Coal Fueled Aircraft for the USAF

[Salty Dog]

Coal fired, (errr fueled) aircraft for the USAF . . . .

The Air Force wants to build at its Malmstrom base in central Montana the first piece of what it hopes will be a nationwide network of facilities that would convert domestic coal into cleaner-burning synthetic fuel.

The USAF plans to fuel half its North American fleet with a synthetic-fuel blend by 2016. To do so, it would need 400 million gallons of coal-based fuel annually.

http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/M/MILITARY_COAL?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-03-22-05-04-43

 

[Sea Toby]

Well, we have reached the point of peak oil where demand has reached production levels. As the price of oil has reached incredible levels, other means to produce synethetic oils are becoming economically feasible. The days of cheap oil is over.

 

[Lostfleet]

just attach some wings to old steam locomotives and voila you have coal fueled aircraft ( I dont think aerodynamics and stealth would be a plus for the aircraft but at least the enemy soldier will hear the chuff chuff chuff noise and know beforehand that the 10 o'clock bombing is arriving )

At least it is coal that they are researching, if you remember a few decades ago they were planning to install nuclear plants on aircraft. I am sure some scientist will argue that nuclear plants are much safer but hey I wouldnt want any nuclear plant flying over me. I prefer locomotives with wings . . .

 

[kato]

The basic concept to use liquified coal as synthetic fuel has been around since WW2 at least, when Germany did just that.

Not for aircraft though...

 

[Lostfleet]

I guess it is better to invest that money into making more efficient aircraft ( lighter, perhaps unmanned and carrying less but more accurate weapons), because at the end you will have same pollution effects and once your coal runs out you will be dependent on some other source again,

 

[WAR]

Well there are doubts whether this technology would provide the same power and efficiency to the fighter jets.

But if the USAF able to do it, then it would go a long way in reducing the fuel budget substantially.

I suppose it may work for wide-bodied transport (civil and military both) aircraft, and that too by mixing with the traditional fuel.

 

[Firehorse]

Fuel inefficient B-52 fleet certified to use synthetic fuel blend

By 2010, the Air Force goal is to certify all its aircraft to use the fuel blend which mixes JP-8 with fuel produced using the Fischer-Tropsch process -- a process used to convert carbon-based materials into synthetic fuel. German chemists Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch developed the method at the Kaiser Wilhem Institute during the 1920s. ..
Upcoming C-17 tests will be a stepping stone toward improving national energy security as well as toward prompting interest in commercial industry. He said commercial aviation already is working with the Air Force to certify more aircraft to use the fuel blend.

I've read that there are huge coal deposits in the US that will last for at least several dacades- but I agree that the engines that will burn coal-derived fuel must be efficient enough to make it worthwhile. China may also follow suit- most of their energy production is coal-based anyway.

Although China is the largest producer coal, USA has the maximum coal reserves.

Although coal deposits are widely distributed, 67 percent of the world’s recoverable reserves are located in four countries: the USA (27 %), Russia (17 %), China (13 %), and India (10 %). http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html

 

[EnigmaNZ]

The US already uses several billion tons of coal a year, mainly for electricity production. The state of Montana alone has reserves of coal totalling 120 billion tons, enough to make about 180 billion barrels of liquid fuels, depending on the process. The Airforce wants to make about 10 million barrels of fuel a year, that will consume less than 7 million tons of coal a year, a spit in the bucket compared to what they are already using, and have available.

 

[The Big I]

Why would you waste your time trying to fit coal burning engines to anything its a waste of time. They should be investing in alternate fuel sources with hydrogen being at the top of the list.

 

[swerve]

Why would you waste your time trying to fit coal burning engines to anything its a waste of time. They should be investing in alternate fuel sources with hydrogen being at the top of the list.

Read the thread. It's not "coal burning engines", it's standard jet engines using synthetic jet fuel made from coal. Liquid, just like oil-derived jet fuel.

 

[The Big I]

Read the thread. It's not "coal burning engines", it's standard jet engines using synthetic jet fuel made from coal. Liquid, just like oil-derived jet fuel.

I know that its still made from coal , it as some of the other posters have said its been tried before. I think its just a dead end technology.

 

[windscorpion]

The basic concept to use liquified coal as synthetic fuel has been around since WW2 at least, when Germany did just that.

Not for aircraft though...

Correct me if i am wrong but wasn't there a German scheme late in WW2 for a point defence rocket powered interceptor using some sort of rocket fuel derived from coal?

 

[The Big I]

Here you this here what the A/F there is an article on BBC about a Hydrogen-powered plane I'd give a link but I don't think I'm allowed if you go looking the title is Hydrogen-powered plane takes off.

This is the future not coal derived synthetic fuels.

 

[onslaught]

I doubt how long any air force will stay on coal fuel if it even gets to the efficiency levels it will need. However, hydrogen is still a long way off. If so much research has been poured into it, why aren't hydrogen cars readily coming off assembly lines? The coal will probably be somewhat of a bridge before some other technology is developed (if it ever is). It's just that coal is easy to get while the hydrogen isn't as easy to get.

 

[Salty Dog]

There is a fundamental difference between fuel cells and synthetic/fossil/bio fuels, namely in the prime movers (the engines).

Hydrogen fuel cells produce electric power, so you will have electric motors for your prime movers, not very high performance (at least in this day and age) for aircraft.

Synthetic, fossil (petroleum and coal derived), or bio fuels can be used with current piston engine and gas turbine engines. Quite a bit more practical for current applications. You would just need a few adjustments in the fuel control systems to adapt to the fuel type. Gas turbine engines in naval vessels can use JP-5, JP-8 or diesel fuel marine (DFM), the latter being the most common.

 

[Salty Dog]

DARPA in search of alternative coal-to-JP-8 technologies

By John Croft

Research proposals for liquid conversion technologies that can produce JP-8 hydrocarbon fuel directly from coal have been requested by the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency.

The request is part of an effort to supply alternate sources of the US military's average fuel requirement of more than 300,000 barrels of petroleum-based liquid fuels per day.

Under the broad agency announcement, the agency says it plans to issue more than $4.5 million in contracts for the work after the proposal period ends next year.

Today's coal conversion plants can produce 150,000 barrels a day of oil from 120,000t of coal, says DARPA, though the two preferred methods produce "unacceptable amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other pollutants".

DARPA is seeking alternative coal to liquid fuel conversion technologies that "offer environmentally friendly, yet efficient" methods for creating fuel from US coal reserves, which DARPA says are estimated to be more than 275 billion tons, a supply that existing coal-to-liquid processes could convert into enough fuel to supply the US armed forces for "several thousand years."

Other coal rich countries can benefit from the coal-to-fuel technology as well. It would also be interesting for commercial aviation to adapt to these new fuels.

 

[Marc 1]

Correct me if i am wrong but wasn't there a German scheme late in WW2 for a point defence rocket powered interceptor using some sort of rocket fuel derived from coal?

Correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lippisch_P.13a

 

[Salty Dog]

Correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lippisch_P.13a

That coal fuel scheme used the actual coal itself as fuel, and not a fuel derived from coal.

 

[Marc 1]

That coal fuel scheme used the actual coal itself as fuel, and not a fuel derived from coal.

Yep, well aware of that and the Fischer Tropsch coal to liquid fuels process that the original article was talking about. I thought this aircraft may have been the one that windscorpion was alluding to.

 

[windscorpion]

It was, thank you! Be very interesting to know if such an engine could have worked in flight.