Airbus poised for alternative fuel first with A380 demonstration flight

[Coast]

Just read this information on Airbus's trials of a gas-to-liquid (GTL) kerosene mix in the new A380.

It also appears Virgin Atlantic and Boeing are preparing to undertake a biofuel demonstration flight this month using a 747-400 fuelled between London and Amsterdam.

Although the Airbus demo was not using true biofuel, Sebastien Remy, head of Airbus SAS's alternative fuel programme is quoted as saying

'GTL was the first step to developing BTL (biomass-to-liquid) fuel, which can use anything from wood chips to crops'

He wants to avoid competing with food crops, and said the research emphasis was on growing biomass where food crops are not grown, such as arid regions. Eventually, algae could be one source.

Now if I can get all that wood on the beaches down here to Heathrow, can I get a free flight to Jamaica?

[BARRY]

can you imagine putting a log on the engine :blush:

[Coast]

Well the research points to a whole new range of base ingredients that may be able to be used to produce jet engine quality fuel - from cow manure to saltwater plants!

Richard Branson said in a report last year that

Virgin Atlantic is hoping the first passengers could even be flying in an aircraft run on the "green" jet fuel within two years.

Sir Richard has also decided to invest £1.5 billion pounds over the next decade to fight global warming. He will invest all profits from his travel-related companies (like airline Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Trains) in initiatives to develop new renewable energy technologies, both run by Virgin companies and external businesses. "We must rapidly wean ourselves off our dependence on coal and fossil fuels," he said.

Looks like it could be interesting to see how this fuel works, how it's produced, and what the emissions are.

[Bobby]

I'd love to know how green these "green" fuels are. That article mentions biofuel... biofuel generally isn't very green at all, unless by "green" you mean cutting down and burning huge areas of sensitive tropical rainforest in order to make room to grow the crops, then applying massive amounts of synthetic hydrocarbon derrived fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides, fungicides etc. Then you have the diesel powered tractors planting the crops, spraying them, gathering them. Then there's the irrigation systems that run off petrol/diesel powered engines, no doubt drawing water unsustainably from underground aquifiers or rivers. Not to mention the whole infastructure that has to be build to run it all.

Then comes the soil eroision and flooding due to the destruction of the natural forest, not to mention the massive loss of natural habitat for the flora and fauna. Then it's all shipped half way around the world on diesel powered ships.

Then you have food prices rising around the world as arable land is restricted to growing food for planes in instead of food for people, pricing many of the poorest out potentially damaging their livelihoods and even leading to starvation/malnutrition/poverty.

It's actually possible that using biofuels mean you burn more fossil fuel indirectly than if you just used the fossil fuels directly. So much for the "We must rapidly wean ourselves off our dependence on coal and fossil fuels," statement. Isn't coal a fossil fuel anyway? Very green Mr. Branson, thank you for saving the world.

I think it's all largely for public relations and marketing reasons rather than any genuine concern for the environment. Or just plain naivity.

As for the "a type of biofuel derived from saltwater plants, or halophytes, grown in desert areas and irrigated using sea water", a very experimental technology that also I'm sure has massive problems.

Not saying we should totally dismiss any biofuels or other alternatives, but a healthy dose of scepticism is required.