RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,164531,00.html

Great idea. The AF should not rely on foreign oil to fuel it's foreign made tankers.

It is vital this nation develope coal into liquid fuel. Congress should approve and fund the AF plan to build plants. This will be more economical than using corn and grain for an alternative fuel for our citizens and defense. There are other ways to reduce the gases harming the atmosphere

If there is one thing I know it is this. NOTHING about coal is "clean burning" in any way, shape, or form.

Good point Crackerjacks61. What is up with the forign made aircraft. I thought U.S. jets were sought after around the world, but we want forign tankers. What is this country coming to?

With BMW, Chrysler, GM, and Honda now pre-advertising their fuel cell (H2) vehicles; the explosive potential of H2+O fuel mix is much greater and economical than liquified coal. And more abundant.

quote:

Originally posted by Jepson:
It is vital this nation develope coal into liquid fuel. Congress should approve and fund the AF plan to build plants. This will be more economical than using corn and grain for an alternative fuel for our citizens and defense. There are other ways to reduce the gases harming the atmosphere

I agree with you to a point. I am not real excited about fossil fuels to begin with, and people are too stupid to realize you are burning more fossil fuel to get fuel like ethanol than you would be if you just kept putting gas in the car.

Corn is grown in areas that have flat land. It doesn't do well in hilly areas. Most flat land has a high clay content in the soil (indiana for instance) corn also doesn't grow well in clay. NOTHING does. How do you get corn to grow in clay? Amonium Nitrate (chemical fertalizer.) which is a petrolium derivitave. You use 1/2 gallon of crude oil to fertalize one bushell of corn. then use a diesel powered machine to harvest it as well as plan the next crop. A plane or helo is used to spread the fertalizer which also runs on fossil fuels. It isn't a green fuel like the masses think.

I guess if you have to burn fossil fuels liquid coal is as good as any.

quote:

Originally posted by gmost:
With BMW, Chrysler, GM, and Honda now pre-advertising their fuel cell (H2) vehicles; the explosive potential of H2+O fuel mix is much greater and economical than liquified coal. And more abundant.

That one slipped past me. We should be using hydrogen. It can easily be extracted from salt water (which we seem to have an over abundance of) Why not create some hydrogen plants instead?

When I was preparing to enter college after my tour of battle, I spent alot of time researching in the army library. The most striking reading was a plan to build, power plants run by nuclear power, the plan at the time was to have them all around our country. If we would have kept that plan, in tack. We wouldn't be like the rest of world depending on liquid fossil fuel. Look at France, thats exactly what they did, they built more nuclear power plants. Why not try to convert coal into fuel, if South Africa, is doing it, and China. We are as behind as we were when Russia, sent that monkey into space. Go Air Force!

The fact is there is a company that is in the process of producing CLEAN jet fuel and the AF has flown a B-52 utilizing this fuel. Look at Rentech, Inc., and there is a method of sequestrating the CO2 the process creates. Pump it into the ground and force up some of the residual petroleum remaining in some of our depleted fields. This fuel is cleaner than any present day diesel/JP-x. Read up on this, it is important to our National Security!!!

quote:

Originally posted by titanmondo:
When I was preparing to enter college after my tour of battle, I spent alot of time researching in the army library. The most striking reading was a plan to build, power plants run by nuclear power, the plan at the time was to have them all around our country. If we would have kept that plan, in tack. We wouldn't be like the rest of world depending on liquid fossil fuel. Look at France, thats exactly what they did, they built more nuclear power plants. Why not try to convert coal into fuel, if South Africa, is doing it, and China. We are as behind as we were when Russia, sent that monkey into space. Go Air Force!

Good assessment. I think the "anti" protest movement are largely responsible having protested alternative energy sources like nuclear and hydro power for decades.

Ironically these are the same people who are now screaming hysterically about global warming and the need for alternative energy.

Also, these same people protest "war for oil" while they were cupable in causing the U.S. to be so dependent upon imported oil. Go figure.

The Air Force is smart to seek out other methods to obtain fuel.

quote:

Originally posted by Lucky_Lieutenant:

Ironically these are the same people who are now screaming hysterically about global warming and the need for alternative energy.

Care to provide a link LLt?

The plain fact is, no one is "screaming hysterically" ... except you!

There is plenty of calm, rational debate, with excellent points made by *both* sides. Jfile's post about the energy costs of corn-growing was outstanding IMHO.

LLt, would it kill you to admit that the "Greens" have made some excellent points, that are vitally important for American security and prosperity?



Me, I've had my fill of crying babies on *both* sides!

This is a worthwhile goal; and I hope that the lobbyists for ethanol won't succeed in their efforts to kill the project in Congress.

I wish also that the President used whatever emergency powers he claims to have, for the purpose of overriding the opposition from California and Florida to the development of oil and gas reserves off their coastlines.

quote:

Originally posted by usmc_family:

quote:

Originally posted by Lucky_Lieutenant:

Ironically these are the same people who are now screaming hysterically about global warming and the need for alternative energy.

Care to provide a link LLt?

SURE! You could start with this one:

Green Peace Issues

Let me know if you need more.

quote:

There is plenty of calm, rational debate, with excellent points made by *both* sides. Jfile's post about the energy costs of corn-growing was outstanding IMHO.

Didn't read it, however, "corn-growing" for fuel is COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL.

IT TAKES MORE THAN A GALLON OF FOSSIL FUEL TO PRODUCE A GALLON OF CORN ETHANOL GET IT?

How do you discuss rationally with someone who is advocating such nonsense? THE ONLY REASON, such silly proposals are made is because they are based on emotion (e.g. they make the proposer feel good) but have NOTHING to do with economic or environmental logic.

To wit:
Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year.

It takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 or 12 percent.

quote:

LLt, would it kill you to admit that the "Greens" have made some excellent points, that are vitally important for American security and prosperity?

NOT AT ALL IF THEY ACTUALLY WILL OR DO. "Greens" as you call them have done more to harm common Americans than any other movement I can recall. I can't recall ANYTHING positive they have provided that was not already proposed by the EPA and other RESPONSIBLE agencies/organizations.

All the "greens" have been successful in doing is interfering with sustainable energy because of an emotionally driven ideology.

They have been successful in stripping people's property rights, their livelyhoods, and entire generations of prosperity because of their selfish and emotional based rhetoric.

quote:

Originally posted by AGBrina:
This is a worthwhile goal; and I hope that the lobbyists for ethanol won't succeed in their efforts to kill the project in Congress.

I wish also that the President used whatever emergency powers he claims to have, for the purpose of overriding the opposition from California and Florida to the development of oil and gas reserves off their coastlines.

Great points; it would be prudent to do precisely what you suggest, unfortunatly the environmental lobby is well supported by equally irrational but powerful people in Congress, so don't hold your breath.

By the way usmc_family; since you appear to be anti-capitalism:

The top producer and lobbyist for ethanol production in the U.S. is Archer Daniels Midland.

EVIL EMPIRES ARE GETTING RICH OFF IGNORANT PEOPLE!

quote:

Originally posted by AGBrina:
This is a worthwhile goal; and I hope that the lobbyists for ethanol won't succeed in their efforts to kill the project in Congress.

I wish also that the President used whatever emergency powers he claims to have, for the purpose of overriding the opposition from California and Florida to the development of oil and gas reserves off their coastlines.

I will have to agree

quote:

Originally posted by Lucky_Lieutenant:
By the way usmc_family; since you appear to be anti-capitalism ...

Please call my political philosophy by its proper name: Abraham Lincoln conservativism.

The phrase "individual enterprise conservative" is also acceptable.

You are right that I am not a "Republican Party Conservative".

The self-proclaimed "Party of Lincoln" has in the past few years wholly abandoned the Christian moral principles of Lincoln ... and abandoned common-sense too.

We see the result every day: massive debt, decaying infrastructure, fubar'd healthcare system, ill-planned wars, and an acute shortage of family-supporting jobs.

These problems will be sooner solved when we have more old-fashioned Abraham Lincoln conservatives ... and I am proud to regard myself as one of them! Semper Fi!

Thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by Jfile:

quote:

Originally posted by gmost:
With BMW, Chrysler, GM, and Honda now pre-advertising their fuel cell (H2) vehicles; the explosive potential of H2+O fuel mix is much greater and economical than liquified coal. And more abundant.

That one slipped past me. We should be using hydrogen. It can easily be extracted from salt water (which we seem to have an over abundance of) Why not create some hydrogen plants instead?

One of the byproducts of Gen 4 nuclear power plants is ... hydrogen. Two birds with one stone.

quote:

The self-proclaimed "Party of Lincoln" has in the past few years wholly abandoned the Christian moral principles of Lincoln ...

That's the inevitable result of a focus on secularism IMHO ... and the only thing remaining with which to replace those "Christian moral principles" is greed - whether personal or corporate, politician or plain old citizen.

quote:

Originally posted by Jade_Gate:
One of the byproducts of Gen 4 nuclear power plants is ... hydrogen. Two birds with one stone.

That's the inevitable result of a focus on secularism IMHO ... and the only thing remaining with which to replace those "Christian moral principles" is greed - whether personal or corporate, politician or plain old citizen.

FIRE FOR EFFECT JADE, you are right on target.