Air Force wants liquified coal to fuel jets

Even though it’s not renewable or clean, the Air Force wants to fuel their planes with liquefied coal:

WASHINGTON — Squeezed by the soaring cost of oil-based jet fuel, the Air Force is converting its gas-guzzling fleet of aircraft to synthetic fuels and encouraging the creation of a liquefied coal industry that could tap the nation’s vast coal reserves.

I didn’t realize this until I googled it, but coal can be turned into a liquid hydrocarbon. Knowing that we are creatures of ease and reward, this has somewhat deflated my hopes for paradigm shifting alternative energies.

Ease: We have a lot of it and we wouldn’t have to revamp our infrastructure or fleet to handle a new type of fuel. Reward: A new industry, lots of jobs, and the containment of ‘petrodollars’ within the US.

I suppose these rewards can be attributed to many alternative energies, but the main selling point for liquified coal is that it is easy:

The coal in the ground in Illinois alone has more energy than all the oil in Saudi Arabia. The technology to turn that coal into fuel for cars, homes and factories is proven. And at current prices, that process could be at the vanguard of a big, new industry.

Drawback: Liquefied coal would be bad news for the environment at every stage. (1) Tearing up large swaths of land Illinois, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wyoming, Kentucky, and Montana to access coal. (2) Converting it into gas. (3) Burning it.

Although the Air Force is on the fringe of environmental apathy, I hope everyone else realizes what a costly and China-like solution this would be to our current energy conundrum.

Does the Airforce want the entire infrastructure of the US modified for Synfuel or do they just want to employ thousands of workers to convert coal into a liquid fuel source solely to keep their weapons aloft?
Although I will ever enjoy complaining about the environmentally shattered world we are leaving to our children, I guess I will remain in the optimists camp on this one. CURRENTLY the process of converting coal to liquid fuel is environmentally expensive but I have a feeling that more and more Americans will begin accepting responsibility for their own eco-destructive behaviors. Hopefully that will force some federal, or at least state, limits on how much damage these Synfuel companies can do. Hell, we need energy anywhere we can get it, at least until we find something new.
What I still wonder about.. are humans really going to burn off the rest of our fossil fuels fighting for the rest of the fossil fuel?

Does the Airforce want the entire infrastructure of the US modified for Synfuel or do they just want to employ thousands of workers to convert coal into a liquid fuel source solely to keep their weapons aloft?

They just want to keep the costs down when they fly 6 nukes across the US, accidentally.

What I still wonder about.. are humans really going to burn off the rest of our fossil fuels fighting for the rest of the fossil fuel?

We’ll do anything for dinosaur blood.

While our energy policy over the past quarter century has been very shortsighted, the fact remains that there are not very many good alternatives for liquid fuels. When people talk about alternative or renewable energy, for the most part, that deals strictly with the creation of energy. There is not true way to replace liquid fuels, except with different liquid fuels.

As I have stated before, ethanol is a fools gold in that it does very little to improve carbon emissions and is not worth the cost. So, the Air Force is basically forced to choose between oil or another liquified fossil fuel (read: coal or natural gas).

I accept the criticism of the Air Force above, but without providing support for a hydrogen based liquid fuel, or something else you would rather see put into these jets, it rings hollow to choose this as a point of criticism rather than other sources of carbon emissions.

Correction from the first paragraph should read: “deals strictly with the creation of electricity”, not energy.

I accept the criticism of the Air Force above, but without providing support for a hydrogen based liquid fuel, or something else you would rather see put into these jets, it rings hollow to choose this as a point of criticism rather than other sources of carbon emissions.

They should keep using petroleum instead of drumming up phantom alternative fuels, especially ones with such a high cost for the environment. There aren’t any alternative fuels that are practical today including liquified coal, although it is much further along than hydrogen.

If the Air Force is feeling the pinch from high petroleum prices, perhaps they should consider reducing flights or building adequate air bases closer to the action.

In the heyday of the Afghanistan war (and still to this day), they flew B-52’s from Louisiana and England to Afghanistan and back to drop bombs — waste. These flights were refueled at several stages, meaning that the Air Force put planes in the air to support planes in the air — waste.

The air bases in the Middle East — for contractual and logistical reasons — can’t handle bombers, unless you include Diego Garcia. Thus the long flights and gratuitous use of fuel.

Hi,
I just got around to folowwing the link you provided.And one click deeper http://www.futurecoalfuels.org/technology.asp
shows an outline of the two main precesses.
Actually, it does not look at all scary. In fact there are some big improvements in the “dust to dust” analysis. One is that the refineries also serve as an electrical power plant using the bi-product of the steam. There are a couple of other bi-products which we now must produce separately.

When you consider that coal is mined through a relatively small hole and lithium (batteries) is strip mined it starts to look better, yet. I did a 15 minute search for a rebuttle to the next paragraph but didn’t find one.
_”Diesel fuel produced by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis — virtually sulfur-free with low aromatics and a high cetane value — is cleaner than conventional diesel. It burns more completely and emissions are significantly lower than low-sulfur diesel, as tested by the Department of Defense in 6.5 liter diesel engines. Most of the CO2 is already concentrated and ready for capture and possible sequestration or for use in enhanced oil or gas recovery.”_ Mind you I did find a chart on the Sierra Club site bashing the idea but based on my own knowledge of ethanol I can see that their numbers are fikk’d.

I’m just say’n …

When you consider that coal is mined through a relatively small hole and lithium (batteries) is strip mined it starts to look better.

Coal mining images (1) and (2).

As for it being cleaner:

Green advocates cite an Environmental Protection Agency report released this month that showed that even if current technologies are used to capture and sequester carbon dioxide created during the coal liquefaction process, the fuel’s well-to-wheel greenhouse gas emissions would be nearly four percent higher than those of conventional gasoline. Without those technologies, the EPA found that coal-to-liquid fuel emitted more than twice as much carbon as what Americans get at gas pumps now.