Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 44

Thread: $26 a gallon?! Navy's 'Green Fleet' meets stiff headwinds

  1. #11
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: $26 a gallon?! Navy's 'Green Fleet' meets stiff headwinds

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    Oil can only be obtained from a limited number of geographic areas and is currently is refined in a relatively small number of locations. Those kind of bottlenecks can make you very vulnerable in a wartime situation. Biofuels are hideously inefficient, but with decentralized production and ability to use local materials, its much harder to sabotage production. Converting the entire military away from oil would be stupid, but having a small alternative fuel capability and the know-how could be useful in certain situations.
    Since Germany figured how to make fuel out of coal 8 DECADES AGO, developing an "emergency" alternative source of fuel doesn't require $26 a gallon bio-fuel. There is no technology to develop. It has existed for many decades.

  2. #12
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: $26 a gallon?! Navy's 'Green Fleet' meets stiff headwinds

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    The point was obvious. “Decades away” means a long time from now. Things changed with the DOE overnight once Obama took office and now $26 a gallon gas is ok by you because you think it is good for the planet. Fact is, biofuels have always been more harmful to the planet than petrol and they will always cost more than petrol.
    You are looking at just one source, while the military is looking at what many sources say. Based on your denial of climate science, I put much more faith in the military's capabilities in the area of oil of which they as an single entity are the largest user in the world. Also, biofuels made from non-food sources are less harmful to the environment to burning fossil fuels. The military is also utilizing solar and wind power.



    Navy Secretary Ray Mabus is a politician,appointed by Obamma, and a shill for Obama.
    So you say, without a lick of proof!
    Last edited by Catawba; 07-03-12 at 01:51 PM.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #13
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: $26 a gallon?! Navy's 'Green Fleet' meets stiff headwinds

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    If you REALLY want to "save energy" then stop fighting totally moronic "nation building" wars.

    Agreed!!! That's why I'm voting for the viable candidate with the quickest withdrawal schedule from Afghanistan and the one that withdrew all troops from Iraq last year, rather than the candidate that said it was too soon to withdraw the troops.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  4. #14
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: $26 a gallon?! Navy's 'Green Fleet' meets stiff headwinds

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    Except it's NOT "green" fuel. It is "world starvation" fuel. Crops and crop land diverted to fuel reduces world food supplies and increases food costs - meaning starvation for the desperately poor of the world. And it is myth that biofuels do not produce Co2.
    You have not heard of making biofuels from non-food sources, such as algae? And yes burning biofuels do emit CO2 but less than burning fossil fuels. They are only intended as a transition energy source to lessen the impact when world demand for cheap oil exceeds the world supply. We also have to consider the great cost in military expense and wars, not to mention the kissing of Saudi ass, to keep the oil flowing from the Middle East. If that cost were added at the pump, we would be paying more than $26 a gallon.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #15
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    12,460
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: $26 a gallon?! Navy's 'Green Fleet' meets stiff headwinds

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    The military should be looking for alternative ways to fuel the fleet, not because its "green" but because anything that reduces foreign oil demand and thus reduces our involvement with those mostly unfriendly oil countries is a good thing. What it should not be is a way to defraud the taxpayer by propping up what is still a very uncompetitive industry, bio-fuels haven't reached the stage where they can compete toe to toe with petroleum oil.

    When the military starting uses nuclear power to propel its larger ships, moving away from conventional fuel, it was down for military and strategic reasons. Lawmakers and other decision makers were not thinking "Hey if we force the military to buy into nuclear power, that'll be a major boost to our domestic nuclear power industry" of course in the end it actually was a major boost but that was a secondary affect. If we are going to use more biofuels it must be done for military and strategic reasons not because an industry has wiggled its way into the minds of politicians.

    Which is it? Frankly I don't know, on the one side biofuels have had several set backs and still only survive via government subsidies and special laws like "Your fuel must contain X amount of biofuel" if you've ever noticed those signs at the gas station. But on the other hand there's no denying the great benefit it would have to the US to significantly decrease its foreign oil consumption.
    I have a friend with a chinese wife and another who has been doing a lot of business tbere for several years.

    They both say China by policy doesn't use its own natural resources. It almost exclusively imports them. This is done to hold those resources in reserve so that as they begin to dwindle globally, China will still have them at home.

    So long term, developing alternatives will offset this future advantage in our inevitable competition with China for resources.
    Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
    The Psychology of Persuasion

  6. #16
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,971
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: $26 a gallon?! Navy's 'Green Fleet' meets stiff headwinds

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    Like I said, Obama installed a few yes men and put the thumbscrews on them to do his political work.
    It seems Obama began this treachery years ago, the sneaky bastard.

    The biofuels effort is one of the most ambitious Pentagon energy programs since then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set up a task force in 2006 to find ways to reduce the military's fossil fuels dependency, involving more than 300,000 barrels a day.














    I may be wrong.

  7. #17
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: $26 a gallon?! Navy's 'Green Fleet' meets stiff headwinds

    First of all, anyone thinking this bio-fuel is crippling our food production is flat out wrong. Solazyme, the producer of the bio-fuel for this project, makes it from algae which has NO EFFECT on our food production.

    In 2010, we delivered over 80,000 liters of algal-derived marine diesel and jet fuel to the U.S. Navy, constituting the world's largest delivery of 100% microbial-derived, non-ethanol biofuel. Subsequently, we were awarded another contract with the U.S. Department of Defense for production of up to 550,000 additional liters of naval distillate (SoladieselHRF-76® marine fuel).
    [...]
    SoladieselBD® and SoladieselRD® are the first algal-derived fuels to be successfully road-tested in blended and unblended (B100) forms for thousands of miles in unmodified vehicles.
    Solazyme | Renewable Fuels for Marine, Land, & Air Transportation

    Secondly, folks should remember we get a significant percent of foreign oil from the middle-east, an unstable region which is largely hostile to the US. Knowing that our military relies on oil and that much oil come from potential enemies in the middle-east, it should be clear to anyone with half a brain that this situation constitutes a major flaw in our military structure. The only INSANE thinking is running your military on fuel provided by your enemies! That's building castles made of sand, my friends. Yes, Saudi Arabia ( a major US oil supplier ), has avoided the Arab Spring for now, but how long will it last? Should we throw all our eggs in one basket assuming it will never happen? That's lousy strategic thinking. Our military is attempting to plug a major energy security hole with this project. Does our military expect to pay $26 per gallon indefinitely? HELL NO! It expects the large demands to force an explosive increase in algae-fuel production which will drive the price down tremendously. The price we read in the article is not the price, forever. It's a shame my fellow Americans don't understand Capitalism any better than that.

    Thirdly, our Navy does not sit around in port, swinging at anchor like the Russkies. We are steaming abroad on station ready to go to battle-stations on a moment's notice. And that's why our Navy still uses a lot of oil. And most of the time, when our military goes into action, what region dominates this activity? The middle-east of course! Where all the oil is! Yes, our military spends most of it's time ensuring oil production facilities are safe and that the sea lanes bringing the oil home are safe. If anyone is unhappy with all the American sons and daughters fighting in foreign lands, then those same people should praise the vision of the "Green Fleet." I think that's a misnomer, though. Screw the green aspect of it if it seems offensive. Consider it "Energy Security." We should call this fleet the "Energy Security Fleet." Sound better? Because that's what it REALLY is. I don't think Donald Rumsfeld is the type to sit in a field of daisies feeding doves from his hand, do you? If DR was pushing for it there was a serious nuts and bolts, military/economic reason for it, not "being green."
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

  8. #18
    Student
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    mid-illinois
    Last Seen
    10-08-16 @ 03:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    272

    Re: $26 a gallon?! Navy's 'Green Fleet' meets stiff headwinds

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    It seems Obama began this treachery years ago, the sneaky bastard.

    The biofuels effort is one of the most ambitious Pentagon energy programs since then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld set up a task force in 2006 to find ways to reduce the military's fossil fuels dependency, involving more than 300,000 barrels a day.













    so using apparent DP forum logic, rumsfeld mustve been a shill for obama too..

    or perhaps this is another case of "for it before they were against it" rational..

  9. #19
    Death2Globalists Matt Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ExecuteTheTraitors
    Last Seen
    11-24-12 @ 12:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,574

    Re: $26 a gallon?! Navy's 'Green Fleet' meets stiff headwinds

    I think I read somewhere the US pumps around 50% of what it consumes, and the military consumes like 15% or less of what the US consumes.

    So if push comes to shove we got enough oil to run a war without imports, plus enough oil for the richie riches to keep their cars full of gas.
    Globalist = Free Trade, Open Borders, Multiculturalist, Anti-White Racist, Hypocrite, Sophist, Deceiver, Manipulator, Warmonger, Vulgar Culture, Morally Depraved......Enemy

    Death to Globalists

  10. #20
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-14 @ 02:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,824

    Re: $26 a gallon?! Navy's 'Green Fleet' meets stiff headwinds

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    You have not heard of making biofuels from non-food sources, such as algae? And yes burning biofuels do emit CO2 but less than burning fossil fuels. They are only intended as a transition energy source to lessen the impact when world demand for cheap oil exceeds the world supply. We also have to consider the great cost in military expense and wars, not to mention the kissing of Saudi ass, to keep the oil flowing from the Middle East. If that cost were added at the pump, we would be paying more than $26 a gallon.
    We have a right to confiscate the property of our enemies, starting with the jihadists' oil.
    On the outside, trickling down on the insiders.
    We won't live free until the 1% live in fear.
    Hey, richboys! Imagine the boot of democracy stomping on your faces, forever.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •