Boeing 747-8F Lands at Paris after First-Ever Transatlantic Biofuel Flight Sure, biofuel was only 15% of the fuel mixture, and biofuel also takes a lot of energy to produce, BUT this test is a good start and proves that this method is viable. My questions: Is this 15% biofuel mixture better than 100% fossil fuels? If so, how much better? Why "15%" ? Is that the maximum fuel blend of biofuel that will still allow the engines to run, based on experimentation, or is that an arbitrary/economic number?
15% is a political not an engineering number. Given that refineries can crack hydrocarbons, if need be we can take wind and sugar and make jet A. Europeans have pegged a certain amount of "renewable" use. Gulfstream G450 First Aircraft to Cross Atlantic Using Biofuels @ AMTOnline.com Top News http://www.uop.com/honeywell-green-jet-fuel-powers-air-force-thunderbirds-demonstration/
I understood that the bio fuel used was actually just used cooking oil that had been refined and cleaned. This is a waste product that would normally have to be disposed of some other way. BBC News - KLM plans to fly planes on reused cooking oil
Partial answers- Why 15-50%? Fly by your fridge a look at nearest hydrogenated vegetable oil Why better than 100% FF? Gov't mandates and subsidies OK, its funner than ethanol, but earlier post I was suggesting if we really need alternate jet fuel source for national security, first of all that's a nutty premise since we have more refineries than anyone else, but assuming I agreed with the premise, I'd do some coal liquifaction or Fischer Tropse, but I can never spell that option.
This flight actually used camelina based bio-fuel. I leave it up to others on how environmental it is, but the oil is refined into the jet fuel and the protein is used for animal feed. GC, french fry grease can also be used but this is a much more limited resource. Locally used cooking oils and fats are converted to biodiesel that is used in cars and trucks. We should be recycling all this grease, fat, and oil. 50% is a technical requirement. It would require jet modification or a much more energy consuming process to create a fuel that does not need to be mixed with 50% jet A. I will not coment on the European mandates, but the DARPA funds to develop alternatives for jet fuel in the case that OPEC does another oil embargo seems like some of the better used defense funds. There is a much more wasteful government program to convert coal to gasoline in the united states. so its not like politicians are not funding that option They are throwing a lot more money at it, and getting worse results.
The U.S. Navy has been testing this fuel for a while now. http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=57298 Posted from my iPhone via the Tapatalk app.
Good. I am all for equal opportunity as far as throwing money away. You know, on coal I am assuming we minimize future use of 30% efficiency conventional coal fired plants. So I am looking for cleaner ways to use that resource. Re: bio-diesel you are correct I was alluding to EU mandates and credits, but also the military here as per the prior post.
pick me pick me I know this one! 15% is legislated/required biodiesel content in diesel, not sure for EU or for France only.
