CSIRO report concludes that sustainable biojet fuel industry is achievable for Australia/New Zealand
25 May 2011
|
|
| Possible e biomass to liquid fuel refining process pathways. Source: CSIRO. Click to enlarge. |
Establishing an economically and environmentally beneficial, bio-derived Australian and New Zealand aviation fuels industry is a viable proposition, according to a report compiled by CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Australia’s national science agency) in collaboration with the region’s major aviation industry players.
The report, “Flight Path to Sustainable Aviation”, examines a road map scenario under which the Australian and New Zealand aviation sectors achieve a 5% bio-derived jet fuel share in their fuel use by 2020, expanding that amount to 40% of their total fuel use by 2050. This development further enables the stabilization of aviation industry emissions from 2020 and assists in reducing emissions from 2030.
If this scenario is realized, then by 2030 Australia and New Zealand are expected to save more than A$2 billion (US$2.1 billion) per annum on jet fuel imports and achieve a 17% reduction in aviation greenhouse gas emissions per annum relative to an all petroleum-based jet fuel future.
The study was commissioned by and developed in collaboration with the members of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group—including Air New Zealand, Boeing, Qantas and Virgin Australia—together with the Defence Science and Technology Organization (DSTO) and The Climate Group.
It found that production of commercially viable quantities of aviation fuels derived from non-food biomass sources (eg: crop stubble, forestry residues, municipal waste and algae) is a feasible option for Australia and New Zealand. It also found there are currently sufficient biomass stocks to support a local jet fuel industry.
Sustainable bio-derived jet fuel complies with social, environmental and economic criteria, which includes not impacting on food security or the environment and results in a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
The report identifies several major actions that are required by 2015 to ensure the industry can be established. These include:
- Creation of a supportive market structure and supply chain;
- Development of refining plants; and
- Certification and independent verification to ensure sustainability of the fuel.
The participants will use the findings of the report as the basis for developing implementation plans and projects, details of which will be announced in the coming months. Some related projects are already in place.
Other participants in the study include: Airbus, Australian Defence Force, Brisbane Airport Corporation, Bioenergy Association of New Zealand, Biofuels Association of Australia, GE, Honeywell UOP, New South Wales Office of Biofuels, NSW Office of Trade, Business & Industry, Pratt & Whitney, Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Rolls-Royce, Royal Aeronautical Society Australian Division, South Australian Department of Premier & Cabinet, The Climate Group and Victorian Department of Innovation, and Regional Development.
The project also engaged international organizations such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels.
Resources
From the rest of this article, it is clear that the headline of it and the basis of the article is in error. The implication of the headline is that all of the aviation fuel for Australia can be supplied with non food bio-fuels, but later says that only 40 percent of them could be supplied by 2050. The truth is that somewhere in Australia, factories could be making bio-fuels that might be able to supply %40 of Australian aircraft needs. Not one word is said about the fuel use of all the automobiles in Australia.
Far more money on imported jet fuel could be saved very soon by making all of it from coal and nuclear energy. Australia exports uranium, and the people of Australia should vote to stop selling it if they do not believe that it should be used. They should also stop selling coal if they do not believe that it should be used to make fuel for automobiles and planes.
Bio-fuel mandates and use are now starving people. Coal can right now be used to supply jet fuel at a fraction of the price of fuel made from crude oil. The fact that the price of crude oil could be dropped to a fraction of what they are, is no reason to not make liquid fuels from Australian coals and uranium as Australia can just require their use at whatever they cost.
Cheap nuclear reactors can be built to produce energy for fuels and the direct operation of automobiles, but they can also eliminate the use of coal for electric generation so that it can be used for producing liquid fuels. Even without thermal chemical production of hydrogen with nuclear heat, much nuclear heat and electricity can be used in the process of making liquid fuels from coal.
Since foods have been industrially produced from methane even, there is no non food source of biofuels.
The use of maize for fuel ethanol has shortened the lives of numerous people. This fuel ethanol, even that from cellulose, is a food that could be used by people for a substantial part of the calories needed to survive as is the identical ethanol provided for thousands of years for that very purpose. Ethanol made from natural gas or petroleum feedstocks can also be used as a food. Methanol made from methane was used as a food for the commercial production of protein animal feeds.
Bio-fuel demand wiped out the wild forests of many nations hundreds or thousands of years ago and is now wiping out rain forests in other nations so that the people of the UK and other wealthy nations can pretend to use "renewable" or "sustainable" fuels. ..HG..
Posted by: Henry Gibson | 25 May 2011 at 08:06 AM
HG, you can rant all you want, but countries will find a way whether YOU like it or NOT.
Posted by: SJC | 25 May 2011 at 09:41 AM