Airbus A380 Flies on Alternative Fuel

[Joey D]

I'm not sure where would be a good place for this thread, but I figure since it was a current event that deals with changing technology this would be a good place for it.

Test aircraft A380 MSN004 has flown between Filton and Toulouse with one engine powered by alternative fuel. The test, part of Airbus' research programme into alternative fuels, was run in collaboration with Shell International Petroleum and Rolls Royce.

The project is particularly important for environmental and economical reasons. Crude oil derived products are increasingly in demand and prices are rocketing. If it is possible to find a suitable alternative fuel, this could stabilise the market for the benefit of all. Secondly, some alternative fuels could be beneficial for the environment. It is Airbus' goal as a key stakeholder to support evolution towards a carbon neutral aviation industry. Alternative fuels may contribute to reducing our carbon footprint.

The tests were run on an A380 as it is the most modern aircraft flying today, however the fuel could equally have been tested on any Airbus aircraft. The alternative fuel used on the test flight was gas to liquid (GTL), which looks like kerosene, but is clear coloured. It is a natural gas, which has been cleaned and has undergone the Fischer-Tropsch process - the conversion of synthesis gas to liquid fuel.

The flight's goal was to see how the aircraft operated on GTL. Engine behaviour was observed as it was shut down and re-started in flight. Emissions will be compared with those of kerosene and the team will be using the results to predict the environmental benefits and define the next steps.

In researching alternative fuel, Airbus is looking for a drop-in product, meaning that it could be used in aircraft currently in service. It would equal or better the aircraft performance while offering environmental benefits. Airbus is hoping to establish what the best alternative fuel options are and how they will benefit the environment. As synthetic fuels are reported to have similar characteristics, whatever their original feedstock, this test was an excellent pre-cursor to research into biomass to liquid (BTL) fuels, should a suitable supply become available.

In order for an alternative fuel to qualify for commercial aviation, review and approval by the international Fuel Standards is a pre-requisite. Airbus is committed to this goal, and it is hoped that this will be obtained for GTL by 2013.

Video

I'm not sure how I really feel about this, yes it's going in the right direction with trying to find an alternative way to fly our planes, however natural gas really isn't what I would call the answer. We always think of alternative fuels only being with cars and not other products so this at least raises awareness that maybe we need to broaden out perspectives on just trying to make cars run on something else.

As I've said I'm not a tree hugger by any means, but I do think alternative fuels need to be found and implemented for economic reasons, especially in the airline industry where traveling already costs an arm and a leg to begin with. The rising fuel prices not only affect you at the pump with your car but also when you fly...something I feel people forget about from time to time.

 

[Sureboss]

Alternative fuels are an undoubtable must. Chances are we won't be driving petrol cars come the 22nd century (and not because all of us on GTP will be dead). I doubt whether we can ever produce enough ethanol to sustain the worlds current petrol cars. But then as I understand it you need something to stabilise ethanol in a car as it will damage the engine too much on it's own. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It's a big step, I personally can see planes simply being taken out of the sky and being a very rare luxury. Make it out of solar panels...

Isn't Fusion power the big thing in advancing technologies for alternative fuels? Fusing two Hydrogen atoms? Something like that...

 

[Philly]

Huh. Biofuel airliners are something I hadn't thought of. It'll be interesting to see if anything becomes of this.

Alternative fuels are an undoubtable must. Chances are we won't be driving petrol cars come the 22nd century (and not because all of us on GTP will be dead). I doubt whether we can ever produce enough ethanol to sustain the worlds current petrol cars. But then as I understand it you need something to stabilise ethanol in a car as it will damage the engine too much on it's own. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It's a big step, I personally can see planes simply being taken out of the sky and being a very rare luxury. Make it out of solar panels...

It'll probably be sooner than later that fuel prices go so high that anything using oil becomes economically impractical. CNN predicts up to $5 per gallon by 2012.

Isn't Fusion power the big thing in advancing technologies for alternative fuels? Fusing two Hydrogen atoms? Something like that...

Are they still working on fusion power? Last I heard they said it wasn't practical.

 

[Azuremen]

Huh. Biofuel airliners are something I hadn't thought of. It'll be interesting to see if anything becomes of this.

It'll probably be sooner than later that fuel prices go so high that anything using oil becomes economically impractical. CNN predicts up to $5 per gallon by 2012.

Are they still working on fusion power? Last I heard they said it wasn't practical.

They will always work on fusion power. Its the holy grail for many physicists. That aside, you will never have a fusion powered car; its solely to replace power plants that run, ya know, the country and such.

If anyone suggests bio-fuels as an answer in this thread, I will facepalm.

Natural gas is still better than petroleum based products, but not by much. A huge change will have to come about at some point, but batteries are way too heavy at the moment. Of course, there was that recent break through I read about, I think...

 

[Joey D]

How would you go about making an electric airplane? I mean I guess you could have a diesel generator or something on the plane that powers the electric engines or something, kinda like trains.

 

[Robin]

I still don't get why they can't put solar panels all over the the wings and top, at that altitude its pure fierce sunshine which is all going to waste, it could power on board non essential stuff like in flight entertainment, cooking and lighting which would surely increase the aircraft efficiency.

You can get lightweight flexible panels for those about to say it would be way too heavy!

Robin

 

[Joey D]

What about night flights?

 

[Azuremen]

I still don't get why they can't put solar panels all over the the wings and top, at that altitude its pure fierce sunshine which is all going to waste, it could power on board non essential stuff like in flight entertainment, cooking and lighting which would surely increase the aircraft efficiency.

You can get lightweight flexible panels for those about to say it would be way too heavy!

Robin

Lighter than a couple mm sheet of Aluminum?

 

[Philly]

They will always work on fusion power. Its the holy grail for many physicists. That aside, you will never have a fusion powered car; its solely to replace power plants that run, ya know, the country and such.

Maybe I had thought they were done because I stopped being aware of it having not played Sim City in a while and what ( I think) some guys discovered about how hard it would be to replicate. I can't really see anything other than power plants using it except for maybe spaceships.

How would you go about making an electric airplane? I mean I guess you could have a diesel generator or something on the plane that powers the electric engines or something, kinda like trains.

I had thought about nuclear power, but to support the mass you would need a huge airplane. Maybe a fuel-cell aircraft?

I still don't get why they can't put solar panels all over the the wings and top, at that altitude its pure fierce sunshine which is all going to waste, it could power on board non essential stuff like in flight entertainment, cooking and lighting which would surely increase the aircraft efficiency.

You can get lightweight flexible panels for those about to say it would be way too heavy!

Robin

Then the question is how to get the thing off the ground. Planes use much more energy during takeoff than any other time, and would also need it on the ground and near the ground other times. I doubt there is strong enough sunlight to allow an airliner takeoff. Maybe a little Cessna could, but not a 737. And what if it's cloudy? The only places you could practically fly to then would be between LA, Phoenix and Africa.

Although, if it was a couple hundred pounds, it might be worth it. But you would still have to worry about the conditions while flying and stuff hitting the plane.

 

[Joey D]

I'm sure terrorist would love it if we had nuclear powered planes. I wish nuclear power was safer but there is to much instability in the world to have that, which is sad really.

 

[Azuremen]

I'm sure terrorist would love it if we had nuclear powered planes. I wish nuclear power was safer but there is to much instability in the world to have that, which is sad really.

What would they do with it? Not that it will ever happen given the nature of a nuclear power plant and what planes need to be, which is light.

You cannot make a nuclear bomb out of reactor grade materials. And if they wanted reactor grade, the old stations in Russia from the USSR days are the way to go.

 

[Philly]

There wouldn't be nearly enough material to cause too much of a stir. I would doubt you could cause another Chernobyl using a lump of plutonium large enough to propel an airplane for four hours. The real problem with weight would be the reactor.

 

[Joey D]

What would they do with it? Not that it will ever happen given the nature of a nuclear power plant and what planes need to be, which is light.

You cannot make a nuclear bomb out of reactor grade materials. And if they wanted reactor grade, the old stations in Russia from the USSR days are the way to go.

I know that, but you can one hell of a mess with them if you crash it or whatever. I'd be more concerned with the radioactivity that would leak out more than anything.

 

[Robin]

What about night flights?

It wouldn't be as effective but solar panels do charge using moonlight (which there is also a lot of at that altitude).

Lighter than a couple mm sheet of Aluminum?

Flexible solar sheeting basically weighs nothing, its the plastic transparent casing to seal it which probably weighs more. It would probably be the added weight of covering the whole plane in a lightweight tarp.

Then the question is how to get the thing off the ground. Planes use much more energy during takeoff than any other time, and would also need it on the ground and near the ground other times. I doubt there is strong enough sunlight to allow an airliner takeoff.

I said it would be useful for non essential systems basically 80% of the plane would be powered the way it is now (by the fuel) but solar would take the edge off powering all those in seat LCD screens and the microwaves to heat the food. Any saving is a good one if its for the environment as you would use less fuel.

And what if it's cloudy? The only places you could practically fly to then would be between LA, Phoenix and Africa.

Commercial jets never cruise at an altitude lower than clouds unless during take off and landing. At 33000 feet there is nothing between the plane and the sun (or the moon), no clouds, mountains, nothing and you get total 360 sun exposure. It is ALWAYS SUNNY during the day when you at cruising altitude, why do you think they ask you to close the blinds... On some long haul flights you will get near enough wall to wall sunshine as you cross timezones which is an added bonus.

Although, if it was a couple hundred pounds, it might be worth it. But you would still have to worry about the conditions while flying and stuff hitting the plane.

I would say something hitting a solar panel hard enough to damage it would also damage thin aluminum so its no more dangerous and also its non essential systems as I said before.

This coupled with bio fuel would really reduce the emissions.

Robin

 

[Solid Lifters]

There are electric propulsion engines for aircraft, however it currently is for spacecraft at the moment, but they were working on them for aircraft as well. I haven't seen or heard a word about that in years, though.

http://aerospace.engin.umich.edu/spacelab/

 

[Azuremen]

I know that, but you can one hell of a mess with them if you crash it or whatever. I'd be more concerned with the radioactivity that would leak out more than anything.

"Dirty bomb" is what they are called. You just blow up the material with a high yield explosive in an area with airflow to spread the contaminated particles as far as possible.

Yeah, that would be an issue. Limiting quantities would resolve most of that, I think. Either way, its not difficult to get "crappy" materials from Russia though they (the Russian gov't) is working on it.

 

[land sea air]

"Dirty bomb" is what they are called. You just blow up the material with a high yield explosive in an area with airflow to spread the contaminated particles as far as possible.

Yeah, that would be an issue. Limiting quantities would resolve most of that, I think. Either way, its not difficult to get "crappy" materials from Russia though they (the Russian gov't) is working on it.

a nuclear powered aircraft is certainly possible, and it wouldn't be the first time it was researched heavily. During the cold war they tested reactors in either B-36s or B-52s (I can't remember which and I don't think they ever got to the point of powering the aircraft) Honestly, IMO this is the ideal solution, I think a high tech compact reactor could easily replace the weight of fuel, and fuel systems in the next 75 years. Safety is always a concern but thousands of gallons of highly flammable liquid is a nice trade off for something that can be completely sealed away inside the aircraft.

 

[Sureboss]

Of course one needs to remember that Nuclear fuel like oil will run out. I believe Uranium supplies are only set to last 200 years, and then there's the problem of having it in civilian usage.

 

[Shannon]

Of course one needs to remember that Nuclear fuel like oil will run out. I believe Uranium supplies are only set to last 200 years, and then there's the problem of having it in civilian usage.

I hope that was a typo.

You know, you don't need uranium for nuclear fission. Any element will theoretically work, its just irradiated uranium is very ease to split. And then you can also use the plutonium by-products for further fission. By the time we've used all the uranium and plutonium I would hope they'd finally have mastered fusion...

 

[Sureboss]

I meant...

"Of course one needs to remember that Nuclear fuel, like oil, will run out"

Poor grammar on my behalf. Hope that rectifies my misdemeanour.

 

[Boundary Layer]

If anyone suggests bio-fuels as an answer in this thread, I will facepalm.

This coupled with bio fuel would really reduce the emissions.

Robin

Nothing personal at all here, but it irritates me to no end when people don't fully think through the whole biofuel thing.

On the surface it's a great initiative, and it is cleaner than fossil fuels in a direct comparison, but what people always miss out on is the production of biofuels.

Somehow or other, you still have to make this stuff, and at present it's not a very pretty process. To grow and harvest biofuel crops, then transport and process them still requires some input of energy that is typically derived of fossil fuels. For the big players in our current energy infrastructure (corn, wheat, sugar cane, etc) you don't even come close to recouping the energy invested from the resulting fuel.
There might be some promise in the research of new crop varieties and erm... processing processes that are able to create the end products more efficiently - but in general I think the land can be put to better use.



I'm sure that there's a place for stirling engines somewhere in this discussion. Yes they do still require a heat source, but their efficiencies are 'carnotic', particularly at high altitudes.... much better than a brayton cycle engine. I'm just not sure how you'd piece it together.

 

[Sureboss]

And of course biofuels are crop dependant, what happens in a drought?

Hydrogen fuel cells has to be the way forward.

 

[wfooshee]

Nothing personal at all here, but it irritates me to no end when people don't fully think through the whole biofuel thing.

On the surface it's a great initiative, and it is cleaner than fossil fuels in a direct comparison, but what people always miss out on is the production of biofuels.

Somehow or other, you still have to make this stuff, and at present it's not a very pretty process. To grow and harvest biofuel crops, then transport and process them still requires some input of energy that is typically derived of fossil fuels. For the big players in our current energy infrastructure (corn, wheat, sugar cane, etc) you don't even come close to recouping the energy invested from the resulting fuel.
There might be some promise in the research of new crop varieties and erm... processing processes that are able to create the end products more efficiently - but in general I think the land can be put to better use.



I'm sure that there's a place for stirling engines somewhere in this discussion. Yes they do still require a heat source, but their efficiencies are 'carnotic', particularly at high altitudes.... much better than a brayton cycle engine. I'm just not sure how you'd piece it together.

As I was reading the thread I was thinking how to post exactly this. Thanks for saving me the time.

Kinda like the folks telling us to use electrolysis to get hydrogen for fuel. A very negative energy prospect, that. . .

 

[ExigeEvan]

Of course one needs to remember that Nuclear fuel like oil will run out. I believe Uranium supplies are only set to last 200 years, and then there's the problem of having it in civilian usage.

Hence storing it in accesible places and not just dumping it are the best options as the reprocessing of what we call waste now could be the future of nuclear reactors.

Fusion is viable. The main problem is reaching the initial temperatures required to start a fusion reaction. Yes stability does come into it but it's the energy in V energy out problem that is preventing it being truly viable at present.

 

[Keef]

Lighter than a couple mm sheet of Aluminum?

Usually the aluminum sheets are less than 1mm, closer to 1/32 of an inch. If you punched it you would put a huge dent in it.

 

[Sureboss]

If you could fly at 500+mph and stand temps of -40...