Biofuel-powered jet makes test flight

[Thor_MN]

Source: CNN.com

LONDON, England (CNN) -- The world's first biofuel-powered commercial aircraft touched down in Amsterdam on Sunday following a demonstration flight from London's Heathrow Airport hailed as a first step towards "cleaner" flying.

The Virgin Atlantic Boeing 747 flight was part of a joint initiative with planemaker Boeing and engine manufacturer GE Aviation to develop a "sustainable aircraft fuel." No passengers were onboard.

Virgin said the fuel to be used for Sunday's flight -- a 20 percent biofuel mix of coconut and babassu oil in one of the plane's four main fuel tanks -- was of a type that wouldn't compete with food and fresh water resources amid mounting concerns among green campaigners about the environmental impact of biofuels.

Some studies suggest that converting land for crops such as palm oil used for biofuel can generate far more in carbon emissions than the savings delivered by the fuel.




Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/02/24/flight.biofuels/index.html

---

Is there ONE freaking journalist with any reading skills left? The studies that complain about biofuel are talking about clearing jungles or wild areas to make it crop land. Not converting food production land to fuel production land. Clearing native vegitation for monoculture will reduce carbon sequestration regardless of growing plants for fuel or for food.

The topic of food vs. fuel is a completely different discussion, but the bobble headed news writters can't keep two concepts in their pea brains and lump them together.

The fact that the hyped "carbon emmissions" are actually the loss carbon sequestration by the intact forest should give a hint to its ultimate sources. There is a group of people that whine about "tax increases" that are actually the expiration of tax cuts.

[Politicalboi]

1. This is n ot about flight

But it is something I hope takes off in the US

http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=1dahy1

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

2. why don't the anti-everythingers just come out

and admit they want to human race to live like Hudderites or the Namibian Bushmen and die of old age at 35 within a few miles of where you were born.

[drm604]

3. Who exactly are you talking about?

Who are these people who are "anti-everything" and want to return us to the stone age? While I'm sure that there are a few such people in the world I've never met one. Nearly all environmentalists support things like wind and solar. I don't think the Namibian bushmen you're talking about use either of those technologies.

[BearSquirrel2]

5. Greenpeace, PETA ...

Lets talk frankly. There is a "radical left" out there. Every time some power initiative is brought up, there is a protest.

1) Wind - kills birds (or blights your sight line if you're a Kennedy)
2) Solar - desert habitat destruction
3) Hydro - Fish spawing
4) Nuclear - nuclear waste
5) Bio - food production

Instead of looking for solutions to problems and talking the "best compromise" they seem to protest everything. I also support conservation. But it seems like the really hard core activists want us to shit it buckets of sawdust, eat no meat, bicycle everywhere and live with the dark when the sun goes down. The same extremism can be seen in PITA with "killing squads" who literally kill any domesticated cat or dog they can under the mantra that they could potentially be put down via carbon dioxide chambers.

I see very little difference in philosophy between far-right wack-jobs and far-left wackjobs. They live in a world created of their own mind and pursue it zealotly ignoring abundant evidence to the contrary.

I respect people's rights to live in Vegan communes with open pit toilets and no oil burning engines. Our job is not to make everyone do this. Our job is to make the modes of living we have less impactful on the environment. Cars should not go away, they should be more fuel efficient. And of course we should have mass transit and purpose built cycle-ways. Coal fired plants are not going away, but they should have scrubbers installed to remove pollutants like mercury. Chemicals in food are not going away, but we should test them extensively. Nuclear plants will NOT shut down, but we should invest in reprocessing waste for more nuclear fuel which both reduces the amount of fossil fuels we use and reduces the amount of nuclear waste. We will not stop eating meat. But we can make sure the animals have stress free lives and instant painless deaths (the meats tastier that way).

Wind - yes a few birds will perish. It's more food for the other birds.
Solar - I'm sure some of those animals will appreciate a little shade. As we get better making them, we'll do better on the chemicals. And of course, we can dispose of them properly.
Hydro - Fish ladders for every one!!! Manually move the run if you have to.
Nuclear - reprocess waste into more fuel. There ARE holes deep enough. There ARE barrels durable enough!!!
Bio - invest in technologies to convert tough, woodie materials that grow in poor agriculture regions. READ - USE HEMP!!! See there is a little hippie in me!!!

[The Croquist]

6. I agree with half of what you say

I'm a big fan of CFLs. They're not as convenient as regular light bulbs but I use them anyway. One reason is they are so cheap to use!

Wind power feeds mammals not birds (not that I care).

The shade is more of an issue then you think. It cuts down on photosynthesis even if the solar panels are in space.

Nuclear is the way to go. Bury the waste. There is very little CO2 emissions and it doesn't produce acid rain.

I don't really think there is a future in Bio with the possible exception of areas near the equator and then you end up destroying rain forests. Sorry but I just think it's not the way to go.

I think Hydrogen is a potential disaster. People think it's painless but that's not the case.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

8. I don't think they would go for your "bucket of sawdust"

since that would require cutting down a tree.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

7. the people bitching about biofuel, n/t

[Aviation Pro]

4. I recently spoke to the Program Director of....

...DARPA's JP-8 project (jet fuel for military aircraft). He told me that although there's a great deal of hype over such potential "drop in" (one-for-one not blended) fuels derived from aquatic based biomass it will only represent 10% of the total fuel currently needed. The vast majority will be cellulose and carbon-based (65%), which, you guessed it, will come in the form of corn, coal and traditional hydro-carbons.

If you think Monsanto, the coal extraction business (Hi, Senator Obama, nice amendment for further funding on the Illinois coal basin initiative), or the oil industry is going to give up their stakes, think again.