Some observations.
Not familiar with the gas to kero process they're talking about.
Sounds awfully emmissions unfriendly.
More detail needed.
I think all the talk around alternative fuels is really just
PR spin.
Take fuel derived from the FT process... it's very carbon intensive over the whole life cycle. Great for engines... less coking, the engine seals love it, neglible soot in contrails. But want to build an FT plant to make the stuff? Then handover a couple of billion. Sasol in South africa know all about that. It's not greenshouse gas friendly at all... despite the spin. The US military trials on B52's and C17's are all about security of supply.
Biojet (derived from algae) is currently being researched by Boeing and both Virgin and Air NZ are bleating about trying it. What they're cleverly ommitting to mention is that it is not a straight drop in substitute. It has a low freezing point... take it up above FL25 and you've got solid ice in your tanks. At best it'll end up being a blended solution. Any airline talking about biofuels is playing a very cynical
PR game... and they know it.
The simple, undeniable fact is that nothing other than good old Jet A1 currently has the calorific value and performance metrics to be used.
If we really want to get serious about reducing emmissions, really radical solutions are required... geared turbofans, open rotors, and ultimately redesigned planforms. I reckon Boeing are playing a clever long term game. Let the military pay for the R&D on the X-48b... get rid of all those nasty controllability issues and structural challenges, and then whaddya know... by around 2030-2040, when they've remade the entire product line in composites and exhausted every other efficiency they can wring out of tubes with wings... we move to BWB's. Hardly soon enough...
