Coal Powered Jets (take THAT OPEC!!)

wheelsup

Well-Known Member
Coal-Powered Jets

A new process using jet fuel made from coal could reduce oil dependence, and improve fuel performance in advanced aircraft.

By Kevin Bullis

Researchers have powered a turboshaft jet engine, the type used to drive helicopter rotors, with a coal-based fuel that could eventually replace military and commercial jet fuels, says Harold Schobert, director of the Energy Institute at Pennsylvania State University. The successful development of the coal-based fuel, which was described this week at the American Chemical Society meeting in Atlanta, could also have uses in diesel engines and fuel cells, Schobert says.

Coal-powered aircraft are not new -- Germany used fuels derived from coal to power planes in World War II. But the high cost of building production plants to turn coal into liquid fuel has prevented the technology's widespread use. Now Schobert and colleagues have developed a way to make jet fuel containing as much as 75 percent coal products using existing oil refineries, eliminating the need to build costly new plants -- and potentially making coal-derived fuel an economically viable alternative to oil.

"In the current formulation this would displace half the petroleum, which is very close to the fraction of petroleum that we import. We've actually tested, at a smaller scale, 75 percent replacement," with success, says Schobert.

Coal, the cheapest of fossil fuels, which also has the steadiest prices, is abundant in the United States. John Grasser, a U.S. Department of Energy spokesperson, cites estimates that the amount of recoverable coal in the country is enough for 250-300 years. "You hear a lot about renewables, and certainly renewables have a part to play in making us self sufficient," says Grasser. "But they're not going to have an impact on petroleum coming in. You're going to have to take something like coal, which we have in huge quantities here, and turn it into a petroleum component."

In addition to reducing dependence on oil, the new fuel might, in fact, also have benefits for advanced aircraft. Today's high-performance military aircraft generate a lot of heat, which can damage hydraulics and electronics, Schobert says. As a result, engineers design these planes to use the onboard fuel as a heat sink. As fuels absorb heat, however, they can begin to break down, which can lead to carbon deposits that clog fuel lines and nozzles. Future advanced aircraft could generate even more heat -- too much for today's fuels to handle. Schobert and colleagues methodically tested about 50 compounds to discover thermally stable ones -- and the best, they found, could readily be made from coal. Their fuel can handle temperatures around 600 degrees Fahrenheit (315 degrees Celsius), higher that today's fuels.


Schobert and his colleagues make the fuel using refined coal oil, which is a byproduct of coke manufacture; the byproduct is mixed at an oil refinery with a product of crude oil called light cycle oil. This mix is then hydrogenated using equipment that already exists at refineries, and then it's distilled into various products -- mostly diesel fuel and jet fuel (about 40 percent of each), as well as some gasoline and heating oil.

Other potential benefits of the coal-based fuel: it can replace the three or four different jet fuels used by the military for aircraft and missiles, and the same fuel can be used in diesel engines if those engines are modified slightly. The fuel could also be used without modification in high-temperature stationary fuel cells for generating electricity, Schobert says.

But significant hurdles remain before the fuel can see widespread use. So far, only 500 gallons of it have been produced, far too little to assess production costs, Schobert says. Nevertheless, he suspects that the coal-based fuel could compete with other fuels.

One cost-related problem, however, is that supply of refined coal oil used in the current process is limited, and prices of it would likely go up sharply with increased demand. "Frankly, we'd probably soak up the entire byproduct market, and the folks that sell those byproduct chemicals are not dopes," says Schobert; "they know what they could do to the price under those circumstances." Schobert is now working on other methods of producing the fuel using oil refinery products.

Before the economics of the process can be evaluated, the fuel will need a significant production run -- probably around 50,000 barrels, Schobert estimates, which could cost tens of millions of dollars. He hopes to raise money for the trial run from the private sector. To this end he's organizing a "summit" this spring to bring together parties such as engine makers and oil companies. Schobert also hopes that airlines will be interested: "They don't need the superior thermal stability that this fuel has, but what they do need is a reliable source of fuel that's at a pretty steady price level."

If the money for such a run does come together, one important step still remains. While they've tested the fuel in a stationary jet engine, eventually, "Somebody's got to put this in an airplane and fly it," Schobert says.

http://www.technologyreview.com/BizT...50,296,p1.html

~wheelsup
 
rightrudder86 said:
This sounds interesting and it could save a lot on gas prices. Can they make coal powered cars too?

Check out the first paragraph -

The successful development of the coal-based fuel, which was described this week at the American Chemical Society meeting in Atlanta, could also have uses in diesel engines and fuel cells, Schobert says.

I'm not sure a nation of all diesel is the answer (extremely dirty air quality) but fuel cells, hmm. That would be cool. The government should be throwing $$ at this stuff left and right...
 
Sprint100 said:
Coal powered, WTF. That is a great improvement from gas:sarcasm:

I'm not sure why you're against this - with 250 years of coal (according to the article) here in the US this seems like a good alternative at the moment. I don't see airplanes running on fuel cells or hydrogen any time soon. IMO, it's better than importing oil @ $60, $80, $150+ bbl down the line.
 
wheelsup said:
The government should be throwing $$ at this stuff left and right...

Before the economics of the process can be evaluated, the fuel will need a significant production run -- probably around 50,000 barrels, Schobert estimates, which could cost tens of millions of dollars. He hopes to raise money for the trial run from the private sector. To this end he's organizing a "summit" this spring to bring together parties such as engine makers and oil companies. Schobert also hopes that airlines will be interested: "They don't need the superior thermal stability that this fuel has, but what they do need is a reliable source of fuel that's at a pretty steady price level."

If the money for such a run does come together, one important step still remains. While they've tested the fuel in a stationary jet engine, eventually, "Somebody's got to put this in an airplane and fly it," Schobert says.


I like his idea better. Let's hope the government (as in our money) stays out of it. They can mess up an anvil.
 
Sprint100 said:
Coal powered, WTF. That is a great improvement from gas:sarcasm:

Do a little research...

I saw this on 60 minutes:

Schweitzer wants to take coal that’s been pressurized into a gas, and then use something called the Fischer-Tropsch process to convert that gas into a clean diesel fuel, similar to what is made at a demonstration plant in Oklahoma.

The governor handed Stahl a jar of this synthetic fuel, which looked and smelled clean. "Chanel No. 37," Schweitzer said, laughing. "It is diesel. You can pour that in your diesel car or truck right now."

Oh, yes. The Fischer-Tropsch diesel is a superb fuel," said Williams. "Not only is [it] cleaner than conventional diesel, but it also leads to improved engine performance."

And he explained why the process works environmentally.

"The reason this works and is much cleaner is you're not burning coal. You’re instead gasifying coal," Williams said.

"And, therefore, things don't go up into the atmosphere?" Stahl asked.

"Well, when you gasify coal, you can take the pollutants out," Williams explained.

"You're saying before the coal is ever burned in any way, you can separate out the bad stuff?" Stahl asked.

Read the whole report here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/24/60minutes/main1343604.shtml
 
flyover said:
I like his idea better. Let's hope the government (as in our money) stays out of it. They can mess up an anvil.

Good point. If the airlines were smart, they'd fund this operation themselves and have the rights to producing their own fuel.

However, knowing their track record, they'd spin it off and sell it just as it was starting to make economic sense.

I read an article where Richard Branson, of the Virgin brand, was buying up oil refineries in the UK to better control is airlines fuel costs. I also read an article that said if Southwest sold their fuel hedges, they'd make more $$ then by operating an airline!
 
Considering we need to make energy exploration the new "Manhattan Project" anything is better than nothing.

Considering the war hawks want to go invade Iran, and the western world hinges day-to-day on the fact that terrorists haven't hijacked "Lower Mongolia Airlines" and run it into a Saudi oil production facility, we're seriously living on borrowed time.
 
TheFlyingTurkey said:
"The reason this works and is much cleaner is you're not burning coal. You’re instead gasifying coal," Williams said.

That statement alone makes me in favor of it.

P.S. - Turk, I'll do research if I feel inclined to do so. Too much gas alternative hype has been going around, so I'm not getting excited about anything until it goes into actual production.:)
 
while i first liked the idea when i read about it a while ago, it's not the best thing. don't go all "you damn hippy" on me because i like flying, driving, riding motorcycles, all that good stuff. though as this method becomes more and more attractive with rising prices, it will just give the public an excuse to not want to make any development on renewable energies.

why run powerplants of gasified coal when we have free energy from the sun? to power the united states, we would need an area of a 50mi radius circle. if we placed solar panels on buildings we would be able to reduce our consumption by a great amount, but no one cares about the long term.

while i agree this is good for now, to wean us off foreign fuels, what happens when 250 years of coal runs out? i doubt it will be 250+ years with current and growing rates of consumption. "don't worry about it, it's not in our lifetime," i hate that response, it's in this worlds lifetime.

i know aircraft will have trouble with rewnewable energy sources and because of that i have no response. for ground transportation, i think using coal gasification methods is the wrong road to take.

sorry for the rant.
 
Doug Taylor said:
Considering we need to make energy exploration the new "Manhattan Project" anything is better than nothing.

Considering the war hawks want to go invade Iran, and the western world hinges day-to-day on the fact that terrorists haven't hijacked "Lower Mongolia Airlines" and run it into a Saudi oil production facility, we're seriously living on borrowed time.

one point to dt
 
Back
Top