Green' biofuels are
increasingly being used by airline owners to reduce harmful emissions.
But are they really a viable solution for powering every craft in the
skies?
January 15, 2013
By Jon Stewart
To the eye, there was nothing remarkable about the aging Falcon 20
jet as it took off from Ottawa International airport in Canada at the
end of October in 2012. But the twin-engined, 10-seater plane was in the
process of making aviation history.
After a short flight that saw
it climb to 30,000 ft (9,000m) over the capital city, the plane touched
back down at the airport to secure its world first.
"Today, I flew the world’s first 100% biofuel flight," said pilot Tim Leslie on landing the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) craft. "It is truly inspiring to take this step towards an eco-friendly future."
Unlike
conventional aircraft which burn kerosene – a polluting fossil fuel -
Leslie’s plane was powered by fuel derived from rapeseed oil. However,
it could equally have been powered by one of a number of biofuels made
from algae, flax, coconut husks or even from used cooking-oil.
These
kinds of fuels are considered to be eco-friendly and “green” because
the plants from which they are derived absorb CO2 from the atmosphere as
they grow and release it when they burn, with no net addition of
greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. As a result, they are viewed by many
as one of the main ways the aviation industry can reduce its carbon
footprint.
That’s important when you realize that aviation currently accounts for around 2% of all greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, although the effects are disproportionate to other types of pollution.
“In
terms of climate impact it’s somewhat higher than that,” says Steven
Barrett, assistant professor of astronautics and aeronautics at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and the director of the
Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment. “Estimates vary from 5 to
10%, because of the altitude at which aircraft fly. Emissions from
planes have a different impact than they would on the ground.”
For
example, the contrails from a jet – those white streaks you sometimes
see trailing a plane – are known to cause high-altitude cirrus clouds,
which compound global warming.
Dropping in
It
is generally agreed, that these effects will only get worse if nothing
is done because air travel is growing….quickly. In fact, between now
and 2030, the number of passengers and number of fights is likely to
more than double, according to the UN International Civil Aviation Organization.
Airline manufacturers and carriers are all too well aware of these effects and are working to try to mitigate them.
“We
feel it’s our responsibility to deal with our segment in a very
aggressive way,” Dr John Tracy, chief technology officer (CTO) at
Boeing, recently told me.
“Probably 75% of the research and development dollars we invest in the
commercial airplane side goes towards improving our environmental
footprint.”
Long term, new aircraft shapes could help, while even further into the future are the prospects of electric, hydrogen or even solar powered
aircraft. However, these kinds of development are years – even decades –
away. In the short term biofuels are looked on as a potential savior as
most commercial passenger jets can use them with little to no
modification, and because they seem to offer significant benefits.
For example, newly released figures
collected by a plane trailing the Canadian Falcon 20 suggested that
there was a 50% reduction in aerosol emissions compared to conventional
fuel. Previous studies with the rapeseed fuel also show that there is a
25% reduction in particles and up to 49% reduction in soot – or black
carbon - emissions compared to conventional fuel. Additionally, the NRC
research also claims to show increased engine efficiency.
Read more here: http://www.bbc.com
No comments:
Post a Comment