Big Synthetic Fuel Test?

[Just Plain Jeff]

Edwards AFB, CA. -- A B-52 Stratofortress took off Dec. 15 on a flight-test mission using a blend of synthetic fuel and JP-8 in all eight engines. This is the first time a B-52 has flown using a synfuel blend as the only fuel on board. In September, the Air Force successfully flew a B-52 with two-engines using the synfuel-blend while the others used standard fuel.

"The B-52 test flights at Edwards Air Force Base are the initial steps in the Air Force process to test and certify a synthetic blend of fuel for its aviation fleet," said Secretary of the Air Force Michael W. Wynne. "We are confident that the success of this flight will bring us one step closer to allowing a domestic source of synthetic fuel to accomplish the Air Force mission in the future."

The first B-52 flight using Fischer-Tropsch fuel occurred Sept. 19 at Edwards.

Today's flight further demonstrates the Air Force's commitment to using alternate fuels and is the next step in the testing and certification process before the fuel can go into widespread use, officials said.

According to William Anderson, assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment and logistics, the Air Force has reinvigorated its energy strategy which is underpinned by supply-side availability and semand-side conservation.

"The Air Force is moving forward in its commitment to certify alternative sources of fuel for both its aircraft and ground vehicles fleet," said Mr. Anderson.

Maj. Gen. Curtis Bedke, Air Force Flight Test commander, is flying the aircraft to assess how well the aircraft performs using the synthetic blend of fuel.

The next test phase for the B-52 will be cold-weather testing to determine how well the synfuel-blend performs in extreme weather conditions.

[Jon Wehrenberg]

Well this just warms me all over....if the government is involved the fuel will cost more than the one it replaces, you will need to burn more of it to do the work of the fuel it replaces, and it will not be long before the government shoves it down our throats and makes us all use it.

Of course as soon as its use is widespread, there will be warnings about its use due to health risks from emissions.

I can hardly wait.

[Toy Box]

Jon, I am sorry to say that I couldn't agree with you more!!!!! If you really want to screw up our supply lines or economy, bring in the Feds. Remember the guy who come to inspect the plane? "I'm from the F.A.A. and I'm here to "help" you." Some help.

[bill&jody]

hmmm....... i seem to recall one of my favorite oxymorons - gov't intelligence. this is reminiscent of the decision to put 10% ethanol in gasoline which causes a 10% reduction in mileage, which causes us to buy 110% (approx) of what we used to. at a higher price (ethanol costs more than gasoline).

of course, thats just my opinion - i could be wrong

:-)
wmm

[Orren Zook]

Drop in fuel mileage? Has anyone else noticed a decrease in mileage since the 'low sulphur' fuel came online in September?

[bill&jody]

hi ethanol gasoline, not low sulphur diesel. gasahol also seems to affect performance - i no longer have to have my fingers re-inserted after a particularly exhilarating bike trip.

actually, i saw a brochure at the middletown detroit diesel shop (had a valve adjust) that seemed to indicate better longevity of engine internals with low sulphur. maybe its just politics...

wmm

[Jon Wehrenberg]

Apples and oranges, grapes and bananas.

Low sulfur fuel has some effect because my mileage is down from one year prior to it by about 3/10 MPG. My number is based on annual fuel burn and miles so I am not using a single tankful to draw the conclusion.

Newer coaches with EGR have much worse MPG than what my non-EGR coach gets.

Does anybody know the BTU content of low sulfur VS the earlier diesel blends?

[Jon Wehrenberg]

"In general, the processing required to reduce sulfur to 15 ppm also reduces the aromatics content and density of diesel fuel, resulting in a reduction in energy content (BTU/gal).
The expected reduction in energy content is on the order of 1% and may affect fuel mileage."

That is a quote from one of the diesel fuel producer's web site.

Apparently I am not dreaming that as the switch to low sulfur fuel takes place I am losing mileage.

Further, JPJ sent me a link on bio-diesel and biodiesel has a substantially lower BTU content (around 8%) with blends having somewhat less of a negative impact.

Maybe it is just me, but everytime the tree huggers and the government come up with solutions to problems it just strikes me that the solution is worse than the problem.

[win42]

Methanol: In my Hot Rod days when we ran methanol in our race cars we had to increase the size of the jets in the carburators about double to get the added power. If they sell us metanol in the same volume as gasolene and it produces less power per gallon, where's the beef. The extra power came from adding Nitro to the methanol producing Nitro Methane.

Low Sulfer Diesel: When they remove the sulfer from the fuel to protect us do you want to know what happens to it. They make a product called Olean which has taken the place of the Phosphates that make up 90% of the weight of detergent laundry soap. If it harms you in the fuel, what's it doing in our washing machines? Yeah there taking care of us alright, their picking our pockets.

[Just Plain Jeff]

The intent of the original posting was simply to provide some information as to what the turbo-powered Air Force publicity department was churning out.

We looked into the bio-diesel deal about a year ago, blithely thinking it would be a cool benefit for POG members. The deeper you go into bio-diesel, the worse it gets.

First of all, straight bio-diesel is not an appropriate product for North America in that it gels very quickly at cooler temperatures. So you have to run an 80/20 blend of bio and straight diesel. And, in most cases, requires an expen$ive pre-heating system to prevent the gel occuring at lower ambient temperatures or higher altitudes. The large-scale production of bio-diesel requires the use of petroleum products as well. It doesn't just drip off corn plants as some would lead one to believe.

Secondly, the 'rack price' of bio-diesel is the same as straight diesel. We found that there is no shortage of diesel fuel on the market. It is simply a question of how much people are willing to pay for the fuel itself. Diesel used to be a by-product, as I understand it from JDUB, from gasoline production. Now it is produced directly from crude, hence the higher cost generally than gasoline. Distributors of diesel aren't particularly interested in selling bio-diesel, as it would require conversion of existing tanks and pumps on a dedicated basis to bio-diesel and the demand for the product just isn't there.

Some of the proponents of bio-diesel tout that the product is the la-la land answer to, 'ending our dependence on foreign oil.' Our investigation revealed that the supply of bio-diesel would be at least as fickle as diesel itself. There is a large 'corn mass' lobby which would love to get its hands on the diesel supply. If there were a bad year in the cornfields, straight diesel would look like a bargain compared to a corn-based bio product.

There are some questions about the lubricity of bio-diesel as well, compared to straight diesel.

Lastly, (whew) this is all politics. I suspect that the reason the B-52 was used because it has 8 engines. An unloaded B-52 has a huge thrust-to-gross-weight-carrying ratio. Note that this test was not performed on a single or double-engine fighter plane.

So, let's keep it in perspective and continue to follow the trajectory of interest in bio-diesel. If it comes down to JDUB and his guys and the corn people, I'd put my money on the Flame Snuffer. Happy Holidays!