While on a recent marine research dive trip a rare free moment presented during which I accessed my email one evening after a long day’s work. Opening an aviation executive's news bulletin service I subscribe to,[1] I read of a proposed energy fuel-technology notion.  The idea had been proposed several years ago in another variation on the same theme, failing  then  to gain traction;  hopefully  it will not gain  traction    now  as it will further hasten global climate change. 

In view of Articles Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, noting  the most recently published research findings and scientific conclusions, such a notion would be  precluded  from becoming a reality. 

The proposed notion would involve aviation (sic. in particular, jet) “fuel” (a petroleum oil derivative) being derived by extracting trapped atmospheric emission waste (CO₂) carbon dioxide (from burning fossil fuels) and mixing it with pure hydrogen as a new “fuel” for aviation. 

The trapped CO₂ from the immediate ambient atmosphere produced as a direct consequence of incomplete combustion when burning fossil fuels and known to scientists as  greenhouse gas [GHG] is causally-related to the destruction of environmental resources worldwide.  As pointed out previously in 2008 on www.Physics Forums.com, the notion also presupposes large available stores of hydrogen, which currently do not exist either in the USA or the world for that matter. Such a chemical mixture supposedly would produce methane (CH₄) that would be used as an aviation fuel. 

Under a different banner, the notion failed to gain traction in 2008 and is folly in 2011 as well as in the future for the following reasons of basic gas physics:

1.     Methane (CH4) derived from CO2 + H cannot be used as a fuel, per se because methane lacks the “energy” required to be a “fuel” and would need an additional source of “energy” (such as petroleum oil derivative such as  gasoline kerosene- essentially what it is now)  in order to be a “fuel” for any engine, aviation, passenger vehicle, etc. 

2.     The combination would only recycle the CO₂  because if and when it would burn appropriately in the engines of commercial jets, or even smaller privately owned general aviation jet  aircraft, the waste product would still be more CO₂ being emitted into the ambient atmosphere.

Therein lies the problem. Being emitted close to the Earth's surface these toxic pollutants react with the U.V. rays of the Sun, becoming trapped.  The natural thermodynamics (second law)  cannot  operate within ordinary functions while simultaneously  allowing  these toxins to escape into the upper atmosphere and dissipate into the stratosphere.   Heat inversion ensues, contributing to global warming - climate change.

3.     The proposed notion's chemical mixture is isoenergetic, meaning that it has the same or constant energy or it exerts equal force.  This is because it lacks the density required. Therefore, the mixture cannot provide the pounds of steady-state thrust that current jet fuel and/or current AvGas provides because it has no real “energy” of its own.

4.     The combination mixture is not a true “fuel” because it cannot provide the required “energy” from the chemical mixture, as depicted from the following energy balance: 

                                                           ENERGY BALANCE:  

   CO₂ + H  à CH₄ + a source of “energy” (foreign oil, gasoline derived from  foreign oil?)

 

Further, carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the most destructive GHG, second only to methane (CH₄) gas.     Methane (CH₄ ) is the most detrimental waste greenhouse  gas to the marine ecological environment, because it is 20 – 30 times more efficient in its insulation properties and in trapping greenhouse gases that are creating the heat inversion discussed in greater detail in Articles Nine, Ten,  Eleven and Twelve of this online series.  

Both CO₂ and CH₄ are the two greenhouse gases most associated with the destruction of the naturally alkaline ecology of the great ocean bodies that cover 70.8% of the Earth’s surface, providing 90% of potable water to all Planet Earth’s people, and which support the delicate 5 – 6,000 marine species that live on, are fed by and protected by the precious coral reefs worldwide. 

As noted in the preceding Article Ten and Article Eleven, CO₂ is highly destructive because it reacts with the ocean water (sic. that acts as a heat sink and/or carbon storehouse) and creates carbonic acid, chemically stripping the calcium and hydrogen ions from the naturally alkaline ocean water, creating a less passive, more acidic and more destructive environment, not only to the corals and the reefs they produce but to the 5 – 6,000 marine species that live on the coral  reefs.

But CO₂ is second to CH₄ in its potential destruction of air, land and marine environmental resources, because methane is 20 – 30 times more efficient than CO₂ at trapping the heat (acting as an extremely efficient insulator of the heat inversion) located close to the ground level as well as the ocean’s marine waters.

We know that there is a continuous and consistent evaporation and condensation thermocycling exchange between the air above and the ocean water below that covers more than 70.8% of the Earth’s surface. We now know from the most recent research that the air contains the “fines” and “superfines” of black carbon soot emitted on a daily 24/7/365 basis worldwide from waste gas stacks and tailpipes worldwide. (See Article Ten.) During times when the temperature conditions bring on the fog and/or dew, whatever is contained in the mist is exchanged through these naturally-occurring thermodynamic physics cycles between the air and the water below.  Even if we could burn CO2-derived "methane" as an aviation “fuel” the  mixture would undoubtedly produce more within a few hundred feet above, further trapping the toxic pollutants in the lower atmosphere resulting in an exacerbated accelerated global warming-climate change.  (See Articles Nine, Eleven, Twelve.) 

Further, when this proposed aviation chemical cocktail composed of extracted CO₂ from the ambient atmosphere and hydrogen burns in  jet engines and planes, the waste gas produced is still more CO₂ that will stay in the ambient atmosphere for >1,000 years. (See Article Eleven.)

Moreover, this chemical concoction to be used as supposed jet “fuel” does not address the other 87% of the world’s daily production of CO₂ produced by consistently combusting fossil fuels for electricity generation, manufacturing steam process generation, transportation fuels for all types of vehicles, forest fires.  The notion merely recycles the extracted CO₂ back into the ambient atmosphere from which it was first extracted, adding more GHG from the oil or gas "energy" component necessary  to produce a viable aviation fuel. 

Why would be want to put it back there as it burns in the engines of military, commercial and privately owned general aviation jets (such as the  Gulf Stream 650 or Beechcraft   Hawker Jets 200, 400XP, 700, 900XP, 4000,  or turbo-prop King Aire twins, just to name a few.) ?  

Conversely, one must ask: “where will the great stores of hydrogen come from that would be necessary to produce the proposed chemical cocktail with the CO₂?”  Without the necessary paradigm change to total reliance upon the new thermonuclear reactor technology in the USA (See Article Thirteen), America would have to import even more foreign oil, thereby increasing the U.S. National debt beyond the annual $800Billion presently.  This will necessarily result in the need for more foreign nations buying U.S. Treasury debt, putting the United States in an even more vulnerable economic and politically insecure position, making America less energy secure. Not withstanding the increased GHG production of CO₂ as the waste product during burning, but also the hastened environmental destruction that would result from such a technological decision-taking. 

In this author’s adult series third monograph entitled Fusion Energy ~ The Public’s Guide, Volume III, Power Production: Responding To The Crisis,[2] Chart G graphically illustrates that at present, we have no platform in place in the USA (or the world, for that matter) for producing the large quantities of hydrogen required to mix with the extracted carbon dioxide in order to guarantee the daily needs of the commercial aviation fuel market.  If we had such a source, we would not need to extract trapped waste gas CO₂ from the ambient atmosphere and mix it with pure H for an aviation fuel, we could use the pure H as a liquid fuel for aviation needs that has the necessary energy density required to be a pure “fuel.” 

 

More importantly, even if we did have a reliable stable source of pure hydrogen to mix with the CO₂, the energy physics do not support the use of methane as a transportation “fuel,” because it does not have the energy density, as would pure hydrogen or a traditional aviation fuel, required to ensure steady, safe and reliable airspeeds needed for the highly-regulated FAA safety-concerns of commercial and general aviation.  Because the combination of CO₂ + H lacks an energy source, the notion fails to complete its own energy balance. 

Notwithstanding this overarching factor, burning methane as an aviation “fuel” would be a very poor decision-taking because many more gallons of the gas would necessarily be required onboard the aircraft.  This would require redesigning every in-service commercial and privately owned jet as well as general aviation aircraft taking the plane out of service to rebuild the wings that would have to be lengthened and possibly changed in angle, taking it out of service for a period of time while the old wings were removed and the newly designed wings hand-riveted at the factory.

 

Since the fuel tanks are located inside the wings, the wingspan of present-day commercial airline jets would have to be substantially increased to hold these many more gallons of fuel.  Such a design change in wingspan might not be possible or economically feasible with respect to the aerodynamic lift requirements, proportionality of the jet’s fuselage and engine capacity. 

 

Additionally, a decrease in payload may have to be made to save thousands of pounds of live load being hauled long transcontinental distances transcontinental between refueling This may lead to a significant decrease in number of passengers and/or cargo as payload that produce the profit margin for the commercial jet airline and incentive to stay in business.  Possibly more frequent refueling stops would also have to be made adding “legs” to the trip.  Adding more legs would necessitate more frequent landings and take-offs, be causal to travel delays, runway congestion and ultimately slow down commercial airline scheduling. 

This notion of extracting trapped CO₂ from the ambient atmosphere and mixing it with non-existent stores of hydrogen illustrates the absence of basic environmental science, practicality and foresight.  Such decision-taking would represent the poorest of technology choices for the U.S.A. as a policy looking at it from any point of reference: environmental constraints, economic constraints, conservation of lower species or social health and well-being.

Near-term consequences of making a poor technological decision would leave America more vulnerable to being forced to enter a world war over shortages in the basic commodities of oil, gas, food, water, land-mass for growing grain and fresh produce as well as raising livestock to feed its people. (See Article Eleven and Article Twelve.) 

Whereas, if America were to maximize its decision-taking by optimizing its present-day national intellectual assets of thermonuclear (fission and fusion) reactor technology, (see Article Thirteen) we could avoid having to enter the predicted near-term world wars expected over shortages of natural resources. (See Article Twelve.) 

 

                                                 What YOU Can Do To Help:

As Americans we have an a priori venue for bringing online the best choice of American technology.  Our U.S. Constitution guarantees that “We, The People” have the say in this matter.  As members of the collective American General Electorate it is up to us, who go to the polls to vote for our representatives in federal and state legislatures, governors and mayors and council members to instruct and guide our representatives to stop creating the CO₂ and CH₄ and other GHG by eliminating the source of the problem. 

Write, call, email, personally visit at your representative’s offices, go to town hall meetings when your representatives come back home to their home district for a Q & A with their Constituents and tell your representatives that you want to:

·         Do not permit this proposed CO₂ + non-existent hydrogen mixture to be brought online as an aviation “fuel.”  The notion put forward  is incomplete as it lacks a source of “energy” that would supply the aircraft’s fuel requirements.

·         Ask your representatives to have U.S. NEPA weigh in on such a proposed notion.

·         Bring online right now clean-green thermonuclear fission and fusion reactor technology to domestically-generate reliable, load-following, inexpensive electricity, manufacturing process steam, by-product clean-green hydrogen transportation fuels.

·         Rely more heavily on clean-green thermonuclear reactor technology for all America’s energy and transportation fuel requirements.

·         Phase out burning fossil fuels completely (oil, gas, LNG gas, coal, propane, butane, methane) as thermonuclear facilities are planned and constructed.

·         Free America of its foreign oil and gas addiction we don’t need as we become more reliant upon domestic thermonuclear reactor technologies.

·         Free America of its environmental destruction caused by burning fossil fuels.

·         Free America of its USD$800Billion-annual debt as a consequence of importation of foreign oil and gas every year that we don’t need if we make the best possible technological choices for 87% of our economy’s energy requirements by bringing online thermonuclear reactor technology capable of achieving our nation’s energy, environmental, economic and political requirements.

In three easy mouse clicks YOU CAN make America better:  

Here’s how:

1. Click on “Write Your Representatives” you will see a letter:  fill in the date, your name, address, and sign the letter;
2. Click on “Contact Your Representatives” fill in the name and address of your U.S. Representatives. 
3. Open your email and either send the letter electronically to your representative’s email address provided or print each of the individually addressed letters and send them via the U.S.  Postal System. 

 

Of course, you can always write a letter in your own words. The sample letter provided on this website is just an example. 

 

Be sure to contact your individual state governors, state assembly legislators and individual town mayors so they know that you are a thermonuclear (fission and fusion) energy proponent and want clean-green, sustainable, reliable, inexpensive, plentiful and domestically–produced thermonuclear energy for all America’s energy needs.  Knowing their Constituent’s desires will help your elected representatives to allocate funding and policy planning initiatives for thermonuclear fission and fusion energy technologies in their respective districts.

Article Thirteen ß                                                      à Article One    

                                                        ~~~ ~~~

 

This article filed and registered with U.S. Library of Congress, office of Copyrights Protection, Washington, D.C. 20559 in late July, 2011 by author for the series.  All copyrights domestic and international claimed by author, Diane A. Davis, M.S., Ph.D. Cand. Founder and CEO, The International Institute For Thermonuclear Fusion Energy Education, R&D, Regulation, Technology and Public Policy, Inc.

† AOPA figures for end 2009 state 594,285 active certified, licensed number of pilots in the U.S.A. with 323,495 being IFR pilots (commercial and some retired military who take the FAA required licensing exams after military retirement or service discharge with FAA private and commercial pilot license certificates in the U.S. and 94,863 FAA certified licensed Certified Flight Instructors. This total number does not include U.S. Active Military pilots, who fly by a U.S. D.O.D. issued flying certification badge).

An estimated total of 900,454,745 pilots certified and licensed in the world according to AviationBanter.com. 

††  10 – 12 million trained and certified scuba divers worldwide according to Scuba.com online magazine with another 6 million trained and certified scuba divers in the U.S.A., 3 million of whom are active and an estimated 1.5 engaging in more than 5 dives per year according to The Cline Foundation, an industry trade organization