How will flight be powered when fossil fuel runs out?

[UFO101]

Nuclear power or what? Can'nt take away Sharon's annual shagfest in Teneriffe can they!

[FatFlyer]

Boeing and Airbus talk about producing so many thousand airframes over the next 2 decades, new runways being built, all very positive for aviation.
China, India and other eastern economies booming, oil consumption 80 million barrels a day plus.
Read "the end of oil" by robertson, there is no where near as much left as we think, with the current and increasing consumption rate, the easy to get oil could be gone in the next two decades leaving expensive and difficult to get supplies under the arctic etc.
There will have to be a major change in our lives, cars, trains etc may have electric power, there is nothing that I know of under development to replace a jet engine, will it be the end of aviation as we know it?
These times may not be as far ahead as we were lead to think.
This subject seems to recieve very little attention and investment, maybe we should all wake up to a future without oil?

[055166k]

Hydrogen! Look up L1011 plans from some years back.....very clean too.

[jewitts]

Ethanol: See here what Dickie Branson says about it:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10066397/
Virgin Airways eyes ethanol
Most of the discussion I see on alternative fuel source focuses on cars, but I've long wondered what's going to happen with the airlines. At least one of them is taking an aggressive look at alternative fuel sources, hoping to replace "some or all" of the 700 million gallons of fuel it currently uses each year with ethanol.
Tired of skyrocketing jet fuel prices, Virgin Atlantic Airways boss Richard Branson said on Wednesday he plans to turn his back on hydrocarbons and use plant waste to power his fleet.
“We are looking for alternative fuel sources. We are going to start building cellulosic ethanol plants (to make) fuel that is derived from the waste product of the plant,” he told Reuters in an interview in the oil-rich United Arab Emirates.
“It is 100 percent environmentally friendly and I believe it’s the future of fuel, and over the next 20 or 30 years I think it actually will replace the conventional fuel that you get out of the ground.”
By the way you can make ethanol from cellulose (trees, plants etc.)

[Swedish Steve]

Ethanol is quite popular in Sweden. The fuel is called E85 and is 85% ethanol and 15% petrol. There are two problems. You get less miles per tank, and the car doesn't start when it is cold. All E85 cars have block heaters to prewarm the engine, but what do you do in the car park? But here the fuel is cheaper than petrol, and the cars are about the same price so it is popular amongst those who can live with the disadvantages. Also these cars are exempt from the congestion charge in Stockholm. But if you can live with the range decreases then I don't see why not for aircraft.

[groundbum]

I reckon once reality starts to bite then fossil fuel will be reserved for applications that really need it such as planes and fire engines. Electricity can be generated from nuclear, cars can run on hydrogen and electricity if they have to, etc. So it'll be mega rationed for essential applications only. I reckon no more than 20 years until this starts... Geez, even BushyBoy yesterday realised there was an issue with using so much oil! Only 10 years behind the rest of the world. Wonder if he'll massively increase taxes on gas guzzling 4x4s?

S

[mary_hinge]

This would get the NIMBYs up in arms:

http://www.megazone.org/ANP/

Quote:

The NEPA contract was with the Fairchild Engine & Airframe Co., and the work was conducted at Oak Ridge. By the end of 1948 the USAF had invested approximately ten million dollars in the program.[7] Extensive studies were conducted under NEPA from 1946 until 1951, at which time it was replaced by the joint Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) / USAF ANP program. The ANP program set forth the ambitious goal of full-scale development of aircraft reactor and engine systems. One of the factors that led to the creation of the ANP program was a study done at MIT by a group convened by the AEC in 1948 to look at the potential uses of atomic powered flight. "This study group, known as the Lexington Project, came to the conclusion that nuclear aircraft (manned) were likely less difficult than nuclear ramjets, which, in turn, would be less difficult than nuclear rockets to develop."[8] Ironically, this turned out to be the reverse of the proper order of difficulty, as later research and development would prove. Although nuclear ramjets, under Project Pluto, and nuclear rockets, under Project Rover, were successfully tested at the levels needed for operational use, an operational level atomic aircraft powerplant was never developed. In 1954, Raymond Clare Briant, who was then the director of the ANP Project stated that "manned nuclear aircraft pose the most difficult engineering development job yet attempted within this century."[9]

:ok:

[Andy_S]

Don't they already have a couple of hamsters running round on wheels in each A340 engine?

[fantom]

easy, two ways:
a) using hot air generated by those who 'run' the airlines to heat water, to make steam, to drive turbines, to run generators, to make electrix, to boil off oil from the sandy wastes of Northern Canada, to refine into Jet A1
or
b) pfm.

[TyroPicard]

E85 is fine for piston engines - 105 octane, less engine wear, less pollution.
Freezing point is -114C so that's no problem. Anyone know if ethanol can be made to work in jet engines? .. if not we can always build some more Stratocruisers, Super Connies, DC-7C's .. bring back the romance of aviation! :cool:

TP

[wsmempson]

One of the main problems with ethanol based eco-fuels is their propensity to absorb water. The mixture is entirely missible, as opposed to the usual scenario with oil/water or petrol/water mixes, where the petrol or oil floats on top of the water.

Therefore there won't be a visual clue as to the loss of grade of fuel or to the potential for corrosion. Obviously, with aircraft that are being used intensively, there will be little opportunity for problems to arise, but in the instance of aircraft that are stored, or used irregularly (as with much of the GA fleet), there might be difficulties.

I don't want to look for problems, as anything sensible that might be used as a solution to an inevitable shortage of petroleum based products should be welcomed, but as things stand there ethanol based fuel will create maintenance issues.

The

[Pilot Pete]

One of the main problems with ethanol based eco-fuels is their propensity to absorb water.....there won't be a visual clue as to the loss of grade of fuel or to the potential for corrosion......ethanol based fuel will create maintenance issues.

Non that would be insurmountable though. My brother-in-law has just developed and is marketing a water-in-oil detector which is designed to protect extremely sensitive/ expensive equipment. I am sure he could adapt this to such an application as water-in-ethanol (or even design a new one as he is such a clever chap!) and it certainly wouldn't be beyond the scope of the engine manufacturers. This could have a readout in the re-fuelling station/ flightdeck on airliners and I am sure some simple 'litmus' type test could be developed for G/A.....so don't throw your fuel cup away just yet!!!

PP

[tilewood]

This may have been posted already in which case I apologise.

I seem to recall a scientist stating that hydrogen power is indeed
very clean.

The drawback is that it takes more hydrocarbon energy to extract and
refine hydrogen than the power it actually produces!! :hmm:

[4Foxtrot]

While there would be a need to find an alternative fuel such as ethanol or filtered chip-fat, there may also be a change in the mode of transportation from jet ac to something like (cue uncontrollable laughter) .... airships! They have quite a good range and low fuel consumption as well as being able to carry outsize loads. Apart from that, they're rubbish.

But I digress. I would put my money on hydrogen-based fuel for a hydrocarbon replacement. Instability issues of hydrogen fuels would need to be addressed. Also, it is likely that the large amounts of hydrogen fuel required would need to be extracted from seawater, a process which needs enormous amounts energy, and so you're back to square one. I'm sure some bright spark will work it out.

[bobmij]

I'm sure some bright spark will work it out.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. We might have to get a grip of the trend for flying everyman and his dog around the world for tuppence. (sweet FA)
In general I think its important that people have a lot more respect for the oil that they use. When it's gone it's gone and it ain't coming back (well not for a few million years). We seem to have exhibited the most morally reprehensible wanton squandering of this resource.
A good place to understand what w're dealing with is a BBC radio program called 'The Crude Facts'. It used to be available on the BBC listen again website, not sure if it's still there.
When the oil is gone life will change beyond belief for us in the west. That said, best be off to work and burn a few tonnes!
By the way expect to see a lot more about this in the popular press in the future.

[Best foot forward]

i understand that a jet engine will run on pretty much anything that will burn its just a question of getting the fuel air mix right.

Top Gear the other day, might have been a rerun but they had a car running on methane that was compressed and into a CNG tank on an old rover. Looked like it ran ok.

[jondc9]

operational nuclear reactors have already flown. A flying test bed Convair B36 bomber contained radiation shielding and an operational reactor...they did not power the aircraft but were flying around to see if it could be done.

if you see an image of a B36 bomber with a giant radiation symbol painted on the vertical fin, than that is the one!

also, ideas for nuclear powered train locomotives have been around for along time...also turbine trains.

I even once witnessed a turbine powered auto at a fair back in '64 I think. not a jet pushing the thing like on the salt flats, but hooked up to a transmission like a large lincoln or cadillac.

jon

bring back NERVA

[FougaMagister]

The problem is already with us; see the increasingly difficult economics of 32-to 50-seater regional jets such as the Do328 Jet, EMB-135/145, CRJ100/200, etc. with a fuel price of US$ 60/barrel... Sooner or later, the problem will extend to the still popular 70-seaters (CRJ700, ERJ 170).

The recent upsurge in orders for more fuel-efficient aircraft such as the ATR42/72-500 is further proof.

Fuel costs are bound to replace wages as the no.1 cost for airlines in the medium term.

(As for trains needing to be electric-powered, that has been obvious for a long time overseas: in France, one can hardly find any fossil-fuel powered train anymore; they are nearly all electric powered - which means nuclear-powered in the French case).

Cheers :cool:

[Rollingthunder]

Solar power. Nice big fuselage and wings for solar panels.

No night flights and no flights during eclipses.

Isn't this JB? I'll get coat.

[vapilot2004]

Our elected leaders must surely see this coming, but nothing of great consequence is being done about it yet. :mad:

We've got lots of coal ! - what about a coal powered craft ? - bit too smoky for you ? :E

We can use a reactor's electricity to create hydrogen. They are working on storage solutions for the big H - sponge-like solids are an interesting possibility.

[Kace]

Someone said this problem might arise in twenty or so years? I´m afraid that´s very optimistic! The big oil crisis is much much nearer than that! We´re already on the brink.

For aviation I don´t really see any alternatives to oil based fuels. Hydrogen isn´t gonna work. It requires huge tanks and, like somebody said before, you need a lot of energy to even produce it! Getting oil out of the tar sands doesn´t make things much easier as well. That also takes an incredible amount of energy to extract!

So I think that, already in a few years time, flying will again only be possible for the wealthy and rich.

Read some more information on this site and the links provided there:
http://www.oildecline.com

[patdavies]

o
I even once witnessed a turbine powered auto at a fair back in '64 I think. not a jet pushing the thing like on the salt flats, but hooked up to a transmission like a large lincoln or cadillac.
jon
bring back NERVA
The Science Museum in London has a turbine Rover from the 50's. There was a turbine driven BRM that was around for a while that competed at Le Mans.
From Wikpedia:
In 1950, designer F. R. Bell and Chief Engineer Maurice Wilks from British car manufacturers Rover unveiled the first car powered with a gas turbine engine. The two-seater JET1 had the engine positioned behind the seats, air intake grilles on either side of the car and exhaust outlets on the top of the tail. During tests, the car reached top speeds of 140 km/h, at a turbine speed of 50,000 rpm. The car ran on petrol, paraffin or diesel oil, but fuel consumption problems proved insurmountable for a production car. It is currently on display at the London Science Museum. Rover and the BRM Formula One team joined forces to produce a gas turbine powered coupe, which entered the 1963 24 hours of Le Mans, driven by Graham Hill and Richie Ginther. It averaged 107.8 mph (173 km) and had a top speed of 142 mph (229 km/h).

[Home James!]

What helps is a fuel that is stable at the pressures and temperatures encountered as well as having high calorific value. Liquid hydrogen does not do too well in this regard and alcohol is low in oomph.
Thirty years ago in the UK and still today in Hong Kong is a process that can contribute but needs development in parts. I refer to the catalytic rich gas process. Okay the front third was to do with naphtha, a low grade petrol going to waste. Forget about that bit for now. This feedstock was reformed into two parts hydrogen and one part carbon monoxide that was then carburetted with partially reformed naphtha to yield "town gas", a substitute for coal gas. And still is in use (search "Towngas", Hong Kong).
That if you like is the middle third. Today much industrial alcohol, esters, polyesters and some plastics comes from taking this synthesis gas and catalysing it first into alcohol and then higher hydrocarbons. This is the GTL technology, the third third, that is highly prized by Davy Technology, Johnson-Matthey (catalysts), and a host of others including every chemical and petroleum company in the world. They know that if they can get their hands on hydrogen and carbon monoxide all the rest is proven cheap technology. And a licence to print money.
Hydrogen is the easy part. From water releasing oxygen into the air. The difficult but not impossible part but requiring large amounts of energy is reducing carbon dioxide from the air catalytically into carbon monoxide. It can be done and if you need an artificial higher hydrocarbon because none is economically recoverable from natural sources then you have to pay for it. Nuclear power electricity? Perhaps. But needs must when the devil drives.
At the moment there is no need beyond keeping the research simmering away on the back burner (dreadful pun).
But for sure you can't lay a ruler on sales/travel graphs and predict away in isolation while others cientists are warning of a step function in world temperature rise, floods and horsemen riding about committing all sorts of unpleasant things.

Globalisation has fragmented rather than cemented global co-operation and in the face of USA, India, China what little old England and Aussie can do is like farting against the wind. Yet paradoxically if every country acted locally to secure its infrastructure and farm land against the inevitable floods it would be money better spent because nothing short of world wide catastrophe will convince mankind now.
But chin up! Man can produce an acceptable oil fuel at a price. Or else wait 400 million years and we shall be squashed up into oil to be burnt by whom?
I used to work for Bee Pee by the way but not as anything too bright. I have written Flight International many times offering an article but I have come to the conclusion that their journos are plain hacks and would not know their situpon from the bendy bit in the middle of their arm.
I'll leave you in peace but remember this - you heard it on pprune - gas-to-liquid technology is where the hot money in research is at, and furthermore makes a great deal of everyday stuff already. In thirty years she'll be commonplace. That's if we're still here.
James!

[Memetic]

This may have been posted already in which case I apologise.
I seem to recall a scientist stating that hydrogen power is indeed
very clean.
The drawback is that it takes more hydrocarbon energy to extract and
refine hydrogen than the power it actually produces!! :hmm:

How does splitting water to produce hydrogen using solar, wind, wave, nuclear or biomass to generate the electricity to do it use more hydrocarbon energy than the hydrogen can deliver?

[TwinAisle]

How does splitting water to produce hydrogen using solar, wind, wave, nuclear or biomass to generate the electricity to do it use more hydrocarbon energy than the hydrogen can deliver?

It certainly uses more energy than you get out, otherwise the old entropy rules get broken, and you'd get perpetual motion, which would be nice... but the energy doesn't have to be hydrocarbon energy, certainly.

Funny to read the article by Sir Richard Branson. I read something similar recently, may have been an in flight mag, or Fortune or something - in which SRB was saying that he didn't intend to use ethanol in the aircraft, but increasing use of ethanol (in cars, trains, ships, buses etc etc) would eke out remaining supplies of oil so that current aircraft could go on a lot longer.

[barit1]

Parallel thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=207971) in "Questions".

I suspect this question pops up with some regularity. :cool:

Re Hydrogen: It is not a natural fuel here on Earth. It must be manufactured; the BTU's you feed into its synthesis are recovered when it's burned (minus some process losses).

Re "nuculer": 2-3 guys in my lunch bunch began their careers on the ANP program. They warn the rest of us not to get too close... :eek:

[PA-28-180]

Very interesting thread. Thanks for the information on the USAF X-6 (?) project too - the nuclear bomber program. The NASA X program only listed it as "cancelled". I always wondered what happened with it. Sorry for not adding anything...just wanted to say thanks! :ok:

[Loose rivets]

Based on little more than intuition, my feeling is that within a few years we will see acres, if not square miles, of beautiful modern aircraft parked waiting for a solution. Fiddling around with simulated hydrocarbons will be akin to fitting a gas bag to the roof of a car in WWII.

Huge fortunes, then the dying remnants of fortunes, will be thrown at the problem in a belated last-ditch attempt to continue life as we know it. I suspect that much of such funding will be spent on finding a way to cause the conversion of matter into energy–via a direct coupling with the universe. Science fiction? Well, perhaps, but right now we are seeing the specter of a fuel-less future, while at the some time, a feint image of the holy grail of propulsion.

There is little or no use in achieving a functional and safe source of atomic power in an aircraft, if we have no means of causing it to propel the vessel efficiently; using such advanced energy to continue to squirt us through the turbulent atmosphere would be preposterous.

Right now, research into particle physics shows promise of a new generation of propulsion. But that's all it is, a promise. Dan Brown is jut a tad ahead of his time I'm afraid, but I have no doubt where a good proportion of the GNP of all the major nations should be going...right now.

Life without transport will not just contract back into a warm sepia tinted existence for folk that live in pleasant villages, it will be chaotic...and deadly. If you don't think that's true, you haven't been watching the increasing need for gated, and guarded communities. The fabric of society is creaking already...even while it is still oiled.

[N380UA]

A very interesting thread indeed, but I'm afraid the problem is much more complex then that.
Only about a third of crude is being refined for the use of propulsion of some sort (air, land and sea) Obviously, if we have no more fuel we have no means to power our conventional propulsion systems. Not only that, but think about lubricants. Sure, Skydrol is synthetic and many other lub's and greases are synthetic nowadays, but in order produce those synthetics we need chemicals.

Now another third of crude is being refined for medicine, chemicals and composite material such as plastic and rubber etc. Look around in your cockpit, galley, office and home. Lots of plastic-fantastic, rubber and other crude refined materials or derivatives. Take for example your standard XY ballpoint pen – everything but the metal tip (including the ink) is a crude derivative of some sort. Your clothing, your paint on the wall, your medicine and for your ladies the make up too just to mention a few.

The last third is used for the production of heat for private homes, industries power plants etc.

So if and when we run out of crude we'll be cold and miserable with reduced capacity of movement and a much reduced standard of living altogether. Even if we could theoretically power an aircraft with ethanol or nuclear reactors we'd still need lubricants, rubber and composite materials. I think all in all, not much will work once we run out of crude.

[bzh]

biodiesel for airplane, no different than Jet fuel...invest in oil seeds stock for the long term....
only certification is needed...

[Algy]

Some facts... (http://shortlinks.co.uk/8y)

and some opinion. (http://www.bizbuzzmedia.com/blogs/flight_international/archive/2005/09/02/359.aspx)

[AppleMacster]

Hydrogen power is a leading contender, and research appears quite well-advanced:

Solar-Produced Hydrogen (http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/08/27/6900038_SolarHydrogen/index.html)
More Solar-Produced Hydrogen (http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/07/09/6900033_Solar_Hydrogen/)

If it proves to be commercially viable, sun-blessed countries will become major energy producers; something those of us in cloudier and more temperate climes need to consider. I suspect we'll end up "hedging our bets" and rely on a number of different renewable energy sources.
AppleMacster

[arcniz]

--As the legacy petrochemical supplies become less available, their cost will increase.
--At some price level (appx equal to current petroleum prices, in Brazil) the cost of producing fuel from fermenting weeds or pommes frittes or methane-rich cows will equal the cost of equivalent fossil fuel. This will dramatically reduce the demand for fossil fuel futures and force sharp breaks in price. Supply demand will oscillate for a century or more, but 'free-market' economics will eventually lubricate a relatively smooth transition from Petroleum to the Panopoly of alternate fuels and energy sources, even as global energy demands increase.
--What the oil Cassandras are seeing now is really just a cloud, not the sky falling.
--If we can clean up our wasteful uses of energy in the process, that would not be so bad, tho. Unfortunately, travel for 'entertainment' might be one of the first wasteful uses to come under pressure.

[daedalus]

If only existing oil were used only for fuel. Look at the ludicrous amount of non-essential plastic packaging on almost every product these days. All of this packaging is produced from oil. The taxing of excess plastic packaging would already help extend the time that we can still use oil as a fuel for transport.
Slightly off subject, but can anyone tell me why the diesel-electric principle used in trains cannot be used for private cars or at least commercial trucks? In this system a diesel (or turbine) runs at constant speed (greatly reducing consumption) and produces electricity through an attached generator. The electricity drives the wheels (in fact each wheel could become an electric motor in itself - the axle being the stator and the wheel the rotor). 4-wheel drive is achieved electronically rather than mechanically, gearbox is redundant and braking can be electric and regenerative.:confused:

[Home James!]

Who says when oil runs out and global warming seriously kicks in that there will still be billions of people? There won't!

Provided that the population keeps above a certain critical mass advanced technology including nuclear power and steel-making may remain. With the oceans denuded of life scientists will be searching for a process to make a synthetic whale. Oil!

The supra-hot countries such as Russia, Siberia, Alaska, Yukon, Canada and the Maritimes will form a Confederation of Independent States (CIS).

In the frozen wastes of Africa they will just about get one VOR working by robbing parts from the NDB.

In Oz they'll blame the cold weather on the lack of Japanese tourists.

But for those still around, there will be masses of oil. At least 20 litres per person, maybe more.

One day two brothers, blacksmiths in the frozen tundra of Texas, wondering where the birds bo in winter and why they always are boeing north will invent the bicycle. Their names will be "Oh" and "U-U". Yes. Wright Oh and Wright Dubbya.

Unfortunately the chain rusts and they get arrested for riding their bicycle without a light. With them, for a brief moment the flame of invention flickers and goes out. Ten minutes later the cat goes out.

Man is now completely alone in the dark. You're only ever interested in one thing says Eve. Thinking as always as she masticates seal-hide of a nice new pair of Chew shoes.

[jewitts]

Geez, even BushyBoy yesterday realised there was an issue with using so much oil! Only 10 years behind the rest of the world. Wonder if he'll massively increase taxes on gas guzzling 4x4s?
S
What Bush actually said was he wants the USA to become less dependent on Middle-East oil. So 2 things will happen: (i) The oil companies will be given free-rein in Alaska and (ii) Most of the mid-west (and Europe) will stop growing wheat and corn and instead grow oilseed (Rape) which can be used as Biodiesel. Europe is already planning to change agricutural policies and subsidies to manage this change.
So in XX years time we wll be short of energy and short of food! So I guess none of us will be able to afford to travel.

[barit1]

Hydrogen is attractive primarily for its low-emissions exhaust (namely H2O), but unattractive for its 1) cryogenic storage and 2) very low density (huge storage volume).

Methane is less of an obstacle on both counts. Besides, recent exploration suggests that frozen methane fields occur naturally, perhaps in commercial quantities. :8

[VP TAA]

bzh
I read the article on altenative energy in the Independent recently. Bio, possibly with an addative to prevent freezing, will do the job and smell better too.
I wonder if the oil companies are going to buy up all the corn oil and rape seed farms.
VP TAA

[N380UA]

Of course, when the OPEC juice runs out or the global environmental damage has come to a point were burning fossil fuel is just no longer an option the oil companies will whoop out all the plans of alternative fuels they've collected over the years and save our day. Be it methane, ethanol, hydrogen etc. its all there already….

[groundbum]

Of course, when the OPEC juice runs out or the global environmental damage has come to a point were burning fossil fuel is just no longer an option the oil companies will whoop out all the plans of alternative fuels they've collected over the years and save our day. Be it methane, ethanol, hydrogen etc. its all there already….

I'm fairly convinced that FORD has perfected the tele-transporter and have hundreds sat in a shed waiting for the day. London-Sydney in 2 seconds with 99.99% accuracy!

:)

[PAXboy]

A question very early in this thread about cars:All E85 cars have block heaters to prewarm the engine, but what do you do in the car park? The answer is that power outlets for block heaters are available in the car parks.
On a recent trip to Norway, we were driven from OSL by friends of friends to a small village in the mountains about 300Km North of Oslo. Upon arrival, the temperature was -27C and the car was to be parked outside. But it's engine block heater was immediately plugged into one of the numerous outlets in the public car park. Those Scandanavians know a thing or two!

[Founder]

There was a show on discovery a couple of weeks ago regarding alternative methods to run engines and new science. There was a NASA scientist who argued that the ion drives used in space should work inside the atmosphere as well but that was about the only thing they said about it.

Does anyone know anything more about this?

There was also some type of shield of ionized air or something similar (dont remember to well the details). This shield would decreased drag by a huge factor and in that way decrease fuel consumption by a very huge factor. This had in fact already been tested at a NASA JPL lab...

[Swedish Steve]

But it's engine block heater was immediately plugged into one of the numerous outlets in the public car park.
I live just north of Stockholm. There are no public outlets anywhere. In the car park at work there are a few outlets which can be rented, but most do not have access. Last week it was M15 most nights. An present day E85 Ford Focus will not start.

[moggiee]

i understand that a jet engine will run on pretty much anything that will burn its just a question of getting the fuel air mix right.
Top Gear the other day, might have been a rerun but they had a car running on methane that was compressed and into a CNG tank on an old rover. Looked like it ran ok.
We'll end up using Veg oil - it has very similar properties to diesel and thus JetA1

[Founder]

I live just north of Stockholm. There are no public outlets anywhere. In the car park at work there are a few outlets which can be rented, but most do not have access. Last week it was M15 most nights. An present day E85 Ford Focus will not start.

I dont know about Ford but the SAAB 9-5 Biopower has a fuel driven block/cabin heater. Just set the time when you plan to use the car next and the computer makes sure the car and engine is warm and starts... works great =)

[George Tower]

Having spent several years living in South Africa, I believe that under the old Apartheid Government that the process of producing petrol from coal was perfected at Sasol, so they could beat sanctions.

Not being a chemist I don't know too much about it and whether it is possible to produce suitable quality synethic Jet A fuel in this way. But seen as coal reserves are far greater than oil reserves it might be the way to go.

[Pax Vobiscum]

Correct, George Tower, and the South Africans were merely refining (sorry!) a process developed by the Germans in WW2. Bottom line is, there's no shortage of oil - but we may well be running out of cheap oil. When that happens, two changes will occur:

1. We will stop using oil for really stupid purposes (unnecessary packaging, powering Range Rovers, ...), much of which happens only because oil is so cheap. Maybe we'll have to pay more than a quid for a flight to the Med.

2. Vast reserves of oil (far more than the total amount extracted to date)that are currently uneconomic to exploit will become available.

As Sheikh Yamani (who knows a thing or two about oil production) put it "the stone age did not come to an end for lack of stones".

[Loose rivets]

Describing possible ways to get alternative fuel always amuses me. Just look at the world consumption, and then imagine what it would take to produce a tenth of that figure.

Daedalus. You almost perfectly describe the system that I envisaged many years ago. I did mention it in a post a while back but can't find it quickly.

There were two main problems to it being developed by a small company. One is that it will happen, but the big boys will take it with $millions to fend off patent lawsuits. Dyson had a tough time and won, but coming up against GM is something else.

The other is the high voltages that initial calculations show to be needed. 200 min- 400 optimum and true sinusoidal AC is about the mark. DC chopper circuits would be almost impossible to suppress--radio wise–at those currents. All very iffy round civilians. Difficult but a perfect system to be fed by electricity direct, or from the ancillary engine-generator. Traction control would be a simple matter of software, and braking would be largely electric at higher speeds.

Train type diesel engine generators are of course very good engineering. But the cost, even in miniature. Back to the Hybrid.

Hydrocarbons need to be kept for important manufacturing processes and aviation. Cars are simply wasting a non recoverable resource at an horrific rate. Has anyone ever calculated how much fuel has been used in total...and then described it as a cube?

[Ontariotech]

If Georgey Bush is right.....we'll be using grass.

"We are gonna turn Texas into one big front lawn and fuel our way to da moon.":}

[n5296s]

Nobody has mentioned coal (except once in passing as a joke). The state of Utah alone has one trillion tons in accessible coal reserves. Of course coal-fired aeroplanes are a bit unlikely, but fuels are fungible. For aviation purposes, it would be possible to synthesise oil using coal as the energy source. Wouldn't make much sense for the Range Rover but cars are a much less demanding environment - ethanol is just fine for them (maybe biodiesel too).

n5296s

[Loose rivets]

It's still a matter of the mind boggling quantities. Every ounce that we could squeeze out of all the other sources put together, wouldn't provide a tenth of our current needs.

Ignoring some of the more exotic fuels used in highly tuned engines, you can't carry anything like the same energy to an aircraft or a work-site for instance, as with gas / petrol. It is unparalleled portable power.

Since the last coal mining tragedy, it has been stated several times on T/V here, that America is feeding half its fuel needs for generating electricity with coal. In the US all the homes that don't have to be heated, seem to need to be cooled. Some do both at once to pull the humidity down. Countless thousands of homes pump the heat out for 80% of the year. It's done in one of the most wasteful ways imaginable. Given that the electrical demands are getting bigger at a frightening rate, I think coal is more or less spoken for.

Remaining in total denial about tomorrow's energy needs...and the urgent need to economize, is perhaps one of man's greatest follies to date.

[Richard Spandit]

Going back to an earlier post, would the presence of water in ethanol fuel matter as much as it does today? Surely if the water is completely miscible, then you wouldn't get the blockage problems that can occur today (where water doesn't mix with the fuel and remains separate) - perhaps that would stop it burning so efficiently, but as long as the ethanol remains over 100% proof (~50% by volume) then I can't see a problem.

As far as running a jet on it, I don't know, but as is said before, there is no shortage of oil, just a shortage of crude (which has to go through several processes before it is useable in any form of engine, so refining coal/shale oil/tar sands into oil is not such a far fetched principle)

[Pax Vobiscum]

Just look at the world consumption, and then imagine what it would take to produce a tenth of that figure.

Loose rivets, what it would take is an infrastructure. Right now, no-one is building that infrastructure because it wouldn't be be profitable. Once the price of oil rises sufficiently, you'll be amazed how quickly Shell, Exxon &c will start to build it, when they see they can make a few billion a year out of it.

[Piltdown Man]

Personally, I recon that Bio-mass fuels will be the answer. To be efficient, aircraft fuel has to have a high calorific value per kilo. Oilseed rape and sunflowers are the two which may offer a solution in the short term. However, until our politicians structure taxation policies that reward long term investment we'll just carry on burning until the oil runs out. But there again, maybe we could burn politicians (and lawyers while were are at it)? They appear to be capable of emitting vast amounts of hot air when heated up.

[MungoP]

99.99% accuracy.. OUCH..What essential item(s) could I lose along the way ?

Having been involved here and there with oil and gas exploration projects I have to tell all you Voices of DOOM that oil and its derivitives will be around a lot longer than you think and well beyond the lifetime of anyone alive today...what will be the deciding factor will be cost...Oil is not sitting under the ground in large natural buckets... we have oodles of the stuff in places you haven't dreamt of and only the cost and limited technology prevents us from extracting it...research is ongoing to reduce the costs of getting it into your tank and as each dollar is added to the price of a barrel then so many more sources are worth exploiting...As for the answer to the originaal Q...sorry...I haven't a clue.

[Self Loading Freight]

Nuclear powered airplanes sound like fun. The US had quite a big programme going - mostly because the Air Force didn't fancy the Navy being the only ones with reactors, but also because of reports that the Soviets were developing something similar. There were two basic designs of engine evaluated, one that just pushed air through the reactor core and one that had a liquid metal heat interchanger. The first was simple, light and spewed enormous amounts of contamination: the second was complex and too heavy to lift itself (and that's before the shielding necessary to stop the crew from glowing). There was even a specialist squad of Marines created to clean up after a crash: I think they called themselves the "Glow In The Dark Boys", but
to me that's just one more reason why joining the Marine Corps would be a bad mistake.

In the end, the Americans found that the Soviets weren't developing anything of the sort and admitted that the darn thing would never fly.

Only the Soviets were - and flew it. They solved the problem of having vast amounts of shielding for the pilots by just not bothering, which saw most of them off in short order.

There's talk of nuclear powered UAVs now, but I can't see the benefits being worth the downside.

R

[eagle 86]

I can't help thinking at times that we are being conned into believing that the world is RAPIDLY running out of fossil fuel - I'm not saying that it isn't a finite resource - but some time back I was involved in a high level Defence/Oil industry exercise in a Western nation where an oil executive in a commercially/defence sensitive briefing indicated that known reserves at that time were enough to last that country at that rate of usage for approximately 400 years. Since then it is widely known that that country has tapped/capped much more good quality oil.
Further I find it hard to believe that mankind, amongst all his technical achievements, can't throw together a few carbon/hydrogen/oxygen atoms and synthesise the stuff.
If the doomsayers are saying that we've got 20 years left and they are right then there is no where near enough work being put into replacement fuels - the world as we know it will grind to a halt and chaos will reign. Personally I cannot envisage this scenario!
GAGS
E86

[Ultranomad]

To mention some alternative fuel projects, Tu-155 - a liquid hydrogen-powered version of Russian Tu-154 - was flight-tested as early as 1988. Mi-8TG, a Russian helicopter converted to LPG, was ready for mass production, but never made it for lack of orders. In Brazil, where alcohol has been used as car fuel for quite some time, they are testing it now as aircraft fuel. And of course, hemp or rape oil can be converted into diesel or turbine fuel; some testing has been done but there's a lot more to do...

[fdr]

I can't help thinking at times that we are being conned into believing that the world is RAPIDLY running out of fossil fuel - I'm not saying that it isn't a finite resource - but some time back I was involved in a high level Defence/Oil industry exercise in a Western nation where an oil executive in a commercially/defence sensitive briefing indicated that known reserves at that time were enough to last that country at that rate of usage for approximately 400 years. Since then it is widely known that that country has tapped/capped much more good quality oil.
Further I find it hard to believe that mankind, amongst all his technical achievements, can't throw together a few carbon/hydrogen/oxygen atoms and synthesise the stuff.
If the doomsayers are saying that we've got 20 years left and they are right then there is no where near enough work being put into replacement fuels - the world as we know it will grind to a halt and chaos will reign. Personally I cannot envisage this scenario!
GAGS
E86

It ain't about running out per se, it's about the production peak vs the demand curve.

With regard to alternatives discussed to liquid hydrocarbons, I'll just go and do up my seat belt on that plane now, as the chicken entrails indicate we are in the vicinity of the peak, where we will find out if the geologists such as CAmpbell and Co are right with their concerns, or the economists from MIT are correct in the assertion that supply will be developed in the face of serious demand. :}

Ethanol is workable but the corrosion issues need to be ironed out, and right now, not tomorrow please...

GTL is not a solution if based on gas deposits, if peak oil is going to be fun, wait for winters with peak gas, coming to your part of the world soon...

GTL from reformed coal feedstock is viable, and proven technology Fischer-Tropsch, SASOL (3 versions) and results in clean fuels up to C10's, but needs viable sequestration of CO2 to be acceptable unless catatrophic shortages occur...hmmm. Again better get in quick, ramp up takes time, and look at the rate of supply decay that occurs even with new field commencements.

For the last 20 years, we have use 6 barrels for each new one found.
current demand equates to the use of 400 years of biomass each year, assuming perfect conversion of the global biomass to oil...

Either we get this right, or we are going to be living in a really exciting time, as it is unlikely that many of the rocks population are going to volunteer to vacate.

Hope lots that it is a big beatup, and that the answers are sitting in cabinets, gathering dust, awaiting the right time for salvation of hydrocarbon man.

Now I do however hanker for PBMR/AVR GCR's using lots of Thorium:cool: . Low risk, high efficiency, and long term storage, proliferation not an issue. Now we are talking...possibly why the Chinese have what would amount to an emergency program developing same, proposing adding same electrical capacity as global 2002 in the next 25 years:ok: .

Must off now, got an SUV to fill up...

[enicalyth]

If someone has not suggested it try

The Future of the Hydrogen Economy: Bright or Bleak?

Ulf Bossel
Baldur Eliasson
Gordon Taylor

A little dated (3yr old) but pretty good.

[PVGSLF]

What about artifical photosynthesis... research into it is going on.

Take the CO2 out of the atmosphere, and produce O2 and Sugars.... The sugars can then be refined into forms of Hydrocarbons more useful as fuel.

It's natures way afterall! :D

[Dave Martin]

biodiesel for airplane, no different than Jet fuel...invest in oil seeds stock for the long term....
only certification is needed...

Problem with bios is we need to dedicate even more land to their growth. There are already massive environmental issues with degredation of natural forest to make land for livestock use. If you start needing to feed mechanical horses then it would be even less sustainable than it already is.

Back to the drawing board.

[Knold]

Now if we could only harnes the power of cosmic radiation we'd be set for life. :}

[Loose rivets]

Loose rivets, what it would take is an infrastructure. Right now, no-one is building that infrastructure because it wouldn't be be profitable. Once the price of oil rises sufficiently, you'll be amazed how quickly Shell, Exxon &c will start to build it, when they see they can make a few billion a year out of it.


Sorry, with the best effort in the history of mankind, it simply will not work.

Our existing fuel comes from a stockpile that took millions of years to build. It is MILES thick in lots of places, yet still our needs are seeing it diminish at an alarming rate.

[Pax Vobiscum]

Sorry, Loose rivets, you'll have to explain why "it simply will not work". The carbon-based energy supplies exploited to date have been the 'easy' ones. This makes perfect sense - if oil from field A costs $10 a barrel and from field B it's $20, then field A gets exploited first. While oil remains at $15 a barrel, field B will never get exploited. For similar reasons, many fields have more oil left behind than has been extracted - it simply hasn't been economic to get it out of the ground.
Then there's oil shale - more potential energy than in all the oil discovered up to now (3 billion tons in Germany, alone) - see World Energy Council (http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/shale/shale.asp). We'll need new technologies to turn this into a usable product, at present it takes more energy to extract it than you get when you burn it, but I'm an optimist :D.
NB I'm no energy expert (maybe Loose Rivets, based in Texas, is), and I know there are several PPRuNers who are, so I now sit to be corrected!

[Loose rivets]

Sorry, Loose rivets, you'll have to explain why "it simply will not work". The carbon-based energy supplies exploited to date have been the 'easy' ones. This makes perfect sense - if oil from field A costs $10 a barrel and from field B it's $20, then field A gets exploited first. While oil remains at $15 a barrel, field B will never get exploited. For similar reasons, many fields have more oil left behind than has been extracted - it simply hasn't been economic to get it out of the ground.
Then there's oil shale - more potential energy than in all the oil discovered up to now (3 billion tons in Germany, alone) - see World Energy Council (http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/shale/shale.asp). We'll need new technologies to turn this into a usable product, at present it takes more energy to extract it than you get when you burn it, but I'm an optimist :D.
NB I'm no energy expert (maybe Loose Rivets, based in Texas, is), and I know there are several PPRuNers who are, so I now sit to be corrected!


Ah, it is possible I misinterpreted your post. What I thought was, an infrastructure set up to create fuel by other means. This is where I feel we are living in a dream world.

It puts it into perspective when one considers an area the size of Texas. It's certainly big, but the layer of any natural product would be minutely thin by comparison. Also, it's an area where it takes 8 acres to feed one cow...on a good day. (I seem to remember that in the UK we can get 8 cows on one acre.) Where will all the existing infrastructure go?

There is to my certain knowledge, an attempt to rework some old wells here. Oil company's reps are approaching folk who have rusting 50 year old equipment sitting on their farms. Indeed it is because of the new value of oil. It has always struck me as odd that America leaves a lot of oil in the ground while incurring $trillions of debt. But that's another issue.

There is of course intense research going into other forms of energy. We have discussed the JET experiment on pprune in the past. It is the total effort that I am questioning.

I'm rushing, so I won't make references by name, but some posts back someone seemed to imply that it's okay, we have enough to last all the living folk, and then some. What I see from the viewpoint of someone my age, is that this timescale goes by in the blink of an eye. I don't want my grand children, or even my great grandchildren in the scenario that I painted in my first post.