In what has become a somewhat confusing change in terminology, Boeing has announced it will use a first-generation feedstock for the fuel to be used in its upcoming demonstration flight this month.
It was first reported in January that Virgin Atlantic would test flight a Boeing 747 jetliner using a biofuel, without naming the fuel. An algae-derived biofuel was, however, mentioned as a strong possibility for the flight between London Heathrow airport and Amsterdam. The plane will carry a limited flight crew and no passengers.
Next, an official of the UK Department of Transport claimed in a document leaked to Flight International that a 20% mixture of algae biofuel and regular jet fuel will be used in one engine for the test.
The latest comes from a Boeing official who said, in an interveiw with Flight at the Singapore air show, the Virgin Flight will definitely not use algae-derived biofuel in the test. Instead, a first-generation feedstock, such as soy, canola, babassu or palm oil will be the source of the biofuel.
The use of a hydrogenated fuel would, as one expert put it, “be a good demonstration of proof of concept.” He did say, however, that algae will be considered as a fuel source in the future.
Well, whatever they use, it’ll be a first for the commercial aviation industry. An Airbus 380 flew with a gas-to-liquid biofuel a few weeks ago, proving that a biofuel was an option, but in their case it was a fuel derived from fossil deposits.
The test is slated for the end of February, so we’ll know soon what fuel was used in the flight.
Related Posts:
Airbus A380 First to Fly With Alternative Fuel
Chevron Backs Solazyme’s Algae Biodiesel Production Process (+Video)
Are biofuel mandates and tax credits such a good idea? It may be wise to learn from the EU’s experience…
After passage of the new Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) late last year (see earlier post), which mandates production of 15 billion gallons of corn-grain ethanol by by 2015, many of us are left contemplating the vast implications for US industry, not to mention commodity prices, auto manufacturing, and the greater course of biofuel research and development.
Rewind to 2003, when the European Union (EU) passed a biofuel directive requiring 5.75% of transport energy to come from biofuels by 2010, increasing to 20% by 2020. When paired with tax credits for biodiesel production, business boomed, at least for a while:
Mirroring the U.S. experience with ethanol, European companies rushed to make biodiesel out of a range of things, including rapeseed crops and used McDonald’s frying oil. Low raw-material costs and generous tax breaks meant margins were high. By last year, Europe’s annual capacity to make the fuel had climbed to 10 million metric tons from two million tons in 2003.
As with ethanol in the U.S., though, Europe now has a glut of biodiesel. The world consumed only nine million tons of biodiesel last year. Europe’s producers found buyers for just five million tons. The industry is in trouble, under pressure from soaring costs, disappearing tax breaks, less-costly imports and waning public support.
‘Glut’ is not entirely accurate. Rather, Europe is facing a feedstock crisis which is driving biodiesel prices through the roof. Few will buy the fuel in significant quantities if it can’t compete on price:
Since January, prices for the crops that make most biodiesel have doubled, driving the cost of a ton of biodiesel up 50%, to around $1,440 a ton, or about $4.80 a gallon. Prices for regular crude-oil-based diesel have risen sharply, too, but only to $840 a ton, or $2.80 a gallon. Biodiesel has become more expensive for oil companies to buy than fossil fuel, and they are cutting back.
As in the U.S., the biodiesel industry in Europe depends on tax credits for its survival, and many of these credits are now being phased out or canceled entirely (Germany canceled their tax credit in August 2006).
If this seems shocking, keep in mind the U.S. ethanol production (not to mention the petroleum industry) also depends on billions of dollars in direct subsidies and import tariffs. But it’s more likely we’ll see a proper glut before facing the EU’s problems:
Buoyed by $7 billion a year in subsidies and a tariff on foreign imports, U.S. farmers planted a quarter more corn this year, most of it going toward making ethanol. But supply of ethanol is outstripping demand, mainly because of the difficulty and cost of transporting ethanol, which needs special pipelines. Some U.S. ethanol producers are idling production and a debate has begun over whether the pressure that ethanol production puts on agricultural land is worth the modest cuts in carbon-dioxide emissions it yields.
Where this roller-coast will take us is anyone’s guess, but it wouldn’t hurt to avoid mistakes that have already been made.
Related Posts:
The Growing Need for Fuel Substitution, Efficiency, and Conservation
GM’s Grand Plan For Solving America’s Oil Dependence
Portland’s Grease Wars: Battling for Biodiesel-Bound Cooking Oil
WSJ (Dec. 27, 2007): Europe’s Biodiesel Drive Sputters
]]>
For a case study of how geography, politics, and personal preference has derailed a microcosm of America's new-found energy plan, look no further than the Willamette Valley, Oregon. Here, in green fields nestled between the mountains of the Cascade Range on the East and the Coast Range on the West, sit vast plots of seed crops whose vitality may be threatened by the introduction of canola (rapeseed) for biofuel production.]]>
