It has happened

**glyn** · 18 Dec 07,, 17:40

Air Force flies across U.S. using synthetic fuel blend
By ROB SPAHR Staff Writer, 609-978-2012
Published: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

McGUIRE AIR FORCE BASE - On the 104th anniversary of the Wright brothers' historic first flight, the nation's leader in jet fuel consumption accomplished something that could revolutionize the aviation industry.
On Monday, a U.S. Air Force C-17 cargo plane became the first airplane to fly across the continental United States powered by a synthetic fuel mixture when it traveled from McChord Air Force Base in Washington state to McGuire.

The synthetic fuel, which can be produced from almost any carbon-based biomass such as coal or wood, is more environmentally friendly because it emits less carbon dioxide and sulfur than traditional jet fuel. Jet engines tested so far have not needed any changes to use the fuel, Air Force officials said.

Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne said he plans to have the entire Air Force fleet certified for synthetic fuel use by 2011.

"There's no doubt everyone is becoming a lot more conscious of their impact on the environment. … The Air Force is taking a leadership role in the testing and investigating of synthetic fuel, but I do hope that it will eventually bridge across to the commercial aircraft," said Wynne, who said the C-17 was chosen for flight due to the similarities of its engine to those in commercial aircrafts. "This really is the frontier of a new industry."

The fuel burns cleaner than standard petroleum, which Wynne said could also save a significant amount of money.
"Cleaner fuel means the engine doesn't have to work as hard, which hopefully means less time and money will need to be spent on maintenance," said Wynne, adding this could also entice commercial airlines into using synthetic fuel.

But even though the synthetic fuel is cheaper and better for the environment, it is unlikely that it will eliminate the U.S. air fleet's dependence on petroleum.

Jeff Braun, a member of the Air Force's Alternative Fuel Certification Office at Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio, said the fuel used on the flight was a 50-50 mixture of the synthetic fuel and petroleum.

"This fuel is meant to be dropped into (standard fuel) and by doing so it reduces sulfur emissions by half," said Braun, who added that when the certification process is finished with this 50-50 mixture the Air Force would begin investigating whether the percentage of synthetic fuel used could be increased.

The driving force behind the switch to synthetic fuel was a need for the federal government to find a secure source of domestic fuel in order to decrease U.S. dependence on foreign fuel, Braun said.

However, what that source will be is still unknown.

"I don't think going straight to one source is a smart idea. There is no silver bullet, but there are a lot of small solutions," Wynne said. "By allowing many flowers to bloom in this garden it will enable us to ensure a bright and better future for America."

While Wynne said the Air Force is still looking for a long-term contract to secure domestic fuel sources, coal seems to be a strong candidate.

"This country has 240 years worth of domestic coal available for use. It is a massive, untapped well of clean diesel fuel," said Corey Henry, a spokesman for the Coal-To-Liquid Coalition. "If the Air Force spends millions every year on synthetic fuel, it would be an economic boom for any state with a large coal supply and at the same time it would create thousands of new jobs for people to work in those mines."

And Betty Rodriguez of the Air Force's Alternative Fuel Certification Office said that carbon dioxide released by the coal during conversion to jet fuel could be contained and stored for other uses.

U.S. Rep. Jim Saxton, R-3rd, called the Air Force's switch to synthetic fuel a "very special and meaningful mission," as important to the nation as it was to the Air Force.

"It is indeed encouraging that an alternate fuel source was found for such a highly-utilized platform," Saxton, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said of the various duties the C-17 performs.

The pilot of the transcontinental flight called the trip "unremarkable" in that the plane flew the way it always does.

This is exactly what Wynne wanted to hear.

"Unremarkable is perfection," he said.

**~~Feanor~~** · 18 Dec 07,, 19:29

Oh no. Green airplanes and green tanks. What will those evil liberals think of next

**JA Boomer** · 18 Dec 07,, 19:31

Although it is great that the USAF is taking the lead in developing non-petroleum based jet fuels, they fail to mention a few facts.

1) The FT process used to make synthetic jet fuels from coal, natural gas, switch grass, ect; actually uses more hydrocarbons and energy then the distillation process used to produce jet fuel from petroleum. This means that more pollution is produced per barrel of synthetic jet fuel than petroleum jet fuel.

2) Of course the aircraft using the 50/50 blend run as normal. The synthetic jet fuel is specifically designed to very closely mimic JP-8 fuel.

3) The economical and environmental saving of using synthetic fuels is not that much. As the current synthetic fuels are designed to replicate the properties of JP-8, the only emissions and efficiency savings are those that result from the synthetic fuels not containing some of the unwanted additives that are not removed during the distillation processes that produce petroleum jet fuels.

So, it actually uses more energy and creates more pollution using synthetic fuels rather than petroleum based fuels because of the processing costs. But no one talks about this, because yes, there is a minimal efficiency increases and population decreases in the actual operation of the engine while fueled by synthetic jet fuel.

The real catch is that the USAF is saving some cash by using a 50/50 blend. They can buy the synthetically produces jet fuel for less than the petroleum based fuel.

Does this mean the synthetic jet fuels are not the answer, no. Current efforts have been directly at replicating the properties of petroleum based jet fuels with synthetically produced fuels. As time goes on, synthetic fuels will be developed to maximize the potential of the fuel source. I imagine the pollution of the processing will come down, and further gains will be made on the engine efficiency and pollution discharge while using synthetic jet fuels. I see this as the way of the future, but by no means is it as magical as they make it sounds in that article.

**Jimmy** · 19 Dec 07,, 03:02

That list is the same list for any biofuel. Ethanol especially.

Hell, look at the Toyota Pruis. For something so widely recognized as wonderful for the environment, the chemicals used to produce the batteries are absolutely HORRID, as are the mines that destroy all life around them, but are the only source for whatever weird metal they use. The Pruis may not dump crazy hydrocarbons, but its environmental footprint is considerably larger than a normal car or even SUV.

Half the "green" technologies you see are considerably worse than the evil products they replace if you actually dig into it a bit.

**Julie** · 19 Dec 07,, 04:29

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Half the "green" technologies you see are considerably worse than the evil products they replace if you actually dig into it a bit.

Yeah, but it will sure tick off those "evil" greedy oil companies, won't it?

**texacali** · 19 Dec 07,, 04:46

The question is what energy source is most economical. Do we give up the agricultural base that feeds us to replace our desire for transportation fuel?
Do we neglect the cost in hydrocarbons to produce this green substitute and pay more for bodily sustenance worldwide?
How much energy is spent in the projection of force as a deterrent and how much is necessary seems a logical point of discussion.

**Jimmy** · 19 Dec 07,, 04:50

Originally Posted by Julie

Yeah, but it will sure tick off those "evil" greedy oil companies, won't it?

Not if they're smart and buy into agriculture.

**gunnut** · 19 Dec 07,, 08:18

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Not if they're smart and buy into agriculture.

Which they already have. It's the "reinvestment" of their massive "windfall" from the oil boom.

**bolo121** · 19 Dec 07,, 15:16

Ethanol especially the US corn based type is a very very bad idea
The economist had an excellent article on it a while back
Advanced biofuels | Ethanol, schmethanol | Economist.com

**Zaphael** · 19 Dec 07,, 17:09

Pardon me for asking a very practical question.

Whats the mileage like?

**JAD_333** · 19 Dec 07,, 18:27

Originally Posted by Jimmy

That list is the same list for any biofuel. Ethanol especially.

Hell, look at the Toyota Pruis. For something so widely recognized as wonderful for the environment, the chemicals used to produce the batteries are absolutely HORRID, as are the mines that destroy all life around them, but are the only source for whatever weird metal they use. The Pruis may not dump crazy hydrocarbons, but its environmental footprint is considerably larger than a normal car or even SUV.

Half the "green" technologies you see are considerably worse than the evil products they replace if you actually dig into it a bit.

Good point by you and Boomer.

But, of course, the reality of alternate fuels isn't so much to reduce the harmful side products of fossil fuels, but to have an alternative when fossil fuels are not readily available. Proponents tend to throw in the benefits to the environment because it is easier to justify subsidizing alternate fuel programs.

It seems to me at this point, the security of having alternatives comes at a cost to you and me. Ethanol made from corn, for example, is driving up food prices, which means someone's gain is our loss. Biodiisel is doing the same.

The troublesome side to alternative fuels is the conversion of biomass to fuel. Given the world's energy needs, this could denude the world's forests and plant life. Perhaps nuclear energy is the answer, but even there we have spent fuel disposal problems. The only thing that makes sense to me is wholesale alternation in the way we live in such a way as to make sure our need for energy does not outpace the supply of raw materials to meet it. I am hoping for a magic bullet.

**gunnut** · 19 Dec 07,, 22:27

Originally Posted by Zaphael

Pardon me for asking a very practical question.

Whats the mileage like?

I don't know about the jet fuel, but ethanol doesn't pack as much energy per gallon as gasoline, so we actually need to burn more to make the same distance.

**Blademaster** · 19 Dec 07,, 22:30

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Good point by you and Boomer.

I am hoping for a magic bullet.

The magic bullet is solar power but the biggest difficulty is coming up with power transmission and large scale capacitors necessary to pipe the power and distribute it all over the nation. Did you know that if you were to occupy one fourth of the Mojave Desert with solar power panels, you would generate enough electricity to power the entire nation 24 hours/ 7 days a week if large scale power storage and transmission problems were somehow solved?

**Parihaka** · 19 Dec 07,, 23:18

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Did you know that if you were to occupy one fourth of the Mojave Desert with solar power panels, you would generate enough electricity to power the entire nation 24 hours/ 7 days a week if large scale power storage and transmission problems were somehow solved?

That's where hydrogen comes in, it's the simplest and cleanest form of energy storage we've yet found.

**JA Boomer** · 19 Dec 07,, 23:50

Originally Posted by Parihaka

That's where hydrogen comes in, it's the simplest and cleanest form of energy storage we've yet found.

Except that it is very difficult to produce, you use more hydrocarbons in the making of hydrogen to be used as fuel than you do if you simply use hydrocarbons as the fuel, there is no infrastructure to support hydrogen fuel, transport and storage of hydrogen fuel if difficult and expensive...want more???

There is no silver bullet answer right now.