• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

COAL TO LIQUID FUEL FOR AIRCOM Planes

CougarKing

Army.ca Fixture
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
360
I know Coal to Liquid Fuel (CTL) has already been discussed in 3 other threads (at least mentioned) such as "Scary Strategic Problem: No Oil" but I started this one because I wanted a thread that focused specifically on CTL.

Does anyone have idea if Aircom and the rest of the DND is considering alternative fuel sources and testing them?  The corn-based fuel from Brazil- ethanol- would be one option for the LFC's vehicles, but what about a replacement for aviation fuel? Perhaps CTL Fuel could be a viable solution since coal will run out much later than oil will.


Here's an article on CTL, probably already posted before, but reproduced under...you know the drill.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061217/bs_nm/coal_fuel_dc

Liquid coal: A cheaper, cleaner 21st century fuel? By Steve James
Sun Dec 17, 1:18 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - When railroads ruled, it was the sweating firemen shoveling coal into the furnace who kept the engines running.

Now, nearly two centuries after Stephenson's "Rocket" steam locomotive helped usher in the Industrial Revolution, that same coal could be the fuel that keeps the jet age aloft.

But with a twist: The planes of the future could be flown with liquid fuel made from coal or natural gas.

Already the United States Air Force has carried out tests flying a B-52 Stratofortress with a coal-based fuel.

And JetBlue Airways Corp. (Nasdaq:JBLU - news) supports a bill in Congress that would extend tax credits for alternative fuels, pushing technology to produce jet fuel for the equivalent of $40 a barrel -- way below current oil prices.

Major coal mining companies in the United States, which has more coal reserves than Saudi Arabia has oil, are investing in ways to develop fuels derived from carbon.

The technology of producing a liquid fuel from coal or natural gas is hardly new. The Fischer-Tropsch process was developed by German researchers Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in 1923 and used by Germany and Japan during World War II to produce alternative fuels. Indeed, in 1944, Germany produced 6.5 million tons, or 124,000 barrels a day.

And coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuel is already in use elsewhere, like South Africa, where it meets 30 percent of transportation fuel needs.

In addition to being cheaper than oil, advocates point out that the fuel is environmentally friendlier and would also help America wean itself of foreign oil imports.

"America must reduce its dependence on foreign oil via environmentally sound and proven coal-to-liquid technologies," said JetBlue's founder and chief executive, David Neeleman. "Utilizing our domestic coal reserves is the right way to achieve energy independence."

In a recent briefing to power and energy executives, Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, said bio-diesel fuels offer little in the way of reduced carbon dioxide emissions, have enormous production costs and present "serious transmission and infrastructure" problems.

In contrast, CTL transportation fuels are substantially cleaner-burning than conventional fuels.

Popovich warned that the United States risks falling behind economic competitors such as China, which plans to spend $25 billion on CTL plants.

America is "already behind the curve" when it comes to tapping the vast liquid fuel potential that coal offers, said John Ward, of natural resources company Headwaters Inc. (NYSE:HW - news), which builds CTL plants.

He said plants in America would likely each produce 40,000 barrels of CTL fuel per day, with a typical plant using 8.5 million tons of coal per year. In contrast, China is focused on building plants capable of producing 60,000 barrels of CTL fuel per day, he said.

"There is significant investor interest in what could be a major growth opportunity," said Paul Clegg, an alternative energy analyst with Natexis Bleichroeder.

"It is a viable technology, but the question is where do hydrocarbon prices go now? Will we continue to see oil above $40 a barrel forever?"

In October, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer and a consortium of energy and technology companies announced the state will be home to one of America's first CTL energy plants.

The $1 billion Bull Mountain plant is slated to produce 22,000 barrels per day of diesel fuel and 300 megawatts of electricity -- enough to power 240,000 homes -- in six years.

Schweitzer and the companies behind the plant, including Arch Coal (NYSE:ACI - news) and DKRW Advanced Fuels LLC, say the production of fuel and electricity will not release the greenhouse gases associated with coal-generated electricity.

Arch has a 25-percent stake in DKRW and the companies are also developing a CTL plant in Medicine Bow, Wyoming.

At a recent coal industry conference, the heads of two of America's Big Four producers talked up CTL development.

Arch Coal Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Steven Leer said it "could be a game-changer." Chemical companies and railroads were asking him about using coal-based liquid fuels.

"It's a whole new group of potential customers," he said.

Peabody Energy (NYSE:BTU - news) Chief Executive Gregory Boyce said of CTL: "Stay tuned, as the sector continues to evolve.

"I have heard reports that China can produce oil for $25 per barrel from coal. We see it more in the $45 range here."

Peabody recently announced an agreement with Rentech (AMEX:RTK - news) to evaluate sites in the Midwest and Montana for CTL projects. The plants could range in size from producing 10,000 to 30,000 barrels of fuel per day and use approximately 3 million to 9 million tons of coal annually.

Another alternative fuel company, Syntroleum (Nasdaq:SYNM - news), said recently that its ultra-clean jet fuel was successfully tested in a USAF B-52 at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. The bomber flew with a 50/50 blend of CTL and traditional JP-8 jet fuel.

"The program ... is the first step in opening up new horizons for sourcing fuel for military purposes," said Bill Harrison, a fuels expert with the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio.

The flight test was part of the        Department of Defense's Assured Fuel Initiative to develop secure domestic sources for the military's energy needs. The        Pentagon hopes to reduce its use of crude oil and foreign producers and get about half of its aviation fuel from alternative sources by 2016.

Just something I wanted to discuss further.


 
Geez, has ANYONE on this board even considered this alternative fuel? AVGAS or JP-8 won't be there forever for Aircom Planes!
 
Never Even thought of it, but you make a good point.  However, if we do not fix this AF soon will not matter, on flyable planes to fuel.  I am sure that the issue of future fuel sources has been looked at, I am sure our America buddies are coming up with all kinds of idea deep in the Nevada desert.

I know years age they researched nuclear powered planes.  Should be interesting to see what develops........
 
The AF does not use AVGAS as a primary fuel in our aircraft (a/c), with the exception of the Air Cadet tow planes and perhaps the SPERWER (anyone know what this uses?).  AVGAS is considered to be an alternative, but is real low on the list since most a/c need some serious inspections after they use this.  JP8 or JP8+100 is the primary fuel for all gas turbine powered a/c in the AF.
Don't know if the CF is testing the coal to liquid fuel stuff, but most likely not.  This type of testing is usually done by other government agencies/departments, such as NRC (saw a GTE that could run on wood there once).  It isn't as simple as putting a new fuel into our a/c and then running them.  The OEM (original equipment manufacturer, engine and airframe) have to first give their approval to use that type of fuel in the a/c.  This usually means they want money to give their approval.  This was the case for the conversion of JP4 to JP8 or JP8+100.
 
Actually, this may be a non issue. Converting coal to a liquid fuel (or natural gas, to go the other way) can be tailored to produce almost any hydrocarbon fraction you want. Even if what comes out of the chemical reactor resembles diesel fuel, it can be used as the chemical feedstock to make JP-8 or whatever else is desired. After all, the product from the Tar sands resembles bitumen but is processed into many different hydrocarbon products.

If I understand it correctly, what actually makes a fuel isn't just the predominant hydrocarbon fraction but also the additive package (stabilizers, detergents, emulsifiers etc.) that is also blended in. Converting coal using some variation of the F-T process is only the first step.
 
Arthur, quite true.  Actually, JP-8 is a bit closer to diesel than it is to old-school JP-4, hence why it's becoming the common fuel of the future military.  As you note, an additive (+100 in the case of helciopters) is all it takes to make the stuff fully suitable for a wide range of turbine-powered aircraft.

G2G
 
A USAF B1B bomber flies using synthetic fuel. It's also supposedly more environmentally-friendly.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,164467,00.html

B-1B Flies Using Synthetic Fuel
Air Force Print News | SSgt. Matthew Bates | March 20, 2008
DYESS AIR FORCE BASE, Texas - A B-1B Lancer from the 9th Bomb Squadron here became the first Air Force aircraft to fly at supersonic speed using an alternate fuel March 19 in a flight over Texas and New Mexico.

The fuel, a 50/50 blend of synthetic and petroleum gases, is being tested as part of an ongoing Air Force program to help the environment and to use a fuel produced domestically.

Air Force officials are in the process of evaluating and certifying this alternative fuel, which is derived from natural gas using the Fischer-Tropsch process, for use in all Air Force aircraft.

"The goal is to have every aircraft using synthetic fuel blends by 2011," said Maj. Don Rhymer, assigned to the Air Force Alternative Fuels Certification Office. "By 2016 we hope at least 50 percent of this fuel will be produced domestically."

Air Force officials previously have tested the fuel blend in the B-52 Stratofortress, the first aircraft to use the fuel, and the C-17 Globemaster III. The supersonic flight by the B-1B occurred over the White Sands Missile Range airspace in south-central New Mexico, but the flight took off from Dyess AFB.

Within the federal government, the Air Force is the single largest user of aviation fuel, using an estimated 3 billion gallons per year. Each time the price of oil goes up $10 per barrel, it costs the Air Force an additional $600 million for fuel. The FT process gives the Air Force a cleaner, more cost-efficient fuel source.

Synthetic fuel created using the FT process costs an estimated $30 to $50 less per barrel than its petroleum counterpart.

Still, saving money is not the only reason the Air Force is looking to use synthetic fuel.

"A lot of people are quick to point to the cost-efficiency of alternative fuel," Major Rhymer said. "But this innovative domestically-produced fuel will also help alleviate our dependence on foreign energy sources."


Alternative fuels can be produced from domestically available hydrocarbon products like natural gas, coal and shale, and then gasified and converted into any number of liquid fuel products.

These fuels are also proven to burn cleaner, reducing combustion-related emissions and particulates in the air -- all without compromising performance.

"There was no noticeable difference flying with this fuel," said Capt. Rick Fournier, the B-1B synthetic fuel flight mission commander. "I would have no problem flying an aircraft using this fuel in peacetime or combat."

It's great to be part of an Air Force initiative that is also helping the environment, Captain Fournier said. "Using a fuel that is cheaper and cleaner ... what could be better?"
 
Actually the feedstock seems to be natural gas, but the F-T process can also use coal. I am a bit skeptical about the cost per barrel, and suspect that it may be due to subsidies or exemption from various taxes. Since the F-T and related processes can be applied to different hydrocarbon feedstocks, there is no particular reason that a synthetic fuel plant could not be built to service the tar sands:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_synthesis

U.S. Air Force certification

Syntroleum, a publicly traded US company (Nasdaq: SYNM) has produced over 400,000 gallons of diesel and jet fuel from the Fischer-Tropsch process using natural gas and not coal at its demonstration plant near Tulsa, Oklahoma. Syntroleum is working to commercialize its licensed Fischer-Tropsch technology via coal-to-liquid plants in the US, China, and Germany, as well as gas-to-liquid plants internationally. Using natural gas as a feedstock, the ultra-clean, low sulfur fuel has been tested extensively by the US Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, and most recently, Syntroleum has been working with the U. S. Air Force to develop a synthetic jet fuel blend that will help the Air Force to reduce its dependence on imported petroleum. The Air Force, which is the U.S. military's largest user of fuel, began exploring alternative fuel sources in 1999. On December 15, 2006, a B-52 took off from Edwards AFB, California for the first time powered solely by a 50-50 blend of JP-8 and Syntroleum's FT fuel. The seven-hour flight test was considered a success. The goal of the flight test program is to qualify the fuel blend for fleet use on the service's B-52s, and then flight test and qualification on other aircraft.[9]

On August 8, 2007, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne certified the B-52H as fully approved to use the FT blend, marking the formal conclusion of the test program.[10]

This program is part of the Department of Defense Assured Fuel Initiative, an effort to develop secure domestic sources for the military energy needs. The Pentagon hopes to reduce its use of crude oil from foreign producers and obtain about half of its aviation fuel from alternative sources by 2016.[9] With the B-52 now approved to use the FT blend, the USAF will use the test protocols developed during the program to certify the C-17 Globemaster III and then the B-1B to use the fuel. The Air Force intends to test and certify every airframe in its inventory to use the fuel by 2011.[10]

Demonstration testing of the C-17 burning Fischer-Tropsch fuel was completed on October 22, 2007 at Edwards Airforce Base. Testing consisted of a ground test and two flights which demonstrated engine performance throughout the C-17 flight envelope and during some operationally representative maneuvers. Test data is still being reviewed by the 418th FLTS to validate the subjective results of the test. On December 17, 2007 A C-17 Globemaster III using the synthetic fuel blend lifted off shortly before dawn from McChord Air Force Base, Washington, and flew to McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey, where it was greeted by politicians and by officials from the airline and energy industries. Based on the two successful tests, the Air Force hopes to certify all of its C-17 fleet for the synthetic fuel mixture early in 2008.
 
Back
Top