL is doing very well now thank you very much.

One thing that is very difficult is to get good cost data for anything other than coal, oil and gas fired power generation. So real data for wind, solar and nuclear are very difficult. Algae have promise but what will be the real costs? I have no idea. I must say I have been very disappointed at the slow progress with geothermal in places like the Cooper Basin where temperatures are about 220C, but at about 3.4 kms. Near volcanic geothermal is OK and costs are known but it has some limits in terms of how much power can be recovered.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2274 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):
There you go, a geologist and an engineer seeing eye to eye, must be Christmas.

And a Happy New Year! Actually, this topic lands squarely in the crossover of my two backgrounds...I used to be an oilfield engineer (deepwater exploration & production), now I'm a commercial flight test guy.

Tom.


User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2262 times:



Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 9):
Nuclear power is what is needed, lots of it yes that is right the big terrible taboo.

While I agree with you in principle, it does very little about the transportation fuel problem. Also, without going to breeder, there is little U235 in ore so that's a very short term solution. Perhaps a higher enrichment reactor and fatter fuel rods would be a stop gap, but I think that the world is not quite ready yet for the massive investment that would be a breeder reactor solution.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2247 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 12):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):
There you go, a geologist and an engineer seeing eye to eye, must be Christmas.

And a Happy New Year! Actually, this topic lands squarely in the crossover of my two backgrounds...I used to be an oilfield engineer (deepwater exploration & production), now I'm a commercial flight test guy.

Aha. I thought the insights into potential resources in "new" areas was a bit over and above average. Bet you are glad you were not on Roncador when she went over - well I hope you were not!!!

Quoting Thegeek (Reply 13):
While I agree with you in principle, it does very little about the transportation fuel problem. Also, without going to breeder, there is little U235 in ore so that's a very short term solution. Perhaps a higher enrichment reactor and fatter fuel rods would be a stop gap, but I think that the world is not quite ready yet for the massive investment that would be a breeder reactor solution.

Yes and yes, but how about thorium? Many attractions even if it has not been commercialized - yet! But there will be few planes flying around with a nuclear reactor be it a U or a Th based one. Few as in none although I was listening to a late night program on parallel universes which suggested it is difficult to get p = zero!!


User currently offlineEx52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2237 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):

Well there you go. You remind me a bit of a late cousin of mine who when very young was said by my mother to have told her when she tried to comfort him, "I want to cry and I am going to cry". However here it is, I am ignorant of what Carter said and I am determined to remain ignorant of what he actually did say.

Insulting me will surely win me over.



"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2203 times:



Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 15):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):

Well there you go. You remind me a bit of a late cousin of mine who when very young was said by my mother to have told her when she tried to comfort him, "I want to cry and I am going to cry". However here it is, I am ignorant of what Carter said and I am determined to remain ignorant of what he actually did say.

Insulting me will surely win me over.

And stating you refuse to read material because of its source is a strange way to conduct a discussion. You seem to be the one for the absolutes.

Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 9):
If Jimmy is talking I am definitely not listening.

Wow! Way to go.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19497 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2185 times:



Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 7):

Here in the US our politicians are our own worst enemy when it comes to oil production. Constantly banning drilling and allowing legislation that ties our hands on production, we have not built a refinery in the US in almost 30 years, so there is a good reason why the costs of production are high.

None of these are valid long-term solutions.

The amount of oil in the world is finite. This is a fact and not subject to debate. Anyone who claims otherwise needs psychiatric help. There is no such thing as infinity. Even if the whole planet were made out of crude oil, the amount would still be finite.

The United States should be able to produce enough fuel for its own needs. Investing huge amounts of money, resources, and environmental destruction into drilling more *might* allow us to self-sustain for a short period of time, but if we are to think about securing our energy future for the next few hundred years, then fossil fuels are not the solution. If we start working now on biofuels we will have an infinite supply of fuel as long as the sun shines. And the beauty of algae biofuels grown in closed-loop vertical photobioreactors is that they need very little space and only a single large initial investment of water, with only small amounts for replenishment. Now, the sun is also a finite supply of energy, but we have at least two billion years before that becomes a problem, and I think future generations can ponder such timescales.

Humanity since the Industrial Revolution has consisted of a number of self-made crises. First there was the pollution caused by the vast increases in population in confined areas. With waste water dumped into drinking supplies and other such practices, cholera and other forms of dysentery ran wild. In general, the first crisis was the rise in transmissible illnesses caused by the increase in population. Once we solved that crisis, our destructive powers became the next cause for crisis until we had developed the nuclear weapon. Faced with the spectre of a nuclear conflagration, we wondered if humanity would cease to exist with a bang. We seem to have averted that crisis only to be faced with another crisis of energy and environmental destruction.

Drilling more won't solve it. Finding renewable sources of fuel that rely on more plentiful natural resources (like the sun or nuclear fusion) will solve it and for a very long time. Long enough that future generations can figure out what to do next.


User currently offlineThegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2167 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 14):

Yes and yes, but how about thorium? Many attractions even if it has not been commercialized - yet! But there will be few planes flying around with a nuclear reactor be it a U or a Th based one. Few as in none although I was listening to a late night program on parallel universes which suggested it is difficult to get p = zero!!

The Indians are keen on this idea. I think it's a little challenging to make it work: something like 85% of the neutrons in the system must be made useful. At present that ratio might be something like 66%. But if a thermal breeder with a (heavy) water moderator based on this system could be made to work, that would be preferable to a fast breeder.

P is probability?


User currently offlineEx52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2156 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 16):
And stating you refuse to read material because of its source is a strange way to conduct a discussion. You seem to be the one for the absolutes.

So as long as I agree with you and your source you will be more than happy to lecture to me with the end result being "straightening me out", but since you can't stack the deck in your favor, or coral me into accepting your source you resort to insults.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 16):
Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 9):
If Jimmy is talking I am definitely not listening.

Wow! Way to go.

I meant what I said: double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, I was there, I lived it. IMO Jimmy Carter was a disaster, his administration was for me. I disagreed with his energy policies and his economic policies.



"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
User currently offlineEx52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2152 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 17):
The amount of oil in the world is finite. This is a fact and not subject to debate. Anyone who claims otherwise needs psychiatric help.

Way to slam the door on the debate Doc, so those of us who don't think like you do are in need of psychiatric help............ok.



"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 21, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2145 times:



Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 20):
Way to slam the door on the debate Doc, so those of us who don't think like you do are in need of psychiatric help............ok.

He only invoked "psychiatric help" in relation to the belief that the supply of oil is infinite. If you believe the supply of oil is infinite, there's pretty obviously no debate to be had because the foundation premises are so wildly different that you can't have a meaningful conversation.

Tom.


User currently offlineEx52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2127 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 21):
If you believe the supply of oil is infinite, there's pretty obviously no debate to be had because the foundation premises are so wildly different that you can't have a meaningful conversation.

I don't believe that the supply is infinite, and some of what we have is at best unusable. I just want to point out that a lot of the people that are telling us that we are out of oil, and that we are perpetually in some crisis of shortage or are just plain old "Doomed" are the people who will benefit the most from that crisis. It is just too easy to jump on the band wagon, and the second someone tells you the debate is over, is when it should begin.



"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 23, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2116 times:



Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 22):
I just want to point out that a lot of the people that are telling us that we are out of oil, and that we are perpetually in some crisis of shortage or are just plain old "Doomed" are the people who will benefit the most from that crisis.

People who say we're out are just plain wrong.

People who say we're short are also wrong...what the vast majority of folks fail to realize is that there is a lot of known reserves that are uneconomical to produce. But as soon as oil price goes up, they become economical. As oil slowly gets scarcer, the price goes up and it becomes economical to produce more stuff. It doesn't prevent the inevitability of eventually running out, but it does mean it's basically impossible to just run out one day...it will be a very gradual slow tapering off as oil price climbs and other technologies become cost-competitive.

Tom.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (4 years 7 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2106 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 23):
it does mean it's basically impossible to just run out one day...it will be a very gradual slow tapering off as oil price climbs and other technologies become cost-competitive.

Although it will be require adaptions that most will view as painful.

Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 19):
I meant what I said: double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, I was there, I lived it. IMO Jimmy Carter was a disaster, his administration was for me. I disagreed with his energy policies and his economic policies.

It is really funny, because rising oil prices were major factors behind those very problems of inflation and unemployment. I am less than clear how you could have disagreed with his energy policies unless you are committing terminological inexactitudes when you say you will not read them.

Or do you just disagree on principle.

Oh well, Tds and I seem to be able to have sane discussions about real things.

On the algae Doc are there anything like system costs available. You know the oil industry tends to run on a daily barrel metric. So if you have a daily barrel cost of $15,000 then to produce 1 million barrels will cost you $15,000,000. For example:

http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story_s.asp?StoryId=1093286823
Saudi Aramco reports the Moneefa field will cost $17,500 per daily barrel up from $2,500 for the recent Haradh field.

Do you have any ideas what a daily barrel cost for oil from algae might be. The reason why SASOL oil from coal is generally considered not economic is that daily barrel figures for Fischer Tropsch have been quoted at $100,000. A caution there is that SASOL does actually make a profit according to its books!!


25 Ex52tech : Yeah, really funny, in a condescending way. I would agree with that, anytime oil has gone up, economies trend downward in consuming nations. Jimmy po
26 Tdscanuck : Oil shale (and related coal-bed methane) were booming during the oil spike, and continue to be. Oil sands are economical over something like $45/barr
27 Venus6971 : I noticed nobody on this thread talked about the Fischer/Tropches sp? process of turning coal into fuel, there is big interest of this by the biggest
28 PPVRA : With so many airlines and OEMs test flying biofuels (even some with pax onboard, no?), I would have thought they'd be among the first ones to "seriou
29 Ex52tech : I was thinking more of the synthetics, and here in the US there was quite a stink raised by the environmentalists about using shale. The "were not ab
30 Post contains links LU9092 : For anyone interested in thorium energy, here is a great place to start: http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/ Also, some very promising experiments sugg
31 Post contains images PPVRA : Why do it now, and not in ten years? Why not twenty years ago? Why should we go with someone pushing an arbitrary schedule? Why do we assume we are d
32 Ex52tech : PPVRA you saved me the time of having to respond, and did a much better job. Could not have said it better.......Bravo My obsession with continuing t
33 Tdscanuck : That's this: The Germans invented Fischer-Troph (well, Fischer and Troph invented it *for* the Germans) during WWII because Germany didn't have suffi
34 Faro : Read somewhere that aluminium has phenomenal energy density; has anyone ever toyed with attempts at using it (in low concentrations) in an emulsion so
35 Post contains links and images Baroque : Another comment would be the only way to stop $400 oil being jammed (poured I think would be more better) down the throat would be to keep the mouth
36 PPVRA : Thanks! Because of those subsidies, it' true we already had a good chunck of infrastructure built, which facilitated the renaissance of ethanol in th
37 DocLightning : What, pointing out that the amount of oil on the planet is finite? You believe it's infinite? That's the only point that is not subject to debate. Th
38 Spacepope : One new problem with he GRF is that the area is overwhelmingly BLM land, and the GRF lakebed deposits are a huge area of eocene fossil vertebrates. L
39 Baroque : Quite proper too. AFAIK, the Wrens Nest at Dudley UK has been lost to us all, that is where the beautiful Calymene specimens came from. Wow, even I t
40 Cobra27 : Future is in sythetic fuels or somekind of electrical propulsion (aircraft are way harder to convert to electricity than any other means of transporta
41 DocLightning : Nuclear won't work. Fission: 1) is very heavy, especially because you will always need two reactors in case one fails 2) is dangerous if the plane cr
42 Thegeek : If you meant nuclear powered planes, of course not. Let's hope Cobra27 didn't mean that. Nuclear's ability to reduce demand for other fuels is largel
43 Cobra27 : no I didn't mean to have nuclear engines on airplanes, they would be on ground like powerplants I just don't think crops could replace and possibly p
44 Tdscanuck : That's the joy of it...it's very *low* tech. Most crops can't do it (ethanol from corn is a hilarious, and sad, disaster). However, plants that will
45 Baroque : And their chemistry is much more favourable with a high content of algenan which is close to paraffinic hydrocarbons. However, the algae are not ALL
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Alternative Fuels For Airliners
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...
Altitude Settings For Airliners posted Thu Sep 18 2008 17:58:18 by Ovrpowrd727
Alternative Airports For North America -Asia posted Fri Aug 1 2008 21:31:07 by Kevin
Can Noise Cancelling Technology Work For Airliners posted Tue May 20 2008 21:03:52 by UAL747
TBO's For Airliners? posted Sat Oct 6 2007 06:31:03 by Cobra27
Fuel For Airliners When No More Fossil Fuel!? posted Sun Mar 11 2007 12:43:34 by Aak777
Main Landing Gear Load For Airliners. posted Sun Dec 24 2006 00:25:54 by Ps76
Operating Costs For Airliners posted Mon Feb 6 2006 05:23:04 by USAFokie
Electric Motors For Airliners! posted Mon Aug 1 2005 20:40:03 by Cfalk
Operating Info For Airliners posted Thu Dec 5 2002 18:52:54 by AFC_ajax00
Max Fuel For Airliners posted Thu Aug 22 2002 03:46:45 by Tulsarefueler

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format