JP-8 yes, burgeoning jet travel, airports, tourism - all very corrosive stuff. Do we need it all? We didn't used to, why do we now? "Is your journey really necessary?"
Replacement of current energy use with biofuels doesn't make any sense, and this applies just as much or more to air travel as to anything else. Continuing with current levels of use (waste) just isn't an option.
Maybe air travel stopped being Appropriate Technology round about the era of things like Constellations, Skymasters, Dakotas, those big flying boats that plied the world. I think a lot of things stopped being appropriate round about then. Not nostalgia (which ain't what it used to be, LOL!), nor any silly ideas of "going back", but the current direction is not the one to pursue much further if we're to go forward instead of down in flames. IMHO.
Best wishes Keith
Your right, the V2 used ethanol, in fact it was 75%/25% - ethanol/water, but, it required liquid oxygen as the oxidizer. With liquid O2 ( LOx ), they achieved a much hotter burn than they would have otherwise. The V2 also had a burn time of about 50 - 80 seconds, most of the flight, the V2 was not under thrust, but just by it's own momentum. While small aircraft engines can work with ethanol, in part because it is in the same range as gasoline, it just can not compete with JP-8, for use in large commercial airliners. BioDiesel, comes the closest, but there are still many issues, that JP-8 still exceeds BioDiesel on. JP-8 has a higher BTU value. This means that a commercial airliner that used BioDiesel would have to carry more fuel per passenger. Having to carry more fuel per passenger, also means that extra fuel would have to carried to carry the fuel ( a nasty circle that can make or break a business ). I'm haven't found stats yet, but, I think that BioDiesel weighs a little more ( for a given volume ) than JP-8. JP-8 has a much lower gel temperature. At the altitude that commercial airlines fly, having the fuel flow properly in the cold is a big issue. BioDiesel ( depending on the feed stock ) has problems flowing at temperatures as high as 20*F. This could be compensated to an extent, with the use of stronger fuel pumps, larger fuel lines and/or fuel heaters, but that adds more weight to the aircraft, again requiring the use of more fuel. Any fuel that would displace JP-8 at this point, would have to: a) Be cheep enough to compensate for the loss of BTU value for it's weight and volume. b) Have a higher BTU value for it's weight and volume. While at the same time having similar flow / temperature characteristics although in some cases these could be overlooked if the fuel / engine thrust weight ratio exceeds that of the engines currently in use. One way might be to find a way of supplying more oxygen to make the burning fuel hotter, without burning up the engine. The sad fact remains that JP-8 has temperature and burn characteristics, that make it the fuel of choice ( not to mention required by the FAA ), for commercial aircraft, and anything that restricts the use of it, is going to cause an increase in the cost of flying. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Juan Boveda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 15:47 Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Kyoto- nothing but a buch of crap/junk science > Hello Greg and all. > > I disagree with some appreciation about the cost of flying because the fuel > cost increase that you wrote "As > such, the cost of flying would skyrocket". > Refering to flying in an airplane, it is possible and even now, to have > cheaper solutions for flying if ethanol is used. > > The first commercial aircraft with a certified engine to use ethanol as > fuel is IPANEMA, a brazilian cropdusting airplane to be sell in good > numbers because the price of ethanol is cheaper than aviation gasoline in > Brazil. Some owners of older aircraft with gasoline engine are requesting a > change of their older gas version for the new ethanol powered engine > because is operation cost is lower and more powerful for the sa. > In the future, the same engine could be installed in small Cessna's type > planes later after all tests and be certified to carry passengers. Of > course it takes years to enter into comercial production, partly due to a > lack of distribution network for a different fuel in different countries or > the plane should carry all the fuel to return safe and sound. > > If you think about the sky prices for roket fuels in terms of today's fuel > composition, some of them with H2 and some slow burning explosive > compounds, it might be true but Werner Von Braun and other germans > scientist did not use them during the WW II, instead they used ethanol as > fuel for the rocket V2 . > > There are still places where steel is made with charcoal and without heavy > metal contamination or sulfur. It only has to be bound to a sustentable > forest management. > > About the plane, I already posted last year on october 25, 2004 4:55 PM > with the title: > "Brazilian Ethanol Plane: Ipanema, greener and cheaper to fly" > > I copy and pasted here its body: > > http://www.embraer.com/ > > http://www.embraer.com/english/content/imprensa/press_release.asp?press_ > release_id=880&ano=2004 > > http://www.embraer.com.br/institucional/download.asp?onde=download&arqui > vo=2_083-Prd-VPI-Ethanol_Ipanema_Certification-I-04.pdf
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
