Air Force Will Be Coal-Powered by 2011
Not everyone has the same definition for the term ‘renewable-fuel’.
The United States Air Force is well on their way to becoming coal-powered. On Monday, the USAF carried out a transcontinental test flight using a 50-50 blend of standard jet fuel and coal-based ’synfuel’.
“The Air Force is taking a leadership role in testing and certifying the use of synthetic fuel in aircraft,” Secretary Wynne said. “We’re working very closely with our Army and Navy colleagues to ensure that this fuel is capable of operating in all of our aircraft. This is especially important because JP-8 military jet fuel is commonly used in the battlefield by the Army and Marines tactical vehicles and generators, as well as our respective aircraft.”
While synthetic fuel has the capacity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it could also double CO2 emissions produced by military flight. At the time of this writing, synfuel is made via Fischer-Tropsch process from either coal or natural gas to produce a somewhat cleaner burning but extremely greenhouse-gas intensive product.
The Air Force may be underscoring a recently hyped green image, but it seems that economic considerations are largely at play here:
The Defense Department is the largest energy consumer in the United States, racking up an energy bill of $13.6 billion last year, up from $10.9 billion the year before. The military services and other components of the defense establishment consume the equivalent of 340,000 barrels of oil a day, or 1.5 percent of total U.S. energy consumption.
The Air Force hopes to certify the 50-50 synfuel blend for all its aircraft within the next 5 years, making them 50% coal-powered by 2011.
Any way that we could just stockpile a few extra barrels of oil instead?
C-17 uses synthetic fuel blend on transcontinental flight (Dec. 18, 2007)
U.S. Military Bases Going Green (Dec. 17, 2007)
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?
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.
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.
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.