Comments on: Air Force to abandon a climate-destroying dead end? http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/13/air-force-to-abandon-a-climate-destroying-dead-end/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:47:45 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: shop http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/13/air-force-to-abandon-a-climate-destroying-dead-end/#comment-28243 shop Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:49:54 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/13/air-force-to-abandon-a-climate-destroying-dead-end/#comment-28243 Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, specifically to block military sponsorship of coal-based fuels, which emit more GHGs than petroleum if the gases are not trapped and stored during production. Republican lawmakers have made attempts to repeal the measure, without success, although Waxman has been forced into a clarification of the intent of section 526 Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, specifically to block military sponsorship of coal-based fuels, which emit more GHGs than petroleum if the gases are not trapped and stored during production. Republican lawmakers have made attempts to repeal the measure, without success, although Waxman has been forced into a clarification of the
intent of section 526

]]> By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/13/air-force-to-abandon-a-climate-destroying-dead-end/#comment-17633 Earl Killian Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:46:21 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/13/air-force-to-abandon-a-climate-destroying-dead-end/#comment-17633 This is very good news because the Air Force was explicitly talking about CTL for more than just their own use; they were trying to jumpstart the industry for commercial use in the US, and that would have been a climate disaster. It prompted me to write my two Senators and Congresswoman to try to block the Air Force's efforts. This is very good news because the Air Force was explicitly talking about CTL for more than just their own use; they were trying to jumpstart the industry for commercial use in the US, and that would have been a climate disaster. It prompted me to write my two Senators and Congresswoman to try to block the Air Force’s efforts.

]]> By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/13/air-force-to-abandon-a-climate-destroying-dead-end/#comment-17617 David B. Benson Wed, 13 Aug 2008 22:45:25 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/13/air-force-to-abandon-a-climate-destroying-dead-end/#comment-17617 Fischer-Tropsch process starting with biomass gasification will certainly work for the Air Force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process Fischer-Tropsch process starting with biomass gasification will certainly work for the Air Force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process

]]> By: charlie http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/13/air-force-to-abandon-a-climate-destroying-dead-end/#comment-17607 charlie Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:57:08 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/13/air-force-to-abandon-a-climate-destroying-dead-end/#comment-17607 I don't think you should measure this program against gains in carbon efficiency. CTL for the air force is designed to reduce our dependancy on foreign kerosene. Adding a "carbon tax" on jet fuel produced this way is NOT a good idea. My understanding of the CTL problems is that is was more a matter of purity and temperature control that were driving the costs up -- and perhaps making the program unsuitable. I do agree that there may be cheaper ways to accomplish this than new technology. I've always favored taking the oil we get as in-kind revenue from oil fields as the primary source for the military. Military demand is around 800,000 b/d of oil -- mostly jet fuel and diesel for ships. Creating a government owned refinery for these middle distillates, rather than just taking the in-kind and pumping it into the strategic reserve, would probably remove a lot of market pressure. Saw an interesting analysis of using coal for shipping which might be of interest to the Navy. I don’t think you should measure this program against gains in carbon efficiency. CTL for the air force is designed to reduce our dependancy on foreign kerosene. Adding a “carbon tax” on jet fuel produced this way is NOT a good idea. My understanding of the CTL problems is that is was more a matter of purity and temperature control that were driving the costs up — and perhaps making the program unsuitable.

I do agree that there may be cheaper ways to accomplish this than new technology. I’ve always favored taking the oil we get as in-kind revenue from oil fields as the primary source for the military. Military demand is around 800,000 b/d of oil — mostly jet fuel and diesel for ships. Creating a government owned refinery for these middle distillates, rather than just taking the in-kind and pumping it into the strategic reserve, would probably remove a lot of market pressure.

Saw an interesting analysis of using coal for shipping which might be of interest to the Navy.

]]>