| Author |
Message |
|
singularity
|
Posted: Jan 19, 2009 - 01:10 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Dec 18, 2008 - 01:06 PM
Posts: 94
Status: Offline
|
Found <a href="http://www.popsci.com/node/31142">this article</a> on posci.com....very interesting.
Quote:
Flying the Coal-Fired Skies
The Air Force has an ambitious plan to wean American aviation off oil. But will the cure be worse than the disease?
In the not-so-distant future, cars could run on electricity, power plants on wind and solar energy, and city buses on zero-emission hydrogen fuel cells. But airplanes? Those just might run on coal.
Yes, coal. The U.S. Air Force wants to create a synthetic-fuel industry that, unless something better comes along, will mine America’s massive coal supply (we have more than a quarter of the world’s known reserves) and turn it into enough jet fuel for half its domestic operations to run on a 50/50 blend of synthetic and regular fuel by 2016. By the Air Force’s logic, it has no choice. It uses more fuel than all the other branches of the military combined, burning through 2.5 billion gallons of the stuff in 2007 alone—10 percent of the total used by the entire domestic-aviation fuel market—at a cost of $5.6 billion. And although oil prices have dropped in recent months, no one expects the relief to last indefinitely.
Source: http://www.popsci.com/node/31142
Not sure what to say about it though. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: May 22, 2013 - 9:22 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
That_Engine_Guy
|
Posted: Jan 19, 2009 - 04:18 PM
|
|
|
Elite 2K

Joined: Dec 14, 2005 - 05:03 AM
Posts: 2198
Location: Under the engine somewhere.
Status: Offline
|
Well from an engine standpoint, a gas turbine engine will run on anything liquid, or gaseous, that will hold a flame.
So if you can pump it, and it will burn, a jet engine will run on it.  |
_________________ [Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
|
|
|
|
 |
|
singularity
|
Posted: Jan 20, 2009 - 12:30 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Dec 18, 2008 - 01:06 PM
Posts: 94
Status: Offline
|
| I think its really funny, all these green people then the airforce proposes using coal as their next fuel. TWICE the CO2 emissions, but if it works....I dont care about that. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
That_Engine_Guy
|
Posted: Jan 20, 2009 - 02:57 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K

Joined: Dec 14, 2005 - 05:03 AM
Posts: 2198
Location: Under the engine somewhere.
Status: Offline
|
|
http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/aimr/commodity/coal_to_liquids.jsp wrote:
Coal to Liquids (CTL)
The production of liquids from coal requires the breakdown of the chemical structures present in coal through the simultaneous elimination of oxygen (O), nitrogen (N) and sulphur (S) and the introduction of hydrogen (H). This action produces a stable liquid product. Coal can be converted into a variety of products including petrol, diesel, jet fuel, plastics, gas, ammonia, synthetic rubber, naptha, tars, alcohols and methanol. There has been extensive research into converting coal to a liquid, but there are basically three approaches, pyrolysis (direct method), hydrogenation (direct method) and gasification and synthesis (indirect method).
CTL technology was developed in the early 20th century and was used in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's. Since 1955 in South Africa, the SASOL company has operated the only CTL plant in the world to date. However, the Senhua Group expect a CTL plant to start in late 2008 at Ordos in China. In Australia from 1955 to 1969, a Lurgi gasification plant produced gas for the Melbourne market from briquetted Yallourn brown coal. From 1985 to 1990 a Japanese consortium operated a CTL pilot plant at Morwell which demonstrated that hydrogenation of La Trobe Valley brown coal was technically feasible.
Underground Coal Gasification: Syngas can also be produced by underground or in-situ coal gasification. In this method fuel gases are produced underground when a coal seam gets enough air to burn but insufficient for all consumable products to be consumed. Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen and methane are produced to yield a gas of low but variable heat content. Air is pumped into the burning coal bed through a well, and the gas is drawn off from a point behind the fire-front through another well. A problem is the collapse of the coal bed and subsidence on the surface. The gasified coal can then be used to produce liquids or electricity. The power station at Angren in Uzbekistan has the only operating underground coal gasification project in the world.
It's not like they're burning the coal, but I'm not sure what emmissions or waste is created during the process. I just saw at the site below that it only transfers 60-70% of the coal's "energy" into the liquid.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04 ... ctl-s.html
The USAF has also used a natural gas derived synthetic jet fuel...
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123027415
After all...
Quote:
The JP-8 fuel is what the US Military uses in all of its jet-powered aircraft and on average accounts for nearly 70 percent of the DoD's $8.5 billion fuel budget-a steep bill that is based completely on petroleum.
Everyone who makes energy should get a piece of that pie~!
Keep 'em flyin'
TEG |
| Description: |
| Coal To Liquid process diagram |
|
| Filesize: |
73.6 KB |
| Viewed: |
2407 Time(s) |

|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Kryptid
|
Posted: Jan 20, 2009 - 05:35 AM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Aug 10, 2008 - 02:16 AM
Posts: 343
Status: Offline
|
| Well, if nothing else at least we can still keep planes in the air even if oil gets too difficult to acquire... |
_________________ Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for Him.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Guysmiley
|
Posted: Jan 20, 2009 - 03:56 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM
Posts: 1496
|
| The Fischer-Tropsch process is what Germany used in WWII to liquefy coal when they lost easy access to crude oil. It's definitely less efficient than refining crude because of the energy required to get syngas from the raw coal. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
TC
|
Posted: Jan 21, 2009 - 10:40 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Moderator

Joined: Jan 14, 2004 - 07:06 AM
Posts: 4006
Status: Offline
|
| Folks, I did a little "house cleaning" on this thread, as you may have noticed. Let's keep the politics and finger-pointing out of this thread, or I'll have to Sierra-Can the whole thing. iMuchas Gracias! |
_________________ "He counted on America to be passive...He counted wrong." -- President Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Scorpion1alpha
|
Posted: Jan 25, 2009 - 02:06 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Moderator

Joined: Oct 21, 2005 - 01:47 AM
Posts: 1375
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote:
http://www.popsci.com/node/31142
That is a very interesting read. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Lieven
|
Posted: Feb 03, 2009 - 05:37 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Webmaster

Joined: May 23, 2003 - 04:44 PM
Posts: 2992
|
|
Quote:
Air Force drops plan to make fuel from coal in Montana
The Air Force on Thursday dropped plans to build a coal-to-liquid plant to produce fuel for its aircraft, a plan that would've reduced dependence on oil but increased the emissions of the heat-trapping gases that cause global warming.
The Air Force has a goal to certify that all aircraft could fly on a 50-50 blend of fuel by 2011. It's been purchasing fuel made from coal from Sasol of South Africa , most recently 300,000 gallons, said Air Force spokesman Gary Strasburg.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090 ... /3156444_1
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
lampshade111
|
Posted: Feb 04, 2009 - 07:27 PM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Sep 22, 2008 - 03:17 AM
Posts: 191
Status: Offline
|
What a load of BS. Coal-to-liquid is a great way to get us off of foreign oil and this time the USAF took the lead, but as usual the damn global warming nutjobs shut it down.
How are we supposed to stop paying the Saudis if we never do anything that is not 100% green? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Guysmiley
|
Posted: Feb 04, 2009 - 10:25 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM
Posts: 1496
|
|
lampshade111 wrote:
What a load of BS. Coal-to-liquid is a great way to get us off of foreign oil and this time the USAF took the lead, but as usual the damn global warming nutjobs shut it down.
How are we supposed to stop paying the Saudis if we never do anything that is not 100% green?
CTL is incredibly energy inefficient and is only useful when no other sources of crude are available (like in WWII once Germany lost access to oil).
And one thing to consider, our largest crude oil exporter isn't in the middle east, it's Canada. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
singularity
|
Posted: Feb 05, 2009 - 01:04 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Dec 18, 2008 - 01:06 PM
Posts: 94
Status: Offline
|
| Would it be possible to convert our planes to run on hydrogen? ahem...most abundent element in the universe here, and Earth has plenty of it! No crazy emissions and would be fairly cheap to produce. Im not a global warming nut, but the switch to coal would seem like a step back in technological progress. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Guysmiley
|
Posted: Feb 05, 2009 - 06:02 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM
Posts: 1496
|
The problem with hydrogen, ok, some of the problems with hydrogen are as such:
1. Hydrogen isn't a source of energy, it's really a transmission method.
2. It doesn't exist in molecular form on Earth. Getting molecular hydrogen requires a significant amount of energy (and ironically the easiest way is to get it is from fossil fuels).
3. It's energy density by volume is HORRIBLE, which makes it pretty useless for aircraft where volume is quite important.
This is totally off topic, but bouncing around in my head has been the idea for wind-powered hydrogen electrolysis, where local turbine farms generate power when there's wind, and then rather than sending that power thousands of miles (with the associated transmission losses) they send to a close regional hydrogen electrolysis facility. Then you can pipe the hydrogen to power generation facilities located close to population centers. I'm not a power engineer, so I don't know how transmission losses compare to the efficiency of large scale hydrogen electrolysis. But another thing it would do is allow for the storage of wind (and hell solar) energy generated when it's not immediately needed. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
LordOfBunnies
|
Posted: Feb 05, 2009 - 08:42 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Jul 21, 2005 - 06:28 AM
Posts: 588
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Status: Offline
|
Part of the problem with power generation is stacking losses. Even if EVERYTHING, from the power turbine to the appliance in your house, is 90% efficient, you're only going to see about 30% efficiency because...
power turbine * generator *transformer * transmission line * transformer *... you get the point. You have multiplicative losses that add up to make the whole thing inefficient as a whole.
As for the method of hydrogen generation, what's done currently is inject methane into a coal plant's steam turbine. So you go from
CH4 + 2H2O = CO2 + 4H2... this is of course the ideal process and I'm not including CO2 since it doesn't participate, but you get the idea.
So is hydrogen really a clean fuel? HELL NO!
On topic, I sure hope we can learn to turn coal into jet fuel. We've got a ton of the stuff (supposedly the Saudi Arabia of coal). I know we have to get off fossil fuels, but most politicians can't see further than the next election cycle so don't want to make long terms goals and commitments, usually just pretty words to get votes. |
_________________ Peace through superior firepower.
Back as a Student, it's a long story.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Guysmiley
|
Posted: Feb 05, 2009 - 09:29 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM
Posts: 1496
|
|
Quote:
I sure hope we can learn to turn coal into jet fuel
We can, it's been do-able for over 50 years. It's just wildly inefficient. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|