I agree, about rail, but, given the current rail system, I doubt it will happen within the next 20 yrs.
Your right about the jet fuel, but, it will still take processing that will add cost, and reduce the amount of available fuel, just through inefficiency. The less processing a fuel has, the cheaper and more plentiful it is. I would bet that large locomotives would work wonderfully on WVO, and in theory, they would not even need a secondary tank for starting and warming up because they just don't do that ( barring an accident ) away from stations and service yards, so a tank at the service yard and stations could be used to hold the diesel or biodiesel ( or other fuel? ) for start up and shut down, as per using WVO in a vehicle. Greg H. ----- Original Message ----- From: "bob allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 15:36 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Kyoto- nothing but a buch of crap/junk science > Greg, jet fuel could be made from a number of sources such > as fossil natural gas or coal, or better from renewable > sources. basically any source of carbon and hydrogen as > found in numerous waste streams can be converted to > virtually any mix of hydrocarbons you want. A process is > generically called destructive distillation with catalytic > reformation. One can turn turkey guts, et al into crude oil, > as was discussed on this list previously. Sure it will > cost more up front to fly, but at least I don't have to > contribute to maintenance of battleships to secure our oil > supply. > > I would much rather invest in a more robust and efficient > rail system for travel. We might even have enough left over > for emergency use for flights. > > > Greg Harbican wrote: > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > -- > Bob Allen, Professor of Chemistry , http://ozarker.org/bob > ========================================================= > president, Arkansas AAUP http://arkansasaaup.org > _______________________________________________ > 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/ > _______________________________________________ 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/
