Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Test of alternative jet fuel termed 'success'
Valley Press on ^ | Saturday, December 23, 2006. | ALLISON GATLIN

Posted on 12/23/2006 10:15:33 AM PST by BenLurkin

EDWARDS AFB - Testing to prove the suitability for military and commercial aircraft of an alternative jet fuel made from natural gas checked off another successful mission last week, this time with the Air Force Flight Test Center's commander at the controls. Maj. Gen. Curtis Bedke piloted the B-52 test aircraft during the Dec. 15 mission, the first using only the synthetic-fuel blend in all eight engines.

The six-hour test mission was designed to determine fuel consumption and put the bomber through operational flight paces. This included a low-level route and low-altitude bomb run, aerial refueling, formation flight, a high-altitude bomb run and various maneuvers to test the engines' ability to increase and decrease speeds quickly.

The bomber performed as would be expected using the traditional JP-8 jet fuel and the test flight was declared a success, Bedke reported in a basewide e-mail during the weekend.

"Although the flight was not high-risk, it was certainly important. As a test pilot with 3,000-plus hours of operational B-52 experience, it certainly adds to our credibility for me to be able to fly the test points first-hand and know exactly what we've done to demonstrate this fuel's capability," Bedke said.

An alternative to traditional aviation fuel is important to the Air Force in part to lessen high fuel costs and to cut dependence on foreign oil, Pentagon officials say. The tests also are hoped to demonstrate to commercial airlines that the fuel is safe and useful, because making the synthetic fuel economical will require a greater demand than just from the military, officials said. The Air Force uses about 10% of the jet fuel in the U.S. market.

(Excerpt) Read more at avpress.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; US: California
KEYWORDS: aerospacevalley; allisongatlin; antelopevalley; energy; fischertropsch
The synthetic fuel is made through the Fischer-Tropsch process, which also can convert coal, natural gas or other hydrocarbons. The process was developed by German scientists in the 1920s as a means of compensating for that country's lack of oil supplies. South Africa has employed the Fischer-Tropsch process to manufacture aviation and diesel fuel for some 50 years, according to an Environmental Protection Agency fact sheet.


1 posted on 12/23/2006 10:15:34 AM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Did they practice a full mission profile round-trip to a target in Saudi Arabia?


2 posted on 12/23/2006 10:17:47 AM PST by Steely Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

I wish.


3 posted on 12/23/2006 10:22:31 AM PST by BenLurkin ("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
The success of this program is very significant development for our national security at the strategic level
4 posted on 12/23/2006 11:42:07 AM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf; BenLurkin

Reports filed with U.S. DOT, that contains systemwide data filed by major, national and large regional U.S. passenger and cargo airlines with the U.S. DoT for scheduled and nonscheduled services, passenger airlines account for approximately 85% of gallons consumed by U.S. airlines, which account for an estimated 35% of global airline fuel consumption. Expense figures may include fuel transport costs, but do not include taxes, into-plane fees or expenses associated with hedging programs.

YTD figures up to Oct 2006, show $32 billion worth of jet fuel consumed (16.1 billion gallons). From this one can infer that total U.S. commercial consumption alone amounts to $44.4 billion annually, which is 41% of global consumption. The U.S.A.F. accounts for an additional $4.4 billion worth of jet fuel.

According to EIA figures, the U.S. refines on average about 1.5 million barrels jet fuel per day (imports account for about an additional 0.181 million barrels/day). Exports of jet fuel ammounts to about 0.05 million barrels/day. The U.S. imports about $180 billion of crude oil annually, at a rate of 10,126,000 barrels/day and produces about 5,178,000 barrels/day. Distillation factor for jet fuel from crude oil is about 10%. U.S. crude oil production is sufficient for 500,000 barrels of jet fuel per day. The balance is accounted for by imports.

The U.S. consumes about 9,159,000 barrels of gasoline per day. The crude oil/gasoline distillation factor is about 40%. This entails a 22 million barrel /day crude oil habit. However, only 15 million barrels of crude are actually available and so the balance of gasoline is imported.

Synthetic jet fuel would have mininal impact, if any, on crude oil requirements. However, doing so would allow the U.S. to become a net exporter of jet fuel (1 million barrels daily), supplying 30% of about a $100 billion global demand (or about 18% of U.S. crude imports).


5 posted on 12/23/2006 11:58:09 AM PST by raygun (Whenever I see U.N. blue helmets I feel like laughing and puking at the same time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
The scientist in charge of this program at Wright Field gave a presentation on it two weeks ago at the Engineers Club. Although the Air Force talks about producing the fuel from coal, the fuel in the test was actually produced from natural gas, which is also in short supply. Before this synthetic fuel becomes practical, it will be necessary to develop a process for gasifying coal while eliminating the sulfur and other undesirables.

To gasify the coal, a source of hydrogen is needed. Low-sulfur coal is found primarily in the Mountain West, but there isn't much water there. Either the coal has to be transported to a water source, or water has to be piped to places like Montana. Ohio coal is high-sulfur, and the Ohio River is mostly an open sewer. Neither makes a good source of feedstocks for this process. Same set of problems in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

There's a long way to go before this becomes a serious substitute for imported oil.

Nevertheless, it's an important step.

6 posted on 12/23/2006 12:01:41 PM PST by JoeFromSidney (My book is out. Read excerpts at www.thejusticecooperative.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raygun
I was thinking as more of planning for another global war scenario.

For example, the B-36 bomber development was in part to fulfill a need of a bomber with the range to reach Germany from the US (and back) if England were to fall to the Germans.
7 posted on 12/23/2006 12:10:02 PM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Looks like the Peak Oil boy's prediction of the end of oil are a bit premature.


8 posted on 12/23/2006 12:27:05 PM PST by Nuc1 (NUC1 Sub pusher SSN 668 (Liberals Aren't Patriots))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney
...produced from natural gas, which is also in short supply.

That is an interesting statement, presented as a fact. But it is not a fact. Natural gas is far more plentiful than oil. California gets a large proportion of its electricity from natural gas. About 30 million people use California electricity. You think a couple of nuclear plants and a couple dozen dams can produce enough electricity for 30 million people? My house is heated by natural gas. I turned my heater on this very morning, and my house is toasty-warm right now. And my gas bill is only 25 dollars a month. And most of my neighbors use natural gas for heat. And most of the people in my town. And my work uses natural gas to heat an entire school for 2000 students every day. So maybe there is nothing at all wrong with making jet fuel from natural gas, and probably the people who thought of it are as smart as you are.

9 posted on 12/23/2006 12:34:13 PM PST by webheart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
Roger that, and from a strategic standpoint, synthetic jet fuel would be a good idea.

Actually, as I read this, I realize an error: it would no longer be a $100 billion market. It would be about a $55 billion market, and the U.S. would be able to supply a little less than 1/2 that.

This is who would be affected by U.S. jet fuel exports.

10 posted on 12/23/2006 12:37:47 PM PST by raygun (Whenever I see U.N. blue helmets I feel like laughing and puking at the same time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
The only thing not mentioned is the long term effects on the engines.
If this increases the frequency of servicing the mechanicals, including fuel tanks, it may be a misplaced alternative.
11 posted on 12/23/2006 12:49:53 PM PST by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raygun
That is a great link! Thank you.
As far as imported crude goes,
I found the following to be most interesting:

(thousands of barrels)
#1 Canada 596,183 16.1%
#2 Mexico 567,955 15.4%
#3 Saudi Arabia 527,287 14.3%
#4 Venezuela 452,914 12.3%
#5 Nigeria 393,038 10.6%
#6 Iraq 192,524 5.2%
#7 Angola 166,404 4.5%
#8 Ecuador 100,730 2.7%
#9 Algeria 83,359 2.3%
#10 Kuwait 82,730 2.2%

Somebody must be doing something right!

With that kind of natural resource income, why is Nigeria still a third world country?
Who gets all the income?

12 posted on 12/23/2006 6:35:29 PM PST by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

I don't know how I arrived at some of the numbers that I did in myu post. I swear I calculated them. I SWEAR I calculated them. And now the numbers aren't jibbing. It bums me out (I hate when the numbers don't add up).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1757751/posts?page=40#40

Be VERY careful who you talk to.


MERRY CHRISTMAS to you too (Happy New Year).


13 posted on 12/23/2006 8:40:26 PM PST by raygun (Whenever I see U.N. blue helmets I feel like laughing and puking at the same time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: webheart

You can sit there all smug and content with your low prices for energy. Meanwhile, my sister's gas bill for last month was well over $180. USD. Her Electrical bill was over $100. USD. She lives in Edmonton Alberta. It's been a VERY mild winter so far.

No matter HOW plentiful you think NG is, there is still a HUGE demand for it, and it is driving the (NON-SUBSIDIZED) price to the average Joe through the roof.


14 posted on 12/23/2006 9:13:46 PM PST by Don W (Stoneage man survived thousands of years of bitter-cold ice. Modern man WILLsurvive global warming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: webheart

OH, and she's just spent about 35K in upgrading the insulative values (ceiling, windows, doors, etc) of the house. She's even bought a new furnace, and had it gone over by the local gas efficiency guru.

As a combustion engineer, I had to see what he had done. NOTHING. I tweaked it a bit, but don't have the time to spend. I'll waste a week on it, but I have to get back to work. She's 700 miles from MY home, y'see


15 posted on 12/23/2006 9:21:08 PM PST by Don W (Stoneage man survived thousands of years of bitter-cold ice. Modern man WILLsurvive global warming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson