Electric Aeroplanies

[3WE]

Acknowledging the entertaining thread there, and acknowledging it's a slightly interesting subject.

Quadricopter drones and electric cars seem to be doing ok.

However, in 3BS opinion, there's just some uses where "firewater" works the best- be it gasoline, kerosene, diesel...and, I was a little bit serious that if we do run out of fossil fuels, biological hydrocarbons might actually be what keeps aeroplanes flying...(yeah, it'll need re-worked engines).

Thoughts (and hopefully brief thoughts).

[Not_Karl]

Should I patent my revolutionary idea of trolleyplanies?

[Gabriel]

Acknowledging the entertaining thread there, and acknowledging it's a slightly interesting subject.

Quadricopter drones and electric cars seem to be doing ok.

However, in 3BS opinion, there's just some uses where "firewater" works the best- be it gasoline, kerosene, diesel...and, I was a little bit serious that if we do run out of fossil fuels, biological hydrocarbons might actually be what keeps aeroplanes flying...(yeah, it'll need re-worked engines).

Thoughts (and hopefully brief thoughts).

I think that it will be more synthetic fuels than bio-fuels, but yes. And I think engines don't need to be modified, planes have already flown (demo) with current engines using 100% bio-Jet-A. At worst, maybe they need some minor adjustments but it is the same type of engine with the same technology and design concept. No need to re-invent the wheel.

[Gabriel]

Should I patent my revolutionary idea of trolleyplanies?

laugh all you want, but conveying energy to a vehicle as it uses it, instead of storing it in the vehicle itself, is actually in the talks. From lasers to microwaves. Again, do laugh all you want, because the idea deserves it.

[3WE]

I think that it will be more synthetic fuels than bio-fuels

Are you sure about that? To date, I'm not really aware of economical, practical synthetic fuels that make hydrocarbons from "nothing"...

Yeah sure, hydrogen rocket fuel, but that's got a hell of a storage and handling effort and seems a little bit explody including blimps AND spaceships.

Remember, most everything we are using now is a processed biofuel.

Mother nature and her enzymes and seem to be somewhat OK at making multi-carbon "heavy" oils- and especially at making NEW hydrocarbons. A lot of synthetic fuels go back to coal (i.e. fossil/bio fuel).

When you say synthetic- what are we making it from? CO2 and H and a bad-ass high-pressure reactor? Please give an example or two, always willing to learn (at least learn TINY bits of things to appease flyboy).

Regarding ethanol- it does pretty OK in gasoline engines (maybe some special fuel lines and obviously, a different "carburetor".) Ethanol is somewhat easier to make plant wise- although being very serious- the energy balance on a corn crop is questionable...We[no italics for me] burn a LOT of diesel farming the ground and a lot of methane to make Nitrogen fertilizer.

Ethanol might have a few concerns with altitude and volatility. I am full of crap- as I always am- but I ass-umed you might want slightly different burner cans (and thus slightly different compressor set ups) to burn soybean oil (even modified soybean oil) in a turbofan/turboprop...where the line lies between minor tweaking and building a whole new engine...a gray area. Not saying new technology is needed, just the practical side that not every vehicle is E85 compatible today.

PS: Somewhat like TeeVee, I find the idea of an aeroplanie full of lithium batteries to be disturbing...I've seen the hoverboard videos AND watched what went on with Boeing's foray into quality composites...no airfoils broke off (waaay past 18 months), but the carbon fiber resin didn't like what the battery box did.

[flyboy2548m]

Can we please not?

[3WE]

Can we please not?

Obviously, you are too late. However, I'm thinking we here are more of the "interesting-thought" mentality as opposed to listing everything that "will be" involved...

I would also infer that you think this is not_a viable idea...I think we probably agree.

Please think of us when you fly over and spew well-burnt kerosene, thanks in advance.

[Gabriel]

I think that it will be more synthetic fuels than bio-fuels

Are you sure about that? To date, I'm not really aware of economical, practical synthetic fuels that make hydrocarbons from "nothing"...

Yeah sure, hydrogen rocket fuel, but that's got a hell of a storage and handling effort and seems a little bit explody including blimps AND spaceships.

Remember, most everything we are using now is a processed biofuel.

Mother nature and her enzymes and seem to be somewhat OK at making multi-carbon "heavy" oils- and especially at making NEW hydrocarbons. A lot of synthetic fuels go back to coal (i.e. fossil/bio fuel).

When you say synthetic- what are we making it from? CO2 and H and a bad-ass high-pressure reactor? Please give an example or two, always willing to learn (at least learn TINY bits of things to appease flyboy).

Regarding ethanol- it does pretty OK in gasoline engines (maybe some special fuel lines and obviously, a different "carburetor".) Ethanol is somewhat easier to make plant wise- although being very serious- the energy balance on a corn crop is questionable...We[no italics for me] burn a LOT of diesel farming the ground and a lot of methane to make Nitrogen fertilizer.

Ethanol might have a few concerns with altitude and volatility. I am full of crap- as I always am- but I ass-umed you might want slightly different burner cans (and thus slightly different compressor set ups) to burn soybean oil (even modified soybean oil) in a turbofan/turboprop...where the line lies between minor tweaking and building a whole new engine...a gray area. Not saying new technology is needed, just the practical side that not every vehicle is E85 compatible today.

PS: Somewhat like TeeVee, I find the idea of an aeroplanie full of lithium batteries to be disturbing...I've seen the hoverboard videos AND watched what went on with Boeing's foray into quality composites...no airfoils broke off (waaay past 18 months), but the carbon fiber resin didn't like what the battery box did.

Like you are answering your own question. Both biofuels and synthetic fuels take the carbon from the atmosphere, "mix" it with hydrogen from water, and convert that in hydrocarbons. Biofuels use plants for that, they have an awesome process called photosynthesis that is really amazing (it uses quantum physics) that we humans could not artificially replicate yet. But it is awfully inefficient even before you factor in the diesel in tractors and the fertilizers and the like. It converts like 26% of the light energy absorbed, but then they don't absorb nearly all of the light they get. And they have the little side effect of competing for soil and other resources with something we humans tend to appreciate quite a bit: food (that's why within the biofuels, one of the ideas that I find most compelling is using algae which is grown in open water bodies that are not used to grow food). Synthetic fuels also capture carbon from the atmosphere, and covert it to hydrocarbons. There are experimental processes where they already got direct synthetic diesel or kerosene. They are not very efficient either and they do consume a lot of energy (just like plants, it could be obtained from solar possible requiring less surface than the crops to produce an equivalent amount of fuel). But in a scenario where "clean" electricity is widely available (from solar, wind. geothermal, hydro, nuclear and why not fusion) but impractical to be stored directly in planes (we already talked at how bad batteries are at that), storing that electric energy in the form of synthetic fuels seems to me to be the most practical solution. You do lose quite a bit of efficiency in the way (possibly not as much as with plants, though), but is a loss of efficiency that stays on the ground.

* Ok, I just found another kind of synthetic fuel made of other carbon sources like coal, natural gas or biomass. That is not the one I am talking about. I am talking about the one made from CO2 captured from the atmosphere, as to make a closed cycle (you replenish the atmosphere when you burn it). This one:

AIR TO FUELSTM plants combine CE’s Direct Air Capture technology with hydrogen generation and fuel synthesis capability to deliver near carbon neutral synthetic fuel. At these facilities, atmospheric CO2 is captured from the air and converted into synthetic crude. This synthetic crude can then be processed into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that work in existing vehicles and transportation infrastructure without any modifications.

Due to an unlimited feedstock – atmospheric CO2 – CE’s AIR TO FUELSTM plants can deliver global-scale quantities of clean fuels to meet growing market demand. These fuels form an important complement to electric vehicles by providing a clean liquid fuel for transport sectors that are difficult to electrify and that require the high energy density of liquid fuels, such as long-haul transport, marine and aviation.

https://carbonengineering.com/our-technology/
https://carbonengineering.com/air-to-fuels/

[3WE]

***They are not very efficient either***

That’s my point- I don’t think you have anything better, and we are actually using ethanol and biodiesel here and there now.

I don’t know that biofuel can replace the SUPPLY of fossil fuels for EVERYTHING, just that it would be a way to make special gogo juice for airplanes

One interesting pro-ethanol argument is that “used” corn meal is just as nutritious as “virgin”- so we are still feeding ourselves, and then you play an accounting trick and say that ethanol is free energy skimmed off the top…

FWIW- The tractor makers are talking of how they will be going electric…key words “talking about”.

[Gabriel]

One interesting pro-ethanol argument is that “used” corn meal is just as nutritious as “virgin”- so we are still feeding ourselves, and then you play an accounting trick and say that ethanol is free energy skimmed off the top…

That sounds like violating some laws of thermodynamics. How can the corn still have the same nutritious Calories (which are kcal) when you extracted a lot of joules worth of Ethanol from it? (cal and joules are both units of energy)

The last time I checked there was no free lunch.
By the way, the Brazilian guys seem to be much better (more efficient, much lower cost) at doing bio-ethanol... from sugar cane.

[Gabriel]

That’s my point- I don’t think you have anything better, and we are actually using ethanol and biodiesel here and there now.

It is not just a matter of efficiency in converting one type of energy into another. It is also about the other stuff around that,

You can't compare cultivating millions of acres of food-grade crops to be used for biofuels (with all the agricultural activities around that like seeding, irrigating, fertilizing, pestisizing, harvesting, transporting) vs plugging an "air to fuel" plant to a Mr Fusion ractor in a location with abundant sources of CO2 and H2O like, I don't know, anywhere in or near an ocean, sea, big lake or big river.

[Not_Karl]

Put pedal powered generators on each seat. Feed the corn to the passengers (they'll have to pay for their energy meals, of course). Fares will depend on the amount of energy generated.

[3WE]

One interesting pro-ethanol argument is that “used” corn meal is just as nutritious as “virgin”- so we are still feeding ourselves, and then you play an accounting trick and say that ethanol is free energy skimmed off the top…

That sounds like violating some laws of thermodynamics. How can the corn still have the same nutritious Calories (which are kcal) when you extracted a lot of joules worth of Ethanol from it? (cal and joules are both units of energy)

The last time I checked there was no free lunch.
By the way, the Brazilian guys seem to be much better (more efficient, much lower cost) at doing bio-ethanol... from sugar cane.

I did not fact check the claim: BUT, it’s a fact that animals do not metabolize all the energy in food. A PARTICULAR aero-insect powers itself wonderfully on the energy left in cow shit.

Soooo, I find it plausible that the ethanol plant “burns off” some starch, BUT LEAVES SOME PROTIENS AND OTHER CARBOHYDRATES FOR CATTLE. And I find it plausible that it’s a net gain in EFFICIENCY in energy UTILIZATION.

Let me be clear- it sounds fishy that there is ZERO loss of nutrition. CONVERSELY, I find it plausible that you get reasonably nutritious feed from the spent meal at the ethanol plant as what the process uses may differ from what the animal needs.

Corn, sugarcane, aquatics, Johnsongrass…WHATEVER- I RESTATE, that I’m not out to replace all fossil fuels with bio…just saying it’s a way to fuel airplanes.

Look- I get the pure chemistry of the process, but please tell me where I can put your purely synthetic fuel into my car TODAY.

The contrast is that it’s hard AND EXPENSIVE to find auto fuel that LACKS corn ethanol.

You keep side stepping that biofuels ARE being used, whereas purely synthetic fuels are are a future dream (except for a few special uses today). Please continue to develop them and we aggies will continue to develop biofuel crops and processes. I’m sure both will make some advancements.

[Gabriel]

[All that stuff]

Agreed.

[ocelot]

Remember that corn ethanol as biofuel is a product of the broken US ag subsidies system and not remotely viable or sensible outside that structure. Reports about it being inefficient or ineffective or whatever are arguments against that system, not arguments against biofuels.

[3WE]

Remember that corn ethanol as biofuel is a product of the broken US ag subsidies system and not remotely viable or sensible outside that structure. Reports about it being inefficient or ineffective or whatever are arguments against that system, not arguments against biofuels.

Flaming you exactly how I flamed Gabriel. No argument that politics and subsidies (and perhaps some reasonably true claims of improved emissions?) are supporting ethanol which really can't compete with current fossil fuel prices, nor replace the world need for fossil fuels.

BUT ASS-UMING A SHIT POT OF THINGS:

-We run out of fossil fuels.
-We successfully electrify most-all ground vehicles.

Maybe THEN we might make bio-fuel for vehicles that go a few miles in the air and need to carry light-weight, high-energy stuff.

I also have modest confidence that we[Aggie we] might come up with a passive crop- requiring minimal tending, fertilizer, no-reseeding...all you have to do is harvest it...and it produces a fair bit of some sort of liquid hydrocarbon...(Yes, it's in the future).

And repeating- where are your synthetic fuel plants. I did a LITTLE research and mostly found coal-gasification (sorry that's biofuel), and pure chemical reactions requiring huge pressures and heat. Stuff you can do in a laboratory, but stuff which fails worse than ethanol in the process efficiency world. I also found TINY production levels. Yeah, there's subsidies and stuff, but we're making a LOT MORE bio-ethanol and biodiesel, than what I'm seeing from H2(from electrolysis) + CO2 (Heat, Pressure) ==> CxHyOz.

[ocelot]

Maybe THEN we might make bio-fuel for vehicles that go a few miles in the air and need to carry light-weight, high-energy stuff.

Sure. I doubt batteries will ever have the energy density for long-haul flights, which means the likely options are ethanol (not from corn, but from something else; people talk about switchgrass, I'd think bamboo and kudzu might be other options) and liquid hydrogen, and liquid hydrogen has assorted storage and safety and operational problems. I doubt plant-based oils will be as effective as ethanol for production reasons, but who knows, I'm hardly an expert on the subject.

I'd tend to agree that synthesizing long-chain or even short-chain hydrocarbons by hand is unlikely to ever become competitive with planting crops, even when you take the costs of farming into account. Nature has a very long head start.

[Gabriel]

In the US, about about 1/4 of the crops calories are used to feed humans directly (including not only, corn and the like but also fruits and vegetables), 2/3 of the calories are used to feed animals whose products we end up eating at an efficiency of between 3 to 17 calories for us for every 100 calories feed to the animals and 2.5 to 31 grams of proteins for us for every 100 gams of proteins feed to the animals, and the remaining 1/12 is used for fuels. In the rest of the world the proportion of lands used to food for humans is better but the tendency is to worsen as people becomes less poor, moves to the cities and get a more sophisticated diet.

In a world where the population is increasing quickly and poverty is going down and millions of persons eat less plants and more animals every year, the average amount of calories and proteins that reach human mouths per acre of land is going down (meaning that we need more acres for the same calories and proteins) and the number of mouths to feed is going up (meaning that we need not the same but more calories and proteins). We are going to run out of arable land for food (direct and indirect via feeding animals) let alone for ANY bio-fuel.

The solution is obvious: We all should go vegan. That would free most of this productive land and there will be more than enough room to grow plants for human consumption (now and in the future) plus all the needs for biofuels (assuming most things go electric) and then re-forest the rest for carbon capture. Not to mention that obesity would go down tremendously and with that a lot of associated diseases like diabetes, hypertension and diverse heart and circulatory conditions. And not to mention the ethical question (not a question really) around the animal suffering that modern factory farming techniques cause.

But since that is not going to happen, we will need all the land to feed humans directly and the animals that feed humans. There will be no room for bio-fuels.

When I said "agreed" in the previous post, I meant that yes, bio-fuels are already here, and synthetic fuels are still in the early development stages. So for non-fossil replacements of fossil fuels, bio-fuels is the present but it has a dead end (unless we go vegan) and synthetic fuels is the future.

Sources:
https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/c ... nimal-feed
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 105002/pdf
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 034015/pdf

[3WE]

In the US, about about 1/4 of the crops...In a world where the population is increasing quickly...

There you go again...replacing ALL fossil fuels with biofuels.

The solution is obvious: We should ban all airplanes, sky scrapers, enact China-like birth control and all go live on 20A and do subsistence farming and eat grain since protein production via feed-animal wastes a lot of food. (See footnote 2)

Fixed.

ReReRe peating- one of my assumptions is that we do almost everything electrically using wonderful stuff like nuclear reactors(perhaps fusion) and wind and solar and tides and daming a few more rivers...but aeroplanies might be best with firewater.


Footnote 1: Why do you think 3BS went into ag: Less land than ever, More people than ever. I wore glasses and the military didn't like bespectacled people flying aeroplanies.

Footnote 2: Are you aware that in flyover country we[no italics for 3BS] grow field corn and soybeans...When is the last time you bought field corn or soybeans in the store...ALMOST ALL OF THAT GOES TO FEED COWS. The vast majority of actual food WE eat is produced on a relatively small, intensively-managed acreage. The solution for world population growth- you said it- go vegan. As to your contention that we run out of acres...mathematically we will SOMEDAY if current trends continue. Nevertheless- TODAY we[NI] have a shit pot of acreage growing stuff that WE don't eat.

Soooo, UNTIL you open up that purely synthetic fuel plant, I can see SOME biofuel use in the sky along with massive electricity and battery use on the ground. I also continue to hope we[all of us] figure out how to manage population and not kill each other...I'd like to think we can have pretty farms and cows and steaks and corn flakes and cars and aeroplanies...or we have massive die offs and go back to ragged, primitive tribes.

[3WE]

***switchgrass, I'd think bamboo and kudzu***

Switchgrass: Yes.
Bamboo: Not THAT productive, silicon-laden.
Kudzu: Amazing VEGETATIVE growth, but doesn't biomass is a pain to harvest. Other legumes; however, can make wonderful oil-laden seeds.

There's a lot to be said for trees: Wood is a pretty energy-sense material. Not the most efficient PRODUCTION, but you get a more usable product.
Gabriel mentioned algae/aquatic stuff (good way to get new "acres"- since this is technically all solar-cell)

Oddly enough, one of the limiting factors to ALL OF THIS is how do you gather all the stuff up and get it to the production plant...that takes some energy too.

We also have compost-based methane production as an area where we could siphon off some hydrocarbons.

ONE FINAL BOTTOM LINE THAT I HAVE FAILED TO ASK YOU OR GABIEEEEE: PLEASE GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE IF THERE HAS BEEN SOME GREAT NEW BREAKTHROUGH IN MAKING PURELY SYNTHETIC FUEL....I TOOK ORGANIC CHEM 30 YEARS AGO, AND I RECALL IT WAS A PRETTY INEFFECIENT AND COST-PROHIBITIVE PROCESS. I KNOW 'IT'S BEING WORKED ON' BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY GREAT BREAKTHROUGHS IN THE NEWS.

[Gabriel]

There you go again...replacing ALL fossil fuels with biofuels.

I didn't say that. I said we are going run out of acres for food, let alone ANY biofuel.

ReReRe peating- one of my assumptions is that we do almost everything electrically using wonderful stuff like nuclear reactors(perhaps fusion) and wind and solar and tides and daming a few more rivers...but aeroplanies might be best with firewater.

Yes, I am on that boat too. Plus we need that level of green electrification to be able to make synthetic fuels, because burning fuel to make electricity to then make synthetic fuel defeats the purpose a little bit.

Are you aware that in flyover country we[no italics for 3BS] grow field corn and soybeans.....ALMOST ALL TO FEED COWS.

Well, I didn't know of flyover in particular, but yes, that's the general trend.

The solution for world population growth- you said it- go vegan.

Except that exactly the opposite is happening. There is a fast growing vegan movement. But the number of persons that move to cities and improve their buying power is increasing orders of magnitude faster, and these guys consume more meat, milk and eggs. The consumption of animal products per capita is increasing. So we need more land to convert plant food for humans to plant food for animals at a rate of ~10 times more calories and proteins given to these animals as plant food than the calories and proteins that we get from the animals. We will need more and more land to feed the same number of capita, and the the number of capita is expected to grow quite a bit too in the next few decades.

As to your contention that we run out of acres...mathematically we will SOMEDAY if current trends continue.

What are you talking about? Google deforestation of the Amazon / Serengeti / British isles / middle east / African savanna / African rainforest / Southeast Asia etc etc etc. THat's not my contention. This is already happening. We are already chopping down trees all over the World and most of that newly available land goes to food for animals and... oh yes, palm for palm oil, because you know, other than animal products the other category of food that is rapidly increasing its consumption per capita is chips, snacks and trash food.

Nevertheless- TODAY we[NI] have a shit pot of acreage growing stuff that WE don't eat.

Yes, trees. We can get rid of more of them and, in the process, kill those natural carbon-capture machines and since we are at it release to the atmosphere all the gazillion of tons of carbon that they have already captured. So why not do it a bit more to make some room for some bio-fuel? Again, kind of defeats the purpose me think.

Soooo, UNTIL you open up that purely synthetic fuel plant, I can see SOME biofuel use in the sky along with massive electricity and battery use on the ground. I also continue to hope we[all of us] figure out how to manage population and not kill each other...I'd like to think we can have pretty farms and cows and steaks and corn flakes and cars and aeroplanies...or we have massive die offs and go back to ragged, primitive tribes.[/size]

There are just a couple of such pilot plants worldwide and I think that only one small-scale commercial plant. We are not there yet, and one of the main reasons is that we don't have the massive green electrification yet. Again, burning fuels to make electricity to make synthetic fuel kind of defeats the purpose.

But the big electrification is coming. And with that the synthetic fuels.

I agree with you that today it is not a viable solution, pretty much like bio-fuels are not a viable solution in the future (unless a very significant fraction of the population goes vegan).

Biofuels is the present. synthetic fuels is the future.

And a point that I have not even touched yet. If cheap green electricity becomes available at some point, actually synthetic fuels can be the future for transportation too. Having fuel instead of batteries has advantages for all means of transportation, not just airplanes. It is more critical in airplanes, then in ships, then in trucks, than it is for cars. But if you can have a zero emission fuel it could be wise to store that energy as high-energy density carbon-neutral fuel rather than in heavy and bulky batteries that take 30 minutes to recharge (instead of 5 minutes to fill up the tank). Synthetic fuels have a massive scalability potential that biofuels can never have. (of course, batteries becoming much much better, or portable 1.21 GW Mr Fusion coming to the market, would make en-masse synthetic fuels not happen).

[3WE]

***There are just a couple of such pilot plants worldwide and I think that only one small-scale commercial plant. We are not there yet***

***I agree with you that today it is not a viable solution***

1. Thank you.

2. You don't know the future, nor do I. But what if the aggie engineers figure out a genetically modified, bad-ass salt-loving oil producing photosynthetic bacteria and all you have to do is skim the oil into a separation vat...Your chemical engineering buddies better keep working on their purely synthetic plants. (And beware, I'm sure we aggies hire a few of them to tweak our biofuel processes).

We MAKE hydrocarbons, you only dream about it playing, Chemical Fuel Plant Simulator...You have a LOT of catching up to do.

3. House cleaning: Ocelot sort of said what you said- citing that biofuel can't meet our needs...I was clarifying that I think biofuels might (that word is key) work to power a few airplanes someday. Not going to push the argument that biofuel could meet all of todays needs for firewater.

[flyboy2548m]

Help us Odin!

[Not_Karl]

Help us Odin!

Indeed. Why plan for the future of something that should be completely banned right now?

[3WE]

Help us Odin!

I love this place!