Comments on: Get Your F-15 Eagle Hybrid Now!

By: GHD Straighteners

GHD Straighteners — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:09:09 +0000

buy cheap nokia n95 experience without nokia mobile learning is better than learning without excperi-ence. I have nokia 6300 but one lamp wait which my feet are guided; and that bose headphones is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the apple touch past. http://www.leadsoftstore.com/

By: JCee

JCee — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:51:13 +0000

Synthetic fuel maybe made from easily from either natural gas or coal. Making it from natural gas in full production would be stupid just like burning it for electricity is(The ban on natural gas to electricity was lifted in the 90’s so morons could have clean expensive electricity instead of cheaper clean nuclear). Currently the synthetic fuel is mostly used for small scale testing and pilot plants to test the fuel.
1)Synthetic fuel maybe burned in an unmodified diesel or jet engine and has about 96% of the energy per gallon of non synthetic fuel.
2)It is ultra-clean when burned (so clean in fact that contrails from water vapor condensing on particulates in the exhaust doesn’t occur as there are no particulates)
3)Estimated full scale production costs are ~$0.8 per gallon.
4) The only reason this is currently not used is that by using coal as a feed stock you would produce ~30–40% more CO2 per gallon of fuel than from oil or natural gas. It is strictly a political desicion to bow to the Watermelon lobby (Green on the outside Red on the inside).

By: ADyer

ADyer — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:12:32 +0000

Synthetic fuels are not some wonder cure for pollution or a replacement for fossil fuels. All they are is the result of using chemistry to change one type of fossil fuel into another. This certainly has it’s advantages, since you can create liquid fuels of various types from solids like coal or gasses like methane, liquid being the most practical state to use in a vehicle. But there are disadvantages too. The process does require energy, and while certainly less than the energy that can be utilized from the product, it does mean that overall the useful energy per amount of extracted fuel is less. The advantages, however, may outweigh the costs in the future. Oil is a much rarer and much more immediately useful fuel than coal or gas. The geological processes that determine what form biological matter will eventually take seem heavily weighted towards coal rather then oil, and it’s entirely possible that we may never run out of coal, so having a means to convert it into a fuel that burns in jet engines could become less of a novelty as oil becomes less ubiquitous. Then again, maybe we will never run out of oil either. So long as there is life of earth and a sun in the sky, solar energy will be stored in organic molecules by plants and they and the animals that eat them will die and get buried, eventually being compressed into fossil fuels.

By: Richard D Mann MSgt/RET

Richard D Mann MSgt/RET — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 07:50:49 +0000

Sick and tired of crazy fuel prices?
Visit http://rdme7ret.water4gas.hop.clickbank.net
With over 20,000 satisfied customers worldwide and 900 registered manufacturers, Water4Gas is quickly becoming the web’s standard for DIY technology to save fuel using WATER!
Water4Gas is running a limited-time Free Training http://rdme7ret.water4gas.hop.clickbank.net/ May be used on Car and Trucks to enhance MPG
They are offering a 7-day e-mail course so you can learn this in your spare time, daily.
You do NOT have to buy anything or answer any questions!!! I just want you to have this information. Each lesson is easy and short. In about 10 minutes a day you will discover the simplicity and power of using water to clean emissions and save tons of fuel in your car or truck.
Happy Mileage!

By: Mitch S.

Mitch S. — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:37:11 +0000

Looking at Headwaters website it looks like they’re into liquid fuel from coal (As I recall the AF has experimented with that fuel as well).
While looking on the web I came across info on a company doing this:
“Once in operation, the Geismar plant will produce fuel made by using various non-food grade animal fats

By: Ted

Ted — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:53:01 +0000

The company behind the synthetic fuel for the USAF is HEADWATERS. They are traded on the NYSE, ticker HW. If you want to be filthy rich load up on their stock.

By: Mitch S.

Mitch S. — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:39:31 +0000

Don’t see how making fuel from natural gas helps much. Domestic natural gas supplies are already tight and transporting natural gas overseas is expensive. Probably easier to convert to JP8 then transport, but that’d mean putting your conversion plant in some nice “stable” region like Georgia or one of the “stans”.
Generally these synthetic fuels burn cleaner than the refined product (Audi diesel racecars use a synthetic diesel made by Shell) but the synthetics are more expensive. (Of course any new aircraft fuel needs extensive testing)
Probably best policy is to reduce other use of oil (power generation, ground transport) which would free up more for aviation and maintain a strategic reserve for a crisis.
Eventually non-food biomass or hydrogen could take to the air but that’s way down the road.

By: Cole

Cole — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:14:21 +0000

Forgot who mentioned synthetic oil…heh, I use Mobil 1 in all the family cars, but that’s not the point. Neither should we believe that the oil companies are conspiring to keep it off the market. Just suspect there are many challenges exemplified by this interesting link:
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/080609b/
If the USAF uses 1/10th of U.S. jet fuel and coal-to-liquid production results in twice the CO2 emissions, somebody is going to be unhappy…particularly if the airlines end up using the same fuel. If they capture and ship the CO2 (produced in production) by pipeline, they still need to store it somewhere, making the nuclear waste storage problem look miniscule by comparison.
I’m guessing if they currently need to clean out tankers when they transition from carrying Navy JP5 to back to JP8, that there will be similar problems with a 50/50 blend of synthetic/JP8. As Todd points out, we won’t know the long term effects of synthetic fuel on engine parts for a while.
Guess that Natural gas and “Biomass” can also be converted to synthetic fuel. Thought I read something about a California firm investigating conversion of dead bugs into fuel? But given how much coal we have in the U.S., it sure would be nice if we could convert it in a cost-effective and environmentally friendly manner.
There may be little choice but to go to synthetics, but at $2–3 billion to produce the plants, it will be an expensive proposition. And the environmentalists will be screaming bloody murder all the way, while Al Gore will probably get another Nobel prize decrying its use.

By: Skip

Skip — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:23:13 +0000

It’s well known the Germans during WWII nearly completely relied on synthetic fuels to move thier armies. The newsworthy aspect of this subject is the question: why the US took so long to adopt this old technology and what if any are parallels (social and economic) that should be looked at?

By: Ron

Ron — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:34:09 +0000

Back in the 60’s we were racing sports cars and discovered a synthetic lubricant that worked much better than regular oil. We bought it from Union Carbide who said the could not sell it as regular lubricant for cars etc as the oil companies said “they would not buy their chemicals”, so they would only be able to sell it as a stationary lubricant. This lubricant would get thicker as it got hotter, it would cause rod bearings to polish instead of gaulding.