The Pentagon has been talking recently about going oil-free by 2050, a fairly radical initiative given the hidebound nature of the institution and the complexity of the technologies it employs.
But oil apparently is among the least of the Army’s energy problems.
According to this newly-minted memorandum , the Army’s assistant chief of staff for installation management is more worried that the worldwide supply of natural gas will dry up within 25 years. Says the memo:
“Current Army assumption is that natural gas may cease to be a viable fueld for the Army within the next 25 years based on price volatility and affordable supply availability.”
If the Army’s assumptions are correct, the situation may “threaten the Army’s ability to house, train and deploy soldiers,” adds the memo.
What will replace natural gas? This is certainly not my field of expertise, but perhaps readers or other bloggers may have something to add here.
I know the Air Force is keen about a new form of synthetic fuel derived from liquefied coal to power its jet aircraft. A demonstration is underway with the B-52, which is actually using a slightly different synthetic product derived from — oops — natural gas. The fuel is made using a process known as Fischer-Trope, which has the unfortunate distinction of being employed by only two countries — Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa.
shortages of less expensive natural gas will most likely lead to greater use of coal…for those “installation“s; meaning, stateside forts, training areas, depots, etc. Coal is readily available and inexpensive; but has the downside of being dirty. However, when natural gas, for whatever reason, becomes to difficult to aquire or use, environmental concerns will go by the wayside. This is for land/building use.
Transportation is another field. It is likely that natural gas would still be used to produce synthetic aviation fuel, while land transport is likely to transfer, in some part, to biodiesel.
As oil, or natural gas, become more difficult or expensive, there are multiple alternatives that will enter use.
However, it will always be true that the military will have first choice of any fuels available, over civilian usage.
>Also don’t forget methane in the form of frozen methane in the deep ocean. Vast fields of it in
>the gulf of Mexico and Florida.
Methane Hydrate?
Don’t forget the Deep Earth Hydrocarbon theory. If those guys are right we haven’t even accessed a tenth of the available reserves.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-04q.html
Yes the Air Force method synthetic fuel currently use natural gas for feed stock to make the synthetic fuel they are testing but the Fischer-Trope method works just fine with coal. It turns the coal into a synthetic fuel that burns hundreds of times cleaner than conventional diesel or jet fuel. I believe even without recent breakthroughs in the improvement synthetic fuel is about 80–90 cents a gallon to make.
Fischer-Trope also works with wood, if you don’t feel like using coal.
Umm, electric? Sure you can’t use it to power aircraft very easily, but the DOD would just be stupid to pass up what electric can do for ground transport and instillations. Battery and solar solutions are getting cheaper, faster, lighter and hold/produce more power.
Electric is how everything will be powered, weather eletric comes from coal, nuke, solar or whatever is the only real question. My house is 100% eletric, and I generate about 95% of my own power costing me only about 20K one time investment.
Electric is great for non-emergency use. So for powering noncombat vehicles, like the general’s golf cart, I’m sure it’ll work fine. But let’s not kid ourselves that we’re switching over to an electric Abrams. Combat vehicles need lots of power, and they need to be able to refill quickly. You don’t want to have the enemy on the run, and then find out that you need to stop for 10 hours to let your tank recharge. You need to be able to gas up and go.
Methal hydrates can supply all the gass needed for any of our life times at nearly present costs.
The army isn’t saying that nat gas won’t be available. They’re saying that it won’t be “viable” — i.e. it’ll be too expensive. There’s always nuclear, petroleum, coal, coal oil, coal gas, etc. Hydrogen and methyl/ethyl alcohol are not fuels, they’re stored energy since it takes as much energy to make them as you get from them. Nat gas is going to be short because so much is slated to be used for “green power” to keep the global warming crowd quiet. So it’s just a matter of choices. If we go green, nat gas will be in short supply.
The army isn’t saying that nat gas won’t be available. They’re saying that it won’t be “viable” — i.e. it’ll be too expensive. There’s always nuclear, petroleum, coal, coal oil, coal gas, etc. Hydrogen and methyl/ethyl alcohol are not fuels, they’re stored energy since it takes as much energy to make them as you get from them. Nat gas is going to be short because so much is slated to be used for “green power” to keep the global warming crowd quiet. So it’s just a matter of choices. If we go green, nat gas will be in short supply.
Methal hydrates can supply all the gass needed for any of our life times at nearly present costs.
Posted by: Dr. Roger Eichman at March 18, 2007 09:36 PM
Really ?
Got a production/deliver strategy or plan ?
Fischer-Trope also works with wood, if you don’t feel like using coal.
Posted by: Brian at March 15, 2007 09:18 AM
How do you harvest wood ? Are you going to use the liquid fuel you make from the wood to harvest the wood ? You are kidding right ?
And BTW:
Batteries at this time(and probably never will be)are not a viable solution — Too heavy a payload, the efficiency goes way down. Be kind of funny to see a bunch of Armored vehicles on the battlefield waiting for AAA to give them a jump.
Jose writes: >
Sorry. The deal is that over time the newest natural gas deposits to be located are smaller and smaller. Eventually the energy cost of constructing, installing and maintaining the rigs will use more energy than the field will return.
====
http://hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/
Dr. Hubbert (in response to remarks by David Nissen — Exxon): “… [T]here is a different and more fundamental cost that is independent of the monetary price. That is the energy cost of exploration and production. So long as oil is used as a source of energy, when the energy cost of recovering a barrel of oil becomes greater than the energy content of the oil, production will cease no matter what the monetary price may be.” [referenced by Ivanhoe, 1982]
Gaaaahhhh!! Not perpetual motion/energy machines again. There is a lot of goofy thinking going re energy mining. Folks with their feet on the ground have found no reasonable way to harvest methane hydrates/clathrates. It is true there is a lot of it out there. Could be that ocean warming may release it as it has in eons past. To be safe, let’s figure out how to do with less.
Dr. Roger Eichman posts: “Methal [sic] hydrates can supply all the gass [sic] needed for any of our life times at nearly present costs.“
I’m not sure how this is a useful idea since methyl hydrate is made from heating natural gas. In other words, you are adding energy to nat gas. So why not just quit while you have the nat gas? Also, the MH is toxic, so if it spills into the water supply it poisons the water — not a good result.
Dr. Roger Eichman posts: “Methal [sic] hydrates can supply all the gass [sic] needed for any of our life times at nearly present costs.“
I’m not sure how this is a useful idea since methyl hydrate is made from heating natural gas. In other words, you are adding energy to nat gas. So why not just quit while you have the nat gas? Also, the MH is toxic, so if it spills into the water supply it poisons the water — not a good result.
Methyl-Clathrates (or Methane-Hydrates) are the next fossil fuel. Why? It’s there for someone to grab. That’s part of the reason why Russia made a claim for the north pole. I also suspect that’s why the Russians are playing for control of the Caspian sea. The resources are there but the technology is a little short at the moment. No matter, where there’s a will, there’s a way especially if all you have to do is bring it up from under the surface.
Now think of this: With all that Methane or ‘Natural-Gas’ as it’s commonly known there will be a lot more CO2 going into the air. What if we were to somehow ‘charge’ for making Oxygen? It would then be beneficial for us to be ‘green’.