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, 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.
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.
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
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:
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, pasenger vehicle, etc.
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.
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 nautral thermodynamics (second law) cannot operate naturally to allow these toxins
to escape into the upper atmosphere and dissipate into the stratosphere. Heat inversion ensues, contributing
to global warming - climate change.
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.
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:
CO2 + H
CH4 + a source of “energy” (foreign oil, gasoline derived from foreign
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.
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.
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
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.)
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.)
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.) ?
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, 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
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
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.
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, cause travel delays, runway congestion and ultimately slow down commercial airline scheduling.
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.
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.)
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:
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.
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
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:
on “Write Your Representatives” you will see a letter: fill
in the date, your name, address, and sign the letter;
on “Contact Your Representatives” fill in the name and address of your U.S. Representatives.
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
ŕ 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.