SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
posted by
CoolHand
on Tuesday November 15 2016, @08:27PM
from the if-a-tree-falls-in-the-forest-can-i-join-the-mile-high-club dept.
from the if-a-tree-falls-in-the-forest-can-i-join-the-mile-high-club dept.
Washington state-based Alaska Airlines today made history flying the first commercial flight using the world's first renewable, alternative jet fuel made from forest residuals, the limbs and branches that remain after the harvesting of managed forests.
The fuel used a 20 percent blend of sustainable aviation biofuel.
While 20% doesn't seem like much (it's still 80% aviation fuel), if the airline were able to replace 20 percent of its entire fuel supply at Sea-Tac Airport (from which it took off), it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 142,000 metric tons of CO2. This is equivalent to taking approximately 30,000 passenger vehicles off the road for one year.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Alaska Airlines Makes History With Bio-Fuel Flight
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 40 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday November 16 2016, @08:43PM
The '91 probably does have a knock sensor that will richen the mix if it detects knocks. The fact that you mention that using midgrade vs. regular makes about the same difference as that between non-oxy vs E-10 would also indicate that you may have some pre-ignition problems that are "solved" by having a richer mix with 87 octane E-10. Furthermore you mention on the '78 that the difference was less pronounced and it was a lot less fussy after a rebuild which would indicate that it may have been suffering from a similar fate as the rebuild would have cleaned out the carbon buildup. Also in 78 they wouldn't have been adding ethanol but likely methyl tert-butyl ether [wikipedia.org] instead as an octane booster and oxygenating agent. To me both of these describe symptoms of hot spots from carbon buildup either in the combustion chamber or on the valves so using some of the backyard petrochemist cleaners and then sticking with a high detergency fuel going forward may solve the problem. The fact that things are worse towing also makes sense with this explanation as well given that there there is a large consistent load in that case which will always make pinging worse if it is happening.
Personally I have never been a big fan of having oxygenated fuels for general use as you have vehicles designed sub-optimally for them. Instead I would love to see E-100 fuel for sale as a pump fuel and then have a vehicle designed to run on E-100. You can make some big power, at the expense of lots of fuel consumption, from ethanol since you can burn so much more of it for a given charge of air. Add in that it has a really high latent heat and really high octane rating you have a great fuel for high boost or high compression engines to further increase the power output. Flex fuel vehicles suck because they are a compromise as they are designed to run on anything from 87 octane E-10 to 115 octane E-85 which means they make a lot of compromises along the way. I have a project car that I am converting over to a no compromise E-85 vehicle (don't even think of trying to run it on 87 octane E-10 as it likely wouldn't start) because no one has done a supercharged alcohol burning A-series engine [wikipedia.org] with a 12:1 compression ratio and 9lbs of boost. I want to see if I can get that motor (bored to a standard 60 over or 1380cc) to put out 200-250hp because in that light of a car that is a lot of power.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Wednesday November 16 2016, @09:33PM
I got the '78 brand new. First encountered ethanol mix (at least that's how it was labeled) I believe in 1979, and was immediately unhappy with it (ran hot, reduced economy, sharply reduced power). Truck would have had maybe 6,000 miles on it, mostly highway use. Unlikely to be carbon buildup at that point. Before it got rebuilt it was so twitchy about water in the gas that I could tell within half a block. Never a problem in MT but by the time I'd been in CA six months, I'd blacklisted about half the gas stations around. (Funny how those were all the ones that got dug up during an EPA crusade against leaking tanks.) Had also noted better fuel economy on Texaco, and markedly better on Chevron, but after a certain point not worth the price differential. Once EtOH was ubiquitous, well, it ran enough hotter that a dead thermostat was a necessary component (and greatly improved power on hills). I did use a lot of midgrade in it, and premium when towing. Never used any additive other than occasionally Heet or STP in winter. It always passed CA's now-ridiculous emissions standards, usually in the lower third of the range. (Protip: go somewhere that cleans the sensor between customers. Makes a huge difference.)
The '91 was rebuilt end-to-end not long before I got it, and runs like a new truck. It does sometimes have its own ideas, like if the engine is below-zero cold, it flat won't run any faster than it decrees proper and ignores the throttle, like it or not, until it warms up. The '78 was cold-blooded too; seems to be a Ford thing.
Only person I've talked to with a flex vehicle said it was going to be traded in soon as possible, cuz the thing has no torque and is useless if you get stuck in snow or ice, which here in MT is inevitable.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.