USAF moving toward Synthetic fuel

[MarineGrunt]

I wonder if the tankers will get it, and offload it too.

Even if we don't burn it, we (KC135s) can still offload it with nearly zero modifications. Still plenty of T-models out there that carried the SR71 gas...

 

[Mamma]

I think the US Air Force is the only one willing to pay the current price of 8 dollars per gallon for synthetic fuel to put in 4 and 8 engine jets!

(I don't know how much synthetic fuel costs)

When it becomes cost effective you will see the comercial market using it.

Not $8.00. Normal jet fuel is $2.31/gallon as of today. Two different articles:

http://www.komoradio.com/news/local/12533531.html

The Air Force bought 290,000 gallons of the synthetic fuel from Shell Houston, at a cost of $3.41 per gallon, said Paul Bollinger Jr., special assistant to the assistant secretarya of the Air Force for installations, environment and logistics.

The fuel was produced at a Shell plant in Malaysia.

"We expect the price to be significantly less as greater volumes are purchased in the future," Bollinger said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/us/14fuel.html

Syntroleum can produce 42 gallons of synthetic fuel from 10,000 cubic feet of natural gas. The raw materials cost about $70.
If the military moves ahead with using the synthetic fuels, the Syntroleum technology could be used by factories elsewhere to produce the same 42 gallons of fuel from just $10 worth of coal, Mr. Holmes said.

 

[jke406]

Syntroleum can produce 42 gallons of synthetic fuel from 10,000 cubic feet of natural gas. The raw materials cost about $70.
If the military moves ahead with using the synthetic fuels, the Syntroleum technology could be used by factories elsewhere to produce the same 42 gallons of fuel from just $10 worth of coal, Mr. Holmes said.

Don't forget the outrageous profiteering by my friends at the oil companies that will jack the price way up.

 

[M-crit]

The problem is that the coal gasification process emits twice as much carbon dioxide/greenhouse gases as burning oil. This is because of the tremendous amount of energy needed for the process to take place. That energy isn't free either. There is a lot, i mean a lot of research and technology improvements needed to even get syn-coal on par with conventional oil as far as them being equal greenhouse gas emitters and for the prices of each to remain competitive. For those of you who need facts here are a couple:



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12314966
if your really bored:
http://www.amazon.com/Hype-About-Hydrogen-Fiction-Climate/dp/155963703X

 

[Be 23]

One of the assumptions of the Malmstrom plant is that they would have a way to sequester the carbon somehow. Of course they don't explain how. Kind of makes me think the USAF doen't really care how (or if) it's done as long as they get domestic energy for planes. Maybe they want to warm up the planet to save on all that JP-8 they burn at Thule trying to operate that place.

But I think the real comercial benfit will be as engines, fuel systems, etc. that are common with commercial applications get certified to operate on the new fuel, the cost to transition moves near zero. And then the commercial airlines warm up Thule.