Planting jet fuel: Ben Oster, a research engineer at the Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota, holds a sample of jet fuel made from plant oils. Accelergy has licensed the technology used to make this fuel.
Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota
A new process could allow Air Force jets to run exclusively on domestically produced biomass and coal.
The Air Force is testing a jet fuel made from coal and plant biomass that could replace petroleum-based fuel and emit less carbon-dioxide compared to using conventional jet fuels. The fuel is made with a process developed by Accelergy, based in Houston, using technology licensed from ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company and the Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota.
Other recently tested experimental biofuels for jets have required that the aircraft still use at least 50 percent petroleum-based product to meet performance requirements, particularly for the most advanced military jets. But the Accelergy process produces fuels that closely resemble petroleum-based fuels, making it possible to do away with petroleum altogether. Because of this, the new process could help the Air Force meet its goal of using domestic, lower-carbon fuels for half of its fuel needs by 2016. Although the first products will be jet fuels, the process can also be adapted to produce gasoline and diesel.
The fuel has passed through an initial round of testing, including lab-scale engine tests, and is on track to be flight-tested in 18 months, says Rocco Fiato, vice president of business development at Accelergy.
Turning coal into liquid fuels is nothing new, but such processes have been inefficient and produced large amounts of CO2 emissions. Accelergy's approach is different because it uses "direct liquefaction," which is similar to the process used to refine petroleum. It involves treating the coal with hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst. Conventional technology for converting coal to liquid fuels breaks the coal down into synthesis gas, which is mostly carbon monoxide with a little bit of hydrogen; the hydrogen and carbon are then recombined to produce liquid hydrocarbons, a process that releases carbon dioxide. Because the Accelergy process skips the need to gasify all of the coal--which consumes a lot of energy--before recombining the hydrogen and carbon, it's more efficient and produces less carbon dioxide. "We don't destroy the molecule in coal. Instead we massage it, inject hydrogen into it, and rearrange it to form the desired hydrocarbons," says Timothy Vail, Accelergy's president and CEO.
The hydrogen for Accelergy's process comes from two sources--coal and biomass. Accelergy gasifies a portion of the coal they use--about 25 percent of it--as well as cellulosic biomass, from sources such as plant stems and seed husks, to produce syngas. The company then treats the syngas with steam. In this reaction, carbon monoxide reacts with water to form hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Using biomass reduces the net carbon-dioxide emissions, since the biomass absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere as the original plants grew.
A new conversion process promises zero carbon emissions during production—but some question whether it will scale.
Fuel made from waste by-products could lower greenhouse gas emissions.
I'd like to point out, again, that using otherwise arable land to produce feed stork for bio-fuel is foolishness to a degree not seen since Caesar crossed the Rubicon.
Maybe when everyone has a full belly. Maybe. Otherwise can we please direct our attention to something more useful? Like solar power satellites, controled fusion, antimatter and Edgar Casey?
Accelergy eventually plans to use algae, which would not be grown on land that could be used for food.
We recently passed the point on this planet where more people are obese (not over weight but obese) then are malnourished. we produce enough food. we just don't do a great job of distribution. so using ag waist for bio fuel should never be problem.
The abundance of food may not be as everlasting as some think. In particular the issue of soil degradation alone could put a serious limiter on how much food can be grown. That is without us taking drastic steps in regards to the genetic engineering of crops. Combine that with the nitrogen runoff creating dead zones in the ocean and you've got a major issue affecting most of humanity world wide. That is without the dual issues of peak oil and global climate change both becoming even more variables.
Personally I think our best best is future generations of solar technology combined with hydrogen as an energy carrier. Though I can't say that I'm informed enough to know whether or not jet aircraft could one day become either hydrogen or electrically powered.
The biggest benefit - regardless of cost per barrel - is that we have the ability to produce domestic Jet and Aviation fuels in case we get our sources cut off for any length of time.
Seeing we unable to fully thwart threats to those sources, or even prevent a rag tag group of Somalian Pirates from comandeering wayward vessels, it's critical we have alternatives that are derived from our own generally available resources.
Good Job!
Could be useful for the Oil Sands
This process could have potential for use in Western Canada's oil sands operations. Work by the Alberta Research Council has shown that co-processing coal and the bitumen produced from oil sands could cost less than liquefaction of coal alone. Also, the improved CO2 emissions/end product relationship associated with the Accelergy process would definitely be a much needed benefit to the oil sands.
The earlier commenter makes a good point about the problem of using crops (or crop producing land) for energy. It appears, however, that the Accelergy process does not depend specifically on diverting crops away from food uses. In fact, the use of agricultural wastes in their process could make agriculture more sustainable.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Solvere
11 Comments
Direct Thermal Transport
Internal Combustion engines has been using volatile fuel is to sustain the hundreds of explosion a second.
There is no replacement fuel except pure, volatile, highly explosive fuel - even commercial ethanol need to have high purity, low hydration.
However, turbine need not such high speed explosion. It just needs continuous smooth burning.
To use Cleaner Jet Fuel from Coal to move turbine, especially aircraft turbine (which does not need rapid change of speed.) is as good as using internal combustion engine to turn turbine, fans - modern aircraft will not lift off with this approach.
To save energy, environment, we must use lowest grade of bio-waste to burn, to turn turbine. This will have higher energy content, with the same payload, the same volume. These are critical to the aircraft operation economy.
It was in the 80s, a Soviet Plane was intercepted in Western hemisphere, it was found that it attained exceptional range because it was burning cyclo-carbon - a ring compound like Benzene. It has higher energy density.
To have marginal progress, at great cost, will be to tie ourselves to meet yesterday's equipment, requirements, paradigm of thinking.
To contribute to major breakthrough, as President Hockfield declared in her inauguration 2005, we need to improve combustion of efficiency of high density, high energy content solid fuel, including bio-waste (not purest of food-based ethanol).
How to burn this refer to "Direct Thermal Transport" USPTO.
I can surely see Combustion Engineering become the new, most needed topics of study, research.
Solvere Lim
www.cts-ideas.com
2010 Jan 25
comment for article on Technology Review
Cleaner Jet Fuel from Coal by Kevin Bullis
Monday, January 25, 2010
Reply