Alternative fuels no benefit to military RAND says

RAND CorporationImage via Wikipedia
NY Times:

The United States would derive no meaningful military benefit from increased use of alternative fuels to power its jets, ships and other weapons systems, according to a government-commissioned study by the RAND Corporation scheduled for release Tuesday.

The report also argued that most alternative-fuel technologies were unproven, too expensive or too far from commercial scale to meet the military’s needs over the next decade.

In particular, the report argued that the Defense Department was spending too much time and money exploring experimental biofuels derived from sources like algae or the flowering plant camelina, and that more focus should be placed on energy efficiency as a way of combating greenhouse gas emissions.

The report urged Congress to reconsider the military’s budget for alternative-fuel projects. But if such fuels are to be pursued, the report concluded, the most economic, environmentally sound and near-term candidate would be a liquid fuel produced using a combination of coal and biomass, as well as some method for capturing and storing carbon emissions released during production.

...
This is bad news for the alternative fuel business. It does demonstrate that the green myth that the oil companies are conspiring to kill the business makes no sense. The fundamental problem is that alternative fuels are less efficient and more expensive. If there was a way to make this fuel cheaper and better, the military would have found it.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Another one of those Trump stories Ted Cruz warned about

Ted Cruz was right about Washington