The US Air Force has announced a plan to go 50-50 (no more than half of their fuel will be petroleum-based) by 2010. The air force burns a lot of fuel, and doesn’t want to be tied down to petroleum sources.
However, the options they are considering don’t look so great from a global warming perspective. They are considering fuels derived from coal, natural gas and oil shale. These fuels would reduce dependency on petroleum, but would emit just as much – if not more – CO2.
Air travel is a disproportionately high contributor to global warming. On the one hand, tackling air travel would make a significant dent in the overall level of emissions. On the other hand, our multitudes of air vehicles represent a crucial cog in the machine of global economics and politics.
So is fuel derived from coal, gas and oil shale a step in the right direction? It still hurts the environment, but it may be a good petroleum-free transition.
Full REDORBIT article click here
1 comment:
Hi Yoni:
A few energy-related questions:
1) It sounds to me that, despite An Inconvenient Truth, the hazards of global warming are still up for debate? Can you 'prove' it to me so that I can at least feel guilty every time I fill up?
2) I once heard that many of the American automobile companies have snatched up a whole slew of fuel efficient designs for engines, but are very slow to use them because they are in bed with the fuel companies? Whats the deal?
3) I miss flyshack.
Best,
Noah
Post a Comment