As part of the aviation industry’s efforts to use biofuels to drive down its carbon footprint, Boeing has announced a collaboration with South African Airways and SkyNRG to produce aviation fuel from a new, virtually nicotine-free tobacco plant. Test farms are already up and running, with Boeing hoping to use local tobacco growing lands and expertise to produce sustainable biofuel without impacting food-bearing crops or encouraging smoking.
The modified hybrid tobacco plant, known as Solaris, produces oil-rich seeds – and these seeds will be used to produce aviation biofuel in the first stage of the program. Boeing is hoping that “emerging technologies” will allow fuel to be extracted from the remainder of the plant in the coming years.
According to the Tobacco Industry of Southern Africa, tobacco is already a popular alternative crop with many industrial farming operations in the poorer soil areas north of Johannesburg. In 2013, there were 187 tobacco farming operations in the area employing somewhere between 8-10,000 workers and producing some 15 million kilograms of tobacco, mainly for cigarettes.
Biofuel opponents argue that fuel crops often displace food crops, contributing to the global food crisis and demanding enormous amounts of land that often lead to forest area being cleared. They also question the validity of industry claims that biofuels are carbon neutral or environmentally friendly, given the oil-rich fertilizer, transport costs and water usage they require – it'll sure take a lot of those little seeds to power a 747.
But the aviation industry argues that sustainably produced biofuels can reduce carbon emissions between 50 and 80 percent, and Boeing says it is working with the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials "to position farmers with small plots of land to grow biofuel feedstocks … Without harming food supplies, fresh water or land use."
Source: Boeing.
Before worrying about carbon footprint, shouldn't they should worry about dwindling oil production and rising costs?
> Boeing is hoping that “emerging technologies” will allow fuel to be extracted from the remainder of the plant in the coming years.
How does it compare to kerosene in terms of energy density and production cost?
Hydrogen: I assume you are being funny. Bio-fuels (and others) are essentially a form of hydrogen. IE: Hydrogen bound to one or more carbons which form an easy to handle and transport liquid. Raw Hydrogen is a tricky customer to deal with.
So why tobacco? I don't think this was adequately addressed in the article so you had to sort of use your thinking organ. Do we want smoking? no (and by we I mean society at large, not addicts). But if for example we banned smoking world-wide overnight, what would become of the tobacco farmers and companies? Apparently in South Africa there are a lot of tobacco farmers that rely on cigarettes to make a living. So what if growing non-nicotine tobacco was more profitable but required no additional infrastructure or knowledge? Well the tobacco farmers could easily switch crop and governments could make smoking harder. The tobacco companies could produce bio-fuel for aviation instead of cancer sticks to fill our hospitals. Sounds like a big win. Does that scenario not sound feasible? I think it would be brilliant.
Bio fuels are a dead end. Its not just the land, food, energy wasted, etc but the tons and tons of fertilizer and pesticides dumped on these crops that then run into the water sheds. If you are growing food than you can weigh the cost but for fuel?
By the time we begin to run out of fossils I assume they will figure out how to superheat propellent to plasma for thrust or some other technology. Heck, just perfecting electric cars may cause a crash in the remaining fossils so that what remains will be extended for another 100 years to allow even greater tech advancements.
Hydrogen is just ludicrous.