Air Force Will Be Coal-Powered by 2011

A friend in Australia wrote her thesis on Australia’s dependence on coal and how absolutely terrible it is for the environment. Interesting that Australia (according to her) is thinking about weaning itself off coal, whereas the US is increasing its dependence…

The Germans made synthetic fuel from coal during WWII. They used tens of thousands of slave laborers (Jews, Gypsies, Soviet war prisoners, political prisoners, etc.) in coal mines and synthetic fuel plants in Poland, in the vicinity of the Auchwitz-Birkenau death camp. The prisoners for these jobs were selected from those who were not immediately gassed upon arrival. They were then starved, shot, beaten to death, hanged or gassed when they were too weak to work.

The German military made synthetic fuel due to the lack of petrolium in the areas of Europe that they occupied during the war. The closest oil fields to them were in Egypt and Lybia (they couldn’t advance that far in North Africa) and around the Caspian Sea (they were halted in Stalingrad). What’s the US military’s excuse? They cant steal enough oil from Iraq to fuel their growing thirst? Who will the US military use to make the new synfuel? Blackwater? Haliburton? Perhaps other defense contractors who deny paying their employees’ benefits?

The Germans made synthetic fuel from coal during WWII. They used tens of thousands of slave laborers (Jews, Gypsies, Soviet war prisoners, political prisoners, etc.) in coal mines and synthetic fuel plants in Poland, in the vicinity of the Auchwitz-Birkenau death camp. The prisoners for these jobs were selected from those who were not immediately gassed upon arrival. They were then starved, shot, beaten to death, hanged or gassed when they were too weak to work.

The German military made synthetic fuel due to the lack of petrolium in the areas of Europe that they occupied during the war. The closest oil fields to them were in Egypt and Lybia (they couldn’t advance that far in North Africa) and around the Caspian Sea (they were halted in Stalingrad). What’s the US military’s excuse? They cant steal enough oil from Iraq to fuel their growing thirst? Who will the US military use to make the new synfuel? Blackwater? Haliburton? Perhaps other defense contractors who deny paying their employees’ benefits?

I have to admit, I find it a bit creepy that the Nazis were the last group to have an extensive coal to fuel program…

CoalMan Says: “The closest oil fields to them were in Egypt and Lybia ”

Actually the closest oil fields to them were in Romania (near the town of Ploiesti which was bombed several times by the US). Germany and Romania were allies until close to the end of the war.

This is absolutely the most asinine thing I’ve seen lately…Sure, it’s cheaper, but it’s a step in the wrong direction. Spend the money on finding a way to make fuel that isn’t worse for our economy than oil.

This is absolutely the most asinine thing I’ve seen lately…Sure, it’s cheaper, but it’s a step in the wrong direction. Spend the money on finding a way to make fuel that isn’t worse for our economy than oil.

The search for new fuels others than gas will keep going until we find the reliable and environmental friendly fuel. Coal is one of the alternatives.

Honestly, I do not think it is that bad. We are all crazy about going green, myself included, but in this instance going 50% coal is the lesser of two evils. A way to balance it out might be to define the large financial gain from going partial coal, and have those funds used for a large-scale meaningful green project. One step back, but two steps forward in my opinion…

Some Guy, the problem with making fuel out of coal is the substantial environmental impact in terms of mining and CO2 emissions. If you end up with increases in net greenhouse gas emissions you can’t label it a green alternative to petroleum. I would suggest that synfuels are two steps backwards…

No, it is not environmentally friendly to make jet fuel out of coal, but it does sound like very prudent military planning to have a domestic source of fuel for our military. As it stands now, a jihadist could knock off the Saudi royal family, shut off the oil taps, and our military would be waiting in line for fuel like everyone else in the world.

No, it is not environmentally friendly to make jet fuel out of coal, but it does sound like very prudent military planning to have a domestic source of fuel for our military. As it stands now, a jihadist could knock off the Saudi royal family, shut off the oil taps, and our military would be waiting in line for fuel like everyone else in the world.

Facts: Prescott Bush (G-dub’s grandfather) helped to finance Hitler’s rise before WW2. Bush’s Skull & Bones (secret society at Yale) reportedly has Hitlers’s silverware in their collection. The apple didn’t fall far from that tree.

I don’t think this has anything to do with the environment. They want our airforce to be fueled by something we can create here in the U.S. The fact is if we depend primarily on imported oil for our military, then we have to put a lot of effort into ensuring that supply in event of a war. This is just good strategy. They are doing this the cheapest and most practical way they can. Miltary jets aren’t going to run off anything renewable for a long time.

Why not convert military jet engines to run off Hydrogen instead?

Researchers at the University of New South Wales have invented Titanium Oxide panels, and they can extract Hydrogen by pumping water into the panels and exposing the panels to sunlight. That would make for the most green renewable energy resource anyone could get.

Check out: http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/articles/2004/aug/Solar_hydrogenMNE.html

@Clayton

I don’t believe anyone is saying coal is a green alternative to petroleum. But coal can be a major financial benefactor (not to mention the other million reasons not to be dependent on foreign oil). Those new funds could be used for something that has a larger positive green impact than the negative one from the coal based fuel. Maybe a program that accelerates our transition to alternative power sources or who knows what? Not me, I’m just some guy…

I am sooooo tired of EVERY article on the internet being commented on by moonbats who think Bush is the evil behind everything.

Gee, first we are told he’s a dumb monkey, then he’s an evil genius. Which one is it?

As for the Science (back to what the article was about before the Loonies had to inject their one-track idiotic slogans) has anyone ever heard the term coal oil – Kerosene? It’s derived from a form of carbon very similar to what we use as coal. Nope, coal is not coal. There are types and grades. At 2$ a gallon, it’s not economically viable to produce, but at around 3$ a gallon, deriving liquid fuel from coal becomes practical (it takes pressure and heat to extract, and that costs money).

Anyway, If back to the stupid Idea that the US is “stealing” the oil from IRAQ. – get a grip on reality, and check in to the facts as to where the oil is going, and who controls it, and you will find that it’s NOT the US…..In fact, the Iraqi government just signed some deals to supply CHINA with oil…..

What to know the truth? Then do your own stinkin’ research and quit regurgitating the vomit from the media.

And while I am at it, let’s consider the “declaration” that CO2 is a pollutant. (Carbon Credits anyone?)

Do you know what the probe that landed on the comet in 1995 proved that a *major* portion of the comet’s ice is made up of….wait for it……CO2

So, who is polluting the Universe?

The reason bad science exists is because people fall into one of 3 camps.

1) Degreed Scientist who make their living from government grants

2) Degreed Scientist who do real work and live in the real world

3) People who listen to mass media and are the type to look in the fuel tank with a match

The population of #1 is small, the population of #2 is somewhat larger than #1 (which is good), but unfortunately the population of #1 has figured out they can manipulate the game by scaring the bejezus out of the dimwits who flunked science and math at school.

Want a conspiricy? Just look into who OWNS THE frigging company that benefits from the Carbon Credits trade…..I’ll bet you recognize a few preachers from the cult of global warming in that company board listing………

I found your blog via Google while searching for renewable energy and your post regarding ce Will Be Coal-Powered by 2011 : Gas 2.0 looks very interesting to me. I always enjoy coming to this site because you offer great tips and advice for people like me who can always use a few good pointers. I will be getting my friends to pop around fairly soon.

Clean coal emits CO2, but doen’t emit blood. Oil does.

Clean coal emits CO2, but doen’t emit blood. Oil does.

well, it doesn’t surprise me at all to see that this is a money consideration first. i would be interested to see who the players are on that decision process.

If Ike gave his speech today he’d expand his famous words Military Industial Petroleum Complex. The military is macho and no one tells them they can’t waste and pollute.

I agree with some dude, having the military dependant on a source of fuel that comes from a part of the globe considered “Volatile” would be madness’. We all want green/environmental fuels used, but not at the expense of our security. As the military looks into alternate fuel sources, the end benefits can/will be pasted onto the consumer, so hopefully we can all win in the long run.

Let’s go through the list:

1. Economy – Pro: Removes some dependence on foreign oil, and closes a massive pipe that hemorrhages dollars to the Middle East. Increases demand for domestic products, increases domestic jobs. Fuel is the Air Force’s single largest expenditure, and all that money currently leaves the country. Using coal-based synfuels, the money returns to the US. Decreased demand for foreign oil should drive gasoline prices down.

Con: Increases price of coal, which in turn increases electrical generation costs. (However, this provides an incentive to expand alternative energy sources – see below)

2. Military – Pro: Provides a domestic source for military fuel.

Con: May require retrofitting of current equipment.

3. Environment – Pro: Increased coal prices provide greater incentive for research and development of alternative energy sources.

Con: Increased pollution from coal contaminants.

Note: I generally consider additional CO2 production irrelevant. Every ton of CO2 added to the atmosphere allows for three tons of additional vegetation on the Earth’s surface. This is a simple biological fact, and one that is commonly ignored in all the hype over “global warming”. Burning fossil fuels is the single best way to make the earth greener. The correlation between CO2 and atmospheric temperatures consistently shows change in CO2 levels FOLLOWING changes in temperature.

However, even if we consider CO2 a pollutant, synfuel production will spur alternative energy industries, which will lead to a long-term decrease in the burning of fossil fuels. A short-term loss leads to long term gains – that is the recipe for a good investment.

4. Political – Pro: More jobs, improved domestic economy, decreased military expenditures, increased military effective power

Con: Perception of conflict with environmental measures.

The primary reason why “alternative” energy systems are not in greater use is because they are simply not cost effective. The average person simply cannot recoup the investment he sinks into a private photovoltaic or wind energy system. A typical system currently takes 35 to 40 years to pay for the initial investment alone. However, the expected lifetime of these systems is, at best, 25 years, with proper maintenance. If you factor in the maintenance costs, the typical system will NEVER realize any savings.

With improvements in research and development and large-scale manufacturing, these costs WILL drop, however, until the market starts demanding alternative energy systems, large-scale manufacturing efforts will simply result in bankrupted manufacturers.

If electrical power were slightly more expensive, modern alternative energy systems would be MUCH more attractive, and more efficient future systems would have a fighting chance at challenging “traditional” energy generation.

Because coal provides 50% of American electrical power, any increase in the price of coal would quickly turn into increased prices.

Overall, synfuel appears to offer numerous advantages over current systems.

One final note: Hitler was a vegetarian. The Nazis developed jet and rocket power, utilizing slave labor in the process. Clearly, using the logic of commentators above, eating Onion Soup should be considered a grave insult to Jews, and modern air and space flight is just a massive tool of holocaust denial. Hitler’s favorite food was Onion Soup. Does this mean that anyone who likes Onion Soup is automatically a fascist?

Coal to SynFuel may not be the “perfect” solution, but combined with other alternative energy/ fuel options, can make a big difference. Personally I care more about US energy independance than about being “green”.

What if all the money the US spends per year ($700 billion?) on oil imports were instead spent right here at home in the US?

What could we do with $700 Billion/ year?

Coal to SynFuel may not be the “perfect” solution, but combined with other alternative energy/ fuel options, can make a big difference. Personally I care more about US energy independance than about being “green”.

What if all the money the US spends per year ($700 billion?) on oil imports were instead spent right here at home in the US?

What could we do with $700 Billion/ year?

Heya this is kind of of off topic but I was wanting to know if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to manually code with HTML. I’m starting a blog soon but have no coding knowledge so I wanted to get advice from someone with experience. Any help would be enormously appreciated!