The Ergosphere
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
 

You just can't talk to some people

Richard Branson of Virgin Atlantic Airways kind of gets it, but he seems to be barking up the wrong tree.  Cellulosic ethanol isn't going to make good jet fuel (too heavy for the energy), and it probably will not be available in sufficient quantity to take the price pressure off petroleum.  In short, it won't keep jet travel economical.

I decided to share my thoughts with him via mail (I doubt he's one of my regular readers, so an open letter just wouldn't do) so I went to the Virgin Atlantic web site to get an address to write to.

Wouldn't you know, there are NO physical mail addresses on the site's contact page?  It's like they don't want anyone writing to them.

I guess you just can't talk to some people.

(NB:  Further digging yielded "The Office, Manor Royal, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 9NU".  I may yet write.)

 
Comments:
Wouldn't it be better to give passenger jets up as a mass transport option, given the damage they do to the atmosphere, and concentrate on using fast friendly sea ships instead? And trains for intra-continental transport?
 
How would I interest the head of an airline in any scheme which gets rid of passenger jets?
 
Tell him you know a way for him to make way more money than he already does. But lets face it, airlines aren't about easy profits, and the glamour is just as important for airline players as profitability is, so tell him you know a way to make people adore him an order of magnitude more than they do now.

And then stop him from contributing to the destruction of the atmosphere.
 
Large ships suffer from the same problem as trains do (at least here in New Zealand anyway). Inflexibility. They hold too many people and although you might be able to carry the same number of people from A to B on a given day, you'd do it with a lot less sailings than you'd need flights. This means businesses hoping to travel have to arrange their day around their travel schedule. This already happens badly enough - the last thing we need is to make it worse.

Plus, they'd need to make sea travel comfort a lot less weather-dependent and a LOT faster before anyone would consider it as an alternative to air travel.

Here in NZ, the ferrys that sail between our two islands are constantly being screamed at by environmentalists to slow down due to apparent coastal errosion. I guess you can never win.
 
I thought the cellulosic ethanol idea was closer to mark than his earlier build a refinery of his own idea was.

So he's getting better.

Maybe eventually the penny will drop an we'll see Virgin Solar and Virgin Wind Power launched (he already had Virgin Trains)...
 
It would be Branson. He's often accused of flakiness, but the record shows otherwise. He's also a lot less hidebound than the people who run BA (as conservative as Arrogant/sorry/American Airlines), and everyone I know who flies on his planes has nothing but good things to say.

More seriously, his lot were the first to buy the A340-600, the launch customer for the A380 (who knows - those things aren't built yet, maybe they'll be delivered with methane tank insulation?), and the first Mobile Virtual Network Operator on their telecoms side.

E-P, thinking of that, I'm sure I recently heard that Rolls Royce (who Virgin specify) were working on fuelcell-gas turbine integration. That sounds like SOLZINC to me. And if anyone can engineer it, Rolls can. After all, they invented the jet industry because they knew there were going to be a surplus of Merlin V12s at the end of WW2, and they knew they could do the development on Frank Whittle's engine that Rover couldn't.
 
Surpluses of Merlins weren't all that threatening when transport aircraft ran on radials.

FC/gas turbine doesn't sound at all like SOLZINC to me.  Solid-oxide or molten-carbonate fuel cells run at high enough temperatures to run a gas turbine as a bottoming cycle (at least until someone gets SOFC's working at 250° C!).  More to the point, this is something that isn't going to be light enough to run an aircraft.

On the other hand, zinc may be the key.  Ethanol is just a substitute for hydrocarbon fuel; it doesn't help unless it's available in a huge surplus, because nothing else will keep prices down.  But cars which run on zinc cannot even use liquid fuel.  On top of this, the carbon monoxide byproduct of the SOLZINC process can be fed to a Fischer-Tropsch process to make hydrocarbons.  Voila; motor fuel out one side, jet fuel out the other.

Zinc still looks like a miracle metal, doesn't it?
 
I don't for a moment think Rolls are developing it to put the fuel cell in the aircraft: one of their biggest businesses outside aero-engines and shipping is electricity generation.
 
Here's what happened when the late Gordon Cooper and B ill Paynter worked with alcohol fuel as jet fuel.

From new book "Alcohol Can Be a Gas, " by David Blume

"Climbing or cruising below 8000 feet, they used 1.2-1.3 times as much fuel as they would have on gas. Between 8,000-12,000 feet, fuel consumption was about the same as their usual gasoline consumption. But once they reached the higher elevations, 12,500-16,000 feet, consumption was only 0.9-0.7 that of gasoline!50 They've recorded the same results many times under many different air conditions on subsequent cross-country flights. They credit the higher efficiency to alcohol's oxygen content, and the fact that in the rarified atmosphere of upper elevations, gasoline engines are very inefficient, whereas alcohol's relative efficiency is maintained. "
 
One major issue:  jet liners do NOT burn gasoline (naptha), they burn jet-A (close to kerosene).

I'd believe that an old-style air-cooled piston engine with magneto ignition could improve efficiency with altitude if they ran on ethanol, especially in those regimes where the avgas-burning engine needs to run rich to compensate for poor cooling and insufficient spark advance.  Neither of these are a factor with modern piston engines or gas turbines.
 
try this guy, see what he says on this. Behnken.
http://www.age85.org/People.htm
 
Every aircraft listed on that site has a piston engine, not a turbine.  That's not going to make an airline take notice.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home
Talk largely about energy and work, but also politics and other random thoughts


Mail Engineer-Poet

(If you're mailing a question, is it already in the FAQ?)

Important links

The FAQ
Glossary
The Reference Library

Blogchild of

Armed and Dangerous

Blogparent of

R-Squared




The best prospect for our energy future:
Flibe Energy

ARCHIVES
January 1990 / February 2004 / March 2004 / June 2004 / July 2004 / August 2004 / September 2004 / October 2004 / November 2004 / December 2004 / January 2005 / February 2005 / March 2005 / April 2005 / May 2005 / June 2005 / July 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / January 2006 / February 2006 / March 2006 / April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / December 2007 / January 2008 / May 2008 / June 2008 / August 2008 / October 2008 / November 2008 / December 2008 / February 2009 / March 2009 / April 2009 / May 2009 / June 2009 / July 2009 / August 2009 / September 2009 / October 2009 / November 2009 / December 2009 / January 2010 / April 2010 / May 2010 / June 2010 / July 2010 / August 2010 / September 2010 / October 2010 / November 2010 / December 2010 / January 2011 / February 2011 / March 2011 / April 2011 / May 2011 / July 2011 / August 2011 / September 2011 / October 2011 / April 2013 / November 2013 / December 2013 / January 2014 / February 2014 / March 2014 / April 2014 / July 2014 / August 2014 / September 2014 / October 2014 / November 2014 / February 2015 / April 2015 / October 2015 / March 2016 / April 2016 / May 2016 / June 2016 / July 2016 /


Powered by Blogger

RSS feed

Visits since 2006/05/11: