U.S. FAA announces $7.7 million to develop 'green' fuel

[News_Editor]

U.S. FAA announces $7.7 million to develop 'green' fuel

2011-12-02 20:22:45 GMT+7 (ICT)

WASHINGTON, D.C. (BNO NEWS) -- The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Thursday announced that it is awarding $7.7 million in contracts to help advance alternative, environmentally-friendly, sustainable sources for commercial jet fuel.

The FAA funds will be granted to eight different companies, which will accordingly help the FAA develop and approve alternative, sustainably-sourced 'drop-in' jet fuels that can be used without changing aircraft engine systems or airport fueling infrastructure. 

As part of that work, the companies will develop these biofuels from sources such as alcohols, sugars, biomass, and organic materials known as pyrolysis oils.

In addition, the contracts call for research into alternative jet fuel quality control, examination of how jet biofuels affect engine durability, and provide guidance to jet biofuel users about factors that affect sustainability.

"These new green aviation fuels will use energy sources right here at home," said U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood. "This type of innovation will create good-paying jobs in the airline and energy industries and help protect the environment at the same time."

The contracts address a recommendation issued by the Future of Aviation Advisory Committee, which was commissioned by Secretary LaHood last year. The committee, comprised of experts from industry, academia, labor and government, specifically recommended that the Department of Transportation's exercise strong national leadership to promote and display U.S. aviation as a first user of sustainable alternative fuels.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-12-02

[chuckd]

Ka Ching! Global warming strikes again.

[JohnL]

Why do they have to give out millions in contracts when all they would need to do would be to offer a prize to anyone coming up with a viable 'green' energy that is economic viable?

Sounds more like "Big Government Strikes Again" to me.

[lovetotravel]

Why do they have to give out millions in contracts when all they would need to do would be to offer a prize to anyone coming up with a viable 'green' energy that is economic viable?

Sounds more like "Big Government Strikes Again" to me.

Uh, looks like they did offer a prize. This is for R&D. Great job and I hope they come up with something.

[chuckd]

Why do they have to give out millions in contracts when all they would need to do would be to offer a prize to anyone coming up with a viable 'green' energy that is economic viable?

Sounds more like "Big Government Strikes Again" to me.

Uh, looks like they did offer a prize. This is for R&D. Great job and I hope they come up with something.

Civilization has been trying to come up with an alternative fuel since the 1940's.

All of this effort has led to wind powered turbines that kill the bird population and deface the landscape, or to solar panels that take up all the land for only a third of the power generation.

We have nuclear, which has proven to be safe but we can't have because somebody in the environmental camp once saw "The China Syndrome".

We already have the Bakken oil fields in the Northwest but nobody can get it because it is shale oil and the best way to get it is by "fracking". (Google it) The environmentalists insist fracking might, could, conceivably, maybe and possibly cause the water aquifers to become contaminated...even though fracking has been used for the past 60 years and there have been no instances of water contamination.

As that famous environmentalist, Smokey the Bear said, Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.

Now we have the US government spending $7.7 million for R&D? Believe me, if private industry has not been able to find a cheap alternative to petroleum in the last 70 years, it is highly unlikely that a government expenditure of $7.7 million will accomplish the trick.

This is, very simply put, more government hysteria to the global warming scam.

Edited December 3, 2011 by chuckd

[Scott]

In the past 70 years, much of the attempts at finding alternatives have not been economically feasible because of relatively cheap oil. What R&D has occurred was done in fits and starts when there were oil embargoes or spikes in prices.

I think finding alternatives will require thinking outside the box. We may not be able to find one single fuel; we may have to find multiple ones.

[chuckd]

In the past 70 years, much of the attempts at finding alternatives have not been economically feasible because of relatively cheap oil. What R&D has occurred was done in fits and starts when there were oil embargoes or spikes in prices.

I think finding alternatives will require thinking outside the box. We may not be able to find one single fuel; we may have to find multiple ones.

So what you are saying is the price of oil drives the R&D field and NOT the federal government?

I agree with you on that presumption. Get the government out of it and let free enterprise discover the best way to fuel our big engines.

Until a replacement is found for oil however, let the drilling begin.

[ParadiseLost]

$7.7 million seems a very small sum when you consider the importance - perhaps it should be billion? If they are serious that is...

The world needs to wake up and smell the rosy atmosphere - at what point does it become clear that adding more and more cars is causing more than just pollution; congestion is becoming a major problem for many developing nations and oil will run out eventually.

The way to go is train and automated short-trip public transport in cities, but who is bold enough to ban motor cars (and bikes) from cities? Nobody would dare but that would be a massive step in the right direction.

Edited December 3, 2011 by ParadiseLost

[lovetotravel]

As for wind turbines:

http://science.howst...-kill-birds.htm

To most experts, though, there's a problem with the bird-mortality argument: The vast majority of research shows that wind turbines kill relatively few birds, at least compared with other man-made structures. The statistics are shocking if you consider just how many people are crying out against wind power for the birds' sake:

Man-made structure/technology

Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)

Feral and domestic cats

Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]

Power lines

130 million -- 174 million [source: AWEA]

Windows (residential and commercial)

100 million -- 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]

Pesticides

70 million [source: AWEA]

Automobiles

60 million -- 80 million [source: AWEA]

Lighted communication towers

40 million -- 50 million [source: AWEA]

Wind turbines

10,000 -- 40,000 [source: ABC]

Regarding nuclear, ask the Japanese how that is going? Or the Russians.

Regarding fracking, please Google "fracking environmental risk". Way too many articles describing the problems associated with this to list:

http://en.wikipedia....mental_concerns

In 2006 drilling fluids and methane were detected leaking from the ground near a gas well in Clark, Wyoming; 8 million cubic feet of methane were eventually released, and shallow groundwater was found to be contaminated.^[22] In the town of Dimock, Pennsylvania, 13 water wells were contaminated with methane (one of them blew up), and the gas company, Cabot Oil & Gas, had to financially compensate residents and construct a pipeline to bring in clean water; the company continued to deny, however, that any "of the issues in Dimock have anything to do with hydraulic fracturing".^[24][26]

http://www.guardian....gas-environment

The Tyndall Centre at Manchester University observed that the "fracking" process – pumping a liquid cocktail of water, chemicals and sand into rock to release the gas – represents real and substantial risks to people and the environment. Even though this is gas from shale, rather than tar sands, as an "unconventional" fossil fuel it has in common with sands a higher climate impact than conventional gas. That's because fracking releases more methane which is a potent global warming gas. What's more, our regulators seem to be hopelessly ill-prepared for the rapid development of shale gas in the UK.

http://e360.yale.edu...tural_gas/2417/

Only this year have objective, scientific studies on the consequences been published, and these are alarming. The best evidence indicates widespread contamination of drinking water wells within 1 kilometer of gas wells, and the rate of venting and leakage of methane to the atmosphere is sufficient to give shale gas a larger greenhouse gas footprint than any other fossil fuel. In Texas, flow-back fluid wastes are disposed through deep injection into old abandoned wells; but such wells are not available in Pennsylvania in sufficient number, and industry in Pennsylvania has yet to find a safe method of disposal. Some of this waste continues to be "treated" in municipal sewage plants in New York and Pennsylvania, despite strong evidence of downstream water quality problems. Widespread air pollution with compounds such as the carcinogen benzene is prevalent in both Texas and Pennsylvania.

Have you spent much time on glaciers around the world? And tracked their status? If you have, you would know global warming is real. Who knows what the actual cause is, but the reality is, glaciers are receding. No denying that.

[Jingthing]

Why do they have to give out millions in contracts when all they would need to do would be to offer a prize to anyone coming up with a viable 'green' energy that is economic viable?

Sounds more like "Big Government Strikes Again" to me.

Such hard core ideological right wing libertarianism that government doesn't have an important role in economic planning and development will surely accelerate the rise of China and the fall of America as a world power.

[GentlemanJim]

Nice idea ...but!

American Airlines alone (think how many airlines in the world! If the price of oil goes up by 10 US per barrel then it costs AA an extra 800 million US in extra annual fuel charges. simplified, at 100US a barrel, AA spend 8 Billion a year on fuel. Just one airline. This seems a token gesture to keep the greens happy, nothing will be achieved I think...sadly!

[luckizuchinni]

This amount is a drop in the bucket, but why does this all have to be about climate change? Can't this have anything to do with economics and/or assuring a domestic supply of fuel?

If algae-derived fuel, for example, becomes more economical to produce, then we can wean ourselves off of foreign oil, create a huge, job-producing domestic industry, and yes, create carbon neutral fuel source. Even if you poo-poo climate change, aren't the first two advantages worth the effort?

[chuckd]

This amount is a drop in the bucket, but why does this all have to be about climate change? Can't this have anything to do with economics and/or assuring a domestic supply of fuel?

If algae-derived fuel, for example, becomes more economical to produce, then we can wean ourselves off of foreign oil, create a huge, job-producing domestic industry, and yes, create carbon neutral fuel source. Even if you poo-poo climate change, aren't the first two advantages worth the effort?

Certainly it is worth the effort and it is probably being pursued by private enterprise as we speak. If algae were found to be a cheaper source of fuel than petroleum I am certain some enterprising entrepreneur would be at the head of the line developing it.

Simply look at Amtrak, the US Postal System and, coming to a theater near you, Obamacare, as programs the US government cannot manage or administer. The US government needs to get out of the way and let free enterprise accomplish something.

PS: Our bucket is over filled now. We don't need any more drops put in it.

[luckizuchinni]

This amount is a drop in the bucket, but why does this all have to be about climate change? Can't this have anything to do with economics and/or assuring a domestic supply of fuel?

If algae-derived fuel, for example, becomes more economical to produce, then we can wean ourselves off of foreign oil, create a huge, job-producing domestic industry, and yes, create carbon neutral fuel source. Even if you poo-poo climate change, aren't the first two advantages worth the effort?

Certainly it is worth the effort and it is probably being pursued by private enterprise as we speak. If algae were found to be a cheaper source of fuel than petroleum I am certain some enterprising entrepreneur would be at the head of the line developing it.

Simply look at Amtrak, the US Postal System and, coming to a theater near you, Obamacare, as programs the US government cannot manage or administer. The US government needs to get out of the way and let free enterprise accomplish something.

PS: Our bucket is over filled now. We don't need any more drops put in it.

I was using algae only as an example, but yes, private companies are working on it. The problem now is that it is still too expensive to make blue diesel. There has to be better economies of scale, and only the SPanish (with a government grant) are doing it commercially now (in conjunction with cement plants, killing two envirnomental birds with one stone.) But the US enterprises are all pretty small, so if a small grant can get any of them over the hump, I don't have a problem with that. The entire grant is less than 20% of one new F35 Raptor.

But I don't think there is any one magic pill. I think oil will have its use for a long, long time. And in conjunction with blue diesel, wind, solar, tidal, clean coal, shale and who knows what else, that is the only way we wean ourselves off foreign oil. And some of these other sources coincidentally diminish green house gases as well as fight pollution.

The nice thing about algae is that using only 1% of the nation's land, we can produce enough energy, in theory (discounting transport and such) for the US' entire gasoline and electricity needs.

Edited December 6, 2011 by luckizuchinni