Lear Love wrote:
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.
This has been done in the B52 and C17 fleets. The C17 fleet test was especially significant because of the commonality between the C17 engines and the engines in airline fleets. According to a press release from the Edwards AFB public affairs office, the AF is implying hopes a commercial carrier will become more interested in this blended fuel.
According to an article from the Republican Herald in Gilberton PA (?), the AF bought 290,000 gallons of the synthetic fuel blend at $3.41 per gallon. It seems the hope is the more this blend is used, the more the cost goes down.
Another article, from ALPA's Air Line Pilot (March 2007) says tests of the JP8-synjet blend reduced particulate emissions by 20-40 per-cent and no "leakage in the test engines." This is important because O-ring seals require carbon compounds to work properly.
We're not currently able to fly current airplanes without carbon fuels. We can operate with a synthetic fuel blended with JP8 (and Jet A?). Unfortunately, ethanol is not a viable replacement for Jet A or JP8.
FWIW, an ethanol based fuel won't be a viable alternative for 100LL avgas.
Fly safe!
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.
This has been done in the B52 and C17 fleets. The C17 fleet test was especially significant because of the commonality between the C17 engines and the engines in airline fleets. According to a press release from the Edwards AFB public affairs office, the AF is implying hopes a commercial carrier will become more interested in this blended fuel.
According to an article from the Republican Herald in Gilberton PA (?), the AF bought 290,000 gallons of the synthetic fuel blend at $3.41 per gallon. It seems the hope is the more this blend is used, the more the cost goes down.
Another article, from ALPA's Air Line Pilot (March 2007) says tests of the JP8-synjet blend reduced particulate emissions by 20-40 per-cent and no "leakage in the test engines." This is important because O-ring seals require carbon compounds to work properly.
We're not currently able to fly current airplanes without carbon fuels. We can operate with a synthetic fuel blended with JP8 (and Jet A?). Unfortunately, ethanol is not a viable replacement for Jet A or JP8.
FWIW, an ethanol based fuel won't be a viable alternative for 100LL avgas.
Fly safe!
Last edited:
