Why Aren't We Using LNG for Jet And Propeller Aircraft?

The weight of the fuel tank? Loss of fuel via evaporation?

I suspect that there is no good engineering reason to not use LNG in aircraft. My guess for a practical reason would be the logistic complication of finding airports with LNG fuel.

That problem is being overcome by ships. New LNG fuel infrastructure is being built in several ports. Ship conversions are beoming common. We hear a lot about the high price of jet fuel. This site says it is $2.96 per gallon, which I assume is wholesale without taxes or delivery. http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economics/fuel_monitor/Pages/index.aspx

LNG is about $1.60 less per DGE (diesel gallon equivalent). Jet fuel is more expensive than diesel I believe. Of course airlines get a bulk price.

No good engineering reason??...uh yeah there are many "good" reasons!

Safety, reliability issues, systems associated with liquifiying natural gas, the list goes on and on.

It's more complicated than just the logistics and infrastructure.

Well the Russians can do it. The purpose driven design seems to be the answer to me. A turbine is a turbine to me, until someone can show me why not. Please explain the complications. That is what I am looking for. Aircraft can carry all sorts of heavy equipment, LNG tanks are bulky, but that can be built into the design. I don't think the weight is that big of a factor compared to the potential cost saving. Have you looked at the links?

Although commercial aircraft can carry heavy payloads you have to consider that every pound of mass that has to be in the air takes energy and every pound of mass that is not cargo is not payload that is paying the bills.

At some point the savings in fuel costs despite the lost cargo volume and or payload capacity does not pay off and the aircraft is no longer cost effective to operate.

Good point, I had thought of that, but I continually hear abut how expensive jet fuel is. Maybe that is just another excuse to charge higher fares. That is my guess. For trucks, LNG saves about one third the price of diesel and is considered a fairly fast payback. I would think that jets would get an even faster payback due to the even far higher fuel use. New tank designs are becoming lighter also. Adsorption tank technology will hopefully be the next big thing. They can be very light, and any shape, plus carry a lot of CNG compared to the conventional ones. Might be good for shuttle flights.

Ronwagn,

Are you certain that an absorption tank can carry more gas than in the liquefied form for the same volume and weight? Do you have some real confirmation of this?

Thank you.

I don't think I said that. I do not believe so. I think you meant to say aDsorption. It is very interesting work. I know that the tanks are lighter and can be made in any shape. The exterior wall does not bear extremely high pressure. The pressure is internalized into the adsorption material. I wish I new more about it. Whatever company that can master it and get the patents will become incredibly wealthy. Possibly the same with home pumps for vehicles, and/or pumps built into vehicles. Universities and companies like GE, Eaton, Westinghouse, Texas A&M, U. of Texas, etc. are all working on these issues with grants from the Dept. of Energy. This has been ongoing for awhile. Other companies and are working on the adsorption tanks, including in Europe.

Yes I've looked at the links and first off, the Russians did not "do it". They carried out tests with a helicopter and maybe a plane or two. This proves nothing for commercial viability. It proves that you can run gas turbines using LNG but that has never been an issue. Yes, you can pack a giant cryo tank into a C-130 and fly it but that means nothing. It does not solve the design issues when trying to fit cryo tanks into wings, nor does it solve safety issues surrounding it. There's also the weigh/mileage consideration as tmctech and others pointed out. I won't even get into the gazillions it costs to qualify and certify new tech for commercial aviation. It's currently not a financially viable solution. The concept of using LNG for aircraft makes perfect sense and I'm sure we'll get there one day but the tech is not mature enough.

Second, a turbine is not turbine. Gas turbines for energy production are a far cry from aircraft gas turbines. Yes they work on the same principles but are not built to the same standards.

Just a side not...I mispelled "gazillions" and spell check caught it. Since when is "gazillions" a real word?...I must be living under a rock.

I say it all the time and speak French everyday but ...I'm not catching what you're hinting at...I'm kinda slow that way. Please explain.

OMG!

Just a side not...I

Jeez! Yeah that's sad. I wrote that after running spell check. Doh!

That's OK, it's note important.

BS!

Your "flat earth" attitude on air pollution is well known and flat wrong.

Don't give us this crap about politics. Your turn of the century view only works if there are 3 million people living on the planet.

Did you find mouse poop in your Cheerios when you got up for a midnight snack?

Take some Nyquil instead and go back to sleep. You're crabby.

Never mind energy per unit volume. At least you're right about that.

But, your "let's burn tires to stay warm" attitude won't help with the obvious problem of air pollution.

There, take that!

But there is this:

http://www.tiretofuel.com/the-tire-to-fuel-process.html

Yes, but our friends tire-to-fuel process consists of:

That is a great graph. I have read about the process, but this is very informative. Thanks for sharing. I am wondering if other trash or biomass could be added to this that would work well in the process, and maybe enhance it. Trash sorting is pretty common today. I have been wondering where the money goes, when I have to pay to leave my tires and batteries at the dealer. Maybe it subsidizes this sort of plant and pollution enforcement. Haven't watched the film yet.

Although I realize that this is a worthy cause, I doubt the return on investment will ever pay off.

Take a look at the assumptions. Not very realistic.

We, in the USA already pay a fee for tire disposal: Why do I have to pay tire disposal fees? What is the money used for?

Learn more about tire fees. Many states collect fees to fund scrap tire management programs or stockpile cleanup. Tire fees are typically assessed on the sale of new tires or on vehicle registrations. Fees generally range from $0.50 to $2 per passenger car tire, and truck tire fees range from $3 to $5.

That is probably because it takes liquid nitrogen to make the rubber tires brittle enough to break up in a hammer mill. why not use LNG instead? Two stones and one bird?

I am not talking about legitimate and harmful air pollution. I am talking about political nonsense and tree hugging regulations that are counter productive to everything they claim to be there for.

For example CO2 reduction is all over the media and a big potential money maker issue for politics because according to them and the tree hugger sect its a pollutant that must be reduced. Now on the other hand its also well proven and documented science that emissions reductions on vehicles and most everything else causes them to burn more fuel to do less useful work which obviously causes them to create more CO2 as a combustion byproduct.

So which is it? is CO2 bad but not bad enough to be a problem but making everything that burns fuel less efficient and thusly produce more CO2 which they claim is bad really saving us from anything or is it just making more money for politicians and giving them more control over our remaining pocket books.

If engine emissions control was truly a honest thing why is there a multi 10's of billions dollar a year industry (a lot of it for black market non compliance modification now too) for devices and systems along with reprogramming and such for every vehicle and machine out there on the roads and in the fields now that has been forced to have a government mandated emission compliance spec?

Around here I know a lot of truckers and farmers that run what are fully illegal reprogram devices that defeat and shut down emissions control and engine tuning in order to gain back critical fuel economy numbers and substantially reduce operating overhead by eliminating expensive emissions systems maintenance cost just to stay alive in what they due.

To be honest I just learned about a some new "reprogrammer" systems that are now designed specifically to be ghost operator devices that will not register systems modifications log events or programming/emissions system tampering events in over the road truck ECM systems so that truckers can defeat and shut down their trucks emissions systems when running but then can litterly pull the plug and still pass a on the spot on the road DOT or similar emissions systems check including a full computer systems scan intended to specifically find reprogrammed truck computers!

The thing is when you are spending nearly 70% of your annual operating costs on fuel alone being able to boost your annual fuel savings by 15 - 30% by running illegal reprogramming to shut down and bypass emissions systems that savings can very well be all that's keeping you financially afloat well enough to pay your own taxes and operating fees.

Removing high fees and EPA roadblocks for conversions to LNG and CNG might lower costs enough to help a lot more than bypassing the electronics. At the same time you would have less pollution instead of more.

A simple sedan conversion on youtube.com with a small tank costs $1,000.

LNG is a totally different thing. Some of the new conversions blend natural gas into the diesel and can switch to all diesel. Hopefully all this can become less expensive in the future.

The earth 's climate does change in NATURAL CYCLES. Man made global warming is BS. If you misunderstood what I said , sorry. Once again, Man Made Global Warming is BS.

Sorry, but you have no factual basis for the statement, " Man Made Global Warming is BS".

The industrial revolution only began recently, in climatological and geologic terms.

So, to say that climate change (not global warming) is not caused by man is an unsupportable statement. You don't know that. The terms global warming and climate change ARE NOT interchangeable, although many don't recognize it.

The hysteria on both sides of this argument is without equal.

My problem is with people who proclaim, with no supporting evidence, that pollution is not affecting the health of humans or the earth.

Lyn;

That sir is a comment I can agree with. I am more concerned with the real quality of our air.

Thanks.

Actually I just prefer to not spend my money let alone be forced to to further someone else's causes I don't agree with or that I find their opposites to be to my advantage.

I for one like the concepts of a warmer planet and if the past decade of supposed weather including our milder winters here are the supposed proof of it then by all means I am going to do everything I can to help speed up the warming processes even if I do have to admit I find the plausibility of it highly remote at best.

As far as using resources wisely I excel at it! However those resources I use wisely to save me time effort money and to pursue my self interests with are not all seen as being beneficial to or by everyone in the "environmentally and politically correct in crowd".

Actually, the average temperature of the planet hasn't increased for the last 16 years to the embarrassment of the climate scientists...

The press release was in one of the blog on this site a month ago.

Maybe soon, we will go back to the ice age theory that was promoted by the same organizations in the 80's.

I don't trust the big stories promoted by people who have something to gain from it.

We would be better of working on real efficiency and pollution reduction than blaming CO2 for all the ills without any proof.

16 years?

Never mind.

<unsubscribe>

What's the source of this dubious looking graph? ALGORE enterprises? laughable.

The no change in 16 yrs was willful mis-interpretation of UK Met Office data by the Daily Mail a well known anti-science, anti woman fascist rag (in case anyone thinks the last comment is over the top in the 30's the proprietor, who is the father of the current proprietor, openly enthused about that nice Mr Hitler and his sound policies) here in the UK that was then picked up by its kin in Fox news.

The average air temp over the last 16 yrs shows little change BUT if you include water and soil temps and like a good engineer I am sure you appreciate that the thermal load of the oceans is much larger than the atmosphere you will see that water temps have increased and so the planet is warmer now than in 1997.

Clearly there is some work to be done to identify why if the planet is warmer this is not seen in air temperatures but the principle that the planet si warming does actually still hold.

There is far more hysteria associated with the mountains of propaganda spewed forth by the "global warming doesn't exist" crowd than can ever be overcome by logical discussion.

Lyn,

Same can be said for the other side. Neither side has proof (even if you repeat it over and over).

Ace

Really You think that anyone in the scientific community, let alone a significant majority in the world agrees on anything without some proof. Oh heaven help us we're headed for a new dark age.

Ace,

I just think that the, "global warming doesn't exist" loonies crowd has lots more money with which to buy bogus studies and public opinion. I think that the industries that can profit most from carbon release into the atmosphere will spend the most to buy public, and political, opinion. Follow the money.

Once again I think GW has been confused with climate change, and that with air pollution.

It's the Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Lyn

Lyn,

The US Federal government outspends any company.

Ace

Your point?

Not all water temperatures are increasing. Some large bodies of water are actually cooling or maintaining rather well.

Generally, overall, however, the average level is increasing. Which begs the real question...why? Why here and not there...why cooler and not hotter, why hotter and no change...?

Here is the link you mention:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

You can read it and draw you own conclusions.

Regards

You can read a few more scholarly articles on global warming and draw your own conclusions. More precisely you really should look at a study that discusses the statistical analysis to discern a trend from a transient. In contrast let's look at another fine headline from the Daily Mail. From the Wikipedia article: On 16 July 1993 the Mail ran the headline "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding";^[57] this headline has been widely criticised in subsequent years, for example as "perhaps the most infamous and disturbing headline of all" (of headlines from tabloid newspapers commenting on the Xq28 gene).^[58]

The Daily Mail is not a scientific journal. It is a tabloid journal with a strong political agenda that selects data to fit their conclusions.

Then again, you can read all of it and draw your own conclusions, instead of taking another's conclusion.

Hey! It's winter here, and since I live above sea-level, I say bring on the global warming!

Who cares? This planet has had much wilder swings in climate than we will ever experience in our lifetimes x3. We should be more concerned with near earth objects that global warming.

I am with you Lynn..........many members of the "flat earth society" do not bother looking at what is happening around our "spaceship" earth...........methinks it truly 'mazin'............we have two so called world leaders of the push, rasPutin and Donald "Duck" and their "sons of suction" (or "bum buddies") decrying climate change and the science behind it.

There are many "would be's if there could be's" among these deniers who think that they know every thing about everything, including that of knowing more about the earth's changing climate than, e.g. meteorologists, oceanographers, glaciologists, etc., etc..........their (deniers) wealth of knowledge must be unfathomable, they must all be Einsteins......NOT

If our lab analysis back in early 80's are any thing but correct that we did at General Dynamics, the fuel heat of combustion was little over 13% higher than that of Kero. This translates in to an approx 13% increase in distance, of course depending on how one manipulates the engine speed.

It also has an increased cooling capacity than Kero , about 5x greater, due to the liquid meth lower temp around -162c but it can be increased to 700c before it starts to decompose significantly. This is an advantage for turbine blade cooling , basically engine mechanics will allow you to raise the combustion temp without overheating the turbine blade metal.

The thermodynamic benefit of higher combustion temperature will result in a significant reduction in engine weight plus a more modest reduction in fuel consumption.

The answer would be that most people don't reply to threads that are 4+ years old since the last comment.

Such nonsense:

I used wood scraps to light my charcoal grille. As the wood was damp, I generated large quantities of mango wood smoke to roast my turkey.

Happy Thanksgiving to one and all. Even those folks across the "ponds"

Good answer. Makes a lot of sense. Qatar has a big need for jet fuel and has lots of natural gas. Shell has built a five billion dollar plant in Qatar. http://www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell/our_strategy/major_projects_2/pearl/overview/

Shell is also considering building one in Louisiana. I think it will.

I perceive a different motive. My research tells me that we will not run out of natural gas in over one hundred years,and probably far beyond that. A lot of inventions will come along in the next hundred years. Methane hydrates are estimated to have ten times what is on land and we have barely begun to tap shale, and bio sources.

The motive is to continue to sell diesel and gasoline as always, but my goal is to avoid the waste and extra expense by advocating direct use of LNG and CNG. Exxon and the other super sized oil and gas companies want CNG and LNG to fail as a vehicle fuel. Clean Energy, and Chesapeake are smaller companies that are trying to build out the infrastructure for LNG and CNG trucks. The big push now is to ship oil and shale sand oil through the XL pipeline down to gulf refineries for export, since that is where the most profit is. They also want to export LNG. I am fine with exports, because we need the jobs and the business, but want a large portion of our fleets and pickups, and vans etc. to run off of CNG and LNG.

I believe that the purpose built design can be done with existing technology, our airframes are lighter and stronger than ever. Insulation and tanks have been improved, and are lighter.

Here is some additional information:http://www.air-lng.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94&Itemid=96&lang=en

http://www.air-lng.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94&Itemid=96&lang=en

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700021225_1970021225.pdf

1970 NASA document.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/1633077/?threadid=1633077&searchid=1633091&s=lng+aircraft#ID1633091 Discussion thread.

Our colleague below has a cost number and having worked on the Pearl project I think its likely to be low, also I would be surprised at the 75% efficiency although with any project it always depends where you measure the numbers.

The research Shell carried out over years is several billions (I think Chevron / Sasol have a different route), although of course that money doesnt need tobe spent on any new plant.

Then there is the construction cost for a GTL which is akin to a normal gas processng plant plus a chemical plant for the conversion of gas to liquids and then a refinery to separate the products. The floor space is huge. The power generation was enormous - gas and steam turbines - the steam was generated from the process but the gas turbines used feed stock hence my scepticism on the 75%

However it does make a clean product and its easier to transport than LNG so maybe there is a future

But do you believe that the cost of the plant and the retail product delivered to the end user can compete with piped natural gas and LNG? I say that it can't even come close.

For this first plant even if you write off all the development costs (they have been running a test plant on Bintulu for years) I would be very surprised if this first plant made money; but with experience comes knowledge and maybe later plants could iron out the wrinkles - the design is better known and the whole design / construction phase should be quicker and the construction cost will come down.

However there is still this huge energy cost (as there is with LNG) so I do't know but someone at Shell has bet several billions of dollars that it will pay off so ......

Aha! Somebody who clearly knows the subject. I can't let this opportunity pass.

I'm not a chem E, but did research several years ago on GTL processes for an article I wrote. The 75% efficiency I cited is, I believe, agressive but achievable. Whether the measures needed to achieve it are economically justified is a separate and more difficult question. In any case, the 75% figure doesn't require accounting tricks -- like the practice of claiming near 100% efficiency for CHP processes because the waste heat from power generation is utilized for space heating.

As I recall, the energy efficiency claimed for straightforward GTL processes at the time I wrote the article was around 65%. Chevron, I believe it was, claimed 70%, and I spent some time wondering how they might have managed that.

The first step in most any GTL process is formation of synthesis gas. From the reaction enthalpies, steam reforming of methane requires that a minimum of 23% of the input methane be burned to supply the reaction enthalpy for the remaining 77%. With heat exchanger losses, a more realistic ratio would be 25:75 -- which puts you down to 67% efficiency after just the first step. However, the resulting synthesis gas is 3:1 in H2:CO, and that's more H2 than FT synthesis needs. If the feed for synthesis gas formation includes a little CO2 and O2, the synthesis gas comes out 2:1 in H2:CO, and is more nearly autothermal. That, I surmised, was how Chevron achieved 70%.

To reach 75%, it's necessary to recycle some of the waste heat from FT synthesis into the syngas formation. Problem being that the FT reaction temperature is significantly lower than that of syngas formation. FT waste heat can be used for power generation, with some of the power used to make hydrogen and oxygen to boost syngas output. I believe 80% efficiency would be theoretically possible, but 75% is more realistic.

Comments?

I don't have time to check your calcs for the synthesis step but it looks sound, however the point I was making was that a GTL plant is a lot more than just the Syngas step.

The first step is NOT formation on synthesis gas. It is the preparation of a suitable feed from the raw gas (in the case of Qatar from off shore fields). Gas has to be dehydrated, dewpointed, sweetened etc upstream of the syn loop which takes lareg amounts of energy either for the refrig loop to knock out the heavy components C3+ or recomopressing if you go the Turbo-expander route.

Then the products have to be separated in a mini refinery requiring large amounts of heat in the reboilers, hence overall the efficiency will be small. Now I accept that the production of products from crude requires huge amounts of energy in a conventional refinery but it is these factors that I believe need to be included in calculating the efficiency of a GTL plant.

Silverthorn in our area W.Pennsylvania and West Virginia companies involved with the shale gas business are ultimately interested in producing gasoline from the natural gas supplies available from hydrofracking shale gas developements along with the byproducts such as methane, butane, propane, and ethylene. The natural gas is secondary.

No argument there.

China can cut through all sorts of regulatory red tape when it chooses. They have been patenting a lot, and could become the most innovative nation in the world. Russia may also do this as they have with LNG trains and , at least, experimentation with LNG aircraft. Russia does not have the economic power that China does though. China has enough power to buy whatever expertise it needs, but is then quick to copy it, and are expert at industrial espionage. I am not saying they will try this with aircraft specifically, just a statement re red tape. We need to learn how to cut through it. Even the Obama administration has tried to get the various regulatory bodies to agree on hydrofracking oversight, and to streamline it..

"...are expert at industrial espionage. I am not saying they will try this with aircraft specifically..."

Ha!...if you only knew what went on at Bombardier with the C-Series and the Chinese contractors!

Then the question is, how many aircraft has the FAA certified other than experimental, to show that they have skills/experiences to work with this type of system other than manufacturers who have the funds top actual look into it.

It may also be of interest to note that the majority of ships that use gas tubines run on kerosene not liquified gases. On LNG and LPG tankers they either use steam turbine, diesel or diesel/electric propulsion systems and the boilers or diesels may run on the boil-off gases of the cargo.

Newer tankers have very large reliquefaction plants to reduce boil-off thereby retaining most of their cargo and some oil/gas companies will not allow shipping companies to get a "free ride," these vessel have to have there own fuel tanks

Interesting related story about a fast catamaran ferry that carries 1,000 passengers and 140 vehicles. Top speed of 50 knots. http://www.marinelink.com/news/incat-ferry-world349433.aspx

natural gas turbines in my area are used for back-up generators by the power plants. marcellus gas is making them more viable as a primary soure of electrical power.

sorry, i did'nt do a very good job of making my point. the natural gas fueled tubines i mention don't use lng. they use piped-in n.gas. my point was that lng tubines have a vaid use. using them to propel aircrarft is is an exercise in stupidity.

Boeing seems to be putting a lot more thought into this than you are.

Then could you summarize their thoughts? How have they addressed the various clear-cut obstacles that have come up during this thread?

The major obstacles seem to fit into these categories:

1. Bureaucratic problems with the FAA.

2. Fear of investing in a potentially losing proposition.

3. The fact that fuel costs do not directly affect Boeing so long as they can continue to compete with conventionally fueled aircraft.

4. Not wanting to be bothered with building a purpose designed aircraft that might not sell well, and might end up costing them a lot of money. Similar to 2.

5. They are not the fuel purchaser, they are the aircraft seller. That is their source of revenue.

I predict that China will produce the first successful purpose built LNG aircraft. I think it will be within the next twenty five years. They have the will and the financial resources to adopt new ideas and technologies that make sense. They are already far ahead of us in adopting CNG and LNG vehicles, and service stations. I say that with sadness. We Americans have become very self satisfied and complacent in some ways. It does not bode well for us in the future.

I didn't see any mention of technical obstacles and how they were addressed.

(Maybe that's why China may beat our sorry damned asses?)

I really do not see any extremely difficult engineering obstacles. The Chinese have the advantage of being able to do whatever they want to in overcoming bureaucratic obstacles. That is if they decide that it is a national priority. They have the economic resources, and the will to copy the best technologies around the world. What they cannot steal or copy they can buy. They can buy experts in any field.

I am not a fan of Chinese totalitarianism, socialism, repression of minorities etc. That is another issue. Tibetans are self immolating almost weekly. The regime has evil components. The Chinese people are very smart, hard working, and ambitious. Qualities America was built on.

I see you are still ignoring the technical obstacles. Hand-waving will not make them go away.

"I really do not see any extremely difficult engineering obstacles".

And why do think that is?

-Have you ever designed aircraft fuel systems?

-Do you have any experience in designing aircraft engine components?

-Have you ever been involved with aircraft structural design?

If your answer is no to any or all of the above then of course you won't see the engineering obstacles.

Ideas are great and everyone has them (...I'm leaving out the standard joke that goes with that line!) but the killer is in the details.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Excuse me cryogenic rocket engines use liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The cryogenic hydrogen has to be very strategically heated to not solidify the liquid oxygen when mixed just prior to the combustion chamber. So don't whine about engineering background and capabilities just because you have not worked with cryogenic fluids and cannot think of a safe way to burn natural gas stored as a cryogenic liquid. I certainly do not want to hear about insulation and tank weight costs since weight is a bigger premium in these rockets than any fixed wing craft. I agree with Ron so far in his conclusion that all problems proposed so far are not insurmountable. I don't believe they are trivial problems. Some very clever minds must meet to overcome them but all of the problems proposed here have already been overcome in the use of cryogenic rocket engines. I agree that LNG for aircraft may not be a cost effective solution, today. But that is not an engineering impediment, that is a business impediment. I do know that not building a LNG powered plane proves nothing.

I just saw a report about an adventurous aeronautical engineering team that built a solar airplane that uses no fuel. This airplane is planned to circumnavigate the Earth and fly overnight. Let me guess, you do not work with this team.

This complaint that "you've never worked in the field so you cannot understand this field" really bugs me. I've repeatedly enlightened many non-electrical engineers, students and the just plain curious people here at CR4 about electrical engineering. I've also found that by making my explanations, it has helped me in my work. Please enlighten me with your wisdom what prevents LNG from being an aeronautical fuel.

So, is the Chinese government supplying the LNG to the Tibetans who are self-immolating? Are they doing this aboard the LNG fueled Chinese plane?

This is a joke, in case anyone missed it.

is boeing using tax payer dollars to study an infeasable project?

and the No.1 reason: JP-5 is still cheaper than LNG.

Also, researchers have decided that saline species of algae (the similar ones to the ancient ones that made all the oil) are just fine for making bio-fuels. And other researchers discovered that rapid heating of wet algae to 575 C results in bio-crude oil within 60 seconds. So much for waiting millions of years.

If JP-5 is cheaper than LNG, then why are trucking fleets switching to LNG. Surely diesel must cost less than JP-5. I am talking low price LNG in a producing nation such as Russia, the USA, or Qatar. I have been hearing complaints about the price of jet fuel for several years.

Wholesale price of undelivered jet fuel:http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=jet-fuel

Comparative prices of fuels: http://seekingalpha.com/article/566971-clean-energy-fuels-is-set-to-corner-the-natural-gas-fueling-market

table for jet fuel:

price is in USD ($) per gallon

table for compressed NG:

price is in USD ($) per 1000 standard cubic meters.

prices for diesel:

Prices are USD ($) per gallon.

Fuel equivalency consideration:

diesel: 128,450 BTU/gal LHV ($25.22/1,000,000 BTU) and density 7.079 lb/gallon gives 18,145 BTU/lb

compressed natural gas: 20,263 BTU/lb, and ~1030 BTU/scf (roughly 1 million BTU/1000scf (1000scf=Mcf=10 therms) (1 cf(cubic foot) = 0.028316 m3(cubic meter))

$119.49/1000m3 => $3.383/1000scf, so yeah natural gas is way cheaper right now, also has a higher LHV per pound of fuel burned.

IT would be a big deal if the energy density of storage were remotely similar to diesel.

LNG is sold in DGE's or GGEs. Diesel or gasoline equivalents. No need to discuss comparative energy density except for storage space. Your prices are wholesale, not delivered as in an LNG station.

So even if you can afford to buy LNG where you live...are they going to supply it at the airport? What kind of airplane is going to be able to lift off with a concrete lined tank?

Note China Natural Gas Inc. mentions that LNG can be used in aircraft:http://www.naturalgaschina.com/LNG/TargetCustomers.html

Natural gas vehicles are part of the new five year plan:http://www.naturalgaschina.com/OtherBusiness/Conversionbusiness/FutureDevelopmentObjectives.html

china's inventing engineering jobs to train their scientists/engineers in the same way that NASA's inventing space programs [practical or not] to keep their scientists working by securing government funding.

So far, I have learned of intentions of actually run jet engines on LNG (probably after re-vaporization), learned that all the newest high economy designs are meant to fly considerably slower, and that LNG has about 50-60% the fuel density (heat value) per volume as gasoline, much less JP-5. Nuclear production of JP-5 by FT synthesis would be possible (US Navy seems well progressed on this), and they are using seawater as the chemical source of hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

I still do not see how they will get a plane with an appropriate range of flight using either LNG, or CNG, or ANG. ANG technology is almost comparable with CNG at this time as to energy storage density, but still far behind LNG. The ANG looks OK for transportation in the near future (safer, less pressure, lighter tanks, non-specific geometric requirements for the tanks).

I think no matter what you do, there will always be a severe weight penalty to overcome with LNG storage tanks. I don't even want to consider the safety risks, for even one mistake results in a complete blevy.

Can adsorbed natural gas tanks be filled without pressure as CNG requires? I was not aware of that.

New lighter storage methods are being designed for LNG. As discussed it will probably require a newly designed aircraft. I guess we can copy the Chinese when they do it.

New, lighter CNG tanks are now being made with spun basalt without an inner core tank.

http://www.fleetsandfuels.com/fuels/cng/2012/11/cleanng-readies-all-new-cng-tank/#comment-2288

As I understand the technology the difference is as thus:

CNG 25-30? MPa

ANG 3-5 Mpa

I don't even want to consider the safety risks, for even one mistake results in a complete blevy.

.........a complete blevy

A BLEVE (an acronym for Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour Explosion) is a BLEVE.

LNG has been transported in tankers at sea since the mid 1960's and their safety record has been one of excellence, as is the case with LPG tankers, however, the same cannot be said of the carriage of, particularly LPG, over land as there have been several bad accidents involving it.

Unfortunately many people believe that a BLEVE is only associated with gas, e.g. LPG or LNG, however this is not the case. A BLEVE can occur in a container that contains any liquid, e.g. a boiler. What occurs is the pressure in a container, caused by any vapourisation of the liquid, frorm any overheating of the iiquid in the container and the relief valve (if fitted) cannot relieve the pressure at a fast enough rate.

Added to this is, in the event of a fire, any flames impinging on the vapour area of the container heats the steel quickly, and once the temperature of the steel reaches 300⁰C, the container will fail, and a BLEVE occurs.

I have downloaded a couple of photographs showing one of thirteen BLEVE's that occurred onboard a fishing vessel and the other of the vessel itself after the BLEVE's. The BLEVE's occurred in 44 gallon drums of distillate (diesel fuel).