In article "Al G" writes:

The synthetic fuel is 15 to 20 percent more fuel-efficient, has no sulfur
emissions, requires no stabilizers, has a 30-degree lower freezing point
than 100LL, introduces no new carbon emissions, and is lead-free, Rusek
said. In addition, he said, the components of the fuel can be formulated
into a replacement for jet/turbine fuels. The company now is working with
the FAA to evaluate the fuel.

I saw this. It sounds almost too good to be true. I am curious about the
process used. Biomass? What kind of biomass? It actually makes sense for a
startup company to shoot for a market that already has a high price, and is
about to lose it's only source.

If it were true, these folks should be producing all they can. After all,
they could sell the stuff at or near current prices and make a bundle, and use
that to fund their expansion.

It would be wonderful if such were true and the processes were available to
have the country produce large amounts of this fuel (which should be an excellent
auto fuel from the description), but if it were, they would probably have more
on their web site than an announcement of what web site design team they had
hired to do the page.

Alan