Look up and see the Future: Coal fired B52s
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 12.18.06
The US Air Force is flying a B52 on fuel made from secure and local good old American King Coal. After all, "America has more coal than Saudi Arabia has oil." This gushy article from Reuters is all agog that "The planes of the future could be flown with liquid fuel made from coal or natural gas." Airline JetBlue's president says "America must reduce its dependence on foreign oil via environmentally sound and proven coal-to-liquid technologies,...Utilizing our domestic coal reserves is the right way to achieve energy independence." The generally reliable and impartial spokesman for the National Mining Association said " CTL transportation fuels are substantially cleaner-burning than conventional fuels." There is only one small problem: the process emits huge quantities of airborne, liquid, and solid wastes, consumes lots of water, uses twice as much energy making it as you get out of it. Coal to liquid is about mining coal to replace oil, at whatever the environmental cost. This B52 won't fly. ::Reuters
And, of course, natural gas and coal are also fossil fuels, and will therefore run out before too long. Why can't the governments and big businesses produce something between them that's actually genuinely renewable, and that doesn't cause more damage to the environment than the fuel it's replacing?
If they spent as much time and money on that as they do on creating "things that kill people", we'd all be driving fuel-less wondercars that actually benefit the environment as you drive them.
Or using transporters.
It's remarkable that the media prints this like it is some kind of new breakthrough. Montana has been angling for a way to do this by getting massive government support (thus the military) in a quest to become the post-oil saudia arabia. Considering how much research has gone into this over the last 60 years it is remarkable how vague these articles are about the details of the process and the daunting problems, especially the massive CO2 production that results. Montana has claimed they could sequester the carbon and deposit into old oil wells, but that is still up for debate how they think they can do it. I guess reporters don't do research anymore, even at Reuters.
The military is researching other forms of fuel. They are even trying bio-diesel.
Matt: "Why can't the governments and big businesses produce something between them that's actually genuinely renewable, and that doesn't cause more damage to the environment than the fuel it's replacing?"
Because it's not possible. We use too much energy. People need to wake up already and realize that what we need to do is use way less energy than we've been using. Renewable sources cannot provide the energy we're consuming without causing other environmental problems (to say the least).
Besides the above stated comments I would like to point out that this is an awesome step for the Dept. of Defense. Aircraft drive research and development to find THE MOST EFFICIENT solutions for every single thing needed to fly and complete its mission. If they are doing research in this field you can bet that two things are occurring; they are spending at least a 50 million and they have identified sustainability as a military issue and as a country as issues. Now think what you will of the military approach but if you look at the results we should see a nice leap in technical capability, an increase in private R&D spending, and more spending into alternative aviation fuels and power sources in the future.
This should be celebrated for the baby step that it is, and not decimated for the things it is not.
Andy, agreed, we do indeed need to use less energy, a lot less,, but do you not agree that it is not only in the hands of the people, but in the hands of governments and big businesses to embrace renewable sources the way they have supported the nuclear, coal, natural gas and oil-based energy production processes?
There is more than enough energy in wind, solar and waves for everyone, so long as we do indeed make an earnest effort to use less energy than we currently do. If the governments of the world put as much weight behind these sources as has been put behind the sources that currently dominate the energy-producing industries, that would be a great start. It IS possible, if you do not believe that than the "battle" for the welfare of our environment has already been lost.
Didn't you report recently that if oil hit $250ish it would be economical for the military to use nuclear power for land vehicles?
I imagine the only concern here is "reduce its dependence on foreign oil", not "environmentally sound". Plus the guy in the back couldn't shovel coal quick enough to keep that thing airborne.