most popular: Sex in Small Cars?


most popular:
Killer Smog Clouds


th comments
gmoke said: "There are nearly one million solar/dynamo am/fm/sw radios in Afghanistan distributed by US and NATO forces since before the invasion. These solar/..." [read]

Rich said: "Kashrut is dietary law. Please don't eat the fabric softener. LA: I spent the morning at a Bat Mitzvah reading Leviticus to figure t..." [read]

megan said: "Why not buy a used lunch box? I see them constantly at garage sales and thrift stores for under $5. You can save small jars left over from things l..." [read]

said: "Why the sticker shock? Look at regular- plastic lunchboxes, the kind kids take to school, and you'll see that cost $5-10, just for the box...." [read]

BirdTrouble said: "how does that effect those of us who only eat organic meats???..." [read]

Bio-Jumbo Cleared For Takeoff

by April Streeter, Gothenburg, Sweden on 01.15.08
Cars & Transportation

VirginBiofuel.jpg

In spite of all the bad news about first-generation biofuels, it's still a thrill to hear that Virgin Atlantic announced yesterday a 747 flown on a mixture of about 20 percent biofuel and the rest kerosene will lift off for a test flight in February, many months earlier than planned.

The passengerless Virgin flight from London to Amsterdam will be a Boeing 747-400 and will fly the approximately 1.5-hour flight on the alternative fuel, which Virgin spokesman Paul Charles wouldn't identify but said is from a "sustainable" source that doesn't compete with food or freshwater supplies. Algae, perhaps? Virgin moved up the time table for its biofuel pilot flight as initial engine testing results were better than expected, according to the company. Air New Zealand also plans test flights later this year, but biofuel-powered commercial flights are still supposedly a couple of years away. Via NYTimes


Comments (1)

A Thrill?! You really are joking, aren't you?

You really think that making any form of flying more respectable will do anything to make this planet a greener place? 20% biofuels, so that means 80% kerosene, so let's just suppose that it's a 20% cut in overall emissions. Ok? Now let's look at the source of the biofuel.

A "sustainable" source would mean no net transport emissions, no use of fertilisers, no loss of habitat, no reduction in photosythesis...are you getting this?

And let's just suppose that this "sustainable" source is better than kerosene. How many people will stop flying if they think that it is ok to carry on doing it because their flights are now greener? How many people who previously refused to fly because of the horrific greenhouse gas growth will now think again, and maybe take the odd Virgin flight?

Flying can NEVER be sustainable, so stop pretending it is green, in any way at all.

Keith

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

th ads
th top picks
th ads