Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Wonderful or pipe-dream


SmokeyGhost

Recommended Posts

Jet fuel may be grown on iconic Aussie gum trees

 

Scientists are a step closer to using Australia’s iconic gum trees to develop low-carbon renewable jet and missile fuel.

 

Dr Carsten Kulheim from The Australian National University (ANU), a lead researcher in an international study published in Trends in Biotechnology, said renewable fuels that could power commercial aeroplanes were limited and expensive but a solution could be growing all around us.

 

“If we could plant 20 million hectares of eucalyptus species worldwide, which is currently the same amount that is planted for pulp and paper, we would be able to produce enough jet fuel for five per cent of the aviation industry,” said Dr Kulheim from the ANU Research School of Biology.

 

The aviation sector globally produces about two per cent of all human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.

 

Eucalyptus-based fuel would initially be more expensive than fossil fuels to make on a mass scale, but would produce significantly less net carbon emissions.

 

Dr Kulheim said powering a modern jet aircraft with anything other than fossil fuels was difficult, due to the high energy required.

 

“Renewable ethanol and biodiesel might be okay for the family SUV, but they just don’t have a high enough energy density to be used in the aviation industry,” he said.

 

“Eucalyptus oils contains compounds called monoterpenes that can be converted into a very high energy fuel, and this high energy fuel can actually fly jets and even tactical missiles.”

 

The study examines how to boost production of monoterpenes to obtain industrial scales of jet fuel from plants. This includes selecting appropriate species, genetic analysis, advanced molecular breeding, genetic engineering and improvements to harvesting/processing of the oils.

 

Certain monoterpenes commonly found in eucalyptus oils such as pinene and limonene, can be refined through a catalytic process, resulting in a fuel with energy densities suitable for jet fuel.

 

Turpentine from pine trees is another potential source of these monoterpenes, but pines grow more slowly than eucalypts.

 

http://biology.anu.edu.au/news-events/jet-fuel-may-be-grown-iconic-aussie-gum-trees

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

A pipe dream. We'd need to plant as many trees as we do now for paper. They say the net carbon is low but that is, in part, because of growing the trees which locks up carbon. That means wed have to continue with the paper making or we loose some of the advantage. Then there would only be 5% of the aviation fuel we need now, let alone in the future.

 

We must consider the other environmental impacts of growing all that eucalyptus which may not yet be known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A pipe dream. We'd need to plant as many trees as we do now for paper. They say the net carbon is low but that is, in part, because of growing the trees which locks up carbon. That means wed have to continue with the paper making or we loose some of the advantage. Then there would only be 5% of the aviation fuel we need now, let alone in the future.

 

We must consider the other environmental impacts of growing all that eucalyptus which may not yet be known.

 

Good because they grow fast but bush fires are a by product of such volitile oils.

Probably have enough on this property for a round trip to the moon....grin~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are areas of the world being planted intensively for production of alcohol as a 'renewable' fuel....People are beginning to notice that this can and has diverted efforts away from growing crops for food....

Yup. Of course most of us here in first-world countries will remain well-fed and our travel arrangements will be as cheap, convenient and comfortable as possible so that's not a problem. Is it?

 

I'm 100% in favour of finding viable alternatives to fossil-fuel but we have to think of the ramifications of our actions.

This discussion could go either of two ways. Here's hoping it stays as apolitical as possible.......................:mellow:

 

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. Of course most of us here in first-world countries will remain well-fed and our travel arrangements will be as cheap, convenient and comfortable as possible so that's not a problem. Is it?

 

I'm 100% in favour of finding viable alternatives to fossil-fuel but we have to think of the ramifications of our actions.

This discussion could go either of two ways. Here's hoping it stays as apolitical as possible.......................:mellow:

 

Pip.

 

Yes, it is a dilema but as you imply there is always a cost to some extent. I've always wondered about the cost of the construction of wind turbines (concrete, steel, transportation etc,} versus fossile-fuel. Goodness, even the production of a bycycle has to have an environmental footprint I guess.

 

However, as least alternatives are being explored. There is an apparent attitude in this country, usually from the tabloid media, much science is suseless and a waste of money. I remember an influential smarta$$ radio jock ranting about money spent of looking into secretions from the skin of cane toads. Hmm, shame the research is indicating those secretions may have the potential medical benefits in pain relief (anaesthetics) and possible other uses.

 

I think such activities need to be funded because we never know what outcome will result. Yet, care needs to be taken it's not outweighed by adverse side effects (blowing us off the planet could be one although some may dispute it would be an adverse outcome.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I've always wondered about the cost of the construction of wind turbines (concrete, steel, transportation etc,} versus fossil-fuel....

 

I remember an influential smarta$ radio jock ranting about money spent of looking into secretions from the skin of cane toads. Hmm, shame the research is indicating those secretions may have the potential medical benefits in pain relief (anaesthetics) and possible other uses.

 

I think such activities need to be funded because we never know what outcome will result...

Excellent points, SmokeyGhost.

 

The wind-turbine development is very interesting and, as you hint, complicated.

As well as the 'downside' as far as construction costs go there is also the 'upside' of employment to workers in the industries you mention and the subsequent maintenance required once erected. The visual impact of a wind-farm is decried by many but would these same people object to an array of old-fashioned windmills? I wonder.

Off-shore wind-farms are more efficient once operational due to the prevalent higher wind-speeds and are also (IMO) rather beautiful. Six of the top-ten largest off-shore wind turbine farms in the world are in UK waters.

The well-voiced concerns about the detrimental effects to migrating flocks of birds have turned out to be utterly groundless. Why on Earth should we be surprised that birds are actually smart enough to avoid being cut to ribbons by the slowly revolving blades?

 

And yes, we need to fund scientific and medical research to a greater degree. As you suggest; who knows what we might discover?

 

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like a mega huge project to only address 5% of 2% of the global carbon dioxide emission. I'd be more excited if this was projected to make a bigger impact.

 

I realize even 1% of all global CO2 is a lot, but to grow plants on the same scale as the worldwide paper industry to affect 5% of 2% seems underwhelming to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of wind farms, I had the good luck to be travelling with a friend that was related to the man responsible for setting up a large wind farm in western Victoria. We got a comprehensive tour of the site and I found it most interesting indeed.

 

Firstly the complex was being built by the Danish Royal Family, all the equipment was fully imported from Denmark with the exception of the towers which were made locally.

 

All the rubbish about noise is just that! The site after towers were erected had the pad re-soiled and grassed, and the cows were grazing right up to the tower and not cooked on the hoof as some would have us believe.

 

This site was astride 2 working dairy farms!

 

The large proportion of the towers were operative and we watched one of the last ones being winched into place. I asked about birds and with a 138 towers completed and operating, there had been no bird deaths that they had observed over the best part of a year

 

Personally I find them majestic and also fascinating.IMG_1052.jpgIMG_1077.jpgIMG_1071.jpgIMG_1058.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of wind farms, I had the good luck to be travelling with a friend that was related to the man responsible for setting up a large wind farm in western Victoria. We got a comprehensive tour of the site and I found it most interesting indeed.

 

Firstly the complex was being built by the Danish Royal Family, all the equipment was fully imported from Denmark with the exception of the towers which were made locally.

 

All the rubbish about noise is just that! The site after towers were erected had the pad re-soiled and grassed, and the cows were grazing right up to the tower and not cooked on the hoof as some would have us believe.

 

This site was astride 2 working dairy farms!

 

The large proportion of the towers were operative and we watched one of the last ones being winched into place. I asked about birds and with a 138 towers completed and operating, there had been no bird deaths that they had observed over the best part of a year

 

Personally I find them majestic and also fascinating.

 

(I'll post some pics soon, Photobucket isn't responding properly ATM)

 

There have been many around here, especially along the Lake George escarpment, who make the claim the wind turbines are causing a detrimental effect on their health due to noise. And this despite studies showing there is not any noise impact. Probably because they don't like the turbines at all, their perception is adversely altered so what is imagined becomes real to them. I have read articles on the matter (from both sides) but, to me, the complaints about the noise effect doesn't seem plausible. However, I've no idea as I am completely uneducated with zero qualifications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been many around here, especially along the Lake George escarpment, who make the claim the wind turbines are causing a detrimental effect on their health due to noise. And this despite studies showing there is not any noise impact. Probably because they don't like the turbines at all, their perception is adversely altered so what is imagined becomes real to them. I have read articles on the matter (from both sides) but, to me, the complaints about the noise effect doesn't seem plausible. However, I've no idea as I am completely uneducated with zero qualifications.

 

If you live close to one (within maybe 1/4 -1/2 mile) the noise can be bothersome at first. The real problems that aren't' addressed are environmental (and I'm not talking about the bird issues). Everyone of those towers is set in a hole at least 50 feet deep and 50 feet in diameter that's filled with concrete. There is significant disruption of groundwater flow in the near surface at some sites. (I worked in the business for 3 years, part of my job was keeping this quiet.) Additionally, they cause climate effects both upwind and downwind, usually in the form of rainfall anomalies. I don't know about the offshore effects since I didn't work that side of it although the rainfall anomalies should be there they probably aren't as significant. Also, we don't know and haven't even looked at what removing that much energy from global wind systems will do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a lot of eco stuff happening right now around the UK.... [thumbup]

 

Just as an aside...I find wind farms quite elegant and functional.... [thumbup]

 

But how about the recent 'tide turbine' developments in places like the Bristol Channel'..?

 

Am struggling to find any downsides to this technology

 

Tides around the UK are amongst the most 'energetic' in the world

 

Therefore a great source of clean energy waiting to be harnessed

 

V

 

:-({|=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1474477337[/url]' post='1800881']

If you live close to one (within maybe 1/4 -1/2 mile) the noise can be bothersome at first. The real problems that aren't' addressed are environmental (and I'm not talking about the bird issues). Everyone of those towers is set in a hole at least 50 feet deep and 50 feet in diameter that's filled with concrete. There is significant disruption of groundwater flow in the near surface at some sites. (I worked in the business for 3 years, part of my job was keeping this quiet.) Additionally, they cause climate effects both upwind and downwind, usually in the form of rainfall anomalies. I don't know about the offshore effects since I didn't work that side of it although the rainfall anomalies should be there they probably aren't as significant. Also, we don't know and haven't even looked at what removing that much energy from global wind systems will do.

 

I didn't realize they had noise either. I see them all over the place here on our travels. Deb is the owner of a farm in South Dakota and we have been asked if they could place some on the pasture that's not plowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...