Comments on: Air Force Biofuel Program Gets A Lift From Coke

By: KenCanotte

KenCanotte — Sun, 12 May 2013 17:08:00 +0000

The commenters who criticize the Air Force report for focusing on corn ethanol betray the fact that they haven’t read it. It actually covers soy biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol and algae efforts in considerable depth. In fact, it emphasizes the fact that the military and airlines must have “drop-in” hydrotreated fuels, rather than corn ethanol and biodiesel, and explains the extremely high costs and difficulties associated with making biomass into true hydrocarbons. The report has nearly one hundred endnotes citing an even greater number of government reports and reputable science journal papers. It is definitely not an opinion piece and deserves a look by anyone seeking a coherent, cross-discipline status report of biofuel progress based on empirical evidence, rather than hype and propaganda.

By: Editor, SSQ

Editor, SSQ — Tue, 07 May 2013 11:41:00 +0000

For the record please allow me to correct some of the mispreceptions referencing Strategic Studies Quarterly(SSQ). Since inception in 2007 SSQ has been and remains a PEER REVIEWED journal. In fact, we use a three tier evaluation process–it’s posted on our web site. The Bio Fuels article in fact was peer reviewed multiple times before being published–ironically one of those reviewers earned a PhD from–The University of Wisconson, Maidson! Surely the readers of Clean Technica blog can discern the difference between a well documented scholarly article and a commentary. One only need refer to the “Commentary” section of SSQ to see the difference.
Think and see for yourselves–access the article and the rebuttal comments on line at: http://www.au.af.mil/ssq and offer your feedback.

By: Tina Casey

Tina Casey — Mon, 06 May 2013 22:26:00 +0000

Errr…right, that’s part of the problem. Biofuel took a hard focus on corn under the Bush Administration. The current Administration has adopted a non-food feedstock focus, which means that although I’d agree with a critical look at corn ethanol, this article is seriously out of date with regard to what direction DoD is heading in. Also keep in mind that the aviation tests cited above use biofuel from non-food feedstocks, and DoD has also been testing and demonstrating camelina, algae and food waste (including animal grease) feedstocks (see Great Green Fleet and Blue Angels as well as Thunderbirds).

By: justsaying

justsaying — Mon, 06 May 2013 20:07:00 +0000

Yes the whole corn boondoggle was just a way to fund large agro. It was never really a fuel project, that was just a justification to spend a lot on farms. And remember that is where most of the federal support of biofuel went.

By: James Wimberley

James Wimberley — Mon, 06 May 2013 16:18:00 +0000

Capt. Kiefer’s piece does score some good points, notably in highlighting the wasteful, dead-end boondoggle of biofuel from corn. Sustainable biofuels depend on cracking the cellulosic or algal pathways, which are not yet ready for prime time. (The other route to sustainable liquid fuel is direct synthesis from the atmosphere, even further off.). So the DoD has to practise with horrible corn ethanol, an approach that also buys political support from Midwesterm congresspeople.