Comments on: Military Wants Coal to Jet Fuel, Uh-Oh

By: no name

no name — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:10:12 +0000

this process is way too expensive. The oil prices would have to go over $200 per a barell for this to be put into action. Not only that, to start this on a massive scale (to replace regular imported oil) would cost billions, if not trillions of dollars (to build new plants, treatment plants and storage plants). This might take place but not anywhere in the near future, infact by then the US domestic dept will pull to a halt all futher projects (such as this one for example).

By: Branto

Branto — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 04:30:15 +0000

Kinda screws that whole low-carbon fuel standard Waxman's trying to squeeze past the Airforce through the Energy Bill.

By: greg harman

greg harman — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:35:21 +0000

military tech often slimes out into the public sector in ways later recognized as supporting the "public good" and a "humming" economy. We can all huddle around and watch China and India's standard of living catch our own as the world reaps the possibly fatal consequences of middleclassdom for another frail slice of humanity.

if we are going to hitch our new-model ponies to coal for fuel, we better at a bare minimum address the terms of that extraction and end the wholesale slaughter of entire mountain ranges and local economies ala Appalachia.

while some would trade the carbon question for a humming economy, others are warning of rapid climate change as our ocean and earth run out of capacity to store that carbon. any coal or petro solution must be seen for what they are: stopgaps, not sustainable (survivable).

unfortunately, rogue states are no match for the canadian tar sands and softening permafrost when it comes to long-term global impacts. the sooner we understand that the better.

By: Hal

Hal — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:11:28 +0000

My own priorities are:

1) Sufficient energy supplies and reasonable prices to keep our economy going 2) Elimination of our dependency on foreign energy sources, particularly those from areas of questionable dependenability, 3) Reduction in carbon emissions

I will HAPPILY accept short term solutions to #1 and #2 that don't do much for (or even slow progress on) #3 knowing that in the long run these three goals converge. Coal-to-Liquids? Bring it on!