I agree that B100 would probably burn well in a turbine. As pointed
out in a previous post turbines will run on a wider range of fuels than
almost any engine (except a steam locomotive??) But knowing something
about the aviation industry I will hazard a guess that this will be the
last place we will see eventually going over to biofuels. Hell long
after the automotive industry went off tetraethyl lead you still had
plenty of high compression aviation engines running it. Change comes
about very slowly in the aviation circles. Maybe when the LIM cycle
engine has been around for twenty years and general aviation pilots
begin to hear about the guy who has one a few fields down the way we
will begin to see some acceptance and trust of biofuels for aviation
use. While airlines may benefit from fuel cost savings they will not
risk running unproven fuel, heck they won't put fuel drained from tanks
back in an aircraft. Engine manufacturers would have to run thousands
of hours on the alt fuel before they would give approval to it's use
for commercial aircraft use but they don't stand to gain anything from
reduced emissions or airline X's reduced fuel costs so why would they
do it? I'm not holding my breath on this one. Joe TarynToo wrote: Hi all, I wandered the web for a bit and found these as well many others: <http://www.ueet.nasa.gov/Overview.html> <http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar99/922773845.Eg.r.html> <http://www.google.com/search? q=commercial+aircraft+fuel+efficiency++turboprop>While these don't give specific answers, It seems like turboprops might be most efficient for delivering large loads, fairly quickly, with least fuel. Seems like one of the issues is pounds of fuel per hour vs speed. Does anyone know the fuel costs associated with delivering people at 800 kmph versus the 500 kmph? Should we be replacing our medium range jet fleets with turboprops? Taryn. <http://ornae.com/> On Sep 4, 2005, at 2:43 AM, Alan Petrillo wrote:Greg and April wrote:The short answer is no.The short answer is _yes_. Baylor University did some testing with B20 in their Beech King Air 90, and found that it did just fine. The report was available at the biodiesel.org website for a while, but I can't find it just now. A Google search of the site produced this: http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/gen/ 19981001_gen-106.pdf Purdue University also did some testing on aviation fuel, and the report is available here: http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/gen/ 19950601_gen-144.pdf Keep in mind, turbines are, almost by definition, multifuel engines. As long as it doesn't overheat their burn units turbines don't care what they're running on. You should see the list of alternate fuels for the OH-58 scout helicopters I flew in the Army! ...Jet travel is also one of the least efficient forms of transportation there is.That depends on how you look at it. If you consider it in terms of passenger seat miles per gallon then it comes out around 24mpg, IIRC, which beats most SUV's. I did have a link to an article which went into this much more in depth, but I have lost it. ..._______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ |
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/