Honeywell & Airbus To Turn Algae Into Jet Fuel

mystermarque alerts us to an announcement by Honeywell, JetBlue Airways, International Aero Engines, and Airbus about a program to develop jet fuel from algae and other biomass. They hope to supply nearly 1/3 of the demand for jet fuel from these sources by 2030. A Wall Street Journal blog points out that even if this program's goals are met, we will be worse off by 2030 in terms of jet kerosene released into the atmosphere, assuming that the rapid growth in the aviation sector continues apace.

Comments

A blogger says it's bad...

[pete_norm]

A Wall Street Journal blog points out that even if this program's goals are met, we will be worse off by 2030 in terms of jet kerosene released into the atmosphere, assuming that the rapid growth in the aviation sector continues apace.

I guess we better do nothing then and abandon this project...

Re:A blogger says it's bad...

[ckaminski]

Cheap fuel has allowed local retailers to die at the hands of megacorps like WalMart, Target, Kohls, etc. Not that I think this is altogether bad, Walmart, et al. have brought certain excellent efficiencies to the free market which the rest of the world can adopt, but cheap fuel has allowed the economy to build huge mega shopping centers at the expense of local retail.

Expensive fuel makes having retailers closer to home, fewer trucks eating fuel delivering product. Hmm...

Re:A blogger says it's bad...

[LandDolphin]

Cheap fuel allows us to get cheap goods from other places (like China).

IF you had to get all of your goods from local factories/farms, you'd pay much more for the goods themselves, and have a far smaller selection, driving the price up even more due to lack of competition.

The inability of local retailers to provide the same goods as the "megacorps" killed them.

to continue, local retailers means that you have to pay more for your goods which means that your standard of living will drop as the prices rise and you are not able to afford as much as you once did.

Re:A blogger says it's bad...

[gemada]

Cheap fuel allows us to get cheap goods from other places (like China). IF you had to get all of your goods from local factories/farms, you'd pay much more for the goods themselves, and have a far smaller selection, driving the price up even more due to lack of competition. The inability of local retailers to provide the same goods as the "megacorps" killed them. to continue, local retailers means that you have to pay more for your goods which means that your standard of living will drop as the prices rise and you are not able to afford as much as you once did. this is so wrong on so many levels i don't even know where to start. Before the "Chinese invasion", we had an excellent selection of goods produced on our own continent. the inability of local producers/retailers to work for a dollar a week, produce low quality shit, use prison labour, ignore environmental standards and labour laws, etc is what led them to be killed by the "megacorp' Chinese imports. To continue, local retailers/producers means that you buy from your neighbour, who in turn can then buy from you, thus elevating both of your standards of living and creating meaningful employment (and i don't consider the "services" economy that is currently folding like a cheap deck chair, to be meaningful employment)in North America.

So what?

[Uncle Focker]

A Wall Street Journal blog points out that even if this program's goals are met, we will be worse off by 2030 in terms of jet kerosene released into the atmosphere, assuming that the rapid growth in the aviation sector continues apace. Maybe, maybe not. Why should that stop people from trying to make at least some sort of positive gain on this front? I'm getting rather sick of these naysayers who have to crap on every attempt at some new technology because it's not going to be the be all, end all solution to the problem at this exact moment in time.

Re:So what?

[icebike]

A wall street Journal BLOG? This is now a source?

As for the Rapid Growth in the Aviation sector, precisely where is that growth? There are fewer flights today than there were 5 years ago.

And as older planes are replaced the newer ones are more efficient.

Re:So what?

[wizbit]

There are fewer flights today than there were 5 years ago. [citation needed]

If anything, there are an order of magnitude *more* takeoffs and landings than 5 years ago thanks to the explosion in regional airline flights - the puddlejumpers that hold 50 passengers and fly from Detroit to St. Louis instead of NYC to LA.

This has actually contributed to delayed/canceled flights, which have also skyrocketed, but that's more an infrastructure and logistics problem.

Fewer people are flying on those planes, but this also lets the airline offer more flights, which passengers have requested again and again - more travel options.

Re:So what?

[samkass]

This graph is a good one but only goes up to 2004. Going to the data source and creating your own table shows that you're correct (RPM=revenue passenger mile=one paying passenger flying one mile). However, the graph does look bumpy lately, and I'm not sure how valuable extrapolation really is here.

Re:So what?

[Your Pal Dave]

As for the Rapid Growth in the Aviation sector, precisely where is that growth? Asia, China and India specifically.

Re:So what?

[Talderas]

That is the problem. Any proposed solutions are decades out before mass implementation, which means we're still reliant upon oil until they are, which means our economy is held captive by the oil producing countries gouging us with their prices.

Demand for oil is only going to go up over the next 10 years, especially thanks to China's development. None of the energy-solutions being proposed are going to do anything to reduce our dependence on oil in the short-term, or anything to reduce the price of oil, which in turn lower the financial burden of lower income families.

Sure all of these biomass or alternative fuels will be great,if implemented properly, but they're all solutions that will become affordable for lower income families 20 or more years down the line.

We're prevented from drilling for oil off our coasts, we can't use oil shale to produce oil, we can't drill in Alaska or the Bakken formation in North Dakota. We're being prevented from converting coal into jet fuel.

Our reliance on foreign energy is legislatively created. Prices are going to go up on oil, and our consumption of it isn't going to decrease. I really doubt that if we open up drilling in the US there will be any appreciable increase in the amount of CO2 that will be released, but there will be an appreciable drop in the price of oil.

So which is more important to you?

Re:So what?

[Uncle Focker]

So which is more important to you? A long term solution.

Re:So what?

[mr_matticus]

We're prevented from drilling for oil off our coasts, we can't use oil shale to produce oil, we can't drill in Alaska or the Bakken formation in North Dakota. We're being prevented from converting coal into jet fuel. Yes, thank goodness. The amount of oil contained there is a temporary stopgap at best, and it's ridiculous to tear up vast stretches of new land, with all the environmental impacts of new wells, rigs, refineries, and transport mechanisms for a self-serving, short-term "solution" that does more harm than good. Likewise, investing serious capital and R&D into squeezing oil out of shale fields is money that should be spent on oil's replacement.

It's one of the more sensible sets of restrictions our legislature has passed on businesses. Now if only we could actually impose REAL penalties for the offensive and tragic oil spills that happen all too often because of bottom-line Bob at Oil Company X.

anything to reduce the price of oil, which in turn lower the financial burden of lower income families. Anything that reduces the price of oil delays and impedes the development of a real solution. The disproportionate impact on lower income families of rising prices is unfortunate, but frankly gas prices are TOO LOW in this country--other countries make do with substantially higher prices on fuel. What we really need is something like a $5/gallon gas tax that funds alternative energy R&D with four of those dollars, and puts $1 toward a tax credit/relief fund for lower-income consumers.

No one wants to pay $9/gallon, myself included, but we will be eventually if there's nothing ready to replace it before we run out of new sources.

Our reliance on foreign energy is legislatively created. Perhaps so, but finding fault with that reliance is also nutter-inflamed. We're depending on foreign products in all kinds of sectors. It happens.

Some assumption.

[jesdynf]

Rapid growth in aviation continuing?

You think so?

I suppose I don't know a lot about the topic, but domestic aviation's more important to the US than to just about anybody else, innit? And the US airlines are busy melting down.

The question was "aviation", and not "domestic aviation", but I think domestic flights are where most miles are racked up yearly.

Re:Some assumption.

[homer_ca]

You're talking about economists here, and economists have no problem extrapolating exponential growth indefinitely to the future, never mind the physical limits of the planet. You're right about US aviation collapsing. Anybody who can afford it, meaning corporate VPs and up, are abandoning commercial flights in droves. You'd be a fool not to.

Re:Some assumption.

[garyrich]

Just because the airlines can't make money doesn't mean that people won't fly and won't fly more and more. Airlines have never made a long term profit since the Wright brothers. Despite that people fly more and more and the presence of the airlines are a big stimulus to the economy.

Does anyone remember when all the US flights were grounded after the twin tower bombings? The US economy came to a complete halt.

This is also obviously global, not just US. China is the big grower in flight miles in the next 30 years.

Re:Some assumption.

[homer_ca]

If you can't afford a private jet there's Day Jet and Net Jet. They're like buying a time share in a private jet. Either way, you don't deal with the crowds and hassles of commercial airports.

Re:Some assumption.

[Suzuran]

Don't worry, the new FAA user fees are going to put those sort of companies firmly out of business and force their customers back to the airlines.

Re:Some assumption.

[garyrich]

"But there was far more than 48 hours of grounded flights contributing to the economic trouble in the wake of 9/11"

Of course, but I'm not sure anyone realized just how much impact the "stuff" economy would get hit if we had not gotten the planes back in the air. We depend on air freight more than we think we do. Not too many people would starve if they were down for a week, but your supermarket (as an example) would look very different very quickly.

Industries like cut flowers would implode fast. I wouldn't miss them all that much, but it adds up to a lot of people out of work. A lot of core infrastructure assumes that a critical spare part can be fedexed overnight - no spares are kept on hand. Your power grid goes down for lack of a $100 part and it snowballs from there.

At the time the news talked about people stranded various places. That's a bummer. I was working in manufacturing then and was starting to hear a lot of panic. "Just in time" manufacturing and management pressure to increase inventory turns means nobody keeps supplies on hand. Somewhere in teh critical chain there is frequently something that you can't get soon enough by truck or train.

I've got a secret for them

[blhack]

Algae is made out of carbon!

Don't anybody tell the hippies!

Look, if they're doing this to save money, then great, good for them. If they're doing it to help our economy by keeping everything in house (and not installing a pipeline of cash from here to Saudi Arabia) then awesome! But if they're doing this to somehow trick themselves into believing that they are "helping the cause" then they need to pull their head out of their ass.

We NEED hydrogen power. Not fuel cells, not batteries, combustion of hydrogen and oxygen into water. Electrolysis is not difficult.

Step 1: Build nuclear power plant
Step 2: Split salt water into hydrogen and oxygen
Step 3: Profit
Step 4: Goto 1

This crap that we're doing right now is hurting the problem. Driving a Prius isn't helping, buying a hybrid Chevy Suburban isn't helping. Elect officials that build mass transit systems. Our cities our built with the assumption that people can very cheaply get from one end of it to the other, but they can't anymore.

Priuses and other hybrids are not addressing the root of the problem, which is our assumption of cheap transportation. THAT is what we need to cure. The neo-hippies with their lattes and they horn rimmed glasses are not helping the cause, they're hurting it by buying into a false reality and encouraging others to do so.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[rubycodez]

where does algae get its carbon?

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you dense? Where does the electricity come from for electrolysis? How are you going to transport said hydrogen? Mass transit in America? Fat chance. Americans are too ingrained with their love of cars as if their cars were more precious than family members.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Starteck81]

where does algae get its carbon?
Ducks?

Re:I've got a secret for them

[rubycodez]

haha. anyway, the grandparent poster was talking about people with their head up their ass when that's where he stores his. taking carbon from the air to release it back again is better than what we're doing now.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[strider200142]

You make a very good point! Mass transit was killed by a lack of interest by the masses (we all want our OWN car) and the greedy interest of various companies. Just look at LA! That city had the best train system at the time, and now its completely gone... Whether or not a hydrogen economy is the answer is best left to some SERIOUS research. Releasing that much water vapor could have significant weather effects. Creating a higher demand for water may have disastrous effects on society. I'd say the best bet is mass transit first and foremost. Such systems greatly improve the efficiency of moving large numbers of people around, and efficiency truly is the goal. Next society should consider how to diversify its energy consumption so that we aren't invested 100% in any given tech.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Starteck81]

Sorry for the bad Monty Python reference. :-)

I completely agree with you. At least when you pull the carbon from the air and put it back you are maintaining an equilibrium instead of bringing carbon stored in the ground an releasing it into the air.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[WalksOnDirt]

Hydrogen might eventually work out fine for airline fuel (where liquid seems a feasible option), but so far I haven't seen any storage scheme that looks good for automobiles. Hydrogen barely gets you better range than a modern battery would, and yet it may require a whole new infrastructure to distribute it.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[WinPimp2K]

I used to think like that but:

A few major problems with your solution

1> Salt water is only mostly water. Where are you going to dump all the waste (something like 25Kg of salt per 1000 liters)
2> Hydrogen by itself is fairy hard to handle - it escapes most containers, and it makes metals brittle so pipelines (and engines - think about the pressures inside an engine cylinder and what happens when your engine block and cylinders become very britle)will have some severe problems.
3> although #2 touches on it, hydrogen will need an entirely new support infrastructure - I did not see that mentioned before you start profiting.
4> Along with that new infrastructure, you will have an entirely new level of security issues. I invite you to consider the explosive potential of a hydrogen tanker being used by "youths" as an improvised FAE.

But I am in agreement that we should be building nuclear power plants - I would try to find more ways to replace fossil fuels with electricity as well as finding more non-fossil alternatives.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Cedric Tsui]

Sorry man. You really don't understand the carbon cycle.

You should know that the majority of organic material (like leaves or algae) and the carbon they contain does not get trapped away from the atmosphere. For the most part, dead organic material slowly decays releasing that carbon back into CO2.

Using algae as a source of fuel can decrease the amount of carbon we are pulling out of deep sequestered sources. It would decrease global CO2 concentration as the source of carbon is part of a closed loop. We'll be pulling carbon out of the air when we grow more algae.

On another note. Electrolysis is not easy. Right now, electrolysis terribly inefficient and needs platinum electrodes. There's a reason that hydrogen today is produced by cracking oil and not extracted from water.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Layer 3 Ninja]

It seems the interest for the companies involved is not reducing their carbon footprint, but reducing their fuel cost. If they can make their own biodiesel, they wont be buying as much oil @ $100+ per barrel. Its a nice point you make, but I think this really comes down to crude oil being, and continuing to be, crazy-expensive.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Andrew Kismet]

Create algae farms. Harvest in sustainable %. Maintain good oxygen output while enabling harvestable fuel.

To repeat the strip-mining, unsustainable forestry attitudes of the 19th and 20th centuries would be foolish, damning and unconscionable.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[NotBornYesterday]

But if they're doing this to somehow trick themselves into believing that they are "helping the cause" then they need to pull their head out of their ass. We can't transition to your nuke/hydrogen world overnight. In the meantime, we need to do something to lower net CO2 output. Algae gets is carbon from the world around us. Turning algae into fuel only recycles it. Pumping crude out of the ground and burning it is a net increase in CO2. If we can find a way to burn less crude out of the ground, we are better off. Problem solved? No, not yet. But in the meantime, we're doing less harm.

We NEED hydrogen power. Not fuel cells, Huh? Hydrogen fuel cells exist. Of course, right now you can't power a jetliner with hydrogen fuel cells, so for the purposes of this article that's pretty much moot anyway.

Step 1: Build nuclear power plant
Step 2: Split salt water into hydrogen and oxygen
Step 3: Profit
Step 4: Goto 1 Expanding our nuclear infrastructure is important, but it's also important that we do it intelligently. CO2 may be bad, but 100,000 years worth of toxic, radioactive actinides is pretty nasty too. We need to invest in nuclear technologies that don't leave such unwelcome stuff behind. Newer reactor technologies are being explored that a) can burn through stuff that is now part of the waste problem, b) leave waste behind with a much shorter half-life, c) are less risky to operate than a lot of the older technology in use today.

Driving a Prius isn't helping, buying a hybrid Chevy Suburban isn't helping. If hybrids can cut your CO2 output by anything (and yes, they do), that helps.

Priuses and other hybrids are not addressing the root of the problem, which is our assumption of cheap transportation. THAT is what we need to cure. Gas prices are already doing that.

The neo-hippies with their lattes and they horn rimmed glasses are not helping the cause, they're hurting it by buying into a false reality and encouraging others to do so. Giving in to sterotypes is another form of false reality.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[strider200142]

Oooh, terrible idea. We don't have another planet currently, and living in artificial structures is just SLIGHTLY risky :P Not to mention that we would need fusion and anti-gravity to really make leaving the planet feasible in the long term. I suspect you are just trying to annoy me since you think I'm a tree hugging hippy. This is not the case, and you should probably mind your own quote from Mark Twain!

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Twanfox]

That's lovely, except that it doesn't address the net carbon change to the ecosystem. What is being burned that is releasing CO2? Coal? So what you're doing is still taking carbon out of the ground (outside the ecosystem) and instead of dumping it into the air, they're siphoning off a portion (whatever the algae can use before the air is released) of the CO2 into biomass. What do they do with the algae once they're done? Unless your answer is "Remove it from the ecosystem", there is a net carbon addition to the ecosystem.

When algae take the carbon from the air, and it goes back into the air, there is a balance. Carbon out, carbon in at the same volume. If any stage is 'outside -> in' without an equal removal back out, you fail.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[smooth wombat]

We NEED hydrogen power.

You should do some homework regarding using H for power. First, being the lightest element, it does not like to be constrained and so seeps easily out of containers which are not properly sealed or, and this is key, thick enough.

Yes, thick enough. Do a Google for how thick tanks have to be to contain hydrogen and you will see that you are adding substantial amounts of weight to any vehicle which uses hydrogen as a power source. Why thick? Because you need a lot of H to do the same amount of work that gas does and the only way to get a lot of H into any area is to compress it. To keep it under pressure you need a strong containment vessel (or wessel as Chekov would say).

Second, you can't just have Joe Six Pack walk up to an H filling station, pull out the hose and start pumping. To use the compressed H (see above) it has to be liquified which means extremely cold temperatures. Usually, tranferring H to containers involves an automated process, not some guy with a cigarette hanging out his mouth, a cell phone in one hand and the other hand holding the valve open.

In the end, using H as a power source, while a nice idea, is not feasible. You're missing at least one, if not more, steps in your example above. The liquification stage. That takes large amounts of energy to do so by using your example, you'd have to build the liquification plant next to the nuclear plant which is doing the electrolysis. That's what we need, a large source of explosive material next to a nuclear plant.

This is not to say that we shouldn't use H where it can be easily applied but as a source to fuel cars, buses, planes, etc, it's simply a pipe dream.

For your reading pleasure: eSkeptic

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Bryansix]

The number one reason to ditch oil is to stop funding terrorists. The number two reason is to provide economic stability. The number three reason is that SOME alternatives reduce pollution. And lastly to reduce carbon footprint.

Look, global warming exists but tying the Greenhouse effect in with global warming is presumptuous. But if you do buy into all that AND think that CO2 is a major contributor to the percentage of Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere (hint: it's not) THEN you look at this algae thing and weather it helps the carbon footprint.

The answer: It does if and only if it is a net producer of energy output. The reason is that even though burning it releases CO2 and other things into the environment; the act of growing the algae captures CO2 so the net carbon footprint of this technology is zero. ZERO zip zilch nada. Ya, some extra CO2 may be released to "prime the pump" so to speak but that's not much.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Thelasko]

Our cities our built with the assumption that people can very cheaply get from one end of it to the other, but they can't anymore. You are correct, but do you consider why that's the case? Ever look at housing prices on a website like Zillow? Living near major centers of employment is extremely expensive. The only way people afford those homes is because they are rich, and/or gave up their vehicle. But what happens if they have to buy a lot of groceries or need to travel farther than their feet/public transportation will allow? Traditionally it's been cheaper to live far from work and own a car. High energy prices are not going to change that, it will only increase the demand for homes close to jobs. The only thing I see changing the status quo are companies like Zipcar, who rent out vehicles cheaply, to people who only need them occasionally. Yes, better urban development would solve alot of our energy problems, but economics wont let that happen.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Weaselmancer]

Well these are pilot projects with a very specific function - clean up factory emissions. Other setups will have different net carbon emissions, of course.

Here's an interesting study.

In that, they study open ponds full of salt water to get their numbers. The CO2 comes from the air directly, same way a field of grass works. Different project, different goals - different carbon footprint.

As for the pressed biomass left over, it makes fantastic fertilizer.

Really, the entire algae/biodiesel thing is just organic solar. Same way the rest of nature works, pretty much.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Richard_at_work]

Actually, density is more of a problem than you would think - most cargo aircraft bulk out before they reach their MTOW (Maximum Takeoff Weight), and the same for passenger aircraft (as baggage is relatively bulky but light compared to cargo).

Cargo is also much more lucrative than passengers (check out Singapore Airlines operating late night passenger flights routinely with a dozen or so passengers on - they make the money running cargo in the aircraft belly).

So you cannot simply add tanks to the cargo compartments as that is lost revenue. There is little place else you can add tankage to, especially when you take into account weight and balance issues (the aircraft has to be balanced within certain parameters before it can safely take off).

A lower weight fuel also presents other problems, as most modern passenger aircraft use trim tanks in the tail, where quantities of fuel are pumped to during flight in order to balance the aircraft during cruise. Lower the weight of fuel much and you lose that ability, which means costly amendments to aircraft.

Yes, I am closely linked to the aviation business...

Re:I've got a secret for them

[TechyImmigrant]

Are you dense? Where does the electricity come from for electrolysis? How are you going to transport said hydrogen? Mass transit in America? Fat chance. Americans are too ingrained with their love of cars as if their cars were more precious than family members. Put an American in almost any European city and they will start using public transport, because it is easier than dealing with a car.

American's don't 'love' their cars. The zoning, design and construction of their homes and cities make them reliant on cars.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

I completely agree with you. At least when you pull the carbon from the air and put it back you are maintaining an equilibrium instead of bringing carbon stored in the ground an releasing it into the air.

Except you don't. You pull it from the oceans. Both from upper & lower layers.

But the oceans contain MUCH more carbon than the oil fields, and that *will* be brought up, because algae NEED co2 (like every single plant does), and for plants more co2=better (plant growth climbs until they have about 60% co2 in the athmosphere, realistically you can get maybe 1% to them). So algae farms are going to want to pump up co2 from the lower layers of the ocean (much, much easier and faster than getting it from the athmosphere).

So I do believe the poster was right. Nobody tell the green nuts, okay ?

However, in reality, adding co2 to the athmosphere makes it a LOT easier to increase crop yields world wide. And it doesn't "heat up the earth" (unfortunately, because that too would increase the number of people that the earth can support, and we all know that number needs to go up fast, unless you want WWIII in a few years).

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Colonel Korn]

I recently spent a day with someone at the supplier of 90+% of the world's hydrogen gas, and as you say, they produce it from methane. He pointed out that the amount of CO2 released while producing the hydrogen equivalent of a gallon of gasoline for automobile use is about twice the CO2 released from directly burning the gasoline. He said that the switch to an environmentally friendly production method would be monumental but likely to occur in the next few decades, but that the even bigger problem in his opinion was developing a distribution network for this hydrogen.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[Rhinobird]

Also, here's a site that has 15 points against using hydrogren as fuel. Number 7 is really interesting.

7. There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[fifedrum]

AC you have no idea what's going on. Put three vehicles in front of an American, one that gets 30 MPG of biofuel grown domestically from desert algae farms, one that runs on electricity alone (and at the same cost/mile) and one that runs on $6/gallon arab oil and see which one they choose. I'll bet it's close to 100% first two.

Re:I've got a secret for them

[LWATCDR]

Okay buddy. I am not a big fan of ecco nuts but...
Algae gets it's carbon from the air. It is carbon neutral. Hydrogen as a fuel is a mess. It is hard to store. Even liquid hydrogen has a lot less energy per cubic foot than jet fuel or gasoline. Tank size is an issue in just about all forms of transport. Also hydrogen really does some nasty stuff to many metals, It is really hard to keep from leaking, and as you pointed out it isn't an energy source.
I don't think cheap transport is going to go away anytime soon. We will just have to find new ways to make it cheap.

Abandon this project?

[WinPimp2K]

Nah, this is no place for half measures. We must obviously elimiminate all jet kerosene releases by 2030.

All hands: Abandon Planet! Abandon Planet!

Then we can nuke the site from orbit. It is the only way to make sure.

Re:Abandon this project?

[PopeRatzo]

If we could only learn to convert greed, stupidity and bigotry to fuel, we'd never have to worry about energy again.

Heck, 23% of the country could supply the energy needs of the entire nation.

Re:Abandon this project?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Are you saying politicians could actually be useful?

Yes, they're easier to convert into jet fuel than algae. The devil has perfected that specific process already : I hear a steady supply of politicians (and lawyers obviously) is what keeps hell warm.

Re:Abandon this project?

[ElizabethGreene]

To me, this has the same problem as the biomass -> ethanol projects.

Q: Who is going to grow the biomass?
A: Farmers.

Q: Will they grow it on new farms?
A: No. They will convert existing farms.

Q: So who will grow food then?
A:?

Re:Abandon this project?

[PitaBred]

Humans are the bad part, right? Those environmental terrorists are going about it all wrong. They need to kill themselves to be an example for the rest us uncaring individuals... :P

Re:Abandon this project?

[PitaBred]

Algae farm != traditional farm. Hell, algae grows GREAT in the desert or plains, in greenhouses. Land that gets a ton of sun, but the soil is basically unusable for any kind of farming.

See this link for more details on an algae farm

Soylent Green?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure they'll tell us jet fuel is made of algae, but then we'll find out that jet fuel "is people."

It works best with a Charlton Heston voice.

Re:Soylent Green?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as well, I can think of some humans who would make better fuel than people.

Other alternative propulsion methods...

[Starteck81]

They just need to lash some CEOs to the wings of their jets. I don't have any exact figures but I strongly suspect that they put out the same amount of hot air as a jet engine.

Will air travel return to its 1950s elite status?

[swb]

Air travel has become quite commonplace, I wonder if the rising fuel costs will make it economically non-viable to fly the number of routes and schedules that the airlines fly now if they end up having to raise the price to accommodate the ever-rising costs of fuel, turning air travel into one of those exclusive things it used to be 50 years ago.

I also wonder if we'll see a renaissance in train travel in the US as air travel gets more expensive.

A WSJ blog...

[Dog-Cow]

A Wall Street Journal blog points out that even if this program's goals are met, we will be worse off by 2030 in terms of jet kerosene released into the atmosphere, assuming that the rapid growth in the aviation sector continues apace. IOW, idiots are still allowed to post on the internet.

If 30% of the demand is met from biomass, that's *still* 30% less kerosene used and released into the atmosphere. What an idiot.

Rapid growth in the aviation sector?

[Weaselmancer]

Someone must not be reading the news much lately.

Seems like every time you turn on the news you can't help but see some airline going broke.

Personally I don't mind much. I'm hoping we see a resurgence of train travel. Easier, cheaper, and somehow a more romantic way to travel.

Take an airplane when you're in a hurry. Take a train when you want to have a nice easy experience traveling. Looking out the windows at the cows, sleeping with the click-clack of the rails passing under your car - that kind of a thing. I know that's not the current situation today but I'd like the future to look like that.

I'd happily tack on an extra day or two to my vacation if it meant I could enjoy dinner in a nice dining car. And not get frisked and scanned and have my orange juice confiscated by airport security when I go to board.

Re:Rapid growth in the aviation sector?

[analog_line]

Personally I don't mind much. I'm hoping we see a resurgence of train travel. Easier, cheaper, and somehow a more romantic way to travel.

Well, I don't know where you're getting your numbers. Perhaps for short distances and certain areas (ie, up and down the Eastern Seaboard), but for cross country travel, trains aren't price competitive at all. I travel to Seattle once or twice a year from Boston, and I can still get ~$300 round trip tickets. I also get there in a few hours. I've priced out train travel, and it comes out to almost $600, and 6 solid days of travel time for the round trip. Even more if I want a guaranteed electrical socket so I can plug anything in and do work/other stuff during the 3 day journey each way (you've got to buy a room for the long distance trains, the special seats with plugs only seem to be on the trains that run along the Eastern Seaboard, that's something like $300 per CONNECTION).

Now, I don't imagine that the cost of air travel is going to stay that low, so in the near future train travel may very well become the only reasonable option left to me, but even with the nightmare that is air travel today, it's still a better option than the train.

Re:Rapid growth in the aviation sector?

[p0tat03]

IMHO we'll see a resurgence of trains in the near future. Airline prices are shooting through the roof (it just cost me $700 round trip to fly my gf from the east coast to the west), and eventually trains will become competitive in the short to mid haul routes. Coast-to-coast will always be in airline territory, but I can totally see a revitalized railroad industry gutting the short-to-mid haul travel.

Here's the deal. With airplanes I have to put up with annoying security, crappy service, high prices, noisy interiors, cramped seats... the only real advantage I get over trains is that I get there faster.

But, as we know, almost all of the eastern seaboard airports are stuffed beyond comprehension. Delays are rampant, and increased security only adds to travel time. Compare with a train where I can walk on, sit down, and go. As the airport congestion and security problem gets worse, we'll get to a point where taking the train for mid-haul routes is time-competitive with flying. Add the recent advances in high-speed rail, and we can make the "effective distance" of trains pretty far indeed.

And I bet you burn a HECK of a lot more fuel (dollar per passenger) between Boston and NY by flying, than by train.

The trick here is governmental assistance. We don't have the rail capacity in the country anymore to handle mass passenger rail like the old days. This is not a problem that rail companies themselves can resolve - there needs to be a concerted national effort to modernize and expand our rail infrastructure.

I've posted this before: when I worked in Ottawa, Canada, I used to travel back to Toronto fairly regularly. It costs about $150 round-trip, for about 500km of travel. That's already cheaper than flying, and rolling in check-in, security, and the requisite delays, the train only arrived about an hour later than the plane, which is fine by me. In exchange? I get a big seat, much legroom, WiFi on-board, a plug, and a soft click-clack instead of the roar of a jet engine.

Cars were better for the environment

[tjstork]

Trains used to be everywhere in the city because it was the only mode of transportation available. You have to remember that at the time diesel was becoming available and the internal combustion engine was being to overwhelm the steam engine. You should see some pictures of the railroad yards in downtown Philadelphia back when the PRR was at its peak. Everything was covered in black coal soot and people living in the cities just hated the steam engine but tolerated it as a necessary evil. Railroads, now viewed nostalgically today, were back then viewed with the same sort of hatred as Microsoft is by slashdot fans.

Yes, its true, back in the day, the greedy corporation was in fact the steam train operators that ran the steam railroads. To some extent, people viewed the likes of GM as a form of liberation from a railroad monopoly, just as much as people cheered Microsoft when they supplanted IBM and cheer now tiny Linux service companies as they threaten to supplant Microsoft. Basically, what we are doing is evolution through corporate service. Once we've realized in our minds whatever good can be ascribed to a company, we get rid of it.

To get back to point, its all too easy to see that, as soon as GM and Ford salespeople walked into cities talking up the virtues of buses over trains, they weren't exactly walking into a hostile environment. A bunch of cities even helped things along by passing ordinances effectively banning steam engines and then later on, even regular trains, for various health and safety reasons. The car, of all things, were not just a symbol of freedom from the evil railroad corporation, not just a symbol of private ownership, but they were actually -better for the environment too-!

That just cracks me up. That and, the likes of Ivy League Univ of PA.

Re:Cars were better for the environment

[tjstork]

The trains in the city were electric, not steam/coal powered

No, it was a mix. You still needed to have steam trains to haul both freight and commuter traffic between city. Electric trains didn't have the power to make steep grades and so steamers would be still be used, for example, to K4s.

I had a bunch of pictures in a longer post explaining this in more detail, but slashdot's new stupid interface got the best of me and now its gone.

Anyway, the picture I'm trying to paint is this. Commuters circa the 1920s would probably take some sort of a electric train, be it subway or trolly to a central station. There, they would transfer to a steamer for travel between those cities that did not have electrified routes. So, to get somewhere, you would have walk a bit, take one form of transit, then get off, wait on a platform, then get another, and then from there go to another city, and repeat the same process. You had a big mix of ugly electric wires or dangerous third rails everywhere, and choking smoke from steam engines to do it. What's even worse is that, in that whole system, pressure from cars and worn infrastructure abused by the nationalizations of two wars basically meant that railroad service was pretty unreliable. Imagine how pissed you would be, for example, if your commuter train was late and you missed your intracity train.

So, when the car came out, its advantages were obvious to anyone who travelled. You only had to get into and exit your vehicle once. You stayed warm and dry the whole trip. You didn't have to walk to and from any stations and the only cost you needed to have to make a trip was gasoline (which was dirt cheap). By the time you get to the 1950s, Eisenhower was launching the interstates, New Jersey and other states were building their turnpikes, and everyone who had any brain was buying a car.

The great irony is that, as much as we say the coal fired locomotive was evil and polluting, to this day, a steam engine pulling 100 passengers built even with 1920s designs would emit about the same CO2 as not much more than 4 or 5 modern cars. A K4s (the most common steam passenger engine on the PRR circa the golden era) only had about a two thousand horespower, if that, and even today a modern locomotive diesel is about 4000 hp. Trains a pretty good deal, environmentally.

If we had a "clean coal" steamer service, we'd be way ahead of the curve...

Re:Cars were better for the environment

[smellsofbikes]

>If we had a "clean coal" steamer service, we'd be way ahead of the curve...

A hydrogen-powered locomotive would have a number of advantages over hydrogen-powered cars: it's pulling tens of thousands of tons already and won't mind the weight of thick-wall stainless steel tubing that doesn't leak or embrittle badly, and one big fuel depot can handle the cryogenic storage requirements, with a small number of people who have had training in doing cryo fuel transfers, rather than having to build thousands of hydrogen storage tanks at gas stations and make something that's sufficiently idiot-proof that the morons who think it's a good idea to drive down the highway while talking on the phone and trimming their nose hairs don't explode themselves.

(that isn't the longest sentence I've ever written, but it's probably the longest I've written on slashdot...)

BTW, I'm not saying that a hydrogen economy is a good idea. I am saying that if we were to try it, locomotives would be a better beneficiary than automobiles.

Journalists and Bloggers Template!

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to be a Blogger or Journalist? It's Easy!

Simply use the template below to create incisive, award winning posts.
---

Despite advances in _______________, by the year ______________, experts believe that we will still be worse of in terms of ________________, requiring drastic measures to reduce ______________.

It doesn't matter what you put in, it's all true!

You know even if it won't

[greymond]

You know, even if it won't cut down the emissions of the jets I still think it's a step in the right direction. We just need a government leader that will actually make ecosmart research a priority.

Re:next step

[anexkahn]

Soylent fuel....thats a good way to go green :)

There's approximately a zero percent chance...

[sean.peters]

... that "rapid growth in the aviation sector continues apace". For one thing, the cost of jet fuel is going to continue to rise, which is going to make continued growth in air travel cost prohibitive. For another, there's simply no more room at airports to add flights, even if cost wasn't a consideration. I think that air travel is going to remain flat at most, and more likely, will decline at least somewhat.

Simple solution

[catmistake]

Nationalize the Oil companies and raid their accounts. Make fuel free the way roads and bridges are "free," made a part of the Department of Interior, subsidized by new taxes. Use the windfall amounts of money (from siezed oil money) to bail out the airlines and R&D new fuel sources, & use whats left to pay down national debt.

Hydrogen is a red herring

[Colin Smith]

Feel free to keep chasing it though. I'll get some popcorn and a comfy seat.

Re:Yes, it is.

[TechyImmigrant]

>Getting frisked, waiting in lines, and getting piddly pretzels is for us members of the great unwashed.

Some of us great unwashed who work for corporations with their own jets get to use them and avoid the airport hell.

It may be economy seating, but it is at the local airport, you park in front of the terminal, walk in, wave your badge and get on the plane. 10 Minutes from getting out of the car to being airborne.

That is about 3 hours saved at each end compared to the 'real' airport across town.

So I can fly to my destination, have a full day and fly back with no stupid 4.00am wakeup, no stupid 11.00pm return and no stupid overnight stay in a hotel where the staff steal stuff from your room.

Grey Goo?

[chord.wav]

...program to develop jet fuel from algae and other biomass...

Yes, but can they use grey goo?

Slower planes

[phorm]

I remember reading recently that airlines have actually slowed their flights down. Slowing down apparently means being a few minutes later, but a noticeable savings in fuel (or so the article said)

Re:Will air travel return to its 1950s elite statu

[swb]

Why is that though? Has the rail system (with regards to people moving) simply died due to neglect? Noise/speed requirements as trains can't travel so fast in urban areas? Are there too many stops along the way to make it worth it?

The rail system has collapsed due to its own lack of economic viability, mismanagement and the time factor, which can't be discounted.

When I was a kid, we'd take a 3 week vacation in the winter and at least two weeks over the summer, and my dad had a crap job as a semi-trailer salesman. I have a "good" job as an IT consultant and my wife is a marketing executive, and I can barely get away for 2 weeks a year and she the same. We *have* to take fast vacations, and we almost always fly out early in the morning or ASAP after work to maximize our vacations.

But I think most famously Amtrak was run as a unionized government entity that nobody really cared about. Their rolling stock rotted, they lost money, service was awful, and Congress kept underfunding or threatening to cut funding. Every said "too bad" when lines got cut (eg, Minneapolis to Duluth -- an easy 2-3 hour drive, but scenic and relaxing on the train) but people who did try to take it often spent hours stopped due to mechanical problems -- a cow-orker of mine took it to Whitefish, Montana and spent 12 *hours* at a dead stop due to some problem. She rented a sleeper car for big bucks, but those that didn't suffered.

I think for rail to see a significant revival it will take a big investment in service (rolling stock, administration, in-train service, scheduling, express routes), a doubling or tripling of airfares and possible some innovations (eg, bringing your car with you on a car-carrier) and social/business acceptance of the 3 week vacation.

So which is the oil company?

[vuo]

Honeywell, JetBlue Airways, International Aero Engines, and Airbus. None of them is an oil company or in the energy business. The single most important problem (imho) with green fuel is that the right people are not working on it. It's a special, expensive, small-volume product; producers are startups or general chemical companies. They are not oil companies, which own the oil infrastructure and have expertise in energy and transport fuels, not speciality products.

When the renewable fuel is a speciality chemical, there's little or no focus on the actual scale-up. They may sell 0.01% of the market volume with a high price; this is just greenwashing, novelty, or "alternative energy" (I really hate that expression). As I understand, Honeywell is a speciality chemicals company. Such companies lack the expertise in oil refinery operations and energy infrastructure.

Commercial-scale fuel production will probably start with triterpene-producing algae, which have a high hydrocarbon yield. An oil refinery operation, hydrocracking, is used to convert triterpene into fuel. Expertise is also needed to process the massive volumes of organic waste; will they go to replace coal or to gasification and then Fischer-Tropsch diesel synthesis? All this should be done in an oil-company scale, not on the backyard scale or even on the plastics/specialities scale.