PDA

View Full Version : Tulsa Company to help develop alternative fuel for USAF...



OklahomaTuba
5/13/2006, 03:00 PM
I thought this was cool. Nice pub for a pretty decent company ;)

The research and tests on synthetic fuel would ultimately produce a common fuel for the entire military, Air Force officials said.

The initial contract for unconventional fuel for the tests will be signed with Syntroleum Corporation of Tulsa, Okla., which has provided synthetic fuel for testing by the Departments of Energy, Transportation and Defense since 1998.

John B. Holmes Jr., Syntroleum's president and chief executive officer, said his firm would sell the Air Force its synthetic fuel for testing "at our cost, and we may be losing a little bit."

Neither Mr. Holmes nor the Air Force would provide cost estimates for the experimental fuel deal in advance of signing a final contract, expected in coming days.

Air Force officials have acknowledged, however, that the cost per gallon of the test fuel will be expensive.

Syntroleum can produce 42 gallons of synthetic fuel from 10,000 cubic feet of natural gas. The raw materials cost about $70.

If the military moves ahead with using the synthetic fuels, the Syntroleum technology could be used by factories elsewhere to produce the same 42 gallons of fuel from just $10 worth of coal, Mr. Holmes said.

"The United States is essentially the Saudi Arabia of coal," Mr. Holmes said. "It can be mined relatively inexpensively. We really believe that one of the things we can do to help our country's energy needs is to use the abundance of coal reserves."http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/us/14fuel.html?ei=5094&en=f8857655ffb8a285&hp=&ex=1147579200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

critical_phil
5/13/2006, 03:02 PM
John B. Holmes Jr.


heh.....

Okla-homey
5/13/2006, 03:20 PM
ain't nuttin' new. We used to call B-52G's "coal burners." ;)

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/1267/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz13.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Can you imagine how people would freak if modern aircraft smoked like that on take-off at mil power?

OklahomaTuba
5/13/2006, 03:26 PM
Did they really run off coal then? Thats cool.

The coal plants being designed now are capable of producing fewer emissions than ethanol plants if you can believe that! Coal has come a long way.

slickdawg
5/13/2006, 03:28 PM
ain't nuttin' new. We used to call B-52G's "coal burners." ;)

http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/1267/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz13.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Can you imagine how people would freak if modern aircraft smoked like that on take-off at mil power?

I think they smoked more when using the jet assisted take off. The BUFF
still looks so strange taking off, nose down.

Flagstaffsooner
5/13/2006, 03:37 PM
I think they smoked more when using the jet assisted take off. The BUFF
still looks so strange taking off, nose down.Were'nt the JATO pods at the rear of the bird?

Okla-homey
5/13/2006, 04:01 PM
No JATO on BUFFs. You guys are talking about water-assisted take-offs. Demineralized water was injected in at the third stage of the engines and the resulting steam added thrust for take-off at high gross weights. You only had about 2 minutes worth of water. The nav timed it from brake release until it ran out so no one would freak-out on climb-out when it ran out because there was a noticeable loss of power when the water was gone.

Only the G models used water b/c they had turbojet engines. The H models (still in service) didn't need water b/c they had more powerful turbofan engines.

TheHumanAlphabet
5/13/2006, 04:38 PM
I thought this was cool. Nice pub for a pretty decent company ;)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/us/14fuel.html?ei=5094&en=f8857655ffb8a285&hp=&ex=1147579200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

ExxonMobil is going big time into Gas to Liquids. Said to produce the cleanest fuel and lubes base stocks ever as there is no sulfur in natural gas like there is in petroleum. One of the largest complexes in the world is in development in Doha, Qatar. This will really stretch the fueld supplies and may make a great change in geopolitics. One reason why LNG is so popular...

49r
5/13/2006, 09:26 PM
NY Times....


Biased piece of lib trash rag.