digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at time.com

Can Airplanes Fly on Biofuel?

time.com — The first biofuel flight by an airline. A fuel produced from plant matter instead of petroleum or other fossil fuels. "This is the first stage on a journey towards renewable fuel"

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • videomad, on 02/26/2008, -28/+3Planes should be using water as there source of energy. But as water can not "yet" be taxed govenment would never allow. plenty of power in water. check this link for some video proof. http://blog.pricenap.com/blogging/2008/02/26/water ...
    • thcobbs, on 02/26/2008, -3/+7No, planes SHOULD be using anything that's safe, effective, renewable, and cheap(in that precise order).

      Safe > Effective > Renewable > Cheap.... but if you can't get all 4, get the ones farther to the left FIRST.
    • mike17032, on 02/26/2008, -1/+9***** I hope you flunked physics or are still in 10 grade, people this stupid should not have a high school diploma.
    • warriorscot, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2You want to try running a turbine on water go ahead.
    • iloveniglets, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Did you see his electrolysis machine? It runs off a 220V source to convert the H20 into HHO. The energy required to make HHO from H2O is so much more than you get out of it you are just throwing money away. Next you'll be telling me you can make salt water burn by using high frequency radio waves. Or maybe you have a link to a magnet-powered perpetual motion device.
  • ScottooMc, on 02/26/2008, -37/+50Planes should be powered by the blood of Greenpeace activists and global warming propagandists.
    • Coug, on 02/26/2008, -22/+17You sound like you hate our planet - you are very welcome to leave, nobody is making you stay.
      • mike17032, on 02/26/2008, -8/+7The planet is fine, its the slathering greentards that are the problem.
      • 172pilot, on 02/26/2008, -7/+9On the contrary, it sounds like [s]he hates greenpeace eco terrorists and global warming propagandists.... No matter what Al Gore would like you to believe, the debate is NOT over regarding whether global warming is real, let alone whether humans influenced it, or whether it's good or bad.

        If your frame of reference was a one day period, you'd probably "discover global warming" at about 8:00am, and think that maybe you caused it by turning on your bedroom light when you woke up.

        If your frame of reference is a year, you'd discover it around March or April and blame it on the fire you kept in your fireplace for the Winter.

        The Earth has natural phases of warmth and cool, some of which are as short as a day, and some of them are as long as...... well, that's the issue.. We need to agree on the frame of reference before we start deciding that we can understand our environment well enough to be able to control or influence it, and I would argue that we need to stop doing stupid things until we understand the problem. Until then, we need to trust Mother nature. For example, cutting down all the trees to grow corn for BioFuel is stupid, because it's a dynamic problem, and what that fails to take into account is that the trees may have been cooling the earth and using far more Co2 and creating more O2 than the biofuel can offset. Besides, in raw heat, biofuel creates the same amount of environmental heat pollution as the old fashioned rotten dinousaur fuel we're used to...

        The real answer is to use the oil we have (INCLUDING THAT WHICH IS IN ALASKA) and let market forces entice companies to invest in, and prosper from, advances in alternative energies.
        • konspence, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1I was alright with what you said up until "The real answer is to use the oil we have (INCLUDING THAT WHICH IS IN ALASKA) and let market forces entice companies to invest in, and prosper from, advances in alternative energies."

          Market forces will not bring alternative energies in at the rate required. I wouldn't say 100% that market forces brought petroleum in either... There will always be another force (eg company or government backing)

          That and the fact that oil is so illogical on several levels.

      • jabberwolf, on 02/26/2008, -2/+2Actually, I just love saying that word "actually"
        Even if the earth heats up, the earth has a habbit of self regulating itself, and kicking our asses in the process.
        Basically more heat, more evaporation, more storms, more cyclonic storms ( natures way of dispersing energy), more cloud cover, then thus more cooling. But in saying that, we still dont want our asses kicked all over the place by mother nature. So using an EFFICIENT means of fuel would be better than simply something like vegetable oil or biofuel.


      • ScottooMc, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1YOU SOUND like a moron.
      • ZmannR2, on 02/26/2008, -2/+3No we just can't stand all the propaganda you hippies shove down our childrens throats to raise a bunch of carbon taxing zombies! Take a look at the temps of the past 10 years, we're currently in a cooling spell...the earth's climate is not static
      • skiddles, on 02/26/2008, -1/+2Better the "blood of Greenpeace activists and global warming propagandists" than the blood of the thousands or or more that will die because food crops are now considered fuel for trains, planes, and automobiles, driving the cost of staple food crops beyond the reach of the poor.
        If you hate humanity so much maybe you are no longer part of it.
        • ZmannR2, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2It's ok dude, we can eat polar bear meat....i hear they're tasty.
        • Wargasmic, on 02/26/2008, -1/+2You have a point. We can't just switch over to Bio Fuel in a day. The only way you could think that is if you're an idiot and don't understand how much fuel is burned up by a single jet let alone thousands a day.
      • MaceSoul, on 02/26/2008, -2/+1I love our planet. I love the people even more though. So if you think people are hurting the planet, maybe YOU should leave.
    • jabberwolf, on 02/26/2008, -5/+4I just wonder what the greenies are thinking?
      The thing will crash but will smell like French fries.
    • pintomp3, on 02/26/2008, -3/+4that's a hell of a lot of scientist blood.
    • kurtwinter, on 02/26/2008, -10/+4Because global warming is a myth, just like the week of 60 degree weather in NYC during last month was just an illusion.
    • Harabeck, on 02/26/2008, -2/+1Soylent Green imo.
    • MWeather, on 02/26/2008, -5/+4That might work. They already run on the blood of American soldiers and Iraqi children.
    • ripsterman, on 03/09/2008, -1/+1Propaganda??? HAHA and Baaaaaaaa!!! You are obviously bought and sold.
  • cledford, on 02/26/2008, -12/+10Glad to see that everyone is making an effort to be Green.
    • dromni, on 02/26/2008, -2/+6I think it is more like an effort to escape the ever-escalating price of oil.
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/26/2008, -0/+4Which is why the market works.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 02/26/2008, -4/+6The irony is that we can't even begin to produce enough corn to replace all of the traditional fuel with biofuel, so that means that a lot more land will need to be stripped in order to plant corn fields.

      It also means that there is never any net savings, and will actually cost us a LOT more. Biofuel may look to be price competitive with petroleum, until you see that, gallon for gallon, biofuel produces less energy. So biofuel vehicles will have a higher annual fuel cost. The price of corn is skyrocketing because biofuel producers need it, so our food costs are going to go through the roof.

      Biofuel is a technology that just isn't ready for prime time.
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/26/2008, -1/+4On the plus side, food will be more expensive and there will be less fatties.
      • magus_melchior, on 02/26/2008, -0/+4I suppose a lot of blame is due to the farm lobbies for successfully equating biofuels with corn.
      • jawnboy, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2Biofuel != corn, there are much better sources of plant based oils.
      • konspence, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2FTA, the plane flew on coconut oil. Corn is involved 0% in the fuel the plane was using.
      • VinceNoir, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1So... what do you propose as a replacement for oil? The party won't last forever. Peak oil debates aside, you have to look at more than just profits to justify the continued reliance on petroleum. It's wrong to use it for more reasons than the environment.
  • aosik, on 02/26/2008, -6/+25Planes should be powered by hot air blown on digg.
    • nindustrial, on 02/26/2008, -5/+1Or perhaps it would be better to power planes by enviro-hating diggers' comment buries; now THAT would power fleets upon fleets of planes for millions of years.
    • Alix7, on 02/26/2008, -0/+9We're trying to run a plane, not a fission reactor.
  • OnlineAddict, on 02/26/2008, -5/+6not going to be efficient!
    • thcobbs, on 02/26/2008, -0/+3Not initially, no.... But what invention is greatly efficient on first construction? Jet engines have had DECADES of work put into the refinement of the design. Image what could happen if we directed similar efforts in to alternative, sustainable fuel sources.
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2Just wait til greenpeace hears that whale blubber is just that new fuel we need.
  • Sandhog, on 02/26/2008, -2/+17Um...petroleum and fossil fuels are originally from plant matter...
    • dromni, on 02/26/2008, -6/+1Uh, that's the biogenic theory for the origin of oil, but there is also the abiogenic theory that says oil is just a remnant from the formation of the Solar System - interstellar nebulae and stuff are choke-full of hydrocarbons, and in particular an "oil planet" like Titan can't be explained by the biogenic origin theory.
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/26/2008, -0/+3That sure would cost more than $100 a barrel to get oil from Titan.
    • mike17032, on 02/26/2008, -3/+5***** and lies! They are made by Exxon Mobile in the very depths of hell by clubbing baby seals to death with puppies.
      • wire02, on 02/26/2008, -2/+0oh man that so horribly funny....thumb up for you
      • Wargasmic, on 02/26/2008, -1/+1I lold, WTB baby seals and puppies. $3 a gallon made me do it.
    • vertinox, on 02/26/2008, -1/+5That was buried in the ground for millions of years not bothering anyone...
    • konspence, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1That defeats the purpose. Fossil fuel is not in our carbon dioxide cycle, and on top of that, it is not all plant matter.
  • santixar, on 02/26/2008, -1/+5They should be powered by the Duracell bunny
  • IAmLegend24, on 02/26/2008, -2/+29Biofuel is a bad option if your getting ethanol from corn but ethanol from Switchgrass, Algae etc. is a good option.
    • dromni, on 02/26/2008, -0/+5They say the fuel used in the plane is from Brazilian babassu. It is a plant so obscure (a kind of palm I think) that I am Brazilian and I never saw it. And certainly we don't eat it.
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1The Brazilians were ingenious reaching their goal to get off of oil...
      • MWeather, on 02/26/2008, -0/+5I'd be impressed if any Brazilian knew about even 1/10 of 1% of the species in their country.
    • kahrytan, on 02/26/2008, -1/+1Algae would increase the cost of that was well. certain types are used for supplements.
    • konspence, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Well you're missing two very important factors. The plane is not running on ethanol, and it was not fuel made from corn. Common knowledge would say that a plane is more likely to fly on biodiesel than ethanol, too, since biodiesel is like kerosene (what jet fuel is mostly made of), and ethanol is like gasoline.
      • tomarocco, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Turbine aircraft most certainly can run on diesel.
    • octophobic, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Cool article about using smokestack CO2 emissions to grow algae which is then converted into fuel. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-01-10-al ...
  • noahhoward, on 02/26/2008, -11/+13Is there no pleasing the stupid environmentalists? They bitch and bitch then when a company finally starts taking steps in the right direction it's a "publicity stunt"? ***** them, this is good news.
    • thcobbs, on 02/26/2008, -2/+4Never let facts get in the way of your Ideals. Especially when you are using scare tactics of global doom to spearhead a private agenda.
      • MWeather, on 02/26/2008, -1/+4You mean like saying curbing global warming will destroy the world economy? Those kinds of scare tactics?
        • thcobbs, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2And like saying Global Warming is going to destroy the world.
  • dwoloz, on 02/26/2008, -3/+16The problem with this lies in the colossal amount of fuel airliners consume and the limited supply of biofuel (and subsequently then the consequences of converting land/crop to biofuel production)
    • thcobbs, on 02/26/2008, -0/+8That's why we need different ways of generating it.
      • dwoloz, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1Most definitely
        I myself like the research going on for "generic biomass" biodiesel production where thinking goes way beyond just simply using soy and rapeseed. My favorite is the idea to use algae as the biomass and feed them CO2 output from power generating stations.
  • BikerDude69, on 02/26/2008, -8/+10All fuel should be made from HEMP, not food products. The hemp plant can easily supply us with enough fuel. Between hemp, solar, wind and geothermal we can declare energy independence from foreign oil and fossil fuels altogether. Not to mention, hemp can be used to make many other products, and can be eaten without any additional processing.
    • mike17032, on 02/26/2008, -4/+4If we could somehow harness the stupid that seems to pour forth from you, we could power the whole world with plenty left over.
      • jawnboy, on 02/26/2008, -0/+5Well , gee since you put it that way, argued so eloquently then it must be true.
        Hemp is in fact a good source of oil and will grow in soil that little else will grow in and since diesels were designed in the first place to run on vegetable oil seems like a good fit.
    • octophobic, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1We shouldn't rely on hemp as our only fuel source for the same reason we shouldn't rely on corn for so many of our needs. A corn plant disease would be really devastating. Look at the banana for instance - last I read they were slowly losing the battle to spare the cavendish from destruction by an invasive bacteria.
      • iloveniglets, on 02/27/2008, -0/+0Bananas don't have the genetic variability that corn does (all grown from cuttings). Corn is popular for a reason...
        • octophobic, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Genetic variability does not rule out the possibility of a disease that will eventually affect all of the corn plants. Drawing from multiple plant types for fuel sources is smarter as long as they all meet certain efficiency standards. Of course switching fuel production to plants will have its own consequences for the environment. For instance fertilizer run off is thought to be the cause for large patches of ocean dying off. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4624359/
          • iloveniglets, on 02/27/2008, -0/+0Genetic variability does rule out a disease that will affect all corn plants... If even less than .0001% of the population of corn is resistant, those cultivars will replace current cultivars. Oh, and you are a horrible farmer and very wasteful if you are using fertilizers and pesticides en mass like was done in the past. Fertilizer run off isn't a problem with proper crop rotation. With GM plants and biological controls, need for fertilizers and pesticides is gone. Step into the 21st century, we know how to grow plants...
            Oh and Canola, Soy and hemp are all suitable candidates to grow along with corn's crop rotation.
    • tomarocco, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Hippie
  • amightywind, on 02/26/2008, -4/+11Can you imaging measuring a trip across the Atlantic in terms of bushels of corn. This biofuel crap is insane. Ethanol is a lousy fuel to boot. How about demonstrating an airliner running on liquefied natural gas? It is a much better fuel than ethanol, or even JP-1, and we don't have to starve the poor to make it.
    • Ramble, on 02/26/2008, -0/+3They can, jet engines will work on virtually any fuel, from methane to diesel.
      • brufleth, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2To clarify, any given jet engine will NOT run on any fuel. What Ramble is saying (and what is pretty much true) is that jet engines can be _designed_ to run on many different kinds of fuel.

        The most obvious fuel issue (ignoring cost for the moment) for airliners is energy density. The fuel needs to have relatively low weight and volume. Most bio fuels actually have less easily extracted (burn it) energy than jet fuels.

        Airliners might seem big but every pound is considered when they are being designed and obviously space is at a premium too.
    • pintomp3, on 02/26/2008, -0/+5corn ethanol sucks, sugar and switchgrass are much better sources. the only reason the US focuses on corn is because of subsidies and tariffs.
    • konspence, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Please reread (or read) the article. The plane is flying on coconut based biodiesel made in Seattle by a local company. It is neither ethanol nor corn based.
      • amightywind, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Nonetheless, it is food based. Even better to hide the environmental devastation in some third world country, hmm? Coconut is an important staple in India and Indonesia.
  • ryan83189, on 02/26/2008, -2/+5Wouldn't the refinement of the biofuel into jet grade fuel defeat the purpose, environmentally and fiscally?
    • 172pilot, on 02/26/2008, -5/+1Stop confusing the greenies with facts.. ;-) Arguing facts with hypocrits with the private jet riding Al Gore is a waste of time.
      As long as they dont directly see where the environment was hurt, it's fine for them to run their private jets and green cars on the stuff...
    • jawnboy, on 02/26/2008, -2/+1Ethanol is intensive, pressing for vegetable oil is not, we can save quite a bit of petroleum based fuels by using diesels where we can running on oil extracted from nuts, soy, hemp etc.
    • warriorscot, on 02/26/2008, -0/+3Doesnt need much converting, aircraft turbines will run on anything that can burn, military aircraft often have fuel selectors that let you run on high quality jet fuel to vodka all it does is reduce the engine performance.
    • konspence, on 02/27/2008, -0/+3Jet fuel is mostly kerosene when you fly on a commercial jet. Converting vegetable oil to biodiesel ( a drop in replacement for kerosene) is not an energy intensive process.
  • Brownds, on 02/26/2008, -1/+5Already being tested on a B-52 @ Edwards AFB. So in a word yes it can be done!
  • Darrelc, on 02/26/2008, -5/+2Massive fuel requirements, Needs to be pretty pure for airplanes, and I've heard of biofuel having problems freezing in trucks over winter (I assume the freezing point of biofuel is lower than regular petrol / jet fuel), and you'd be pretty screwed if it froze in mid air.
    • charlietuna, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Hah, you didn't follow digg rules by either:
      1.) relating this to Ron Paul or
      2.) just ripping on the status quo
      I'll toss you a digg - hope it helps, since you took the time to actually think about what you read..
  • megadan76, on 02/26/2008, -1/+6I can just picture huge story gray towers reaching from the bottom of the ocean up into the clouds. Inside, billions of square miles of algae grow all the fuel we'll ever need.

    Hurry up, 2035!
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/26/2008, -1/+2Yeah but then some ***** will float a Ryder truck up next to it and boom.
  • cpbrown, on 02/26/2008, -3/+1yes they can and did just last week; but i dont think its a particularly viable option, even if it is miles better than present fuels, I can't see it being a long term solution.
  • DuffyDirect, on 02/26/2008, -3/+4cool. now imagine a train which doesn't need nearly as much fuel consumption because of the lack of static friction on rails moving people with biofuel. that's the future my friends. domestic airline flights should be scaled back and replaced with train travel
    • razrielle, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1Why not just have that same train be a hybrid too just like they are now?
    • adrenaline33, on 02/26/2008, -2/+2Now imagine that train floating across the Atlantic Ocean..
      • DuffyDirect, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2hence my use of the word "domestic" -- dumb ass!
    • warriorscot, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1Speed would be the biggest issue and money trains are cheap to run but expensive to build and maintain the infrastructure.
  • fredrated, on 02/26/2008, -6/+7How do you measure this in poor people starved to death because they can no longer afford food?
    • 172pilot, on 02/26/2008, -3/+0Depends.. can we turn dead poor people into biofuel? If so, then... well.. nevermind... :-)
    • bmunichman, on 02/26/2008, -1/+5yea..... making biofuel or ethanol from corn or other food products is, well, STUPID. Its no wonder thats the type the federal government chose to pursue. Corn is a valuable food, and it requires so much fertilizer and care to grow, and it leaves the ground sapped of nutrients. Look, its so simple, even the idiots running the government should be able to figure this one out:
      Use plants that thrive in any type of soil that are NOT used as a food source. Im looking at you, switchgrass
      Once methods to cheaply create ethanol out of cellulose instead of plant sugars we'll be able to turn damn near any sort of plant material into ethanol. Scrap wood! Sawdust! bits of plant that arent used when fruit/vegetables are harvested!
      For the love of (insert your deity here), stop using corn!
  • Sashdaman, on 02/26/2008, -3/+1Woah! It only has one engine on the photo... they must be some good pilots.
  • Chahrlie5, on 02/26/2008, -7/+7Let's use biofuel, raising the price of food, that way liberals and environmentalists can complain about Oil prices AND food prices while blaming the Republicans instead of correctly pointing the fingers at themselves.

    Yay naivety !!
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/26/2008, -1/+4Higher food prices means less fatties. It's a WIN WIN situation!
      • Chahrlie5, on 02/26/2008, -3/+1Less fatties but more whining. Win Lose
  • macwac, on 02/26/2008, -1/+4As long as the biofuel does not use basic feed or food stuffs as feedstock in the processes, but utilize waste materials that otherwise would decompose or be burned then biofuel will contribute to reduced pollution of the environment. Biofuels consist of: Biobutanol, Biodiesel and Bioethanol - for airplanes biobutanol is the better option..
  • and303, on 02/26/2008, -3/+1As if it isn't bad enough dealing with the smells coming from fat guy next to you who brings McDonald's and shares it with everyone via inescapable recirculated air.
  • Altesse, on 02/26/2008, -1/+2Although not with a biofuel per se, the experiment has already been made on an A380 weeks ago :

    http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-02-01- ...

    "Airbus staged Friday's display weeks before British billionaire Richard Branson's Virgin Group planned to conduct a test jet flight on renewable fuels on a Boeing 747."
  • tgc1, on 02/26/2008, -2/+1I don't think you really want to be worrying about what sort of fuel is going to keep your ass in the sky when you're 40,000 feet in the air. I really don't care if they use liquified dog *****, so long as it stays in the air. Jet fuel, is Jet fuel for a reason. I'm not an aerospace engineer so from what I understand the fuel chosen must meet an energy requirement to maintain the appropriate output of the engines, which keeps the plane in the sky and not crashing at the end of the take off runway.

    Burried for sheer stupidity.
    • jawnboy, on 02/26/2008, -1/+1Yes you have been, this isn't "jim the backyard mechanic" doing this, these guys are in fact aerospace engineer's.
    • maxlightz, on 02/26/2008, -1/+1My thoughts exactly ... biofuels cause a problem in a car, car comes to a stop ... biofuel causes problem in a plane, big ***** crash ... no thanks
      • blqysmg, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1I've got to say it: you are an idiot. Fuels are used because they meet a certain criteria, that being a combination of energy output per unit volume, viscosity over a given range of temperature, and cost. Jet engines today burn Jet-A, which is essentially kerosene. You could also use diesel, Liquified Natural Gas, Biodiesel, or peanut oil.
        I have personally worked for several years as a crewman on a vehicle (can't say which one) that used a jet turbine engine. Our allowed fuel choices officially included diesel, jet-a, kerosene, Coleman White Fuel, 100LL (AVGAS), unleaded auto gasoline, and certain blends of gelled alcohol. The turbine does not care so long as the fuel has enough energy content to burn, and does not burn too quickly.
        The chemical reaction is what is important. Heat and pressure will cause the long chains of hydrocarbons to combine with oxygen, splitting the hydrocarbon chains into CO, CO2, H2O and various waste products such as carbon-carbon chains (soot.) Any liquid that can introduce those hydrocarbons to oxygen in the right conditions can be used as a fuel.
        To further refute your stupid statement: Jet-A causes a problem in a car, no problem. Jet-A causes a problem in a plane, big ***** crash! What's the difference? (I say that, but really there have been just about no fuel related crashes in the Airline industry in decades. Why? because once a plane gets up in the sky, it can trade altitude for airspeed until it comes to a nice, controlled landing. It's called flying.)
  • adrenaline33, on 02/26/2008, -1/+4***** ethanol subsidies.
  • knight2001, on 02/26/2008, -4/+4Big whoop... Only one of four engines used the fuel and that one engine only used 20% biofuel to 80% normal everyday jet fuel. Overall they used about 5% biofuel in total. Wake me when they do something actually impressive like make a plane that doesn't use fuel at all.
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2http://www.paperairplanes.co.uk/planes.php
      • knight2001, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1lol Good one. Actually a couple of cool designs there for when I am bored at work.
    • blqysmg, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Funny you should say that. I own one. It's called a glider. I've flown it hundreds of times, works like a charm. People regularly take them for flights of over a hundred miles. They use a mystical force created by magic to stay airborn. You see, the Sun God sends his power flowing out into the universe and Gaia, saucy wench that she is, captures some of it. Unable to hold it all, She transfers some of this power to the air which rushes away from her body, carrying living beings into the realm of the sky. Clever mages, wizards of the air, have crafted artificial dragons, made of cloth and metal. Often, the cloth they use has been constructed from the remains of the dragons of ancient times, the Terrible Reptiles that roamed the earth. They call this cloth Dacron, in memory of those dragons. The Wizards of the Air, using the power Gaia released, rise up into the air on their man-made wings, going wherever they will.
  • gak001, on 02/26/2008, -2/+5He drank coconut oil and jet fuel.... dude's got balls.
  • Merq, on 02/26/2008, -1/+1I sure wouldn't be the person waving from the plane with a feeling of the fuel "still being tested." But good idea though.
  • jkichline, on 02/26/2008, -1/+1For one thing, the fuel used is most likely a biodiesel variety... this has a much higher net entergy ratio than ethanol and the best out of all renewable energy sources at 3.5 gallons of fuel created for every one consumed). Ethanol is something like 1.5 or 2 to 1. That being said, advancements in gasification and algae oil stocks continue to make this number higher and allows the fuel to be made from non-food sources. Another thing to keep in mind here is that the jet engine is actually very efficient over conventional engines, but it still does consume a lot of fuel in the process! What if this was combined with clean coal liquidation technology to create a hybrid fuel?
    • gearhead364, on 02/26/2008, -1/+1The bio-fuel used in this test was a mix of coconut oil and oil from the Brazilian babassu plant and even they only accounted for 20% of the fuel. I personally feel that we are a long way from a true bio fuel equivalent, mostly because of the quantity that is required. The amount of fuel that an airliner consumes is astronomical, so while the capability may prove to be possible in the next year, the development of resources to generate the fuel will take many more years.
  • scorchedearth, on 02/26/2008, -4/+2Biofuel is a farce and will only exacerbate current environmental problems.
  • kahrytan, on 02/26/2008, -2/+4Biofuel use increased Cost of Living on Food last year.
    • itsbob, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1Link?
    • blqysmg, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Let's see. Biofuel use in the US transportation industry was at about 1% last year, and only about 1% of the crop space has been used to produce fuel. link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/02/24/eco.biofuels/in ... This raises several questions. One, has the introduction of fuel vs food raised food prices? Probably not. The fact that oil prices went up by a good bit more in the last year, thereby increasing the cost of producing the food, getting the food to market, etc. more likely is the cause of the higher food prices. After all, we waste more than 1% of the food that is grown. We ship more than that away to needy countries.

      On the other hand, can we grown enough crop to replace the demand for energy derived from oil? Probably not. We need to find a different energy solution. Biodiesel and Ethanol are short term thinking. We need a long term solution.
  • DuffyDirect, on 02/26/2008, -1/+1when people start stuggling to pay for food, you're going to see revolution
    • LokitheComplex, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1Err.. you mean people that matter? People starve to death every day.
  • wkcrazyhorse, on 02/26/2008, -1/+1Apparently this fuel uses some kind of nut from the amazon rain forest...
    ...where's the outrage from the 'save-the-rain-forest' environmentalists?

    Can you IMAGINE if a conservative was to say "you know, what we should do, is build a road into the rain forest, start harvesting these nuts, and use them to make fuel..."
    You can be pretty sure we'd never hear the end of it.
  • cambob76, on 02/26/2008, -1/+3"This is the first stage on a journey towards renewable fuel"... and 5 dollar loaves of bread.
  • tybris, on 02/26/2008, -3/+1Who cares? Biofuel is worse than crude in every possible way. First it was just driving that was expensive, soon it will be eating. It produces just as much CO2, it consumes more energy than it produces, it ruins the food market, it's a fallacy.
    • blqysmg, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1No, not really. The CO2 that Biofuels produce are the same ones they sequestered out of the atmosphere to create the fuel, so that's a net-zero sum. The right kinds of Biofuel give significanly more energy than man inputs to farm them (they do take in energy from the sun, but I'm sure that's not what you meant.) Ethanol from corn is a very poor example of energy input to output, so if you are basing your argument on Ethanol from corn, you almost have a point.
      If done the right way, fuels from plant matter can co-exist with food crops, and even increase the number of farmers needed, thereby increasing jobs to the workforce. If done the right way. Unfortunately, it does not seem that we know how to do things the right way. Instead of using scrubland to grow switchgrass, we plan on using Corn. We do grow much more corn than we eat, so this is not a big problem, but it's such a poor way to produce fuel that we would need a lot of it; five to ten times as much as if we used a different plant. Why do we use corn? Because of the Government subsidies and lobbyists, of course. Not for any good scientific reason. As long as we allow lobbyists to buy the opinions of our polical leadership, we will continue to make stupid decisions.
      Biofuels are not a fallacy. They may not be the best choice for a long term energy solution, but the above post is mostly wrong.
  • light65733, on 02/26/2008, -1/+2It is not politically correct to burn the babies of the poor. So this company, simply burns their food instead. That's progress.
  • liuite, on 02/26/2008, -3/+5POLITICIANS MAKING FOOLS OF US ALL
    The Case of Ethanol as Motor Fuel by John Chuckman

    Ethanol has always been a poor choice as a fuel, but the scientific and economic considerations behind that statement don't stop politicians from claiming otherwise. American use of ethanol blended into gasoline actually represents a hidden subsidy to corn farmers, a subsidy on top of other subsidies, because American corn production itself has long been subsidized. The American program, to be expanded now by a leader widely recognized for wisdom and insight, George Bush, subsidizes farmers hurt by the abundance of their own subsidized production. Subsidies plus the extent of Midwestern farmland suitable for its production are why America produces such an abundance of corn. Its use in motor fuel on any scale started as a way to stretch America's fuel supply in the face of Arab anger over foreign policy. But it does not really do this. Although numbers naturally change over time, ethanol has roughly 70% the energy content of gasoline, yet it costs about 40% more to produce and distribute. In order to deliver this economic bargain to motorists, the government forgoes taxes paid by the users of gasoline, taxes which, of course, pay for important government services. You don't need to study economics to appreciate that as a bad bargain. In the years since the original strategic argument, arguments for the use of ethanol in fuel have developed around its being a benefit to the environment. It is no surprise that many embrace this at first hearing: growing something for fuel just sounds cleaner and healthier than using a minerals dug out of the ground. But this is a false argument, false at several levels. If you have a certain distance to drive, requiring a certain amount of energy, you will have to fuel up more often, and you will be paying the same or more for this privilege with ethanol as part of each fill-up. The motorist, re-fueling his or her car, will not be aware that significant amounts of petroleum products go into growing corn before any fuel is manufactured. Tractors, harvesters, trucks, and conveyor belts don't run on alcohol, and agricultural chemicals aren't derived from it. It will be the furthest thing from the motorist's mind that ethanol for fuel cannot be shipped by pipeline, the cheapest form of shipping liquids and gases, because ethanol picks up water on it way underground, so ethanol must use more expensive truck transport, and what do the trucks run on? The motorist also likely will not be aware that while burning some ethanol with gasoline reduces carbon dioxide emissions, if you account for the carbon dioxide emissions of the corn's production, there is almost no net gain. A recent, published finding that ethanol increases ozone in the lower atmosphere is also unlikely to drift through his or her thoughts while squeezing the pump handle. Ozone is a constituent of smog which affects those with respiratory problems. Ironically, ozone in the lower atmosphere is itself a greenhouse gas. Now, corn is a staple food for many poor people, especially throughout the Americas, and it is a simple matter of supply and demand that if large quantities of corn go to fuel, poor Mexicans and others will be eating less because its bounty in the food supply will drop. In very small quantities, this effect is almost invisible, but in large quantities - and what is the use of such programs if they do not become large? - it will become painfully obvious. Canada's Conservative government , a government whose previous environmental minister became an international embarrassment to the country, is in a desperate search for some environmental goodness to smear on its face as political war-paint and has discovered the mumbo-jumbo of ethanol. Recently, it has run a television ad, over and over, done in fake cinema verité style showing vignettes of an odd little man with the sardonic smile of a skull asking citizens on the street about growing "our own fuel." It even features a scene of the would-be comic dancing spontaneously on the sidewalk with someone in celebration of growing your own fuel. It ends with another man announcing proudly to the astonished little man that his great hulking SUV actually uses ethanol. Will wonders never cease? Why do governments do this kind of thing? Well, ethanol as fuel allows you to brag about doing all kinds of good things - of course, the bragging is done by stating partial truths, but isn't that what all advertising is, partial truth? - while you dish out a new subsidy to some of your constituents. And you get to advertise what you are doing at the expense of your listeners. Ethanol-as-fuel's other great attraction is that politicians get to hide for a while from the real solutions, such as simply raising vehicle efficiency standards, which require some courage. What a sweet scam.
  • ZmannR2, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2srsly I dunno why we don't just start making gas from coal. We can get it all here in the US, and at the equivalent of oil costing $60 a barrel. Plus, we have hundreds of years worth of coal here in the US. It's obvious global warming isn't man-made, it's caused by the sun. In fact we are in a 10 year cooling period at the moment. Newer technology and coal gasification processes are EXTREMELY low on pollution. This is the answer until we can get something better like Helium 3 or some form of fuel from hydrogen or what not.
  • jhul, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2Current biofuel technology actually offers negligible savings in greenhouse gas emissions, growing the huge amounts of crops required needs plenty of fertiliser, which releases nitrous oxide (300 times worse for global warming than CO2) and clearing the land to grow these crops either reduces the already limited land we have for food production or involves deforestation (releasing more CO2 than is saved by growing the crops). We don't have anywhere near enough land to be energy-independent using biofuel, current biofuel use targets (UN is aiming for 10% by 2020) actually mean that developing countries are having to import palm oil from overseas, jacking up the prices and encouraging massive deforestation. Airplanes can fly on biofuel, sure, but we ought to be aiming to curb the unsustainable growth of the aviation industry rather than pushing a 'green' fuel that offers a false panacea.
  • aserer511, on 02/26/2008, -1/+1Yes, ofcourse.




    The question is, can it do so


    ON A TREADMILL
  • MaceSoul, on 02/26/2008, -0/+3Coconut oil is about $30 per gallon. Yeah, that's a great solution. Not to mention there aren't enough coconuts on the planet to fuel a days worth of planes. so by about 2PM coconut oil will be $200/gallon.
  • hubbard67, on 02/26/2008, -0/+0using the wrong biofuels can actually cause other problems in the world:
    the only way biofuels will be effective is if they can come from a never-ending source that humans arent already dependent on
    after biofuels made from corn took off, the demand for corn went through the roof, causing prices to soar

    suddenly, people in south and central america couldnt afford what had been their own staple food
    this article about haitians having to eat mud is an example: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hcJ474CjaJGOUzn ...

    theres not point in publicizing solutions that arent practical
    • iloveniglets, on 02/27/2008, -0/+0Guess what grows GREAT in central america? Corn! If we roll back subsidies and start purchasing corn from South American countries, they'll be able to buy as much rice as they want.
  • frogman54, on 02/27/2008, -0/+2You all are a bunch of negative Nancy's. Isn't it worth at least trying some different alternative fuels out? Maybe see how they work in real life situations rather than just saying, "that'll never work" and not really knowing. Algae shows promise, and the other methods of biofuel creation have crude refining techniques at the moment, but usually, once they start putting things into practice, those methods get refined themselves. And the solution may not be just one type of biofuel...it could be using many types for different things. Maybe a global warming apocalypse is just alarmist liberals overreacting and we really have nothing much to be worried about...but I personally think that this is one of those "better safe than sorry" situations. Sure, it may cost us a little more for a while, and in the end we might find we spent that extra money on nothing. But the alternative scenario is that we might all die. I'd rather not chance it. So screw all your little facts and statistics and lets just start trying some of this *****.
  • EEdesigner, on 02/27/2008, -0/+0Air nautical miles per pound of the biofuew vs jet a?
    Amount of carbon thrown into the air making and transporting the new fuel?
    Freezing point of the new fuel?
    Methinks (and me strongly suspects) the new stuff flunks all three of the above, not to mention other questions that would be asked by any practicing aero engineer. (I'm an ex-test pilot type, so believe me I know the flaws in this test, and it is another illustration of why those with journalism degrees should stay far, far away from real science.) Watch what you read out there. For the global "warming"advocates, the news is getting worse. Heh! Just love it!
    • blqysmg, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Point one: correct. Coconut oil does not have the same BTU/gallon as Jet-A.
      Point two: debatible. Jet fuel has to be pulled from the ground and transported as well. I'd call it a wash.
      Point three: Bingo! One reason vegitable oils are not used now is that they gel up in the cold. Like where jet airplanes fly. If mixed with enough petroleum based Jet-A, the biofuel will be dilute enough to flow correctly, but if used alone it will have to be heated before it can be used. Can't ever allow it to get cold, or the fuel will stop flowing. Good catch.

      Besides, the problem is that big jets use a ton of fuel, any way you look at it. I'd rather we admitted that we don't absolutely HAVE to be there in two hours, and use a more fuel efficient way to travel. I believe that one full jet does use less fuel to get somewhere than 250 cars would, but a high-speed electric train would be much preferred over either of those choices.
  • crazywarthog, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Dear leftist:

    Your biofuels are raising food prices therefore, starving the world's poor per the UN ! But you don't care !!!
  • mike3point14159, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1Shouldn't this be titled, "How much Wesson cooking oil can we put in the gas tank and still run the plane?"
  • theskunkworks, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1I'd rather see airplanes fueled by hydrogen since there is little to no pollution left behind. They're already working on a hyper-sonic plane that will run off it, http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/arti ... , I don't see why it can't be used as fuel in standard passenger jets.
    • tomarocco, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1That wold make for a spectacular crash.
  • ripsterman, on 02/27/2008, -0/+1They could fly on freakin water if technology would strive for it....a backyard mechanic has a car that runs on water and GM cannot find alternatives or any other multi-million dollar corporation. Mmmmmm, lies....delicious.
  • gkiltz, on 02/27/2008, -0/+0Assuming you could get enough of it, it is probably do-able, but, with THAT MUCH farmland producing biofuel, what would everyone eat?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.