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.

This is actually being worked on right now for biodiesel by a startup in northern California.

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.

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….

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.