What happens flying when oil runs out

MooseJam

Is travel by air going to be a thing of the past, are there any alternative fuels that could be used ?

Steyr

MooseJam wrote: »

Is travel by air going to be a thing of the past, are there any alternative fuels that could be used ?

USAF at the moment are testing with Synthetic Fuels:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/21/us_airforce_boeing_synthetic_biofuel_testing/

Boeing, manufacturer of much of the world airliner fleet, is to test the feasibility of using biofuels derived from non-standard feedstocks in its aircraft. Meanwhile, the US air force effort to develop domestically-supplied fuels continues.

Flight International reports that Boeing's environmental strategy chief, Bill Glover, believes that usable aviation biofuels could be produced from diverse sources around the world.

Algae was specifically mentioned, which may offer an explanation for Shell's recent decision to look again at green-scum seawater fuel farming.

Apparently, Glover can foresee a future economic model where many different biofuel makers using separate methods and feedstocks contribute to the world supply, rather than the present petroleum model fed by a few monolithic global producers.

Speaking to Flight, he likened the coming shift to the distribution of computing power outward from mainframes into PCs.

Meanwhile, on Monday a US air force C-17 heavy transport aircraft flew across America from Washington to New Jersey powered by a synthetic fuel blend produced by the Fischer-Tropsch process. The C-17 was merely the latest USAF plane to be cleared for synthetic juice; the B-52 bomber was the first, during the summer. The service plans to check out its whole fleet over the next few years.

US air force secretary Michael Wynne is keen to free the US military from dependence on fuels largely sourced from suspect overseas regimes: a desire in which he is not alone.

At present, though, the Fischer-Tropsch synthetics being used are derived from fossil sources - coal or natural gas - which are easily obtained in the US. They aren't biofuels, but at least you don't have to buy them from Saudi Arabia.

However, the Pentagon is also seeking technology which could produce jet fuel from "crops produced by either agriculture or aquaculture (including but not limited to plants, algae, fungi, and bacteria) ..."

This seems to chime with Glover's Boeing vision of many different, probably non-food biofuel sources, all producing interchangeable fuel to a common standard. According to Flight, the aerospace behemoth plans biofuel-powered test flights next year, using 747 jumbo jets lent by Virgin and Air New Zealand (with General Electric and Rolls-Royce engines respectively).

Initiatives such as this probably won't cut carbon emissions immediately. Fischer-Tropsch juice is just liquefied fossil fuel, and biofuel production methods of today involve emissions and energy use which rob them of carbon-neutral status. However, these plans could well see less of the developed world's money flowing into Saudi coffers.

In time, fuel made from non-food sources like algae using new processes might very well cut into carbon emissions significantly, too. And this would avoid driving up food prices or requiring unfeasibly large amounts of cropland.

That said, one reason more normal alternate fuels such as corn ethanol have gained some traction is the huge political clout wielded by the US farm lobby rather than any more high-minded factors. Still, corporations like Boeing, Virgin and Shell - not to mention government arms like the US airforce - also have a lot of muscle. They could push this type of plan just as hard if they really wanted to.

First, however, the technology needs to be proved feasible. Once that's done, the commitment of the various groups will - or won't - become clear.

Our man in Havana

Would some form of nuclear power be viable?

ch252

Bond-007 wrote: »

Would some form of nuclear power be viable?

Greencore would go complaining probably!:rolleyes:

tracker-man

Hydrogen powered aircraft is another idea....

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055285764

jmayo

darragh-k wrote: »

Greencore would go complaining probably!:rolleyes:

Greencore have enough problems trying to find their profits which sem to have disappeared

ch252

jmayo wrote: »

Greencore have enough problems trying to find their profits which sem to have disappeared

Excellent! They've put a spanner in the works of too many things taking a biased view.

shinobi

Bond-007 wrote: »

Would some form of nuclear power be viable?

I remember seeing a program on Discovery where it was looked into in the late 40's/50's. Even if it had worked, it would only take one accident & the whole place would be in turmoil. Put a completely new twist on terrorism.:(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMf6OLVsDk

*Kol*

darragh-k wrote: »

Greencore would go complaining probably!:rolleyes:

Do you mean Greenpeace?

ejmaztec

After flicking through these posts, I remembered seeing much mention of the Germans using synthetic fuel during WW2. Armed with Google, I came across the following US report from 1981. Surely they must have made some progress since then. Perhaps they have - and are keeping it under wraps.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm

The first sentence could have been written today. Here it is and a couple of paragraphs.

The United States is faced with an acute energy problem. Our dependence on imported petroleum, which accounts for half of the country’s consumption, has caused rising balance of payments deficits that weaken the dollar and contribute to inflation. More worrisome in the long run for the future of this country is the realization that eventually most oil deposits, both foreign and domestic, will be depleted. This grim specter is accompanied by a lack of control over foreign supplies, leaving us dependent on the goodwill and mercy of the oil-producing states.

There are, of course, other sources from which energy can be derived, sources such as nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, solar and thermal power, and the like. But for the foreseeable future they either present many environmental threats or are not yet sufficiently developed to replace our dependence on foreign oil supplies. A sensible energy policy for the time being no doubt would rely on many different sources of energy until a more efficient, effective, and safe method has emerged. Such an approach will include the production of synthetic fuel derived from coal. This method was first effectively used by the Germans during World War II, so an examination of Germany’s situation at that time could be instructive

Run_to_da_hills

tracker-man wrote: »

Hydrogen powered aircraft is another idea....

That had its draw backs :eek:

*Kol*

lol it did!! filling an aircraft with hydrogen rather than powering with todays advances could be safer! I wouldn't like to be surrounded with 50 squillion cubic feet of hydrogen!

tracker-man

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

That had its draw backs :eek:

Doesn't nuclear?! Lol
Your going to have drawbacks with every fuel type, we're facing a huge problem here and there is no simple answer to it.

Fratton Fred

I was in a London cab the other day and the driver was going on about Dubai.

He was saying that all these countries are building hotels and tourist resorts for when the oil runs out, but if it runs out, how are people going to get there?

Great London cabbie logic I thought

seamus

The big problem with nuclear is as mentioned - there's just no way to build a reactor of any size which would be guaranteed to be secure in the event of a crash.

Even if the aircraft crashed somewhere remote (like they often do) a small meltdown or criticality could render a largish area unusable and devastate any unfortunate towns or people nearby.

Hydrogen is probably the way forward. Capture your hydrogen from water using a nuclear reactor and use that instead of aviation fuel.

I understand that using hydrogen would require a bit of a rethink of aircraft engine design though.

The events of the hindenberg would be unlikely as the hindenberg was using gaseous hydrogen. If the hindenberg has been using gaseous petrol, the exact same accident would have occured.

I wouldn't like to be surrounded with 50 squillion cubic feet of hydrogen!

But 50 squillion cubic feet of petrol is OK?

shinobi

Could this be the solution?
Uses fuels such as Silane or Hydrogen & puts supersonic transport back on the map.:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet#Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-43#Design

DublinWriter

seamus wrote: »

The events of the hindenberg would be unlikely as the hindenberg was using gaseous hydrogen. If the hindenberg has been using gaseous petrol, the exact same accident would have occured.

Or Helium. The yanks tightly controlled their International Helium exports in the period prior to the Hindenburg crash.

There are one or two companies in Germany that have been working on resurrecting the Zeppelin as a viable means of modern transport. Good luck with the PR lads.

*Kol*

seamus wrote: »

The big problem with nuclear is as mentioned - there's just no way to build a reactor of any size which would be guaranteed to be secure in the event of a crash.

Even if the aircraft crashed somewhere remote (like they often do) a small meltdown or criticality could render a largish area unusable and devastate any unfortunate towns or people nearby.

Hydrogen is probably the way forward. Capture your hydrogen from water using a nuclear reactor and use that instead of aviation fuel.

I understand that using hydrogen would require a bit of a rethink of aircraft engine design though.

The events of the hindenberg would be unlikely as the hindenberg was using gaseous hydrogen. If the hindenberg has been using gaseous petrol, the exact same accident would have occured.

But 50 squillion cubic feet of petrol is OK?

I think you will find that commercial airliners don't use petrol.

DublinWriter

*Kol* wrote: »

I think you will find that commercial airliners don't use petrol.

Well in a way yes, in a way no, they use Kerosine, which is an even more refined form of petrol.

Run_to_da_hills

DublinWriter wrote: »

Or Helium. The yanks tightly controlled their International Helium exports in the period prior to the Hindenburg crash.

There are one or two companies in Germany that have been working on resurrecting the Zeppelin as a viable means of modern transport. Good luck with the PR lads.

A Giant Zeppline concept that could lift off from water would be quite cool, something the size as the the passenger deck of the Stena HSS. It would be much safer than any conventional jet and could also be made unsinkible.

Our man in Havana

could also be made unsinkible.

They tried that one before.

cp251

something the size as the the passenger deck of the Stena HSS.

I seem to remember the the HSS doesn't sail if there are ripples in pond. Airships are at the mercy of the weather. One good wind and they blow away forever.

Fratton Fred

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A Giant Zeppline concept that could lift off from water would be quite cool, something the size as the the passenger deck of the Stena HSS. It would be much safer than any conventional jet and could also be made unsinkible.

Thunderbirds are go...:D

Del2005

cp251 wrote: »

I seem to remember the the HSS doesn't sail if there are ripples in pond. Airships are at the mercy of the weather. One good wind and they blow away forever.

The HSS doesn't sail due to the waves not the wind. Airships have rudders and engines for handling the wind, you must be thinking of hot air ballons:D

The Hindenburg accident happened because they had been fighting a storm across the Atlantic and the captain tried to speed up the landing to make up time and placed too much strees on the structure. This led to the wire bracing failing and ripping open the gas sacks which led to the fire.