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.
- » See also: Heathrow Airport Gets Fleet of Electric Shuttle Cars
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
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)
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?
[...] and “synthetic fuel blends” are not automatically good things, as Clayton Cornell at gas2.org points out. Cornell writes: “While synthetic fuel has the capacity to reduce our dependence [...]
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?