Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations KootK on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Green jet fuel - problematical 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
The answer is blowing in the wind.
Link
Some extracts from the link:
"Via a filtration process, CO₂ will be directly captured and condensed, and Clean
technologies by Munters will support CO2 capture. Green hydrogen will be
combined with the CO₂ captured from the atmosphere. And the green methanol
produced from this process will be converted to carbon-neutral e-fuel. In the pilot
phase, 2022 e-methanol production will initially reach around 750,000 liters and
130,000 liters of e-fuel will be produced."

"Process overview
The project’s location in Chile was selected for its excellent wind conditions in terms
of wind speed and availability. Wind turbines will turn wind energy into electricity
using the aerodynamic force from the rotor blades.
Then wind energy will be converted to green hydrogen via water electrolysis.
And direct air capture equipment supported by Munters Mist Eliminators will
harvest climate-neutral CO₂.
Instead of using methanol from fossil sources, it will be synthesized from this
green hydrogen and CO₂. These two gases are mixed to form the syngas and
react to green methanol when they pass a catalyst.
A MTG (Methanol To Gasoline) plant will be used to convert the green
methanol to synthetic e-fuel.
The synthetic e-fuel will be transported to Europe with container ships. One
container has a loading capacity of 25,000 – 30,000 liters."

"This project will use Global Thermostats (GT) direct air capture equipment
together with Munters Mist elimination equipment to harvest climate-neutral CO₂
as part of the overall e-fuel generation process.
GT uses dry amine-based chemical sorbents that are bonded to porous,
honeycomb ceramic monoliths, which act as carbon sponges. These carbon
sponges efficiently adsorb CO₂ directly from the atmosphere.
The captured CO₂ is then stripped off and collected using low-temperature steam
(85-100°C). The output results in 98% pure CO₂. Only steam and electricity are
consumed during the process, without the creation of emissions or other effluents."

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!
 
Greg said:
Surely there's more nutrient value in 1 lb of beef than 3 lb of rice?
Fair comment Greg.
The first hit on a search:
"100g of Beef has 250 calories when compared to the 242 calories of pork."
Let's all switch from hamburgers to porkburgers. grin

On another site, friendly to plant food;
8 oz servings, black beans and rice = 220 calories, beef = 600 calories.
I defer to your comment Greg.
Comparing caloric content of rice and beef, doesn't show an advantage.
Thanks for the heads up.

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!
 
How much water do these CO2 to hydrocarbon fuel processes take? Fresh water is one of our limiting resources.
 
I understand that they electrolize sea water.
But, oxygen is a by product released into the atmosphere and the water is returned when the fuel is burned.

--------------------
Ohm's law
Not just a good idea;
It's the LAW!
 
Direct co2 capture from the atmosphere seems a bit tricky, there simply isn't much of it. Ah here we go
Green hydrogen has its own problems, but once you have your green hydrogen and green CO2 putting them together to make methane sounds feasible although methanol engines also have problems which are at least well understood and for which solutions exist. It can also be used as the fuel in fuel cells. So OK if they can get the CO2 capture to work economically, and if they can solve the green hydrogen problems the end result is useful, and can be burned directly in gas turbines to get back on topic.

Meanwhile Kermit, a Green muppet, has delayed/cancelled plans to make 15 million tonnes of green hydrogen a year by 2030
Mind you don't take any numbers in that report seriously, it has at least one major mistake.

Oh this is classic

Rystad Energy’s Nigel Rambhujun said “a lot more work can be done on demand-side policies to incentivise potential end-users and reduce the green premium associated with clean hydrogen” with the next 6-12 months “critical” for the sector in Australia.

“Without significant government support, green hydrogen will continue to be the most expensive hydrogen colour.” Yeah, that free money really makes things cheaper. Rent seeker.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
 
And now Airbus is telling the USA to get on board with the worst solution so far to CO2 reduction - burning green hydrogen in jet engines.

It's only Aviation Leak, but here you go


Green H2 is fabulously expensive, and burning it seems to be just cray cray. Or is it?







Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
 
you mean it's like burning money ?

"Wir hoffen, dass dieses Mal alles gut gehen wird!"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.
 
No matter what you do with it, you just can't carry much H2 around with you :)

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand
 
The 'obvious' use for green H2 in aviation is to use it in a fuel cell (60% efficient) to drive a ducted fan (60% efficient) for an overall efficiency of 36%

So I was was wondering if burning it in a high bypass jet engine might approach that sort of efficiency. OK I know thrust per kg/s of fuel is a better metric but that's as far as I got.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
 
The accidents will be very exciting
 
fuel cells are "fabulously" expensive, no?

what sort of fuel cell would replace 100kg of gasoline ? 10tonnes ?? how large ? how expensive ??

"Wir hoffen, dass dieses Mal alles gut gehen wird!"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.
 
from the link ... "the tech will likely be restricted to short-haul, turboprop airliners that can seat roughly 50 to 60 passengers and fly just a few hundred miles".

I don't mind the technology being investigated, but I don't see it being the solution (if there is a problem that needs a solution).
And how Carbon Neutral is the creation of H2 ?
Possibly the "best" solution is SAF ... but scaling production is going to be an issue.

I think the people pushing the Carbon Neutral position really want us to stop jet travel ... it's only for the "rich" ... like you Greg, visiting the UK;
sarcasm intended.

"Wir hoffen, dass dieses Mal alles gut gehen wird!"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.
 
Oh absolutely, there is a proposal that the mere European peasants should be restricted to one short haul flight every two years. Presumably they/we should walk back. Of my carbon budget some vast %age ( I forget what, certainly >20%) is air travel. But as I have pointed out, we fly fruit to China, to get in before the stuff that goes on a boat. As a society we aren't even paying lip service to our professed aims. Me personally, I don't think global warming is all that bothersome, and I have strong doubts that CO2 is the thermostat. So I'll choose my battles.


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
 
"Me personally, I don't think global warming is all that bothersome"

I'd agree, from my latitude, we just had a lovely crop of tomatoes, best year ever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor