Jet Fuel Made From This Crop Could Cut Emissions by Up to 68%, New Analysis Proves

[Jim Mahan]

Jet Fuel Made From This Crop Could Cut Emissions by Up to 68%, New Analysis Proves

—Michelle Starr, Sciencealert.com

The aviation industry is necessary for the world we live in today, but it places a strain on the environment, thanks to emissions from petroleum-based fossil fuel.

According to a new study, we could reduce these emissions by up to 68 percent – by switching to a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) derived from plants. Specifically, the non-edible oilseed crop Brassica carinata, a variety of mustard plant. And it could be more cost-effective than petroleum fuel.
.
.
.

It seems like a no-brainer, except for at least one problem: The US currently lacks the infrastructure for turning the crop into fuel. The feasibility of building these facilities is the focus of the team's current research, with the hope of informing decisions to be made by farmers, investors and policy-makers.

"Our results would be especially relevant to the state of Georgia, which is the sixth-largest consumer of conventional aviation fuel in the country, hosts the busiest airport in the world, and is home to Delta, a leading global airline company," Dwivedi said.

"I am looking forward to pursuing more research for providing a sustainable alternative to our current model of air travel. Carinata has the potential to be a win-win situation for our rural areas, the aviation industry, and, most importantly, climate change."

The rest of article here: http://sciencealert.com/using-plant-based-jet-fuel-could-carve-out-a-huge-reduction-in-emissions

[ufi73]

I haven’t checked the background yet but it sounds like another oil methyl ester process comparable to to the known biofuels. The article hints at the problem, how many acres per ton per year do we need? And will energi crops replace food crops in some areas. My current opinion is that biofuels can be a local alternative under certain conditions and reduce fossil emissions. But it is not scalable, so the 6x% reduction in aviation is unrealistc.

sadly, I don’t have a better Idea either.

Uwe

[Paul Pless]

sadly, I don’t have a better Idea either.

telecommuting

[Corvida]

I keep wondering if biofuel plants might be a good use case for factory aquaponic farming. The plant types seem like they'd work, and it's not like we care if there's too much fertilizer in our jet fuel. So it becomes just a case of cost/benefit for the location, vs cheap farmland I would think. At which point zoning laws, or crop restrictions, could probably tip the scales fairly easily for no cost. Maybe a small subsidy for a short term to get it off the ground.

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

The attentive reader will notice that the article contains no definition of which emissions might be reduced, or how.

The devil is - as happens all too often - in the details.

[LeeG]

telecommuting

Yep, but maybe in the future the Bezos Empire has North and South Dakota devoted to growing biofuels for Jay Leno’s garage which Bezos royalty uses to drive around the northern territories of Amazon Inc.

[Dave Hadfield]

If you burn petroleum oil in a jet engine you get emissions. If you burn oil derived from plants in a jet engine you still get emissions. You're burning a hydrocarbon both times.

"the burning of biodiesel produces carbon dioxide emissions similar to those from ordinary fossil fuels"

The big-picture items that offset this fact are discussed here: Environmental impact of biodiesel - Wikipedia

[Gerarddm]

If you go hypersonic boost, a good portion of the trip will be spent in near-space emitting nothing as you ballistically coast.

[heimfried]

On the day that the International Air Transport Association (IATA) announced a commitment to reach "net zero" CO2 emissions by 2050,the nonprofit organization Atmosfair has opened the world's first plant to produce carbon-neutral jet fuel.
...
The Atmosfair plant in Emsland is aiming to produce carbon-neutral synthetic kerosene by combining hydrogen generated by renewable electricity (from nearby wind turbines) and sustainable carbon dioxide — captured from the air and biomass. The output is to be mixed with conventional kerosene and transported to Hamburg Airport to fuel flights, including those of German carrier Lufthansa.

https://www.dw.com/en/sustainable-av...uid/a-59398405

[Corvida]

If you burn petroleum oil in a jet engine you get emissions. If you burn oil derived from plants in a jet engine you still get emissions. You're burning a hydrocarbon both times.

"the burning of biodiesel produces carbon dioxide emissions similar to those from ordinary fossil fuels"

The big-picture items that offset this fact are discussed here: Environmental impact of biodiesel - Wikipedia

That's one of the reasons I was thinking of factory aquaponic growth, you can put your refinery next to a 100 acre warehouse, and easily grow a thousand acres of crop in situ. Which makes a setup that can deliver at least 100k gallons of diesel a year.

Unfortunately we would then need well over ten thousand of those facilities.

Given that large of a venture, we might be better off working on electric airplanes.

[CK 17]

Some of our current aviation fuel infrastructure is transferable to SAF. Very little of it is transferable to electric or hydrogen propulsion. That said, Boeing and airbus are already way down the road to alternative fuels: Boeing has chosen SAF and airbus hydrogen. I find it difficult to imagine aviation as we currently know it with 2 or 3 different fuel requirements. I’m guessing there will be one winner. Most likely it will be SAFs in the near term with a transition totally away from carbon exhaust emissions in the long term, way after I’m dead.

[LeeG]

That's one of the reasons I was thinking of factory aquaponic growth, you can put your refinery next to a 100 acre warehouse, and easily grow a thousand acres of crop in situ. Which makes a setup that can deliver at least 100k gallons of diesel a year.

Unfortunately we would then need well over ten thousand of those facilities.

Given that large of a venture, we might be better off working on electric airplanes.

Or simply not flying for pleasure.

[Durnik]

So... mustard gas?

(-:

If you burn petroleum oil in a jet engine you get emissions. If you burn oil derived from plants in a jet engine you still get emissions. You're burning a hydrocarbon both times.

"the burning of biodiesel produces carbon dioxide emissions similar to those from ordinary fossil fuels"

The big-picture items that offset this fact are discussed here: Environmental impact of biodiesel - Wikipedia

yes.

and no.

burning fossil fuels releases previously sequestered carbon back into the current cycle.

burning generated fuels simply (re)cycles current cycle carbon.

the above holds true to the extent fossil fuels are not used (fertilizer/transportation/etc) in the generation of recyclable fuel.

this, literally, is not rocket science.

[David W Pratt]

When the EPA calculates carbon emissions for automobiles, it just ignores any due to ethanol in the fuel. Not surprisingly, ethanol containing fuels are found to reduce carbon emissions.

[JayInOz]

The state of Georgia hosts the busiest airport in the world? That would be Atlanta. Could that be right?

[Paul Pless]

yes

[ufi73]

Mankind currently consumes some 97.000.000 barrels oil per DAY. Plus natural gas and biofuels, the latter having a rather smal marked share (I have no Numbers on the marked share Of biofuels today). I don’t think that a single alternative will save us. Veggi oil based fuels will hjelp in aviation as they are compatible with the infrastructure. Electrical cars can help in some localities but we need to remenber that we are supposed to electrify some industriens as well. In Europe I see the risk that we suddenly have the transportation sektor electified but lack the electricity.

Producing liquid fuels from electricity appears to me the worst possible use of high value electricity with an abyssmal efficiency. Looks good though on paper. Methanol from electricity and captured CO2 costs 55 GJ/ton (electric). Produced from gas it requires 28-32GJ/ton (heat). The ratio will be comparable for other fuels I guess.

the energy and petroleum/chemical industry has an initeresting future.

Uwe

[LeeG]

the energy and petroleum/chemical industry has an initeresting future.

Uwe

We’re negotiating with the inevitable.

[Reynard38]

Or simply not flying for pleasure.

Yep, just stay home and cower wearing a mask.
One thing the younger generation seems to value is travel over accumulation of objects. I’m not seeing leisure travel slowing down. In fact it’s actually at pre pandemic levels. Normally this time of year we see empty seats on the jets. Not now.

I read an article recently about a project Porsche is doing in Chile. They are combining CO2 scrubbed from the air and combining it with hydrogen. Hydrogen and carbon. Hydrocarbons. Fuel. Very small scale now, but it’s a carbon neutral method if you use solar to split water molecules.

[Reynard38]

The state of Georgia hosts the busiest airport in the world? That would be Atlanta. Could that be right?

Correct.

[LeeG]

Yep, just stay home and cower wearing a mask.
One thing the younger generation seems to value is travel over accumulation of objects. I’m not seeing leisure travel slowing down. In fact it’s actually at pre pandemic levels. Normally this time of year we see empty seats on the jets. Not now.

I read an article recently about a project Porsche is doing in Chile. They are combining CO2 scrubbed from the air and combining it with hydrogen. Hydrogen and carbon. Hydrocarbons. Fuel. Very small scale now, but it’s a carbon neutral method if you use solar to split water molecules.

Trading crrrap for travel sounds like a good deal. What is happening now is what provides global warming. What is happening now is a one way ticket using a depleting resource. Masks and cowering are not related to the topic. Bio jet fuel like 600hp electric trucks is not any real response to GHG emissions. It’s negotiating with the inevitable which is less energy use. So sure RIGHT NOW everything is fiine.

[ufi73]

I agere with LeeG in that the total energy consumption must come down. And the remaining consumption must a) emit less fossile CO2 and b) in a best case scenario reuse or sequester the CO2. To keep a reasonable (from our western point Of view) standard Of living we need to use the energy more efficiently. We cannot Afford to waste energy. The losses in the prosessen from wind to hydrogen and CO2 to e-fuel to the wheel are what, 80% (I have no idea but the final step from fuel to wheel is only 60% ish I think). So its stupid to produce e- fuels instead Of using the energy directly. Unless we have surplus electricity that cannot be stored or used otherwise.

Uwe

[ERGR]

So its stupid to produce e- fuels instead Of using the energy directly. Unless we have surplus electricity that cannot be stored or used otherwise.

Some weeks ago the spot price for electricity was actually negative for a short while. A week later the spot price was record high. That's the problem with a high proportion of wind generated electricity. The problem is European more than Swedish, but our grids are tied together so a shortage in Germany affects the prices in Sweden. Maybe hydrogen production could serve as a buffer so the wind electricity producers get paid also when the winds are fair, and hydrogen production is shut down when the prices go up.
/Erik