loading

A "Greener, cleaner, quieter, smarter" giant in the sky.

.
An Airbus A380 flew this Friday from Filton, near Bristol, UK, experimenting a new synthetic fuel : a GTL (Gas To Liquid) based fuel.

This new synthetic fuel, which emits less pollutants, is intended to replace kerosene.

"Greener, cleaner, quieter, smarter" is the motto we could read on the fuselage of this giant of the sky.

Airbus is planning a first flight 100% powered by bio-fuels in 2009.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gq6b9_ogzADl78sRB8HeYMUess9w

Let's hope Boeing will take it as a challenge, so we will compete to make the "Greenest, cleanest, quietest and smartest" planes ... !

=o)

Picture of A
sort by: active | newest | oldest
F1X0R9 years ago
hydrogen use would be best. though im not sure it would work well in jet engines. interesting concept though. I too tend to take holidays in the UK or in Europe with out flying there. although there has been a cut in C02 emitted in the UK (thanks largely to motorists and house holders) though internal flights counter act this and the governmnent refuses to reveal the figures. which is really disheartening to be told that we must make the effort and the onus is on us but yet what are the british government doing?
ll.139 years ago
There's gonna be a famine if biofeuls get used.... :-/
Kiteman ll.139 years ago
GTL isn't a biofuel, it's just another fossil fuel (natural gas, processed at an energy cost). It's only real advantage is that natural gas stocks are expected to last longer than crude oil.

Calling GTL "green" is pure political spin - just because it's not as bad as kerosene doesn't mean it's good.

Before the flight, there were rumours that the "greener" fuel was going to be an algae-based biofuel, which Airbus refused to deny.

Running on algae oil would have been far more impressive.
chooseausername (author)  Kiteman9 years ago
Actually, they call it "greener" not just because of this GTL, but also because the engines are more efficients, and because this "Super Jumbo" can carry more passengers (emitting, thus, less polluting gazes per passengers than smaller jumbo jets).

If I recall correctly, the A380 was already called "greener" since the beginning.

=o)
And I have objected to the term being used all along. Air flight won't be "green" until it uses a renewable fuel, and doesn't inject pollutants directly into the upper atmosphere. That's why I stay in the UK for holidays, and avoid fresh foods sourced from other countries. I have no influence in the industry, but I would like to see the current fleet of holiday and cargo craft replaced by a combination of wingships and airships.
chooseausername (author)  Kiteman9 years ago
I understand your objection.

As Airbus is based in Toulouse, France, I believe the fact it's called "green" comes from a problem of translation from French to English.

Here, we don't call it "green" but "ecologique" (which should be translates to "environmentally friendly" instead of "green").
So, the A380 is not "greener" as the Anglo-Saxon world understand and define it, but "greener" as the French people inaccurately translated it : ie, "more environmentally friendly".

=o)
ll.13 Kiteman9 years ago
.....I'm not that thick. =P

/quote Airbus is planning a first flight 100% powered by bio-fuels in 2009.
do you surrender? xD
Kiteman ll.139 years ago
'Never!

Now they admit to biofuel flights being in the future, but they were happy for the rumours to circulate before this flight, even though they knew they were wrong. Bad Airbus.
here's the wiki on gas to liquid

interesting, thanks