The Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental passenger plane landed this morning in La Bourget, on the eve of the opening of the Paris Air Show (June 26-20), for its first international debut, after making the world's first transatlantic biofuel flight.
Among the hundreds of spectators who received the plane this morning upon its arrival in France were senior representatives of the American government and the Boeing company. Captain Mark Feuerstein, the chief pilot of Boeing's 747 program, and next to him co-pilot Captain Steve Taylor, president of Boeing's private aircraft division, landed the 747-8 in France after a 10-hour flight from Seattle, at a speed of Mach 0.85.
The 747-8 Intercontinental aircraft is the newest member of the 747 aircraft family, and it brings with it advanced and "green" technologies and extremely efficient performance.
"This historic flight has the power to further advance the effort to reduce emission levels and improve operational efficiency in the process," said Elizabeth Land, Boeing's vice president and program manager of the 747-8. Land added, "The 747-8 cargo plane meets exactly these requirements and allows our customers maximum efficiency while reducing emission and noise levels."
The passenger plane 747-8 Intercontinental, which is painted in red-orange colors that symbolize sunrise, arrives at the exhibition after making its first flight about three months ago. The first customer of the plane is a VIP customer who will receive the plane towards the end of the year, and the first airline to put the plane into service is Lufthansa, which will receive the plane at the beginning of next year.
The 747-8 model cargo plane, which will also be presented at the exhibition, is expected to be delivered to the first customer Cargolux already in the coming months.
16 תגובות
A. Ben Ner:
I guess the idea is clear and the corn was just an example. Even so - I'm sure there are a lot of corn leaves that are thrown away because not everywhere raises cattle.
There is another interesting detail in your words that I think is worth paying attention to:
Many argue against the growing of corn for fuel and that it raises the prices of corn for food, and here we see that for many years corn has been grown for cattle.
It may be that in the overall calculation - precisely these crops and not the crops for fuel needs should bear the blame for the corn prices for food.
To Michael
It is possible that in general you are right and it will be possible to produce DLB from available organic waste.
However, regarding corn leaves and stalks, allow me to comment, as a former farmer and son
Farmer because, as far as I know, these (corn leaves and stalks) are used a lot and important
In feeding cattle during the winter, when fresh vegetables from the field are not available.
During the agricultural summer season, "silage" is produced by mixing leaves and corn stalks
in a brown sugary liquid called molasses. The silage is kept in silage pits until winter. The molasses
Prevents the development and spread of rot in the chopped corn leaves. In many farms they grow
In the summer corn for silage and the fruits of the corn are not even harvested for food.
Roy:
What exactly were you talking about?
And if you have nothing to add - why did you try to add?
The article did not mention which biofuel, what it was made from, etc. Too bad.
As of today, it is not possible to fly planes (except maybe really small planes) with a drive that does not use chemical fuel. Therefore the direction is biofuel. I guess gasification of coal is also a direction but I haven't heard that anyone is working on it.
Yes, there are environmental problems with the production of biofuel. No free gifts. The question is whether we want to stop flying in 20-10 years when the oil reserves will no longer be sufficient for all needs.
It seems to me that the site here needs a responsible adult.
You are mature people, respond to Einin's body and don't look for reasons to get hurt and insulted...
and to our subject,
I have nothing to add to what Assaf said, he is absolutely right.
A. Ben Ner:
Not true.
I have already said that part of the matter is the use of the inedible parts of edible plants.
How about corn cobs, for example?
What about organic waste for the issue?
Besides, I assume that in an aquarium full of algae - everywhere - including in the desert - or from algae grown in the sea, you can also produce a lot.
A:
I have no choice but to send you to the comments I already wrote because it seems you didn't read them.
Gentlemen,
Before continuing the debate, you should read about the subject,
There is a lot of material here on the site as well,
Two principles should form the basis of the use of biofuel,
1 - The environmental principle that should guide the production and use of biofuel so that the environment is not harmed,
2 - The social principle according to which biofuel should not be grown on account
food crops.
Both sections already have solutions today: use of vegetable waste, growing algae for fuel, use of paper and wood waste for production
fuel and more
The problem is that until today there is no economic viability (short term) for the production and use of biofuel,
Economic viability only exists when you grow fuel instead of growing food.... contrary to section 2,
It is to be assumed and hoped that in a short time they will find cheap processes
for the production of biofuel, such that will not harm the environment or food production.
Michael: What are you talking about, the burning of biofuel pollutes to the same extent as any other fuel. The motivations for its development are not environmental, Boeing is investing in the field because it is betting on the fear of exhausting fossil sources.
To Michael
The vision you bring, in my opinion, can only work if the growing areas of the biofuel
(DLB) There will be areas that are currently bog and desert areas. After all, if they become agricultural areas
There are agriculture-food for agriculture-DLB, there is no profit here, same as for forest areas.
It turns out that the vision of increasing the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere requires an increase
of agricultural areas-Dalvi only for desert areas and not for forest and agriculture areas.
I am quite satisfied if this will indeed be the direction of the DLB producers. This is a very expensive solution.
They will prefer the cheap solution of Dahino, they will convert agricultural-food areas to agriculture-delbi
And so the (unique?) advantage of the Dalbi agriculture will be lost.
A:
With the exception of the last sentence, your words sound like a declaration that does not depend on time.
I am happy about your openness to using biofuel and I suppose that if this is the case - you should congratulate that Boeing is working in the direction in the hope that in the future the production technology will also develop.
After all, there is no reason to wait with the appropriate plane until the fuel is available, because if that is what they do, we will continue to pollute the earth even when there is a biofuel that meets all needs - just because they have not yet opened planes capable of using it.
Michael: I didn't announce it, I hate slogans, you don't know the level of my openness to such and such topics. I also did not rule out the use of biofuel in the future, I did not conclude that it is not possible to produce such fuel, and I explicitly wrote that I was referring to the technologies known today. The situation today is that the production of biofuel requires a crop of nitrate-fixing species and increasing the demand for them today means an ecological disaster. If something of what I wrote doesn't seem right to you, then respond to the substance of the matter. The fact that it may be possible to use biofuel in the future does not belong to airplanes that are already flying today.
A:
From the past experience that preceded the Wright brothers it was possible to conclude that it was impossible to fly.
The issue of biofuel is progressing in many directions and the competition for growing areas is a market failure and not a fundamental problem.
There is a high chance that in the future the inedible parts of plants grown as food can be used to create biofuel.
There is also a high chance that they can grow plants to serve as a source of biofuel where nothing else grows anyway.
There is also a chance that using algae to create biofuel could increase the efficiency of land use hundreds of times.
Basically - slogan posts like yours indicate a lack of openness to information, but I write the things for others whose minds are open to understand the things for themselves.
For 2 - the production of biofuel requires large growing areas. From past experience, this is a sure recipe for environmental damage (extinction of wild areas, cumulative damage from pesticides, drying up of water reservoirs, etc.), and in practice it will harm the balance of natural resources because it will come at the expense of creating forests that absorb a much larger amount of natural resources per unit Area. In the technologies known today, biofuel = ecological disaster.
A. Ben-Ner:
It seems to me that you are missing the idea of using biofuel.
Biofuel is not designed to create less pollutants.
The idea is that the creation of the biofuel absorbs from the air (into the plants) the amount of DTP that its burning will create, therefore the switch to biofuel will prevent the increase in the percentage of DTP in the air.
Without criticizing the intention of publishing the article, I still doubt its veracity
what is written in it.
First let's examine the concept of "biofuel". What does it consist of?
Do not chain carbons? And the combustion products of the "biofuel", are they not
Water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2)? And let's assume that its combustion efficiency does exceed that of
The old engines. What does this mean? This means that the amount of CO2 it emits is greater.
So where is the "reduction of emission levels" here? Perhaps the intention is that the reduction is in the emission level
of the unburned fuel vapors. It sounds possible but still requires proof. The same goes for Ramat
The least noise, possible but requires proof. I'm a bit skeptical of this figure for some reason. past experience
shows that as the power of the engine increases, so does the level of noise it emits.
I wouldn't be surprised, then, to find out that, in essence, this is not an image article and advertising for the model
The new Boeing 747 that uses promotional terms such as: green, advanced technologies,
Extremely efficient performance, operational efficiency, historic flight, sunrise, VIP, and the stunning horse... Lufthansa.