digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Air Force Will Be Coal-Powered by 2011

gas2.org — Not everyone has the same definition for the term ‘renewable fuel’. The United States Air Force (an otherwise major buyer of renewable energy) is well on their way to becoming coal-powered. On Monday, the USAF carried out a transcontinental test flight using a 50-50 blend of standard jet fuel and coal-based ’synfuel’.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • sweeneyowns, on 12/20/2007, -19/+8some generals friend/congressmans son or cousin is hauling in a lot of cash
    • dMinor04, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5i think you mean coal
      • jcaino, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2yes, they're hauling in coal and cash out.
    • MxM111, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Why this is in environment section? Does synthetic oil produce less CO2?
  • kiiwii, on 12/20/2007, -3/+84I just feel sorry for the guys who have to shovel the coal into the F-16s.
    • cerberes, on 12/20/2007, -0/+10Will the F-16's now have to tow coal tenders like trains?
    • init100, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1I wonder where they are going to fit the boiler and the firebox. In addition, I guess the F-16s are now going to be refitted for two-man crews, as they would need a fireman in addition to the pilot.
      • jgzman, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Many F-16 are fitted for two crewmembers. I really hate having to inspect two cockpits. Sorry, "Crew Stations."
        • init100, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Aren't those mostly trainers? I thought that F-16 was primarily a single-seater.
          • jgzman, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Broadly speaking you are correct. However, sometimes you fly what you got. We were a training base (weapons school) and had about 3 times as many of the D models as we needed.
        • crispycritter, on 12/20/2007, -0/+0Ah yes the F-16D. When you said inspect, what was your specialty? I worked Egress and it was alright except for FOD jobs. "Oh great we think we dropped a pen in the cockpit". That really sucked the pilot had it in his flight suit. CAD/PAD inspections were pretty bad to.
          • jgzman, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1I was a crew chief. We generally inspected the cockpit for 2-3 hours ourselves before we called egress to tilt the seat.

            My finest moment was at the end of a 12-hour shift. We spent the entire time looking for some bloody thing, wound up having egress remove the canopy, seat, pulling out panels. Finally found it. I was signing off on the last things as egress finished installing the seat when one of them dropped a bolt.

            I dropped the forms and walked out. Good times, good times.
    • EntropyGun, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Yes, and we'll need extra tall water towers for them to refuel
    • theOster, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1i wouldn't worry - i heard they were moving to wind-up rubber bands by 2015...
    • dsmx, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1I just had a vision of steam powered aircraft.
  • MaxMWood, on 12/20/2007, -18/+3And then Coal ran out in 2010.
    • johoshua, on 12/20/2007, -1/+13Reserves
      Coal reserves are available in almost every country worldwide, with recoverable reserves in around 70 countries. At current production levels, proven coal reserves are estimated to last 147 years. In contrast, proven oil and gas reserves are equivalent to around 41 and 63 years at current production levels respectively. Over 68% of oil and 67% of gas reserves are concentrated in the Middle East and Russia.
      • Salgat, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3If there is one fuel we reign supreme in stock wise, it's coal.
        • Racerx52, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3You can thank the complete removal of some mountains in my state and WV.
          Go go renewable!
          • Jonjonr6, on 12/20/2007, -0/+0That's ok, you've got plenty left. Besides, you know you wanted to live in a nice, flat town like Phoenix.
      • smackhero, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2it might last 147 years with the current rate of consumption perhaps. but if we switch our major energy production from oil to coal, then our consumption rate for coal will go up dramatically.

        and even if assuming those projections mean that we can use coal alone to power our economy for another 147 years, that is still incredibly myopic thinking. it's not a sustainable solution and will just put off the development of renewable energy until it's too late. we shouldn't put our hopes/resources into stop gap solutions.
        • johoshua, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Well by that time we'll have flying deloreans that have flux capaciters that run on garbage!
        • lomein987, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0lol smackhero.
          147 years - is a stop gap solution. bah hah.

          thats funny.
    • shark615, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4"68% of oil and 67%"

      Do those numbers take into account tar sands, capped reserves, and other sources trapped in shale etc?
      • brstilson, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1Tar sands and oil shale are pipe dreams and not a cost-effective way to produce oil.
    • lomein987, on 05/08/2008, -0/+0Ive read somewhere that if we used only the coal in Montana to make synthetic oil to replace only the barrels of oil we import....we have a 200 year supply.
  • ScornForSega, on 12/20/2007, -10/+4Yay technology.... oh, wait.
  • insllvn, on 12/20/2007, -14/+11Military spending is already enormous and, some would say, out of control. Go ahead and splurge on more environmentally friendly fuels. There is no reason the DoD shouldn't be on the forefront of renewable energy technology, and plenty of reasons why they should be made to take up the cause.
    • altgeeky1, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4If oil becomes less critical to the US economy, then the neo-cons are alone and without the support of the investment community. Encouraging environmentally friendly fuels would reduce pressures on the military as a whole.
    • salinemist, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4We're spending less on defense as a percentage of GDP than during the Kennedy administration.
      • Fry001, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1Yes. But how much in real dollars are they spending now?

        If this allows the Airforce to cut their fuel costs in half then so be it. It means more money can be spent on researching better alternatives or planting a few hundred trees to offset the emmissions. It also helps that the research the Air Force will be doing to increase returns on the technology would also benifit the rest of us through allowing alternative, locally produced sources of fuels which require less transport and processing then those shipped half way across the world just to go into your fuel tanks/
    • smackhero, on 12/20/2007, -4/+3i think what makes the most sense is just to reduce the size of our military. there's no need for us to waste money & resource to maintain a huge war machine when we're not at war. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex but no one listened. isntead, our military spending has gotten way out of hands. having such a large and resource consuming military does not benefit the average american. it only benefits KBR/Halliburton, General Electric/NBC, Lockheed Martin, and other winners of army logistics/defense contracts.

      our military spending is way out of proportion with other areas of fiscal policy, especially compared to other nations. and not only has it not resulted in better national security, it's facilitated the creation of an extremely militaristic government that has completely forgotten how to use diplomacy in the conduct of foreign affairs--to the great detriment of our international relations. not only has this created many enemies, it also has a negative impact on our national culture.
      • netant, on 12/20/2007, -2/+3What drugs are you on? We're conducting major military operations in two different countries (Iraq & Afghanistan). That's not including our division presence in Korea, or "peacekeeping" operations. We don't have enough foot soldiers to sustain those operations, so we're enlarging the military.

        Granted, our military spending is way out of proportion compared to other nations, but most nations don't have a worldwide navy. (Or nuclear delivery systems.) What is unforgivable is how our military tax dollars are used as corporate welfare to KBR, Halliburton, and we probably should have focused on putting out a cheaper military, not a state-of-the-art one. (Ex - We never should have embarked on the F-35 program, or quickly killed it, since the planes are 10x more expensive than the F-16's. The airforce needs Corolla's, not Lotus Turbo Esprits. Perhaps the B-2 and F-117 should both be killed as programs. I'd probably reduce the carrier task forces, and implement more surface ship/sub task forces, particularly where there already is local air force support.)
  • dunderballer, on 12/20/2007, -5/+46It seems out military is almost always used for offense now, but from a defense perspective, I do see the importance of having our military resources not be dependent on foreign, particularly middle eastern, imports. The US has a quarter of the worlds coal reserves so it sounds like a smart move. I support environmental responsibility to be exorcised by using the equipment less. After all, the missile launchers on the front are killing humanity far faster than the exhaust pipes on the back.
    • cbreaker, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5"the missile launchers on the front are killing humanity far faster than the exhaust pipes on the back."

      The human population continues to skyrocket. While missile launchers and weapons kill thousands perhaps every day, none of them have the potential to wipe out all human civilization in the next century like a significant climate change would do.
      • Jonjonr6, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1So what you're inferring is, war is population control for humans, and if it weren't for war, human over-population would have destroyed the planet logn ago?
    • diggduggjoe, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6I agree that strategically coal is a great idea.
  • scooterbaga, on 12/20/2007, -4/+34Anyone else imagining fighter jets with smoke stacks?
  • airiox, on 12/20/2007, -1/+21I think the Montana governor said coal based diesel could be produced at $40 a barrel. That should save the air force ~1/2 of the fuel budget by 2010 if current gas prices continue the way they are. Props to them. Hopefully this is a sign of change and a limitation of the power the middle east has over us. With coal based diesel 1/2 the price of oil based diesel, once someone starts manufacturing it on a large scale, oil companies will have no other alternative but to lower their artificially inflated, monopolistic prices.
    • CrypticSkeptic, on 12/20/2007, -4/+3And then if oil prices are lowered, it makes the coal less economical, which defeats the original purpose.
    • netant, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3Algae based biofuel diesel would probably cost as much to develop. Converting coal to diesel is not a cheap, developed process. And its particularly environmentally UN-friendly to produce. They're going for coal conversion because of coal mining interests.
  • RyanBlack, on 12/20/2007, -6/+31Isn't coal bad for the environment?
    • complexigon, on 12/20/2007, -1/+29So is blowing ***** up.
    • Dontlooknow, on 12/20/2007, -3/+13Yes there is no such thing as clean coal
      • johoshua, on 12/20/2007, -3/+1Explain this then.

        http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/873aae7bf86c0 ...
        • Dontlooknow, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/ ... read it please
          • johoshua, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2You obviously did not read the POPSCI article. This device COMPLETLY reduces ALL matter put into it. The radiant energy of the plasma arc is so powerful, it disintegrates trash into its constituent elements by tearing apart molecular bonds. The system is capable of breaking down pretty much anything except nuclear waste, the isotopes of which are indestructible. The only by-products are an obsidian-like glass used as a raw material for numerous applications, including bathroom tiles and high-strength asphalt, and a synthesis gas, or “syngas”—a mixture of primarily hydrogen and carbon monoxide that can be converted into a variety of marketable fuels, including ethanol, natural gas and hydrogen.

            By the way. Robert F. Kennedy is a hypocrital ***** who flies around in a Gulfstream 5 personal jet genius.
    • bentman78, on 12/20/2007, -3/+10yes, but it get's us off our dependency of oil from countries that would just as soon see us all dead...I'm okay with that. Besides, the verdict is still in debate on whether is it more environmentally unfriendly?
    • jwbales, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4Burning coal releases sulfur into the atmosphere (a pollutant) and carbon dioxide (a non-pollutant , US Supreme Court opinion not-withstanding). I presume the sulfur is removed from the coal-based synfuel which should leave the jet fuel comparatively free of pollutants. In any event, what little pollution the military might produce is insignificant compared to the good they do in the defense of the country.
    • jgzman, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1EVERYTHING is bad for the environment. You just have to select which ones you're gonna do.
    • jedicurt, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1no... cause if it were bad for the environment... then the environment would already be destroyed, cause coal has been there for a long long time
  • wintermd, on 12/20/2007, -6/+5And did the USAF report the cost? Heck no, it would put some reality into the tree huggers.
  • Dipster, on 12/20/2007, -2/+10If you've been bad all year, Santa will give you free coal!
  • AntBing, on 12/20/2007, -1/+29They can have the coal out of my stocking if it helps the national debt.
  • cmuwriter, on 12/20/2007, -0/+9Hmmmm this borders on steampunk. I like it.
  • trollick, on 12/20/2007, -4/+5Using coal is better than using preserved remains of prehistoric zooplankton.
  • BridgeBurner, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2I knew my throat felt extra scratchy...
  • vicsvenge, on 12/20/2007, -4/+12I think this is awesome. Finally the government is doing something that benefits our economy by investing into coal production. Yeah it probably sucks for the environment right now. But I'd rather we invest in a fuel that can be refined from coal and benefit us here and just find better and cleaner ways to burn it. Just look at gasoline now and how far it's come.
  • Skod, on 12/20/2007, -4/+2This should be under the environmental section....so that I don't have to see it.

    Oh and this whole article is practically nothing but spin.
  • swancher, on 12/20/2007, -1/+7it seems appropriate that in the picture of the aircraft the horizon is obliterated by smog...
  • bigwrestlerguy, on 12/20/2007, -4/+10Airforce = smart
  • Racerx52, on 12/20/2007, -2/+4To get some of this coal, you have to level a whole mountain. This isn't really much better for anyone involved. All across my state i see stripmines, It's not something you really wanna see.
    Then they replace all the trees with stupid pine trees, What good do they do? Cheap and makes em look good to hippies. Thanks.
    • cbreaker, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5Aww, poor baby has to SEE a coal mine once in awhile. I feel awful for your eyes.

      While I don't enjoy the thought of strip mines, I also try to be realistic. Alternative fuel sources aren't here yet. Solar/Wind/etc aren't even close to ready to provide electricity for us. I like the idea of Nuclear power, but people like you insist that it's somehow not safe burying the tiny amounts of nuclear waste deep beneath a mountain in indestructible containers..

      We need a stop-gap fuel, and Coal could be the answer. It's not that we'll ever run out of Oil; there will always be oil around - but it will be prohibitively expensive to use as a fuel. It can and at the rate we're going, WILL cause a third world war. We need VIABLE alternatives now.

      Grow up a little bit.
  • Mockylock, on 12/20/2007, -1/+14The title is deceiving. The synfuel can come from either coal OR natural gas, which is very clean burning. It's amazing that it takes a single douchebag to turn something good around.

    Read the post before ranting about coal.
    • claybodie, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Mockylock,
      Yes, it's true that synfuel can be made from natural gas, but the important part of that phrase is "CAN" since it often ISN'T. It's true we have about 200 years of coal left (that's what they tell us), but we've only got about 40 years of natural gas (Worldwatch), which means major increases in synfuel will come from coal.
      Alternatively, you can make synfuel from biomass, but I don't see that being as large a feedstock as coal. See my other posts on the subject to get a wider perspective...
      • Mockylock, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1I'm sure that biomass is an alternative that they've thought of, considering natural gas and methane aren't too far from each other. I'm sure that in order to experiment with different gasses which are similarly combustible, they'd have to find something that had the resources that they could get it right now.. ...in whatever quantity they desire.
        They control coal and natural gas, but biomass is basically uncharted and shrugged off by the government at the time being. It's hard to tax someone on a fuel that they helped provide with waste.
        Right now, I'm sure that when experimenting.. the most reliable source is what they'll go with. To get it to switch to other gasses would be cake, just by adjusting mixtures of oxygen.
      • Lynxpro, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1I haven't heard the "200 year" quote before. What I've heard is that the US has enough coal to last 500+ years. We could also get more coal from the British, which would definitely help out the Welsh and the Scots who got pretty unglued when Maggie Thatcher closed down a bunch of their mines back-in-the-day...

        We also have shale oil at our disposal, not to mention the tar sand oil up in Alberta that we are already purchasing. It is time to stop sending our dollars (or our dollars converted to euros) to the Middle East. I'm surprised AIPAC isn't pressuring Congress over this too since it would be in their best interest to cut American monies off from their Middle Eastern "competitors"...
        • Mockylock, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1I think they're holding off on the shale oil until prices rise and the middle east is drained. They've got the technology to harvest it, but haven't. Go figure.
  • burketthumor, on 12/20/2007, -3/+1coal as an energy source? I'll believe it when I see it. hogwash.
  • qmeister, on 12/20/2007, -7/+8You said it exactly, [vicsvenge] "Yeah it probably sucks for the environment right now." No, it doesn't probably suck for the environment, IT SUCKS HORRIBLY. This is terrible news for the environment. I understand the economics behind it, but this is a huge step backwards and not surprising from the current administration. Coal in energy production is the worst possible for the environment.

    Get a grip
    • RyanBlack, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1Agreed.
    • cbreaker, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3No, YOU get a grip. If we don't do something to help contain the prices of fuel until cleaner energy is viable, there won't BE an environment to protect. War would likely be upon us, and nothing else would matter.
  • redxxx, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5It's a good strategic move which helps to decrease our military's dependence on foreign oil. Using this stuff and natural resources we have here at home, we could fight a protracted war against the rest of the first world. Who says we can't learn from history?
  • gjscds, on 12/20/2007, -4/+3This is a good move. Hard to win a war against the towel heads if the towel heads have all the energy.
    • falkonv7l, on 12/20/2007, -2/+1"towel heads"........talk about ignorant
    • Apollyon0810, on 12/20/2007, -2/+0Yeah! Get with the times. They like to be called "sand *****" now... Geeze.
  • urs1ne, on 12/20/2007, -3/+2What, you mean they havent figured out how to make a Hybrid jet fighter yet? I guess that cheap crappy interior doesnt hold up under heavy G forces.
  • wintermd, on 12/20/2007, -3/+7UH, I hate to say this, but the Germans did this in WW2.
    • freexstate, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5Hey, Godwin's Law!
      • Lynxpro, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1He said "Germans", not the particular fascist political party that gained control of Germany prior to WW2. Thus Godwin's Law was not violated.
    • bentman78, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4uh...we've probably also refined the process in the past 60 years to make it better and more efficient than the Germans too.
  • bentman78, on 12/20/2007, -0/+10They are looking at many things, including wind power and nuclear power. This story only focuses on coal. Look here-->http://www.amec.com/sustainabilityreport2005/pdfs/ ...
    and I don't need to find anything on nuclear power, it's obvious the military uses it already. The Air Force, more than any other branch right now (any other branch in the world I'd venture to guess) is really investing time into renewable energy. Of course I'm a little biased because I'm former Air Force.
  • plbland, on 12/20/2007, -2/+3Oh it's so depressing the coal is seen as a long term solution.
  • 0crabby0, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_proce ...
  • eyesee360, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1Yes, it's vitally important that our killing machines be enviro-friendly. Perhaps instead of coal we could figure out how to grind up, er, 'recycle' brown people to make jet fuel.
  • librejustitia, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5How to fuel its various military vehicles and maintain full spectrum dominance in the future are probably two of the United States' biggest concerns. People might say that this is not an environmentally sound "solution", but since when did the WWF or Greenpeace run the Pentagon? It's the only viable solution. You can't run fighter jets, battleships, tanks or helicopters on hydrogen or solar power. Not yet. The Pentagon knows that oil is a quickly vanishing nonrenewable source of energy and that the small amounts buried on its own continent won't be enough to keep the jets flying and the tanks rolling for long when foreign oil "runs out", or rather, becomes too difficult and expensive to extract. This latest move is not tangible evidence of course, but clearly indicative of the coming of a time without cheap, easily and readily accessible oil, and obviously important so the US. can continue to wield its military dominance while other nations are struggling with shortages and extremely high oil prices.
  • petefriedman, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1Our government spends millions of tax dollars on figuring out ways to clean up our environment, then they spend millions of tax dollars on developing syn-fuels that damage and hurt our environment. And we wonder why our taxes only move in one direction....correct.....UP. Our government just keeps shooting itself in the foot. The right hand doesn't tak to the left. Round and Round we go......
  • Picer, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2Steam powered F-22 lol
    • thespudmall, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2There is no mention of steam or using solid coal directly.
  • cheez124, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4we have a lot of ***** coal, like we have more coal than the arabs do oil.
  • EvilMoose, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Better coal than that net-energy loss that we call Deathonal.
  • cachemoney, on 12/20/2007, -3/+2Wow coal. Next thing you know they will invent a steam powered plane or maybe a helium powered blimp!!! God technology is awesome.
    • vicsvenge, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2yeah technology is awesome. especially when you can retrofit it to safely, efficiently and cleanly (relatively) use something that the US has in abundant supply. You're being sarcastic as hell... but sometimes using new technology on an age old fossil fuel like coal can yield amazing results. If we can burn gasoline and leave virtually zero toxic gases in its exhaust, what makes you think we can't do the same with coal?
  • bjs3171, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1is this, like, a joke?
  • davidryal, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1if you can't take oil by force (successfully), make oil with what you got. worked for the nazis. oh, wait.
  • Christerray, on 12/20/2007, -1/+2The Air Force has been phasing out our Diesel for Bio Diesel. We havn't made plans for the air fleet, but our ground units are movings towards cleaner energy.

    I don't think we'll go coal-powered. We might be able to develop the tech by 2011, but since we can't even buy enough F-22s to replace the aging F-16s, it'll be awhile before we switch to another fuel.

    The Air Force is hurting for cash right now. Don't expect to see these in 2011.
  • wishninja, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3This is good news now we will have one less reason to need the middle east and we can still be strong here at home without the need to maintain an empire.
  • sepharious, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1you know who else ran their war machines on coal-fuel? THE NAZIS!

    this was all Prescott's plan from the 1930's! 9/11 was planned in 1901! (move the one you have 9/11!) all your freedoms are belong to teh alien overlords! conspiracies are supported by the tinfoil hat producers to sell more hats!
    • sepharious, on 12/20/2007, -1/+1I would also add:
      this is a great idea from a strategic standpoint, HOWEVER, our methods for extracting coal take a severe toll on our environment in this country. given the progress that has been made in producing various hydrogen-powered engines (combustion or fuel-cell) I wonder if a better long-term investment for security would be had in building a vast network of renewable energy that converts to hydrogen or uses that energy to produce a fully synthetic carbon fuel?
  • acidosen, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1This is an answer to Peak Oil. More ideas like this one and we will have this honor to fly international...otherwise if oil is so expensive in the future who would afford flying? Air force, officials, CEOs and so on. I bet there is much more coal left than is oil. All that is temporary anyway.
    • librejustitia, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Yes, it clearly is, as I also pointed out in an above post. Military research will always in some ways benefit the civilian population and this is no exception. I doubt you have to worry about international travel in the future. Many old technologies exist that can be improved upon. One of those is the airship. Powered by natural gas, hydrogen or synfuels, it can carry large amounts of goods and people fairly quickly over long distances. Maybe it also will have the side effect of slowing us down a bit. Imagine being able to enjoy traveling again, not just the destination and the arrival back home.
  • easthollow, on 12/20/2007, -0/+0This is a very bad idea. The coal-to-oil process is an environmental disaster. See http://www.ultradirtyfuels.com/
  • smotpoker1, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1well thats about ***** stupid.
  • skews13, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0as soon as they can show me how to run my truck on it,let me know
  • habenneas, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1lynxcache mirror: http://lynxcache.com/Air_Force_Will_Be_Coal_Powere ...
  • BlazedRafter, on 02/13/2008, -0/+0The US should not turn to coal to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. In fact, our top three foreign suppliers are NOT in the Middle East (Canada, Mexico, and Argentina). Coal mining is often heavily destructive to the environment and nearby communities (Mountain Top Removal). Also, we haven't figured out how to permentatly store CO2 underground.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.