Efforts to produce high-performance, unblended biofuels that can be used as drop-in replacements for petroleum-based jet fuel have taken a major step forward. The National Research Council (NRC) of Canada reported that the 100-percent non-food biofuel used in its historic October 29 test flight displayed reduced emissions compared to conventional jet fuel.
Results of additional tests showed that the unblended biofuel used on that flight in the Falcon 20 twin-engine commercial jet is just as efficient as the regular petroleum version. Remember, that's with an unmodified engine.
That flight was the first in which a civil jet flew on 100-percent biofuel that meets the performance specifications of petroleum jet fuel. Before then, biofuel used in flights consisted of blends with at least 50-percent petroleum-based fuel, all because of performance requirements.
The Falcon 20 is an NRC test aircraft. For the biofuel test flight, the Falcon flew at 30,000 feet, a typical altitude for commercial aircraft. Following close behind was a T-33, which collected information on the engine emissions produced by the oilseed-based biofuel.
Analysis of the data showed that aerosol emissions of the biofuel during flight were reduced by 50 percent compared to conventional fuel. In tests performed on a static, non-flying engine, there was a significant reduction in particles, as much as 25 percent, and a reduction of up to 49 percent in black carbon emissions. During steady-state operations, tests showed comparable engine performance between the two fuel types, and an improved fuel consumption of 1.5 percent using the biofuel. (You can access a report on test data here.)
Developed by American company Applied Research Associates (ARA) and Canada-based Agrisoma Biosciences for the commercial airline industry, the 100-percent biofuel is being developed by ARA under the name ReadiJet. The fuel was made from an industrial crop based on oilseed (Brassica carinata), a relative of mustard and canola plants. The crop is designed to grow in semi-arid regions such as the southern prairies in western Canada, where most food crops won't grow, and is now being produced on a commercial scale.
ARA and Chevron Lummus Global (CLG) came up with the Biofuels ISOCONVERSION process to produce the fuel from plants and algae. This process is based on ARA's proprietary catalytic hydrothermolysis process and CLG's hydroprocessing technology.
The resulting fuels, including ReadiJet and ReadiDiesel, can be used as drop-in replacements in existing turbine and diesel engines designed to operate on petroleum fuels. ARA says it will be less expensive than competing technologies to build and operate facilities for making fuels from the Biofuels ISOCONVERSION process, at a capital expenditure of $1 per annual production volume and operating expenses similar to the costs of petroleum refining. The process also doesn't require the use of hydrocracking or hydroisomerization, typically present in conventional fuel processing technologies.
The NRC says it will continue working to bring the fuel to market. Meanwhile, ARA is cooperating with American company Blue Sun Energy to build and operate a demonstration facility, and then move to commercial volume production of both fuels. The demonstration system's target is 100 barrels per day.
ARA and Blue Sun expect to reach prices competitive with petroleum-based fuels in 2015. That's only two years from now -- and it's also the same year the US Navy has targeted for achieving 50 percent of energy consumption from alternative sources for non-tactical uses.
Since jet fuel is similar to kerosene, it should be possible to run a car on a mix of the two, To run a car on pure jet fuel would probably not work. But a diesel car may run on it quite well, but possibly not so well in colder weather.
Interesting. I really hope this turns out to be at least half as good as they claim. The skeptic in me is worried by the numbers. A 50% reduction in emissions is huge. It's also hard to believe. I wonder if this Jet Biofuel has all the additives required for petroleum-based jet fuel. Foaming agents and other additives that are required to reduce flamability for fire safety do nothing to improve emissions. They are going to generate a lot of public interest with those numbers. I really hope they're factual.
From what I understand, heating oil is Kerosene #1 (K1), diesel is Kerosene #2 (K2) and Jet fuel is K2 with additives. I use un-dyed diesel (K2) in my furnace at home. Most diesel engines would run on either K1 or K2. The newer high-pressure injection diesels may have specific fuel requirements to prevent clogged injectors. I know that was a problem when they were first introduced in the US. Dual fuel filters and filter heaters were often required.
Nite_Owl, by "Fact or fiction?" are you actually suggesting that the Canadian government and its partners just made up everything reported here? I may be a cynic about some things, and I'm well aware that governments lie about some things, but I don't think all this would be orchestrated purely to deceive, nor can I imagine Canadians lying this badly. Also, note that the 50 percent reduction was in aerosol emissions, not particle emissions.
I'm hoping they are on the level. From what I've read elsewhere, the aerosol emissions that were reduced in this case were "black carbon" or soot. We have the US military, ARA (US Military contractor), Chevron and Lummus representing big oil and NRC representing Canadian government all involved. With all their spin doctors possibly involved, it would be difficult for me not to question the "facts".
I hear you regarding the Big Oil factor and I'm not one to take their word on anything. But the sponsor of this research is the NRC. And I simply don't believe this is invented out of whole cloth. Also, the report distinguished between three different kinds of emissions that you appear to be conflating: aerosol, black carbon and particle, with three different reduction rates.
WE did some experimenting back in the sixties, and later I learned from my father-in-law that back in WW2 when there was fuel rationing, they would run cars on mostly kerosene, after starting them on gas and getting them warmed up. Present engines are a bit more adaptable and probably have better sparking systems as well. What I learned from our experimenting in the sixties was that 10% diesel did work but much over that tended to run a bit rough in some engines. Our experiments were not very sophisticated, they were basically "add some of this and see what happens", and the results were observations done without instrumentation.
So there has been a bit of actual experience showing that it can work under some conditions.
Presently, the diesel fuel is more expensive so there is no incentive to use it in a gas engine.
Their statements concerning emissions are a bit confusing. Black carbon is both a particle and aerosol emission. The difference is in how they are measured. From what I understand, aerosol emissions are measured with engine in flight at a given altitude, while particle and gaseous emissions are measured with the engine stationary at ground level. They state a reduction in black carbon emissions up to 49%, particle emissions up to 25% and aerosol emissions up to 50%. These would appear to be overlapping numbers. The most significant reduction in emissions is black carbon (about 43% at cruise and 49% at idle). I would have to guess that black carbon makes up the lion's share of the aerosol and particle emissions reductions.
I'm still wondering how much spin is on this. The gaseous emissions, cumbustion temperatures and power output are all virtually identical between ReadiJet and Jet-A1. There is a slight reduction in fuel consumption, but is it enough to account for the reduction in emissions? Where everything else is equal, less matter (fuel) in should equal less unburned particles (black carbon) out.
The 100-percent solar-powered Solar Impulse plane flies on a piloted, cross-country flight this summer over the US as a prelude to the longer, round-the-world flight by its successor aircraft planned for 2015.
GE Aviation expects to chop off about 25 percent of the total 3D printing time of metallic production components for its LEAP Turbofan engine, using in-process inspection. That's pretty amazing, considering how slow additive manufacturing (AM) build times usually are.
A $1,500, hand-operated, bench-model, plastic injection machine crowdsource-funded via Kickstarter can be used to mold small, quality, plastic parts inexpensively, on demand.
The federal government is launching competitions to kickstart three more manufacturing innovation institutes, including one focused on Lightweight and Modern Metals Manufacturing Innovation.
The airframe of Airbus's A350 XWB consists of a bigger proportion of carbon-fiber-reinforced composite structures than any other commercial jet to date: over 53 percent by weight.
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 5
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This radio show will show what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
16 
