You’re not organic if you fly?
I saw this being debated and speculated on prior to the rules being changed regarding organic food labelling. It’s now going to be harder for farmers who grow organic produce overseas (and fly them to the UK) to have their food labelled ‘organic’, because of the amount of carbon dioxide emissions air-freighting the food produces.
Hangonaminnit. From what I understand, organic in our trendy, PC world means food that hasn’t been treated / protected / grown with chemicals like pesticides and whatnot. Carbon dioxide emissions from cargo planes flying the food from (let’s say) Africa to the UK is a greenie issue. It’s also a convenient coincidence that making it harder for developing-world farmers protects UK organic food businesses.
I saw on the news this morning that they say African organic farmers should start selling to their neighbours, instead of freighting it halfway round the world. I’m sure the African farmers agree, as long as they can get a fair price. I somehow think their neighbours are a little more preoccupied with other matters (war, famine, crippling poverty — wee issues like that).
(You don’t get to see this, but Neil does. When news of this WTF? nature comes on, I sit there and bang the sides of my head with my palms.)
In say what
Comments
I would guess that if African farmers could make a good living selling non-organic food to starving people on their own continent that they would do it.
I would bet that it is some corporate farming organization that has set up “organic” farms in Africa. They do this only because they make more profit growing and picking it there than and flying it in than growing in the UK/EU or USA. High oil prices would tend to cut those profits and there would be no outcry at home when they suddenly put all the African farmers out of business due to changing economics.
Branson announced recently that he is looking into green jet fuel. I think it borders on absurd and is just a PR move. Based on what has gone on in California over the last 20 years, except for removing all the sulfur, I think they would do much better to make sure jet turbines burn more completely (i.e. similar to Honda ULEV engines) than trying to reformulate the fuel.
They forced through the addition of MTBE to gasoline in California in an attempt to lower smog production in older cars. It turned out to be a long lasting toxin that contaminated groundwater and lakes, and was not proved to reduce air pollution much.
If the boffins ever come up with a way to quadruple the energy density of hydrogen as a fuel, applications for airplanes might be more desirable than in cars due to the chemistry of high altitude pollution from jet engines.
Terry, I agree, except that it’s probably also the UK organic farm lobby that has had a hand in forcing this through. Their claim that developing countries’ organic farms should be dealt with more ‘ethically’ sounds so damned suspect.
Terry, your point about making jet engines more efficient is interesting but over simplified. The main barrier to improving turbine efficiency is usually the material properties of the engine components. This is because a turbine runs at it’s peak temperature all the time, whereas an internal combustion engine only peaks after ignition of the fuel. Also, manipulation of the chemical properties of fuel go a long way to allowing greater efficiencies to be obtained. Your point about sulphur relates mainly to the geography of where the oil was extracted from.
As for your comment about hydrogen, your looking at the wrong thing. The problem is it’s specific volume is very high.
You might have misread what I was trying to emphasize. I was not talking about efficiency, I was talking about emissions. I think it is possible it could be improved with different fuel metering and subtle changes in compressor design.
To talk about designing a low emission blend is pushing the responsibility off on refiners rather than fixing their own hardware. This way they can blame the oil industry if it never comes to pass.
The amount of sulfur in the kerosene/jet fraction is somewhat consistent when pumped from only one field, and is generally lower than diesel, but the emissions would be improved if it was lowered. This is just one reason why ultra low sulfur diesel has gone into production.
The composition of jet fuel varies day to day even when refined from oil pumped from one oil field. It is a blend of tens of thousands of components. It varies even more based on local market conditions.
In the Winter, 5% to 10% of the gasoline fraction can be dropped into kerosene due to lower demand. This allows 2% to 3% more diesel to be drawn up into it to balance out the light fractions. There is a lot of slop allowed even when producing fuel for the most stringent military jet specs.
Manipulating the chemical properties can be very expensive to do. If a low emissions blend was developed, the only way I can see it being made truly consistent on a worldwide basis would require it to be ripped into atoms and then reassembled into a single family of molecules. The company that did the research would demand a patent for it so they get back the cost back.
Between the licensing costs and the massive amount of energy required, my guess is it would add another 50% to the cost of the fuel. Maybe that is the idea. With higher production costs on top of crude at $100/bbl, fewer people could afford to fly. That would really result in reducing overall emissions….
high efficiency = low emissions
same same… but different
Actually, it depends on what you are doing. Sometimes high efficiency leads to high emissions. For example my tummy is very efficient at turning curry into methane and other undesirable byproducts, making me the equivalent of a one man deathstar.
Example; due to the shape of the curve, the most efficient compression ratio for a petrol fueled internal combustion engine is about 14:1. most cars operate somewhere around 10.5-11.5:1. If our chemist pals did not work their magic we would not be able to run above about 9.0:1 due to premature ignition.
“the only way I can see it being made truly consistent on a worldwide basis would require it to be ripped into atoms and then reassembled into a single family of molecules.”
This is actually being worked on right now for biodiesel by a startup in northern California.
I guess I should have specified I was talking about SO2, HC, CO, and NOx. This is what I assumed what Branson was talking about. I get the impression you are equating CO2 with all emissions. Granted it is hopefully 98% to 99.8% of what an engine puts out (save for N2, O2, and H20), but the other small fractions can do a disproportionate amount of damage.
I would be interested in hearing what company is working on disassembling biodiesel into component atoms, so I can be sure to avoid investing in that company. From what I have read, the vast majority of bio sources of diesel do not need hydro treating to reduce sulfur. They can need some blending or a small amount of treating/cracking to lower the cloud or pour point and to reduce oxidation problems in storage. This generally depends on the source.
Comments form