"Millman, pilot of a B-52 bomber, helped test a synthetic fuel blend that could be made domestically from coal or natural gas as the Air Force seeks to wean its dependence on foreign crude and defray soaring fuel costs." "The cold-weather ground tests of the fuel showed it compared well to conventional petroleum-based military aviation fuel, known as JP-8, Air Force officials said." "It behaves exactly the same as JP-8, no more no less," Millman said." http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BOM...EMPLATE=DEFAULT
Nothing new about that, the Nazi's had to make some of their fuel that way during the war. Countries like South Africa also source "synthetic" fuel that way. http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/produc...osti_id=6332320
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman @ Feb 18 2007, 06:10 PM) [snapback]392605[/snapback]</div> The original posted link does mention the coal-to fuel plants used previously by Germany during World War II and apartheid-era South Africa, faced with embargoes who also built coal-to-fuel plants. It is encouraging, however, that the Air Force is revisiting this process for jet fuel should our global oil supply be disrupted in the present day with resources currently available in the United States. This could potentially lead to new processes in the manufacturing of other synthetic fuels and not just for jets.
You can swap out the coal and substitute biomass. The Fischer-Tropsche process doesn't just apply to coal, though that's been the cheapest/easiest way to go about it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(HBO6 @ Feb 18 2007, 08:58 PM) [snapback]392600[/snapback]</div> Wikipedia has a readable article that mentions this test as well, as the last of several that have been made of the output of that synfuels plant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process Wikipedia cites a study that says coal-based synfuel generates about twice as much C02 overall as fuel refined from crude oil. That;s in line with what I've heard about this before. So if coal is the feedstock this appears to be a carbon-intensive way to make fuel.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(HBO6 @ Feb 19 2007, 03:02 AM) [snapback]392728[/snapback]</div> Yep, that's why I mentioned that OSTI link about the technical paper from the early 1980's
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Feb 19 2007, 03:50 PM) [snapback]392935[/snapback]</div> I'll take the extra carbon rather than spend US money on MidEast, African, or South American oil. Rick #4 2006
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Feb 21 2007, 12:48 PM) [snapback]394085[/snapback]</div> The EROI isn't much worse, however. We'll have to consume more of our coal just to stand still. The price of coal would likely skyrocket as well. The best approach is to simply make the oil irrelevant. Not only would it increase our security while simultaneously depriving the various crackpots out there of cash flow. Coal isn't a viable pathway because it will simply cause us equally significant problems in the mid-term.
