If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
Posted on 09/18/2006 8:49:40 PM PDT by jdm
The Air Force is scheduled Tuesday to test a new jet fuel made from coal instead of oil.
A B-52 bomber at Edwards Air Force Base in California is expected to take off with two of its eight jet engines burning a 50-50 blend of synthetic and oil-based fuel.
Research on the fuel project has been conducted at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton. The goal is to develop, test and pave the way to commercialize the fuel.
The research is focused on the Fischer-Tropsch process for producing synthetic kerosene from coal. The military wants a fuel that works with engines, fuel systems and supply infrastructure already in the field.
Known since the 1920s, the process produces clean-burning fuel, but it hasn't been economical, Harrison said. High fuel prices are making it more attractive, and the Pentagon hopes it can help jump-start an industry by earmarking funds for synthetic jet fuel starting in 2008.
The Air Force says it burned 3.2 billion gallons of jet fuel last year, some 57 percent of the Defense Department's total consumption.
Sounds like the Space Shuttle and greenie foam.
In other news, the Dept of Transportation will be testing a new style of bicycle with wheels of identical diameter and having a sprocket-driven rear wheel.
Sarcasm off.
Simply groundbreaking research here! LOL How typical of the FAA to be worrying about the source of fuel for an engine design (turbine) that can burn any combustible liquid or finely ground flammable solid.
War for Coal!
ping.
You may reconsider that outlook if/when Middle East oil spigots shut off.
Time will tell.
Depends on how much fuel per amount of coal, but if feasible, it could strongly reduce American dependence on foreign oil (as it could also be used by the civilian aviation industry). Can they also turn coal into a gasoline substitute?
Well, there goes the price of West (by God) Virginia real estate.
"....finely ground flammable solid..."
I never knew that......what are a few examples of such that work?
I hope this is aimed in the direction of commercializing the use of shale for oil. Both the US and Canada have vast reserves of shale; it supposedly becomes a viable energy source at $70/bbl oil prices.
The South Africans have been manufacturing liquid vehicle fuels from coal for many years. Duplicate their plants here.
damn good move! We have massive 100+ yr deposits of coal in the US.
So very true. What's to test? It's utterly known that fuel-from-coal works, the Fischer-Tropsch method has been known for 50 years and is in use in many countries. It's just a matter of the economics.
A B-52 burning coal - probably less polluting than one burning Jet A.
huh??
Half(or more) of WWII Germany's war machine ran on synthetic fuel made from coal, especially later in the war since Rommel "The Desert Fox" lost control of the ME. For some strange reason Germany's technology was lost/shelved after the war.
Hell, a B-52 tends to look like it's burning coal anyway.
If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
A turbine has a compressor section, a combustion chamber and a power section where the hot gases impinge on blades connected via a shaft to the compressor, and possibly to an output shaft in the case of a gas fired generator or helicopter.
What fuel you cram into the combustion chamber does not matter as long as it will burn. Back in the days of my misspent youth in engineering college, we ran a turbine on sawdust, coal dust, grain dust and..... smokeless gunpowder!
Admittedly there were problems, but nothing like what ethanol causes. Typically there were unburned particles impacting the impeller wheels, which in long term use would cause accelerated wear. However, it was rather easy to do by starting the turbine on liquid fuel and then just letting the solid fuel be sucked into the inlet while turning off the liquid. Some sort of auger type system could be used to return to the direct injection type mode of a "normal" (whatever that is) fuel supply to a turbine.
Some gov't researcher reading this needs to give me a grant for further research. PM me.
Its the tender car that is problematic.
I understand that Germany made fuel from coal in WW 2. This was a reliable source.
Exactly. I want to burn waste-oil laced talcum powder in mine!
During World War II, Germany was making quite a bit of fuel from coal. You are right, it all depends on the costs.
I sure hope they have a good stoker.
That will really keep the skeeters down.
The Germans did make gasoline from coal.
Here is a lengthy but good article on it.
The Role of Synthetic Fuel
In World War II Germany
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm
I hope they have a way of getting rid of the ash besides
dropping it. I just cleaned the pool today!
I think the Germans did something with this in 1944-45.
Why would we build plants here I am sure we could talk the democraps into exporting the jobs to South Africa kind of like NAFTA but different somehow.
//sarc//
Not quite. It is a well known process, but expensive. It might give some of the more rambunctious folks in OPEC pause when one looks at this map:
And if I remember correctly, there are only two places in the world that have large amounts of low-sulfur coal: the U.S. and Indonesia.
NICE! I met teddy and he looked like a puddle of oil:-)
Thanks, interesting article.
thanks
when I read your post, my mind went to things such as black aluminum powder, sulfur, and K perchlorate, LOL.....THAT would probably melt the engine, but it was GREAT in cardboard tubes many moons ago :)
Flour, for example. Ever put a brown bag with a some flour over a broken light bulb in a room ? Turn switch on, watch the fireworks. Most carbon-based powders mixed with air/oxygen will violently/explosively combust. Liquid fuels finely disbursed do far better - the basis for Fuel-Air and Thermobaric weapons.
Whether it melts the engine or not depends on how much you put through it. Turbines can operate VERY lean on fuel mixtures. I admit that solid particles hitting the power section ARE NOT GOOD, and something like molten metal or Willie Pete would be quite bad for longevity of the impeller blades.
You would be surprised at how well wood particles worked. I wanted to try chicken manure, but the scratch that passed the gizzard was too rough and nobody wanted to pick it out!
Diesel from coal in use by our military is *outstanding* news!
You got ME excited!
Not pratical...the alcohol content would be too high in regular combustion engines on cars.....
Plus, they would have a unexplained tendency too randomly drive off bridges when female passengers are on board.
I can already hear Charlie Rangel complaning about inner-city Blacks in the military assigned to shoveling the coal into the engines.
-PJ
LOL...
That doesn't stop China from using its indigenous coal.
Precisely.
I was thinking.. We had better make sure we have enough fuel for our armed forces if Iran and Venezula decide to cut their supplies.
"Some gov't researcher reading this needs to give me a grant for further research. PM me"
Get yourself DARPA grant.
DARPA?
Dumb A$$3d Researchers' Polygamy Association?
If this is going to work to our advantage, then we need to unlock all the coal reserves that good old BJ boy locked up with his national parks fraud.
We have so much coal in this country that it is literally unbelievable, and converting it to liquid and have it burn cleanly will create a wonderful energy resource that is ours, and no one will be able to control our energy reliance.
"Dumb A$$3d Researchers' Polygamy Association?"
Eh, nevermind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.