[Sustain] U.S. Military Plans 'Clean Coal' Diesel For Jet Fleet

[Eric Brooks]

HI all,

The U.S. military is nearly always the developer of new industries. The 
computer and Internet industries were started through large subsidized 
investments in those technologies for military use.
Now they appear to be attempting to do the same for an oil to liquefied 
coal transition. Here's the article:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5639384.html

The Air Force hopes to build a coal-to-liquid-fuel plant at Malmstrom 
Air Force Base in Montana.Coal's impact on the environment has others, 
including members of Congress, questioning the idea.

*ROBIN LOZNAK**:* THE (GREAT FALLS, MONT.) TRIBUNE

*March 21, 2008, 11:12PM*
Air Force turning to coal for cleaner-burning fuel
Military hopes to prod Wall Street into investments for oil alternative

By MATTHEW BROWN
Associated Press

MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE, MONT. --- On a wind-swept air base near the 
Missouri River, the Air Force has launched an ambitious plan to wean 
itself from foreign oil by turning to a new and unlikely source: coal.

The Air Force wants to build at its Malmstrom base in central Montana 
the first piece of what it hopes will be a nationwide network of 
facilities that would convert domestic coal into cleaner-burning 
synthetic fuel.

Air Force officials said the plants could help neutralize a national 
security threat by tapping into the country's abundant coal reserves. 
And by offering itself as a partner in the Malmstrom plant, the Air 
Force hopes to prod Wall Street investors --- nervous over coal's role 
in climate change --- to sink money into similar plants.

"We're going to be burning fossil fuels for a long time, and there's 
three times as much coal in the ground as there are oil reserves," said 
Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson. "Guess what? We're going 
to burn coal."

Tempering that vision, analysts say, is the astronomical cost of 
coal-to-liquids plants. Their high price tag, up to $5 billion apiece, 
would be hard to justify if oil prices were to drop.

In addition, coal has drawn wide opposition on Capitol Hill, where some 
leading lawmakers reject claims it can be transformed into a clean fuel. 
Without emissions controls, experts say coal-to-liquids plants could 
churn out double the greenhouse gases as oil.

"We don't want new sources of energy that are going to make the 
greenhouse gas problem even worse," House Oversight Committee Chairman 
Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said.


      Private development

The Air Force would not finance, construct or operate the coal plant. 
Instead, it has offered private developers a 700-acre site on the base 
and a promise that it would be a ready customer as the government's 
largest fuel consumer.

Bids on the project are due in May. Construction is expected to take 
four years once the Air Force selects a developer.

Anderson said the Air Force plans to fuel half its North American fleet 
with a synthetic-fuel blend by 2016. To do so, it would need 400 million 
gallons of coal-based fuel annually.

With the Air Force paving the way, Anderson said the private sector 
would follow --- from commercial air fleets to long-haul trucking companies.


      Not much success

"Because of our size, we can move the market along," he said. "Whether 
it's (coal-based) diesel that goes into Wal-Mart trucks or jet fuel that 
goes into our fighters, all that will reduce our dependence on foreign 
oil, which is the endgame."

Coal producers have been unsuccessful in prior efforts to cultivate such 
a market. Climate change worries prompted Congress last year to turn 
back an attempt to mandate the use of coal-based synthetic fuels.

The Air Force's involvement comes at a critical time for the industry. 
Coal's biggest customers, electric utilities, have scrapped at least 
four dozen proposed coal-fired power plants over rising costs and the 
uncertainties of climate change.

That would change quickly if coal-to-liquids plants gained political and 
economic traction under the Air Force's plan.

"This is a change agent for the entire industry," said John Baardson, 
CEO of Baard Energy in Vancouver, Wash., awaiting permits on a proposed 
$5 billion coal-based synthetic fuels plant in Ohio. "There would be a 
number of plants that would be needed just to support (the Air Force's) 
needs alone."

Only about 15 percent of the 25,000 barrels of synthetic fuel that would 
be produced daily at the Malmstrom plant would be suitable for jet fuel. 
The remainder would be lower-grade diesel for vehicles, trains or trucks 
and naphtha, a material used in the chemical industry.

That means the Air Force would need at least seven plants to meet its 
2016 goal.

-- 
"I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/sustainability/attachments/20080329/6f2530cf/attachment.htm