GemDeveloper
Thats the $64K question. China does use biodiesel but until recently it was primarily a bioethanol market. In 2006 it was the third largest producer of bioethanol in the world.
Will
I realize I wont convince you that the industry isnt trying to "get away" with leaving the maximum amount on FAME in Jet. But the fact is that every critical aviation activity is subject to a balance of risk and cost with an adequate safety margin thrown in. A main spar is designed as a trade off considering weight, design strength, manufacturing techniques etc. Fuels are no different. For airlines, fuel as an input cost has gone from 13% to 40% in seven years. The Jet demand has gone up by two and a half times since the 1970's. There is no way the latter can be sustained without using MPP's without also making the former even worse. Dedicated lines are not an option and MPPs are here to stay. However avoiding FAME contamination means that 50% extra buffer volumes of Jet have to be "thrown away" (transmix volumes sent for reprocessing) to ensure "FAME free Jet" (<5ppm). This extra cost is of course reflected in the cost of the fuel. Yet 5ppm is actually arbitrary, because its currently set at the level of detection. There is currently no agreement on at what level FAME becomes an issue in Jet although some say 400ppm. Changing the specification to a more practical limit gives two advantages: firstly it gives the airlines a break on costs. Secondly, it becomes possible to develop a field test that can be used at that lower level of sensitivity without having to have a PhD analytical Chemist at each airport. The trick is to establish the balance of cost and risk in the right place. And that hasn't happened yet.
Last edited by Pinkman; 17th Jun 2009 at 07:34.
Reason: Define 'FAME free'