be005182

Question : what 's the Co2 emission of our KJ-size jet engines versus 4-stroke engines of the same power? More or less?
Jacques
belgium

Boomerang1

Wow, this looks like a loaded question ready to start arguments or a turbine bash!

Obviously lots more because they use more fuel.

BUT, I also fly electrics which I charge from a battery which is topped up by a solar panel during the week so how do I go in the new world of carbon trading? - John.

Sheet, next they will want to ban beans!

Seraphim77

Loaded question indeed! Yes, I'd have to say lots more, but probably less than a small family of 'flatulencing' California cows in a huddle though.

I'm sure everybody loves clean air, water, etc, etc, but that's not going to stop or curb anybody from using/flying turbines in their RC Jets. The sheer power and 'coolness' factor cannot be beat. If anything, people will make them more efficient over time. I'd love to see some Turbofans hit the market which should help to this end...in theory. Perhaps good old Nobel Peace Prize Nominee Al Gore will cancel one or two of his private jet flights and hop on a public transport while on his quest to save the planet from his predicted doomsday...only 8-years, 7 months, and 23-days or so to go! That in itself would probably cover the amount of jet fuel used by the RC Turbine arena in one year!

Carbon footprint...what a scam...IMHO of course. Light em up!

Kelly W

My Feedback: (2)

I'm not trying to suppress any opinions here, but the development of turbofans for our application will likely not give any positive returns for environmental concerns... Every user would likely need to fly A LOT to win back the fuel economy that is spent in fossil fuels for refining material for additional parts, producing the energy for the manufacturing process, fuel spent in product development, etc... Hard to say where the line would be, but its not a simple answer.

In comparison a few studies have shown that properly maintaining an older car will often be more environmentally friendly vs that of trashing it and buying a new car that runs cleaner. Different argument, but similar logic.

Kelly

erbroens

It can´t be too much because I runned a 20 lbs thrust turbine at full power for a good 5 minutes inside a non ventilated small TV studio and nobody died, including myself.


Enrique

SinCityJets

After looking at the question closely, I am going to say LESS. Reason, finding a four stroke engine that puts out THE SAME power would be pretty damn big. REAL BIG. So, comparing power output to power output, I would say the turbine will put out less emissions than a four stroke of equal power.


Have to read between the lines sometimes.

i.e. "That depends of what the meaning of the word "is" is.
- William Clinton, President of the United States

Boomerang1

I'm sure my model turbine uses more fuel than my V6 car, revs a bit faster though & more fun to drive! - John.

be005182

C2 Hobbies,

I like to read that. If we can prove that this statement is real , then there will be another great future for 'nano' little jet engines. Powered by 'green' fuel, to produce electricity, for instance. To drive cleaner (or fly cleaner?). Lots a things to discuss about.
There must be one solution or another to get rid of energy consuming 4-stroke engines in the future. There is surely more polution to make catalysators and other stuff to hold those old concepts cleaner.
Jacques
Belgium

I-NAV

My Feedback: (3)

It's flying season in Europe. Quit thinking so much and go release carbon with wreckless abandon!

GrayUK

The whole CO2 issue is a con IMHO!
It is a way for the govenment to tax us 'for our own good'.

Take a look at this, take the time to watch it, its worth it!


Paul

[link]http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warning+swindle[/link]

digitech

My Feedback: (10)

Even without a forrest my Turbine will still work
and less chance to hit a tree..[:-]

grbaker

My Feedback: (29)

http://www.gradingandexcavation.com/de_0401_more.html

Scroll down the page about half way.

be005182

thanks for the reveiling references
Jacques
Belgium

dragonpilot

My Feedback: (38)

My guess is that if you got everyone who has posted on this topic to switch to a manual push mower from a gas powered mower for a year you'd save enough smog-forming emissions to run all the turbines at every jet rally in the same amount of time. Although turbine engines burn a lot, Kero burns with less smog-forming emissions than gasoline. I use a manual push mower to cut my grass which has no emissions and no noise to my neighbors. As they use gas powered mowers, so I offset this with test turbine runs in my yard, emissions and noise included.

Kelly W

My Feedback: (2)

Are you guys referring to CO or CO2? big difference... I'm going on chemistry from many years ago but I believe CO is the one that'll kill you (first) if you run an engine in an enclosed space.

Perfect combustion results in H2O and CO2. Lawn mowers, poorly tuned cars, etc, product a lot of CO, NOx, etc... A well tuned car will produce more CO2 and less of the other nasty byproducts. Assuming you get perfect combustion, it’s as simple as calculating the number of moles of the fuel used and how much CO2 the equation dictates. On a side note, I remember reading somewhere that a mole of any particular gas at atmospheric pressure consumes somewhere around 24L of volume, may or may not be true without looking it up.

Examples...
Gasoline: 2C8H18 + 25O2 --> 16CO2 + 18H2O
Natural Gas: CH4 + 2O2 --> CO2 + 2H2O
Diesel: C16H34 + 33O2 --> 16CO2 + 34H2O
Methanol: 2CH3OH + 3O2 --> 2CO2 + 4H2O

Kero seems to be listed as a complex mixture of hydrocarbons, no idea what the formula would look like, although Diesel is probably close. Please shoot holes in the above if I’m wrong, as grade 12 and chemistry in university was a long time ago.

Anyhow, ignoring all the stuff above... Generally speaking turbines have 2 benefits. Simplicity (non reciprocating parts) and power density. The trade-off for the advantage of power density is poor fuel economy... Look at the pressure ratios involved, 9:1 or so for an internal combustion engine, vs. 3:1 or so for our level of turbines. Based on that alone, the 4-stroke is probably better at accomplishing work with minimal CO2 created.

I use an electric lawn mower, and the majority of our power in BC is Hydro Electric, although some is from natural gas.
Kelly

doug l

hi kelly
was waiting to see how long this would go on...before saying something about our piss poor schools....haaa
you only get CO2 from burning carbon..ie ,coal...
we breath out CO2...

int combustion engines exhaust CO.

dragonpilot

My Feedback: (38)

Lawn mowers produce several types of pollutants, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, ozone precursors, and carbon dioxide.

GrayUK

CO2 is not a polutant, it is a natural gas.

dragonpilot

My Feedback: (38)

Sorry Gray, re-read your statement.
Is a lawnmower or a turbine a naturally produced product?

dragonpilot

My Feedback: (38)

Again, for Doug...

This emission guidance abstract covers air emissions from the combustion of distillate fuel oils
and kerosene by the residential and commercial/institutional sectors for space heating or water
heating. This category includes small boilers, furnaces, heaters, and other heating units that are
not inventoried as point sources. Residential and commercial fuel oil and kerosene combustion
sectors include housing units; wholesale and retail businesses; health institutions; social and
educational institutions; and Federal, state and local government institutions (e.g., military
installations, prisons, office buildings).
POLLUTANTS
Particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), sulfur trioxide (SO3), carbon monoxide (CO),
carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane and non-methane
total organic carbon (TOC), volatile organic compounds (VOC), polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (7-PAH and 16-PAH), extractable organic matter (EOM), polycyclic organic
matter (POM), formaldehyde (HCOH), 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD),
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF), 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin toxic equivalent
quantity (TCDD TEQ), dioxins (CDD), furans (CDF), speciated metals, and organic compounds.

dragonpilot

My Feedback: (38)

The Kerosene/Jet Fuel category includes both finished products (fuels) and the refinery streams from which
they are blended. The specific CAS numbers and descriptions of category members are detailed in
Appendix A. The generic term “kerosene” is used to describe the fraction of crude oil that boils
approximately in the range of 293 to 572 °F (145 to 300°C) and consists of hydrocarbons primarily in the
range of C9-C16. Kerosenes are the lighter end of a group of petroleum substances known as middle
distillates, the heavier end being gas oils (See Figure 2). The heavier-weight gas oils, Diesel and Fuel Oil
No. 2, Fuel Oil No. 4 and Fuel Oil No. 6 (heavy fuel oil) are covered in separate API HPV Test Plans.
The predominant use of kerosene in the U.S.A is aviation turbine fuel for civilian (Jet A or Jet A-1) and
military (JP-8 or JP-5) aircraft. For a chronology of the development of jet fuels, see Appendix C. Kerosenes
are also used as diesel fuel (No. 1), domestic heating fuel (Fuel oil No. 1) and solvents, although this latter
use is a minor one. Kerosene-based fuels differ from each other in performance specifications (primarily
freezing point) and minor amounts of performance additives that may be added (generally less than 0.1%
v/v) (CONCAWE 1995, 1999, ASTM, 2001a,b; 2002).
In developing this Test Plan, the Testing Group has utilized information on the kerosene-based jet fuels
although these fuels do not appear by name among the CAS numbers covered in this category. Kerosenetype
jet fuels (such as Jet A & JP-8) are not specifically identified on the Toxic Substances Control Act’s
Chemical Inventory of Substances, and consequently do not have unique CAS numbers. However, because
jet fuels are composed of kerosene (CAS no. 8008-20-6) or hydrodesulfurized kerosene (CAS no. 64742-81-
0), the Testing Group thinks testing done on a kerosene-type jet fuel can be extrapolated to not only those
two CAS numbers, but to other kerosene-range refinery streams as well.
As can be seen in Figure 1, there are several refinery processes that make hydrocarbon streams suitable for
blending kerosene-range products (White, 1999). Kerosene may be obtained either from the atmospheric
distillation of crude oil (straight-run kerosene) or from cracking of heavier petroleum streams (cracked
kerosene). The kerosenes are further treated by a variety of processes to remove or reduce the level of
undesirable components, e.g. aromatic hydrocarbons, sulfur, nitrogen or olefinic materials. This additional
processing also reduces compositional variation and enriches components that improve performance
(cycloalkanes and isoalkanes). In practice, the major processes used are hydrodesulfurization (treatment
with hydrogen to remove sulfur components), washing with caustic soda solution (to remove sulfur
components), and hydrogenation (to remove olefins, sulfur and nitrogen components). Aromatics that may
have formed during the cracking process are removed via solvent extraction. For instance,
hydrodesulfurized kerosene (CAS no. 64742-81-0) is obtained by treating a kerosene-range petroleum stock
with hydrogen to convert organic sulfur to hydrogen sulfide, which is then removed. These subsequent
treatments may blur the distinction between “straight-run” and “cracked” kerosenes (CONCAWE 1995,
1999).

Ron S

My Feedback: (2)

The Knights of Ni! suggest planting a small SHRUBBERY every time you purchase a new turbine, so you and your turbine can live a carbon neutral life!

eardoc

My Feedback: (1)

I use more fuel driving to the flying field than I do flying my jet a few times. I'll stop flying if everyone else stops driving. I promise.

GrayUK

I did not say that CO2 was not produced; I just said it is a natural gas.
It is produced in abundance every year by just about everything that lives and dies. It is a small % of our atmosphere; it was here before man and will be here when he is gone!
When you consider how many Billions and Billions of Tons are produced every year by Cattle, volcano’s, rotting vegetation and the sea, I think you turbine is nothing to worry about.

Paul

be005182

Thanks all for your precious time here and adequat statements..

I will continue building a mobile with 3 jet engines. JG100 type engines.
So i will consume lots of liters of kerosene...

Jacques
belgium