Comments on: Air New Zealand's Biofuel Flight Cuts Emissions By 65% http://gas2.org/2009/06/01/air-new-zealands-biofuel-flight-cuts-emissions-by-65/ What is the future of fuel? What's new? What's next? Since 2007, Gas 2 has covered a rapidly changing world coming to terms with its oil addiction. Sat, 26 May 2012 08:54:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: British ‘Green’ Air Tax Imperils Environment? - Zidee.com http://gas2.org/2009/06/01/air-new-zealands-biofuel-flight-cuts-emissions-by-65/#comment-9843 British ‘Green’ Air Tax Imperils Environment? - Zidee.com Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:22:23 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=2487#comment-9843 [...] about the planned increase in departure tax. Britain is the second largest contributor to the New Zealand tourism economy, with nearly 300,000 tourists a year flying from the UK and the tourist industry, already [...] [...] about the planned increase in departure tax. Britain is the second largest contributor to the New Zealand tourism economy, with nearly 300,000 tourists a year flying from the UK and the tourist industry, already [...]

]]> By: Electricnick http://gas2.org/2009/06/01/air-new-zealands-biofuel-flight-cuts-emissions-by-65/#comment-9842 Electricnick Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:25:10 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=2487#comment-9842 Good posts. Considering we waste about 40% of our crop, more than 50% pollution reduction for airplane really makes sense. Hopefully this will yet another trigger to go into that direction. We also wonder if bio-fuel could play a role for collectible cars that cannot be converted to the electric drive. It might be the answer as to what will happen to these cars. The Electricnick.com team. Good posts. Considering we waste about 40% of our crop, more than 50% pollution reduction for airplane really makes sense. Hopefully this will yet another trigger to go into that direction.

We also wonder if bio-fuel could play a role for collectible cars that cannot be converted to the electric drive. It might be the answer as to what will happen to these cars.

The Electricnick.com team.

]]> By: Electricnick http://gas2.org/2009/06/01/air-new-zealands-biofuel-flight-cuts-emissions-by-65/#comment-32525 Electricnick Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:25:00 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=2487#comment-32525 Good posts. Considering we waste about 40% of our crop, more than 50% pollution reduction for airplane really makes sense. Hopefully this will yet another trigger to go into that direction. We also wonder if bio-fuel could play a role for collectible cars that cannot be converted to the electric drive. It might be the answer as to what will happen to these cars. The Electricnick.com team. Good posts. Considering we waste about 40% of our crop, more than 50% pollution reduction for airplane really makes sense. Hopefully this will yet another trigger to go into that direction.

We also wonder if bio-fuel could play a role for collectible cars that cannot be converted to the electric drive. It might be the answer as to what will happen to these cars.

The Electricnick.com team.

]]> By: Ian http://gas2.org/2009/06/01/air-new-zealands-biofuel-flight-cuts-emissions-by-65/#comment-9841 Ian Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:13:26 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=2487#comment-9841 I am confused about the 60% reduction in CO2. If they had somehow made the jet fly on half as much jet fuel, then wouldn't that have resulted in a 50% reduction in CO2? But of course there is the new biofuel also. Since we are now at a reported 60% reduction, does this mean the burning of the biofuel is scrubbing some CO2 out? This makes no sense to me. How is this 60% calculated? Is there some place I can go that shows the overall chemical reactions of reactants to products? To get 60% CO2 reduction the biofuel would have to be essentially carbon free, nearly pure hydrogen (or some other fuel). Or does the 60% refer to fossil fuels and the net CO2 cycle. If this is the case I would say the article is more than a bit misleading. I am confused about the 60% reduction in CO2. If they had somehow made the jet fly on half as much jet fuel, then wouldn’t that have resulted in a 50% reduction in CO2? But of course there is the new biofuel also. Since we are now at a reported 60% reduction, does this mean the burning of the biofuel is scrubbing some CO2 out? This makes no sense to me. How is this 60% calculated? Is there some place I can go that shows the overall chemical reactions of reactants to products? To get 60% CO2 reduction the biofuel would have to be essentially carbon free, nearly pure hydrogen (or some other fuel). Or does the 60% refer to fossil fuels and the net CO2 cycle. If this is the case I would say the article is more than a bit misleading.

]]> By: Ian http://gas2.org/2009/06/01/air-new-zealands-biofuel-flight-cuts-emissions-by-65/#comment-32524 Ian Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:13:00 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=2487#comment-32524 I am confused about the 60% reduction in CO2. If they had somehow made the jet fly on half as much jet fuel, then wouldn't that have resulted in a 50% reduction in CO2? But of course there is the new biofuel also. Since we are now at a reported 60% reduction, does this mean the burning of the biofuel is scrubbing some CO2 out? This makes no sense to me. How is this 60% calculated? Is there some place I can go that shows the overall chemical reactions of reactants to products? To get 60% CO2 reduction the biofuel would have to be essentially carbon free, nearly pure hydrogen (or some other fuel). Or does the 60% refer to fossil fuels and the net CO2 cycle. If this is the case I would say the article is more than a bit misleading. I am confused about the 60% reduction in CO2. If they had somehow made the jet fly on half as much jet fuel, then wouldn’t that have resulted in a 50% reduction in CO2? But of course there is the new biofuel also. Since we are now at a reported 60% reduction, does this mean the burning of the biofuel is scrubbing some CO2 out? This makes no sense to me. How is this 60% calculated? Is there some place I can go that shows the overall chemical reactions of reactants to products? To get 60% CO2 reduction the biofuel would have to be essentially carbon free, nearly pure hydrogen (or some other fuel). Or does the 60% refer to fossil fuels and the net CO2 cycle. If this is the case I would say the article is more than a bit misleading.

]]> By: ChuckL http://gas2.org/2009/06/01/air-new-zealands-biofuel-flight-cuts-emissions-by-65/#comment-9840 ChuckL Tue, 02 Jun 2009 03:55:31 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=2487#comment-9840 Interesting story, but why did GAS 2.0 completely ignore the fact that the United States Air Force has been using this fuel for several years now, and has certified B-52s, F-15s, B1-Bs and some cargo aircraft for use with what is essentially the same fuel. The USAF is on track to have all of its aircraft certified for use of this fuel by the end of 2012. The USAF is mixing USAF JP8 and synthetic paraffinic kerosene. Rolls Royce suggested this to commercial carriers after it was proven by the USAF. The differences between JP-8 and Jet-A is minimal. If GAS 2.0 is really looking for "green" success stories, this should have been covered. The only reason to have NOT covered it is that GAS 2.0 is not a "Green" publication, but is instead an "anti-establishment" publication. Which is it? You can get complete information from Air Force Magazine, and they'll probably get you current and complete information. Write to Michael M. Dunn at Interesting story, but why did GAS 2.0 completely ignore the fact that the United States Air Force has been using this fuel for several years now, and has certified B-52s, F-15s, B1-Bs and some cargo aircraft for use with what is essentially the same fuel. The USAF is on track to have all of its aircraft certified for use of this fuel by the end of 2012.

The USAF is mixing USAF JP8 and synthetic paraffinic kerosene. Rolls Royce suggested this to commercial carriers after it was proven by the USAF. The differences between JP-8 and Jet-A is minimal.

If GAS 2.0 is really looking for “green” success stories, this should have been covered. The only reason to have NOT covered it is that GAS 2.0 is not a “Green” publication, but is instead an “anti-establishment” publication. Which is it?

You can get complete information from Air Force Magazine, and they’ll probably get you current and complete information.

Write to Michael M. Dunn at

]]> By: ChuckL http://gas2.org/2009/06/01/air-new-zealands-biofuel-flight-cuts-emissions-by-65/#comment-32523 ChuckL Tue, 02 Jun 2009 03:55:00 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=2487#comment-32523 Interesting story, but why did GAS 2.0 completely ignore the fact that the United States Air Force has been using this fuel for several years now, and has certified B-52s, F-15s, B1-Bs and some cargo aircraft for use with what is essentially the same fuel. The USAF is on track to have all of its aircraft certified for use of this fuel by the end of 2012. The USAF is mixing USAF JP8 and synthetic paraffinic kerosene. Rolls Royce suggested this to commercial carriers after it was proven by the USAF. The differences between JP-8 and Jet-A is minimal. If GAS 2.0 is really looking for "green" success stories, this should have been covered. The only reason to have NOT covered it is that GAS 2.0 is not a "Green" publication, but is instead an "anti-establishment" publication. Which is it? You can get complete information from Air Force Magazine, and they'll probably get you current and complete information. Write to Michael M. Dunn at Interesting story, but why did GAS 2.0 completely ignore the fact that the United States Air Force has been using this fuel for several years now, and has certified B-52s, F-15s, B1-Bs and some cargo aircraft for use with what is essentially the same fuel. The USAF is on track to have all of its aircraft certified for use of this fuel by the end of 2012.

The USAF is mixing USAF JP8 and synthetic paraffinic kerosene. Rolls Royce suggested this to commercial carriers after it was proven by the USAF. The differences between JP-8 and Jet-A is minimal.

If GAS 2.0 is really looking for “green” success stories, this should have been covered. The only reason to have NOT covered it is that GAS 2.0 is not a “Green” publication, but is instead an “anti-establishment” publication. Which is it?

You can get complete information from Air Force Magazine, and they’ll probably get you current and complete information.

Write to Michael M. Dunn at

]]>