“In 2012, jet fuel from renewable sources will be widely used. The fuel…chemically similar to petroleum-based products….is concocted from garbage, plant matter and other materials. Rules allowing 50% biofules for airlplanes have already received preliminary approval froma testing organization. The final OK will come later this year. Lufthansa plans to test a new fuel blend early next year. Airlines using blends won’t have to pay carbon credits for flying in Europe.”

Algae and garbage will be contibuting to our fuel supply in less than 5 years. Hopefully some new US jobs will come with the change.

Anything with any economic value has potential to displace other uses. If major break throughs occur and algae becomes ergonomically viable, it will displace other things including food production.

The oil subsidy whining is just that, whining. Oil subsidies are wrong but they pale compared to the subsidies biofuels recieve. The best solution is to not do something even more wrong, but to do it right. We should end ALL subsidies.

“Greater progress is being made in Australia, India and Japan in the area of alternative fuels and if the US is complacent,”

Based on what? Over 75% of biofuels in the world are produced in the US.

Again, a bunch of empty rhetoric that does nothing to provide any substance as to why this time around anything will be different. The breakthroughs needed still haven’t occurred let alone be implemented on a mass scale. What exactly have the learned new that should make use believe that they are about to make a major break through. A million or two gallons and a 75 companies means nothing. What matters is the actual science.

What has changed? Why is it after decade after decade of people in the industry who badly need to raise capital for a product with no profit in site and researchers who make a living only if research money continues to come in for this stuff… why is it this time we should believe that it’s anything more than just another “almost there” claim only to be followed up with not getting there but yet another “almost there” claim? Exactly what is it?

As for costs, what are the costs of these biofuels? What are the costs of using something that does not work? Wealth does not come from new ideas but from doing things more efficiently.

As for the potential, please listen to what you just said —> you know nothing about the underlying chemistry. Without that knowledge, you have no business parroting the claim that there is huge potential.

As for the Saudi prince comment why would you make that? First off, it ignores that it’s a trade. I get a lot out of that trade. For just a few bucks, I can travel 30, 40, 100 miles. And they get, well, a few bucks. I’m not making them wealthy. More so, it shows ignorance of the system at hand. The single biggest source of oil used as gasoline in America is….America! The 2nd biggest? Canada! 3rd? Mexico? The vast majority of oil imported into America comes from places other than the Middle East. Those Saudi princes, btw, are getting rich because of a backward government that allows them to have power and property based on their birthright. If you’re worried about them getting rich, then you should worry about changing their system.

5 years is also significant because at the end of the day we really do not know what will happen. It’s a period of time where it seems not too distant yet far enough out for that unknown breakthrough to have occurred. History is full of claimed breakthroughs that are supposedly 5 years out. It’s not unique to biofuels.

” I don’t see how smaller, lighter airplanes solve the problem. Yes, a 747 weighs more than a 757, but it also carries a lot more people. So while you may have a lighter airframe, you’re going to need fuel to power a lot more flights. ”

I probably (due to it being 1:30 AM when commenting) didn’t convey my thoughts properly. While not intending to digress from the focus of this thread this all plays a par of the overall big picture. The main problem we’ve got here is that bigger, while being nicer for passenger comfort (sometimes), isn’t always necessarily better. There will always be a need for 747/67/77 and A340/80 series airframes for certain routes and distances, and larger passenger load factors are both necessary and make sense there.

Yet if you compare the fuel burn rates of 737/57 or A318/19/20/21 series airframes to the lighter airframes of the F100, E 190/195 or C series and even the Sukhoi Superjet 100-95 or Avic 1 ARJ-700/900 series, the smaller airframes can meet most of the route profiles and passenger load factors on most routes that are currently being flown by Boeing/MD and Airbus airframes. This is why the new E-Jets are being adopted by many contract lift providers.

If you compare the empty weights of smaller airframes and even the Fokker 100 (ahead of it’s time in that respect) to the empty weight of the larger and standard 737′s A319′s etc., the fuel burn of these airframes is less due to the lower weight being lifted. While true that there may be a need to add flights to a route depending on the load factor, the overall fuel burn of adding one flight to a route that has 5-6 flight segments per day is still less than flying larger airframes with a 80-90% load factor. This can depend on the stage length as well, yet it also provides passengers with more schedule flexibility, opens up more route opportunities and airport options due to reduced airfield requirements for smaller airframes and lowers noise profiles as well.

Combining all of that together, this reduces the overall amount of fuel burned per carrier per day. Add in the new fuel cell APU’s and possible future battery/power storage advances there too and the fuel savings are substantial.

Algae is the future when compared to other biofuels, yet reducing fuel burn is paramount as well. Now if we can get an even larger version of a Q400, possibly as a four engine, 3×3 seating arrangement with 120-150 seats and longer range, then that would truly be a game changer due to Turboprop fuel burn economics; while not sacrificing that much in speed, with no loss in cabin comfort.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is handing out grants to develop inexpensive military grade jet fuel, JP-8, from biomass. Recipients include Logos Technologies, General Atomics (built the Predator drones) and SAIC. These companies are trying to develop fuel from algae triglyceride at a production cost of $2/gallon. A 100-liter sample of algae-based fuel is due for government testing in the first phase. Economy is the emphasis. According to Defense Sec Robert Gates, every time the cost of a barrel of oil goes up $1 it costs us $130 million.

DARPA has funded projects such as ARPANET, linking three computers nationwide in the 1960s, a precursor to the internet, and it also funded the program that led to the stealth aircraft.

Success of tests so far on algal fuel plus the research being conducted by military industrial firms suggest to me we are within 5 years of commercial production of algal fuels. Beginning with use by military, algal fuel will eventually be used by consumers. Is five years quick? It is to me.