Could you give up flying? Meet the no-plane pioneers

[whole diary]

[broadgage]

I am very doubtful indeed as to the merits of "synthetic jet fuel" from the process as described, for at least two reasons.

Firstly such ideas are regularly disscussed whenever air travel gets a bad press for enviromental reasons. None are used on a significant scale.

Secondly, and more importantly, we need to drastically reduce fossil fuel use. If synthetic jet fuel DOES become available I would prefer that it be used for higher priority applications than flying for pleasure or business.
Air ambulance flights.
Fire engines*
Ambulances*
Standby generators in hospitals or similar places*
Diesel trains on routes not yet electrified*
Essential road freight that can not go by rail or in electric road vehicles.
Powering farm tractors for food production*

Are all arguably much higher prioities for synthetic fuels to replace fossil fuels than holidays. Applications marked * are diesel fuel, not jet fuel, but the two are very similar.
If enough greenish synthetic fuel can be produced to meet ALL HIGH PRIORITY uses, then holiday and busineses air travel could be considered. Most unlikely.

[grahame]

Powering farm tractors for food production

There may be elements there where electric vehicles can help though perhaps they're behind the curve compared to transport electrification.  See Future Farming

[broadgage]

I also have little faith in the various schemes that claim "fuel from air" They are undoubetedly possible and break no lays of science.
They do however require a vast amount of electricity and should more accuratly be called "liquid fuels from electricity"  The complex process requires an energy input of about 3 times that contained in the fuel produced.

Common liquid fuels contain about 10 KWH per liter.
If made from electricity, about 30 KWH input would be required.
At current prices, that comes to about £4.50 a liter just for the energy input.
It would probably be prudent to at least double that in order to allow for
Return on capital invested.
Staff costs.
Rent, rates, and taxes.
Insurance.
Maintenance and spare parts for the complex process.
And all the other costs of doing business.
The owners of this facility might also hope to make a profit.

And from where is all this extra electricity to be obtained ? Thousands of extra wind turbines ? A few dozen new nukes ?

[TonyK]

I'm not sure it's a surprise that's possible. The problem with this processing is the low yield of molecules with the right properties - aviation fuel has to be a manageable liquid over a wide temperature range. But while most of the earth-shattering technical advances we've all seen announced almost every week have left us with an somewhat undershatterd earth, the accumulation of small steps forward is more important that it is noticeable. And the more options are being explored the better.

So, for aircraft fuel, this BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) report is about a way of fermenting really sloppy yucky waste into volatile fatty acids, and claims it's easy to make jet fuel out of those. This waste is stuff that isn't usually put into digesters as they don't like it, and the VFAs are not liked in biomethane as they smell really rotten.

And Carbon Engineering - the Canadians who are going for the direct extraction of CO₂ from the air - have started selling their "product" to real customers. Or almost: it's Shopify who are buying negative emissions as offset, and at this stage they will bury the gas produced (they are working on the "air to fuels" process for later on).

SQUAMISH, British Columbia (Tuesday, March 9, 2021) – A new carbon dioxide removal service has been launched today by Carbon Engineering (CE) that allows customers to purchase the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere using CE’s large-scale DAC technology. Shopify, a leading global commerce company, has signed on as the first customer for the service, reserving 10,000 tonnes of permanent carbon removal capacity from a large-scale DAC project. The carbon dioxide removal will be achieved through CE’s plant development partner, 1PointFive – the US development company currently engineering CE’s first industrial-scale facility that is expected to be operational in 2024.

But every little helps!

There's a danger here, though. If the idea of carbon capture and storage is going to get from laboratory to full scale, somebody will need to subsidise it. Business being business, it won't be long before companies start to chase subsidies rather than carbon dioxide. Oil, gas and coal will enjoy a resurgence, with critics being told "Don't worry, we've paid money to a guy in Canada to grab the CO₂. We have a stiffcut." Then one day, someone notices that the Atlantic is looking a bit fizzy...

Science has managed to make jet fuel in a laboratory from carbon dioxide and hydrogen. It might cost a bit more than Saudi Arabia's finest costs at the refinery gate, but surely it's worth a punt until the railway bridge to Tenerife is finished. Then we can stop banging on about flying so much, and start vilifying concrete. Producing more than thrice the CO₂ that aviation does, it's about time.

[stuving]

There has been a flood of decarbonisation plans from bits of the government recently, with the one on transport and then a big one last week about industry. One side effect of that was to make it very hard to search for a less noisy announcement of research funding for "green technologies".

£92 million investment will enable green innovators to drive forward the next generation of technologies that will help the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) transition to clean, green energy and tackle climate change, the government announced today (Tuesday 9 March).

The government has launched 3 new innovation challenges across key areas of the green energy sector including energy storage technology, floating offshore wind and biomass production.

It was the energy storage one that caught my eye, and gets most of the money, split £(68/20/4)M. There's a separate announcement for that, saying:

Budget
Up to £68 million capital funding across 2 competition streams. Stream 1 will provide grant funding for projects with technology readiness levels that are over 6. Stream 2 will provide Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) funding for projects with technology readiness levels that are either 4 or 5.

Technology scope
Electric, Thermal, Power-to-X. All demonstrations would have to demonstrate flexibility service provision both to and from the grid. Solutions with widely deployed UK commercial demonstrations will be out of scope (e.g. lithium ion, pumped hydro, large water tanks).

Proposal
Longer duration storage (across days, weeks, and months) could help reduce the cost of meeting net zero by storing excess low carbon generation for longer periods of time - helping to manage variation in generation, such as extended periods of low wind. This could reduce the amount of fossil fuel and low carbon generation that would otherwise be needed and optimise the output from renewables (rather than paying to turn off generators when there is excess supply).

As trailed in the Energy White Paper, the competition is intended to accelerate commercialisation of innovative longer duration energy storage projects (i.e. excluding commercial solutions such as pumped hydro/lithium ion) at different technology readiness levels, through first-of-a-kind (FOAK) full-system prototypes or actual demonstrations.

I know what FOAK is - first of a kind - but there's also FEED in that text, which isn't defined. That, apparently, is "front-end engineering design" - new to me, and it used to be my job!

And what does "large water tanks" mean in that list of out-of-scope approaches? My guess is thermal storage, n

such as in your basement, but it's not exactly going out of its way to tell us. "Power-to-X" will no doubt be explained once someone has picked an X and put in a proposal.

[broadgage]

"Large water tanks" could have several possible meanings.

1) Large elevated water tanks, to store energy in the same manner as existing pumped storage schemes. Unlikely to be viable, do the maths on the size and cost of the tank relative to the amount of energy stored.

2) Large tanks of heated water, for space heating, or domestic hot water. Can work very well if cheap and plentiful off peak electricity is used to heat the water.

3) Large tanks of chilled water for air conditioning. Chill when power is cheap or plentiful and use to cool offices, shops, data centers and the like. Works well, but requires HUGE water tanks, much larger than for a similar heating demand with hot water.
Tank size can be reduced by storage as ice rather than as chilled water, but is rather complex.

4) A rather less likely possibility is large elevated water tanks NOT TO directly store energy, but for urban water supply. The water company pump water up to the tanks in the off peak, and consumers are supplied from the tanks as needed. Reduces peak demand by reducing or eliminating peak hour pumping demand.
Also the merit of providing a large reserve supply of water in case of fire.

[stuving]

"Large water tanks" could have several possible meanings.

Ah, but which are "solutions with widely deployed UK^▸ (United Kingdom) commercial demonstrations", as stated in the text? 2 and (probably the same ones as 2) 3, I think.

Come to think of it, what exactly is a "commercial demonstration"?

[ellendune]

2) Large tanks of heated water, for space heating, or domestic hot water. Can work very well if cheap and plentiful off peak electricity is used to heat the water.

The name I have seen used for these in the technical literature is "thermal heat store"

[Clan Line]

2) Large tanks of heated water, for space heating, or domestic hot water. Can work very well if cheap and plentiful off peak electricity is used to heat the water.

The name I have seen used for these in the technical literature is "thermal heat store"

Plenty of these around for domestic hot water use already. Their reputation has been rather spoilt by the biggest supplier producing poor quality items - has now got the message and gives a 25 years warranty on current products. I have one of these, works very well - 200L of water at 90° C keeps me going all day from cheap night rate electricity. Can only ever remember once having to "boost" it during the day. Another advantage is that my hot water is at the same pressure as my cold - if I turn the shower on "full" I am pinned to the back wall of the cubicle 

[TonyK]

"Large water tanks" could have several possible meanings.

Ah, but which are "solutions with widely deployed UK^▸ (United Kingdom) commercial demonstrations", as stated in the text? 2 and (probably the same ones as 2) 3, I think.

Come to think of it, what exactly is a "commercial demonstration"?

Think laser. In early experiments, razor blades were used as targets, so much so that someone suggested that energy measurement should be not in Joules but in Gillettes. A commercial demonstration would involve the hull of a cruise liner or similar, and be accompanied by a full-scale demonstration of lifeboats.

[GBM]

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/bra-completes-first-true-100-sustainable-aviation-fuel-commercial-aircraft-flight/?utm_source=sendgrid.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=website

BRA, in collaboration with manufacturer ATR and fuel supplier NESTE, performed the world’s first true 100% sustainable aviation fuel commercial flight from Malmö to Stockholm on 21 June. The 1 hour 11 minute flight was operated by ATR 72-600 SE-MKK, one of BRA’s 14 ATR 72 aircraft.

This was the first flight operated by a commercial aircraft on 100% sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) in both engines. Current regulations permit a maximum 50% mix of SAF and traditional jet fuel for regular operations. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency provided an exemption for this demonstration flight.

[TaplowGreen]

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/bra-completes-first-true-100-sustainable-aviation-fuel-commercial-aircraft-flight/?utm_source=sendgrid.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=website

BRA, in collaboration with manufacturer ATR and fuel supplier NESTE, performed the world’s first true 100% sustainable aviation fuel commercial flight from Malmö to Stockholm on 21 June. The 1 hour 11 minute flight was operated by ATR 72-600 SE-MKK, one of BRA’s 14 ATR 72 aircraft.

This was the first flight operated by a commercial aircraft on 100% sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) in both engines. Current regulations permit a maximum 50% mix of SAF and traditional jet fuel for regular operations. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency provided an exemption for this demonstration flight.

Amazing how far aviation has come in this respect and very encouraging for the future. It'll make it much easier for Greta to get to Glastonbury in future!

[GBM]

Couldn't find an appropriate thread to put the report in unfortunately.

It certainly doesn't meet the 'no fly' criteria, just supports flying as possibly more sustainable!
There was mention of a solar/battery flight last year(?) to Newquay but I've read nothing since.

[broadgage]

I see nothing "amazing" in one flight.
I very much doubt that sufficient of this new fuel could be produced to fuel even one percent of todays civil aviation.

And such supplies of this fuel as ARE available should be used for higher priority purposes than aviation.

Fire engines, ambulances, farm tractors, ships, diesel railways, essential road freight, buses/coaches, construction machinery and other high priority uses are far more important than holidays and business meetings.

Use of diesel fuel should be minimised and replaced where possible with electricity, but a considerable number of essential uses will remain included those listed above. Only after ALL such essential uses have been "greened" should civil aviation be considered.

I also remain most concerned at the use of potential food sources as fuel. The invasion of Ukraine has increased concerns about food supplies in general and about edible oils in particular.

If we are serious about the climate emergency we need to fly a lot less.

[ellendune]

Amazing how far aviation has come in this respect and very encouraging for the future. It'll make it much easier for Greta to get to Glastonbury in future!

Why when it is easy to do that journey by rail!