Biofuel for aircraft

The gas turbine engine (be it turboshaft, turboprop, or jet) has a number of virtues, one of which is the ability to run on pretty much anything that burns. When Chrysler built a series of experimental gas turbine cars in 1963, diesel was the recommended fuel, but drivers experimented with numerous other fuels, including gasoline, kerosene, jet fuel, tequila, and reportedly Chanel No. 5 with success. For this reason, turbine engines are good candidates for biofuel substitution. And it's happening:

The Australian airline Qantas will this month announce a deal to build the world's second commercial-scale plant to produce green biojet fuel made from waste for its fleet of aircraft.

Its proposed partner, the US-based fuel producer Solena, is also in negotiations with easyJet, Ryanair and Aer Lingus about building a plant in Dublin, although this project is less advanced.

Airlines are trying to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels ahead of their entry into the EU's carbon emissions trading scheme in January 2012 and the introduction of other new environmental legislation. Under the scheme, any airline flying in or out of the EU must cut emissions or pay a penalty.

Solena's joint venture with Qantas – which could be announced within the next fortnight – follows a tie-up with British Airways, signed in February last year, to build the world's first commercial-scale biojet fuel plant in London, creating up to 1,200 jobs.

Once operational in 2014, the London plant, costing £200m to build, will convert up to 500,000 tonnes of waste a year into 16m gallons of green jet fuel, which BA said would be enough to power 2% of its aircraft at its main base at Heathrow. The waste will come from food scraps and other household material such as grass and tree cuttings, agricultural and industrial waste. It is thought the Qantas plant, to be built in Australia, will be similar.

From the Guardian. The fact that it's waste that they're using, as opposed to food crops, is a very good thing; however I wonder just how much fuel can be produced that way. I suspect that future generations will fly a lot less than we do. Or, they'll make it out of palm oil, which is actually even worse than petroleum in terms of its climate effect, owing to the amount of rainforest that is typically cleared to produce it.

Tories to cut diesel, jet fuel excise

Now if it were just diesel, that might actually be a good idea, but jet fuel?

In his first promise of the election campaign, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is pledging to cut federal excises taxes on diesel and aviation fuel in half within four years.

Mr. Harper is vowing he would the tax by two cents -- reducing it to two cents per litre from the current four cents.

He says it will offer welcome relief for consumers because it would reduce shipping costs for goods they buy, from food to furniture. The levy reduction will cost the federal treasury $600-million.

“It's modest, affordable and responds to real needs,” said the Conservative Leader, who used a Winnipeg warehouse of vegetables as a backdrop to illustrate the impact of fuel taxes on consumer goods.

Now diesel does indeed have an impact on the price of these things, and the demand is fairly inelastic. Jet fuel, on the other hand, is a luxury. Sorry Steve, but flying to the Dominican Republic every winter is not a "real need". Well, it might be a real need for Steve someday, when an angry mob is after his head...

Propellers are coming back!

Ever fantasize about the days when propeller planes reigned supreme? Well, they're coming back in a big way:

With oil prices hovering at close to $110 a barrel, many are betting that new technologies — biofuels, hydrogen cells and solar power among them — will solve the world's energy crisis. A large part of the airline industry, however, is looking back to basics: planes with propellers.

In the market for passenger planes with fewer than 70 seats, turboprop aircraft, once condemned for the relatively noisy and bumpy ride passengers endure, are now outselling the equivalent regional jets by two-to-one, according to industry estimates.

"Propeller-driven craft enjoy massive fuel benefits on shorter journeys," Kapil Kaul, the chief executive of the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, said.

For a journey of less than about 600 nautical miles, or about 90 minutes' flying time, a turboprob may use as much as 70 per cent less fuel than a similar-sized jet, he added.

Via itulip.com. The only turboprop I ever rode in was a Dash 8 between Winnipeg and Thunder Bay, back in 1990. They are indeed a lot noisier and slower than jets, but with fuel savings like this, expect to ride on them a lot more often in the future. Fortunately the reliability of their engines is more like that of jets than that of piston engines, though.

Incidentally, I have ridden in piston-powered light planes a few times. By far the most interesting flight I took was in 1991 in Australia, with this outfit. Back then, the whole aerobatic flight deal was something like $115, so I jumped at it. And there is most definitely something cool about sitting in an open cockpit aircraft while it's in a spin, steeply banked so that you can watch the city and the ocean rotate below you. Notably, the price has more or less tripled since then.