British RAF Changing Fuels
One of our own!
It looks as though the British RAF is going to change to using biofuel for flying military aircraft.
The new fuel mix for British Royal AF jets will be plant-based fuel for aviation vehicles from now on. Commercially, that fuel is known as biokerosene.
Is this an effort to please the ecohippies infernal demand for obedience? Well, kind of, because Boris Johnson has turned out to be a compleat idiot about such things. His girlfriend is a dyed-in-the-wool ecohippie and he is her slave.
But no, it is less likely a bow to the Greenbeaners than it is an effort to stretch a fuel budget. In addition, it’s something that’s been under research for a while now and is no more an impediment to progress and defense than baking cookies in your oven.
Someone somewhere on another blog thinks that airplanes – especially jet aircraft – run on diesel, but they don’t. They run on kerosene, or kerosene and gasoline mixes, and research on biokerosene has been underway for a while now.
From the article: Dec. 14 (UPI) — A plan to use sustainable sources for up to 50 percent of military aviation fuel was announced by British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace this week.
The British Ministry of Defense on Saturday said it would look to algae, alcohol, household waste, wood and biomass as potential sources of fuel for the nation’s F-35 and Typhoon planes and Wildcat helicopters.
Aviation fuel consumes nearly two-thirds of fuel used by the British military, the ministry said.
New aviation fuel standards in effect since November call for a reduction in emissions and carbon footprints, and complement the British government’s goal of net zero emissions throughout the country by 2050. – article
It’s entirely possible that this change will allow the RAF budget to stretch a little bit.
Info on current USA aviation fuels is here: https://www.skytanking.com/en/news-info/glossary/details/term/aviation-fuels-jet-fuel-aviation-gasoline-avgas-jet-b-biokerosene.html
I don’t know what the fuss is all about, other than it’s CHANGE!!!! Again!!! which means that the intentionally uninformed are using it as another excuse to whine, complain, bitch and moan about CHANGE!!! Well, this is a change that is beneficial, so what is the problem other than the whiners being afraid of CHANGE?
It does, however, bring up that inevitable question: Would you like fries with that?
Category: Military issues
Is Biokero more or less stable and aquaphilic than comparable dino-based fuels?
And what about the energy required to synth this crap?! The naught-zee aromatics-to-oil route only makes sense when you have leftovers and/or a need for end product.
But that’s using economical reasoning to this situation.
That isn’t addressed in that discussion, but the linked article does say that biokerosene has been under research for a while.
USAF had a project on these so called green fuels over a decade ago. If memory serves we test flew it on Buffs.
I also believe the surface Navy was doing similar work for their gas turbine powered ships.
As I recall, when the Navy did it they mentioned it cost 3X the market price for the dinosaur fuel.
That sounds about right. Very “green”.
With companies owned by fatcat campaign donors making it!
“…potential sources of fuel.” Find Doc Brown’s Book on Flux Capacitors and you can run the damn things on banana peels and stale beer. Not sure how the aerial refueling would work tho, them ‘nana peelings may clog the hose. And then you have the problem of Slow Joe wanting all of the stale beer (read Bud Lite) for himself.
When we gonna see the Chinese Communists and the Russian Communists convert all of their highly polluting systems over “Green Energy”?
“banana peels and stale beer” =
NSN 9130-01-036-2767 Fuel, Slop
FY2012 price $3.44 per gallon
I was just reading something yesterday about the
Pegasus tankers and how they run on some mixture
of kero and unicorn waste.
Me, I like fossil fuel. The thicker the better.
If I could burn bunker oil in my truck I would.
My Ducati absolutely despises fuel with ethanal in it, even with same octane level as pure dino juice. I hope nobody gets killed flying this stuff.
Burning food for fuel is evil.
But then again ..look who supports it.
I tend to agree. At least the bio-diesel stuff can be made from used French fry grease. If you’ve ever smelled a bus that smelled like French fries, that was probably why.
So can bio jet fuel. But it’s still nowhere near economically viable on a per-unit cost basis. See below.
And if aviation consumes two-thirds of their fuel, their navy is too small or a lot more nuclear than I think it is.
That’s a whole lot sound tactical and strategic thinking right there.
Lets restrict a critical asset needlessly.
US Navy got this data point with the Green Hornet program, where an unmodified F/A-18 flew just fine on a 50/50 mix of bio and JP.
So high-fives, bonuses and stock options all around, right?
Ahh, no. Seems the stuff costs 8x the price of JP, which makes it completely unusable unless one wants to beggar the Fleet.
This is likely to cost the British taxpayers plenty.
Per this article published in Mar 2019, the best case cost of alternative jet fuel (AKA “biokerosene”) appears to be about $3.326 per gallon. That’s assuming it is produced from waste fats/oils – which are already in demand for other uses (biodiesel). Using other materials as raw material is even more expensive
As of about a week ago (11 Dec 2020), standard jet fuel had a refinery sale price in Europe of about $1.281 per gallon. Even allowing for 20% markup for transport/delivery, that’s less than half the cost of “green” jet fuel.
That’s cheaper than #2 fuel oil for home heating albeit
less Btu per gallon. At about $1.80 locally probably still cheaper.
Some people cut it 50/50 #1/#2 for the winter anyway.
“Green”, in that cash goes to subsidize the folks with pull with the folks that make the rules.
A con game with us as the pigeons.
From the article: “‘This is a significant change for Defense, enabling us to take a key step towards reducing our CO2 footprint, consistent with our wider ambition for achieving NZ50 [the net zero plan],’ said Wardlaw.”
Thereby letting the REAL cat out of the bag–Climate Change. Sustainability is merely the beard for their real motivation, CO2 reduction to please the Chicken Littles. What with the North Sea oil reserves, the Brits aren’t in any danger of running low on fuel sources in the foreseeable future so “sustainability” rings a bit false.
Also the article quotes an official as saying the biofuel will power their F-35 fleet yet the author also says:
“A 2017 research paper by U.S. Air Force Maj. Marcus McWilliams of the Air Force’s Air University noted that most U.S. military planes can operate on sustainable aviation fuel. But no funding has been offered to modify the engines of F-35 and F-22 planes — which can’t run on it — and require a 12- to 24-month process of testing and certification.”
So what is that modification going to cost the Brits and is that factored into their “savings” projections.
So any stick jockeys here? So I remember reading once that the range of a jet is determined by the weight per gallon of the fuel. It’s just something random I remember from a book I read years ago in a book written by a Phantom pilot that flew in Vietnam. The little foot note mentioned that when the Navy switched from what ever version of JP they were using to another JP with a higher number for fire safety reasons, it was a heavier fuel that had the side affect of (slightly) increasing the range of aircraft.
The reason I bring up that long story is that I would want to know if this “green” fuel, while seeming to run just fine on modern jets, will it cause a change in range for these aircraft?
And a side note, I remembered the book it was from right before I hit the post button if anyone is interested. https://www.amazon.com/Phantom-Over-Vietnam-Fighter-Pilot/dp/0891415998
Your Google-fu weak today? A quick skim of available articles reveal the answers to your questions are “it depends” and “not by much.”
Better?
*grin*
Andy11M no doubt that weight has an effect, but it is certain that the placement of the wings and motors on an aircraft determine if it is perfectly suited for jumping out of, or only good for flying long, looped figure 8s.
As a side note, the aircraft with the properly installed wings/motors on top suitable for jumping out of, AND a multitude of other bringing the dam dam down missions, CAN land and take off a Floating Air Corps Artillery Platform. The abomination that has the wings and motors put on all catty-whompus…can’t! Thus endeth the lesson.
*sigh*
Bad doggie. Swim lane, in! Stay. Or no ham and mofos for you.
BTU per lb is the magic formula you seek.
AKA “energy density”.
How the mighty have fallen. To think that a mere 100 years ago they ruled most of the world.
Well, bye.