LNG & LPG vs. Kerosene in Fueling Aircrafts - Essay Example

?LNG & LPG vs. Kerosene in Fueling Aircrafts The aviation industry has really grown with the industrial revolution, economic growth, and growth in air travel demand. The recent growth in computer technology, innovation of more complicated machines, and the discovery of many energy resources has a contributing factor to the aircraft industry. Indeed, there are high-tech types of aircrafts in the world that use different forms of energy, improved technology, and carrying many passengers. Nevertheless, there are other factors that affect the operations in the aviation industry that include environmental factors, price of fuel and other aircraft equipment, and the development of more effective and convenient sources of energy (Federal Aviation Administration, 2009). However, this paper will address the issue of fueling different types of aircrafts in different parts of the world and at different environments. More so, the paper will compare all relevant factors that relate to the usage of kerosene, LPG, and LNG in fueling aircrafts. Ideally, powerful piston engines and jet turbines that run aircraft engines require more combustible and complicated engine fuels than other engines including vehicles. Most importantly, the technological development of aircraft fuels and other relevant technological advancements have a huge impact on the engine fuels that aircrafts use today. Indeed, the invention of jet engines propagated a big challenge for engine designers since such engines require fuels that take time to vaporize not like Avgas that turns to gaseous state so easily. Nevertheless, the newly invented equally have other requirements thus mandating the aircraft engineers to use kerosene or a kerosene-gasoline mix instead of gasoline alone. Furthermore, certain types of aircraft operations require specific types of fuel to operate. However, regardless of the used type of jet fuel, all jet fuels must attain the standards aircraft turbine engines and fuel systems requirements. Actually, all aircraft engine fuels must be free from oxidation deposits in high-temperature zones and must be pristine. In the aviation industry, aircraft engineers rate the effectiveness of jet fuels according to its level of octane (U.S Centennial of Flight Commission, n.y). In fact, aircraft engineer prescribe high amounts of octane in jet fuels as they effectively permit a powerful piston engine to burn its fuel. For many years, the aviation industry used the same kind of gasoline to power aircraft engines. However, after various studies and engine technological developments, they realized that gasoline was not efficient for powering the large, powerful engines used by piston-driven airplanes. Hence, the introduction of JET B fuel in civilian aviation. Though expensive, JET B fuel performs superbly in cold-weather performance and is in the class of naphtha-kerosene. Nevertheless, JET B fuel has a lighter composition making it dangerous to handle and thus not applicable in cold weather. Notably, aircraft combustors demand for jet fuels that are smokeless, that atomize and combust at low temperatures, and release adequate heat. Such fuels should also ignite with controlled radiation and cause no attack to hot turbines (ALGLAS, 2012). Furthermore, long-duration flights, and high altitudes equally necessitate for jet fuels with specified requirements. However, flight engineers use petroleum to manufacture almost all jet fuels in the world today. Nevertheless, we still have a small percentage of jet fuels from oil sands, shale oil, natural gas, and coal. Actually, kerosene and paraffin oil-based fuel are the most common jet fuels mostly known as JET A-1.Indeed, JET A-1fuel draws world recognition as it complies with international standards of jet fuel specifications (ALGLAS, 2012). There are concerned efforts to develop other jet fuel plants and move away from the high cost synthetic fuels manufacturers. Indeed, the United States America imports synthetic fuel since it does not have Fischer-Tropsch plants to manufacture jet fuel. Assuredly, there have been considerable improvements in fuel efficiency in the airline industry. However, the growth in technology, increase in the price of oil, and the increased demand for air travel might lead to subsequent growth in aviation industry thus overwhelming the improvements in fuel efficiency. This will result from the fact that there will be constrained fuel availability leading to increased fuel prices (David Daggett, 2006). As such, the world fuel demand will outdo the crude oil production capacity and thus leading to the need for using alternative jet fuels like the LPG and LNG. Additionally, the growing national concerns about energy security also derive a new dimension to the use petroleum products in jet fuel production. In searching for alternative jet fuel alternatives, engineers consider the environmental needs, improved aircraft fuel efficiency, fuel availability, and the availability of such alternative fuels to bridge the gap between the rate of petroleum production and aircrafts world demand. Petroleum products like kerosene are reasonably good sources of aircraft fuel in that they are easily available, they offer, have the best combination of energy content, easy to handle, low priced, and perform effectively. NASA is among the world organizations that are researching on studies seeking to introduce non-petroleum alternatives in the production of aircraft fuels in order to satisfy the increasing demand for cleaner burning and less expensive aviation fuel. In the research, the engineers are considering aircraft emissions, plume chemistry, engine performance, and particle evolution as manifested in 100 percent synthetic fuels and 50-50 blends of synthetics and regular jet fuel using the DC-8's right inboard engine (Patrick Lynch, 2009). Ideally, non-petroleum synthetic fuels have fewer harmful emissions and particles thus becoming more effective than the standard jet fuel hence improving the air quality in the aviation industry. At the same time, such aviation fuels must satisfy the Global Framework for Aviation Alternative Fuels that seeks to introduce aviation alternative fuels that are sustainable and environmental friendly. Just like any other emissions resulting from fossil fuel combustion, all aircraft engines produce emissions that equally pollute the environment. However, since aircraft emission occurs at an altitude, their global impact on the environment is significant at the ground level where they negatively affect air quality (International Civil Aviation Organization, 2012). However, the level of pollution varies from the petroleum products like Kerosene to the non-petroleum fuels like LPG and LNG. It is undeniable that aviation turbine fuels powers jet and turbo-prop engine aircraft. Currently two types of turbine fuel in civil commercial aviation namely JET A and JET A-1 are both kerosene type fuels. There is also another jet fuel blend of gasoline and kerosene called Jet B (David Daggett et al, 2009). Generally, aircraft engineers use JET A and JET A-1 for aviation and JET B fuel for very cold climates only. However, the question has always been if kerosene fuels meet the World Jet Fuel specifications. According to the ASTM D1655-07 standards, jet fuel should have maximum acidity limit of 0.10 mg KOH/g, should have a minimum smoke point of 18 mm, and allows the use of simulated distillation via method ASTM D2887 (Salvatore Rand, 2003). In addition, the defense standard 91-91/5 Issue 5 Amendment 2 states that jet fuel should have a maximum acidity limit of 0.015 mg KOH/g, and a minimum smoke point of 19 mm. Moreover, it should have maximum particulate contamination level of 1.0 mg/l at point of manufacture, saybolt color report of the fuel at point of manufacture, and a measurement of lubricity for Jet A-1 (Federal Aviation Administration, 2009). Notably, kerosene fuels that include JET A and JET A-1 satisfy these standards and hence compliant with the World Jet Fuel specifications thereby their affectivity. Indeed, Kerosene fuels are the most dominant fuels in the aviation industry. Precisely, kerosene makes up to about 60 % of the global aviation jet fuels. In the aviation, industry engineers use kerosene to power jet engines (Health Protection Agency, n.y). In fact, today engineers use several grades of kerosene to power diverse jet engines. For example, they burn RP-1 with liquid oxygen to act as rocket fuel. The RP-1 kerosene fuels meet the smoke points and freeze points specifications. At the same time, other grades of kerosene that include JP-5 and JP-8 are more exact than commercial jet fuels and include unique performance enhancing additives are effective in fueling military jet fuels. Another kerosene fuel, IOC JET A-1 is blend Aromatics below 20 % v/v, freezing point below - 47 0C, Mercaptan Sulphur below 0.002 % mass, and a flash point above 38 0C (American Petroleum Institute, 2010). All these specifications meet the World Jet Fuel Specifications. Other physical requirements of jet fuel include the condition that such fuels should be clear, free from solid matter and undisclosed water at ambient temperature, and bright. All kerosene fuels satisfy these requirements. However, there are demerits in the usage of kerosene fuels in that aircrafts cannot fly farther with such fuels as compared with other non-petroleum fuels. Indeed, in a recent study on aviation kerosene (Jet A) explosion hazards, the Explosion Dynamics Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology in their course of investigating the TWA 800 accident on July 17, 1996 had various recommendations to the usage of kerosene fuels in aviation. The recommendations sought to reduce accidents caused by kerosene aircrafts an included reducing tank temperature, raising the fuel flash point, inerting the ullage, and minimizing potential ignition sources (J.E. Shepherd et al, 2000). Hence, in the absence of these recommendations, kerosene fueled aircrafts are more insecure. Most importantly is the fact that different grades of kerosene fuels manifest different qualities and thus their use varies (American Petroleum Institute, 2010). For example, while Jet A must have a freeze point of -40 ?C or below, Jet A-1 on the other hand must have a freezing point of -47 ?C or below. Additionally, Jet A-1 contains a static dissipator additive while JET A does not. However, any grade of kerosene fuels as used in aviation has numerous effects on the environment. Indeed, after combustion, kerosene fuels emit gasses to the air at an altitude thus propagating negative effects on air quality at the ground level. Such emissions add up to global warning. More so, frequent skin exposure to kerosene fuels may lead to dermatitis. However, kerosene effects to human health are minimal. Additionally, according to the global statistics, kerosene fuels are more expensive than non-petroleum alternative fuels. Unlike the liquid kerosene fuel, we have gaseous fuel in the aviation industry that include liquefied natural gas (LNG), compressed natural gas (CNG), and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) (Australia Government, 2012). Considering LPG and LNG in comparison with kerosene fuels, the gaseous fuels possess many added benefits over the kerosene fuels. Specifically, LNG is a cooled natural gas that condenses to a liquid at atmospheric pressure and an approximate temperature of -161o C. Due to the reduced volume because of the liquefaction factor, it is easier and economical to transport and store LNG as compared to kerosene. Hence, in this context, LNG and LPG fuels are less expensive than kerosene fuels as used in the aviation industry. LNG contains methane, which is highly flammable. Source: Centre for Energy Economics However, LNG is only flammable upon atomization with oxygen in a limited flammability range and non-flammable where the concentration of LNG in air is < 5% or > 15%. Additionally, the liquefaction process removes the non-methane components like butane, carbon dioxide, pentane, and water hence satisfying the World Jet Fuel Specifications. More so, LNG is colorless, non-toxic, odorless, and non-corrosive hence safer. LNG is highly combustible as it burns in only 5% to 15% when mixed with air (Centre for Energy Economics, 2004).On the other hand, under moderate pressures and at room temperatures, LPG is a mixture of propane and butane in a liquid state. Source: Centre for Energy Economics However, the level of propane in LPG varies from one country to another where in US LPG has high-level s of propane. As such, LPG is highly flammable and is extremely dangerous thus attracting well-ventilated storage. Due to its high risk, Mercaptan that has an unpleasant smell adds to it for easier detection of leakages. Indeed, one can sense the smell of the leakage when the concentration of LPG is far below the lower limit of flammability. LNG and LPG pose a lesser environmental risk in case of a leakage as compared to kerosene fuels. Indeed, LNG cannot pollute water or the ground and cannot explode to the atmosphere. However, like the kerosene fuels, we can enrich LNG chemical additives in the manufacture of aviation fuel (Centre for Energy Economics, 2004). Notable is the fact that LPG fuel equally meets the standards of the World Jet Fuel Specifications. Hence, in the new aviation development, we have aircrafts that use LNG and LPG fuels. Such aircrafts include Tu-330 cargo aircraft, Tu-334, and Tu-204 passenger aircraft. Ideally, the LNG-powered aircraft are less costly than the kerosene powered aircrafts since they are less to operate per ton and has considerable reductions to nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon emissions. In addition, the LPG jet engine fuel has more specific energy than the standard kerosene fuels. Moreover, LPG jet engine fuels have greater volumetric efficiency from its low temperature that cools the air that the engine compresses. Additionally, this cooling effect can apply in lowering the temperature of the exhaust. The cheaper price of LNG fuels equally emanates from the fact that improved technologies lowers the costs of exploring and producing natural gas as compared to kerosene costs that are forever high to the costs involved in refining oil. In addition, technical innovations in LNG shipping and liquefaction are valuable and add to the commercial viability of the aviation industry (Tupolev, 2012).The safety of LNG and LPG is another point of consideration in the comparison between gaseous fuels and kerosene fuels. In many years, there has been safety in handling LNG at liquefaction facilities and airplanes with only one accident in the last 40 years. As such, it is clear that it is safer to use LNG and LPG fuels than using kerosene fuels on airplanes. Similarly, the switch to LNG fuels breaks the kerosene fuels monopoly in the aviation industry and an end to dependence on petroleum in the aviation industry. Indeed, with time, LNG will become the second major fuel in this industry. In fact, the adoption of LNG jet fuel led to the development of a new LNG fueled aircraft (AIR-LNG, 2005). With that, the industry was able to evade the price, respect to quantity, and environmental pollution as it manifest in kerosene fuels. Nevertheless, LNG jet engine fuels face huge competition from kerosene fuels that dominate the jet engine fuel industry. However, the competition between LNG and LPG and kerosene fuels effectively leads to huge price stability and a more reliable supply. On the other hand, LPG and LNG fuels have less weight thus contributing to about 15% fuel weight reduction in the aviation industry. It also leads to about 40% reduction in fuel price that combines with the reduced fuel weight to guarantee lower operative flight costs. Moreover, it is easier to install LPG and LNG technologies in current aircrafts thus the continuity in aviation industry. Additionally, LNG fuels has the largest infrastructure basis worldwide thus easily available. While LNG and LPG take effect in motor vehicles and aircrafts, kerosene fuels can apply in other areas. Indeed, LPG and LNG fuels apply in cargo and passenger aircrafts while kerosene fuels apply in military as fighter jets and passenger aircrafts as seen here in. Nevertheless, the LNG and LPG fuels require about 20% larger tank diameters (AIR-LNG, 2005). Additionally, the performance of LNG and LPG fuels is lower in comparison to that of kerosene fuels. Ideally, the LPG and LNG fuels help in bridging in the petroleum and JP shortages and stabilizing the depreciation value of aircrafts. Most assuredly, the LNG-powered aircraft is safer than the kerosene-powered aircraft. In conclusion, I find that the aviation industry is growing together with the industrial and technological innovation. The growth in the aviation industry, growth in world economies, and growth in population amount to increased air travel demand. Fueling is a major factor in the aviation industry as it powers the jet engines. Consequently, there are various types of jet engine fuels and the rise in cost of petroleum has led to research seeking to discover alternative jet engine fuels. However, kerosene fuels dominate the aviation industry while LNG and LPG fuels occupy a significant portion of the aviation industry. The two types of fuels are different in many fronts but both satisfy the World Jet Fuel Specifications. Kerosene fuels include among others JET A and JET A-1 that apply in military jets and passenger aircrafts. LPG and LNG on the other and apply in passenger and cargo aircrafts. Notable is the fact that unlike kerosene fuels, LPG and LNG fuels rarely pollute the environment through their emissions. Additionally, the price of kerosene fuels is relatively higher than that of LPG and LNG fuels. However, kerosene fuels register higher performance in the aviation industry than the LPG and LNG fuels. Nevertheless, the competition for dominance in the aviation industry successfully stabilizes the depreciation value of aircrafts and breaks the dependence on petroleum. Works Cited AIR-LNG 2005, AIR-LNG STATUS REPORT AVIATION, Viewed 14 September 2012, < http://www.ailng.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94&Itemid=96&lang=en> ALGLAS 2012, Jet fuel: An Introduction, Viewed 14 September 2012, < http://www.alglas.com/jet_fuel.htm> American Petroleum Institute 2010, Kerosene/Jet Fuel, Viewed 14 September 2012, < http://www.petroleumhpv.org/docs/kerosine_jetfuel/2010_sept21_Kerosene_Jet%20fuel%20robust%20summaries%20final.pdf> Australia Government 2012, clean energy - changes to fuel tax credits and excise duty, viewed 14 September 2012, < http://www.ato.gov.au/taxprofessionals/PrintFriendly.aspx?ms=taxprofessionals&doc=/content/00302331.htm&headline=changesfueltaxcredits&segment=taxprofessionals> Centre for Energy Economics 2004, Other Fuel Terminologies, Viewed 14 September 2012, < http://www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon/lng/LNG_introduction_03.php > Daggett, D.; Hadaller, O.; Hendricks, R.; and Walther, R 2006, NASA: alternative fuels for aviation, Viewed 14 September 2012, < http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2006-12-03/nasa-alternative-fuels-aviation> Daggett, D.; Hendricks, R.; Walther, R; and Corporan, E 2009, Alternate Fuels for Use in Commercial Aircraft, Viewed 14 September 2012, < http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20080018472&qs=N%3D4294966387%2B4294593339%2B4294819744 > Federal Aviation Administration 2009, Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, Skyhorse Publishing Inc., New York Health Protection Agency n.y, Kerosene General Information, Viewed 14 September 2012, < http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1202487083525> International Civil Aviation Organization 2012, Aircraft Engine Emissions, Viewed 14 September 2012, < http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/aircraft-engine-emissions.aspx> Lynch, P 2009, Alternative Jet Fuels Put to the Test, Viewed 14 September 2012, Rand, S 2003, Significance of Tests for Petroleum Products, ASTM International, New York Shepherd, J.; Nuyt, C.; and Lee, J 2000, Flash Point and Chemical Composition of Aviation Kerosene (Jet A), Viewed 14 September 2012, < http://authors.library.caltech.edu/25832/> Tupolev 2012, DEVELOPMENT OF CRYOGENIC FUEL AIRCRAFT, Viewed 14 September 2012, < http://www.tupolev.ru/english/Show.asp?SectionID=82> U.S Centennial of Flight Commission n.y, Aviation Fuel, Viewed 14 September 2012, < http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/fuel/Tech21.htm> . Read More