What is Digg?121 Comments
- kiiwii, on 12/20/2007, -3/+85I just feel sorry for the guys who have to shovel the coal into the F-16s.
- 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.
- scooterbaga, on 12/20/2007, -4/+34Anyone else imagining fighter jets with smoke stacks?
- complexigon, on 12/20/2007, -1/+29So is blowing ***** up.
- AntBing, on 12/20/2007, -1/+29They can have the coal out of my stocking if it helps the national debt.
- RyanBlack, on 12/20/2007, -6/+31Isn't coal bad for the environment?
- 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.
- 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. - 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. - cerberes, on 12/20/2007, -0/+10Will the F-16's now have to tow coal tenders like trains?
- Dontlooknow, on 12/20/2007, -3/+13Yes there is no such thing as clean coal
- 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. - 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.
- Dipster, on 12/20/2007, -2/+10If you've been bad all year, Santa will give you free coal!
- 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?
- diggduggjoe, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6I agree that strategically coal is a great idea.
- evodude, on 12/20/2007, -1/+7No, it's not.
- cbreaker, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6Nope.
- 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
- dMinor04, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5i think you mean coal
- 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.
- cheez124, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4we have a lot of ***** coal, like we have more coal than the arabs do oil.
- 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?
- OutcastJiob, on 12/20/2007, -0/+4Yes. Steampunk rules!
- 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? - 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. - 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.
- wintermd, on 12/20/2007, -3/+7UH, I hate to say this, but the Germans did this in WW2.
- 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. - freexstate, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5Hey, Godwin's Law!
- Racerx52, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3You can thank the complete removal of some mountains in my state and WV.
Go go renewable! - 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.
- Salgat, on 12/20/2007, -0/+3If there is one fuel we reign supreme in stock wise, it's coal.
- 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.
- salinemist, on 12/20/2007, -1/+4We're spending less on defense as a percentage of GDP than during the Kennedy administration.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- johoshua, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2You could take the complete exhaust of a coal fire plant and put it through this machine.
- BridgeBurner, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2I knew my throat felt extra scratchy...
- 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. - 0crabby0, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_proce ...
- Dontlooknow, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/ ... read it please
- 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?
- jcaino, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2yes, they're hauling in coal and cash out.
- 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. - johoshua, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Well by that time we'll have flying deloreans that have flux capaciters that run on garbage!
- 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. -
Show 51 - 100 of 118 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is