backtop


Print 42 comment(s) - last by FPP.. on Nov 15 at 12:54 PM

The United States Air Force is the latest military branch to research alternative fuels

The United States Air Force hopes to conduct research related to alternative fuels that could one day help the military transition away from gasoline.

The $2.5 million Assured Aerospace Fuels Research Facility, located at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, is expected to be constructed by the end of summer 2010.  It is expected to develop around 15 to 25 gallons of research jet fuel composed of coal, biofuels, and other gas alternatives every day, with the help of private companies and university researchers.

There is an increased interest in reducing the nation's dependence on petroleum-based foreign fuel, and creating domestic biofuel resources is seen as an important step towards that goal.

"The Air Force Research Laboratory has been a center of excellence for fuel research, and this facility allows us to expand that into the alternative fuel arena," AF Research Laboratory engineer Tim Edwards told the AP.  "We expect a lot of graduate students from different universities to come here and for it to be used in collaboration with industry as well."

All branches of the U.S. military continue research into alternative fuels, as the government spends millions to fuel aircraft, ships, Humvees, and other necessary military vehicles.  The U.S. Army is currently working on a hybrid Humvee – it recently selected a contractor to help develop its battery -- and further work is expected to take place in the future.  The U.S. Navy also is interested in powering ships using algae or other biofuels, with research currently underway.

Any fuel breakthroughs made through the USAF facility could be shared with the private sector, helping airlines and other industries save money.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Finally
By Aloonatic on 11/11/2009 3:49:11 AM , Rating: 2
The US military backed by all you lovely US taxpayers (thanks guys) are on the case. Now we might get somewhere and not just a load of crowbarred in, compromised, half hearted, PR/marketing exercise, tick on a list of things that a focus group are (read: have been told to be) worried about, hybrid rubbish.

Also, where's my flying car? I want one now dag-nam-it!!!




RE: Finally
By andrinoaa on 11/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: Finally
By realmp06 on 11/11/2009 5:50:22 AM , Rating: 2
It is very funny, I agree. But the research done in military tech will eventually pay off to us as the consumers (i am in the Army myself right now).

I can't wait until some of that is actually applied to the consumers here, it will save us money in every aspect! From plane fuel costs and our vechile costs, but don't expect it to take off for the next 20 years. lol.


RE: Finally
By mdogs444 on 11/11/2009 8:25:33 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
YET, the far right loonies say nothing! how bout it Fit?

I'm one of those "far right loonies", but I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Us "far right loonies" are the ones promoting increases in spending for military research and weaponry. Are you saying that because they fall under the Department of Defense that they shouldn't be conducting research? If you don't like the name of their department, then go ahead and change it for all I care.

So, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Perhaps you should look to your fellow far left sheep.


RE: Finally
By JohnnyCNote on 11/11/2009 8:40:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm one of those "far right loonies"


You left out racist . . .


RE: Finally
By mdogs444 on 11/11/2009 8:56:07 AM , Rating: 2
and elitest, selfish, war monger, capatilist...anything else?


RE: Finally
By JohnnyCNote on 11/11/2009 9:02:25 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe averse to easily obtainable facts . . .


RE: Finally
By mdogs444 on 11/11/2009 9:06:34 AM , Rating: 2
Feel free to disprove me on whatever it is that I'm missing the facts on. That works better than deflecting without substance.


RE: Finally
By JohnnyCNote on 11/11/2009 9:14:08 AM , Rating: 3
Here's a fact for you:

quote:
Ya right. Tell that to the people who fall under the umbrella of "low income earners" who already pay no income taxes, as well as those ignorant blacks who all though Obama was going to pay for their mortgage, heating bills, and gasoline.

By mdogs444 on 11/9/2009 4:03:29 PM , Rating: -1


http://www.dailytech.com/Murdoch+May+Ban+Google+fr...

The fact being you are the author of the above quote . . .


RE: Finally
By Aloonatic on 11/11/2009 9:19:29 AM , Rating: 2
This thread didn't quite pan-out how I expected it too :-/


RE: Finally
By S3anister on 11/12/2009 2:44:49 AM , Rating: 2
Apparently, Daily Tech has mostly become a rant/rave site for its users.


RE: Finally
By mdogs444 on 11/11/2009 9:22:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fact being you are the author of the above quote . . .

Yes, I am. And I stand by my statements. There isn't anything there that is not true. I gave you an example video of one of the ignorant souls I was referring to. If you'd like, I'm sure I can go search for a few minutes and pull up dozens more.

So again, where is the misinformation of facts that you're referring to? Sounds like you don't like my views, which you're welcome to that opinion. But there isn't a lack of facts in my statement.


RE: Finally
By Jeffk464 on 11/11/2009 9:59:36 AM , Rating: 2
Ya I remember that video, but one stupid twit is not really Obama's fault is it?


RE: Finally
By mdogs444 on 11/11/2009 10:02:56 AM , Rating: 2
There are far more than 1, but I didn't blame that on Obama. The discussion at that point was someone tried to say that no one is looking at this health care plan as a method to get free health care. In short, I disagreed and wrote that post...

It wasn't about blaming Obama for these peoples actions. It was more about these people looking to him for something free, and he appears to be willing to give it.


RE: Finally
By weskurtz0081 on 11/11/2009 10:58:37 AM , Rating: 2
That might have been racially insensitive, but how was it actually racist. He might have been able to change the wording to "ignorant people", but the fact is, I haven't seen any white people claiming that Obama was going to pay their bills for them. So, since all those video's were indeed black people, and they were clearly VERY ignorant, I am not sure how his statement wasn't factually correct, and at the same time he wasn't making any sort of claim that whites are superior to blacks, just made a comment about some things some black people might have thought about the current President when they elected him.


RE: Finally
By Aloonatic on 11/11/2009 11:15:55 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I haven't seen any white people claiming that Obama was going to pay their bills for them.
Apart from those white people working in car factories and banks that have been saved with government monies?

And I'm assuming that there are plenty of white people in the same situation and financial/educational position as the people in those videos. To genuinely believe that no white people are would be pretty amazing.

*Already regretting getting involved


RE: Finally
By weskurtz0081 on 11/11/2009 11:27:38 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I am retreating from this conversation, forget I ever brought it up.


RE: Finally
By Murloc on 11/11/2009 11:32:46 AM , Rating: 2
when petrol will not be convenient anymore (it will finish and its price will rise and newer technologies will be better) how will planes fly?
To be more advanced than your foes you have to do pure research.

if everyone thought like you we would have airplanes powered by steam motors that burn coal.


RE: Finally
By HighWing on 11/11/2009 2:23:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if everyone thought like you we would have airplanes powered by steam motors that burn coal.


I'm all for that, Let the Steampunk revolution begin!!


RE: Finally
By Jeffk464 on 11/11/2009 9:53:37 AM , Rating: 2
Having the ability to provide our military with fuel in a post peak oil world is a matter of national security. If you remember your history this is one of the major things we did to stop Japan and Germany in WW2, no fuel no war. Not at all a waste of money as you suggest.


RE: Finally
By weskurtz0081 on 11/11/2009 11:00:55 AM , Rating: 2
I was actually going to post this, but decided not to so I could rate someone down, but ended up posting something else.

Yeah, like you are clearly aware, without fuel the military cannot support the mission, so it's of the utmost importance to make sure there is a readily available fuel source post oil.


RE: Finally
By Aloonatic on 11/11/2009 11:18:50 AM , Rating: 2
When did I suggest it was a waste of money?

I was celebrating the fact that you guys spend a lot of money on these things, and all the R&D that goes with it which inevitably trickles down, and that we might finally see some real movement in the field of non oil based energy/transpiration rather than the fudged offerings that we have to put up with at the moment.

I thought I was being pretty clear. Sorry if I confused anyone.


RE: Finally
By weskurtz0081 on 11/11/2009 11:29:17 AM , Rating: 2
I thought this was in response to the guy right under your OP, the clown. Wrong chain of replies I guess.


$2.5 Million?
By Denithor on 11/11/2009 7:52:45 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously? With an "M" on the front there? We can spend $1 trillion on pork and "stimulating the economy" but only scrounge up $2.5 million from a cash-strapped military budget to work on basic research into alternative fuels?




RE: $2.5 Million?
By jonmcc33 on 11/11/2009 8:18:12 AM , Rating: 2
Well, Wright-Patterson has been there for half a century and it's actually the main research facility in the USAF. All technology is first developed there, including stealth technology and even chemical laser technology.

I wouldn't doubt that they are developing alternative fuels. I have been in the AFRL building (located in Area B at Wright-Patterson) and it is quite locked down with security. All the chemicals and stuff I saw it's no telling what they are developing.


RE: $2.5 Million?
By JohnnyCNote on 11/11/2009 8:50:56 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
cash-strapped military budget


Maybe if they weren't pouring nearly $1 Trillion into a totally unnecessary war in Iraq they wouldn't be so "cash-strapped" . . .


RE: $2.5 Million?
By mdogs444 on 11/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: $2.5 Million?
By JohnnyCNote on 11/11/2009 9:09:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Bush administration yesterday moved to pull Detroit's automakers back from the brink, saying it would drop its opposition to tapping the $700 billion financial industry rescue package to help General Motors and Chrysler survive through year's end.

Washington Post December 13, 2008


Please note the date places this event within the Bush administration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

quote:
If the Administration’s FY2010 war request is enacted, total war-related funding would reach $1.08 trillion, including $748 billion for Iraq, $300 billion for Afghanistan, $29 billion for enhanced security, and $5 billion that cannot be allocated. Of this cumulative total, 69% would be for Iraq, 28% for Afghanistan, and 3% for enhanced security.


http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf


RE: $2.5 Million?
By mdogs444 on 11/11/2009 9:19:05 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Please note the date places this event within the Bush administration.

Are you trying to link me with GWB and the TARP program? You had best think again. I did not back the TARP program, the auto bailouts, or the stimulus program. However, you may want to start to dig a little bit deeper Johnny. The majority of Republicans attempted to block the release of $350B in TARP funds because they were not necessary and they did not agree with the bailouts. However, Obama and 44 democrats teamed with 6 republicans to block that and release those funds. So yes, he is partially responsible for that. Not to mentioned he voted FOR TARP.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/15/tarp-vote...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/03/13...

quote:
If the Administration’s FY2010 war request is enacted

And who is in office in FY 2010?
Obama's 2009 Request: $144.6B war funding
Obama's 2010 Request: $130B war funding
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/04-7

Also, its much easier to see the estimated cost of war here: http://costofwar.com/


RE: $2.5 Million?
By jonmcc33 on 11/11/2009 9:44:18 AM , Rating: 1
Are you two going to URL each other to death? Sheesh!


RE: $2.5 Million?
By mdogs444 on 11/11/2009 9:46:44 AM , Rating: 2
He started it! :P


RE: $2.5 Million?
By JohnnyCNote on 11/11/2009 10:14:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Are you two going to URL each other to death? Sheesh!


No, playtime's over. It's just that I've been coming to this site pretty much since it first began, probably 10 years ago, and it's really disappointing to see it overrun with pointless political discussions. There are plenty of other sites to engage in that sort of thing.

At this point I've all but abandoned AnandTech for MaximumPC. It's much better managed, has plenty of what AnandTech used to offer and without all of the politics. I come here out of habit more than anything, but once in a while I do succumb to the temptation to counter some of the outrageous statements with some of my own.

Hasta luego . . .


RE: $2.5 Million?
By Jeffk464 on 11/11/2009 9:56:00 AM , Rating: 4
Obama's war. What are you smoking. Bush got us into Afganistan to next your going to say this is the obama recession. You are one Limbaugh brainwashed mofo.


RE: $2.5 Million?
By Jeffk464 on 11/11/2009 10:02:59 AM , Rating: 2
By the way I'm not a Brainwashed Obama follower either. I do think he does have a chip on his shoulder about white people, but I also think he really can't act on it. He does seem above all else to be practical in his thinking, unlike dumb ass Bush.


RE: $2.5 Million?
By mdogs444 on 11/11/2009 10:09:54 AM , Rating: 2
And I was not a big supporter of GWB either. I was during the first term, and not the second term. However, in my personal opinion, Obama is not an upgrade to Bush. Not sure which is worse, but I don't like either of them.


RE: $2.5 Million?
By ClownPuncher on 11/11/2009 11:56:08 AM , Rating: 2
He is 50% self loathing? I never got the "I don't like white people" vibe from him. Though I don't really know what it has to do with fuel research.


RE: $2.5 Million?
By mdogs444 on 11/11/2009 10:01:13 AM , Rating: 2
You can only play the "I inherited this mess" card for so long. The stimulus not only didn't work, but unemployment keeps rising, the dollars keeps losing value, and the debt keeps going up.

Sure, Bush took us to the Middle East (with the approval of Congress no less), and switched strategies to Iraq. I'm not going to debate whether the wars are worth it or not, but clearly Afghanistan, not Iraq, is the central focus of Obama. He's been asked for 40,000 troops and is expected to give 30,000-35,000.

So I ask, when does Obama get to start taking responsibility for anything? Or does that not start until hes out of office?


RE: $2.5 Million?
By Jeffk464 on 11/11/2009 5:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'm as confused as anyone on what to do in afganistan, by the way. I think we wont win, but I don't see that we can loose. The taliban is trying to destabilize afganistan yes, but worse they are trying to destabilizing pakistan. We can under no circumstances allow the taliban to get a hold of pakistans nukes. At the same time Iran is developing nukes, all roads seem to be headed in bad directions.


Blimey
By TETRONG on 11/11/2009 9:59:21 AM , Rating: 1
Who's this new idiot posting this propaganda?

2.5M Hmm...sure, whatever they say - "alternative" fuels at Wright Patt. You people are so dangerously naive!




RE: Blimey
By weskurtz0081 on 11/11/2009 11:30:20 AM , Rating: 2
Have you ever been to Wright Patterson?


Another Research Facility?
By Davester on 11/11/2009 2:29:25 PM , Rating: 2
I have a problem with the Air Force / DOD / Federal Government creating another "Research Center". Fact is, this will do nothing but waste more money. All of this type of research is already being done somewhere else. But this would make someone's Empire and Ego probably a little bigger at Wright Pat.

If the Federal Government would consolidate funds, we might see some actual progress in this area. We keep nickel and dime'ing these research centers. Does anyone know how many different programs are funded by the Government for research? Don't forget all of the different Branches of the Government, All the Grants, Colleges, State institutions, and Stimulus funds!

Fact is, if we would consolidate all funds into a few "Research Centers" there would be more than enough money to get some REAL results!

By the way, I just retired from the Air Force this year. I've seen this sort of waste throughout my military service. It's time for common sense to start trumping political egos!




RE: Another Research Facility?
By FPP on 11/15/2009 12:54:29 PM , Rating: 1
That's insightful, Dave, given that the Air Force, DARPA and some of the other military research projects have produced the atom bomb, nuclear submarines, supersonic flight, most of what we know about rocket - powered flight, a huge contribution to satellite tech, emergency wound treatment and trauma, food preservation science, anti-friction technology, anti-oxidation technology, countless materials tech and...well...the list, Dave, is almost endless. That being the case, I'm happy to let them have the money, given their track record. After all, look at the other stuff we spend fed money on and ask yourself if it compares?


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki