Biofuel trial flight set for 747

we are all thinking of ways to make engines more carbon friendly . Is it not possible to build machines to pull carbon from our atmosphere

Need energy for that. Where do you suppose it to come from? Nuclear, Wind, Solar, …. and you are where we started. Basically, it suffices to reduce the new CO2 emissions, because nature will care about the rest.

we are all thinking of ways to make engines more carbon friendly . Is it not possible to build machines to pull carbon from our atmosphere

There is so much ground braking stuff that goes on behind the scenes that many don’t realise:

ST. LOUIS, Oct. 24, 2007 — The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA], using a Ford Motor Company-developed hydrogen engine, has successfully tested the hydrogen propulsion system of its High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) unmanned aircraft.

“This test demonstrates the technical readiness of the hydrogen engine system and confirms the capability breakthrough in flight endurance and altitude that could be realized by a variety of military and commercial customers,” said Darryl Davis, vice president and general manager, Boeing Advanced Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems.

During the test, the engine ran for nearly four days in a controlled chamber at Aurora Flight Sciences in Manassas, Va., including a total of three days that simulated conditions at 65,000 feet. The propulsion system included a multi-stage turbocharged internal combustion engine and its associated subsystems. The Ford engine earned better than expected fuel economy while demonstrating complete airflow and torque control across the engine’s operating range.

“This simulated flight allows us to showcase the capabilities of Ford’s proprietary hydrogen engine technology and the durability of our four-cylinder engines,” said Gerhard Schmidt, vice president, Ford Research and Advanced Engineering. “We are very pleased with the results. The gasoline version of this same engine can be found in our Ford Fusion and Escape Hybrid vehicles.”

The Boeing HALE aircraft is designed to economically maintain persistent presence over a specific ground location from stratospheric altitudes, providing tremendous potential for surveillance and communications applications. The test marked a key step toward proving the essential technical elements are in place for full-scale development.

“This test could help convince potential customers that hydrogen-powered aircraft are viable in the near-term,” said Boeing Advanced Systems President George Muellner. “This is a substantial step toward providing the persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities our customers desire.”

Boeing, as HALE’s system designer and integrator, is working closely with Aurora Flight Sciences and Ford to develop the aircraft’s propulsion system.

HALE is designed to stay aloft for more than seven days and carry payloads weighing up to 2,000 pounds. Potential applications include battlefield persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, border observation, port security and telecommunications. The long endurance autonomous aircraft will be a propeller-driven, lightweight structure with a high-aspect-ratio-wing.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q4/071024b_nr.html

Not directly in aircraft.

You forget that there was this…:p:rolleyes:

Although it would be great to be able to travel from London to New York in 45mins (as Fireflash would be able to do if real!), the combined environmental and health risks involved in powering an aircraft by nuclear power would far out-way the benefits wouldnt it? And it would also give the nuclear hippies something to moan about, like they do with the Navy’s Trident submarines!:D

Donno.. when we would be able to use nuclear energy to fly the commercial planes..

Only as powerplant to produce and energy carrier like hydrogen.
Not directly in aircraft.
Substituting other parts of global traffic energy demand with hydrogen makes more sense, for example cars, as they emit water vapor in the lower atmosphere without consequence, operate close to human noses (hydrogen engine does not emit any pollutants, is less noisy) and uses much more energy. The increased weight and/or lower range of a car wouldn’t matter that much. Using hydrogen on aircraft would be less fancy.

Donno.. when we would be able to use nuclear energy to fly the commercial planes..

Hydrogen powered engines is another option under consideration – where the main by-product would be a water (which, as it happens, may have negative consequences at high flight levels).

The technology could be made to manufacture a hydrogen jet engine, although there are two problems. Firstly, the storage of hydrogen I think is around 1:15 so for 1 tonne of H you would need 15 tonnes of storage infrastructure (quite a problem where space is somewhat limited at airports.

Secondly, similar to other ‘clean’ fuels, it is not carbon neutral. Unless the H is generated through the likes of a wind farm (which would take a long time), the H would have to be generated through means of e.g. a fossil fuel power station.

So to back up Schorsch’s point, the best savings at the moment (I reckon) will have to be made through more efficient aircraft and engine design before any major breakthroughs are reached in the fuelling area.

Symon

And production of hydrogen includes new losses. Finally we may ask: Considering the small amount of aviation is contributing to global carbon emissions, and considering the fact that on other opportunities we can save much more carbon by similar money investments (better housing, more efficient cars, better powerplants).
Changing aircraft to hydrogen would cost tremenduous money, wouldn’t be the huge gain in carbon (unless we use nuclear power), will have climate impact anyways.

Hydrogen powered engines is another option under consideration – where the main by-product would be a water (which, as it happens, may have negative consequences at high flight levels).

The technology could be made to manufacture a hydrogen jet engine, although there are two problems. Firstly, the storage of hydrogen I think is around 1:15 so for 1 tonne of H you would need 15 tonnes of storage infrastructure (quite a problem where space is somewhat limited at airports.

Secondly, similar to other ‘clean’ fuels, it is not carbon neutral. Unless the H is generated through the likes of a wind farm (which would take a long time), the H would have to be generated through means of e.g. a fossil fuel power station.

So to back up Schorsch’s point, the best savings at the moment (I reckon) will have to be made through more efficient aircraft and engine design before any major breakthroughs are reached in the fuelling area.

Symon

Suprised this has not been posted already…and suprised that VS might loose out to Air New Zealand!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7017694.stm

At least progress is being made…but probably the ‘greenies’ will have something to moan about it just for the sake of moaning or probably because we are just trying a concept that might actually reduce aviations impact on the environment!:D:diablo:

My stance still remains the same though, that other areas where carbon emissions are higher than the aviation industry’s total output need to be looked at first and foremost.

Any comments/opinions, please feel free to share them.

Just that recent reaearch proved that aternative fuels are anything but a real alternative. Besides the carbon spent to make them, the necessary agricultural area is lost. To make the biofuel for a company like Lufthansa, you would need about 10% of German soil.

The hype about “bio-fuel” is unfortunately screening many other more useful efforts to reduce carbon footprint. As always, a problem becomes hysteria and people start doing senseless stuff, even spending millions on it.

If Virgin replaced its elderly B747-400 with state-of-the-art aircraft, they had would reduce the carbon footprint by 15 to 20%. Much more cannot be assumed to come out from this action, taking all losses in account.

After all, it’s marketing the Al Gore way.

First I had heard of that. Depends which way you look at it: for a good cause, ‘reducing emissions’, is it really something that airlines should be racing over – as long as it’s being done? On the other hand, it is good that they are both so enthusiastic about it!

And…..here we go for another multi-page emissions disussion 😀