DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Cammo Green » Pentagon Wants Jet Fuel Substitute

Pentagon Wants Jet Fuel Substitute

The Defense Department buys more jet fuel than any other orga­ni­za­tion in the world. So the Pentagon’s higher-​​ups are just as sick as the rest of us — more so — about sky-​​high fuel prices. Small won­der that the brass is ask­ing for pro­pos­als to sup­ply 200 mil­lion gal­lons of syn­thetic jet fuel, as part of big-​​league field tests in 2008 and 2009.
f22_engine.jpg
The request, notes Inside Green Business, comes from the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), which over­sees the Pentagons fuel pur­chases. It’s part of a larger mil­i­tary inves­ti­ga­tion into an eighty year-​​old process for con­vert­ing coal or nat­ural gas into liq­uid fuel called Fischer-​​Tropsch. It’s what helped the German Army make 124,000 bar­rels of fuel per day dur­ing World War II.

The pos­si­ble pur­chase would send 100 mil­lion gal­lons each to the Air Force and Navy for test­ing on ships, air­planes and other oper­a­tional units, accord­ing to a DESC source. The alter­na­tive fuels would likely be blended with exist­ing DOD fuel types, such as the Air Forces JP-​​8 and the Navys F-​​76, in a 50/​50 mix­ture or sim­i­lar ratio, accord­ing to the source. There wont be enough alter­na­tive fuels to do a one hun­dred per­cent [alter­na­tive] blend for at least a decade, the source says, but even reduc­ing petro­leum fifty per­cent in this coun­try is huge. What DESC is say­ing is we dont want [car­bon diox­ide] green­house gases emit­ted into the atmos­phere.
The source says each of the mil­i­tary ser­vices wants to main­tain its cur­rent single-​​fuel pol­icy, under which all vehi­cles are run with as sim­i­lar a fuel type as pos­si­ble. DOD offi­cials want to use 50/​50 blends widely for the ser­vice tests at first, with an eye to poten­tially retool­ing the ratio for opti­mum effi­ciency later on…
There may… be prob­lems find­ing a sup­plier, or even a com­bi­na­tion of sup­pli­ers, that can sat­isfy the request for alter­na­tive fuels. No domes­tic infra­struc­ture can [cur­rently] han­dle that much demand, says the DESC source, adding that the pur­chase would likely be from a com­bi­na­tion of coal-​​based Fischer-​​Tropsch fuel and fuel derived from tar sands and oil shale, which have been eyed by gov­ern­ment and indus­try plan­ners as poten­tial sources of syn­thetic petro­leum. There cur­rently is no wide­spread mar­ket in the U.S. for such petro­leum alter­na­tives, although the source says hope­fully this will be an impe­tus for pri­vate indus­try to use syn­thetic fuels as well. Because the pri­vate sec­tor doesnt have the research and devel­op­ment bud­get we do, theyre wait­ing to see how our projects go so they can adopt what­ever we develop.

Share |

June 7th, 2006 | Cammo Green | 192925 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2006/06/07/pentagon-wants-jet-fuel-substitute/Pentagon+Wants+Jet+Fuel+Substitute2006-06-07+18%3A39%3A56david_axe You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Amish Gone Wild! | Rapid Fire 06/​07/​06 (UPDATED) » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. b says:
    June 7, 2006 at 3:02 pm

    “What DESC is say­ing is we dont want [car­bon diox­ide] green­house gases emit­ted into the atmos­phere.“
    What a bull­shit quote.
    Weather you burn “syn­tetic” car­bon­hy­drates (made of, in an engery­in­ten­sive process of, –you guessed that– other car­bon­hy­drates), or not syn­tetic car­bon­hy­drates doesnt make a bit of dif­fer­ence to the ammount of CO2 you put into the atmosphere.

    Reply
  2. rick says:
    June 7, 2006 at 4:21 pm

    My recall may not be per­fect, but if I remem­ber cor­rectly, we had a Fischer-​​Tropsch plant oper­at­ing in Louisiana in the ‘50s (I think actu­ally two plants), which pro­duced fuel at a cost 10% cheaper than refin­ing crude. These were promptly closed under pres­sure by guess who? Again, if recall serves, the cry was against using NAZI tech­nolo­gies — some­how the NAZIs can be invoked at will to den­i­grate any­thing…
    The tech­nol­ogy showed up again; found in a library in UT El Paso back in the eighties.

    Reply
  3. Kalroy says:
    June 7, 2006 at 10:22 pm

    What davids said.
    Looking for­ward to the test­ing.
    Kalroy

    Reply
  4. Chris says:
    June 8, 2006 at 5:24 am

    If the Fischer-​​Tropsch process is able to pro­duce qual­ity fuels at a cost that is sim­i­lar to that from imported oil, I would sug­gest that our coun­try needs to ramp up pro­duc­tion as quickly as pos­si­ble. Keeping the hun­dreds of bil­lions of dol­lars spent on Middle Eastern oil in our coun­try would have an incred­i­ble effect on our econ­omy.
    We must also remem­ber that this Middle East oil is being pro­duced by coun­tries that are poten­tially our ene­mies and that it is ludi­crous to be financ­ing the coun­tries that sup­port the orga­ni­za­tions that wish to see our coun­try destroyed. Our sin­gle largest sup­plier of oil may now be Canada, and Mexico may be sup­ply­ing a sig­nif­i­cant per­cent­age as well, but there is still far too much oil com­ing to us from unsta­ble regions.

    Reply
  5. Brian says:
    June 10, 2006 at 10:40 am

    Petey, stop read­ing peak oil end of the world sce­nar­ios. We’re not about to run out of fuel. The price of oil today has more to do with polit­i­cal mat­ters than pro­duc­tion mat­ters.
    And coal can be burned with­out caus­ing dam­age to the envi­ron­ment, and can be con­verted to liq­uid fuel with­out using up too much energy (that’s the whole point of the process–the nazis wouldn’t have done it if it hadn’t been an effi­cient way to make fuel). Besides, of any coun­try on earth, the USA is the one that WILL spend the extra dol­lar to make sure we keep our power pro­jec­tion capabilities.

    Reply
  6. Gene Trower says:
    January 3, 2007 at 5:49 pm

    Jet Blue’s pres­i­dent sug­gests mine mouth atomic pow­ered coal to fuel con­ver­sion.
    The German coal to gas process would pro­duce gaso­line for $1.50/gal in 1980 — but this was a man­ual process. Similar processes take days to adjust or “line out.” Add com­puter con­trol and good prod­uct is pro­duced after less than an hour.
    Add low cost atomic power to avoid wast­ing coal to heat the process and the abil­ity to “dump” waste back in aban­doned areas of the mine and you have a win/​win sit­u­a­tion.
    The pres­i­dent of Jet Blue’s advi­sors have worked out all the math, includ­ing sub­si­diz­ing the oper­a­tion to get it started — looks good to me.
    Now how do you keep the gov­ern­ment from killing the project with bureau­cratic stupidity?

    Reply
  7. Thaddeus says:
    March 12, 2007 at 8:17 am

    Two very encour­ag­ing pro­grams in the civil realm hav­ing to do with fuel sav­ings.
    http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​S​o​l​a​r​_​I​m​p​u​lse
    This project is called the Solar Impusle and its a very light craft that is test­ing the feasabil­ity of solar pow­ered flight over long dis­tances.
    http://​www​.solar​nav​i​ga​tor​.net/​s​o​l​a​r​_​t​r​a​n​s​p​o​r​t​e​r​_​o​r​c​e​l​l​e​.​htm
    This tech­nol­ogy could poten­tialy help our huge trans­port ships not to men­tion our war­ships. Its a design that will be pow­ered by wind, tidal and solar power and will be able to carry 10,000 cars. Of course its just a con­cept right now, but a promis­ing one at that.
    My ques­tion: Why isn’t the mil­i­tary invest­ing in these projects. It com­plains about its fuel cost’s but dosen’t seem to go for alter­na­tive energy idea’s like these. And yes I real­ize it is invest­ing a lit­tle in bio­fu­els but if it really wants to reduce its cost’s it has to start invest­ing in more rev­o­lu­tion­ary ideas.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • New Army PEO on the way
      To get our AAA quality shoes at reasonable price, Your...
      nike air force ones
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "And no, the Koran does not say anything about killing...
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Fascism? Last time I heard, the fascists promoted christianity. Or,...
      DualityOfMan
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I see an M16 firing, and I see a 40 mm grenade launcher...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage