Synthetic Jet Fuel - News Story

[Flyerdan]

ARNOLD AIR FORCE BASE, Tenn. (AFNS)

— When a

B-1B Lancer became the first Air Force aircraft to fly at supersonic speed using a 50/50 blend of synthetic and petroleum based fuels March 19, the Arnold Engineering Development Center work force knew they played a significant role in supporting the flight.​

Since 2006, AEDC men and women have actively supported the Air Force’s evaluation and certification of this alternative fuel, which is derived from natural gas or coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process, for use in all Air Force aircraft. The center’s support began when AEDC’s 717th Test Squadron was designated as the responsible testing organization
for Fischer-Tropsch, or FT, fuels certification testing.​

A team from AEDC took its technical expertise and
specialized equipment to Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., to assist time-critical, ground testing of a 50/50 blend of FT and JP-8 fuels on a TF33 jet engine. The TF33 powers the B-52 Stratofortress bomber.​

“The lessons learned from the initial FT fuel demonstration of the B-52 engine laid the foundation for the successful testing of the B-1 Lancer Bomber engine using a synthetic/JP-8 blend that was conducted in AEDC’s J-1 jet engine altitude
test cell in 2007,” said Ed Tucker, 717th Test Squadron test project engineer.​

Testing at AEDC on the F101 engine, which powers the B-1B, was the first series to qualify a high performance, after burning engine with FT fuel for a combat aircraft. The successful flight of the B-1B reinforced the feasibility of the projected time line for the Air Force’s alternative fuels initiative.​

“The goal is to have every Air Force 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 had tested the fuel blend
in the B-52, the first aircraft to use the fuel, and the C-17 Globemaster III. The B-52 is certified to fly using a 50/50 blend of FT fuel and JP-8, while officials are in the process of certifying the C-17.​

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 viable alternative
to conventional jet fuel.​

In the long term, synthetic fuel created using the FT process could cost an estimated $30 to $50 less per barrel than its petroleum counterpart. “This innovative domestically-produced fuel will help
alleviate our dependence on foreign energy sources,” Major Rhymer said. 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. ​

“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.”​

(Courtesy of Arnold Engineering Development Center​

Public Affairs)

---------------------------------------------------

I thought this was a very interesting article. I hope this technology crosses over to commercial airline use soon!

​

 

[dispatchguy]

Nice

Now, get the Bakken formation opened up in MT and ND and the US could be a major oil producer.

The Bakken formation is estimated, by some, to have upwards of 400 Billion (yes, Billion) barrels of oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation

And good for the USAF for making some synthetic go-go juice. I also thought that Virgin Atlantic recently flew an A340 in a synth fuel test.

 

[MALSR]

I read that the US has more liquid fuel then all of Saudi Arabia if our coal were to be turned into synfuel. I think I read that in The Hype About Hydrogen but can't remember for sure.

 

[sstearns2]

Maybe, but at what price? The last estimate I found stated that the oil in Iraq can be pumped out at $1 per barrel. It's near the surface and easy to process.

There's an enormous amount of potential in coal, natural gas, shale oil, etc to make hydrocarbon based fuels with. Canada is supposed to have a huge amount of shale oil, which is economical to process into commercial fuel at about $200 per barrel.
Right now were wasting the cheap, easy to process fuel doing by not aggressively reducing the amount of energy we use.

If you think gas prices are high now, then keep driving big truck, using filiment light bulbs, ect....

Scott

 

[NEDude]

I read somewhere that the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. Would be nice to make the middle east irrelevant.

 

[belchfire]

I read somewhere that the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. Would be nice to make the middle east irrelevant.

The sandbox has only two exports worth notice...terrorists and crude oil. I'd love to cut them off right at the petrodollar!

 

[M-crit]

Nice

Now, get the Bakken formation opened up in MT and ND and the US could be a major oil producer.

The Bakken formation is estimated, by some, to have upwards of 400 Billion (yes, Billion) barrels of oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation

And good for the USAF for making some synthetic go-go juice. I also thought that Virgin Atlantic recently flew an A340 in a synth fuel test.

So thats about 16,000 days (or 43.8 years) worth of oil in the U.S. considering we consume 25 million barrels per year in this country.

 

[Axel]

So thats about 16,000 days (or 43.8 years) worth of oil in the U.S. considering we consume 25 million barrels per year in this country.

Good. That means we can screw around for another 43.8 years before we have to panic again.

 

[LearLove]

this is BS to the max. The air force is completely irresponsible wrt to coal based fuel. All they are trying to do is offset their fuel costs then take that money for other stuff - i have nothing wrong with that however the impact on the earth with coal based fuel is horrible.


I'm no tree hugger and not a chem eng but i did study mechanical engineering. Its basic thermo or to be exact Stoichiometry. Put coal together with O2 and heat and the byproduct witchever way you hack it is CARBON GAS and lots of it - way thicker and denser than petro based fuels. This tech has been around for along time. The germans knew about it so did everyone else. It is a D- solution to our energy problem(s) at best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometry

I'm all for kicking the ragheads in the nuts and not sending them anymore $$ but we need to find/seek the proper solution. This is the USA, we didn't to be the world superpower by taking the easy way out.

Widespread use of coal is something i'd expect china to come up with. its cookbook engineering/science. if the US (read you and me) really wants to keep its place as THE world leader it will find the proper solution - one that is renewable/sustainable, non-bad guy reliant and doesn't pollute the heck out of the air. Again I'm no tree hugger, and what that solution is i have no clue (I was only a C average engineering student).

I can tell you that a start would be to take the economist/bizz degree bean counters out from the head positions at energy related companies. replace them with bill gates dorky science loving people who care about the science instead of the bottom line/quick buck.

I bet this project was started by some engineering related AF bean counter that told some dedicated science/engineer people at WP to regurgitate this from some old german research pre WW2.

 

[rickair7777]

this is BS to the max. The air force is completely irresponsible wrt to coal based fuel. All they are trying to do is offset their fuel costs then take that money for other stuff - i have nothing wrong with that however the impact on the earth with coal based fuel is horrible.


I'm no tree hugger and not a chem eng but i did study mechanical engineering. Its basic thermo or to be exact Stoichiometry. Put coal together with O2 and heat and the byproduct witchever way you hack it is CARBON GAS and lots of it - way thicker and denser than petro based fuels. This tech has been around for along time. The germans knew about it so did everyone else. It is a D- solution to our energy problem(s) at best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoichiometry

I'm all for kicking the ragheads in the nuts and not sending them anymore $$ but we need to find/seek the proper solution. This is the USA, we didn't to be the world superpower by taking the easy way out.

Widespread use of coal is something i'd expect china to come up with. its cookbook engineering/science. if the US (read you and me) really wants to keep its place as THE world leader it will find the proper solution - one that is renewable/sustainable, non-bad guy reliant and doesn't pollute the heck out of the air. Again I'm no tree hugger, and what that solution is i have no clue (I was only a C average engineering student).

I can tell you that a start would be to take the economist/bizz degree bean counters out from the head positions at energy related companies. replace them with bill gates dorky science loving people who care about the science instead of the bottom line/quick buck.

I bet this project was started by some engineering related AF bean counter that told some dedicated science/engineer people at WP to regurgitate this from some old german research pre WW2.

The Air Force COS's intent was to be able to fly warplanes even if our external petroleum supplies were cut off. The secondary objective was to stabilize fuel costs. Synthetic jet juice can probably be had for somewhere between $100-200 per bbl, once large-scale production begins.

This program has nothing to do with environmentalism or overall energy policy...it's just a fuel supply, not an energy source.

Environmentally speaking, sythnetic jet fuel produces fewer of some pollutants, but produces more CO2.


The good news for us is that once commercial operators start making enough synthetic fuel for the AF, the airlines could start buying it too...if the price of oil gets much higher.