Where does jet fuel go when it is burned in a jet engine?

The building of the Twin Towers coincided with the widespread growth of affordable jet travel.

Since about the time that the World Trade Center was built until now the world has produced and consumed an average of 150 million tons of aviation fuel every year.

That's about 6 Trillion tons of fuel burned over the last 40 years worldwide.

The planes that hit WTC 1 and 2 each had about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel on board.

So if this is what 20,000 gallons of burning jet fuel look like, what does 6 Trillion tons of burning jet fuel look like?



Ref: Jet Fuel at the World Trade Center on 9-11
www.real-debt-elimination.com...

Ref: Energy Statistics > Jet Fuel > Total production (2005) by country
www.nationmaster.com...&date=2005

Ref: Fuel Consumption by Mode of Transportation in Physical Units
www.bts.gov...

reply to post by In nothing we trust


I would imagine it would look a lot like that. Except bigger. We should all get together and light that much jet fuel up just confirm this. It will be the best fourth of July ever...

Its a significant amount of burnt fuel; if we live to have a future, they'll say: no wonder their ozone and other layers that were messed up by the damage they caused. I don't advocate not flying however what about superspeed rail or mag-lev?

Originally posted by gardCanada

... what about superspeed rail or mag-lev?

Do you see anyone even talking about this stuff?

Originally posted by gardCanada
I don't advocate not flying however what about superspeed rail or mag-lev?

Both of which are powered by electricity. How is most electricity generated? Coal fired powerplants. Think about this. On average you burn 10 pounds of coal to get 1 pound of ash. Where does the rest of the coal go? The same place as the jet fuel.

reply to post by In nothing we trust


Automobiles use many times more fuel than the aircraft industry. Especially in America. To answer your question on where does it "go", when burned the fuel should be separated into water (H2O) and (CO2), assuming it combusted completely. There may also be some leftover carbon (soot) and other nasties, if the engine isn't working efficiently.

It goes to the same place fat goes to when a 300 lb man turns into a 150 lb man... it is converted to energy which is consumed and broken down into elements that the engine can ignite and burn and use as energy. The waste products left are usually water, carbon, and a few other incidental elements that helped it to bond while in storage...as say a tree for firewood, gas for fuel, or fat as calories for body fuel.

Dude..seriously...take a science course or something.

US Statistics in fuel use by different types of transport perannum since 1960

Aviation is a long LONG way behind land transport in burning up hydrocarbons!!

1960 -
Tranport Aircraft - 1,954 million gallons
Cars, light trucks, motorcycles - 41,171 million gallons

2009:
Tranport Aircraft - 11,147 million gallons
"Short wheel base" (

Originally posted by In nothing we trust

Originally posted by gardCanada

... what about superspeed rail or mag-lev?

Do you see anyone even talking about this stuff?

Yep - everywhere except the USA - even the chinese have enough of it that they manged to have a crash early this year.
You guys are so stuck on you cars you're falling bahind!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Aviation is a long LONG way behind land transport in burning up hydrocarbons!!

Maybe so ,but is the effect of the exhaust gas upon the surrounding atmosphere the same at 30,000 ft as it is at 1,200 ft?

reply to post by In nothing we trust


No it isn't - the non-CO2 effects are thought to have variable impact on global warming as that at ground level.

eg

Aircraft emissions of NOx are more effective at producing ozone in the upper troposphere than an equivalent amount of emission at the surface. Also increases in ozone in the upper troposphere are more effective at increasing radiative forcing than increases at lower altitudes. Due to these increases the calculated total ozone column in northern mid-latitudes is p r ojected to grow by approximately 0.4 and 1.2% in 1992 and 2050, respectively. However, aircraft sulfur and water emissions in the stratosphere tend to deplete ozone, partially offsetting the NOx-induced ozone increases. The degree to which this occurs is, as yet, not quantified. Therefore, the impact of s u bsonic aircraft emissions on stratospheric ozone requires
further evaluation. The largest increasesin ozone concentration due to aircraft emissions are calculated to occur near the tropopause where natural variability is high. Such changes are not apparent from observations at this time.

-From the 1999 IPCC report into aviation effects on climate change

CO2 effects are thought to be in simple proportion (ie no better & no worse than at sea level), because CO2 is subject to a great deal of mixing in the atmosphere, whereas other gasses nd particulates can stay at different altitudes.

But that's what the IPCC says - and apparently a lot of people think it is trying to pull the wool over our eyes about global warming which isnt' happening anyway......so if you are one of those (not saying you are - the general "you") then why would you believe them when they say airborne pollution is worse for something you don't believe exists??

reply to post by In nothing we trust


in short petroleum fuels are 99.% complex hydrocarbons

CxHy burned FEEICIENTLY they oxidise to CO2 [ carbon dioxide] + H2O [ water ]

in reality the combustion process produces CO2 CO [ carbon monoxide ] H2O CxHy [ unburnt hydrocarbons ] , C [ carbon - black soot ]

PS - for simplicity i have deliberatly avoided addressing the sulphur content of fuels [ which produce sulhurous oxides [ SO2 , SO3 ] or nitrogen reactions

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Close enough - I got this from Swiss Air's website...