U.S. Air Force cancels plans for coal to liquid fuel project

U.S. Air Force cancels plans for coal to liquid fuel project
by Sam Abuelsamid on Feb 2nd 2009 at 8:55AM

For a military forces, a steady reliable supply of fuel is critical to success. Given that, the U.S. Air Force has been investigating the idea of putting a coal-to-liquid facility at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. Coal is readily available in the continental U.S. and being able to economically produce synthetic liquid fuel would be highly beneficial to the military.

The proposals that the Air Force looked at involved having a privately-funded and -operated fuel plant on the site. However, the investigators found that the proposals would have interfered with normal operations at the base and hurt security. There were also safety concerns because of the weapons stored on site. The Air Force has chosen to abandon the idea for now, but it hasn't said whether it will pursue other alternatives for synthetic fuel production.

[Source: U.S. Air Force]
Tags: coal to fuel, coal to liquid, CoalToFuel, CoalToLiquid, us air force, UsAirForce

(6)Share
.Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

1jharlan
12:11PM (2/02/2009)
Using coal in any way increases atmospheric CO2. It's never going to be carbon neutral. The argument can be made that biofuels are carbon neutral.

Reply
↓↑report2BOB DOWELL
12:30PM (3/15/2009)
It will be if they use nuclear energy to develop the fuel


↓↑report3harlanx6
2:26PM (3/15/2009)
Why not use nuclear energy? Do we need to go any further than producing electricity with it?
I don't have all the answers, but I believe those who oppose nuclear energy are a group of subversives that want the US to fail. If the French can use it safely, COME ON!


↓↑report4simms
12:21PM (2/02/2009)
You don't mention that coal to liquid fuel pollutes twice as much as oil, a backwards idea!

Reply
↓↑report5Scott
11:35PM (3/12/2009)
Your brain forgot to think that we cannot produce enough oil to guarantee enough fuel supply, hence any additional fuel we can supply increases our National Security. How much carbon/green house gas is put in the air transporting oil from the Middle East or South America to the US Tree Hugger Commy Moron?


↓↑report6BOB DOWELL
1:57PM (3/15/2009)
None of you guys are willing to park your cars and go back to horse and buggy.
You are all idealistic dreamers and refuse to be realistic.
Here is what is happening. The rest of the world has already gone 50 to 70% diesel because they are at least 30% more efficient. Every foreign car manufacturer on the US streets has a diesel version of what they sell us that they sell in the rest of the world. (I rented a Toyota rav 5 diesel in Costa Rica last year that got 60 mpg) These diesel versions get 50 to 60 mpg while we are struggling with 30 mpg. That means Americans have less money to spend on food, clothing, consumables.
If you do a little investigating, you will find out that the end result fuel that is made from coal is the cleanest purest fuel that can be made. The pollution does not come from the fuel. The co2 comes from the fact that the process takes 2 high temperature firings to convert the coal. If conventional coal or natural gas is used to produce the firings, the process does create much co2. However there is an answer that gets around that. The latest break through in nuclear energy is what is called a pebble bed reactor. The whole world is going to these because they are extremely save and produce no co2.

Oil companies do not want to go down this street because of the nightmare of permits and EPA regulations. They don't have the money. They can barely stay afloat now.

If the Obama administration was smart, which they are not) they would buy up 100 acre tracks of land in strategic places that already have the EPA permits attached. They would give the oil companies a 30% subsidy to build the plants. If the government wanted to create jobs they could set up on site housing and training for workers. Then for extra motivation they should give the oil companies a 20% tax deduction on what is sold. They should also mandate that 10% of their net profits go into the general Social Security fund.

To fuel the plants, the government should build what ever number of nuclear plants around the country with tax payers money. The plants should be a non-profit organization that only services the coal to liquid projects. The cost could be added to the end cost of making the fuel. Similar housing and training could be set up to train and house workers. Excess power could be sold to the power companies.

Oil companies are racking up RECORD profits! Barely stay afloat? Dont have the money ????