Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Government going clean?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by peakbagger View Post
    There are technically feasible synthetic fuels that can swap in place of conventional fossil fuel but the economics are poor.
    I agree with that from a consumer POV. However DoD already has plants ready to go in operation in the event of a war with oil shortages. That is what Germany had to do the last year or two of WW-II. By the time they got production going was too late. Using nuclear reactor waste heat makes it more feasible and practical. Germany had to use coal for the heat source and as feed stock to make synAVgas and syndiesel.

    I did learn something. I assumed the ABRAMS tanks used something similar to JET-A, Jet-A1 or one of the Kerosene (#1 diesel) distillates. Bu they I am just a USN nuke, so what do I know about tanks.
    MSEE, PE

    Comment


    • #17
      Given fracking, there's no need for synfuel at the moment, is there?

      And fuel - synfuel or natural - produced in the US doesn't really help with supplying forward positions.
      Those long resupply chains are terribly expensive and vulnerable.

      Forward operating bases are one place energy efficiency and solar power really pay off.
      See http://www.ensec.org/index.php?optio...article&id=507

      Comment

      Working...
      X