Comments on: Pentagon Wants Jet Fuel Substitute

By: Thaddeus

Thaddeus — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:17:34 +0000

Two very encouraging programs in the civil realm having to do with fuel savings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse
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.solarnavigator.net/solar_transporter_orcelle.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.

By: Gene Trower

Gene Trower — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:49:33 +0000

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?

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 15:40:33 +0000

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.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 10:24:28 +0000

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.

By: Kalroy

Kalroy — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 03:22:45 +0000

What davids said.
Looking forward to the testing.
Kalroy

By: rick

rick — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 21:21:46 +0000

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.

By: b

Wed, 07 Jun 2006 20:02:20 +0000

“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.