Military Plans Tests in Search for an Alternative to Oil-Based Fuel


By THOM SHANKER
Published: May 14, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 13 — When an F-16 lights up its afterburners, it consumes nearly 28 gallons of fuel per minute. No wonder, then, that of all the fuel the United States government uses each year, the Air Force accounts for more than half. The Air Force may not be in any danger of suffering inconveniences from scarce or expensive fuel, but it has begun looking for a way to power its jets on something besides conventional fuel.

In a series of tests — first on engines mounted on blocks and then with B-52's in flight — the Air Force will try to prove that the American military can fly its aircraft by blending traditional crude-oil-based jet fuel with a synthetic liquid made first from natural gas and, eventually, from coal, which is plentiful and cheaper.

While the military has been a leader in adopting some technologies — light but strong metals, radar-evading stealth designs and fire-retardant flight suits, for example — any effort to hit a miles-per-gallon fuel efficiency rating has taken a back seat when the mission is to haul bombs farther and faster or push 70-ton tanks across a desert to topple an adversary. (The Abrams tank, for example, gets less than a mile per gallon under certain combat conditions.)

"Energy is a national security issue," said Michael A. Aimone, the Air Force assistant deputy chief of staff for logistics.

The United States is unlikely ever to become fully independent of foreign oil, Mr. Aimone said, but the intent of the Air Force project is "to develop enough independence to have assured domestic supplies for aviation purposes."

By late this summer, on the hard lake beds of the Mojave Desert, where the Air Force tests its most secret and high-performance aircraft, a lumbering B-52 is scheduled to take off in an experiment in which two of the giant bomber's engines will burn jet fuel produced not from crude oil but from natural gas. The plane's six other engines will burn traditional jet fuel — just in case.

The Air Force consumed 3.2 billion gallons of aviation fuel in fiscal year 2005, which was 52.5 percent of all fossil fuel used by the government, Pentagon statistics show. The total Air Force bill for jet fuel last year topped $4.7 billion.

Although the share of national energy consumption by the federal government and the military is just 1.7 percent, every increase of $10 per barrel of oil drives up Air Force fuel costs by $600 million per year.

Mr. Aimone said that if the synthetic blend worked, plans called for increasing its use in Air Force planes to 100 million gallons in the next two years.

Air Force and industry officials say that oil prices above $40 to $45 per barrel make a blend with synthetic fuels a cost-effective alternative to oil-based jet fuel.

Fuel costs have doubled since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and crude oil prices since Hurricane Katrina have remained above $60 a barrel.

The Air Force effort falls under a directive from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to explore alternative fuel sources. Under the plan, the Air Force has been authorized to buy 100,000 gallons of synthetic fuel.

Ground experiments are scheduled to begin in coming weeks at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, followed by test flights at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

Although the Air Force is leading the project, it is working with the Automotive Tank Command of the Army, in Detroit, and the Naval Fuels Laboratory, at Patuxent River, Md.

The research and tests on synthetic fuel would ultimately produce a common fuel for the entire military, Air Force officials said.

The initial contract for unconventional fuel for the tests will be signed with Syntroleum Corporation of Tulsa, Okla., which has provided synthetic fuel for testing by the Departments of Energy, Transportation and Defense since 1998.

more at NYTimes.com

How about water as an alternative fuel source.


http://www.rratch.com/Misc/WaterFuel/WaterFuel.wmv

veggie oil foos

Good Lord, those FOX news hosts at the end haven't got a clue. Yes, it's water, but it's water + ELECTRICITY. And how is the electricity produced? Oh, coal, natural gas, nuclear and a tiny percentage from solar and wind.

This is NOT an energy source.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

ENERGE (gas, oil, electrical, gasoline ) is used to produce the final product, GASOLINE. If his water/ electrical fuel source produced, a Significant higher mileage per gallon then gasoline, it can be a viable alternative fuel source.



If only we can harness the method of propulsion of those space ships stored in area 51

Nice photos.

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,24219,00.html

Good lord those things are huge. Wind is not my favorite alt. energy source. Perhaps in remote rural areas -- west Texas, where I hear land owners love 'em, and North Dakota -- but I must admit I wouldn't want one in the middle of my beautiful vista any more than the folks in Martha's Vineyard.

Solar heat collection costs more per Kw hour than wind but it has fewer downsides.

Back to the original post, oh boy, we gonna dig up half the continent and pollute the other half by using every last bit of available coal so we can have fighter jets making America stand tall.

Oh boy.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

I don't know if I mentioned before or not, but I saw a PBS show about giant 'watermills' the Norwegians built. They are powered by currents in the water (which of course never die out).

__________________
1984 300TD

When I was a kid wind-powered pumps were used all over central TX to fill tanks -- what we easterners call farm ponds. On a summer's night on my uncle's ranch you could hear the gentle sound of the impeller rhythmically rotating and shifting direction with the slightest breeze. A lonely, haunting sound. When you travel that same area now there are scattered towers here and there but the impellers are gone. Is it that the water table has dropped or that electric pumps are easier to maintain?

B

...while scientist try to minimize bovine flatulence.

Attached Thumbnails

 

NIMBY.

Cost is a big factor, don't you think?

You rather have the jets sit in the shelters and hope that you don't need them?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Wrong answer. If it takes more energy to produce the same BTU (energy) equivalent of gasoline with another source, then thats a dumb plan, you are wasting energy. You have to look at the whole picture, not just what a particular car gets per gallon of a particular fuel.

This is why ethanol is stupid, it requires more energy to produce than it gives back (costs more per unit volume as well), and the logistics are not in place to make it economically viable. It also damages engines due to too lean a mixture, and can eat through fiberglass fuel tanks (lots of boats have these). A buddy of mine runs a jet ski repair shop and he is getting rich off ethanol related repair work. It can damage a lot of small engines, motorcycles, chainsaws, weedeaters, lawnmowers which is a tremendous financial burden.

And lets not forget how the price of food products will go up if you dedicate a lot of corn (or sugar) to ethanol production.

__________________
MB-less

Cmac...pointing at wind mills...anticipating a fun "FILLED" weekend in Palm Springs.................

Attached Thumbnails

   

__________________
Matt (SD,CA)

1984 300SD.. White/Chrome Bunts..Green

1997 2500 Dodge Ram 5.9 Cummins 12 Valve 36 PSI of Boost = 400+hp & 800+tQ .. ..Greenspeed

2004 Dodge Ram 2500 4x4 Quad Cab Cummins 5.9 H.O "596hp/1225tq" 6 spd. Man. Leather Heated seats/Loaded..Flame Red....GREENSPEED

Global warming...Doing my part, Smokin da hippies..

Fight the good fight!......