The Air Force uses more fuel than all other branches of the U.S. military combined. In 2007, that added up to 2.5 billion gallons—about 10 percent of the total used by the entire U.S. domestic aviation-fuel market—and cost $5.6 billion. By 2016, the Air Force hopes to be running half of its domestic operations on a 50/50 blend of synthetic and conventional jet fuel, thereby reducing its vulnerability to hostile or potentially unfriendly nations.
If you and your neighbors are concerned about America’s dependence on foreign oil for so much of its energy needs, just imagine how the U.S. military feels about energy-independence as a national security issue.
The Upside of Turning Coal into Jet Fuel
From where the Air Force sits, the plan to use liquefied coal as jet fuel has a lot of advantages:
- Abundance—The United States owns more than a quarter of the world’s coal reserves, compared to less than 3 percent of the world’s petroleum reserves, and there is a lot more coal than oil buried underground.
- Cleanliness—This is a debatable point, but what the Air Force means by this claim is that the production process for turning coal into jet fuel eliminates sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide and particulate emissions so, in that sense, jet fuel made from liquid coal burns cleaner than fuel made from oil.
- Availability—We already know how to turn coal into jet fuel—the basic technology has been around since the 1920s—and the Air Force already has either tested or certified many of its planes for use of a 50/50 blend of synthetic and conventional jet fuel.
- Practicality—Some airlines are already experimenting with biofuels, and scientists are working on other renewable fuels that may one day power vehicles and even airplanes. For the short-term, however, only oil, natural gas and coal offer reliable sources of aviation fuel.
As you might expect, turning coal into jet fuel has a few drawbacks as well:
- Carbon Dioxide—If you look at the whole production process—from mining the coal to creating and burning the fuel—coal-based jet fuel produces twice as much carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming) as jet fuel made from petroleum.
- Collateral Damage—Mining and burning coal is a dirty business, which damages the land, pollutes air and water, and puts public health at risk. The recent coal ash spill in Tennessee pointed up some of the unsolved problems of toxic coal waste disposal, while mountain-top mining has become the poster child for environmental degradation.
- Sustainability—By replacing petroleum-based fuel with coal-based fuel, we’re trading one finite resource for another. Fossil fuels won’t last forever, and we can’t make more.
- Legality—Section 526 of the 2007 energy bill makes it illegal for the U.S. government to spend taxpayer dollars on fuels that emit more greenhouse gases than those already in use. U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, recently anointed as the new chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, added that language to the bill in deference to growing environmental concerns about the potential effects of creating a market for coal-to-liquid fuels.
The Challenge of Developing a Renewable Jet Fuel
Despite ongoing research, there are no good renewable fuel alternatives on the horizon that can answer our need for military and commercial aviation fuel. Certain types of biofuels have potential, such as those being tried by Virgin Atlantic and studied by the Sustainable Aviation Fuels Users Group—a coalition of Boeing, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and other environmental groups, and several airlines—but not all renewable energy is suitable for aviation, and no renewable energy source can yet produce enough reasonably priced jet fuel to meet the demand.
As Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program, told Popular Science: “You can’t put solar panels on a jet airplane.”
The NRDC suggests that we forget about liquid coal and invest in existing oil-saving technologies that would free more oil for aviation fuel and buy time for the development of renewable, low-carbon options. While conservation is a good environmental strategy, it is more of a delaying tactic than a solution to the problem of developing a cost-effective, abundant renewable fuel that can meet the needs of the aviation market and the U.S. military.
Meanwhile, the Air Force is pressing ahead with its plan to transform coal into jet fuel, confident that the legal and environmental problems can be solved before our current energy dilemma becomes a national security crisis.
Also Read:
- Flying the Coal-Fired Skies -- Popular Science
- Boeing, Air New Zealand and Rolls-Royce Plan Jet Biofuel Demonstration Flight
- The Pros and Cons of Biofuels
- Ethanol FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions About Ethanol
- Top Renewable Energy Sources
- Top Alternative Fuels
- Flying vs Driving: Which is Better for the Environment?
- Biofuel: The First Airline Trend of 2009 -- About.com: Air Travel
Comments
In the bigger picture coal is a poor option for the Air Force since its primary purpose is to protect our country. The fact of collateral damage makes it ironic if they do decide to use it.
Short sighted folks worry about energy independence. We WANT to use up foreign oil before we use up our own fuel sources. “Collateral Environmental Damage” won’t mean much if our country is over-run by a foreign army first. Nazi Germany was much easier to defeat once we shut off their petrol supplies. Gotta look at the bigger picture and make the necessary compromises.