Air NZ ready to fly on weed
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air NZ ready to fly on weed
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."
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."
set a target of a million barrels of biofuel a year by 2013 – 10 per cent of its total fuel use
But Qantas' chief risk officer Rob Kella said: "A significant breakthrough is required."
Last edited by Flying Binghi; 5th Jun 2008 at 05:24.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I believe this is the first time a sustainable/economically viable biofuel has been used.
Stunt
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Ha
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.
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.
Last edited by tartare; 5th Jun 2008 at 08:03.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To fill up a Land Rover Discovery Diesel's tank with biodiesel requires enough corn to feed an average african family for 1 year!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Rainforest
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anybody considered how these bio fuels are affected by icing?I understand they have a higher freeezing point.(Nzs longhaul 12hr sectors)
Last edited by Borneo Wild Man; 6th Jun 2008 at 01:33.
Radical change
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biofuels are plane irresponsible!
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...&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-a...&articleId=551
To save along rant, here's a link to my blog...(assuming I am allowed to do that) http://www.aviationrecord.com/search...&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-a...&articleId=551
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Zealand
Age: 62
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PR Job? You got it.......
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
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
Right on
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Someday I will find a place to stop
Posts: 1,024
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
6 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Zealand
Age: 62
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Green makes Green
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.
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!
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.
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!
Last edited by 400Rulz; 6th Jun 2008 at 11:27.
Excellent
400rulz... spot on.
Reasoned, sound scientific argument... based on fact.
I personally find the IPCC quite scary... a multinational exercise in scientific groupthink...
Reasoned, sound scientific argument... based on fact.
I personally find the IPCC quite scary... a multinational exercise in scientific groupthink...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..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.
Such close minded pseudo religeous ranting is what is starting to make people realise they've been had.