COP26 Global Military GHG emissions

[Gannet]

As COP26 is taking place currently, I thought it timely to post about a subject that flies under the radar (pun intended).  Here is and interesting article about greenhouse gas emissions by the worlds military

https://theconversation.com/cop26-how-the-worlds-militaries-hide-their-huge-carbon-emissions-171466?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest from The Conversation for November 10 2021 - 2110720892&utm_content=Latest from The Conversation for November 10 2021 - 2110720892+CID_6de6e6e153e528ae4d9bd49d1c702cd5&utm_source=campaign_monitor_uk&utm_term=to track these emissions

As someone who works in the the field of R&D related to low and zero carbon technologies, I’d be interested to hear if anyone is aware of military aviation or other branch projects to minimise impact on climate change.

One of the areas I support for example is biomass conversion to aviation fuel. Not zero carbon but not fossil fuel sourced. 
 

Gannet

[Dragon1-1]

Sabatier process is a possible zero-carbon fuel source, particularly for nuke-powered carriers. It requires a lot of electrical energy and hydrogen (or water and even more energy), but you can make methane from CO2. Perfectly carbon-neutral, and a known technology. It's already used, for example, on the ISS, although in this case it's to reclaim water and scrub CO2, the methane is vented (doesn't have to be, of course, it's just that ISS has no use for it). The problem would be converting the world's military hardware to run on methane, although this could probably be done, with some effort. In fact, methane from Sabatier could one day power all the world's aviation, all non-electric cars (there's already CNG and LNG engines) and a good part of rocketry. Could also be used for a degree of carbon capture, with added bonus of producing an emergency methane reserve. As energy storage, it's better than hydrogen for several reasons. Just make sure there's no spills.

Then there's the nuclear aircraft idea, but I don't think we'll see that flying anytime soon.  The basic concept works, though, and could have some interesting applications (say, a perpetually airborne AWACS drone). The problem is making the reactor crash-safe.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Dragon1-1

[tusler]

Any idea how much gas a 747 puts out on takeoff per engine...and then there is china with a bunch of coal fired industry and building more. I don't see how our tiny nation of 350mil people is going to impact this too much.