Beyond Fossil Fuel?
Beyond Fossil Fuel?
I read from a recent OPEC report that fossil fuel supplies until 2030 will be 'adequete'!
Since for example the USAF intends to keep the B52 bomber fleet until 2048 what thought has gone into aircraft engine technology beyond the use of fossil fuel.
As fuel supplies run dry then prices will rocket. The days of the jet engine will become numbered. Since we only have 30-50 years should we not look at new ways to propel aircraft in flight?
Since for example the USAF intends to keep the B52 bomber fleet until 2048 what thought has gone into aircraft engine technology beyond the use of fossil fuel.
As fuel supplies run dry then prices will rocket. The days of the jet engine will become numbered. Since we only have 30-50 years should we not look at new ways to propel aircraft in flight?
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grim,
I wouldn't worry too much about this - that figure refers to 'proven' reserves, and for about the last 50 years, proven reserves have remained largely constant, ie they have ALWAYS been saying we only have 25yrs of fuel left. I suspect this is a 2-proged attack from OPEC - their appeasement to the whale-kissing lobby, AND an attempt to stabilise prices at their current, higher-than-ever levels. Although largely due to geopolitical circumstances, OPEC have been doing quite nicely thank you out of it, and are simply trying to stop prices sliding back to their histroical norms of $25-30 a barrel.
The difference here is between 'proven' reserves and 'known' reserves, in areas where oil is known to exist but drilling / exploration hasn't yet exploited it. The Alaskan peninnsular is 'known' to contain vast reserves, as are certain off-shore areas of the US, but they haven't yet been declared 'proven' or exploited, largeley as a sop to the afforementioned whale-kissers.
As for alternative power units for aircraft - well, where can we go? The only other viable means of power is nuclear-generated electricity, the equipment for which is far too heavy for aviation applications, as are fuel cells (which require vast amounts of electricity in the first place to hydrolyse water to harvest hydrogen fuel). Any suggestions? I'm sure fellow ppruners can dream up some novel solutions!
I wouldn't worry too much about this - that figure refers to 'proven' reserves, and for about the last 50 years, proven reserves have remained largely constant, ie they have ALWAYS been saying we only have 25yrs of fuel left. I suspect this is a 2-proged attack from OPEC - their appeasement to the whale-kissing lobby, AND an attempt to stabilise prices at their current, higher-than-ever levels. Although largely due to geopolitical circumstances, OPEC have been doing quite nicely thank you out of it, and are simply trying to stop prices sliding back to their histroical norms of $25-30 a barrel.
The difference here is between 'proven' reserves and 'known' reserves, in areas where oil is known to exist but drilling / exploration hasn't yet exploited it. The Alaskan peninnsular is 'known' to contain vast reserves, as are certain off-shore areas of the US, but they haven't yet been declared 'proven' or exploited, largeley as a sop to the afforementioned whale-kissers.
As for alternative power units for aircraft - well, where can we go? The only other viable means of power is nuclear-generated electricity, the equipment for which is far too heavy for aviation applications, as are fuel cells (which require vast amounts of electricity in the first place to hydrolyse water to harvest hydrogen fuel). Any suggestions? I'm sure fellow ppruners can dream up some novel solutions!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hydrogen my dear boy,
The by product of hydrogen as a fuel is water and oxygen. Fuel cells are already being developed for cars/buses etc and they work using reverse electrolysis.
The only caveat is - the method of producing the hydrogen should be via sustainable means i.e. hydro (dams) etc. If the world starts producing hydrogen by normal means, we won't see a carbon dioxide emissions benefit.
Being as aviation is one of the greatest polluters, there are already some advances in the designing of hydrogen fuelled air vehicles. One of the main drawbacks so far is the safe storage of the fuel. If we safely stored the hydrogen fuel for an aircraft, it would, at the time of writing anyway, be far too heavy to be viable.
As you say, there are about 30 to 50 years of fossil fuels available however, as it becomes more scarse and therefore more expensive, it then becomes much more economically viable to scavenge the hard to get resources that we are currently leaving in the ground.
Therefore, there is probably going to be plenty of fossil fuels for the medium term, I just hope that we have the foresight to actively seek the hydrogen alternative quickly. It would take decades to realise the hydrogen dream, even if we ploughed limitless resources into the quest.
The benfit of benefits is - we would no longer need to poke our big noses into the middle east. We would be self sustaining in our enegy production, what a different view we would have of the world then?
Ginge.
The by product of hydrogen as a fuel is water and oxygen. Fuel cells are already being developed for cars/buses etc and they work using reverse electrolysis.
The only caveat is - the method of producing the hydrogen should be via sustainable means i.e. hydro (dams) etc. If the world starts producing hydrogen by normal means, we won't see a carbon dioxide emissions benefit.
Being as aviation is one of the greatest polluters, there are already some advances in the designing of hydrogen fuelled air vehicles. One of the main drawbacks so far is the safe storage of the fuel. If we safely stored the hydrogen fuel for an aircraft, it would, at the time of writing anyway, be far too heavy to be viable.
As you say, there are about 30 to 50 years of fossil fuels available however, as it becomes more scarse and therefore more expensive, it then becomes much more economically viable to scavenge the hard to get resources that we are currently leaving in the ground.
Therefore, there is probably going to be plenty of fossil fuels for the medium term, I just hope that we have the foresight to actively seek the hydrogen alternative quickly. It would take decades to realise the hydrogen dream, even if we ploughed limitless resources into the quest.
The benfit of benefits is - we would no longer need to poke our big noses into the middle east. We would be self sustaining in our enegy production, what a different view we would have of the world then?
Ginge.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fusion power. New scientist last week put a 40 year date in the future for when fusion should be a reality (after all, we do know fusion is not just theory, its one of those technical/material limited problems).
With the promise of literally unlimited supplies of energy, with the only by-product being very limited low level radioactive waste, and the chief fuel lithium (enough in 1 rechargable battery to supply an americans energy demands for their whole life), the only problem currently is nations are unwilling to stump up the cash for the research. But as soon as national economies and strategy are threatened by fuel shortages, I am sure this source of energy will recieve the cash it requires. The curently envisaged research fund will require 10 Bn per nation involved in the project (6 currently) to get the prototype reactor going.
Once we have the energy, either efficient fuel cells (hydrogen fuel, storage however is an issue, the density of hydrogen being a hundredth of avtur) or synthetic ethanol (little modification required for curent engines) are viable future aviation fuels. Not that I am fussed about the fuel issues, its aircraft automation I worry about!
With the promise of literally unlimited supplies of energy, with the only by-product being very limited low level radioactive waste, and the chief fuel lithium (enough in 1 rechargable battery to supply an americans energy demands for their whole life), the only problem currently is nations are unwilling to stump up the cash for the research. But as soon as national economies and strategy are threatened by fuel shortages, I am sure this source of energy will recieve the cash it requires. The curently envisaged research fund will require 10 Bn per nation involved in the project (6 currently) to get the prototype reactor going.
Once we have the energy, either efficient fuel cells (hydrogen fuel, storage however is an issue, the density of hydrogen being a hundredth of avtur) or synthetic ethanol (little modification required for curent engines) are viable future aviation fuels. Not that I am fussed about the fuel issues, its aircraft automation I worry about!
Very difficult to replace the current fuels - a high yield energy source which is fairly safe to transport. Alternatives do focus towards other liquids, such as the already mentioned ethanol or a cellulose based fuel. Problem is that all current viable alternatives need fairly exotic additives to enhance the burn properties, the by-products of which have unknown consequences on the upper atmosphere. (Kind of like the additives in F-34 / F-35.)
Suspicion breeds confidence
I saw a film where our secret agent (Charles Vine) was trying to stop Britain's first nuclear powered Dakota from being stolen. Perhaps this is the way ahead? 
Memo to self:
1. Invent new non-fossil fuel.
2. Invite the mediaeval folk existing in hot sandy places to find a new use for black smelly liquid.
3. Then realise there's no-one left to have a war with - so why do we need anything mechanical using non-fossil fuel for our Armed Forces? Sharpened guava halves will do - and big sticks with pointy ends.
4. Find out where the best guavas come from and make them an offer.....
1. Invent new non-fossil fuel.
2. Invite the mediaeval folk existing in hot sandy places to find a new use for black smelly liquid.
3. Then realise there's no-one left to have a war with - so why do we need anything mechanical using non-fossil fuel for our Armed Forces? Sharpened guava halves will do - and big sticks with pointy ends.
4. Find out where the best guavas come from and make them an offer.....
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a) Methane. Good, stodgy, starchy food for aircrew with a little modification from Martin Baker to the mobile armchairs and hey presto! Need more juice in ACM? No probs, just let one go!
b) Hoon speeches compressed to the nth degree, then released through a small nozzle. The hot air alone should produce enough to put Rutan's frugal beast to shame!
b) Hoon speeches compressed to the nth degree, then released through a small nozzle. The hot air alone should produce enough to put Rutan's frugal beast to shame!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems that Fusion power will always be fifty years in the future, I can remember ZETA in the 1950's, twas said it was going to make power so cheap it wasn't going to be worth sending out electricity bills.oh yeh!
Didn't the cousins fly a aircraft with a reactor aboard? I think the weight of the foot thick lead cockpit wall restricted time in the air though .
Didn't the cousins fly a aircraft with a reactor aboard? I think the weight of the foot thick lead cockpit wall restricted time in the air though .
sua cuique voluptas
Ooh! Ooh! I actually WORKED on ZETA!
(Sorry, just couldn't resist - one does not often get one over on Mr. Draper....)
But he's correct. "Sun in a Bottle", that was the headline at the time (1962?). It's always been 25 years in the future. The irritating thing is that it actually does work, it's just the problem of getting the scale, controllability and continuity of the process right. I don't see it happening until the oil actually shows signs of running out.
Ripline
(Sorry, just couldn't resist - one does not often get one over on Mr. Draper....)
But he's correct. "Sun in a Bottle", that was the headline at the time (1962?). It's always been 25 years in the future. The irritating thing is that it actually does work, it's just the problem of getting the scale, controllability and continuity of the process right. I don't see it happening until the oil actually shows signs of running out.
Ripline
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Zeta was a tad earlier than that Mr Ripline mid fities,one was but a snot nose in short kecks at the time, by the sixties one was a man of the world.
They thought they had cracked fusion, just a few years after they fired up Calder hall ( I can remember that as well).
Personelly I think if they been pottering about for fifty years and still not got it sussed, tiz unsussable.
I do think we should start building new nuke power stations as a matter of urgency though, it cannot be beyond our ken to build a safe Nuclear power station surerly, them buggas sandside is shure to cut off the oil again shortly.
They thought they had cracked fusion, just a few years after they fired up Calder hall ( I can remember that as well).
Personelly I think if they been pottering about for fifty years and still not got it sussed, tiz unsussable.
I do think we should start building new nuke power stations as a matter of urgency though, it cannot be beyond our ken to build a safe Nuclear power station surerly, them buggas sandside is shure to cut off the oil again shortly.
Calder Hall was principally a source of weapons grade fissile material. The fact that it manged to keep a few light bulbs illuminated was a convenient spin-off!
Plutonium for the nuclear weapons programme was produced at Windscale until 1957 and reprocessed on site before being shipped to Aldermaston. Plutonium production at Calder Hall (on the Sellafield site) for the nuclear weapons programme began in 1956, and at Chapelcross in 1958, with reprocessing at Sellafield by the same facility used to reprocess spent fuel from the civil programme, before being shipped to Aldermaston. Both Calder Hall and Chapelcross were used to produce electricity for the national grid in addition to supplying material for the defence nuclear programme. (from http://www.mod.uk/publications/nucle...accounting.htm - yes, really! Honest!!)
Plutonium for the nuclear weapons programme was produced at Windscale until 1957 and reprocessed on site before being shipped to Aldermaston. Plutonium production at Calder Hall (on the Sellafield site) for the nuclear weapons programme began in 1956, and at Chapelcross in 1958, with reprocessing at Sellafield by the same facility used to reprocess spent fuel from the civil programme, before being shipped to Aldermaston. Both Calder Hall and Chapelcross were used to produce electricity for the national grid in addition to supplying material for the defence nuclear programme. (from http://www.mod.uk/publications/nucle...accounting.htm - yes, really! Honest!!)
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with drapes on this - we need to start setting up more nuclear plants, as it's the only viable option. So-called 'renewable' sources simply don't have the clout, and will cause more environmental damage than fossil fuels (if fossil fuels are, in fact, causing ANY damage at all).
I suspect the powers that be have been holding back fusion development deliberately, to keep us dependent on middle east oil, as it seems to serve their purposes. So do the (purely political) objections to nuclear power.
16B
I suspect the powers that be have been holding back fusion development deliberately, to keep us dependent on middle east oil, as it seems to serve their purposes. So do the (purely political) objections to nuclear power.
16B
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't think its a case of holding back for some strategic reason, most developed countries have been pouring money into fusion research for half a century ,perhaps it is just undoable, every added milisecond of fusion temperature sustained and contained is reported in the scientific journals add nauseum.
I do think national energy production should be taken back under government control though, so should a few other strategic industries for that matter.
I believe one of the darlings of the green movement came out and said openly recently that we should start building fission plants toot suit as they say across the water,
Loads of dosh been spent building these gas turbine generating plants and they will have a very short lifetime, tiz either Nuke or open up the coal mines again and figuring out way of burning it clean, after all we are sitting on billions of tons of the stuff
I do think national energy production should be taken back under government control though, so should a few other strategic industries for that matter.
I believe one of the darlings of the green movement came out and said openly recently that we should start building fission plants toot suit as they say across the water,
Loads of dosh been spent building these gas turbine generating plants and they will have a very short lifetime, tiz either Nuke or open up the coal mines again and figuring out way of burning it clean, after all we are sitting on billions of tons of the stuff
If you look here you'll see that our cousins across the pond have indeed flown a working nuclear reactor (although not actually powering the aircraft). If you read the article you'll note the incredible amount of radiation it produced that wasn't shielded. Perhaps now is the time to restart the research, the large number of aircrew stuck in the system could be used on a sort of disposable basis to test out the reactors.
Hey presto 2 problems solved in 1. Now... where did I leave that GEMS form?
Hey presto 2 problems solved in 1. Now... where did I leave that GEMS form?
Sadly chaps, building any new nuclear power stations even if they were given the green light by the tree hugging brigade, would now be 2-3 times the cost of the last one built (Sizewell B), because we would have to 'buy-in' the expertise to design and build...USA, France etc. In fact, that did happen somewhat with Sizewell B.
This is because 90% of the UK nuclear design and build experts has either retired or are dead now, or like me, moved into other fields, because of succesive Govts. sitting on the fence over Nuclear Power. The Institution of Civil Engineers, and the Institution of mechanical Engineers has been warning of this for years.
And even if a commitment was to be given tomorrow, the public enquiry fiasco would take the best part of 5 years probably, and then it would be at least another 10 years or maybe more after that, before the first of the new stations would be on-line.
This is because 90% of the UK nuclear design and build experts has either retired or are dead now, or like me, moved into other fields, because of succesive Govts. sitting on the fence over Nuclear Power. The Institution of Civil Engineers, and the Institution of mechanical Engineers has been warning of this for years.
And even if a commitment was to be given tomorrow, the public enquiry fiasco would take the best part of 5 years probably, and then it would be at least another 10 years or maybe more after that, before the first of the new stations would be on-line.