« Report: Nissan-NEC JV to Begin Mass Production of Li-Ion Batteries for EVs in 2009 | Main | Chile Authorizes Biofuel Blends for Transportation »
Swift Enterprises Introduces Synthetic Hydrocarbon General Aviation Fuel from Biomass
9 May 2008
Swift Enterprises Ltd. has unveiled a new patented synthetic hydrocarbon general aviation fuel—SwiftFuel—that is produced from biomass.
SwiftFuel meets or exceeds the standards for aviation fuel as verified by nationally recognized laboratories, said co-founder John Rusek, a professor in Purdue University’s School of Astronautics and Aeronautics Engineering and research director for Swift. Rusek said the fuel can provide an effective range (distance between refueling) greater than petroleum while its projected cost is half that of the current petroleum manufacturing cost.
SwiftFuel is produced from a variety of input streams and processes. Swift, which is sensitive about discussing the exact procedure, starts with biomass, extracts appropriate oxygenates, converts them to aliphatic and aromatic compounds (all pure hydrocarbons) and then mixes them. The end product is a non-food biomass-derived drop-in fuel consisting of synthetic hydrocarbons, said Jon Ziulkowski, Swift’s Principal Investigator for aviation fuels.
The general aviation industry includes all flights other than military and scheduled airline flights, both private and commercial. Data on Swift Enterprises’ synthetic renewable general aviation fuel was presented 28 April at an annual meeting of an international committee that oversees aviation fuel standards.
The aviation industry has been the only form of transportation to use leaded fuel (tetraethyl lead) since an Environmental Protection Agency ban went into effect 30 years ago. The current fuel used in piston-fired aircraft is 100 Low Lead (100LL); the lead brings the octane number in the fuel to 100. The United States and Europe have banned the use of 100LL due to the lead, but have instituted a moratorium on this ban until 2010. The general aviation industry each year uses nearly 570 million gallons of 100LL aviation fuel.
SwiftFuel is 15-20% more fuel efficient; has no sulfur emissions; requires no stabilizers; has a 30-degree lower freezing point; introduces no new carbon emissions; and is lead-free. In addition the components of this fuel can be formulated into a replacement for jet/turbine fuels.
Our fuel should not be confused with first-generation bio-fuels like E-85, which don't compete well right now with petroleum. For general aviation aircraft, range is paramount. Not only can our fuel seamlessly replace the aviation industry’s standard petroleum fuel, it can outperform it.
—John Rusek
Swift Enterprises officials are in discussions with the Federal Aviation Administration, which has initiated a cooperative agreement with the company to evaluate the fuel.
May 9, 2008 in Aviation, Biomass, Fuels | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/28935780
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Swift Enterprises Introduces Synthetic Hydrocarbon General Aviation Fuel from Biomass:
Comments
"...projected cost is half that of the current petroleum manufacturing cost."
It sounds like a better fuel at lower cost. It would be hard to beat this, if true.
Posted by: SJC | May 9, 2008 1:52:02 PM
They only need a lobbyist to make a difference now....
From the article:
"The aviation industry has been the only form of transportation to use leaded fuel (tetraethyl lead) since an Environmental Protection Agency ban went into effect 30 years ago." except for NASCAR, which made the switch to unleaded fuel this year......cuting edge stuff.
Posted by: Bill W | May 9, 2008 1:58:20 PM
Opps "cutting edge"
Posted by: Bill W | May 9, 2008 1:59:04 PM
Very interesting and it could be produced locally with local waste and biomass. More power, half price, less GHG etc. It all seems to good to be true. Let's do it. Profit strapped Airlines will jump all over the place to buy it.
Posted by: Harvey D | May 9, 2008 2:30:41 PM
If reality lives up to their claims, the aviation industry will jump all over it.
Posted by: Cervus | May 9, 2008 2:43:33 PM
Oil from biomass
J.C. Bell, who brought the world powdered peanut butter, has spent the last four years, identifying the bacteria that produces hydrocarbon and then finding a way to genetically alter it so that it could produce hydrocarbon in greater volume
“The DOD Energy Support Center is the energy purchasing arm of the defense logistics agency,” Serino said. She said she became acquainted with Bell when he met with a senator about his hydrocarbon research. “We give support to the Hill,” she said. “When he was briefing the senator, we were there to see if his technology was viable.”
http://todash19.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/researcher-discovery-could-end-energy-crisis
http://bellbioenergy.com/
Posted by: Robinson | May 9, 2008 3:20:43 PM
General aviation fuels are used by gasoline fueled piston engine prop planes.
Piston engine planes that use jet fuel in diesel engines are now available and some existing planes can retrofitted with new engines and get much greater range without larger fuel tanks because of higher efficiency.
It is not hard to make a fuel cheaper than aviation gasoline, but the company is to be commended for making fuels for existing high compression engines.
Many cars in WWII and before used charcoal burning converters to fuel them, but I have not heard of any planes that can do the same trick.
It would be interesting to find out what the highest energy density hydrocarbon fuel is. I just read a report that a non hydrocarbon fuel NCCN (cyanogen) gives the highest flame temperature with oxygen, much higher than acetylene.
High Compression gasoline engines are now obsolete because of low efficiency, but lets keep a few of the old ones running...HG....
Posted by: Henry Gibson | May 9, 2008 4:19:06 PM
Like GM getting into the biofuels business, the airlines should get together and do the same thing.....don't be surprised if it happens - they're getting crushed by fuel prices right now.
Posted by: AirlinesShouldMakeFuel | May 9, 2008 6:23:34 PM
It seems like it would be a lot easier to get biomass contracts and open synthetic fuels plants than to do deep water ocean drilling a mile down. Airlines could get the funding to go after a sure thing when it comes to fuel.
Posted by: SJC | May 9, 2008 6:30:12 PM
The claims in the article...everything seems just too good to be true. Amazing! If it is, the technology could carry over to autos......Go Swift Go!
Posted by: TooGoodToBeTrue | May 9, 2008 6:38:13 PM
I wonder what their prefered feedstock is? Branson will already be on the phone!
Posted by: clett | May 10, 2008 2:40:58 AM
Yeah. And my Hummer gets 85mpg on snake oil additive for gasoline. Want to buy some shares in my secret process?
Bill
Posted by: Bill Young | May 10, 2008 5:14:38 AM
"AND we can make it from almost any biomass," Tom said woodenly.
I was hoping these guys would get into the act. And sure the airlines should fund the rollout.
Posted by: gr | May 10, 2008 6:13:49 AM
This is general aviation stuff, not commercial jets. Branson still has the edge there and the other airlines should work with him on that.
Since this is small piston aircraft, the move to automobiles is obvious. But it remains to be seen if this is real or just talk. Since we have not heard of these guys and we have no idea where the process comes from, it is suspect.
Posted by: SJC | May 10, 2008 6:17:33 AM
The claims in this article might be true, but with vast amounts of exaggeration and smoke and mirrors......Swift might turn out to be the EEStor of the biofuel world.....
Posted by: SmokeAndMirrors | May 10, 2008 7:16:27 AM
"The company’s wet labs allow the synthesis of heterogeneous catalysts and formulations of homogeneous catalytic systems, and the testing of propulsion ordnance and power components."
I guess that's aviation geek for gas.
Posted by: sulleny | May 10, 2008 7:26:09 AM
For the Gen_Av uninformed...
The recent price per gallon at the closest field to me is $5.25 per gallon. It is hurting Gen-Av.
More important, the Ethanol fuels can be a problem, I know of a couple of homebuilts burning auto fuel that the Ethanol ate away at the fiberglass fuel tanks and almost caused severe problems. In the early 80's Supplemental Type Certificates (STC's) were issued to burn auto gas in planes. Some with older non "Viton" gaskets in the fuel systems has problems with the Alcohol additives eating away at gaskets, not good.
But that is technical. I get the impression that the refineries would like to get rid of Gen-Av fuel because it is such a niche market. If this fuel can be provided to Gen-Av at the specified price point, it could be a big help. Forget the concept of re-engining the fleet with new diesels or whatever engine. The process for getting an "STC" to do so is expensive and time-consuming. If you want to de-register a certified craft and make it experimental (and maybe have an unsale bird on your hands) you could go that way and put what-ever engine in your craft. But right now, FAA procedures to do so are again expensive and time consuming. Tackling this issue from a fuel standpoint makes a lot of sense.
Posted by: EGeek | May 10, 2008 8:02:15 AM
Well this is very exciting stuff, i'm going to have to keep watching these guys. If they do in fact come out with something cheapter than av-gas, that runs in an aviation piston engine the industry will be all over this... that would make my life nice, with the way gas prices are the cost of renting a plane to fly has been skyrocketing
Posted by: Brad | May 10, 2008 9:14:00 AM
Many cars in WWII and before used charcoal burning converters to fuel them, but I have not heard of any planes that can do the same trick.And you won't. Gasogene output dilutes the air charge and reduces the maximum power of an engine. Less power means the aircraft cannot get off the ground or climb as well (maybe not at all), and cannot be loaded to maximum weight. When you include the weight of the gasogene and charcoal, the payload could easily be negative.
Posted by: Reality Czech | May 10, 2008 9:25:55 AM
Miscanthus seems to be a more viable choice than either switchgrass or algae for the near term. Going the niche route is brilliant with vultures like Freeport McMoran looking to protect their huge investment in ethanol, he can work with more trustworthy local venture capitalist Ohio groups to build the infrastructure for the rollout and protect his patent.
Posted by: Dave Lazur | May 11, 2008 6:32:05 AM
I would make the point that the price of liquid fuels is not set by production costs these days but by demand vs supply. It may require a long time and a lot of land devoted to producing this stuff before the supply of such a biofuel enables prices to decrease....
Posted by: marcus | May 11, 2008 8:24:02 AM
Except that because of its simplicity, and in NA widely available feedstocks, we will begin to see more and more licensed (by ATF) fuel distilleries. These backyard brewers will spring up all across the US and Canada producing small volumes of E85 for local and personal use. Won't address the vast demand for liquid fuel - but it will provide small farmers and entrepreneurs a viable business. So, when you're out in the country buying tomatoes at the roadside stand - look for the E85 hand pump. The little guys strike back.
http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/
Posted by: sulleny | May 12, 2008 9:53:49 AM
"Swift Enterprises Ltd. has unveiled a new patented synthetic hydrocarbon general aviation fuel" I wish they would divulge the patent number ... Can't seem to find such patented work on the U.S. Patent website http://www.uspto.gov/
"Rusek said the fuel can provide an effective range (distance between refueling) greater than petroleum while its projected cost is half that of the current petroleum manufacturing cost." does this includes the fuel and energy cost to farm the biomass? Maybe thats the other half of the cost.
"Swift, which is sensitive about discussing the exact procedure ..." If it is patented as they claim, they would have nothing to fear.
"... starts with biomass, extracts appropriate oxygenates, converts them to aliphatic and aromatic compounds (all pure hydrocarbons) and then mixes them." Sounds like a longer (more expensive) way to get the same pure hydrocarbons one would get from refining oil.
"The aviation industry has been the only form of transportation to use leaded fuel (tetraethyl lead) since an Environmental Protection Agency ban went into effect 30 years ago." Not quite true. Their statement is misleading. The aviation industry is perhaps the largest user of leaded fuel today but by no means the only user. Third world countries, some forms of racing, and special military programs still use leaded fuel.
"The current fuel used in piston-fired aircraft is 100 Low Lead (100LL); the lead brings the octane number in the fuel to 100." Lead is in aviation fuel for more than just to obtain 100 octane. The lead also acts as a lubricant and a sacrificial metal to prevent wear and tear on internal engine parts and to lower the cost of producing higher octane fuels. One can easily obtain 100 octane fuel without lead using known feedstock.
"The end product is a non-food biomass-derived drop-in fuel consisting of ..." This can still impact food prices by using land that could otherwise be used for growing food crops.
Posted by: Chemist | May 12, 2008 10:21:29 AM
