I think the reason the RAF have invested so heavily is the tactical value of being able to produce fuel without any oil which is controlled by Geopolitical status whereas this can be produced theoretically anywhere and using completely sustainable methods which are often times cheaper or simpler .
It takes a lot of electrical energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. There is no dollar figure to produce a litre of this fuel but the energy input to produce is greater than the energy output. Usable energy is never free.
@@AquaMarine1000 We've been using synethic fuel from animal fat in the USAF and commercial aviation for at least the last decade. The only difference is that we mix it with petroleum. I remember at our air force academy that we were using 100% synthetic fuel for our engine tests.
That sounds like a solution 40 years too late. With the move away from combustion engines, surely oil producing countries will be constantly on edge to sell their inventory and likely on the cheap in the near future.
@@sh7de553 This is a military application we're talking about. Not every country produces oil and not every country will have access to oil imports in a war. This gives autonomy to countries with limited means of acquiring fuel.
@@theunholysoul There are many kinds of synthetic fuels. Animal fat has been in use for aviation for a long time. Corn has been used for cars as well. Japan experimented with turning tree sap into fuel back in WW2. Germany experimented with coal, as unholysoul has stated above me. This process is unique in that it uses carbon capture to remove carbon dioxide from the air (until combustion occurs)
And a load of electricity. Conceptually it is like electrolysis turning water into hydrogen and oxygen. You are doing the chemical reaction in the reverse direction by feeding in a load of electricity, the trick is making the source of the electricity renewable and cheap.
If you had been paying attention, you would have heard them say that it's quite expensive now, because they are producing very small quantities with expensive machinery. And when demand has them ramp up production to millions of gallons, it will be much cheaper. A growth-arc that happens to every product. And they also said that at this early stage, it's impossible to make a reasonable guess about that future cost.
I get it. Its not about the cost, its about being independent from oil producing countries that can choke the supply whenever they want, and also ticks that environmental box. Win win.
This is a very confused and misleading article. At several points you claim this is an emissions free fuel that could be used on all RAF planes, but you also feature the developer saying it isn't completely emission free and it isn't viable for front line jets.
Totally disagree with the premise that fast jets will not be using anything but fuels. I’ve seen a plasma driven UFO at high altitude over Ireland during the meteor strikes, several years back, flying a reciprocal heading at great speed. I’m a pilot of many years and can attest to the fact that there are aircraft not in the public domain with far better systems than legacy pistol engines and gas turbines. But for some reason, they are being kept away from the public.
Well done Kemble Flying Club! I'm surprised it's not happened sooner tbh in any IC engined vehicle - but the oil/fuel producers would have put paid to such I guess. The second world war had such tech (the Nazis out of necessity and part of the reason they went to war), over 75 years ago. In this instance, in Charlie Alpha, means an easy fix, a quick and effective fix (it'll be interesting to monitor the engine's wear rates, fuel usage rates over time), the 900 series Rotax engines are pretty frugal anyway.
So in short: they make the hydrogen from water with electrolysis using solar/wind energy, capture CO2 from the air and somehow transform the hydrogen and CO2 into kerosene using solar/wind energy. Not very energy efficient though.
Being able to create our own synthetic fuel, and not have to rely on foreign countries for kerosene, is fantastic. We could survive a full on invasion for a whole three days more.
@@adamatch9624 Yes it is confusing something does not add up somewhere but considering water is just 2 elements and the by product is oxygen then how could it not be hydrogen that or we do not have the facts.
If this works it means the UK military can supply there own fuel. Tacticly it would be a value add
do they not produce oil in the north sea ??
@@danny117fc Yes but we rely on UAE for their fuel supplies and just store what’s drilled from the North Sea.
I think the reason the RAF have invested so heavily is the tactical value of being able to produce fuel without any oil which is controlled by Geopolitical status whereas this can be produced theoretically anywhere and using completely sustainable methods which are often times cheaper or simpler .
It takes a lot of electrical energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. There is no dollar figure to produce a litre of this fuel but the energy input to produce is greater than the energy output. Usable energy is never free.
@@AquaMarine1000 We've been using synethic fuel from animal fat in the USAF and commercial aviation for at least the last decade. The only difference is that we mix it with petroleum. I remember at our air force academy that we were using 100% synthetic fuel for our engine tests.
That sounds like a solution 40 years too late. With the move away from combustion engines, surely oil producing countries will be constantly on edge to sell their inventory and likely on the cheap in the near future.
@@sh7de553 A nuclear aircraft carrier could produce fuel for its aircraft. On the other hand for diesel powered production it makes no sense.
@@sh7de553 This is a military application we're talking about. Not every country produces oil and not every country will have access to oil imports in a war. This gives autonomy to countries with limited means of acquiring fuel.
A significant step forward.
How come this isn't all over the news
the fossil fuel industry is very powerful that's why
Porsche are also developing E Fuels initially for their motorsport division
Henlo Mr.Hewitt
Wasn’t Synthetic fuel was used in ww2 by the Germans! That’s why they bombed the refineries in Budapest I think
Yes, but different. They were using a large amount of coal.
@@theunholysoul There are many kinds of synthetic fuels. Animal fat has been in use for aviation for a long time. Corn has been used for cars as well. Japan experimented with turning tree sap into fuel back in WW2. Germany experimented with coal, as unholysoul has stated above me. This process is unique in that it uses carbon capture to remove carbon dioxide from the air (until combustion occurs)
So they produce fuel from water and air? Surely this is massive.
And a load of electricity. Conceptually it is like electrolysis turning water into hydrogen and oxygen. You are doing the chemical reaction in the reverse direction by feeding in a load of electricity, the trick is making the source of the electricity renewable and cheap.
It works perfect but the big oil companies aren’t yet ready.
This is cool, I hope I can get this for my car one day
Now, that's the future we are all looking for. Unlimited (mostlikely) fuel and unlimited progress.
It will be limited by the amount of power you can afford to spend to make it and it will probably be generated by nuclear.
Brilliant well done
100% seriously expensive.
Excellent. But they did not mention anything about price comparisons between synthetic and fossil?
I mean it’s obviously going to be expensive, at least for now. If it starts to be mass produced it will become cheaper.
If you had been paying attention, you would have heard them say that it's quite expensive now, because they are producing very small quantities with expensive machinery. And when demand has them ramp up production to millions of gallons, it will be much cheaper. A growth-arc that happens to every product. And they also said that at this early stage, it's impossible to make a reasonable guess about that future cost.
(02:58)
Not sure about the timing in that engine.
I get it. Its not about the cost, its about being independent from oil producing countries that can choke the supply whenever they want, and also ticks that environmental box. Win win.
The record was achieved using Zero Petroleum’s UL91 fuel, which is made using hydrogen.
Anything on the F35b crashing in the Med?.
Thank God the pilot survived, but things happen.
Wow. That’s some news👍
There are question marks over the sustainability of producing synthetic avo fuel, both from raw ingredients and energy input aspects.
what exactly is the renewable energy being used with the water and air?
This is a very confused and misleading article. At several points you claim this is an emissions free fuel that could be used on all RAF planes, but you also feature the developer saying it isn't completely emission free and it isn't viable for front line jets.
Power Density is the problem always..
It's the same octane rating as the fossil equivalent.
@@LewisRawlinson30 well ensure we have enough.
Totally disagree with the premise that fast jets will not be using anything but fuels. I’ve seen a plasma driven UFO at high altitude over Ireland during the meteor strikes, several years back, flying a reciprocal heading at great speed. I’m a pilot of many years and can attest to the fact that there are aircraft not in the public domain with far better systems than legacy pistol engines and gas turbines. But for some reason, they are being kept away from the public.
Well done Kemble Flying Club!
I'm surprised it's not happened sooner tbh in any IC engined vehicle - but the oil/fuel producers would have put paid to such I guess. The second world war had such tech (the Nazis out of necessity and part of the reason they went to war), over 75 years ago.
In this instance, in Charlie Alpha, means an easy fix, a quick and effective fix (it'll be interesting to monitor the engine's wear rates, fuel usage rates over time), the 900 series Rotax engines are pretty frugal anyway.
The problem is cost, synthetic fuel is way more expensive than fossil fuel.
So, are batteries 👎?
Nice
when will we get an update on why the f35 went down in the sea recently ?
When they know why?
Wonderful news, very forward looking. Well done all concerned 🇬🇧👍
So in short: they make the hydrogen from water with electrolysis using solar/wind energy, capture CO2 from the air and somehow transform the hydrogen and CO2 into kerosene using solar/wind energy. Not very energy efficient though.
thats why they are doing it in orkney. the islands have too much renewable energy.
*Technology!*
how much food and fossil fuels need to be used for this fuel .
Being able to create our own synthetic fuel, and not have to rely on foreign countries for kerosene, is fantastic.
We could survive a full on invasion for a whole three days more.
Incredibly fewer also
We will remember ogle now ( hope I spelled it right.)
I could of swore the Germans during world war 2 developed and use synthetic oil and fuel ?
Produced from coal.
I hope they can mass produce this fuel for cars!!
Willy Hackett? Turns out he did………….
So I can keep that v8 chevy?
Petrol l/kWh and $/kWh.
The future is here. BZ!
Hope this is top secret...
The process was invented over a hundred years ago.
@@bobthebomb1596 our blend...
@@davidkersey2414 Probably the specific catalyst used is commercial in confidence .
So they created methane?
methane cant survive as a liquid in a jerry can at atmospheric pressure.
No, it is UL91 avgas. It is basically the unleaded petrol you put in your car.
It is claimed to be made from water and air which makes it Hydrogen in my book.
@@xvdd1 didn’t he say it’s not that
@@adamatch9624 Yes it is confusing something does not add up somewhere but considering water is just 2 elements and the by product is oxygen then how could it not be hydrogen that or we do not have the facts.