How they accidentally discovered a 100 percent petroleum replacement

a reply to: SmilingROB

Eighteen F-16s.

Something is wonky with the claim of 80% reduced greenhouse gas emissions: The only way I can justify this is by assuming they mean from cradle to grave including production of the fuel because it doesn't make sense as far as burning goes. The primary purpose of the gas turbine engine is to take hydrocarbon molecules (in this case, those contained in the petroleum or biofuel product) and burn them into more basic chemical components; in this case, water vapour and carbon dioxide. If you're producing the same power from similar types of fuels, it would pretty much demand roughly equal GHG emissions just because you're taking a similar input product and breaking it down for the same amount of power. You can burn hydrocarbons incompletely which would technically result in fewer GHG emissions, but it's because you're literally burning less fuel which would create significantly less power, and then we wouldn't be hearing about how it matches on power. It would also result in far more carbon soot production, but they claim far less of that is produced as well. There is something seriously contradictory about a claim of producing equal power but yet substantially fewer GHG emissions if it's using the same process.

If we then go with the assumption that they are referring to 80% reduction in GHG from production rather than burning, then it makes more sense but yet is still a very dishonest claim; the website's structure definitely implies that there are fewer emissions from the engines themselves.

a reply to: Darkpr0

The only greenhouse gas emissions which really matter long term are those derived from fossil sources, and not biological surface sources.

Roughly the latter are in equilibrium---if you grow plants, then that takes in carbon, and when you burn them and their products, it releases that carbon.

ARA and Chevron Lummus Global (CLG) developed their process based on ARA's patented Catalytic Hydrothermolysis process and CLG's market-leading hydro-processing technology. The process converts any non-edible oil directly into renewable, aromatic, drop-in fuels known as ReadiJet® and ReadiDiesel®. These fuels are ready to use, without blending, in turbine and diesel engines.

On October 29, 2012, the National Research Council Canada flight-tested ReadiJet® using their Falcon 20 aircraft in the world's first ever 100 percent drop-in renewable jet fuel flight. The flight demonstrated more than 50 percent reduction in particle emissions while obtaining a 1.5 percent reduction in specific fuel consumption compared to petroleum-derived jet fuel. ReadiJet® gives more miles per gallon than petroleum based fuel and a lot more miles per gallon than other renewable fuels. This means longer range for aircraft flying with ReadiJet®.
...
The Biofuels ISOCONVERSION™ process can use waste such as yellow grease from rendering facilities, used cooking oil, and brown grease recovered from grease traps as feedstocks.

In addition to being compatible with current turbine and diesel engines, ReadiJet® and ReadiDiesel® do not have to be segregated from their petroleum counterparts. These fuels can utilize existing petroleum infrastructure without the need to build additional, costly infrastructure for blending, transportation, and storage.

globenewswire.com, March 11, 2016 - ARA DELIVERS GAME-CHANGING 100% RENEWABLE FUELS TO THE NAVY.

So there are some more details... and from back in March! This last part is VERY informative...

ARA and CLG are currently engineering the first commercial-scale refinery for its licensee, UrbanX Renewables Group. The multi-phase 5,000 barrel-per-day refinery will be located in Southern California and will produce renewable diesel, jet, and naphtha from ultra-low carbon intensity waste oil feedstocks.

"We are now a few steps closer to our goal of commercial scale production of 100 percent drop-in diesel and jet fuel from waste oils at prices competitive with their petroleum counterparts," said Red.

(same)

So. Cal, near all those farms, processing plants, and air force bases! I like the "and naphtha" add in. No mention on the "light" or "heavy" kind. Or lighter fluid! I am sure there are plenty of uses and special blends for specific aircraft.

The 100% drop in is very huge selling point in the end. No need for a new car, a hydrogen gas station, a battery wall clingy thing in the garage, just what already exists. Heck, you do not even have to clean out the current transport services.

Pretty soon, when at the air show, you can eat a deep fried Twinkie, point to the sky, and tell the young 'uns that you helped make the jet fuel!

The USDA Commodity Credit Corp. has announced funding is available to pay a biofuel production incentive (BPI) under the Farm-to-Fleet program to companies producing drop-in biofuels from certain feedstocks.

A notice published in the Federal Register explains the USDA Farm Service Agency will use CCC funds to pay a per-gallon incentive for JP-5 and F-76 blended biofuels produced from eligible feedstocks and delivered to the U.S. Department of Navy. The BPI payment rate will range from 8.335 cents to 25 cents per blended gallon of biofuel, depending on the blend rate. Payments will not be based on which eligible feedstock is used to produce the biofuel. The notice also states that total BPI payment will be determined by multiplying the payment rate by the number of gallons of qualifying biofuel blend delivered under a Defense Logistics Agency Energy contract.

According to the CCC, up to $50 million is expected to be available for the incentive program through fiscal year 2018. The USDA does not expect funding to be a constraint through fiscal year 2018. The department, however, indicated it would consider requesting additional funds be made available for BPI payments if demand is in excess of $50 million.

Biomassmagazine.com, Jan. 2, 2016 - USDA: Incentives available for drop-in biofuel delivered to Navy.

Uh, I may be reading this wrong but it seems like they contradicted themselves by saying "certain feeds" then the "will not be based" a sentence or two later. Anyway, the guys in Florida seem to be a shoe in as there has not been much news on others being able to produce biofuels.

50 mil and up is a pretty good incentive! Hope they can get their production plant up and going.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

I thought that the navy was going the Sea water to fuel route.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

That the Navy wanted to eliminate the hauling of fuel to carriers and instead enable carriers to generate fuel from the reactors. That way they cut down on fuel hauling costs.

a reply to: grey580

OP said the Navy wants to swap out half their diesel by 2020. IDK. I was just following some other biodiesel crumb trail and saw what I posted. The Navy has other land based equipment to run so I would bet both are happening. (You can read that with a "?" at the end as my voice climbs in pitch! lol)

Zaphod? Any idea of the veracity of HuPo on this claim they are turning sea water to fuel? Will this be complimentary to RediJet? Or is it winner take all?

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

As far as I've heard they haven't decided yet. They may go with seawater for ships and ReadiJet for air. They're still in the evaluation phase of things right now.