Air New Zealand Biofuelling Through The High Skies
by Kimberley D. Mok, Montreal, Canada 
on 09.30.07
With flying being one of the greatest contributors to growing carbon emissions, airlines are scrambling to find ways to clean up their image – carbon offsets, recycling, zero emissions targets – but it is up to some scrutiny and debate as to whether these measures will be effective.
Nevertheless, it shouldn’t stop the airlines from trying. With New Zealand’s government declaring itself to actively become the world’s first carbon neutral nation with sustainability underpinning the “four pillars of the economy, society, the environment, and nationhood,” Air New Zealand is planning to launch the first test of a commercial 747 airliner flying partially on biofuels, as part of a deal between the airline, engine maker Rolls-Royce and aircraft manufacturer Boeing to study greener flying, with the first flight slated to take off late 2008 or early 2009 (without passengers).
One of the plane’s four engines will be powered by a combination of kerosene and biofuel – though it is not clear yet which type of biofuel is to be used.
Virgin Atlantic – along with General Electric and Boeing – is already planning a test commercial flight early next year that will have one engine out of four powered partially or entirely by biofuel.
Even with the airlines jumping on the bandwagon, biofuels have nevertheless garnered some criticism recently as to whether they actually cause more emissions than previously thought. Some critics have pointed out that existing biofuel technologies may actually produce more emissions than conventional fuels, aside from the fact that biofuel crops such as maize and rape require large amounts of land to grow that would actually call for increased deforestation.
There is now growing interest in so-called “second-generation” biofuels, where whole plants are grown and processed specifically for biofuels, rather than parts of food crops, as it is now. Though it would be more efficient in land-use and make for higher emission reductions, the technology is at least a decade away from feasible implementation.
::BBC
See also ::A Better Way to Make Biofuel, ::A Perfect Cocktail: Biofuel and Booze?, ::Prospecting for Biofuels
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Quickly Calculate The Carbon of Your Flights
- Reduce Your Carbon Footprint by Half in Three Steps
- Does Recycling Really Make a Difference?
- Compost Stink? Add Cardboard!
- Trust Stella McCartney: Meat-Free Mondays are Hip, not Hippie!
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
Flying is NOT one of the greatest contributors to carbon emissions, though some people obsess over it for some reason.
All types of civilian flying account for about 3% of global carbon emissions. This is significant, and could grow if agressive steps are not taken to use more efficient aircraft and operating procedures, use biofuels, or to use provable and effective short-term offsets (in other words, not simply tree planting).
I'm not saying government and industry should do nothing.
But flying is not now, nor ever has been, one of the greatest contributors to CO2. Those would be coal, oil, cars, deforestation, and the construction industry.
The Sydney Morning Herald reported back in July that Air New Zealand was involved in a project to develop bio fuels not from plants but from alge that grows in sewage ponds. See the article here , or check out this report .
The technology would potentially be less carbon intensive than growing corn or rapeseed (canola) and If successful, would put to good use an otherwise unutilised resource without requiring additional land. That said, with 34,000 square kilometres of sewage ponds required to neutralise the world's aviation emissions, I still think that we'll need to curtail our level of flying in order to get on top of aviation related greenhouse gasses.
While flying may not be the biggest CO2 producer specifically - it is a big problem for the environment. It's not just CO2 that's the problem.
Recent studies indicate that livestock farming - cattle, dairy, hogs, chickens, eggs are the biggest source of global warming pollution (18%) - as well as pollution that's destroying our waterways and deforesting huge swatches of land across the world. Not eating factory farmed meat, dairy and eggs apparently is the biggest step one can take to be environmental.
The vapor trails (contrails) from jets are a real concern as they create a layer of warming vapors that is quite significant, not to mention the extreme levels of toxic pollution airports and planes create. According to studies, many airports rank among the top 10 industrial air pollution sources in their cities. Air travel is expected to double in the next 20 years. Noise pollution is yet another problem with airplanes and this noise pollution can disrupt wildlife putting stress on them that reduces their ability to survive. Bottom line is that air travel is not clean and needs to be cleaned up considerably.
What Alonzo said, with two additional points:
1) The limited consumption of fuel (66% less than cars and light trucks) by the global aviation industry makes aviation a prime candidate for conversion to biofuels.
2) We can replace most cars and light trucks with rail, trams, and bicycles, but for travel to huge areas of the world, we have no substitute for aviation. The automobile industry does not only pollute far more than the aviation industry; it also does much more damage with much less return.
Air NZ is dragging the chain.
Qantas is way ahead of them and I am sure Air NZ will want to respond n some way??
Check out http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn/au/publicaffairs/details?ArticleID=2007/sep07/3655