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/

Reply via email to