Kerosene – no other game in town?

And military planes don’t crash?

That one was directed more towards the military side of aviation, I should’ve mentioned that.

. Nuclear power. As sensible as that might be, particularly if fusion were used and not fission, the hypocrites wearing green would have multiple cows.

Not just the hypocrites wearing green… it is bad enough terrorists putting bombs on planes without Boeing and Airbus doing the same…

There are a few alternatives to kerosene as an aviation fuel source:

1. Have we forgotten about boron hydride already? Probably won’t help the auto industry but it’ll work for air travel if given the right amount of attention.

2. A diatomic drive system. Think about that one for a minute, and you’ll see where I’m going with it.

3. An electrical “jet” engine may be within reach at some point in the future, whereby ultra high-speed fans draw in air to an advanced compressor. The idea is that the compressor and nozzle assembly are powerful enough to generate thrust without the need for combustion. Alternatively, the atmospheric intake may be able to be combusted electrically if it is compressed enough, to generate more thrust. Dunno about that bit, but the first part would certainly work in theory.

4. Nuclear power. As sensible as that might be, particularly if fusion were used and not fission, the hypocrites wearing green would have multiple cows.

That’s what I can think of off the top of my head.

I’m no scientist but had thought that the major by-product of burning hydrogen was water vapour, a product with which the environment is well used to coping. Admittedly, it would put this into the atmosphere in large amounts so the consequences would presumably be – clouds..?

Sorry, I wasn’t clear. What I meant to say was that if Hydrogen becomes a widely used fuel then fuel leaks and fuel spills will lead to pure hydrogen being released and as I mentioned such gases are not bound to earth.

Another thing I did mention was an article I read that stated Oil and natural gas like methane are not organic or fossil fuels but are like basalt and clay, ie produced geologically rather than through rotting carbon lifeforms (ie dinosaurs etc). Oil seems to be getting located in some very strange places.

Does anyone know the likely state of future jet fuel availability?

As a fossil fuel, the green argument to one side, is it not becoming an ever scarcer resource and is there no viable alternative on view or at least on the horizon?

I have seen no articles on this recently and I would have thought that projected mushrooming growth in world air travel gives cause for concern in this area.

I can’t remember what publication I saw it in recently but I read a report which said that in the mid ’50s the world’s oil supply was good for 30 years. guess what the same study group came out with in 2005? The world’s oil reserve is good for 30 years (even with our increased demand?) Someone is telling porkies I reckon.

It has not disappeared. Most of the major manufacturers have dozens of hydrogen-fuelled test mules running around.

But until the massive infrastructure for the manufacture and distribution of hydrogen to the customer at a cost equivalent to gasoline, or less, can be developed you won’t see them selling it to the public.

I mean, would you buy one today knowing you had nowhere local to fuel it up?

So no Arab sheiks’ plot. Just cold hard economics.

Moggy

It gets even funnier here with the “ecologig” (yeah, right) E85 … They sell cars, but we don’t have a single pump selling it in the whole country !

Moderatorial Mumblings

That’s a shame, as the thread relates directly to commercial aviation and not politics etc.

That’s certainly true of the original post and early replies but such is the nature of thread creep, I’m afraid.

GA

The prototype I saw on TV was a viable vehicle …. but it has disappeared?

It has not disappeared. Most of the major manufacturers have dozens of hydrogen-fuelled test mules running around.

But until the massive infrastructure for the manufacture and distribution of hydrogen to the customer at a cost equivalent to gasoline, or less, can be developed you won’t see them selling it to the public.

I mean, would you buy one today knowing you had nowhere local to fuel it up?

So no Arab sheiks’ plot. Just cold hard economics.

Moggy

This thread has become more about politics, technology and economics than commercial aviation, so off to General Discussion it goes.

Hang on to your hats…………….

That’s a shame, as the thread relates directly to commercial aviation and not politics etc.

I don’t have a hat

Moderator Message

This thread has become more about politics, technology and economics than commercial aviation, so off to General Discussion it goes.

Hang on to your hats…………….

especially in the UK. Land of highest fuel prices (80% tax!!!).

So we’d be used to it then, no? Trying to work out the logic of that one…

………… and people may vote different if someone taxes their gas. In Western societies a very delicate issue.

especially in the UK. Land of highest fuel prices (80% tax!!!).

The problem is with daily technology that the financial incentive is sometimes not so great. And it is politics: people don’t like to pay more for mobility, and people may vote different if someone taxes their gas. In Western societies a very delicate issue.

In conclusion: oil is wasted today on a still staggering amount, so that it seems dubious why civil commercial aviation should be concerned about its efficiency, which has reduced its fuel burn per seatmile about 50-70% since mid 60ies, and does continue on a rate of 5-10% per decade.

Yes, engine manufacturers have made tremendous achievements in cutting the fuel burn and increasing the efficiency of the power plants. Combined with the (comparatively smaller) increase in aircraft aerodynamics, this technique of fuel saving has helpped a lot more jets take to the skies as fuel is available.

There are a lot of other areas that fuel can be (and is) saved, as mentioned. Through fuel cell/hydrogen cars that have been developed. Maglev trains have pretty much eliminated on-board fuel being used. Combined heat/power plants for individual houses/communities, solar panels, small wind turbines for household use. I even saw somewhere (I think FHM?) that they are trialling tankers or cargo ships with huge sails on the front to ‘pull’ them across the Atlantic to save fuel?

In short, I think it currently easier to develop and use ‘alternative’ fuels for these application, though they just have to be more widely implemented. It is harder for alternative technologies to be implemented into aviation at the time being.

So, by weight liquid hydrogen has more energy than kerosene. But it volume it has not. Additionally, to be “liquid hydrogen” technically challenging tanks must be provided, while kerosene stays liquid at normal to cruise altitude air pressure and according temperatures.

The question is further: where do we get the hydrogen from? Hydrogen must be produced, by either conventional/nuclear/alternative energy. The last one drops out, we have hardly enough alternative sources to cover 5% of our electric consumption, increase to 20% will take at least 10 years if possible at all. Conventional/nuclear would call for massive investments into capacity, and only nuclear energy is CO2-free.

A hydrogen aircraft will need more energy, although this energy might be “clean”. As hydrogen production also causes losses, the overall efficiency of air travel will drop dramatically. As all studies imply, a hydrogen solution doubles the amount of primary energy needed. A hydrogen aircraft must look completely different with more volume suitable for circular tanks.

Actually, the ideas about coal-based fuel are equally bullock. You double the energy and CO2 consumed by that.

The only actual way would be to replace oil as primary energy source of cars, trains and heating by energy sources like nuclear energy, biofuels, bio-material (= wood) or simply by deleting the demand (reduction of primary energy for heating in a magnitude of ~30% is possible with affordable conventional technologies). I think the problem will finally solve itself: when oil in 15 years is at 200USD (consider 2007 prices), it will still be affordable for air travel but not to drive the 2.2t VW Tuareg to the next supermarket.

In conclusion: oil is wasted today on a still staggering amount, so that it seems dubious why civil commercial aviation should be concerned about its efficiency, which has reduced its fuel burn per seatmile about 50-70% since mid 60ies, and does continue on a rate of 5-10% per decade.

We are talking about liquid hydrogen here. So you have lots of added weight due to the tank (a huge “thermos” bottle in other words), and the fuel is denser, too. If it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be a Guppy, but rather the Hindenburg.

A small addenum to the weight/space issue. Hydrogen is actually lighter than air, and a lot lighter than avgas, thus a fully fueled aircraft will be lighter than an empty one.

You will need larger fuel tanks tough, perhaps something like the “Guppy” ?

Indeed, my point is, where did all the research go? The prototype I saw on TV was a viable vehicle, a little expensive at $12m because it was a prototype, but viable nonetheless. But it has disappeared?

We’ll continue to use Oil as long as the likes of Opec and the independant Oil Shekhs have the money to squash alternatives.