Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Coal-Biomass to Liquid Jet Fuel Compared to Petroleum-Derived JP-8 Jet Fuel

<p>The United States (U.S.) imported 57 percent of the petroleum products that it consumed in 2008. The Department of Defense (DOD) and in particular the United States Air Force (USAF) consumes a large amount of oil to support the mission of defending the U.S. According to the USAF energy policy by 2016 the Air Force (AF) must be prepared to cost competitively acquire 50 percent of its domestic aviation fuel requirement via an alternative fuel blend in which the alternative component is derived from domestic sources produced in a manner that is greener than fuels produced from conventional petroleum. This study employed a life cycle assessment (LCA) tool known as Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA) to compare the petroleum derived jet fuel of JP-8 to the alternative jet fuel of Coal-Biomass to Liquid (CBTL) to determine which was greener by determining the total global warming potential (GWP) over each jet fuels' entire life cycle. The CBTL jet fuel was determined to be greener for the environment with utilizing carbon capture and storage (CCS) via the Fischer Tropsch (FT) synthesis process when producing liquid jet fuel from coal and swithchgrass as the biomass.</p><p>This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore you will see the original copyright references library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world) and other notations in the work.</p><p>This work is in the public domain in the United States of America and possibly other nations. Within the United States you may freely copy and distribute this work as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.</p><p>As a reproduction of a historical artifact this work may contain missing or blurred pages poor pictures errant marks etc. Scholars believe and we concur that this work is important enough to be preserved reproduced and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.</p><br>