Biofuels for Jet Planes - Branson Reveals (a little) More
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on 04.30.07
Regular readers of TreeHugger will be aware that aviation is becoming an increasingly hot topic in environmental circles. Readers will also be aware that Richard Branson, the owner of Virgin Atlantic, has been trying to position himself, and his company, as environmental leaders in the aviation industry. In particular, Virgin have been making big claims about developing biofuels that could one day replace kerosene in jet engines, something that many people claim can’t be done (see George Monbiot's attack on Virgin, and Virgin's response here). We first reported on Mr Branson’s claims here, when he announced he was looking at cellulosic ethanol for jet fuels, and that they might replace fossil fuels in the next 20 – 30 years. We later posted on this again with an update, when Mr Branson was not talking about ethanol anymore, but ‘a new kind of fuel’, which he claimed could be working in cars and trucks within a year, and airplanes within five years. In between then and now, the Virgin boss also announced that he would be ploughing all of his profits from his travel companies (he also own Virgin Trains in the UK) into renewable energy, claiming this would amount to $3bn in investment. It doesn't end there, however. According to a recent report on Sky News, Mr Branson is at it again. Apparently he now hopes to run a test flight of a Boeing 747-400 using biofuel by the end of next year, and the first passenger flights could be taking off within the next two years.
Virgin have apparently been working with GE and Boeing on the initiative, and they will be testing a number of feedstocks, including soya, vegetables and newspaper. If you follow the video link on the Sky page, Mr Branson also explains in an interview (from what appears to be a computer simulation of a Virgin plane) that one of the big challenges is finding a fuel that doesn’t freeze at high altitude, and hints that this is leading them to look at butanol, rather than ethanol. Encouragingly, he also emphasizes that they are looking at developing cellulosic biofuels “so that one’s not just using the corn or the sugar, but we’re using the stalks, we're using the prairie grass, and we’re using the willow trees.” This should at least go some way towards relieving fears that biofuels will threaten food production. All is not certain, however: “”…it’s by no means guaranteed that it will be successful, but if we can succeed, hopefully people will one day be able to fly on planes without emitting carbon.”
Of course, until the public are able to see the fruits of Virgin’s labors, and to corroborate firstly, that his new fuels work safely in aircraft, and secondly that they do genuinely offer a decreased environmental footprint compared to conventional jet fuel (remember the palm oil debate!), we will refrain from getting too enthusiastic, but we do note that there is plenty of research and debate going on elsewhere into alternatives for the aviation industry. For a small sample of what’s been going on, check out our post on the sustainable-energy initiative between the University of North Dakota and North Dakota State University in Fargo, and their research into low-temperature tolerant biofuels. See also our Q&A on biodiesel in airplanes, and research by NASA, GE and others into halophytes – salt water plants that could be grown in desert areas to provide biofuels for aviation (and maybe increase rainfall in the process). Of course, it’s not just about what fuel you use – landing jumbo’s in idle, and towing planes to a starting grid can also significantly reduce emissions.
This is pretty much a standard disclaimer now, but alternatives to air-travel are likely to remain significantly greener for the foreseeable future, so check out the man at Seat 61 for truly efficient travel options.
Mexico Approves Corn and Sugar Cane Ethanol Law
|
The City Museum in St. Louis - A Wonderland of Recycled Materials
|
Great update! Props to Sami Grover, I really appreciate the piece. Thanks.
-------------------
Author's note:
Thanks Joshua - glad it was useful!
Keep in mind that for huge areas of the globe where no railways or roads exist (and none should exist), aviation offers the most efficient way to get people in and out for most purposes. It simply doesn't do to argue that roads and rails go everywhere, because they do not.
Therefore, describing "seat 61" as the "truly efficient" travel option skews the issue. If a railway goes where you want to o, then as a general thing it makes sense (usually) to take it. But railways don't (and shouldn't) go everywhere.
I don't think the issue is flying over the bush to get to a village or whatever. Its people flying from NYC to Washington. Or LA to San Francisco. Or London to Paris. The routes a majority of people take every day, both by air and train.
i appreciate the update! glad to have more info on this.
Indeed, John makes a good and frequently glossed-over point. I'd rather have the most efficient aircraft possible flying high over the Amazon than a railway (not to mention a highway), slicing through it. Carbon-per-mile calculations invariably omit the road and rail component. It takes a huge amount of materials and energy to build a road or a railway.
A single meter of dual railroad track, including rails, ties (usually made of concrete), and supporting gravel weighs as much as a large car. The steel alone for typical TGV track, which is not particularly heavy, weighs 60kg per meter per rail, or 120kg per track. So that a double track section 1,000 km long requires 240,000 metric tons of steel. Then there is the concrete involved. Each concrete crosstie weighs about 300 kg. There are approximately 2.5 crossties per meter, per track, so that's 5 per meter for two tracks, which is 1,500 kg per meter, or 1.5 million metric tons of concrete for that same 1,000 km of railway.
I'll let somebody else do the CO2 footprint of this, and I haven't included bridges, tunnels, earthworks, and so forth. It takes a lot of airplane flights to catch up to this CO2 overhead. Over many low or mid-density routes this makes no sense at all. Not all of the world is like Europe or Japan (or India or the Northeastern US, for example), where density is high and distances are short. Land travel is far more resource intensive than people understand, plus it destroys habitat and encourages sprawl.
Alonso: right on. I'd just add that I see no argument for adding the "radiative forcing" of contrails and ignoring the terrawatts of heat captured by the asphalt we lay down for the car (why do people think at urban heat islands happen?)
Anonymous: If you make a routine of including a blanket statement in posts on aviation, pretty much as boilerplate, then it seems only reasonable to point out that the blanket statement contains inaccuracies. Besides, I see no reason not to make an accurate statement in the first place. It surely doesn't take an unbearable number of words to write that trains offer better efficiency for most interurban travel in Europe and the Americas.