Forum: Technology

Next generaton jet fuel: coal!?



Search Search  Register Register  Private Messages Private Messages
guidelines Forum Guidelines
Post new topic   Reply to topic   
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
singularity
PostPosted: Jan 19, 2009 - 01:10 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
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.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Sponsor
New postPosted: May 22, 2013 - 9:22 AM Back to top
F-16.net Sponsor





  Send private message  
 
That_Engine_Guy
PostPosted: Jan 19, 2009 - 04:18 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 2K
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. Cool

_________________
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
 
singularity
PostPosted: Jan 20, 2009 - 12:30 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
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.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
That_Engine_Guy
PostPosted: Jan 20, 2009 - 02:57 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 2K
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~! Shocked

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb
TEG



sasoljet.jpg
 Description:
Coal To Liquid process diagram
 Filesize:  73.6 KB
 Viewed:  2407 Time(s)

sasoljet.jpg


 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
 
Kryptid
PostPosted: Jan 20, 2009 - 05:35 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
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.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Guysmiley
PostPosted: Jan 20, 2009 - 03:56 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
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.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
TC
PostPosted: Jan 21, 2009 - 10:40 PM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Moderator
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
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Scorpion1alpha
PostPosted: Jan 25, 2009 - 02:06 PM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Moderator
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.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Lieven
PostPosted: Feb 03, 2009 - 05:37 PM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Webmaster
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
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
lampshade111
PostPosted: Feb 04, 2009 - 07:27 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Active Member
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?
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Guysmiley
PostPosted: Feb 04, 2009 - 10:25 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
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.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
singularity
PostPosted: Feb 05, 2009 - 01:04 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
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.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Guysmiley
PostPosted: Feb 05, 2009 - 06:02 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
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.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
LordOfBunnies
PostPosted: Feb 05, 2009 - 08:42 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
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.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Guysmiley
PostPosted: Feb 05, 2009 - 09:29 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
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.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic