Air NZ ready to fly on weed

[lazysundays]

The Daily Telegraph - By Andrew Carswell June 05, 2008 12:00am


AIR New Zealand says it could be using a poisonous weed to power commercial flights before the end of the year, thus revolutionising air travel and leading to fare cuts.
The breakthrough fuel source will be a noxious weed called jatropha, an ugly fast-growing drought-proof bush that can grow in virtually any soil.
Air NZ will officially test the weed fuel in one of its Boeing 747-400s before blending it with its current jet fuel for use in its fleet if the tests are successful.
It has set a target of a million barrels of biofuel a year by 2013 – 10 per cent of its total fuel use.
The airline says the biofuel, at least 30 per cent cheaper to produce than current jet fuel prices of $US160 a barrel, will lower fares, and eventually make airlines carbon neutral.
"This is a social, commercial and technically capable fuel. It is an exciting time for the aviation industry," Air NZ's operations manager David Morgan said.
The interest in biofuels from airlines has largely stemmed from the need to address the impact of aircraft on the environment. But after jet fuel prices rocketed as high as $US173 a barrel last month, the need to find alternative fuel has become paramount to the viability of airlines.
Giant aircraft manufacturer Boeing believes Air NZ is leading the world down a track that all airlines will need to negotiate in the short-term.
"Aviation fuel has become extremely expensive, and there is a real challenge there," Boeing director Darrin Morgan said.
"Sustainable biofuel like jatropha is the only alternative that can significantly reduce greenhouse gases and fuel costs."
Jatropha plants grow up to 3m high and produce a seed that contains an inedible lipid oil that can easily be refined into jet fuel.
Each seed produces up to 40 per cent of its mass in oil.
The plant, which can be grown in non-arable land, is the only biofuel that fulfills Air NZ's strict criteria that its chief executive Rob Fyfe says are un-negotiable.
"Firstly, it must be environmentally sustainable and not compete with existing food stocks. Secondly, it must be at least as good as the current product.
"Finally, it should be significantly cheaper and be readily available."
Qantas and Virgin Blue are also investigating alternatives fuel. But Qantas' chief risk officer Rob Kella said: "A significant breakthrough is required."

[propaganda]

Virgin Atlantic have already flown a B744 using bio fuel to power 1-eng from LHR- AMS .Air NZ are not the 1st to try it.

[Flying Binghi]

set a target of a million barrels of biofuel a year by 2013 – 10 per cent of its total fuel use

Re useing biofuels, Air NZ is to be congradulated... that said, I hope Ozy Qantas is not going to let a bunch of NZ sheep molesters beat it to the punch :(


But Qantas' chief risk officer Rob Kella said: "A significant breakthrough is required."

IMHO, a 'significant breakthrough' would be achieved if all the office chairs were removed at Qantas HQ so nobody could sit on their lazy behinds :hmm:

[tartare]

This is the biggest PR stunt out, and journalists are faling for it left right and centre.
:rolleyes:

[Flying Binghi]

tartare, I've Googled the story, its on a few news services.

Perhaps you can tell us the 'real' story ?

[cama7]

Propaganda, the word is SUSTAINABLE biofuels. Virgin Atlantic used palm oil which is a hell of a long way from sustainable.
I believe this is the first time a sustainable/economically viable biofuel has been used.

[tartare]

The fact is... when the doors are closed, and the gullible have gone away, these guys know it will take years and years to get this going... if ever.
The real quantifible recduction in C02 and Nox emmissions that a japtropa blend would provide are minimal.
Show us the numbers.
It is nothing more than a PR stunt.
They are deliberately milking this for all its worth.
They have the integrity of a rat in a used car yard.

[GenAvman]

of course biofuel is a real alternative jet engines are not nearly as fussy as internal combustion engines about the fuel that they use however depending on the octane rating and the mix with jet. It is certainly viable. Also boifuel from Jatropha wouldn't effect food prices. If in doubt have a look at the latest flight safety. The only thing is fuel is still too cheap for anyone but the US government to do anything about. Until a competitor ie anyone starts getting a commercial advantage by cheaper mixed fuel no one is going to do it. And not only that the current fuel suppliers wont exactly encourage it so logistics would be a problem in the transition phase.:ok:

[tartare]

Wake up.
You are telling me that in 5 years maybe... there will be enough jatropa planted to fuel NZ's domestic fleet?
Or blend even a fraction with NZ's domestic fleet jet A1 currently used????
That there will be the means to refine and distribute it?
How much is that going to cost?
Where's it going to be planted?
Who's going to do the refining?
Who's going to do the blending?
Who will build the plants to do the blending?
For a fleet of 15 B737's?
Or a handful of long haul jets???
Oh... of course... its a start... right????
For god's sake... use your brains.
You and any green flyer - are being had!
All of this talk of biofuels is just tinkering around the edges.
What we need - if we even accept the premise of global warming, is radical changes.
Form factors need to change.
Build me an all composite blended wing body 737 replacement.
Power it with a GTF or an open rotor.
Staright away you'll save me 30% + CO2 emissions.
Boeing could do it now... but they'te too bloody conservative.
Until you're prepared to even consider something that adventurous and radical - don't bleat to me about f*cking plants being part of the answer to help save aviaition for chrissakes.

:ugh:

[mattyj]

To fill up a Land Rover Discovery Diesel's tank with biodiesel requires enough corn to feed an average african family for 1 year!

[Borneo Wild Man]

Anybody considered how these bio fuels are affected by icing?I understand they have a higher freeezing point.(Nzs longhaul 12hr sectors)

[Borneo Wild Man]

All in the interpretation,I guess

[tartare]

Might have been rather terse in the previous post, but I stand by the point.
Airframers like Boeing have been biased against BWB's ever since Liebert suggested the idea at McD for airliners. I think the quote from Mullaly when asked about them was - not on my watch.
They talk about roll sensation being too extreme for pax, when most would not be sitting that far from the centreline anyway. If it's really that much of a problem, then just restrict bank angles.
They say there'd be no windows - when you can mount a hi-def screen on the back of a seat that can blow away any view from a window.
They complain about the difficulties of pressurizing non-circular vessels - in an era of carbon fibre?!! Or the everyone out in 90 secs rule - when people can get out of something the size of an A380 in time.
If the boys from Cranfield can build the X48b - then Boeing can build a BWB shorthaul airliner - good place to start. The change in form factor alone is etsimated to be able to save 30% in fuel. Then add in advanced poweplants - ultra high bypass, geared turbofans or open rotors - its just a no-brainer.
Personally, I reckon the X-48b is a military funded stalking horse for a next gen airliner.
BWB's are quieter, more efficient, and they really are more enviornmentally friendly.
Not like some airline trying to buy green credentials by taking some gullible jorunalists on a junket.

[FlyerRob]

There's a massive public backlash looming over bofuels, which are really being promoted by a bunch of greedy, selfish US farmers, aided by farming state politicians seeking to ensure their re-election...

To save along rant, here's a link to my blog...(assuming I am allowed to do that) http://www.aviationrecord.com/search-results.aspx?articleType=ArticleView&articleId=557

There is also a lot more detail from Air New Zealand about how jatropha... clearly they're working very hard to prove the sustainability issue... but any plant needs water and water used to 'grow' jet fuel is water that can't be used to grow food to eat... http://www.aviationrecord.com/news-articles.aspx?articleType=ArticleView&articleId=551

[400Rulz]

Tatare,
I recently posed this question to one of the Senior Managers in AirNZ "Has the Co. done any in depth research into the theory of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) or are they just taking the media hype as gospel, is the move to an all twin fleet a "green incentive", and does the move to biofuels really present a viable option to AVTUR?"

The answer was, as usual, circumspect in the extreme. The gist of it was, that for the time being, we have to be "seen to be green" because that was what our customers were expecting to see. Add to this a possible carbon tax by the EU on overflights that were not "carbon neutral" and you have the motivation for these announcements - PR and economics. It does not matter whether management subscribe to the AGW theory or not, it is all about customer demand and high fuel prices. Spin and Money - its how business works.

Having spent a great deal of time and effort reading both sides of the AGW question, I have come to the conclusion we are having the "wool pulled over our eyes". I have a biosciences degree from the U of A, and can recognize faulty science when I see it. I realize this is not the thread for a debate on climate science, but anything that reduces the cost of running our aircraft has to be good for the Co., and would give us an edge over the opposition (unless the price of JetA falls to pre-1998 levels).

Its the thought that counts.:}

400R

[tartare]

You are quite correct.
At the most senior levels in NZ... this is nothing more than a cynical exercise in PR.
There is an analogy with people who buy organic veges.
Supermarkets can charge them a premium... a big premium.
Hence Air NZ wanting to appear as green as it possibly can.

[DeltaT]

Isn't it supposed to be that these biofuels actually do nothing to produce a less harmful exhaust?
The upside is more supposed to be in the 'green cycle' that the (more) plants in the ground for the fuel are sucking up CO2 and producing O2, only to then be burnt up by a plane dumping CO again, haha

[400Rulz]

Hey, DT
You got it. It's called carbon neutrality - you take out what you put in. However, there is a very good scientific argument against this, and this is where AirNZ's strategy is a winner (PR and economically), because they have stipulated "environmentally and socially acceptable" criteria for their selection of a plant to supply their biofuel requirements. There are a few problems, though.

What they haven't taken into account is fiscal greed by the producers. Yes, the Jatropha can grow in arid, semi-waste soils and is both drought and marsh tolerant. But, as with the Palm Oil Palm, what is to stop greedy producers stripping forest to plant trees that have no other use than for fuel oil? Unless AirNZ has some form of auditing ability/authority as to where their fuel comes from.....

As for the carbon cycle - well, it's where most people seen to get a little lost. How many of you remember from basic physics/chemistry that matter can neither be created nor destroyed? The form simply changes. So carbon that was "fixed" from the atmosphere in the carboniferous period (where, incidentally, the %age CO2 was nearly 600 times what it is now, but temperatures were similar, according to the Vostok bores) is now being released to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. This CO2 will be re-fixed by trees on our landmasses and algae in the oceans, and will, in time, be reborn as, you guessed it, OIL. It is all part of Earth's natural cycle. My point here is that the Earth is naturally carbon neutral.:ok:

Most people tend to overlook the effect our oceans have on our atmosphere (including the IPCC models, for what it is worth). Blue/green/red algae photosynthesise to a depth of around 30m. That means that, at the bare minimum, 70% of the Earth's surface is actively fixing carbon. Plants have an amazing ability to fix at least 1/2 of the available carbon in their environment. Studies have shown that in a controlled situation (greenhouses), artificially raising the CO2 levels to 1000ppm (>3 times what it is outside) actually resulted in the plants utilising at least 500ppm of the CO2, with a corresponding increase in growth rate and vitality of the crop. Food for thought (no pun intended). An increase in CO2 should, in fact, benefit mankind in terms of agricultural development/sustainability, as the growth rate of harvestable material will increase. The problem is that the myth of biofuels being more environmentally friendly is being perpetuated by people who have no idea (or no conscience about) of the consequences of what increasing the utilisation of arable land (for biofuel production) will have on the food production of the planet. In other words, we are starving the underprivileged to feed our transport requirements, especially in such poor nations as Borneo (Palm Oil production for biofuels) and even the good 'ole USofA. The amount of corn that is used to fill the tank of a Land Rover with biofuel is enough to feed the average African family for a year.:=

Don't get me wrong. I am all for sustainable, environmentally friendly growth. We have neglected our responsibilities for too long. But let's not confuse politics and fake science with good practice - we have to leave a legacy for our children. And that includes ensuring there is enough food to go around!:}

[tartare]

400rulz... spot on.
Reasoned, sound scientific argument... based on fact.
I personally find the IPCC quite scary... a multinational exercise in scientific groupthink...

[mattyj]

..even worse, only about half of them are scientists..the rest are lobbyists and united nations beauracrats. Last week on the panel disscussion on prime tv, there was a Greenpeace spokeswymin who stated "anyone still debating the reality of global warming now, is a puppet of the multinationals"

Such close minded pseudo religeous ranting is what is starting to make people realise they've been had.

[400Rulz]

In the mid 1970's, the UN initiated a series of studies to examine how to more evenly distribute wealth between the poorer nations and those that had a great deal of wealth. There were several scenarios presented, but the only one that was considered as viable was global warming. The UN then approached several of the big names in finance (in the 1990's) to come up with a proposal that would meet their criteria. Interestingly, it was Enron that came up with the idea of trading Carbon Credits (and look what happened to that bunch of crooks).

Now they had to obtain the data and a suitable spokesperson to push the agenda. Who better than a failed US presidential candidate (with a high profile, and an ego to match) and a second-rate scientist with aspirations to control NASA. Now I know this sounds like a Conspiracy Theory, but truth is often stranger than fiction! Hence we have Al Gore, and James Hansen. The two go a long way back - Hansen supplied the data (skewed - see the later http ref.) and Gore delivered the Gospel (including out-takes from a couple of movies to illustrate the point - YAY CGI). Go to http://climatedebatedaily.com/ and/or http://www.climatescience.org.nz/ for the details. Nobel must be turning in his grave! What have these clowns done for World Peace?

It is interesting to note that Gore's personal fortune has gone from US$2,000,000 to about US$100,000,000 since "An Inconvenient Truth" and that Hansen's media exposure has rocketed since the film release. I don't know about you, but this smacks of politicism of the scientific community. It should not be tolerated. Added to this is the fact that the IPCC panel consists of only 50 odd climatologists (all political appointments), with the vast majority being financiers and economists. I noticed recently that 31,000 (yes, that figure is correct) paleogeologists and meteorological scientists have signed a document refuting the IPCC findings in their entirety. The general consensus, in fact, is that the Earth is headed for a period of considerable global cooling, based on the sunspot cycle (and lets face it, the Sun is responsible for the warming of the Earth). Just another factor the IPCC model has failed to take into account.

It seems to me that the UN is trying to find a justification for its existence. They failed to take action in Ruwhanda, Bosnia, Croatia, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Mogadishu, Angola - the list goes on. Why do we continue to listen to this bunch of pseudo-politicos? Personally, I love John Howard's response when the UN criticised Aussie policy on the Aboriginies (not that I agree with his policies, just his response) - "Piss off, this is our country". Lets tell the UN to "piss off", and sort out stuff that REALLY matters:mad:

400R

[ACMS]

Air NZ are doing for one reason.................TO SAVE MONEY ( or make more money )

The Oil price is making it more attractive to find alternative sources of fuel.
They are doing it to try and bring down the price they pay for fuel.

1/ Gullable customers think ANZ are Green and therefore will fly on them instead of other Airlines.
2/ They get cheaper overflight payments from being Carbon neutral
3/ The alternative fuel is a bit cheaper
4/ It pressures the Oil cartels to re-think their output and just maybe lower the price of Oil. ( although it would take a lot of Airlines using alternative fuels to make a dent )

They will spin it as hard as they can to achieve their aim, they can't really lose can they.

A win win for ANZ accountants

[Flying Binghi]

400Rulz, from your last post, could you provide a reference for these claims please -

Enron that came up with the idea of trading Carbon Credits

Gore's personal fortune has gone from US$2,000,000 to about US$100,000,000 since "An Inconvenient Truth"

I noticed recently that 31,000 (yes, that figure is correct) paleogeologists and meteorological scientists have signed a document refuting the IPCC findings in their entirety.

[400Rulz]

1. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1813229/posts

2. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/03/al-gore-getting-rich-spreading-global-warming-hysteria-media-s-help

3. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/17/32-000-deniers.aspx

Also check out this link for a "beginners guide" to Global Weather:

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
http://www.ecofascism.com/article2.html

Other good websites are:

1. http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php

2. http://climatedebatedaily.com/

There are several other discussion papers regarding the Gore/ENRON/Carbon trading connection - type the three into a Google search. You'll get enough hits to keep you reading for a while.....:}

-400R

[Flying Binghi]

Thanks for the references 400Rulz.

Personaly, I'm sceptical of the AGW claims.

There is a second part to what AirNZ is doing though - peak oil, and/or, unafordable oil.

IMHO, any prudent aviation bussiness should be doing just what AirNZ claims it is doing in relation to finding an alternate fuel source.

[400Rulz]

Agree entirely. I still have a few career years to go yet........

[mattyj]

..peak oil I'm not so sure..it is a bit "catch-phrasey" if you ask me..how about peak production.

When are the fat lazy oil companies (the worst-british one, I used to work for) need to start plowing some of their massive windfall profits back into more rigs and more refineries. Its just lazy and greedy to witness a huge rise in demand (India and China) but do nothing about production..and then sit back and let Wall street, and speculators, elevate world oil prices, thus increasing their profits for doing nothing.

I am a Capitalist, but the world market is becoming its own worst enemy like a scorpion stinging itself to death as it gets too hot.

[400Rulz]

Hi Y'all,
Another have from the 1970's. I have no doubt that there is a lot more oil out there - but is is a matter of economics, just as extraction from the Athabasca oil sands is. Once, it is was not economical to extract, and now it is. Funny that. :E
Ironically, there is enough oil in the oil sands to supply both Canada and the USA for the next 200 years (and that is a conservative estimate). If peak oil has indeed been reached (and it may have been in the USA, but they are not the be-all-and-end-all of oil production), then how is it that global oil extraction has been increasing at about 1 million bbl per year since the early 1990's? Strikes me that it's just another "have" to drive up the price of oil. Add to that the very lucrative futures market and uncertainty over supply due to war and sabotage, and you have the reason why we pay so much at the pumps (and in the case of NZ, the 50% tax we pay on gas).
There are some very interesting articles on "Peak Oil". I would like to suggest that the problem lies not so much on the amount that is being extracted from the earth, but how much is actually being processed. There has been, in the past ten years, very little money invested in new refineries globally. Instead of building new refineries, the oil companies have been running their existing refineries at over capacity (by this I mean that the usual capacity rating is at 85% to allow for maintenance schedules - instead they are at 95% - esp. in the US). This margin is too close - one refinery out and we all pay more at the pumps because of "supply uncertainty". Sounds like a load of bollocks.:}
It still amuses me that we bitch about the price of petrol, but I recently succumbed to extreme thirst and bought a bottle of water, at the extortionate price of $2.17 for 750 ml. :{
Bring on 100% ethanol at the pumps! Getting pissed will be so cheap!!!:}:ok:

-400R

[Flying Binghi]

there is enough oil in the oil sands to supply both Canada and the USA for the next 200 years

Reference please 400Rulz.

"supply both Canada and the USA" - and what about the rest of the world ?

'Peak oil' for USA oil production in the 70s was fairly educational.

[400Rulz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Tar_Sands.

I don't believe all I read, but Discovery Channel seems to bear this one out.....

400R

[Steve Zissou]

I hear scientists are looking into using cats milk as a replacement for crude oil:D

[mattyj]

I hear that recyclers are thinking of using surplus police officers to make new pilots:D

[Flying Binghi]

Hmmm.... must remember to re-read the warning written in big red letters at the bottom of the thread :hmm:

[tartare]

So if they're really green... wonder if little Robbie is still driving that Aston??
Peak oil... another fantasy. Plenty of the stuff left.
There's a whole lot of speculators making a lot of money out of gullible people at the moment.
It's tulips all over again.... contango...

[Fark'n'ell]

As for the carbon cycle - well, it's where most people seen to get a little lost. How many of you remember from basic physics/chemistry that matter can neither be created nor destroyed? The form simply changes. So carbon that was "fixed" from the atmosphere in the carboniferous period (where, incidentally, the %age CO2 was nearly 600 times what it is now, but temperatures were similar, according to the Vostok bores) is now being released to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. This CO2 will be re-fixed by trees on our landmasses and algae in the oceans, and will, in time, be reborn as, you guessed it, OIL. It is all part of Earth's natural cycle. My point here is that the Earth is naturally carbon neutral

Well said Rulz.Most politictions and greenies couldn't spell "physics" let alone understand anything about it

[float flyer]

Somebody may have beaten me to it but....

Maybe the Green Party will be able to be redeployed in November after the election, back to their "patches" in the Coromandel, and use this to help the national carrier.

Or even put the "mob" and the "power" to use instead of beating each other senseless in PMR and WAG, or even good ole "Parry"!:}