Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Renewable Energy's Biggest Ally

By Alex Kizer, National Defense University
March 19, 2009   |   8 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

8 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 8
March 20, 2009
Alex has two very important points:
1- The US Air Force has set ambitious RPS goals
2- Has the funds and managerial expertise to achieve them

These are the two ingredients to accomplishing an important job. I would like to learn more.
Comment
2 of 8
March 20, 2009
Thank god the U.S. will be able to fight GREEN wars now. How about cutting at least 15% if not 30% of the $646 BILLION dollars we tax payers spend EACH YEAR on the military and start to retrofit the county with solar, wind, macro-hydro, and other renewable energy sources and then we wouldn't have to spend BILLIONS each year defending U.S. oil interests world wide along with killing human beings for it. What an interesting concept.
Comment
3 of 8
March 20, 2009
I would point out that solar PV techology could still be a laboratory experiment if it were not for the aerospace and military adopting it years ago. Considering that the role of the military is national security and defense, it's only appropriate that they address energy, which is a major national security issue. I hope that all branches of our military follow the Air Force's example.
Comment
4 of 8
More adavances in technology are made during war, or critical situations, than in peace time.
Comment
5 of 8
March 20, 2009
The largest photovoltaic plant in the US is at Nellis Air Force Base.
Comment
6 of 8
March 20, 2009
This implementation could certainly be a windfall for some PV manufacturers. Not much mention, tho, of the huge amount of heated water and living space that solar direct heating might afford for much less in tax payer funds. The low hanging fruit benefits are just too boring, aren't they? I could see the US military installing collosal PV arrays and then using the 14 per cent efficiency juice to heat water and barracks and housing, mmm and bragging about it.
Comment
7 of 8
March 21, 2009
The Air Force has had a synthetic fuel program underway for some time now. There is a coal to liquid fuel plant under construction at Malstrom AFB MT. In flight tests of synthetic fuels have been successful and equipment studies of rings, fittings and gaskets undertaken. South Africa has been making and using synthetic coal to liquid since about 1980.
---"Synthetic fuels are not unknown in aviation; South African Airways has been flying on a synthetic jet-fuel blend since 1999. But there are only a handful of production plants in operation around the world, even though the ability to make synthetic fuels has existed for half a century."--------

The process used is Fischer-Tropsch method, originally developed in 1924 and used extensively by Germany in WW2.

Ironically, while coal to liquid is expensive and environmentally damaging, the same process can be used to convert cellulose into ethanol or longer chain hydrocarbons such as jet fuels or diesel fuels. So, while synthetic coal to liquid fuel is not renewable(you cann't use coal over and over) by adjusting temperature, pressure, and catalyst beds---the same equipment can produce long chain hydrocarbon jet fuels from wood, straw, hay or any other cellulose source. Since cellulose is already a complex mix of hydrocarbons vs. almost pure carbon for coal, it requires less energy input to convert.

So I'm hopeful that this will represent step forward, especially if more emphasis is placed on renewable feedstock(cellulose, any type of plant waste) rather creating synthetic fuel from coal which is not renewable. It is possible to do the same thing, with the same equipment and at a lower cost than using coal. In this case, cost means not only dollar cost, it also includes the environmental cost of production.

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/sep08/6694
Comment
8 of 8
March 23, 2009
If we want to make less CO2 and import less oil, won't it be smarter to set those objectives as the goals? Then let efficiency compete with RE for reducing fossil fuel use?
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc. OTTI - Ostbayerisches Techn. Transfer Institute Upsolar Solectria Renewables LLC Rittal Corporation Biomass Thermal Energy Council (BTEC) Prudent Living, Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters